Falke wrote on 06.06.2022 at 23:40
Is a bit older the post, but still like to reply to it.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's completely unworldly moralistic statements where you try to make yourself out to be the better person.
I have already made enough life experience that just such people then in other topics so nothing to do with morality. But this is not meant to be an insinuation in your direction, just a note not to always represent all players who make reclamations as a full chassis.
The casinos deliberately take the Risk of offering their services illegally. Therefore, they must also reckon with clawbacks.
And seriously assume that either a gambling addict will not accept the offer or someone who has lost his entire existence with it and now gets a second chance is completely unworldly.
The one who went broke because of the casinos will definitely have a bad conscience if he sues a company worth millions, where the casino owner drives his Ferrari to Monaco and makes himself comfortable for a few days on his yacht with the best champagne.
Rather, people who represent your view are morally questionable to look at, that you prefer to grant the owner a few champagne bottles more than the player in the one-room apartment.
And this only because the players make use of their right. It's not like the players are doing an illegal chargeback or anything. Hell no. German judges pronounce a verdict, whether you like it or not. And the fact is that the casinos are active in the knowledge of the illegality in the respective country.
And the bottom line is that despite the refunds, they still make more than enough money in those countries. And to emphasize it again - illegal
Completely correct contribution!
Not only that the casinos as described above illegally offered their service in Germany, and squeezed out every cent
have. No, they have also dared to interpret their terms and conditions, payouts and verifications according to lord of the manor, as
they wanted. Knowing full well that the "normal" player does not have the necessary means to defend himself against this, and even if he does, fear
because he has committed a crime himself. That is already brazen from the casinos.
If the casinos had kept a low profile and left everything within the framework, there would probably have been fewer clawbacks.
But with an illegal offer the people still to vera...... that can only backfire.
From a moral question I can recognize here nothing. One can differentiate at the most into smart ones, which try to get their money back,
and not so smart, who just let it dubious casino structures. To each his own.
Incidentally, we have here the thread that a casino has paid out twice. Also a moral question. Strangely enough everyone advises
to keep the money. So certain gamblers divide the morality again into individual subareas
According to the argumentation here, everyone who slipped into private insolvency would have to be stoned.
Many of these people have only themselves to blame. Indebtedness, risky self-employment, etc
What about those who still have money to get and can't do anything about it?
And why is hardly donated here, although so many moralizers are on the way?
Everything is strange.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
verified
Former Member
Reclaim Casino Losses 888 Diary
7th Jun. 2022, at 12:11 pm CEST#102
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
I also think that this eternal moral chatter should stop here.
The fact is: Every German citizen has the right, if he is of the opinion that he has a legitimate claim against a third party, to file a complaint with the court and - if the complaint is accepted - to have the court decide on the facts of the case; if a judge, or a chamber, passes a judgment, then that is the application of the applicable law, nothing else.
And where the law is recognized, the question of individual, and mostly subjective, moral concepts is not applicable.
Who does not like this circumstance, should first deal with his own - disturbed - relationship to our civil jurisdiction, instead of sweeping in front of other people's front door.
Reclaim Casino Losses 888 Diary
Liked this post:
Falke
Completely correct contribution!
Not only that the casinos as described above illegally offered their service in Germany, and squeezed out every cent
have. No, they have also dared to interpret their terms and conditions, payouts and verifications according to lord of the manor, as
they wanted. Knowing full well that the "normal" player does not have the necessary means to defend himself against this, and even if he does, fear
because he has committed a crime himself. That is already brazen from the casinos.
If the casinos had kept a low profile and left everything within the framework, there would probably have been fewer clawbacks.
But with an illegal offer the people still to vera...... that can only backfire.
From a moral question I can recognize here nothing. One can differentiate at the most into smart ones, which try to get their money back,
and not so smart, who just let it dubious casino structures. To each his own.
Incidentally, we have here the thread that a casino has paid out twice. Also a moral question. Strangely enough everyone advises
to keep the money. So certain gamblers divide the morality again into individual subareas
According to the argumentation here, everyone who slipped into private insolvency would have to be stoned.
Many of these people have only themselves to blame. Indebtedness, risky self-employment, etc
What about those who still have money to get and can't do anything about it?
And why is hardly donated here, although so many moralizers are on the way?
Everything is strange.
This post has been translated automatically
Reclaim Casino Losses 888 Diary
Nobody has liked this post so far
The fact is: Every German citizen has the right, if he is of the opinion that he has a legitimate claim against a third party, to file a complaint with the court and - if the complaint is accepted - to have the court decide on the facts of the case; if a judge, or a chamber, passes a judgment, then that is the application of the applicable law, nothing else.
And where the law is recognized, the question of individual, and mostly subjective, moral concepts is not applicable.
Who does not like this circumstance, should first deal with his own - disturbed - relationship to our civil jurisdiction, instead of sweeping in front of other people's front door.
This post has been translated automatically