Yuugado Casino - Player has experienced technical glitches while playing.

I would like to report a complaint against Yugado as follows.

There are many violations of the rules and ADR rules, and I am completely unconvinced.

Please check below.

On December 25th of last year, "an event where the result is displayed first and actually confirmed at that location" occurred in the live roulette video.

I won the bet itself, but I felt distrust and fear of being "live" and asked the support department to investigate.

On December 29, I applied for the settlement of the deposit and withdrawal amount based on the following terms of use because I did not receive a contact even after the "3 days" which is the standard reply.

6.2 (currently 7.2) * Excerpt

Breckenridge may cancel and / or refund bets in situations outside Breckenridge's control, such as unforeseen technical issues or technical issues of third party providers.

On December 31, the survey results finally arrived, reporting "delay due to video synchronization error", but imposing responsibility as "possibility due to user's usage environment (terminal load, communication environment)". rice field.

If the cause is a synchronization error, it is the responsibility of the distributor.

Live video is a kind of "download video", and since the digital video itself is composed of "concatenation of still images", the phenomenon that only a part of the video is delayed does not occur.

Since then, we have commented that "video synchronization is the responsibility of the distribution side" and that "only a part of the video video will not be delayed" in the user's usage environment, but we will not respond to the opinion.

Also, on January 6th, he explained "Warning that he agreed to Terms of Service 6.2 (currently 7.2)" and on January 8th, "Terms of Service 6.2 is the troubleshooting procedure".

6.2 6.2

Breckenridge may cancel and / or refund bets in situations outside Breckenridge's control, such as unforeseen technical issues or technical issues of third party providers. You also acknowledge that your connection to your computer or mobile device and the Internet may affect the performance and operation of the Website. Breckenridge is not responsible for any malfunction or problem caused by your device, internet connection, or third party provider. This includes cases where you cannot bet or view or receive information related to a particular game.

After that, I continued to ask for an explanation of "Terms of Service 6.2 Applicable Parts and Grounds", but did not answer this question either.

Then, on January 19, I answered the exact opposite of "I can't select from Terms of Use 6.2" in the last email I received, and ignored all subsequent emails.

■ The above measures violate "Terms of Service 9.2 (currently 10.2)".

9.2

Complaints are addressed by the customer support team and escalated within Breckenridge if the support agent cannot resolve them immediately. The user shall be reasonably notified of the status of the claim. We will always endeavor to resolve your claim in the shortest possible time and within 14 business days under normal circumstances.

On January 27th, I applied for ADR to Curacao E-gaming (CEG) because I could not contact at all, and on January 30th, the "ADR thread for problem solving" was shared.

* The ADR rules have the following contents (excerpt)

• The points and responses are true and must be submitted in a timely manner. The statement should be accompanied by additional evidence and appropriate identification.

CEG is running CC on the player and all recipients should always be kept in CC.

• CEG may seek information, documents, or evidence from the parties to support their position. If this happens, CEG shall include both parties in the email and all recipients unless any of the above contains sensitive and / or sensitive information such as investigative methods, third parties, etc. It is mandatory to include it in all communications at all times.

On February 1, a person calling himself a "message translation company" called and told me that "account was frozen", so when I confirmed the person who was calling to the support department by e-mail, the next day, "an employee called". I received an answer.

* It turned out that the Yugado employee made a phone call "lying to his identity" even though he was asked to show his ID.

In addition, on February 7, the above content was falsely reported in the ADR thread as "an employee called and the problem was solved".

■ The above report is a false report and no evidence has been submitted. It violates the ADR rule.

On April 7th, CEG requested Yugado to submit "related terms of use", but I did not receive a reply after that.

Then, on April 19, I suddenly received an email from CEG stating that I supported Yugado's claim.

* Although it is not confidential information, it was found in this e-mail that on April 8th, I intentionally lost my opportunity to refute, so I removed the CC and submitted the related terms.

■ The above measures violate the ADR rules for CC retention obligations.

In the above email, "Terms of Service 6.1 (currently 7.1)" was attached as a related agreement, and it was claimed that it was within this range.

6.1.

Breckenridge does not guarantee that our website is perfect and works error-free, that you have uninterrupted access to the website and the games it offers, and that the website and games are fit for purpose. That you are. Breckenridge makes no such warranty, express or suggestive.

The above "Terms of Service 6.1" means "I do not guarantee that the site is error-free", not "I do not guarantee errors".

In the first place, even though I warned "I agree to Terms of Service 6.2" and said that it was a troubleshooting procedure, I removed the CC holding and submitted it so that I can not refute it, it is a completely unrelated agreement.

It is an unfair practice that does not comply with ADR rules and is the application of improper terms.

