I do not trust bc.game (new info)

[worldofcoinsaltacc2]

You have been caught red handed multiple times trying to ruin other forum members' reputation in the reputation board,

Are we talking about me, here, now, seriously? Most likely going to be a long lasting impression.

NB: I have nothing against BC game, and Bencodie.

If you have nothing against the person who made this thread or who this is for, then you shouldn't be posting off-topic stuff.

[BenCodie]

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.

Sorry, this seems crafted to not include parties such as a campaign manager (who is technically not a casino).

I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

If you are unaware of copy pasting, you simply highlight the text, click copy (or ctrl + v on your desktop or cmd + v if using mac), and then paste.

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"?

An answer to this question would be reasonable as it relates to the original topic. Why, in your opinion, do they need to be pushed to pay, if they are such a trustworthy and reliable gambling establishment?

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.

As I said earlier, the information I need to win the bet (access to your private communications and any wallets) are not available to me, so I am signing up for a losing bet even if it is true that you receive some form of incentive for what you do between players and casinos.

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.

I teared up at this big dump of emotion (Not really). Seriously, stop wasting your time writing so many words, I genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing and how little cares I give since all of this time I've only asked that you copy and paste a sentence that absolves you of any involvement in the corruption, and forces you to double down that you are good Samaritan that is not incentivized by anyone to do what you do.

It's a fair belief because corruption exists in this forum and in the casino section (many casinos have scammed, many scam players using rules like KYC and other nonsense, many members of the forum propagate it knowingly unknowingly and shady practices are apparent by high ranking individuals of the forum, therefore the belief that you are incentivized to do what you do is a fair belief in my eyes).

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?

I've never once proclaimed myself to be a genius. I do not have an agenda. I am simply an individual who is appalled with how far this forum has deviated from Bitcoin's core values, and appalled with the very likely fact that casinos are scamming individuals who do not have a voice, and are getting away with it, on top of the fact that their business model (when it isn't additionally cheating or exploiting players) is as close to theft as it gets without being theft.

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.

The most logical thing to have done from post number one, was to copy and paste the sentence that would have allowed me to say "sorry for involving you holydarkness, I appreciate the work you do for players on the forum". Though after all of this garbage posting and avoidance of copy and pasting the one sentence you needed to post to prove that you have no incentive to do what you do, we are way past that.

I'm guessing that the top of the bitcointalk pyramid do not want it to change and thus another case of corruption preventing evolution. Right? Such a shame how this forum is so contradictory to what Bitcoin is all about, and how corrupt this forum is. It sees a problem, it knows a problem, but for some strange reason, doesn't want to fix the problem.

Buddy, even the law is blind, you're caught redhanded spoiling the reputation of a brand that doesn't have anything against them on the forum, them paying millions of dollar case would be reasonable for any sane person to believe that.

Do you know what? Distrusting them yourself is one thing, but in public asking others to follow through what you want (aka peer pressure) isn't a good trait to have in my opinion, it's a crime in many countries to spoil the reputation of some business without any substantial proof.

If you do that IRL, would you call the law/court corrupt? If so, do you want me to write detailed instructions as to how you can get a third chance? // This is the least I can do, since you were to kind to offer me a second chance in my thread.

Your post hardly made sense and in my opinion, you only made this half-nonsensical post because of my involvement in the thread that you connected you to very distrusted account/your other account on the forum. Considering how long you tried to persuade the entire community that you were not an alt of that account (despite there being hard blockchain proof), and now recently admitting it in this thread, you proved to me and everyone else that you are a liar and that you are capable of lying repeatedly, and therefore much of what you say is hardly of any credibility here (or anywhere).

If you have nothing against the person who made this thread or who this is for, then you shouldn't be posting off-topic stuff.

Technically, if you have something against me, this also isn't the place for it. People should only be posting here if they have something to discuss about the topic itself, and if they have something against me, they should be making another thread and taking the discussion there.

[holydarkness]

[...]
I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
[...]

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan". Lest people use that statement against me and say I'm a narcisist, having god-complex, or seeing myself so highly as an equal to someone mentioned in a bible as a prodigy. Hence, the statement with exact point conveyed in it: that I am not paid by casinos to help bridging situations with players.

If I may return the favor though, why insist on the exact wording while the statement I gave you conveyed the point you're trying to prove? Unless that is not what you're trying to prove? While we're at it, do you mind to answer my question about the logic behind being paid by casinos for making them lose money? I really want to know your thought on this and I am ready to be impressed. Kindly don't let me down.

About the challenge, in other perspective, we can also say, "one can't prove what does not exist." Namely, the payment for acting as a bridge and go back and forth between casinos and players are nonexistent.

