Stakes position is that they “used poor judgement and should have served me better” but there will be no compensation.
I expect that from a shady casino like cloudbet not stake.
I’m still hopeful someone at stake will look at the entire picture of what happened and reconsider.
It seems contradictory to say they made poor judgement but are keeping all the proceeds from that poor judgement
This is definitely not a good look for Stake but I do think the complaint being laid out here is quite biased as well. This user first off lost the vast majority of those funds sportsbetting which they did not request a block from and almost all if not all the funds were earned from the stake affiliate program They were on a number of occasions encouraged to stop betting and stick to referring players to the casino but did not agree with doing a self exclusion.
I find this claim a bit questionable given both the amounts claimed and because they were messaging me anonymously trying to build up this argument while continuing to bet under the impression that they would get reimbursed. If you were to make an unbiased claim you would have suggested that it would be the amount of money that you lost on the casino after this restriction was removed. It is very convenient but unfair argument to look at crypto prices being what they are and demanding all your historical losses back over the past year or two.
Last year this player specifically asked to have just the casino blocked, instead of your account fully restricted/banned. (full self exclusion). This was just a simple flag added to your account to block access to the casino. Then they went to their VIP manager directly who you had a unique relationship with as a major affiliate and asked him to remove the flag. Since this is not a self exclusion and has no surrounding protocol, he reluctantly obliged under pressure.
There was no ill intent here, even in your conversations you sent me you are repeatedly encouraged to stop spending all your affiliate earnings on Stake. Clearly some poor protocol and judgement on our side. With our self-exclusion system any player who goes through the correct process will never have their account unrestricted. As I stated in my previous messages to you, I recommended you cease gambling entirely when you told me you had issues with the casino only but were still sports betting, self exclusion really only works if a player is ceasing all gambling. This whole 'block casino only' thing was really just a incentive provided to the player when they asked. This however did not fall under the umbrella of the self-exclusion program which is perhaps an oversight.
Please see
https://stake.com/policies/self-exclusion it was poor judgement on our side that we did not sooner ban your account when you were displaying issues with gambling, at many points you were encouraged to control your betting, it is obviously a challenging situation for both sides because you did not want to stop and would not have reacted well to having your account banned at that point.
There has already been an internal convo regarding all of this and we will make improvements to our protocol and we sincerely apologize for not serving you better. The decision to make is whether or not to weave blocking one part of the website into self-exclusion protocols or whether to just encourage full self exclusion only.