Roll back a little... do I understand correctly those three previous accounts [four if we include your forgotten one] were permanently self-excluded? So, to put it out chronologically, you created mrperun on 24 April 2021, asked for permanent self exclusion at one point, granted and got your account disabled, and then, with that older account considered inactive, created set2323 on 30 July 2021, realized your addiction is kicking back in, and asked for self exclusion, and they complied. Same thing happened to account fishermansj and tetaeridanus?
[snipped the rest to maintain relevance]
edit: I think there is a misunderstanding here; I don't use previous self exclusion as excuse. I AM self excluded while this is happening on the account tetaeridanus. If like you said, it was previous; you would be correct.
I want to begin that I am not against you or trying to support Stake, I am trying to always be neutral and see from as many perspective as I can. On this matter and from the point established above, I'm afraid I have to give you a pill that'll be quite hard to swallow, namely... Casino Guru has a right stance and understanding on this matter.
Their final ruling [which didn't favor you] was,
Quote
[...]
The protection for self-excluded players, that detects them closely after registration or does not allow future registration, is a key part of proper self-exclusion. If the player informs the casino about the gambling problem. The account should be closed asap, and the player should not be allowed to create an account with the same or similar credentials. That is the acceptable minimum that can be done.
Based on the information provided by the casino team, all the accounts you created contained different information filled in as credentials. Therefore, the block could not work properly, and they could not prohibit your gameplay. More specifically, only dates of birth used in the first and disputed accounts were the same. The rest was slightly adjusted or completely different.
[...]
The protection for self-excluded players, that detects them closely after registration or does not allow future registration, is a key part of proper self-exclusion. If the player informs the casino about the gambling problem. The account should be closed asap, and the player should not be allowed to create an account with the same or similar credentials. That is the acceptable minimum that can be done.
Based on the information provided by the casino team, all the accounts you created contained different information filled in as credentials. Therefore, the block could not work properly, and they could not prohibit your gameplay. More specifically, only dates of birth used in the first and disputed accounts were the same. The rest was slightly adjusted or completely different.
[...]
Granted, their explanation could probably be a bit hard to understand, and from the postscript you added through edit, I take it that you probably understood them wrongly.
If I may try to better explain the situation, your self-exclusion on tetaeridanus didn't take full effect and prevent you from betting on casino is because you permanently self-exclude your other accounts before. It is a two pronged situation.
The casino should take the self-exclusion and give their best to protect you by immediately closing your account and prevent any credential related to that account from opening other accounts in the future. This means, from the "inside", the existing account were "bricked" by rendered unable to place any bet, and at the same time, from the "outside", the owner should not be able to create another account with the same credentials.
If I may throw a wild guess, their registration prevention probably try to read and stop you by reading the "analog" data like email address, username, name, DoB, nationality, and the likes, while their self-exclusion prevention within the account itself utilize parameters a platform usually use to detect multi-acc like your IP, screen resolution, geolocation, device data, etc.
This is how the self-exclusion work and the keypoint that CG tried to explain [I marked in blue] and how they honor the responsible gaming duty: by blacklisting the credentials to prevent future re-registration and bricking the account at the same time.
But, because you use other credentials to create other accounts, these "external" attempts to protect you through self-exclusion by denying you to create another accounts are bypassed because their database didn't match the newly inputted entry with the old ones that's on their exclusion list. This explains why you could create three [or four] other accounts from the first one you created and submitted self-exclusion.
Now, focusing and applying this on the tetaeridanus account, as I previously mentioned, it's a two pronged situation.
From the "outside", they can't prevent you from creating another account because you use different credential from fishermansj [your latest one prior to tetaeridanus], their system to automatically reject your account trying to sign up were bypassed by these differences on database. While from the "inside", or the second prong, the why your self exclusion for tetaeridanus were not effective by taking the self exclusion permanently, is because their system which responsible to "brick" your account read different data, thus crashed with each other.
Previously, for instance, they detected the entries [IP address, screen resolution, browser version, etc.] belonged to mrperun, or ready2323, and has to be denied, yet at the same time, these entries were belonged to fishermansj, and at some point, were yet to request self-exclusion, thus the database crashed. Same thing happened with tetaeridanus. They read that the entries are for ready2323, or other accounts, yet it also belonged to the newly created account under the name tetaeridanus that's yet to request self-exclusion, and they crashed again. And this is why the permanent self-exclusion couldn't lock itself on its place.
Of course this is only a hypothesis I get from reading the narratives of your case from the available resources [the casino guru's description and yours here]. I hope you can understand what I am trying to explain here.