And about "push", it's been explained in the post. Did you not read the post? I thought you're "genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing" from reading that many words of mine? Yet you seemingly missed the part where I cover the "push" part? That it's 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." So which one is it? You read my post carefully and feel little sorry for how much time are losing [sic] or you did not read them, just skimmed through, hence missing the part where I explained about the figure of speech?

In case you wondered, it's not just BC, it's every single casino which their staff's personal contact is in my possession. Like... that's what being a bridge mean, to connect the player who raises dispute and the casino being disputed, and keep it flowing, until we find the bottom of it.

So, that's the gist of it. You got what you want, that's the extent of the statement I can give. It conveyed the exact meaning you're wanting me to say, that I am not paid by casinos to act as a bridge between them. But if you want me to say the exact word, unfortunately I can't, for the reason above: I don't want weaponize haters of mine by having them a chance to say I have an NPD or delusion of grandeur or the likes.

Leave it there with your tucked tail and dysfunctional back, or take a path where you insist me to say the exact word, which I will, upon you accepting to take responsibility where, in the future, when someone ever use this situation against me, the good Samaritan thingy, you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time it's being used, plus explaining to that people why I said the good Samaritan word.

[Shishir99]

Are we talking about me, here, now, seriously? Most likely going to be a long lasting impression.

Look, such words from people like you do not match at all. You are known for posting off-topic in different threads and attacking others. When someone shows their irony, I can't stop myself from commenting. But I love how you changed your attitude when you got caught.

If you have nothing against the person who made this thread or who this is for, then you shouldn't be posting off-topic stuff.

You shouldn't do it either.

[nutildah]

[...]
I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
[...]

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan".

You don't owe him anything. And its not because we're fellow strongarms for casinos, its because his logic sucks and yours doesn't.

[memehunter]

@BenCodie, your name caught my attention in a recent conversation with a reputed member. I think your assumptions about the casino in question are a little biased, I do not mean that this bias comes from any vested interest (I have no proof of that, nor do I want to go through your posts). I remember the casino in question processed  $7 million worth of cashouts to a single user, and you are well aware of that. I am mentioning becuase I was a part of that effort. I also now realize that I have to give positive feedback to the casino in question as well along with the user who got his cashouts as I have given my trust feedback to betcoin.ag (that too was late).
I will do this for all casinos that have honored my winnings (1000$ onwards).
Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

[BenCodie]

@BenCodie, your name caught my attention in a recent conversation with a reputed member. I think your assumptions about the casino in question are a little biased, I do not mean that this bias comes from any vested interest (I have no proof of that, nor do I want to go through your posts).
Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

I don't think they're biased, I think they're circumstantially justified. I don't think anyone can certainly say that every person who has their account frozen and requested KYC on bc.game or any casino who does this kind of practice (Stake.com coming up a lot lately) comes here to make a thread to be able to have it resolved as:
- some people do not want to comply with KYC or similar measures to begin with
- some people are not aware of this forum
- some people do not have the time or the confidence that they will get their funds back, and will accept that they've been scammed.

There is very valid premise in this thread, though it is the job of members like icopress and others who defended bc.game to defend them (they get paid to do so, or are paid by people who get paid to do so).

I believe that everything above is fact.

I remember the casino in question processed  $7 million worth of cashouts to a single user, and you are well aware of that. I am mentioning becuase I was a part of that effort. I also now realize that I have to give positive feedback to the casino in question as well along with the user who got his cashouts as I have given my trust feedback to betcoin.ag (that too was late).
I will do this for all casinos that have honored my winnings (1000$ onwards).

Ever heard of PR stunts? Number one, that $7,000,000 payout could have been an inside move (speculation but not an impossibility) and number two, of course, not honoring that payout would have meant the end of bc.game. Just because a $7,000,000 payout was honored, doesn't mean that 1000 $1000 payouts ($1,000,000) have been honored and have not slipped through the cracks.

The above is speculation but should not be put past an already-shady casino as an impossibility.

Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

He won't listen to your objection because he already got away with abusing his power twice now on my profile. It doesn't bother me though considering the red tags he will surely receive when I eventually post my mega thread

[...]
I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
[...]

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan". Lest people use that statement against me and say I'm a narcisist, having god-complex, or seeing myself so highly as an equal to someone mentioned in a bible as a prodigy. Hence, the statement with exact point conveyed in it: that I am not paid by casinos to help bridging situations with players.

How about this:
"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

It's not there semantically as it does not include campaign managers.

If I may return the favor though, why insist on the exact wording while the statement I gave you conveyed the point you're trying to prove? Unless that is not what you're trying to prove? While we're at it, do you mind to answer my question about the logic behind being paid by casinos for making them lose money? I really want to know your thought on this and I am ready to be impressed. Kindly don't let me down.

About the challenge, in other perspective, we can also say, "one can't prove what does not exist." Namely, the payment for acting as a bridge and go back and forth between casinos and players are nonexistent.[/b]

I insist on the wording to be specific, as one should be in this forum where many members twist their words and statements to evade guilt. It's nothing personal, it's just for a clear record.

