[...]
@holydarkness, don’t bother throwing out challenges or acting like you’re above suspicion. In this world, anything is possible, and given the way you defend these casinos, it wouldn’t be surprising if you were tied to Curacao’s shady operations yourself.
Such a bold statement from someone who caught red-handed fabricating statement to drive the narrative into his favor. Tell me again, how many other false and misleading statements you made in your case that is yet to be unearthed?
But thanks, that post remind me that I actually have not addressed OP's question about me.
OP, sorry for the very delayed response. Though I'll say that I am glad that it took me this long to answer. The first three days when I initially tried to draft a reply, though I've been walking out rather often whenever I find it challenging to patiently address the intelligence of yours that's reflected in your post as it is alarmingly questionable, my final draft is still full of R-rated words.
Understanding the situation now that you're simply trying to throw muds at someone and I just happened to be your collateral damage that you'll happily drag into the mud, regardless of the situation that you're rather well understand, which accidentally also show the length of your intelligence, helps me compose a better mannered response:
I originally stated that you are welcome to plainly, simply and clearly state that you do not receive an incentive to do what you do for casinos.
I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.
All that you needed to reply from the beginning in response was something like this:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..
The incentive being outside of the signature campaign (if that wasn't already obvious)
As for my second statement, what I had put in brackets was an alternative way of wording what you have not publicly denied (that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos - alternatively phrased (or, in other words) that you work for the casinos as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control:
You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.
I somewhat still stand with most of my original response that was part of my earlier draft for this statement, though it is now very demure and very mindful: what good shall it bring?
People asked so many times, I patiently tell them that I am not, but that they're free to prove otherwise. Yet it kept being asked over and over and over. One person, to another, each with their own agenda.
Imagine being someone who spent a lot of time, literally handling situation and trying to help as many sides as I can, and the "pay back" I get was people like you trying to paint me as bad and question my sincerity by challenging me, welcoming me to publicly deny that I got incentivized for bridging with casinos.
This question should not even be asked by someone who made a post in a neighboring thread, that made him fully aware about a post where I explained something like this:
[...]
About basically the casino win... well, wow, I must have done a very poor job to ensure that, given at most cases, if the players were not found guilty, I managed to push BC to pay. For example:
BC v. Azasapos, 350,000 USDBC v. Mikaela13, 7,800 USDBC v. Neymar5, 14,000 USDBC v. CBGAM, 13,000 USDAnd let's not forget one of the most epic case in SA board, though I'll have to say I don't really remember how huge of the effort I poured in that case and how active the player in chasing the resolution from his side,
BC v. justincase78, 7,000,000 USD[...]
That should already so obvious --at least for those with IQ above room temperature, in Celsius-- to answer that question of yours. I mean, I got compensated by BC [or any other casino] for bridging issues with them? My involvement basically resulted in either proving that the players are indeed abusers or... [prepare your notebook and write this down] I get the casinos to have to pay the players. And they compensate me for this? In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?
Logic? Use them.
But well, I think I can [kinda have to here] understand that it's rather hard for you to understand. I mean, you seems to find a difficulty in understanding that "push" here refers to a figure of speech that I am asking them and bothering them on daily basis to keep things in motion instead of pushing in the sense of applying some force.
About basically the casino win... well, wow, I must have done a very poor job to ensure that, given at most cases, if the players were not found guilty, I managed to push BC to pay. For example:
Now, why does
bc.game, a casino with a +20 / 0 / 0 reputation on the forum have to be "pushed to pay"?
So, here, let me help you:
I am not get compensated by any casino for the work I do helping people get their issues with casinos resolved.There, the statement. Feel free to not take my words for granted and prove that I got compensated by casinos for solving cases.
I am obviously not interested in your bet as I don't have access to your private communications (which even so, messages can be deleted) nor do I have access to your wallets (also can be deleted). I have only been interested in a sentence along the lines of:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users.
Understandable.
When
push comes to shove, the individuals involved in pushing and shoving usually need a backbone. The absence or the lack of its existence, or perhaps the dysfunction of it, tends to make people have to back away as they are incapable of doing the activity.
Since I mentioned you. Not sure what the problem is with welcome you to post something so simple...I personally would have accepted that, as putting something in clear writing is something that a lot of guilty people around here tend to avoid doing. I have not actually accused you of any wrongdoing if you correctly read my posts, only stated my belief and provided alternative wording, with a welcome for you to clearly deny it.
My problem? And something so simple? Let me ask you something before I answer that: did you think it through? Before you ask? Before you construct the "fair belief" that you have? I am talking about that whole "
threaten me over a fair belief."
I mean, fair belief? Fair belief?? Fair belief. Ha.
In what world is it fair?
Did you try to put your feet in my shoes when you proposed me that question? I spent hours of my personal time, daily, trying to get matters resolved, chasing casino reps to attend to cases.
There were instances where the casino's rep weren't active for a long time and I have to track them down, writing emails, waiting in queue for live support, being thrown from one department to other department of emails only to be told that I should escalate to other department. I have a notebook full of scribbled things to do, what cases against whom that's still open, what point should be inquired to which casino and what info should be relayed to what member. Pages and pages of them.
And what I get is someone ask me if I get paid by casinos for bridging them, hiding under "fair belief"? That most likely built with a bias and prejudice so great that the belief is so myopic that it failed to see the simple logic proposed above: why would a casino pay someone to bridge them only to cost them money because that person literally demanded them to pay the players.
Suppose you're saying I am overreacting by simple question of "fair belief",
I am pouring all of myself into each and every cases I handle, exhausting all the effort I have to get them resolved, never expecting any form of return other than a satisfaction I feel when someone gets what's rightfully theirs and read how happy they are, or a satisfaction in form of getting scammers cornered with their lies and attempt to cheat casinos [which, in case it missed your brain where logic should reside] is also members of this forum that has right to be protected and treated as an equal as other members, to feel safe to roam around the boards of the forum.
And what do I get instead? A "genius" with whatever agenda or vendetta against someone or a platform or whatever that is that I couldn't care less, who dragged me into muds because I am a collateral damage in his agenda to drive a narrative. That is fair?
Wondering if logic has to come with IQ way above the temperature of boiling water [again, in Celsius] in order for it to work smoothly.