Just in case, when I checked with Yugado Chat Support about "the meaning of Terms of Use 6.1", I received an answer that contradicts Yugado's claim that "it does not state that it does not guarantee errors".

Since I am not completely convinced of the above "Violation of Terms of Use", "Violation of ADR Rules", and "Application of Inappropriate Terms of Use 6.1 Not Related to Error Guarantee Issues", "Fulfillment of Obligations" according to the following Terms of Use I was looking for.

1 (excerpt)

These Terms of Use and the documents expressly mentioned herein constitute an agreement and understanding between the parties and govern the contractual relationship between us and you.

3.7 3.7

Breckenridge, in our sole discretion, without any explanation if we consider that continuing our business relationship with you may adversely affect our licenses and general rule obligations, or any of our services. , Refuse to open a personal account, or reserve the right to freeze or close your account at any time. However, the contractual obligations already made by Breckenridge do not prejudice Breckenridge's right to use by law.

It shall be observed.

However, in the "Terms Amendment" implemented on June 14, the part of Terms of Use 3.7 has been amended and "Newly established as Terms of Use 12." However, the contractual obligations that have already been made will be observed. The content corresponding to one sentence of "." Has also been deleted.

As mentioned above, it is an unfair response that does not comply with the terms of use and rules that are inconvenient for the company.

We continue to ignore all communications from me, so please support us.

Dear newinspa2,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your problem. Could you please forward any supporting evidence, such as screenshots or videos, possibly your game history along with any relevant communication to petronela.k@casino.guru?

Please understand, that without any supporting evidence we can’t proceed further with this case as it would be close to impossible to confront the casino.

Meanwhile, please check our article explaining "How slot machines are programmed" and maybe it’ll help to understand how servers communicate with players and what issues might occur on the way.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Best regards,

Petronela

PS: Please advise the disputed amount.

Petronella

Thank you for your help.

Thank you for your support.

Regarding this case, since it occurred while playing the game as usual, we have not recorded it and do not have the corresponding round video.

On December 31st, the game company reported that the event that a part of the video was delayed was "video delay due to video synchronization not being performed".

The cause is "responsibility by the user environment" that does not occur in the live video (download video) mechanism, so it is a problem.

I will send the following evidence images, but I cannot submit "ADR emails" that have not been shared with me.

① December 31, survey report

②Warning to Terms of Use 6.2 on January 6th

③ January 8th, explanation with troubleshooting

④ On January 19, it was explained that it cannot be selected from Terms of Use 6.2.

⑤ January 29, ADR content, dispute amount

⑥ ADR rule

⑦ February 1, account freeze phone, confirmation email

⑧ February 2, account freeze phone, answer

⑨ February 2, account freeze phone, answer to answer

⑩ On February 7, a false report that "an employee called and the problem was solved"

⑪ Judgment email on April 19th

⑫ April 19, Judgment Email, (Attachment) Game Company Claims

⑬ Chat support answer, meaning of Terms of Use 6.1

⑭ Terms of Use 1 (before revision)

⑮ Terms of Service 3.7 (Before revision)

⑯ Terms of Use 6.1, 6.2 (before revision)

⑰ Terms of Service 9.2 (before revision)

⑱ Terms of Use 12.1 (after revision)

⑲ Terms of Use 12.1 (after revision)

We would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions to the game company in this thread.

(question 1)

Where is the responsibility for synchronizing the video?

(Question 2)

What is the reason why only a part of the live video created by synthesizing multiple materials is delayed in the usage environment?

(Question 3)

I was troubleshooting and explaining "Terms of Service 6.2", why did I reply "I can't select" and decline any further contact?

(Question 4)

On February 1st, an employee of your company misrepresented your identity and told you that your account was frozen. Is it permissible for your company to "lie and contact you" even though you are asking the user to show your ID?

(Question 5)

ADR also reported that "an employee called and the problem was solved". What problem was solved?

(Question 6)

In ADR, it is obligatory to "hold CC for everyone" except for confidential information, but it was ADR that removed my CC in the reply on April 8 in response to the "question of related terms" asked by CEG. Isn't it a rule violation?

(Question 7)

What does the reply "In this case, I used Terms of Service 6.1" mean?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Petronella

Thank you for your help.

Please check the following URL for the mechanism of live video.

https://www.ccjc-net.or.jp/~kouza/stream/stream02.html

http://sevendays-study.com/computer-literacy/gr-day3.html

Thank you, newinspa2, for your reply and forwarded emails. Unfortunately, I still don't understand the nature of the problem and missing the disputed amount. Could you please elaborate and describe in more detail what exactly happened while you were playing?

Petronella

Thank you for your help.

The dispute amount is 16,656,220 yen.