The logic is simple:
- Casinos (and their shady counterparts) have figured they can steal from players under the guise of KYC and stringent verification processes.
- They also understand that as a result, they must manage PR by having members (like yourself) answer those who decide to voice on the forum.
- Result: Casinos get good PR and gain good reputation on bitcointalk while taking advantage of members who do not want to complete kyc or do not have a voice due to language barrier or simple unawareness of being able to increase chances of recovery by posting on the forum.

To manage PR, they need a bridge. The reason I highlighted in the last quote to specify that you don't get paid by other parties (like campaign managers) as the chain of command would likely be casino > campaign manager > "bridge" (as you call it).

And about "push", it's been explained in the post. Did you not read the post? I thought you're "genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing" from reading that many words of mine? Yet you seemingly missed the part where I cover the "push" part? That it's 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." So which one is it? You read my post carefully and feel little sorry for how much time are losing [sic] or you did not read them, just skimmed through, hence missing the part where I explained about the figure of speech?

Yes, to be frank I am sick of your walls and walls of text that to me, can be condensed into fewer sentences. Figure of speech or not, there is truth in that figure of speech. You are a part of ensuring that casinos hold up their end of the deal that they should be honoring by default...and that is a problem. Your job (or good will) should not exist in a world where casinos are operating fairly. That was my point.

In case you wondered, it's not just BC, it's every single casino which their staff's personal contact is in my possession. Like... that's what being a bridge mean, to connect the player who raises dispute and the casino being disputed, and keep it flowing, until we find the bottom of it.

Again, to believe you do this out of nothing but the goodness of your heart is hard. Very hard...but if you do, good on you (in a way).

So, that's the gist of it. You got what you want, that's the extent of the statement I can give. It conveyed the exact meaning you're wanting me to say, that I am not paid by casinos to act as a bridge between them. But if you want me to say the exact word, unfortunately I can't, for the reason above: I don't want weaponize haters of mine by having them a chance to say I have an NPD or delusion of grandeur or the likes.

Leave it there with your tucked tail and dysfunctional back, or take a path where you insist me to say the exact word, which I will, upon you accepting to take responsibility where, in the future, when someone ever use this situation against me, the good Samaritan thingy, you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time it's being used, plus explaining to that people why I said the good Samaritan word.

My tail is far from tucked behind my legs. You have avoided exact wording and the final statement that you do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users. is still yet to be confirmed. You've used semantics only to confirm that you don't get paid directly by casinos. If it is confirmed by you that you don't get paid to be the bridge by any party whatsoever, I'll include it in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that you are serving. My suggestion? Stop wasting your time being the bridge between casinos and the players, as you are aiding them to selectively scam individuals who do not post here on bitcointalk without even knowing it (in my opinion, you believe what you want).

[...]
I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
[...]

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan".

You don't owe him anything. And its not because we're fellow strongarms for casinos, its because his logic sucks and yours doesn't.

Oh, burn! 

[holydarkness]

How about this:
"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

It's not there semantically as it does not include campaign managers.

Yawn.

I'm quite close of losing my interest in helping you get your clarification. Especially as it's proven you did not read explanation carefully and your logic is indeed, flawed; which I'll try to explain below, so kindly be honest to yourself this time and really spare the time instead of saying that you're sorry for the time wasted, while you actually didn't even pay attention to all of the text.¹

I insist on the wording to be specific, as one should be in this forum where many members twist their words and statements to evade guilt. It's nothing personal, it's just for a clear record.

Orrrrr... so you can use it for things like this?

[...]
@holydarkness is the self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, he works for free and is motivated by nothing more than making sure you both get paid. Since he has contact with casino higher ups, you both should bundle all the evidence you have, make your threads stronger, and contact him when done.

Since you're investigating casinos like BC and another bunch of casinos, it must have been made abundantly clear to you that I specified in a lot of threads against Stake that I can't help users for Stake-related issues, as I don't have Stake's contact. So, what's that post about? Unless you're not genuinely reading those threads and it's just empty words? Like the genuity of your feeling for the time wasted reading my post, while you later admit you didn't read thoroughly?

So, the agreement will still stands, with a bit of modification. I'll say what you asked above, copy and paste them, to be exactly as you instructed. But if in the future, someone ever use the statement and/or the situation, verbatim or semantically, in a negative connotation, just like what you did above, [and to make it abundantly clear, the word "bridge", used like above quoted, is obviously and automatically fall into the semantic category of the statement], you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time the situation occurs, as well as explaining to the public of that self-proclaimed thingy or whatever semantic and/or verbatim word they used. Stressing the point, as I am fair, it'll only take effect if it's used in negative connotation.

