Dragi Muhamede , nažalost nemam dobre vesti za tebe, a konačna odluka te nimalo neće usrećiti.
Nakon što sam ovaj slučaj predstavio svojim kolegama i supervizorima, složili smo se da je početni razgovor sa agentom za ćaskanje uživo 23. februara bio previše nejasan da bi se klasifikovao kao zahtev za samoisključenje. Pošto niste pomenuli nikakve dalje probleme sa zavisnošću od kockanja ili bilo koje druge probleme sa kockanjem (razgovarali ste samo o zatvaranju računa i povlačenju sredstava), ovaj razgovor neće biti uzet u obzir za ovu žalbu. Reč „kockati" je termin koji se previše široko koristi u kockarskom poslu i stoga nije jasna izjava o problemu sa kockanjem.
Stoga, vaše prvo zvanično pominjanje zavisnosti od kockanja je od 26. februara, prema dostavljenim snimcima ekrana razgovora sa agentom za ćaskanje uživo - koje ste dali i vi i kazino. Prema našim politikama, agent za ćaskanje uživo je trebalo dalje da istraži ovo, jer svako pominjanje zavisnosti od kockanja treba shvatiti veoma ozbiljno i ne prepustiti slučaju. Nakon perioda od 24 sata, kazino mora da obradi svaki zahtev za samoisključenje, vaš nalog je trebalo da bude zatvoren od 27. februara 2025. godine. To se nije dogodilo sve dok niste poslali zahtev za samoisključenje 19. marta, a nalog je zatvoren u roku od 24 sata. Kazino se složio da je razgovor 26. trebalo da se odvija drugačije i da je vaš nalog trebalo da bude zatvoren od 27. februara.
Stoga, RTbet je takođe pristao da vrati sve depozite izvršene između 27. februara i 19. marta, što je 100€ (uplaćeno 28. februara), i verujem da ste već primili poruku o obradi plaćanja. Pošto ste uspeli da povučete preostali iznos od 500€ 1. marta, nema ništa više za vraćanje. Dostavljeni dokazi nisu značajni i doneta je odluka da se ovaj slučaj odbaci.
Duboko se izvinjavam što sam vam pojačao nade, ali sam verovao (i još uvek verujem) da je agent za ćaskanje uživo trebalo da vodi razgovor 23. sata potpuno drugačije. Iako, sada razumem da ako bismo insistirali na ovom slučaju kao što sam ja učinio, nejasnoća vaše početne izjave bi stvorila loš presedan za nepoštene igrače koji pokušavaju da zloupotrebe pravila samoisključivanja u budućnosti. Mogli bi ovo zloupotrebiti svojim žalbama - ističući ovaj slučaj kao dokaz da je izgovaranje reči „kockati" na bilo koji način dovoljno da im se depoziti vrate. Stoga, kako bi se osiguralo da se pravila ne zloupotrebljavaju u budućnosti, ovaj slučaj će biti odbačen. Nadam se da sam uspeo da ovo dovoljno dobro objasnim, ali ako imate dodatnih pitanja, odgovoriću na njih najbolje što mogu - bilo da ih objavite ovde ili ih pošaljete putem e-pošte.
Međutim, ova žalba je otkrila probleme kojima će RTbet kazino morati da se pozabavi, ako želi da ocena ostane tako visoka kao što je trenutno. Nastaviću razgovore sa predstavnicima kazina, kako bismo pokrenuli promenu i sproveli je do kraja, van ove žalbe. Verujemo da bi kazino sa bezbednosnim indeksom 9+ trebalo da istraži svako pominjanje reči „kockanje" ili „kockanje", posebno kada se razgovara sa nekim čiji maternji jezik nije engleski, kako bi se osiguralo da se ništa ne izgubi u prevodu. Činjenica da agent nije pitao za razlog zahteva za zatvaranje naloga 23. februara je veoma zabrinjavajuća. Da stvar bude još gora, čak i u diskusiji od 26. februara, agent za ćaskanje uživo je ignorisao direktno pominjanje zavisnosti od kockanja i ostavio je nalog otvoren, što je moglo loše da se završi po igrača. Pošto zavisni igrači ne mogu da kontrolišu svoje troškove i njihova zavisnost se javlja nasumično, potrebno ih je zaštititi. Ovo je protiv politike odgovornog kockanja i moraće se rešiti, zajedno sa nepravednim uslovima koji prete igračima gubitkom stanja ako odluče da zatvore svoj nalog. Sarađivaćemo sa kazinom na prilagođavanju uslova za fer verziju koja će zaštititi i kazino i zavisne igrače, ili shodno tome prilagoditi ocenu.