In the "inside the video" of the live roulette, the "result" was displayed before the ball fell, and the result was actually confirmed as it was.

* "1" on the screen in the video of the attached image is the event displayed first.

Why do you know the result before the fall?

Is the game result correct? Isn't it correct? It's not a problem.

For users who are playing, it is a very important issue that raises the question "Is it really live?"

Therefore, as specified in "Terms of Service 6.2", we are requesting "payment of bets" as an "unpredictable technical problem".

6.2 (currently 7.2) * Excerpt

In situations outside Breckenridge's control, such as unforeseen technical issues or technical issues of third party providers, Breckenridge may cancel and / or refund bets.

I asked the game company to investigate, and as a result, the game company reported that the video was delayed.

In addition, the report provided the following two views.

① "Video synchronization error"

* Failure to superimpose the venue video and result display

② "Delay due to usage environment"

* Delay due to communication environment and terminal load

[In case of ①]

Video synchronization is the responsibility of the distributor, as it is the responsibility of the distributor.

[In case of ②]

I have the opinion that due to the mechanism of live video (download video), "only a part of the video will not be delayed".

If you say that there is a possibility of ②, please show the grounds. If you cannot explain the above, please perform "clearing" according to the terms of use.

I'm asking for the above explanation, but the game company doesn't answer anything and continues to ignore it unilaterally, making it the user's responsibility.

In the process of negotiation, game companies violate various terms of use (violation of ADR rules).

Warning in Terms of Service 6.2, TS and explanation, unilateral destruction

Non-compliance with Terms of Service 9.2

Account freeze for lying

Rule violation in ADR (false report)

Rule violation in ADR (CC not held)

Unjustified Refusal of Warranty Using Terms of Use 6.1

Non-compliance with Terms of Use 3.7

* Terms are notation before revision

The game company says that the terms of use are contractual, but does not follow them at all.

The above is a complaint.

Thank you for your support for the solution.

Petronella

We become indebted to.

I am sorry that the explanation is difficult to understand.

I will explain again about the violation of the terms of use of the game company.

This complaint is that we do not comply with our company's terms of service at all and do not deal with "game errors". We are violating the rules clearly, so please check again.

■ Violation of "Terms of Service 9.2"

* Do not give rational explanations

* 14 Do not try to resolve within business days

Regarding the error event in live roulette, the game company reported "video delay", warned that they agreed to "Terms of Service 6.2", and explained that it was "troubleshooting procedure".

Since "Terms of Service 6.2" consists of three sentences, I asked "corresponding part and grounds", but left the opposite answer saying "you can not select from these", and the game company contacted after that. It's gone.

The game company reported the "video delay".

It is also the game company that explained that "Terms of Service 6.2 is the troubleshooting procedure".

Despite this, I broke off with the opposite answer, saying, "You cannot choose to respond from Terms of Service 6.2." It is a response that I cannot understand at all.

■ Violation of "Terms of Service 6.1"

* Present terms of use with different meanings and refuse error compensation.

Since I could not contact the game company, I performed ADR by the licensed company, but ADR also violated many rules and refused to compensate for the game error as "within the scope of Terms of Use 6.1".

"Terms of Service 6.1" states that "the site is not guaranteed to be complete".

"Terms of Service 6.1" does not mean "no compensation for errors".

The guideline for error compensation is "Terms of Service 6.2" originally explained by the game company.

The game company ignores the terms of use and makes false claims.

■ Violation of "Terms of Service 3.7"

* Do not comply with the "contractual obligations" that have already been made.

An employee of a game company pretended to be a "human being in a translation message company" and told me "account freeze" by phone.

By making this call, I unilaterally terminated the response saying that the problem was solved.

Account freeze itself can be done at the discretion of the game company, so it can't be helped.

However, "Terms of Service 3.7" states that "the contractual obligations that have already been made even after the account is frozen" are obligatory, and "game error handling" is obligatory, but we do not comply with this correspondence. Hmm.

The above is a violation of the terms of use of the game company.

If the game company responds and cannot explain that the game error is the user's responsibility, please support us to compensate.

I understand, but could you please explain if you have placed any bets and they were rejected during these faulty spins, or how many spins you have played with a technical glitch?

Thank you for your support.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the content of your question.

We apologize for the inconvenience, but please use a different expression for your question.

I'm sorry if it didn't answer your question.

I checked the error only once.

Feeling distrust and fear, I immediately left and contacted chat support.

The error was displayed 3-4 seconds earlier than normal and was clearly displayed before the fall.

It is my opinion that the above phenomenon is only "in the live video" and does not occur on the user side due to the mechanism of the downloaded video.

The game company has made an unreasonable refusal to refund the "Guarantee of Error Events" because of inappropriate "Terms of Service 6.1".