The logic is simple:
- Casinos (and their shady counterparts) have figured they can steal from players under the guise of KYC and stringent verification processes.
- They also understand that as a result, they must manage PR by having members (like yourself) answer those who decide to voice on the forum.
- Result: Casinos get good PR and gain good reputation on bitcointalk while taking advantage of members who do not want to complete kyc or do not have a voice due to language barrier or simple unawareness of being able to increase chances of recovery by posting on the forum.

To manage PR, they need a bridge. The reason I highlighted in the last quote to specify that you don't get paid by other parties (like campaign managers) as the chain of command would likely be casino > campaign manager > "bridge" (as you call it).

The logic is flawed:
- at least half of the accusations against casinos in SA board were an attempt by the player to strongarm the casino. The part where the casinos did made mistake and/or their requirement for KYC and the likes are fulfilled by the player, are quickly fixed.
- KYC is part of the casinos ToS. It's on every users [in this forum, outside this forum, and in real life] duty to read ToS, since they're agreed to it without any coercion. If the player didn't want to do KYC, then don't play on the casino who clearly state they can ask for it anytime they want. There are KYC-free casinos out there. Use them.
- I am kinda sure I am working with^[2] a completely different staffs from what a campaign manager were in touch with. CM are dealing with [I assume] marketing team, I am exchanging words with compliance and security guys. Or, someone that's on an even higher up position, that can maneuver inter-departments, but quite likely are not the one who are in touch with CMs. And other than the extremely few [desperate] occasions where I asked a CM for a contact of the staff they're in touch with for that campaign purpose, which will later redirect me to other staffs, I barely brushed with any CMs for issues.

Feel free to ask your current CM about how many times I am reaching him for disputes against casinos that he managed.

It should be abundantly clear if you answered my question ¹ from the beginning. I mean, can you imagine how awkward it'll be? The CM [or whoever in touch with me] said something like, "hey, this is 100 USD, your fee for our casino's case against HolyDickness that let us win and voided the fund from the player", and later on "uhh, hi, sorry, but uhh... the case with HornyDarkness? Yeah, we have to pay 350,000 USD because you help the player get to the bottom of it. Uhh... can you perhaps pay us back some fee? Since we have to pay the player because of you. Oh, while we're at it, the other case also cost us 80,000 USD. Where can we bill you? You want the sum of the amount you owed us because you made us have to pay the player although we pay you to be a bridge?"

Logic. Use them fix them, since yours is obviously broken.

Yes, to be frank I am sick of your walls and walls of text that to me, can be condensed into fewer sentences. Figure of speech or not, there is truth in that figure of speech. You are a part of ensuring that casinos hold up their end of the deal that they should be honoring by default...and that is a problem. Your job (or good will) should not exist in a world where casinos are operating fairly. That was my point.

The world of which... part of the cases are the players tried to manipulate the casino, bigger half of it is about them violating ToS, the other part are about player needed KYC to be resetted as they [not the casino] made mistake from their side during the process, and the others are players jumping out of patience where the providers [not the casinos] are asking for investigation?

Again, to believe you do this out of nothing but the goodness of your heart is hard. Very hard...but if you do, good on you (in a way).

No, I do it to build up a momentum that'll bait you to create this thread, of which I can challenge you and reap easy 25,000 USD for every time someone used the statement [in negative connotation], in semantic or verbatim way, that you worked so hard to insist me to say. It's a long term plan. And most definitely not out of nothing but the goodness of my heart, I specifically tried to reap from you.

My tail is far from tucked behind my legs. You have avoided exact wording and the final statement that you do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users. is still yet to be confirmed. You've used semantics only to confirm that you don't get paid directly by casinos.

Well, the ball is in your court. Agree as above, and I'll copy paste what you want me to copy paste.

If it is confirmed by you that you don't get paid to be the bridge by any party whatsoever, I'll include it in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that you are serving.

If I don't get paid to be the bridge you'll... what, now? Include me in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that I am [not] serving but you'll apparently say I am serving? That's what will happen to me if I confirmed that I don't get paid? Jesus and Mary the Holy Mother of God... and Joseph, who forgot to pull! So what'll happen if [let's amuse ourself for a second for a made up scenario] I say that I am paid? I'll be skinned alive with butter knife?

My suggestion? Stop wasting your time being the bridge between casinos and the players, as you are aiding them to selectively scam individuals who do not post here on bitcointalk without even knowing it (in my opinion, you believe what you want).

Your suggestion is dully noted [not a typo].


¹ this one is not answered yet: "In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?" and IIRC, it will be the third time I ask. Is there a specific reason you keep missing to explain the logic behind this? Like... your whole narrative crumbled?

² do I have to explain that "working with" here is a figure of speech where I am not actually working with and for them, but rather attempting "together" to get to the bottom of cases? 'Fraid that you can't catch that.

