BETFURY reopened self excluded account -> more losses, violation of TOS

[nutildah]

Use common sense. People with a gambling problem are those that file for self exclusion. People without a problem don't file.

For the 8th time, we don't know that he requested a self-exclusion -- you are just assuming he did based on the words in his posts (certainly not based on the screenshots of the emails). So your post makes no sense. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me now, and there's nothing left to say, so I won't be responding to you any further. Everyone else can read the thread and come to their own conclusions.

[Rating Place]

We know he requested self exclusion because he went to the self exclusion form. He clicked indefinitely and then Bet Fury sent an email. AHOY showed and explained the process.

OP's statements

self excluded account gets reopened

I self excluded with them on July 12th permanently

Anyway, I have some gambling problem

For obvious reason they should have never done that, it's called player protection.

So it's not like I have been in profit or anything before I self excluded.

nutildah

He didn't request a self exclusion though.

If it went to court, they would consider the OP a problem gambler that self-excluded and that Bet Fury should never have reopened the account. There are huge player protection laws and casinos get nice sized fines for doing what Bet Fury has done.

[/a]

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Well, what do you want them to say? Are you attempting to self exclude yourself, or not?

Hey. As I have stated before before, guess it went down because of your back and forth with Rating place, I have closed my account some months back. So now I will try to get it reopened. 

About your mention about this:

You CAN'T permanently exclude on the website. When you click on "indefinitely" it will tell you to send them an email, that's exactly what I did as well.

That's with the meaning of that there is no button to click to self exclude. If you click in the infinite sign it will tell you to send an email. That's why I said ON the website, not OFF/FROM the website. Anyway, my opinion is clear. They did OP wrong, clear as day. If he deserves his money back I don't know, but what betfury is doing, basically draining a for them lucrative player more, even though he closed his account before (which indicates there is an issue). If he was up and won off them I doubt they would have reopened the account and would have told him "according to our TOS, we can't bla bla bla...".

[...]
They could definitely improve things and they will need to have a permanent self-exclusion option available on the website itself by September if they want to be in line with the new CGA guidelines, which defines self-exclusion as the following:

Self-Exclusion: A long-term, irrevocable exclusion from all gambling activities under the operator’s licence.

[...]

I think it's there already, if I perceive image supplemented by AHOY correctly, just in different wording, indefinite instead of permanent. The infinite symbol would indicate that the duration of self exclusion is... well, infinite. Thus, permanent.

Exactly that. On point.

[nutildah]

Hey. As I have stated before before, guess it went down because of your back and forth with Rating place, I have closed my account some months back. So now I will try to get it reopened. 

I'm assuming they will reopen it as you stated the reason why you wanted it closed and it didn't have anything that remotely suggested you were self-excluding.

That's with the meaning of that there is no button to click to self exclude. If you click in the infinite sign it will tell you to send an email.

Per BetFury, you're supposed to specify the reason why you want to close your account (also found in their ToS):



I am not saying their self-exclusion process is perfect, and as already mentioned, they will have to allow players to self-exclude from the website w/o having to send an email by September if they want to be in line with new standards developed by the Curacao Gaming Authority.

However, the fact remains we have no evidence that suggests OP actually attempted to self-exclude, outside of their word. We don't know they sent the email because they were directed to by the Responsible Gaming portion of the website. The email address shows up in more than a dozen different places on the website. You are just taking OP's word for it.

[Rating Place]

There's 100% proof. He clicked the Self-Exclusion form. The confirmation says "we are sorry you have decided to exclude your account"

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Per BetFury, you're supposed to specify the reason why you want to close your account (also found in their ToS):


However, the fact remains we have no evidence that suggests OP actually attempted to self-exclude, outside of their word. We don't know they sent the email because they were directed to by the Responsible Gaming portion of the website. The email address shows up in more than a dozen different places on the website. You are just taking OP's word for it.

HUH? When I closed my account you know what I wrote why I wanted to close it? I wrote that the site sucks ballz, there you go. 
But anyway, this reason you "need" to provide is not necessary. Friend of mine also closed his account, with basically the same email as OP. "Close my account, thanks." That's all there is.