Za sada ću držati ovu temu otvorenom, u slučaju daljih pitanja ili dodatnih komentara. Nakon toga, ovaj slučaj će biti zatvoren kao „odbijen".
Dear Mohammed, unfortunately I don't have good news for you, and the final decision will not make you happy at all.
After presenting this case to my peers and supervisors, it was agreed that the initial conversation with the live chat agent on 23rd February was too vague to class as a self-exclusion request. As you have not mentioned any further issues with gambling addiction or any other gambling problems (only discussed account closure and withdrawal of funds), this conversation will not be taken into account for this complaint. The word "gamble" is a term too widely used in gambling business, and therefore it is not a clear statement of a gambling problem.
Therefore, your first official mention of a gambling addiction is from the 26th February, according to the provided screenshots of the conversation with the live chat agent - provided by both you and the casino. According to our policies, this should have been investigated further by the live chat agent, as any mentioning of the gambling addiction should be taken very seriously, and not left to chance. Following the 24 hour period the casino needs to process any self-exclusion request, your account should have been closed since 27th February 2025. This did not happen until you have sent a self-excusion request on 19th March, and the account has been closed within the 24 hours. Casino agreed the conversation on the 26th should have gone differently, and your account should have been closed since 27th February.
As such, RTbet also agreed to refund any deposits made between 27th February and 19th March, which is 100€ (deposited on 28th February), and I believe you have already received the message about the payment being processed. Since you have been able to withdraw your remaining balance of 500€ on the 1st March, there is nothing else to be refunded. The evidence provided is not substantial, and the decision has been made that this case will have to be rejected.
I deeply apologise for raising your hopes, but I did believe (and still do) that the conversation on 23rd should have been handled completely differently by the live chat agent. Although, now I understand that if we insisted on this case as I did, the vagueness of your initial statement would create a bad precedence for dishonest players trying to abuse the self-exclusion rules in the future. They could misuse this with their complaints - pointing out at this case as a proof that saying the word "gamble" in any way is enough to get their deposits back. Therefore, to ensure rules are not being misused in the future, this case will be rejected. Hopefully I managed to explain this well enough, but if you have any further questions, I will answer them to the best of my abilities - whether you post them here, or send them via e-mail.
However, this complaint has exposed issues that will have to be addressed by the RTbet Casino, if the rating is to stay as high as it is right now. I will continue the talks with the casino representatives, to initiate the change and see it through, outside of this complaint. We believe that a casino with safety index of 9+ should be investigating every mention of the word "gamble" or "gambling", especially when talking to someone whose first language is not English, to ensure nothing is lost in translation. The fact that the agent was not asking for the reason of the account closure request on 23rd February, is very worrying. To make matters worse, even in the discussion from 26th February, the live chat agent ignored the direct mentioning of gambling addiction, and kept the account opened, which could have ended up badly for the player. As the addicted players can't control their spendings and their addiction strikes at random, they need to be protected. This is against the responsible gambling policy, and will have to be addressed, alongside the unfair terms threatening players with losing the balance if they decide to close their account. We will work with the casino on either adjusting the terms for a fair version that will protect both casino and the addicted players, or readjust the rating accordingly.
I will keep this thread opened for now, in case of further questions or additional comments. Afterwards, this case will be closed as 'rejected'.
Automatski prevedeno:
zbog obmanjujuće i neetičke prakse koja je rezultirala gubitkom od 5000 evra.