[memehunter]

Ever heard of PR stunts? Number one, that $7,000,000 payout could have been an inside move (speculation but not an impossibility) and number two, of course, not honoring that payout would have meant the end of bc.game. Just because a $7,000,000 payout was honored, doesn't mean that 1000 $1000 payouts ($1,000,000) have been honored and have not slipped through the cracks.

The above is speculation but should not be put past an already-shady casino as an impossibility.

Now that is your opinion and purely speculative. The facts are clear, bc.games honored a $7,000,000 payout and we all witnessed it. There is no single casino (nor will be  ) against which there is not even a single scam accusation somewhere. I appreciate your scepticism but I expected a lot more balanced view from an experienced member like you.

Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

He won't listen to your objection because he already got away with abusing his power twice now on my profile. It doesn't bother me though considering the red tags he will surely receive when I eventually post my mega thread

I just wanted to register my objection so that it does not go unnoticed (on my behalf). I mean, I saw something which I think is wrong I spoke my mind. 

[BenCodie]

How about this:
"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

It's not there semantically as it does not include campaign managers.

Yawn.

I'm quite close of losing my interest in helping you get your clarification. Especially as it's proven you did not read explanation carefully and your logic is indeed, flawed; which I'll try to explain below, so kindly be honest to yourself this time and really spare the time instead of saying that you're sorry for the time wasted, while you actually didn't even pay attention to all of the text.¹

You never had an interest in being specific - your actions are not that of an innocent one who is seeking to close a discussion as soon as possible and move on without qualms. It's that of one who beats around the bush with their words. I can't be blamed for not replying perfectly to walls and walls of text, when I have (since the beginning) only asked you to tell us all that you have no incentive to do what you do from any party. thousands of words later, you still haven't done that, and yet you continue to post demands and expectations from me that are irrelevant and designed to discredit me. This is not behavior of an innocent person. It's deflective and hostile.

I insist on the wording to be specific, as one should be in this forum where many members twist their words and statements to evade guilt. It's nothing personal, it's just for a clear record.

Orrrrr... so you can use it for things like this?

[...]
@holydarkness is the self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, he works for free and is motivated by nothing more than making sure you both get paid. Since he has contact with casino higher ups, you both should bundle all the evidence you have, make your threads stronger, and contact him when done.

Since you're investigating casinos like BC and another bunch of casinos, it must have been made abundantly clear to you that I specified in a lot of threads against Stake that I can't help users for Stake-related issues, as I don't have Stake's contact. So, what's that post about? Unless you're not genuinely reading those threads and it's just empty words? Like the genuity of your feeling for the time wasted reading my post, while you later admit you didn't read thoroughly?

I'll apologize for my honest mistake. I don't follow you around everywhere and was not aware that you don't handle stake cases. I was actually being genuine in my post. You are a self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, you do work for free and you are motivated nothing more than making sure the player gets paid, is that not accurate, outside of my mistake of not following you so closely to know that Stake is not one of those casinos that you try to be the bridge for?

So, the agreement will still stands, with a bit of modification. I'll say what you asked above, copy and paste them, to be exactly as you instructed. But if in the future, someone ever use the statement and/or the situation, verbatim or semantically, in a negative connotation, just like what you did above, [and to make it abundantly clear, the word "bridge", used like above quoted, is obviously and automatically fall into the semantic category of the statement], you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time the situation occurs, as well as explaining to the public of that self-proclaimed thingy or whatever semantic and/or verbatim word they used. Stressing the point, as I am fair, it'll only take effect if it's used in negative connotation.

I never agreed to this crap and I'm dismissing it again. You don't write the law here and I sure as hell am not agreeing to this paragraph that states I'll pay 25,000 USD every time I quote your own words. You called yourself a bridge. I described you as a bridge because I believe that's a fair thing to call you (you communicate with players and casinos thus a bridge between the two). There's really nothing wrong with that description.

The logic is simple:
- Casinos (and their shady counterparts) have figured they can steal from players under the guise of KYC and stringent verification processes.
- They also understand that as a result, they must manage PR by having members (like yourself) answer those who decide to voice on the forum.
- Result: Casinos get good PR and gain good reputation on bitcointalk while taking advantage of members who do not want to complete kyc or do not have a voice due to language barrier or simple unawareness of being able to increase chances of recovery by posting on the forum.

To manage PR, they need a bridge. The reason I highlighted in the last quote to specify that you don't get paid by other parties (like campaign managers) as the chain of command would likely be casino > campaign manager > "bridge" (as you call it).