What word of OP am I taking for exactly? He has proven he closed his account, he has the confirmation email which is word for word the same that I got when I did the exact same thing.

By the way, in this confirmation reply they also state:

"We also encourage you to review our Responsible Gaming guidelines here:
https://docs.betfury.com/betfury/responsible-gaming-and-gambling"

So why oh why would they mention this in the acknowledgement email of the closure request if closing an account is so separate from responsible gambling? I wonder. 

Anyway, not fighting/arguing with you obviously. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[nutildah]

HUH? When I closed my account you know what I wrote why I wanted to close it? I wrote that the site sucks ballz, there you go.  

You literally said what you wrote:

You can give them a reason of course, my reason that I wrote that the site and games are terrible.  

This shows no indication that you have a gambling addition problem; as such they have no reason to think you were requesting a self-exclusion.

But anyway, this reason you "need" to provide is not necessary. Friend of mine also closed his account, with basically the same email as OP. "Close my account, thanks." That's all there is.

Its quite obvious the reason is necessary. Let's say they treated all voluntary account closures as permanent self-exclusions. Let's say someone requested an account closure for any other reason, then requested it to be re-opened, and the casino said "sorry but you self-excluded therefore we can't re-open your account." Would that make much sense to you?

What word of OP am I taking for exactly? He has proven he closed his account, he has the confirmation email which is word for word the same that I got when I did the exact same thing.

What is preventing the account from being re-opened given BetFury had no knowledge the player was trying to self-exclude themselves?

By the way, in this confirmation reply they also state:

"We also encourage you to review our Responsible Gaming guidelines here:
https://docs.betfury.com/betfury/responsible-gaming-and-gambling"

So why oh why would they mention this in the acknowledgement email of the closure request if closing an account is so separate from responsible gambling? I wonder.  

That is also in OP's email screenshot. And if you would have read the guidelines, you would have seen this:



OP's emails don't show anything "regarding a request for self-exclusion" or give a reason why they want their account closed.

[Rating Place]

You're just trolling. The confirmation from Bet Fury says he self-excluded.

[holydarkness]

The problem is people like you drag threads on for months when it should take days because you have no common sense. The OP followed the form for self exclusion. The process is that Bet Fury then needs an email. Ahoy explained it. In order to get the account opened up, he had to lie and say it wasn't a gambling problem. Just look at the title of the thread, self excluded.

The OP is right. The account shouldn't have been reopened.

I will suggest you to stop and do yourself a favor of saving your own face, and whatever left of your reputation. When I said let's put things to bed, I am not just saying words, I put words into action, and action moves wheels.

I am still bound by limitation as OP didn't give his consent, just like BetFury bound by his privacy policy that didn't allow them to let me see evidence. But, to put it simply, this is an open forum, anyone can see what's written on what post on what thread without an account [of which I guess OP currently also do: reading from guest mode and gauge the development of his complaint].

My contact happened [well, as most of my contact do, as they're from risk and compliance, not support] to be not the one who handle BF forum account, but a nudge from me is enough to start a chain of reaction that ended with them having the full connversation at hand. The very same full conversation that they are ready to share to me upon OP's blessing. The very same full conversation that tell the exact opposite narrative of what OP tried to convey here. The very same full conversation that proves that my hunch is correct, there is more to this email, and it tells an entirely different story:



The very same full conversation that made my contact assured me that OP never asked for self-exclusion. So, yeah, do yourself a favor and safe your image by stop posting gibberish.

Oh, wait, do yourself one more favor to safe your reputation,

You're just trolling. The confirmation from Bet Fury says he self-excluded.

Where did this image, that's fashioned in your wording, indicated that it came from OP's side, came from? Certainly you did not fabricate things? I can add this to your ever-growing list of questions that question your fairness and integrity, if you choose to answer that later?


Edit: found it, it's not the image that BetFury said to OP when he self excluded. It's a welcome message [that you snipped] that nutildah showed, that greets players, when they initiate self-exclusion. Initiate, that's the keywords here. That snippet is not a confirmation from BetFury when he self excluded.

