Dear AskGamblers Complaints Team and Crypto-Games Representatives,
Thank you for your response. However, I categorically reject Crypto-Games’ account of the self-exclusion timeline. The chronology is not merely unclear; it is internally inconsistent, contradicted by the documentary evidence, and impossible to reconcile with the facts unless my position is correct.
On September 28, 2026, at 6:12 AM EDT (10:12 UTC), I received an email confirming that my 24-hour self-exclusion cooling-off period had begun. That is the earliest documented confirmation establishing that the process was active. I believe my original request was made through live chat, which explains why the confirmation email preceded the later email correspondence.
The timing is therefore conclusive:
* The 24-hour cooling-off period began no later than September 28, 2026, at 10:12 UTC.
* It expired on September 29, 2026, at 10:12 UTC.
* My request for permanent account closure was sent on September 29, 2026, at 12:38 UTC (8:38 AM EDT).
* That request was made 2 hours and 26 minutes after the original 24-hour period had expired, not before it expired.
There is absolutely no reasonable basis for claiming that my permanent closure request was premature. The evidence establishes that the original cooling-off period had ended. Crypto-Games’ contrary position depends entirely on replacing the earlier confirmed start time with a later internal timestamp.
Crypto-Games now claims that the relevant period began at 15:04:47 UTC on September 28. That would place the expiry at 15:04:47 UTC on September 29, but it directly conflicts with the earlier confirmation email stating that the 24-hour period had already begun at 10:12 UTC on September 28.
Crypto-Games cannot have both timelines be correct. Either:
1. The September 28 confirmation email was accurate, in which case the period expired at 10:12 UTC on September 29 and my permanent closure request was made after expiry; or
2. The email was inaccurate, in which case Crypto-Games must explain why it issued a confirmation stating that the period had begun and why it later disregarded that confirmation.
There is no third option that allows Crypto-Games to rely on whichever timestamp is more convenient after the fact.
I subsequently sent additional emails expressing frustration and reiterating my desire for permanent account closure. Nothing in those communications requested that the cooling-off period be cancelled, restarted, extended, or otherwise modified. They cannot reasonably be treated as authorization to reset the period. If Crypto-Games claims otherwise, it must identify the exact communication in which I supposedly requested or consented to such a reset. It cannot invent consent from messages that plainly expressed the opposite intention: that my account should be closed permanently.
Crypto-Games’ apparent decision to restart or extend an already-active cooling-off period is irresponsible gaming administration. A self-exclusion or cooling-off mechanism exists to protect a player who has identified a need to stop gambling. It is not a process that the operator may manipulate, delay, reinterpret, or restart whenever doing so benefits the operator’s position. Treating a later internal timestamp as more authoritative than an earlier confirmation sent to me is not responsible gambling practice. It is a failure to administer self-exclusion accurately and safely.
The later support response at 15:04:47 UTC merely stated that a 24-hour period was required. That requirement had already been communicated to me in the earlier confirmation email at 10:12 UTC. A later internal timestamp cannot retroactively invalidate an earlier confirmation, move the start of an already-active period forward by nearly five hours, or extend the period without my express request and consent.
The chronology is especially decisive because my permanent closure request was sent at 12:38 UTC on September 29. Even using the earliest documented start time of 10:12 UTC on September 28, the 24-hour period had already expired. There is no way I am wrong about this calculation or its significance. Unless Crypto-Games can produce clear evidence that I expressly requested or authorized a reset, its position is impossible to reconcile with the timestamps it provided and the confirmation it sent me.
There is also another serious inconsistency. One of Crypto-Games’ responses referenced a one-year self-exclusion period, even though I never requested a one-year exclusion. My request was for permanent closure. This is not a minor wording issue. It raises the possibility that my request was incorrectly recorded, categorized, or processed. It also undermines confidence in the reliability of the account records and timestamps on which Crypto-Games now relies.
The combination of these issues demonstrates irresponsible handling of a responsible-gambling request:
* Crypto-Games issued a confirmation that the cooling-off period had begun.
* It later relied on a different start time without explaining the discrepancy.
* It appears to have treated the period as restarted without my authorization.
* It failed to honor or properly process my request for permanent closure after the original period expired.
* It referred to a one-year exclusion that I never requested.
* It now seeks to rely on its own later internal records while disregarding the earlier confirmation provided to me.
This is not a harmless administrative error. It concerns the handling of a player’s explicit attempt to stop gambling. The operator had a responsibility to process my request accurately, preserve a consistent record, and avoid taking any action that could prolong access to gambling services. Instead, the operator’s inconsistent handling created precisely the type of uncertainty and continued access that responsible-gambling procedures are intended to prevent.
I formally request:
1. An explanation of the September 28, 2026, 10:12 UTC confirmation email and why it was omitted from the timeline provided.
2. Confirmation of whether Crypto-Games accepts that this email stated that the 24-hour cooling-off period had begun.
3. Complete records of my initial self-exclusion request, including live-chat transcripts, email correspondence, internal notes, system logs, and account activity logs.
4. An explanation of how the later timestamp of September 28, 2026, at 15:04:47 UTC can be reconciled with the earlier confirmation at 10:12 UTC.
5. An explanation of what authorized the apparent resetting of an already-active cooling-off period.
6. Identification of the specific provision in the Terms & Conditions permitting such a reset without the player’s request or consent.
7. An explanation of why my permanent closure request at 12:38 UTC on September 29 was not treated as effective after the original 24-hour period had expired.
8. An explanation of why a one-year self-exclusion was referenced when I never requested that duration, and how this inconsistency arose.
9. Reconsideration of my reimbursement request based on the original confirmation and the timing of my subsequent permanent closure request.
10. Confirmation of whether any gambling activity, deposits, withdrawals, or account access occurred after the original 24-hour period expired and before permanent closure was processed.
The chronology is conclusive: the original 24-hour period began at 10:12 UTC on September 28 and expired at 10:12 UTC on September 29. Crypto-Games’ alternative timeline depends on replacing that earlier confirmed start time with a later internal timestamp, but it has not explained why that replacement was made, what authorized it, or why I was never informed that the period had supposedly been restarted.
I consider the apparent resetting of an existing self-exclusion period, together with the unexplained reference to a one-year exclusion, to be serious failures in Crypto-Games’ responsible-gambling procedures. The operator’s conduct was irresponsible because it failed to treat my request as a clear instruction to stop gambling and instead relied on inconsistent records to prolong the dispute and justify continued access.
Crypto-Games cannot disregard an earlier confirmation, substitute a later timestamp, and refer to an exclusion duration I never requested without providing a documented explanation. If the operator maintains that the earlier confirmation was erroneous, it must produce the underlying records and explain how and why such an error occurred. If it maintains that the confirmation was accurate, then the original timeline supports my position completely.
I respectfully request that AskGamblers and Crypto-Games independently examine these discrepancies rather than relying exclusively on the operator’s later-stated system timestamps. The evidence must be assessed in chronological order, beginning with the confirmation email issued at 10:12 UTC on September 28, rather than with a later internal timestamp selected by the operator.
I can provide any additional evidence, correspondence, screenshots, or other documentation needed to assist with the investigation.
I expect a substantive, evidence-based response addressing each issue individually. Repeating the operator’s Terms & Conditions without reconciling the conflicting timestamps, the expired cooling-off period, the unauthorized apparent reset, the irresponsible handling of my self-exclusion request, and the unexplained one-year reference is not an adequate resolution.
Sincerely,
Zac