The logic is flawed:
- at least half of the accusations against casinos in SA board were an attempt by the player to strongarm the casino. The part where the casinos did made mistake and/or their requirement for KYC and the likes are fulfilled by the player, are quickly fixed.
- KYC is part of the casinos ToS. It's on every users [in this forum, outside this forum, and in real life] duty to read ToS, since they're agreed to it without any coercion. If the player didn't want to do KYC, then don't play on the casino who clearly state they can ask for it anytime they want. There are KYC-free casinos out there. Use them.
- I am kinda sure I am working with^[2] a completely different staffs from what a campaign manager were in touch with. CM are dealing with [I assume] marketing team, I am exchanging words with compliance and security guys. Or, someone that's on an even higher up position, that can maneuver inter-departments, but quite likely are not the one who are in touch with CMs. And other than the extremely few [desperate] occasions where I asked a CM for a contact of the staff they're in touch with for that campaign purpose, which will later redirect me to other staffs, I barely brushed with any CMs for issues.

Feel free to ask your current CM about how many times I am reaching him for disputes against casinos that he managed.

The logic is not flawed and none of what you said here flaws the overall point which was that your statement was flawed, as it only specified that you don't get paid by casinos and did not include any other parties. All you have done is validate that claim with what you've said, you've not flawed anything in what I have said.

It should be abundantly clear if you answered my question ¹ from the beginning. I mean, can you imagine how awkward it'll be? The CM [or whoever in touch with me] said something like, "hey, this is 100 USD, your fee for our casino's case against HolyDickness that let us win and voided the fund from the player", and later on "uhh, hi, sorry, but uhh... the case with HornyDarkness? Yeah, we have to pay 350,000 USD because you help the player get to the bottom of it. Uhh... can you perhaps pay us back some fee? Since we have to pay the player because of you. Oh, while we're at it, the other case also cost us 80,000 USD. Where can we bill you? You want the sum of the amount you owed us because you made us have to pay the player although we pay you to be a bridge?"

Logic. Use them fix them, since yours is obviously broken.

¹ this one is not answered yet: "In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?" and IIRC, it will be the third time I ask. Is there a specific reason you keep missing to explain the logic behind this? Like... your whole narrative crumbled?

I've already answered your question in what I said in the last post (who is not reading now, btw?)

It's called PR (Public relations). The casino is not paying to get them to lose money, they are paying to have any case that hurts their reputation solved (they aren't losing money by paying  people their rightful balance, by the way, it is paying money to keep the balances of those who do not do KYC or do not make threads to be heard).

All of those quotes and sentences you made up in attempt to discredit the above are both childish and pathetic.

Yes, to be frank I am sick of your walls and walls of text that to me, can be condensed into fewer sentences. Figure of speech or not, there is truth in that figure of speech. You are a part of ensuring that casinos hold up their end of the deal that they should be honoring by default...and that is a problem. Your job (or good will) should not exist in a world where casinos are operating fairly. That was my point.

The world of which... part of the cases are the players tried to manipulate the casino, bigger half of it is about them violating ToS, the other part are about player needed KYC to be resetted as they [not the casino] made mistake from their side during the process, and the others are players jumping out of patience where the providers [not the casinos] are asking for investigation?

Using a terms of service to steal does not make it the players fault. A fair outcome would be to refund deposits minus winnings (and/or losses) if the player does not ask for KYC and if KYC was really a requirement then KYC would be asked for upon signup like most exchanges these days not after deposit/playing/winning as cases many cases report/how it works.

Again, to believe you do this out of nothing but the goodness of your heart is hard. Very hard...but if you do, good on you (in a way).

No, I do it to build up a momentum that'll bait you to create this thread, of which I can challenge you and reap easy 25,000 USD for every time someone used the statement [in negative connotation], in semantic or verbatim way, that you worked so hard to insist me to say. It's a long term plan. And most definitely not out of nothing but the goodness of my heart, I specifically tried to reap from you.

You can give it up with this 25,000 USD nonsense because I'm personally paying zero mind to this at this point.

My tail is far from tucked behind my legs. You have avoided exact wording and the final statement that you do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users. is still yet to be confirmed. You've used semantics only to confirm that you don't get paid directly by casinos.

Well, the ball is in your court. Agree as above, and I'll copy paste what you want me to copy paste.

Or just prove to myself and everyone else that you do what you do for free? Right now it is still factual to say that you never clearly stated that you don't receive any form of financial motivation from any party whatsoever to be the bridge (as you say) between players and casinos through the very clear and short sentence I've provided and refined for you, designed to force you to lie, or to completely absolve you as a paid PR puppet:

"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."

For as long as you avoid copy and pasting the statement, you leave the door open to the conclusion that you are a PR puppet that is in some way financially motivated to do what he does.

The ball is in your court and has been for quite some time now. All of the unrelated garbage you're posting surrounding the request to prove that you are an innocent and good person who is truly doing their best to be between players and casinos for nothing more than human good, is just noise.

If it is confirmed by you that you don't get paid to be the bridge by any party whatsoever, I'll include it in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that you are serving.

