Kristina,
Nadam se da će vas ova poruka dobro naći. Želim da izrazim svoju iskrenu zahvalnost za svaku pomoć koju možete da pružite, posebno s obzirom na složenost problema. Iako razumem da se vaša stručnost možda ne odnosi direktno na pravnu oblast, verujem da je obezbeđivanje pravde i pravičnosti briga za sve.
Kao inženjeru, logika i jasnoća su fundamentalni za moj pristup rešavanju problema. Pre nego što sam prihvatio bonus, pažljivo sam pregledao uslove i odredbe koje je obezbedio Tvin. Dok su termini kao što su deponovani iznos (koncept stanja računa) ostali dvosmisleni.
Tvinova tačka 3, „Učešće u kampanji i prevara sa bonusima", posebno mi je privukla pažnju. To sugeriše da povlačenje iz učešća zamenjuje koncept A i rezultira gubitkom koncepta I. Međutim, tačna priroda koncepta A ostaje nejasna. Kroz logičku dedukciju, spekulisao sam da je Tvin možda izjednačio koncept Z sa konceptom A, iako koristeći drugačiju terminologiju. Ako je zaista A=Z, onda bi povlačenje Z podrazumevalo njegovu zamenu i gubitak I, na kraju vraćajući se na deponovani iznos (Ks), koji bi trebalo da bude siguran za povlačenje.
Uprkos mojim naporima da razjasnim ove neslaganja u uslovima i odredbama Tvin-a:
„1. U tački 1.4 prvo se upućuje na koncept deponovanog iznosa i iznosa bonusa, pojačan kasnije u tački 1.5. Međutim, na kraju tačke 1, prikazani su primeri na osnovu deponovanih iznosa, gde je „iznos" je pomenuti bonus račun", definisan kao zbir iznosa koji dolazi od bonusa i deponovanog iznosa.
2. U tački 1.5 postoji jasna razlika između iznosa bonusa i deponovanog iznosa, što ukazuje na razliku između ta dva. Međutim, ova razlika više nije očigledna kasnije, što može zbuniti korisnika.
3. U tački 2.2 ponovo se pravi razlika između iznosa bonusa i deponovanog iznosa, sa primerima koji ih jasno razlikuju.
4. U tački 2.6 uvodi se koncept stanja bonus računa i glavnog računa, nešto novo što se ranije pominjalo samo u smislu iznosa a ne stanja. Međutim, nije jasno da li je stanje bonus računa zbir iznosa bonusa i deponovanog iznosa.
5. U tački 2.7 se navodi da se „Bonus novac koristi sve dok bonus račun ne padne ispod 0,20€". Ovo sugeriše da se bonus novac odnosi na novac generisan samim bonusom, a ne na koncept stanja bonus računa. Možda bi bilo prikladnije da se u ovom kontekstu koristi termin „stanje bonus računa", s obzirom na nedostatak jasnoće u terminima.
6. U tački 3.1 je objašnjeno da se prilikom odustajanja od učešća u kampanji stanje bonus računa resetuje, što rezultira gubitkom svakog primljenog bonusa.
7. Gore navedeno u tački 3.1 je u suprotnosti sa konceptima koji su prethodno uvedeni, koristeći koncept vrednosti primljenog bonusa, i na taj način praveći razliku između iznosa bonusa i depozita."
Rezolucija ostaje neuhvatljiva. Vaše smernice i podrška u kretanju po ovom pitanju bi bili veoma cenjeni.
Pomažući mi u ovoj stvari, ne samo da ćete pomoći pojedincu u nevolji, već ćete se i suprotstaviti nepravdi i nedoličnom ponašanju. Moj cilj nije samo u pitanju monetarna vrednost, iako ona predstavlja značajan deo minimalne plate u Portugalu. Radi se o održavanju principa pravičnosti i odgovornosti, principa koji su u skladu sa misijom vaše organizacije.
Kao što Casino Guru s pravom kaže, intervenisanje kada se prema igračima postupa nepravedno je od suštinskog značaja. Rasipajući svetlo na slučajeve nepoštovanja i nepoštenja, doprinosimo pravednijoj i transparentnijoj industriji igara.
Iskreno vam se zahvaljujem što ste razmotrili moj zahtev i nadam se pozitivnom rešenju.
Topli pozdrav
Kristina,
I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my sincere appreciation for any assistance you can provide, especially given the complexity of the issue. While I understand your expertise may not directly relate to the legal realm, I believe that ensuring justice and fairness is a concern for everyone.
As an engineer, logic and clarity are fundamental to my approach to problem-solving. Before accepting the bonus, I carefully reviewed the terms and conditions provided by Twin. While terms such as Deposited Amount (Concept Account Balance) remained ambiguous.
Twin's point 3, "Participation in the campaign and bonus fraud," particularly caught my attention. It suggests that withdrawing from participation replaces Concept A and results in the loss of Concept Y. However, the exact nature of Concept A remains unclear. Through logical deduction, I speculated that Twin may have equated Concept Z with Concept A, albeit using different terminology. If indeed A=Z, then withdrawing Z would imply replacing it and losing Y, ultimately returning to the deposited amount (X), which should be safe to withdraw.
Despite my efforts to clarify these discrepancies within Twin's terms and conditions:
"1. In point 1.4, the first reference is made to the concept of deposited amount and bonus amount, reinforced later in point 1.5. However, at the end of point 1, examples are presented based on deposited amounts, where an "amount" is mentioned bonus account", defined as the sum of the amount coming from the bonus and the amount deposited.
