不当な判決 - 選手は、インターネットで調査してください (2ページ)

Hello, What I was expecting from mediation was a second, human reading.

Casinos provide the data they choose to provide. If that data is inaccurate, misleading, or purely technical, then the conclusion will inevitably reflect that.

If we follow the multi-account assumption in my case, it quickly stops making sense.

I’m accused of having more than three accounts, so at least four. One is mine, the only one I acknowledge, under my real identity.

That would mean at least three additional accounts. I was never told how many exactly, nor whether they were under my identity or different ones (should be easy to answer that question).

So let’s assume they are different identities. That would mean multiple individuals, each verified with their own ID and selfie, all using the same device, within a very short period of time, about 9 days.

All of them playing from the same phone.

Without using any deposit bonuses.

While one of the accounts was already winning.

What would be the logic behind that? That’s the kind of question I expected mediation to explore.

I do appreciate that Casino Guru provides a fast and free service, and that is important to highlight.

However, if I understand correctly, complaints can be classified as resolved, unresolved, or rejected. A rejected complaint means the player’s claim is considered unfounded.

When I received the message saying my complaint was rejected, I was honestly shocked. I had to stop my car because I couldn’t believe it. I expected anything but that outcome. I thought I would be asked for additional information, or that the case would be examined further.

From a player’s perspective, the impact of the word "rejected" is very strong. It effectively validates the casino’s position while portraying the player as being in the wrong.

In a case like this, where the conclusions rely on technical elements that can be open to interpretation, that feels particularly unfair.

Thank you for your time.

I understand your perspective. Sadly, even empathy won't resolve the situation, explained earlier, in a clearer way. The outcome is the same, but how bearable it is varies greatly from person to person.

If anyone prefers to be personal about the status "rejected," it is more of a personal choice. As you can easily see, we have no other statuses available for use. The issue is really not about an unfair verdict but about the way the players handle the outcome. Thats fair and I get it.

Take it from the other side: a player lodges a formal complaint against the casino. How does this sound to you? Later on, the player is proven wrong. Then the complaint is rejected. It is not associated with the player but with his complaint; the complaint is rejected, not the player.

I understand your feelings were hurt, but no structural fact-based process actually prevents that. I'm sorry that you feel this way and I appreciate your efforts.

Thank you for your response and for your empathy, I do appreciate it.

However, this is not about emotions. I am not reacting to the outcome on a personal level. I am questioning the process itself.

A serious accusation has been made, leading to the confiscation of a significant amount of money, yet I have not been given access to any verifiable evidence, nor a real opportunity to review or challenge it.

I genuinely believed that mediation would provide a second, human layer of analysis not just rely on technical data provided by one party, but also assess whether the overall situation actually makes sense.

And when I see that I am not an isolated case, it becomes even more concerning.

If mediation platforms fail to establish the truth in situations like this, what options are left for players to defend themselves?

This kind of situation does not just affect individual players, it damages trust in the entire industry.

In my case, why have I still not been told exactly how many accounts are allegedly associated with me or my device?

How would simply providing a number violate any privacy rules or reveal any sensitive internal security information?

And more importantly, isn’t it also about my own security to know whether my identity may have been used without my knowledge?

If this information cannot be shared for "privacy reasons," it raises a legitimate question as to whether those accounts were ever linked to my identity in the first place.

Finally, can you confirm whether the use of a VPN can result in shared IP addresses?

If so, how can a shared IP potentially generated by VPN usage that was explicitly recommended by the casino’s own support (as shown in my screenshots) be considered incriminating evidence?

How can following the casino’s own instructions later be used against a player? I gave all the evidences but obviously they have not been taken in consideration. 

Hello,

I understand the questions you're raising, and they are valid from a player's point of view.

However, the key limitation here remains the same: the assessment was not based on assumptions or general logic, but on a set of technical indicators that we were able to review directly with the casino. These indicators are not limited to IP address or VPN usage alone, and their evaluation does not depend on whether a specific scenario appears logical or likely from an outside perspective.

Regarding your question about the number of associated accounts, even seemingly simple details like this fall under the same restrictions tied to data sharing and internal detection methods. I understand why you would want that clarity, especially from a personal security standpoint, but this is not something we are able to disclose.

As for VPN usage, while it can result in shared IP addresses, it is not treated as standalone evidence. It is only one of many possible signals, and on its own would not lead to a conclusion like this.

At this point, there isn’t any additional information we can provide or further steps we can take on our side. The case has already been reviewed based on all available data.

I understand this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but this concludes our position on the matter.