Quote from: holydarkness on August 27, 2025, 06:53:13 PM

Quote from: ptaylor78 on August 27, 2025, 05:56:05 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on August 27, 2025, 05:36:08 PM

Well, I don't want to sell myself high, but the second reconsideration might an attempt from my contact to overrule a decision made by risk division, or perhaps to simply ask the case to retried and re-discussed after the team handling your matter gave their verdict and ready with their explanation.

Or perhaps simply they mean they need to double check all the facts.

I trust you have reviewed what I have posted here and the evidence already on CG. My account is not just a version of events, it is indisputable and supported by contemporaneous evidence submitted the day of the incident. BC.Game, in contrast, has produced “system records” that appeared only two months after my complaint was filed. Their own chat transcripts from June 19 directly contradict those records, yet they continue to put forward narratives that are provably false.

This is not a close call or a matter of interpretation. BC.Game promised players loss limit tools that take effect immediately. On June 19, those tools failed. I have used the identical interface on Shuffle Casino where the limits work in real time as advertised. BC.Game’s did not. After weeks of silence, they shifted their story to claim no limits were set until June 26, a position neither I nor Casino Guru accepted given the obvious evidence to the contrary

That is why I am concerned. A transparent, honest casino would not need repeated reconsiderations of a straightforward refund request. Yet 70 days later, BC.Game continues to stall while ignoring this complaint and freely responding to others on CG. This is not how a trustworthy casino conducts itself.

I understand you have helped many players with BC.Game issues, but so far I have only heard theories about what might be happening on their side rather than what they have actually said, what evidence they have to support their position, and their explanation for why their position is contradicted by a large amount of evidence.

Yes, I have reviewed your case on CG and understand the narrative told from your side. But the puzzle will still be incomplete without narrative from BC's, of which become more crucial as we need the truest version that my contact can hopefully dig by inquiring inter-department and crosschecking everything, something that perhaps BC's live support can't provide, and thus give a wrong sets of puzzle that made us unable to get a complete picture.

Though I can understand your frustration from being hung with uncertainty, I hope you can have a bit more patience while my contact tried to get us the story from their side, this time with the correct side of puzzle from their side, so we can combine that with yours and we can see the real picture.

This situation underscores the importance of choosing online casinos with care. You have reviewed and acknowledged my narrative, which is supported by extensive evidence. You are right that we also need BC.Game’s version to complete the puzzle. They have already given theirs: a claim that I did not set loss limits on June 19, only on June 26.

I sense even you doubt that claim. Your reference to your contact seeking the “truest version” of events and the need for second reconsiderations suggests as much. Is it not concerning that BC.Game’s position is widely seen as untrue or, at best, a misunderstanding not supported by their own records?

Is it unreasonable to expect that when issues arise, casinos provide the honest and accurate version of events from all levels of the company rather than forcing players through disputes lasting more than two months? I will be patient, as you have asked, but this ordeal highlights why honesty and good faith should be non-negotiable when selecting an online casino. Or should some level of dishonesty and “shadiness” be expected from all online casinos, with the only real difference being that some are much less so than others?