2. In point 1.5, there is a clear distinction between the bonus amount and the deposited amount, indicating a difference between the two. However, this distinction is no longer evident at later points, which can confuse the user.
3. In point 2.2, a distinction is made again between the bonus amount and the deposited amount, with examples that clearly differentiate them.
4. In point 2.6, the concept of bonus account balance and main account balance is introduced, something new that was previously only mentioned in terms of amounts and not balances. However, it is not clear whether the bonus account balance is the sum of the bonus amount and the deposited amount.
5. In point 2.7, it is stated that "Bonus money is used until the bonus account drops below €0.20". This suggests that bonus money refers to the money generated by the bonus itself, not the concept of the bonus account balance. It would perhaps be more appropriate to use the term "bonus account balance" in this context, given the lack of clarity in the terms.
6. In point 3.1, it is explained that when withdrawing from participation in the campaign, the bonus account balance will be reset, resulting in the loss of any bonus amount received.
7. The above in point 3.1 contradicts the concepts previously introduced, by using the concept of the value of the bonus received, and thus distinguishing between the amount of the bonus and the deposit."
A resolution remains elusive. Your guidance and support in navigating this matter would be greatly appreciated.
By assisting me in this matter, you'll not only be aiding an individual in need but also standing against injustice and misconduct. My aim isn't merely about the monetary value involved, although it does represent a significant portion of the minimum wage in Portugal. It's about upholding principles of fairness and accountability, principles that resonate with your organization's mission.
As Casino Guru rightfully states, intervening when players are treated unfairly is essential. By shedding light on instances of non-compliance and dishonesty, we contribute to a fairer and more transparent gaming industry.
I sincerely thank you for considering my request and remain hopeful for a positive resolution.
Warm regards
Kristina,
I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my sincere appreciation for any assistance you can provide, especially given the complexity of the issue. While I understand your expertise may not directly relate to the legal realm, I believe that ensuring justice and fairness is a concern for everyone.
As an engineer, logic and clarity are fundamental to my approach to problem-solving. Before accepting the bonus, I carefully reviewed the terms and conditions provided by Twin. While terms such as Deposited Amount (Concept X), Bonus Amount (Concept Y), and Bonus Account Amount (Concept Z, where Z=X+Y) were clear, definitions of Concept A (Bonus Account Balance) and Concept B (Main Account Balance) remained ambiguous.
Twin's point 3, "Participation in the campaign and bonus fraud," particularly caught my attention. It suggests that withdrawing from participation replaces Concept A and results in the loss of Concept Y. However, the exact nature of Concept A remains unclear. Through logical deduction, I speculated that Twin may have equated Concept Z with Concept A, albeit using different terminology. If indeed A=Z, then withdrawing Z would imply replacing it and losing Y, ultimately returning to the deposited amount (X), which should be safe to withdraw.
Despite my efforts to clarify these discrepancies within Twin's terms and conditions:
"1. No ponto 1.4, é feita a primeira referência ao conceito montante depositado e montante do bónus, reforçada posteriormente no ponto 1.5. No entanto, no final do ponto 1, são apresentados exemplos baseados nos montantes depositados, onde é mencionado um "montante da conta bónus", definido como a soma do montante proveniente do bónus e do montante depositado.
2. No ponto 1.5, há uma clara distinção entre o montante do bónus e o montante depositado, indicando uma diferença entre os dois. No entanto, essa distinção deixa de ser evidente em pontos posteriores, o que pode confundir o utilizador.
3. No ponto 2.2, é feita novamente uma distinção entre o montante do bónus e o montante depositado, com exemplos que os diferenciam claramente.
4. No ponto 2.6, é introduzido o conceito de saldo da conta bónus e saldo da conta principal, algo novo que antes só era mencionado em termos de montantes e não de saldos. No entanto, não fica claro se o saldo da conta bónus é a soma do montante proveniente do bónus e do montante depositado.
5. No ponto 2.7, é declarado que "o dinheiro do Bónus é utilizado até que a conta de bónus desça abaixo de 0.20€". Isto sugere que o dinheiro do bónus se refere ao dinheiro gerado pelo próprio bónus, não ao conceito de saldo da conta bónus. Talvez fosse mais apropriado utilizar o termo "saldo da conta bónus" neste contexto, dada a falta de clareza nos termos.
6. No ponto 3.1, é explicado que ao desistir da participação na campanha, ocorre a reposição do saldo da conta de bónus, resultando na perda de qualquer valor de bónus recebido.
7. O exposto no ponto 3.1 contradiz os conceitos previamente introduzidos, ao utilizar o conceito do valor do bónus recebido, e desta forma distinguir entre o montante do bónus e do depósito."
A resolution remains elusive. Your guidance and support in navigating this matter would be greatly appreciated.
By assisting me in this matter, you'll not only be aiding an individual in need but also standing against injustice and misconduct. My aim isn't merely about the monetary value involved, although it does represent a significant portion of the minimum wage in Portugal. It's about upholding principles of fairness and accountability, principles that resonate with your organization's mission.
As Casino Guru rightfully states, intervening when players are treated unfairly is essential. By shedding light on instances of non-compliance and dishonesty, we contribute to a fairer and more transparent gaming industry.
I sincerely thank you for considering my request and remain hopeful for a positive resolution.
Warm regards
Automatski prevedeno:
Molimo vas da isključite AdBlock