Okay, now let's summarize it again:
1. You wrote me:
'It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'
What is that rule?
'In the event that Lucky Emperor Casino deems a Player to have misused a casino account for the exploitation of promotional offers, without ever demonstrating any degree of risk with personal funds or serious intention to play, the redemption of all such promotional offers, including but not limited to sign-up bonuses, will be suspended until such times as the Player demonstrates a playing history whereby a risk of personal funds is periodically demonstrated at the Casino.'
So if we just consider the rule itself, I am not treated unfairly, because the rule doesn't fit my case. It writes 'any'. I fulfilled any. It writes 'or'. This or this. So one part of the requirements is enough. I fulfilled any: so the conclusion: my reward points are on lock without legal reason. Moreover, if after this you also insit on serious intentions (that will make the rule faulity as I described in the opening thread, but okay let us agree on a faulty rule, and let's consider that), I have wagered in Casino Action 6000-8000with deposited money included, and then come the other places, sometimes with ND bonus, sometimes with bonus + deposit, sometimes with deposit alone, so alltogether maybe 10000. I don't know, I haven't couted that strictly. So you say the rule is fair to be used in my case. That means: for you 10000 in wager is unserious? Well, it is ridiculous? What is the serious intention accoarding to you then? Deposit and loose?
So let's see what you say is fair, so far:
1.There is a faulty rule, and it deosn't fit my case anyway, yet I am restricted because of this rule. In spite of it you agree on that I am restricted, when the rule doesn't fit my case, and it is faulty.
2. You don't consider 10000 in WR serious intentions. When 10000 is way way!!! much more than my deposit and bonus sum, and my bonus + deposit ratio is 50-50% approximately.
Excuse me, but for me this acceptance of fairness the same time when these things are present doesn't corresponds to your mission in my opinion. So if you think the act of the casino fair with these added, I cannot look on you as somebody who is following his own mission. Moreover, if you say the casino is fair with these facts added, it means the same as if you would deem me an abuser too. If wouldn't, you wouldn't agree on the fairness here.
Let's go further, to the second level:
We arrived to the core of the problem: the sepcific case when that Lucky Emperor bonus was denied. What happened?
1. The casino writes: '6.After making your deposit, the Casino will credit your casino account with your bonus. Please allow up to two hours for this to take place.'
So there was this rule. There was the fact that even if my reward account had been locked long before, I received deposit bonuses meanwhile. So there was no reason for me to stay away for the reward ban, because the deposit bonuses worked. So I decided to deposit, to receive the Lucky Emperor bonus, just as in case I received it at Casino action, Captain Cooks, etc. at the same time when my reward account was locked. To make sure I will get the bonus (I often ask for such confirmation in any casino before I deposit, just to make sure I am 100% eligible, this is my regular custom!), what happens?:
2. The Live Chat operator confirms I am eligible for the bonus at Lucky Emperor. Eligible!
So he also confirmed I will get a bonus. I have posted the transcript about it, and sent it to you. And he must have seen all my balances (reward too), becasuse the support described me much later when making complaint, that the reward balance is part of the casino balance (I also have the confirmation letter about this). So no excuse to the operator, he had to see everything. If I ask him about my bonus, he had to consider both balances, because they are the same.
Yet, after the deposit, no bonus. And in spite of it, you write:
'It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'
After all the misleading, you don't find they were unfair. They mileaded me, there is proof, yet that doesn't interest you, and think the casino was fair.
Well, again, anyhow I look on it, I cannot discover the sign in this reaction about that you follow your mission. If you don't find these unfair, that you agree with them, so you find it okay if they mislead me. Well, this doesn't correspond to your mission in my opinion.
Let's go fruther to the next level:
So what we have so far?
1. The casino uses a faulty rule against me, that rule doesn't fit my activity. So they are not correct. However, you find this fair.
2. The casino posts info about a process, they confirm it on live chat, then the opposite happens, and I have loss because of this (not because I lost my 100, but they offer the 100% bonus, so I was expecting to have 100 balance after my losses, and I can continue playing if I get it, maybe win back my loss, I would have had more chance to win with the plus 100, etc., so I deposited in this faith). Yet, in spite of the clear proof of misleading, you find it okay if the casino treats me as it treated.
And, as a summary of all this, you post this PAB summary: ''Player reported that they were an active player at the casino, didn't like that they had been bonus banned. Player had a history of hooving up bonuses but depositing very little. Closed.'
So, again: the casino misleaded me, the casino uses a faulty rule that doesn't fit my activity as a reason for it, but in spite of this this is all the things you can conclude. And even this conclusion is dodgy. Why? Because it suggests that the casino treated me fairly because of my behaviour. Is this okay if the summary sggests this? No way! Why? Because accoarding to the rule little play is not a problem already. It says 'any'. So if you suggest that everything is okay, because I deposited little (that is also not true), the summary is faulty. Based on little, you are not right. Moerover with such a summary you say: I agree on looking a ratio of 50-50% for deposits and bonuses to be considered little deposit amounts. So someone who deposits an almost equal amount to what he received in bonuses has deposited little amount compared to the bonus amount received? Accoarding to the summary, yes. Well, this is far from being yes in my opinion. So all in all, the casino misleads me, excludes me unrightfully, yet you agree on it and present me as a dumb. Thank you!
So, again, with these added, I am even more on the opinion that you don't follow your won mission. Once again, why?:
1. The casino uses a rule against me to exclude me from what was promised to me. The rule is faulty anyway.
2. The casino clearly misleaded me, both with written info, and both by live chat.
In spite of this you write:
''It is fully within their rights to do this and we don't see it as an unreasonable or unfair policy.'
There were cases when there were written rules, the player didn't follow them, lost money, complained, and no matter that the casino presented rules, you blamed the casino. Okay, there are ethics. But how is it then that there is written info, there is live chat confirmed info, I follow these, and the casinos behaves on the opposite way, yet you agree with them, so my complaint is not legit then accoarding to you. So, it seems, for you if a player is making complains because he lost money, however there were written rules that he broke, that is okay for you, but when a player is making complaints about that he received info from the casino, he followed it, yet the casino behaved on the opposite way than the one presented in the info, then you don't find that complaint rightful, but consider the casino fair.
Excuse me Meister, but anyhow I consider these, these things and your behavior don't reflect to me that you follow your mission. I am unable to see that case the opposite way with these things added. And that's why I felt it rightful to make a complaint. Not because I want to be a marthyr, just because I felt that your mission statement is only for display. If I started my thread the way as I did it, it was not because I wanted to be the marthyr and show I am brave and dare to stand against you here on your playground, but because of my disappointment. My disappointment about something that seemed true for the first sight, but when I participated it turned out for me it is not. I think this is why people write feedback. Has an experience, and write good or bad. I had a bad experience, and I reflected this.