Oh? My apology, I usually checked CG and AG for disputes prior to marking them as resolved, but it seems the fact that you raised a complaint to CG missed me.

I thought, given you're clearly abuses handful of their ToS, and the thread never got updated for about a month, you gave up after being severely exposed and the situation is settled with your latest complaints are invalid. Thus, I am reverting to the initial complaint, that got settled and cleared.

Pure curiosity, does CG knows you weaponize your gambling addiction to extort casinos, have multiple accounts on multiple casinos, and buying IDs? Does your other case, joana226, also currently in mediation with other platform? I can mark that one back to "in progress" too if it is.

The fact here is that there is no "responsible gambling policy". The responsible gambling on that page is a guide, and they are not liable for the misunderstanding you experienced, as I addressed lengthly above, of which you choose to ignore, because if you address it, you'll have to admit that your claim is invalid [much like the patient in my real-life-experience can't argue to the insurance company that what she had in her hand is not a triglyceride result but a trigesid, since the nurse gave it to her when she asked for "trigesid" result without correcting her]

Yes, exactly, there is no "help/responsible-gambling-policy" page, only "help/responsible-gambling" sans "policy", because that page is not about their policy, that page is a help page describing responsible gambling. As such, the content on it are not the terms that you both agreed, it's a help page, a guide.

Otherwise, with the same logic that you apply, this page is one of their policy too:



does that even make sense? A page of agreement policy regarding an explanation of what a crypto is? No. Why? Because having a section on their help page, the page that happens to also house the terms of service and terms of sport, does not instantly mean they are policy. The pages that talk about policy and rules are clearly indicated on the page, the other ones are there to serve the purpose of a guide, like how that crypto page aimed to give a quick explanation to the newcomers to cryptocommunity.

Second, your chat with their email [I re-uploaded the image to talkimg so everybody can see it easier] is awfully looks like, if I may borrow legal term, "leading the witness", you asked them to point out where the responsible gaming page is, nonchalantly adding the word "policy", without making it clear that you ask for that page in a literal way; a responsible gaming policy page. Staffs, [or anyone, really] will very likely dismissed that as a simple typo or a user choice of word, not acknowledging or bother to correct it, partially so they won't sound rude for correcting mis-use it as an attempt to inquire about responsible-gaming-page.



A real-life example that I happen to currently experience, someone very important to me is currently hospitalized, and I can't help to overheard a conversation on their nurse station [since my ass is practically planted on the hospital] between a nurse and a patient, for her "tri-ge-syd" result. Do you think the nurse will say something like, "we don't have such thing, were you mispronounced triglyceride?", or will she understand that the patient was referring to a triglyceride lab result, tactfully refraining from correcting the patient, and give what she asked?

Unless the patient then said, "no, I ask for tri-ge-syd result, not triglyceride, this is triglyceride, this is not what I'm looking for. Do you have my tri-ge-syd result?" it will be assumed that the patient asked for triglyceride and the nurse won't bother to correct her. Just like your case. Unless you specifically said "no, this is the help page explaining about responsible gambling. I am asking for your responsible gambling policy, as in the terms of service that we agreed about it", she will assume you asked for the responsible gambling page and refrained from saying that the "responsible gambling page" does not exist.

Applied to the case of the patient, can the patient claimed to her doctor or to her insurance company or whoever interested like, "this is not triglyceride result, this is trigesid, I asked the nurse for trigesid and she gave me this paper. This is proof that it is a trigesid result, not triglyceride."?

I believe everyone reading that screenshot can easily see this, as well as you know exactly what you tried to pull when you wrote your chat in that manner.

But humor us, what's the earlier part of your chat with her? Is there a reason why only the last part is shown?

To address your invitation to try myself,


Please read again. You can't just omit an explanation and twist it to match the narrative you want to drive.

I'll try once more, the fact of your situation came to their awareness by the end of February, of which they promptly tried to deescalate the situation by offering that USD 500, with an idea on their mind that they want to solve it in a manner as peaceful as they can for your sake, with a concern, at that time, that if they leave it escalated by you answering questions on the forum and brushed so close with gambling situation, you'll relapse or find yourself at a stress and seek the comfort of placing bets to get away from those situation.

