Quote from: JollyGood on December 05, 2024, 08:25:47 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on December 05, 2024, 06:01:37 PM

I would advise you to prepare a nice cup of coffee if you want to read OP's thread on CG, as it's more... seven-course-meal-of-words-and-sentences. With his consecutive posts [that made the mediator gently informed him that it make things hard to understand], posts being made private, posts with links to screenshots, another consecutive posts, and here come the third meal.

I did my best after your advice and was prepared for the Casino Guru link but still found the episode elongated and tedious. At some point I had to give up in order to scroll towards the bottom of the page. The final few exchanges captured the important parts. The casino was willing to settle for what they thought was reasonable based on the third account but the OP wants the $10,000 to cover losses associated with the second account.

I have no idea why he would threaten to take legal action when the process will be expensive. Also, there is no guarantee on how long the process will take or ven if he will win. If he goes ahead with litigation it is a risk because all this is for the disputed amount of $10,000.

He has some experience in several legal suits against his country and school despite his very young [22 years old] age, so I choose to believe [the italic being an over-exagerrated emphasize] he knows what he's doing and have been assessing the possible outcome of the next action he said he'll take: suing the casino.

Quote from: JollyGood on December 05, 2024, 08:25:47 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on December 05, 2024, 06:01:37 PM

The root of this situation is simple: OP treated his first plea to "ban with no option to unban" as a self exclusion. The casino simply treated it as a request to lock his account. Casino applied self-exclusion from the closure of second account forward, thus, third account will get reimbursed. OP insist self-exclusion should be activated from the point of "ban with no option to unban", thus his second account should not be allowed by Roobet, and is eligible for refund too.

The casino cited human error for overlooking the second account not being excluded but will not make any payments related to it. Even though they should have excluded the second account, to which degree are they liable for losses? That is a very important question.

Actually, to be precise, the human error part is talking about the first account, Pokemon55.

So, the situation was, OP asked for a ban [not exclusion] for Pokemon55, got it banned, created second account, happynewyear2024, triggered responsible gambling act and got excluded, created third account, newhere23232, and got refunded due to the previous account already excluded and he shouldn't be able to make this third one. And, ultimately, asked for a refund for the second account as well, under reason that he should have been excluded since Pokemon55 and thus, shouldn't be able to create happynewyear2024 too.

Why they say that it's human error as the ban should be treated as self-exclusion while they actually already treat it as self-exclusion by asking him to answer the addiction assessment prior to unlocking it, or why they didn't brought it up to the mediator on CG that the reason they unlocked the first account is because he lied throughout the entire questions [which ultimately made the self-exclusion itself failed to lock in and took place], are the two things that I don't understand.

Quote from: JollyGood on December 05, 2024, 08:25:47 PM

Hypothetically, if the OP had won $10,000 on the second account but when he tried to withdraw was blocked by the casino citing the error of not excluding the account and instead offered to reimburse the deposit and close the account. Would the OP accept it? Or another scenario, if the OP got to the point where he was allowed to withdraw but after he withdrew he was retrospectively asked to have the funds returned (because he should never have been allowed to play in the first place), would the OP return the funds?

I could be wrong but it seems to me the OP took advantage of the fact the second account was not excluded and thought he could always (rightly) claim he was a problem gambler and try to get those funds back blaming the casino for not blocking the account.

He is not trying to take advantage. He assured us many times that he don't have that intent. So it must be true.