I am supporting the flag against NapoleonXBT, but mostly not for the refund part. Rather, due to the casino's failure to follow the written contract that you both entered [and you both violated] when you self exclude yourself, of which I am somewhat sure had a clause that sounded like "Betbolt will try to make it difficult for you to return" while their live support encouraged you to create a new account to bypass that limitation. This behavior is very detrimental for problematic gamblers and against safe gambling environment they hinted on their own ToS.

A_betbolt, I'll retract my support if you can explain in clear and with supporting evidence [the one against you and is weighting in favor of the player is the entire conversation on CG] of the nature behind OP's self exclusion and the narrative you're trying to inform us that the player did not request self exclusion.

I am supporting the flag, but mostly not for the refund part. Rather, due to the casino's failure to follow the written contract that you both entered [and you both violated] when you self exclude yourself, of which I am somewhat sure had a clause that sounded like "Betbolt will try to make it difficult for you to return" while their live support encouraged you to create a new account to bypass that limitation. This behavior is very detrimental for problematic gamblers and against safe gambling environment they hinted on their own ToS.

A_betbolt, I'll retract my support if you can explain in clear and with supporting evidence [the one against you and is weighting in favor of the player is the entire conversation on CG] of the nature behind OP's self exclusion and the narrative you're trying to inform us that the player did not request self exclusion.