[Rating Place]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

[nutildah]

Where did this image, that's fashioned in your wording, indicated that it came from OP's side, came from? Certainly you did not fabricate things? I can add this to your ever-growing list of questions that question your fairness and integrity, if you choose to answer that later?

LOL. Rating Place just cut my screenshot in half, that I made just now to demonstrate the process is in line with their ToS, and called it "100% Proof" OP clicked the self-exclusion form.   What a nutter. Clearly there is no need for this exercise in stupidity to continue.

Thanks HD for your diligence in pursuing the truth of the matter as always.

Nutildah over and out

[Rating Place]

Where did this image, that's fashioned in your wording, indicated that it came from OP's side, came from? Certainly you did not fabricate things? I can add this to your ever-growing list of questions that question your fairness and integrity, if you choose to answer that later?

LOL. Rating Place just cut my screenshot in half, that I made just now to demonstrate the process is in line with their ToS, and called it "100% Proof" OP clicked the self-exclusion form.   What a nutter. Clearly there is no need for this exercise in stupidity to continue.

Thanks HD for your diligence in pursuing the truth as always.

Nutildah over and out

I thought you posted it for this case and I just cut the important part. My mistake if it was in general.

Both you and holy take way too long to see the obvious.

This is self exclusion 101. You are too new to it. You just found out yesterday about CGA.

[holydarkness]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

Yeah, found it, my bad. I compose the reply with my morning coffee, over a restless sleep [my chronic-non-organic-acute insomnia hits their peak again], I guess I missed it, and it instantly reflected on my above edit.

Now... I don't see the... what? The obvious? Es tut, aber... uhh, if you happened to not read the entire four pages [of which mostly filled by your posts], my last post should at least gives clarity of the most recent development, "the obvious" is just one "yes" away from me. And I've got an assurance from my contact that the narrative is the exact opposite, that OP never asked for exclusion.

[Rating Place]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

Yeah, found it, my bad. I compose the reply with my morning coffee, over a restless sleep [my chronic-non-organic-acute insomnia hits their peak again], I guess I missed it, and it instantly reflected on my above edit.

Now... I don't see the... what? The obvious? Es tut, aber... uhh, if you happened to not read the entire four pages [of which mostly filled by your posts], my last post should at least gives clarity of the most recent development, "the obvious" is just one "yes" away from me. And I've got an assurance from my contact that the narrative is the exact opposite, that OP never asked for exclusion.

It’s filled with my posts because everyone said self exclusion and nut changed it and said it wasn’t self exclusion. I get caught up with you two because you drag simple cases on for months.

As Ahoy said, no one writes the real reason after getting the email back. You should know this. I only post in obvious cases.

[holydarkness]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

Yeah, found it, my bad. I compose the reply with my morning coffee, over a restless sleep [my chronic-non-organic-acute insomnia hits their peak again], I guess I missed it, and it instantly reflected on my above edit.

Now... I don't see the... what? The obvious? Es tut, aber... uhh, if you happened to not read the entire four pages [of which mostly filled by your posts], my last post should at least gives clarity of the most recent development, "the obvious" is just one "yes" away from me. And I've got an assurance from my contact that the narrative is the exact opposite, that OP never asked for exclusion.

It’s filled with my posts because everyone said self exclusion and nut changed it and said it wasn’t self exclusion. I get caught up with you two because you drag simple cases on for months.

As Ahoy said, no one writes the real reason after getting the email back. You should know this.

Because it wasn't self exclusion request. Full stop. End of story.

ELI5: to ask for self exclusion, a player will need to specify the reason, they need to [I guess] at least write the word "exclude" or "addiction" or the likes, that'll help support to know your issue. Sans, self-exclusion won't apply. So: one, self-exclusion requires an explanation and/or reason. Two, without such wording, BF can't lock an account for self exclusion. One plus two equals no self-exclusionn.