Upon learning that their approach is not effective, they abandon the attempt to be compassionate, throw everything out of the window and take a direct-but-subtle approach by asking you to self exclude yourself. When this plea is also not heeded, they finally lock you themselves. This whole event happen from the end of February to the 3rd of March.


Sadly, it's out of the window, water is under the bridge, the ice is melting, the meat is overcooked, whichever proverbs you choose. they offered, it stays good for a period of time, they retract it, it's no longer available. Move on and stop trying to use it as a bargaining chips. It only highlight your characteristic of an addict.


Yeah, if I am not mistaken, the response time for those regulator are three months. Means, you're expected to wait for three months before you can hear back from them and it should still be considered as acceptable by their timeframe. Just to confirm, you reached CIL?

However, considering the possibility that you may have gambling issues, we opted for a more compassionate approach by suggesting a $500 solution to ease your concerns. We sincerely apologize if our private messages were confusing.

This case has more meaning than your's ever had.
You move from casino to casino to casino and try to play your addiction card to get refunded. Basically it's fair to say they you are a scammer.
Your presence alone in this thread already is bad for OP because your name is tainted.

About this case, bc support is just figuring out what to do next. Once they come to a conclusion I am sure bc will update here.

About this case, bc support is just figuring out what to do next. Once they come to a conclusion I am sure bc will update here.

This case has more meaning than your's ever had.
You move from casino to casino to casino and try to play your addiction card to get refunded. Basically it's fair to say they you are a scammer.
Your presence alone in this thread already is bad for OP because your name is tainted.

About this case, bc support is just figuring out what to do next. Once they come to a conclusion I am sure bc will update here.

Is it not? Please tell me how. It came to their awareness about your addiction by the end of February, of which they promptly tried to do an intervention.

It can only be used to, as well as intended for, helping you with your life, regardless of how much USD 500 instrinsically worth to you.

because they noticed you're still using your account to gamble

The Responsible-Gaming-Policy is explained on the earlier part of this post. As for CIL, you can try helpdesk@curacaolicensing.com as suggested by CasinoGuru.

I can't actually see they confirm that it is part of their ToS

About their terms being incorrect: https://imgur.com/a/3UDuF8l
Quote
"but there is a mistake in these terms. We do not have a deposit limit."

However, it seems BC has concluded this case with their last post here, and I believe I am not the only one who think they have the right to do so

Yes, they closed your account as soon as they found about your condition, this is true

They attempted an alternative way, offering you a "bribe" [if I may use that word casually] in hope they can "trap" you into exclusion without placing your state of mind in enough stress in concern of you having a relapse and succumbed to your addiction by playing in other casino. Upon understanding that they can't pursue this path, they take a more direct method by asking you to exclude yourself, and later on banning you themselves when you did not heeding their subtle request. So yes, they close your account as soon as they found out about your mental condition, but they tried to do it in a compassionate way.

29th of February as in around the time BC.Game Support reached you through PM to try their approach?

As such, your claim of mentioning about your situation many times to no avail is somewhat very misleading, given the impression casted by that statement will be that you in constant attempt to inform them, while actually you only mentioned it after that fact was unearthed and you seemingly [at least to me, and if I may be brutally honest] try to use that as a leverage.
Please feel free to correct me where I wrong.

In regards to this, it actually does not work in your favor, given you breached their policy on 4.11. the instance you ask for exclusion on Rollbit, which actually grant them the right to retain everything. While for the removal of the limitations "feature" from their page, I assume it's to avoid confusion like what happened right now, that people misunderstood it as a feature, or a part of their ToS of which both parties agreed, instead of a guide.

For this, I've inquired to them and indeed that passage was a guide and a help page, as indicated by the placement of the page itself [not within the ToS page]. And, as such, you're also not quite right about that being their Responsible Gaming Policy.

While for the removal of the limitations "feature" from their page, I assume it's to avoid confusion like what happened right now, that people misunderstood it as a feature, or a part of their ToS of which both parties agreed, instead of a guide.

In regards to this, it actually does not work in your favor, given you breached their policy on 4.11. the instance you ask for exclusion on Rollbit, which actually grant them the right to retain everything.

By this narrative, the only mistake they have, if any, is trying to be compassionate instead of strict.