Are the "administrative timeframes" of a casino above the official Responsible Gaming regulations?

I am opening this thread to discuss a mediation criterion that is extremely dangerous for the gaming community.

I recently filed a case against an operator who took four days (96 hours) to block my account, despite my having explicitly notified them of my loss of control via support chat and email. During that time, the account remained operational and without deposit restrictions.

The serious issue is that VERONIKA from mediation dismissed the claim under the argument that 4 days is a "reasonable timeframe" due to the casino's manual verification processes, and that the casino's license contradicts this.

To demonstrate this, on another platform that operates under the same license, the support channel offered me a 1-week preventative block immediately from the chat itself and processed the final closure in just 1 hour.

Is it fair or impartial to validate a casino's delays beyond the mandatory guidelines of its regulatory body and what other operators with the same license demonstrate is technically possible?

If a user reports vulnerability and asks for help, leaving the account active for 96 hours violates every basic principle of Responsible Gaming.

Hello, that's certainly an excellent point. And as you demonstrated, the practical part is not dependent on the licensing theory but rather on the willingness and the actual platform possibilities. The first scenario sounds superb to me.

Therefore, I would ask what the specific licensing authority can add to this.

Radka,

Thank you for your response. However, there is a crucial point: while I understand that Casino Guru is not a legally binding regulatory authority, its word and decisions carry enormous weight in the industry and with players.

The reputation rating you assign to a casino and the criteria you use to resolve complaints set the standard for what is acceptable. If mediation concludes that the implementation of Responsible Gaming depends solely on the casino's "willingness" rather than its licensing obligations, you are essentially giving operators a green light to ignore calls for help without any negative impact on their rating.

An impartial mediator with the reach of Casino Guru should not validate as "reasonable" that a casino ignores a self-exclusion for 96 hours due to a lack of willingness.

I was not by any means commenting about the complaint associated with this discussion. Because, just as I mentioned, there is no benchmark, and each case is considered separate based on each casino's capabilities. That's why I understand your perspective, but we cannot do anything about it. Thus, just as I said, I would love to see the regulator explain its control over those settings directly to players whose complaints the authority does not resolve. In that case, you as a player would be welcome to push the matter to the regulator, but sadly most of them do not care. This leaves us in a very strange position, working based on what we know is considered a standard among operators. Whether we agree or disagree, this is how casinos actually work. You say the casino has ignored you for 96 hours; I get it. From another perspective, though: Do you know when exactly the email request was read by the real person?

It's not easy and I understand you very well.

this is not going to be nice but the Safery Index is the probability that you will be paid. It's not related to responsible practices because there is no real benchmark at all. And because we are familiar with this, the special responsible gambling index is about to be launched but it's not part of the index focusing on the probability of paying winnings.

Once more, I understand that this situation is not acceptable to you. I don't disagree with you on your opinion. Just please respect this; this is how it is.

Radka,

I greatly appreciate your honesty. Your answer completely clarifies the situation and reveals a fundamental truth that every player should know:

The Safety Index does not protect the vulnerable player: Openly acknowledging that the Safety Index only measures whether a casino pays out and not whether it complies with Responsible Gambling explains why 96-hour delays are validated for operators who ignore requests for help.

The excuse of operational delays falls apart under scrutiny: Asking "Do you know when the actual person read the email?" is an attempt to shift the casino's negligence onto the user. As concrete proof that this isn't a technical limitation but a lack of will, I tested it with Rio Play (which operates under the same Curacao license): their support team offered an immediate preventative block via chat and processed the final closure via email in just one hour. The fact that one operator takes 60 minutes and another 96 hours isn't a coincidence or an administrative issue; it's a deliberate breach of contract.

Standards are set by the regulator, not the convenience of the casino: If each site individually decides its own timings above the mandatory regulations (Section 9.2.3.1 of the CGA), the concept of player protection is reduced to a mere suggestion.

Before demanding respect for decisions made, it would be good to carefully read all of a person's arguments before lightly labeling a complaint as "unjustified," thus avoiding appearing as lapdogs of casino operators.

This conversation makes it clear that responsible gaming standards are not guaranteed in private mediation. I consider the debate closed here and will continue my formal complaint to the Curaçao Gaming Authority.

Incidentally, one important detail:

It would also be good if, in addition to the obvious bias with which they close cases in favor of casinos, they did not proceed to cancel or disapprove the truthful reviews that we users try to leave, telling exactly what happened.

Blocking or silencing a player's real experience in their reviews to protect the operator's image only confirms the level of bias with which they operate.

I understand this is the way you chose to interpret it. If this makes you feel that something is biased, I would appreciate if you could explain that without accusing anyone or turning to repetitive assumptions.

From your perspective, we present someone you can blame because the regulator does not care how casinos approach his own regulations, while we allow you to complain and provide an interactive forum. I understand the situation is difficult to accept. Once more, we are not regulators, and we have our own limits based on practice we are aware of; we do not work with theory. that would mean that we would need to treat each casino differently based on its license. That's not what we do and it's not what you should expect.

The user review: To keep all the ratings unbiased, we cannot accept user reviews based on the rejected complaint. I imagine the situation poses another point for misinterpretation from your side.

Despite the way you keep going on the forum, like in the other thread, I know it pains you deeply and I understand that.

Radka,

This isn't about "interpretations" or "assumptions." This is about basic responsibility.

You explicitly state that they ignore licensing regulations and treat operator non-compliance as standard practice. The fact that they give Megapari an 8.8 rating on their site demonstrates that this metric is clearly misleading and that no one should rely on their ratings. Expecting a platform that claims to protect users to enforce basic Responsible Gaming standards is not unreasonable; it's the bare minimum. By ignoring official regulations (such as the CGA guidelines on delays in self-exclusion) and shielding casinos under the guise of "industry practice," they are actively condoning abusive behavior.

Conveniently blocking user reviews based on rejected complaints only confirms how the system is structured to protect operators and suppress criticism. You don't need to lecture me about how I feel or try to treat me with condescension; the facts and the regulatory framework speak for themselves.