Is this system perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Does this means OP ask for self exclusion? No. Most definitely no. Not only OP didn't write anything about exclusion, only a request to close account, I was assured that the other half of the email contain something entirely different that barely indicate any problematic gambling.

[Rating Place]

It was self exclusion. He clicked indefinite or infinity on the self exclusion form.Then an email was sent to him requesting the reason for self exclusion.

Part of the problem is that Bet Fury’s self exclusion form combines cooling-off and self-exclusion because of their time frames.

All the books use different forms, some have to be notarized. Even though they look different they all are self-exclusion and industry standard.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

Yeah, found it, my bad. I compose the reply with my morning coffee, over a restless sleep [my chronic-non-organic-acute insomnia hits their peak again], I guess I missed it, and it instantly reflected on my above edit.

Now... I don't see the... what? The obvious? Es tut, aber... uhh, if you happened to not read the entire four pages [of which mostly filled by your posts], my last post should at least gives clarity of the most recent development, "the obvious" is just one "yes" away from me. And I've got an assurance from my contact that the narrative is the exact opposite, that OP never asked for exclusion.

It’s filled with my posts because everyone said self exclusion and nut changed it and said it wasn’t self exclusion. I get caught up with you two because you drag simple cases on for months.

As Ahoy said, no one writes the real reason after getting the email back. You should know this.

Because it wasn't self exclusion request. Full stop. End of story.

ELI5: to ask for self exclusion, a player will need to specify the reason, they need to [I guess] at least write the word "exclude" or "addiction" or the likes, that'll help support to know your issue. Sans, self-exclusion won't apply. So: one, self-exclusion requires an explanation and/or reason. Two, without such wording, BF can't lock an account for self exclusion. One plus two equals no self-exclusionn.

Is this system perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Does this means OP ask for self exclusion? No. Most definitely no. Not only OP didn't write anything about exclusion, only a request to close account, I was assured that the other half of the email contain something entirely different that barely indicate any problematic gambling.

Whatever, I'm out of this one, this time for real.

[Rating Place]

I got it from nutildah. It’s not fashioned in my words. Just stop your attacks. The reason these cases go so long is that you don’t see the obvious.

Yeah, found it, my bad. I compose the reply with my morning coffee, over a restless sleep [my chronic-non-organic-acute insomnia hits their peak again], I guess I missed it, and it instantly reflected on my above edit.

Now... I don't see the... what? The obvious? Es tut, aber... uhh, if you happened to not read the entire four pages [of which mostly filled by your posts], my last post should at least gives clarity of the most recent development, "the obvious" is just one "yes" away from me. And I've got an assurance from my contact that the narrative is the exact opposite, that OP never asked for exclusion.

It’s filled with my posts because everyone said self exclusion and nut changed it and said it wasn’t self exclusion. I get caught up with you two because you drag simple cases on for months.

As Ahoy said, no one writes the real reason after getting the email back. You should know this.

Because it wasn't self exclusion request. Full stop. End of story.

ELI5: to ask for self exclusion, a player will need to specify the reason, they need to [I guess] at least write the word "exclude" or "addiction" or the likes, that'll help support to know your issue. Sans, self-exclusion won't apply. So: one, self-exclusion requires an explanation and/or reason. Two, without such wording, BF can't lock an account for self exclusion. One plus two equals no self-exclusionn.

Is this system perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Does this means OP ask for self exclusion? No. Most definitely no. Not only OP didn't write anything about exclusion, only a request to close account, I was assured that the other half of the email contain something entirely different that barely indicate any problematic gambling.

Whatever, I'm out of this one, this time for real.

Your original was 100% right. This is truly crazy not to recognize this as self-exclusion.  Hopefully I can stop here too. It looks like BetFury sends a confirmation to self-exclusion and then asks for a reason that no one is going to put the reason.

[fallingxx]

I have a feeling this discussion is going nowhere. Why some people here defend betfury is a bit odd for me but I think that is the forum. Some people will sell their soul just to defend scam casinos. Will close this thread for now to avoid further fights between members. Taking this case to an arbitration site from now on and let's see what they say about it. Can only try.