Not quite right. The situation is: OP tried to submit several times, each through long processing time, their verification team keep rejecting his documents for reason that goes in round. The root of the problem itself, according to OP, if we may summarize it, is that they made it near impossible for him to verify himself

You're saying that you know for sure that it can be reverted? Self-exclusion? Do you mind to provide a supporting evidence for it? Because if it can and they do [and that you can prove it], it's a very wrong procedure and against the gambler protect policy and it is a very serious situation.

As for your example of rogue moderator, that's not self-exclusion, that's a mod-ban, a temporary ban. And yes, that can be reversed because that is an act of a moderator, it's an action taken as a result of a violation [suppose the ban is justified] by a player against a policy or --as you said-- a rogue moderator unjustifiedly acted on his own. But for the case of exclusion, be it a self-exclusion or because the staff detects signs of gambling addiction, that should not be able to be tampered and reversed before the period runs out because it is a procedure to create a safe and responsible gambling.

Those two situations, the ban by mods and exclusion, are two completely different situations. And no, it is relevant because it is one of the point of your accusation, that they can or can not [or rather, will or will not] tamper with exclusion.

It goes further than that, even if someone happens to not seeing this thread on their search result and got the ANN thread instead, or if they simply goes to bitcointalk and search Yas, they'll still get the idea about the risk of dealing with the casino due to the banner that greeted them on the ANN thread or their trust score on their profile.

It was brought up because you said what quoted below. It seems there is a misunderstanding about how their self-exclusion works, something quite easy that needs to be straightened in this pile of accusations you raised, and that's why I tackled that point prior to addressing other matters.

They do not have the ability to "unban" you during the self-exclusion period. There is a 21-days [or whatever days they assign to it] cool-down period, and after that, you'll be offered an option to extend the self-exclusion for certain period or to permanently disable your account. You'll automatically regain access to your account after that period is over. Likewise, if you choose to extend it, you'll be once again locked away from the account for the duration you choose.

To put it simply, no one will be able to re-enable your account before a self-exclusion period is over. Not them, not even you.

Is this part clear yet?

Both of the type-1 and 3 flags against them are active. As a result, their profile shows "warning: trade with extreme caution" and red banners will be visible on every thread they have for anyone who stumbled upon it. So yeah, anyone doing DD and got into this forum will see it.

That's the "issue" here, they can't send the fund because he refused to give a return address. They initially asked for KYC, but after JPR refuses, they waived the KYC requirement and asked him for an address to return his fund. He refused to provide it; because after his fund returned, he's very likely won't be able to play on the platform anymore.

I am bringing to both of your attention that they've replace the license with an African license. Not sure when, I checked their page earlier today [few minutes ago, to be precise] prior to a post. Have to say that this is the first time I heard about them and I am not sure if they're a reputable regulator. I am currently inquiring about PF on that recent thread they're having.

I was one of the user who oversee that thread, alongside with several other prominent members, I don't think you should worry much about that thread, anyone who gave that thread a read can see how baseless the accusation is... well, JackpotRacer can't even spell out what's the scam about.

Nonetheless, several good points that's being brought to that thread and you happen to mention here should be addressed, as follow:


First is this one, this is a very poor problem solving strategy. By locking your ANN, you just cast an impression that you're evasive and has something to hide. Soonest you open them for public and re-engage to the community will be better.


Second, as you asked for advice for your reputation, as well as to clarify what really happens, there are two things that need your response and explanation, that is the Curacao license and the Provably Fair method. I can see that you've replace the license with... Anjuan Gaming... of Africa [this is the first time I am stumbled upon them], but it's probably better to give an explanation why for quite some time you have an invalid license in your page. I believe you're very close to get a tag or two for those matters.

I'll bring these issue of license and PF to Pmalek's and JollyGood's attention by mentioning them here as well as writing on JackpotRacer's thread, redirecting them here.

They have a representative on this forum who sweeps through this sub-board regularly and forwarded the issues to the respective team. I am sure when this thread has more basis [and so far, it doesn't], the representative will notify their team to investigate.

I gave your story a quick look. I'd like to address the self-exclusion situation first. I believe you didn't apply for a permanent exclusion but more to the "cool down period"? Thus, your account will be locked for 21 days or so, and after that, you'll get an option to continue the self-exclusion by permanently closing the account or to resume playing.

As with a case of self-exclusion, they have to stick with the cool-down period, they can't intervene the system by expediting the countdown or unlock it at will.

Please complete your story with more details and supporting evidence; the screenshot of those conversations, the betting history, etc. otherwise, no one will take it seriously. This sub-board runs on evidence. Below format will be much preferred:

If there is nothing else confiscated and you suffer no financial loss from the situation, I'm afraid there is no scam happened. The reward was a "bonus" and not part of your balance. Granted, they promised you them as a reward and if your story is 100% correct that the only time you lashed out was the earliest day where they froze your account [rightfully so, as part of their gambler protect act], I think they should be a bit more lenient. But still... there is no scam happened here. At least from my point of view.

Best I can do is to try to reach to Razer and see if he can reconsider your case, but if Rollbit stays firm with their initial decision, they have the right to do so.

I have to say that Rollbit still have ways to surprise me. I appreciate and respect Razer's decision to take the higher road, although they don't have to. I think there is no further discussion needed. I am marking this as resolved on the list. OP, use this as a hard and bitter pill to stay on track with your therapy. In spite of what's said here, we are all rooting for your well being. Please mark this thread as resolved and lock them to avoid spam.

