This is exactly why I gave them the benefit of doubt by letting them inquire and investigate for as long as they need and nudge every now and then: 1,500 USD worth of case. It is less than their weekly signature budget, I guess [I am not looking into their sig thread to check]. If they're at fault and try to cover it, they'll be more than happy to pay the quite likely low amount [if we may look from their perspective].
Their refusal to settle and choose to inquire to every departments involved indicates [at least for me] that they're seeking transparency instead of burying the case, that they want to know what exactly happened and why and how and when, and perhaps who.
So, maybe it'll in the best interest of every neutral overseers to sit patiently while I periodically nudge my contact until we get their side. One thing that I can assure you is that I am not leaving this case out of my eyes. I nudge my contact on daily basis [and today, it happened few minutes ago] to ask them if they've got their verdict and knows what happened.
It is not my intent to question your motives or sincerity, but I need to ask directly. You have seen the evidence in this case. How do you as a reasonable person reconcile the screenshots and contemporaneous evidence I submitted on June 19, including statements from three of BC.Game’s own support agents confirming my loss limit complaint, with BC.Game’s repeated position by email, on Trustpilot, and on Casino Guru that I did not set any limits until June 26, one week after I filed a complaint?
When you continue to grant BC.Game additional time and ignore their broken promises to provide explanations and verdicts, it appears to me that you are leaning toward their side instead of holding them accountable. You wrote that “if they are at fault and try to cover it, they will be more than happy to pay the quite likely low amount [from their perspective].” But they have not paid. Have you considered that they may not want to admit issues with their responsible gaming tools, for fear of opening the door to additional claims from other players or other regulatory problems?
Letting them "inquire and investigate for as long as they need" is such an odd position to take. As others have pointed out, we live in a technologically advanced world. By saying this you make it seem like BC.Game needs months to investigate some complex, year-long issue involving hundreds of players and multiple departments. That is not the case here. Loss limits were set on June 19. They were not enforced properly because their loss limit tool does not work in real time, even though they advertise that it does. Please stop making it seem like this is rocket science involving twelve departments within BC.Game.
You wrote that “their refusal to settle and choice to inquire to every department involved indicates [at least for me] that they are seeking transparency instead of burying the case, that they want to know what exactly happened and why and how and when, and perhaps who.” How can you say this sincerely when this complaint has stalled for 70 days, when they have lied about the date my loss limits were set, and when they have failed to even respond to you within the timeframes they themselves promised?
I cannot hide my disappointment. What began with you collecting my UID and story and enthusiastically saying you would nudge your contact to get to the bottom of what happened has now turned into encouraging everyone to be patient, give BC.Game as much time as they need, and for you to only “periodically” nudge them. Perhaps @yahoo62278 was not too far off when he joked that this case, which could honestly be resolved in a single day, would not be resolved until December 2027. Correct me if I am off base, but it appears you have shifted from being the neutral agent with contacts promising to expedite this case to becoming the new voice for BC.Game’s continued delays and stalling.
So again I ask, how do you reconcile their June 26 claim with the overwhelming evidence supporting June 19. And if we come to the reasonable conclusion that their June 26 claim is a blatant lie, then BC.Game has forfeited any presumption of honesty or good faith going forward.
Thank you for that colorful post.
If you ask how I "reconcile the screenshots and contemporaneous evidence you submitted on June 19,[...]" and so on, where I may add your above frustration into consideration, I'll answer that with "I prefer not to answer and will wait for BC to provide their piece". Because my honest opinion and action will involve a question that's been bugging me from the first time reading your narrative here and CG in full, that I refrained to ask, until I get a better picture, lest I only mudded the situation that otherwise can be cleared without me inquiring, with BC's narrative come at hand. By this point, with above clear frustation from you and your question of my neutrality, if I voiced that, safe to assume you'll irrevocably think I'm BC's agent. So... let's just wait for their piece, shall we?
About your disappointment, though, kindly enlighten us here what do you have in mind that I should do that you'll perceive as satisfactory, other-and-further than nudging and inquiring to my contact? Ring them? Fly to their HQ and inquire for a meeting? And to what outcome will it bring? They're still waiting for reports from the departments involved. Wouldn't that imply they're also waiting?
When they come with their findings and I find it odd or non-satisfactionary, I will inquire until things get very clear. That is my aim: to find the truest truth from this story.
And yes, you're off base.
By “colorful” perhaps you mean truthful and fact-based. CG has concerns about BC’s claims. I have concerns about BC’s claims. Players here have said that if BC lied about the loss limit date, they cannot be trusted. The only person saying otherwise is you, the one who said they could expedite faster than CG, who now says they have issues with my complaint but do not want to introduce them. Instead, you prefer that evidence BC submits might make my complaint go away, rather than you presenting your own ideas. Thanks for your help.