holydarkness, while I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced perspective, I strongly disagree with your assessment of where the fault lies in this situation. You're putting a lot of emphasis on my supposed failure to "perfectly articulate" my inquiry, and I find that to be an unreasonable and frankly, unfair burden to place on me.
Let's be clear: I raised concerns about the legality of the casino's operation in Portugal. The fact that I might not have used the *exact* legal jargon you deem necessary shouldn't absolve the casino of their responsibility to provide accurate and consistent information. It's their business to know and adhere to the regulations, and it's their responsibility to communicate clearly with their customers.
I am asking how exactly you articulate the question, and whether the mention of SRIJ and/or extra licensing is needed ever conveyed, not to perfectly articulate the inquiry. Just whether SRIJ rule and/or you're in an uncertain state due to the ambiguous information you currently possessed, ever mentioned. Why? Because if you did and you can provide me the evidence of it being mentioned, I can use that to ask housebets to reconsider.
To give you a better picture, let's say for a second that I am "on your side" [with half leg still in neutral ground, of course] and seeking the best I can get to your compensation. You handling me a butter knife right now, made out of plastic. A thin and cheap one that you got for free from buying bread in a bakery. The screenshot though, transfigure that butter knife into
piertotum locomotor. Understand?
You're suggesting that I was somehow "leading" the counterparty by asking about the legality of their operations. That's a mischaracterization of my inquiries. I was seeking clarification on a crucial issue that directly impacts my ability to use their services. To imply that *I'm* at fault for their conflicting and inadequate responses is simply wrong.
Is it not? At fault? It's a retort. The full explanation and more proper address to the matter is below.
Furthermore, your reliance on the Terms of Service to supersede any information provided by live chat is a convenient excuse. Customers rely on the information provided by support staff, and conflicting information from those sources erodes trust. In fact, I'd like to dispute the claim that the Terms of Service automatically override any confirmations from Housebets' live chat support. While I acknowledge the Terms as a binding agreement, the live chat confirmation should be given appropriate weight, based on the following points within the document:
- Housebets's Authority and Dispute Resolution: Clause 2.3 states that "Housebets retains authority over the issuing, maintaining, and closing the Service." While this clause establishes Housebets's authority, it also implies a responsibility to exercise that authority fairly and reasonably. Denying the validity of a direct confirmation from a support agent, acting on behalf of Housebets, could be interpreted as an unreasonable use of this authority. Furthermore, Clause 2.4 states "The decision of Housebets management concerning any use of this Service and dispute resolution is final and will not be open to review or appeal.” I believe that my dispute should be reviewed, and I urge Housebets to exercise its authority in a just manner.
- Errors and Incompleteness: Clause 4.4 addresses errors related to wagers and payments, stating that Housebets has the right to cancel bets accepted in error. Clause 4.5 further elaborates on errors or malfunctions in the software, requiring the user to report them and stating that Housebets has a right to compensation for costs related to the error or incompleteness and failed notification by the User. By analogy, miscommunication or inaccurate information provided by a Housebets representative can be considered a form of error or incompleteness. I argue that Housebets is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information provided through its official support channels and should bear the responsibility for any consequences resulting from such errors.
- User Obligations and Information Accuracy: Clause 4.1.4 states that the user is responsible for providing accurate information to Housebets. By extension, it is reasonable to expect Housebets to also provide accurate information through its support channels. I fulfilled my obligation to seek clarification, and the information provided by Housebets's representative should be considered reliable.
First, kindly revisit the airport analogy, it'll cover a greater part of the section quoted above.
Second, breaking down the clauses you propose, and taking your words at face value by perceiving you as an honest individual that does not snip the clauses in parts that only works in your favor and significantly change the meaning conveyed [this is me saying I am not looking at the page and believing you]:
2.3. does the confirmation given by the live support were coming from a full narrative without any retention of information that birthed the question? [Basically: airport analogy]
2.4. not sure why you cite this. You just make your situation here worse by bringing that authoritarian clause [that you acknowledge and agreed] into light.
4.4. almost like 2.4., not sure why you bring it into light. Also, irrelevant. It specifies that they have the full right to cancel bets due to an error [witout looking at the page to see the section it covered, I believe the error being talked here is technicalities like wrong odds, bugs, and the likes] not to refund bets due to an "error" in licensing.
4.5. exactly like 2.4., if not worse. You highlighting that they have a clause [again, that you acknowledge and agreed] that allows them to be compensated due to player's negligence to notify errors to housebets. Translated, 2.4, 4.4., and 4.5., specifically protected the casino and says that they can not held liable, their call is final, and they're entitled to ask for refund due to the error from player's side. Tell your chatGPT to formulate a better rebuttal and cite clauss that work in your favor. You almost closed the case by yourself, in favor to the casino, by bringing these clauses.
To address your specific points:
- It's not my responsibility to have a law degree to ask a simple question about a casino's legality.
- The casino has a responsibility to provide clear and consistent information about their legal standing.
- The inconsistencies and contradictions in their responses are the primary source of this problem, not my phrasing of the questions.
In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of the Terms of Service, I believe that the live chat confirmation established a specific understanding. Disregarding this confirmation contradicts the principles of fair dispute resolution, responsibility for errors, and the expectation of accurate information from Housebets, all of which are implied within the Terms and Conditions. Instead of defending the casino's position, perhaps a more constructive approach would be to acknowledge their role in this mess and push for a fair resolution based on the information *they* provided, however flawed it may have been.
It is your responsibility to know the specific law in your country, according to 2.1.1., and you don't need a law degree for it, as I've demonstrated from spending less than five seconds with ChatGPT, the same AI you use.
And yes, they do have responsibility to provide clear and consistent information. Sans the complete information from the asker's side, though, they can't formulate a clear and consistent info. Refer to 2.1.1. and the visa analogy
No, the source of the problem
is the wording used in the question. It's obvious, I've explained about it in abundance, throughout the entire thread.
I suggest, in case they reject the offer, you ask them to supply all the chat history (which I already requested 3 weeks ago by email and nothing was provided). If they do not alter them, yes, you will find extra substance to understand why they sent me an email with the conclusion of being allowed to bet from Portugal, and not just a simple chat answer.
Can't. It has to be you who ask for it. Data protection and all.