Well, I'll say it's hard to resolve an accusation where there is nothing valid to be accused as there is no scam happened. And factually, and contrary to your belief, I am sure many of us here actually read all that's provided in this thread. Your insistence that no one read because they simply didn't stand in your side and supporting you just highlighted how... wide your mind is.

The future of blackjack and how long will they stay on this business is not related to your thread and your call, because [as said above and numerous times] they didn't do anything wrong to you.

No, they are not liable for any damage happened to you due to your own action [or inaction], there is a point on the self-exclusion that's bound to you when you applied for the self-exclusion program.

Another interesting thing that come to my awareness when re-reading your story, if you're really just forgot to mention the other account, that it didn't cross your mind because they didn't ask, or you assume that they remember that you own two accounts, why do you use singular form when you ask about the banned account? "can you please confirm that my account is permanently closed?" you said, not "my accounts".

Granted, English is not your main language, but your English is very good throughout this entire thread. I personally think if someone really has the best interest to put himself in an exclusion and just happened to forgot to mention the other account because it was not asked, they will not forgot to use the plural form when they ask for confirmation whether they've been completely locked out or not.

Add that to some discrepancies in your story like how you said you've been away for three days before trying to log in with other account, other statement said it's two days, while the other post shows it happened on 3rd and 4th of February, after only one day, I think it is fair if we consider this scenario below is what possibly actually transpires:

You ask for self-exclusion, realized shortly after that your other account was not restricted and the possibility that entails, made a "solid alibi" by asking to their representative [completely leaving out the part that you ask for self-exception] through the restricted account whether that account is permanently closed, conveniently leaving the other account under the guise of "didn't cross your mind", and here we are.

But that's just me and my theory. I usually don't send a PM to representatives while they've been invited by someone else to avoid redundancies, but I have to agree that perhaps Razer can shed some light into this story or, Razer probably even have his own wisdom regarding this and take a step to clear it. Thus, even though you've send him a PM, I'll try to invite him here and see how the story looks from his side.

They knew you had two accounts, true. But do you know for a fact that they remember both and to exclude both when you asked from one of it, especially [as previously mentioned] as their representative received only-god-knows how many cases every day, with so many username and ID? Or were you supposing they remember that the accounts are owned by the same person because you send their staffs with emails from both accounts?

True that one can argue that their system is automated, that they can easily detect a connected account, but do you know for a fact how their self-exclusion system works? That they typed an IP and the list of username and details popped up and then they add them to their exclusion list? Or were you supposing that's what happened?

Why can't we assume what happen is, they typed the username to lock that account out and then entered the IP address to block them from future attempt?

And yes, if you're really wanted to get better, you need to put an effort to it instead of just let people handle everything and assume everything is taken care of. If you're an alcohol addict that really wanted to get better and was asked how many whiskey do you drink daily, do you simply reply with "oh, six shots" because you can't remember to mention things they don't ask, or will it be "oh, six shots, but I also take two bottles of wine and several cans of beers"?

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but that's the fact: by not mentioning everything that could help them prevent you from your addiction, you're just half heartedly trying to get yourself away from your addiction.

And that is just if we assume you leave out the other account because you assumed they knew, and not deliberately leave it out just in case you encountered hiccups after that self exclusion.


Nope, one day, according to your own narrative, quoted below. Unless you want to change that?



So you come back after one day, and trying to log in to the account you accidentally-left-out/sure-you-don't-have-to-mention-as-they-should-already-know? Will it be a wild guess if someone think it's a quite convenient accident? You left out an account and try to log in to it on the next day. Half hearted and hiccups?


To help and facilitating someone from gambling addiction, but that does not translates as the platform being fully responsible for the "detoxification". Like all therapies work, you can't get well if you did not actively participating in it. They are there only to facilitate you. In order for it to work, you still need to actively trying to get away from it, and mentioning every accounts you have would be a good start.

As the initial deposit already returned and the winning voided [as a result of refusing KYC for suspicious ML activity], I think this case is as good as resolved. OP, I will much appreciate if you can confirm that you've receive the initial deposit, and mark this thread as resolved and lock it following that confirmation. But I can understand if you never come back here either. So... I am marking it as resolved on the list.

---

Umm... the point being conveyed here is multiple account is not allowed, action is/was taken against it, and any further attempt to create another one is highly discouraged, not... to be careful with the next account.

Coming from someone who take the time to read all [as many others here also did]... which one is it? You never ask to withdraw any money or they are a scammer until they pay what they owe you? Make up your mind.

As TravelMug nicely conveys, we are all here just trying to see the truth behind the story. None of us here is being benefited from your case, nor we are paid or incentivized at any degree by shuffle to support them. We are here simply to oversee a case.

Moving on to your case, from neutral perspective, I have to say that your reluctance to be open of your residency it is quite frown-inducing. And believe me when I say we are asking that not because we want to know about your private details, to be blunt, we probably couldn't care less about your residency.

It is asked because CasinoGuru's geolocator tag you as a US resident, and US is currently being a prohibited region from Shuffle. Combine that with the use of VPN... don't you agree if people think there is more to look for in this story?

All things considered, this case can be marked as resolved, then. Please mark the title as resolved [you can do that by editing your first post and add the word "resolved" to the title] and lock the thread to prevent meaningless posts. The button to lock the thread is at the bottom of the page. I am marking this as cleared on the list.

As for the claim "they are all frauds", I don't think it's necessarily true, as we've established, there is a miscommunication with your case, with the expired verification link and the language barrier and all. I have yet to find any evidence on past and present cases that they defrauded any forum member.