* Terms of Use 6.1 (before revision)

For "unexpected technical problems", "you can cancel your bet". This is a contract and obligation that the game company and the user have agreed to.

* Terms of Use 6.2 (before revision)

* Terms of Use 1 (before revision)

In addition, the game company amended the terms on June 14, but the terms of use before the amendment state that "even after the account is frozen, we will comply with the contractual obligations that have already been made."

* Terms of Use 3.7 (before revision)

The above sentence has been deleted due to the revision of the rules, but this is a story before the revision of the rules, and it is "obligatory to respond".

With this clear statement, game companies continue to ignore the response.

This is an obvious breach of contract and is a fraud.

It's already been half a year since the problem occurred.

I want to get rid of this problem as soon as possible and regain my normal life.

Please support us so that we can refund according to the terms of use.

Could you please advise how many spins you have played with the error?

Were your bets accepted and never paid off?

I made a bet and made an error only once.

The result of the bet was successful, but I felt distrust and fear, so I immediately left and contacted chat support.

Was the money for this faulty spin deducted from your balance? Could you please clarify the dispute value (¥16,656,220)? What does this amount represent? Thank you in advance.

Petronella

We become indebted to.

Thank you for your support.

The error was "the event where the result was displayed first in the video", otherwise it was processed normally.

The bet has been won and the winnings have been awarded.

The dispute amount is the "amount after deducting the deposit and withdrawal amount for the entire period" so far.

The error this time is "an event that makes it unreliable to be live".

The game company reported "video delay" and suggested that "Terms of Service 6.2 are troubleshooting steps".

Since it is an error that does not occur on the user side, in accordance with Terms of Use 6.2, we are requesting the settlement of the deposit and withdrawal amount so far as "Unexpected technical problem".

I'm afraid I still do not understand. You placed one bet with error (and it has been rewarded and paid) but filed a complaint for "amount after deducting the deposit and withdrawal amount for the entire period"? What supporting evidence do you have to justify this amount (¥16,656,220)?

Petronella

We become indebted to.

Thank you for your support.

This allegation is about "credit of being live".

The "bet on the game" was successful, but an "event that didn't seem to be live" occurred and I couldn't trust it, so I asked for an investigation and report.

Regarding "the amount after deducting the deposit and withdrawal amount for the entire period", I did not receive a reply even after 3 days, which is the guideline for reply, so I filed a complaint on December 29, before receiving the report. We are here.

In the above email, as with minor gambling, we asked for "clearing the deposit and withdrawal amount" as a "reasonable reason for distrust."

In response to the allegation, the game company reported on December 31 that it was a "video delay."

I continued to ask for a "rationale" for the delay, but no answer was given.

If you've investigated, it's just a matter of explaining, but why can't you explain?

On January 6th, I was warned by the game company that I had agreed to "Terms of Service 6.2", and on January 8th, I was informed that "Terms of Service 6.2 is the troubleshooting procedure".

I would like to reiterate that it was the game company that presented the "Terms of Service 6.2".

"Terms of Service 6.2" states that you can "cancel your bet".

"Terms of Service 6.3" says "The game round will be refunded ...", but "Terms of Service 6.2" does not say "The game round is".

This allegation is not just for the game in which the error occurred. Since it is "credit of being live", it is applicable even before that.

According to the notation of "Terms of Service 6.2" described by the game company as the troubleshooting procedure, we request the settlement of the deposit and withdrawal amount for the entire period as "cancellation of bet". This is the agreed contract.

The above is the "grounds for the amount of dispute."

Dear newinspa2,

If I understood correctly you are asking for compensation of the entire amount since you expect "video delay" while playing. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it is not enough to request a full deposit refund.

Please let me know if there is any additional information that I have overlooked, but I’m afraid I will be forced to reject your complaint as unjustified. I wish I could be of more help. Thank you in advance for your reply and understanding.

Petronella

Thank you for your support.

I will tell you again.

This error is an event that "the result was displayed first in the live video".

It is not the event that "Bet screen result" is displayed before the result display of the live video.

The "result display" displayed in the video appears first, and the ball has fallen as it is.

It's all about "in the video".

Live videos are streaming videos. Streaming videos are download videos.

Since it is download data, my opinion is that "only a part of the video will not be delayed" in the internet environment or user terminal.

The game company also reports that "video synchronization may not be performed".

Since the responsibility for video synchronization is on the distribution side, we believe that it falls under the "unpredictable technical problem" in Terms of Use 6.2.

I wish I could be of more help. I’m sorry we couldn’t help you to resolve this case, but please do not hesitate to contact us if you run into any issues with any other casino in the future. For the abovementioned reasons, I will now reject this complaint. Thank you for your understanding.