If I don't get paid to be the bridge you'll... what, now? Include me in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that I am [not] serving but you'll apparently say I am serving? That's what will happen to me if I confirmed that I don't get paid? Jesus and Mary the Holy Mother of God... and Joseph, who forgot to pull!

1. You are serving the casinos by doing their PR/"customer service" work on the forum for them (for free, apparently/TBC), whether you like it or not that is an accurate way to describe what you are doing.
2. To be perfectly clear, I had meant/said that if you confirm that no party pays you to do be the bridge whatsoever, then I will be sure to explicitly mention that in the megathread that while you bridge between players and casinos by doing what you do, you don't get paid to do so (which is a lot better than being paid to do casino PR work for casinos especially if there is substantial research to support that casinos on this forum are selectively scamming players and only resolving matters posted publicly)

To be honest with you, the amount of posts and beating around the bush have already been noted, whether you confirm it or not does mean something but not as much as in comparison to if you had of just come to the thread, explicitly stated that you do not get paid and then that was that. Your behavior (again) does not signal an innocent person.

So what'll happen if [let's amuse ourself for a second for a made up scenario] I say that I am paid? I'll be skinned alive with butter knife?

I think it's more about your actions between now and when the problem is more apparent and substantiated than it currently is now. You've been made aware that by doing the PR/"bridge" work that you do for casinos, that you may be enabling selective scamming as a result. By continuing, you are now aware of this possibility:

My suggestion? Stop wasting your time being the bridge between casinos and the players, as you are aiding them to selectively scam individuals who do not post here on bitcointalk without even knowing it (in my opinion, you believe what you want).

...and when the problem is more apparent/publicly substantiated, you will certainly not look good by being made aware of it now and continuing with these actions anyway. Whether you are paid or not is actually somewhat irrelevant to the bigger picture at this stage, similar to exchanges I've had with nutildah and their obvious negligence to corruption in the forum, you being able to say "how was I supposed to know that's what was going on?" after these exchanges will simply not be possible for you in comparison to the problem coming to light and as if we never had these conversations.

² do I have to explain that "working with" here is a figure of speech where I am not actually working with and for them, but rather attempting "together" to get to the bottom of cases? 'Fraid that you can't catch that.

If you think that you are working "together" with casinos to get to the bottom of cases (as if they are unaware of the cases to begin with), then my new personal thought is that you are just a naive person who thinks he is doing something good and is either unaware of or denying the possibility of casinos taking advantage of you doing their PR work for them, and enabling them to keep/take whatever is not publicly posted about.

To be clear, PR work in this context is communicating with players about the complaints that should have been solved by private support ticket to begin with and should be handled by the official account/representatives of the casino themselves.

Ever heard of PR stunts? Number one, that $7,000,000 payout could have been an inside move (speculation but not an impossibility) and number two, of course, not honoring that payout would have meant the end of bc.game. Just because a $7,000,000 payout was honored, doesn't mean that 1000 $1000 payouts ($1,000,000) have been honored and have not slipped through the cracks.

The above is speculation but should not be put past an already-shady casino as an impossibility.

Now that is your opinion and purely speculative. The facts are clear, bc.games honored a $7,000,000 payout and we all witnessed it. There is no single casino (nor will be  ) against which there is not even a single scam accusation somewhere. I appreciate your scepticism but I expected a lot more balanced view from an experienced member like you.

It would have been the end of bc.game if they did not honor it. Since the $7,000,00 was the players money to begin with, it's not like it came out of their pocket. It's hardly a sign of trust, just that they do what they are supposed to do by default (regardless of the size of the withdrawal).

Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

He won't listen to your objection because he already got away with abusing his power twice now on my profile. It doesn't bother me though considering the red tags he will surely receive when I eventually post my mega thread

I just wanted to register my objection so that it does not go unnoticed (on my behalf). I mean, I saw something which I think is wrong I spoke my mind. 

Thank you for doing that. I agree with you and wish that others were as honest and confident to do the same (if they agree) rather than siding with power.

[DiMarxist]

This is a trust issue. And if B.C Game offended your, it might not do the same to me and with that good deed with me and solid transaction with me if I like the way we didn't the financial transaction, I will trust them so what I am saying is that trust system is not the with all persons but we operate differently even in the real life.
I know and saw B.C Game has resolved many people accusations and most of the threads you have displayed at the Op has been resolved. Now what was your case with them is not found in the Op but other persons issues were carried along on your head.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Drama unfolds as Ben suspects that BC.game gets way too many complaints and that most of those cases go unresolved. But, more drama as they feel alot of trusted accounts in here have, in one way or the other, trusted BC.game and they shouldn't be part of his trust list.

