Quote from: Dicbac on September 14, 2025, 04:12:16 AM

Quote from: SimpleMachin34 on September 13, 2025, 09:56:13 AM

Quote from: Alphakilo on September 12, 2025, 10:36:42 PM

Quote from: Dicbac on September 12, 2025, 03:39:18 AM

If a person can't even control themselves, how can they expect it is other's duties to do so better than they can themselves?

This is a direct and indirect response to the post you quoted. I think, not to judge the other guy, those who do self-exclusion and go back to the same casino to gamble, do it because they know that they can blame their financial loss which would later happen on the casino and want to make them look bad. No casino is perfect but as an individual you have to ensure you are disciplined enough to control yourself and ask for help from someone that can hold you accountable if you think you can't.

With all due respect, your statement is a complete and dangerous misunderstanding of what a responsible gambling policy is for.

The purpose of a self-exclusion is not to help a person find "discipline." It is to prevent a vulnerable player from being able to gamble, period. I explicitly told razed team I needed to "step out a while" because of my gambling issue.

You claim I am just trying to "make you look bad." The truth is, your own system is doing that. It allowed me to create and successfully verify a second account with the exact same personal details. This is not only a failure of my self-control; it's a monumental failure of razed security and responsible gambling protocols.

My loss is a direct result of Razed's negligence. The evidence from my chats with razed shows that they were fully aware of my situation and failed to act.

In fairness to you, you had no way of knowing my stance on your issue as i replied to only a segment of your comment. But I agree, it is a complete failure on razed's part, why have these things at all if they aren't properly enforced. But unless this failure amounts to law breaking, doubtful anything will get done or compensation given to settle the matter.

I meant for my comment to be taken in the literal sense of expectations in life itself. No one is going to willingly help you, which is why it is paramount to have repercussions as a consequence for not delivering services intended to for harm reduction, especially involving at-risk players.

On the other hand, self-exclusion has always seemed a bit pointless to me, there's no way in hell you'd run out of casinos to register with in any feasible amount of time. I've presumed the people that this method of prevention has worked on is older or less tech-inclined peoples, but maybe im wrong.

You mentioned that you doubt this amounts to "law breaking." However, a casino's license is not just for show. A licensed casino, especially one under the Anjouan Gaming Authority, has a legal obligation to protect vulnerable players. By failing to enforce a self-exclusion, they are in direct breach of their licensing agreement. This is why I have taken my complaint to the regulator as well.

I also agree with your point about repercussions. My goal is not just to get a refund, but to hold Razed accountable for their failure. This is why I am posting here and why I am taking formal action. The fact that their system failed, despite me providing all the necessary information, is a perfect example of why these repercussions are necessary.

As for self-exclusion being pointless, I have to disagree. The point is not for me to run out of casinos to play at. The point is for a casino to honor its duty to a player who has already demonstrated a problem and asked for help. Razed was the specific casino that I trusted to take that responsibility, and they failed to do so. That is why this case matters.