Quote from: holydarkness on February 21, 2024, 02:17:57 PM

Quote from: Kirito89 on February 21, 2024, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on February 20, 2024, 07:25:10 PM

You're saying that you know for sure that it can be reverted? Self-exclusion? Do you mind to provide a supporting evidence for it? Because if it can and they do [and that you can prove it], it's a very wrong procedure and against the gambler protect policy and it is a very serious situation.

While I don't represent Rollbit, would just like to say that a self-exclusion is not, and should never be reversed (theoretically it can), for the simple fact that self-exclusions are in place due to Gamble Aware regulations, and any self-respecting casino, at least any licensed casino will never undo a self-exclusion or a self-ban.

Thank you. As always, your "insider" insight from casino perspective is very much welcome and appreciated. OP, as you can read above, casinos take that ban you impose on yourself very seriously. It is a common and known practice by casinos, not only Rollbit, to refuse to lift a self-exception. They are simply sticking to the rules instead of toying with you when they ask you to wait for the period to runs out.

Quote from: Kirito89 on February 21, 2024, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on February 20, 2024, 07:25:10 PM

You're saying that you know for sure that it can be reverted? Self-exclusion? Do you mind to provide a supporting evidence for it? Because if it can and they do [and that you can prove it], it's a very wrong procedure and against the gambler protect policy and it is a very serious situation.

While I don't represent Rollbit, would just like to say that a self-exclusion is not, and should never be reversed (theoretically it can), for the simple fact that self-exclusions are in place due to Gamble Aware regulations, and any self-respecting casino, at least any licensed casino will never undo a self-exclusion or a self-ban.

I'm not trying to argue against you or anything. I really appreciate your concern and attention to this as well as everybody else's.

Hopefully this can clear it up a bit... It may be against regulation and policy to revert a self-exclusion based on the idea that I had a gambling addiction, but I never self-excluded for the reason of addiction. I was never even asked why I wanted to self-exclude like how they normally do. They need you to admit that you're a gambling addict, which I never did nor did I hint towards that. I self-excluded for the reason of being treated unfairly by the Rollbit team, which I did mention to the person who did it.

When you say it's not possible, you're making it sound like it's literally impossible for them to do, which is not true.

Example User Data Table:

Code:

Username: Devout
Email: devout@devout.com
Password: devoutpass
Permissions: 0
Balance: 123
RewardBal: 1000
Ban: 0
SelfExclusionBan: 1

All they would have to do is change the `SelfExclusionBan` parameter from `1` (which means yes) to `0` (which means no)

Casinos hate when players have any sort of leverage over them which is why they will instantly get rid of someone who does. When players win a lot of money at any casino, they are no longer welcome there. I may not have won against the casino monetarily, but I easily could have if I didn't report any of my findings to them. Even though I had just lost like 500 Solana to them in a single month, they refused to pay me out in the first incident. The incompetency of their employees was probably costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you look at the email correspondence, Razer said: " we pay generously for bugs" (multiple times btw) and encouraged me to find more.

So, I go to find more, being the good boy I am. When I present my new findings to Razer, I am instantly denied the bug bounty and told that it doesn't meet the scope. Why? Because they thought that they could fix it and that I had 0 leverage over them. As soon as they consulted with their third party agency and realized that I have leverage over them, they want to act all nice by saying that I will be rewarded. So, they "take a safe gamble" and put a balance on an account that I can't access for 19 days. This gives them time to either fix the problem or for me to give them the only "leverage" I have.

I lose both ways, which is why I am here telling you that they will ban me as soon as I get access to that account or they won't let me withdraw.

This is me just "yapping", but:
I know how these people are and they view me as a threat. They will find a reason to ban me, which is fucked up. They've already muted me for over a year for saying "nigga" (used as a friendly greeting, in a non-derogatory manner), they have banned me from their Discord server when all I did was give suggestions on how to improve Rollbit and help players in their Clipper Discord.

Remember that casinos are gamblers too and are just as hungry for any type of advantage as a player is. They hate the players just as much as the players hate them. Most players just have Stockholm Syndrome and "dick-suck" casinos thinking that they will get lucky one day. Casinos enable the Stockholm Syndrome by creating communities, doing giveaways, participating in nepotism, etc. I'd probably be the best employee at Rollbit because I see their weak points and I know how to improve the site. But, since I am not on the payroll nor do I "dick-suck" and be a fake person, I am an enemy in their eyes. Due to their ego, they will probably spend more to fix their problem than for me to fairly be compensated.

None of this would have even transpired if they matured and realized the old saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Myself being neutral and an "enemy" to the players by making sure they don't have an unfair advantage. Their loss, I guess.