Look, the rate of incorrect reports on this board has increasingly risen above the average. I cannot count the number of reports that have been made (even against other casinos) that were later traced to an issue from the reporters themselves. It's either they colluded, broke the multi-account rule, deposited just to milk the casinos off of their bonuses and then placing a withdrawal command afterwards, etc.
I got myself involved innit one time cause I wanted to see the end of it -- the accuser never responded again.

[SamReomo]

BC.GAME is indeed a famous casino and most of the users who created fake accusations against it are actually those people who broke rules of it and when they find no other place to defame such a good casinos then they come here and create baseless and fake accusations against it.

Personally, I've never faced any issue with BC.GAME and in past I was also among the participants who promoted it and currently they're sponsoring IPL 2025, and I'm managing that campaign for them.

They've been doing quite good on this forum and they're the ones who have been paying the participants of the campaign on time and they're sponsoring so many events on this forum. And, that alone is more than enough to show that they're legit with their business.

False accusations are not only created against BC.GAME but against many other casinos as well and because of those false accusations we can't say that BC.GAME or other reputed casinos are not doing well.

Personally, I believe BC.GAME is a good and legit casino and hope to see more good from them. I've also left my honest trust feedback on their profile and that's 100% my personal opinion about them.

[BenCodie]

BC.GAME is indeed a famous casino and most of the users who created fake accusations against it are actually those people who broke rules of it and when they find no other place to defame such a good casinos then they come here and create baseless and fake accusations against it.

Personally, I've never faced any issue with BC.GAME and in past I was also among the participants who promoted it and currently they're sponsoring IPL 2025, and I'm managing that campaign for them.

They've been doing quite good on this forum and they're the ones who have been paying the participants of the campaign on time and they're sponsoring so many events on this forum. And, that alone is more than enough to show that they're legit with their business.

False accusations are not only created against BC.GAME but against many other casinos as well and because of those false accusations we can't say that BC.GAME or other reputed casinos are not doing well.

Personally, I believe BC.GAME is a good and legit casino and hope to see more good from them. I've also left my honest trust feedback on their profile and that's 100% my personal opinion about them.

Drama unfolds as Ben suspects that BC.game gets way too many complaints and that most of those cases go unresolved. But, more drama as they feel alot of trusted accounts in here have, in one way or the other, trusted BC.game and they shouldn't be part of his trust list.

Look, the rate of incorrect reports on this board has increasingly risen above the average. I cannot count the number of reports that have been made (even against other casinos) that were later traced to an issue from the reporters themselves. It's either they colluded, broke the multi-account rule, deposited just to milk the casinos off of their bonuses and then placing a withdrawal command afterwards, etc.
I got myself involved innit one time cause I wanted to see the end of it -- the accuser never responded again.

This is a trust issue. And if B.C Game offended your, it might not do the same to me and with that good deed with me and solid transaction with me if I like the way we didn't the financial transaction, I will trust them so what I am saying is that trust system is not the with all persons but we operate differently even in the real life.
I know and saw B.C Game has resolved many people accusations and most of the threads you have displayed at the Op has been resolved. Now what was your case with them is not found in the Op but other persons issues were carried along on your head.

How is it that all of you, after 11 days of inactivity, have come here to defend bc.game? Were any of you paid for this post, or directed here in some way? I know what I'd bet, if I were a betting man.

All of you have missed the point.

If 50 legitimate cases are made about bc.game and all 50 are resolved only because they were posted here, how do we know there are not more that are not resolved, who did not post here?

I put this quote in very large text:

Magically it was solved after posting it here.

If you had of accepted this answer:

‘We regret to inform you that after a thorough review of your account activity, it has been determined that you have violated our Terms of Service by engaging in prohibited techniques. This action is strictly prohibited and undermines the integrity of our website.

And had you not come to the forum, you probably would not have received anything. Though, since you decided to come here, it was solved. Not magic. Seemingly by design.

To me, this is probably the clearest example of the theory that bc.game are scamming anyone who does not come to the forum to speak about their issue.

Thanks to whoever made it possible

holydarkness made it possible, as he handles bc.game's public relations for them: 


From my understanding, he sends bc.game a message when someone posts about their misconduct on bitcointalk, then the issue is solved soon after that.

My theory is that there are individuals who do not come to bitcointalk to speak about their issue, and these individuals are the ones who bc.game profit maliciously from. The reason for this theory is due to how many cases are posted against bc.game per week, and almost every one of them are solved...I made a thread relating to this here though no one on the forum seems to want to admit or discuss the possibility that there are individuals out there who do not come to the forum to speak about their problem.

Being a brand new user, what do you think about that? Do you think that you would have been paid if you never came here or did the decision seem final before you posted?

The problem was definitely not going to be solved if I hadn't posted it here, bc.game had given its decision as final. Thank you very much holydarkness

I thought as much. Thank you for sharing that insight and I'm glad you received what was rightfully yours to begin with.

This is not trustworthy behavior from a casino - making a final decision and only resolving it after it was posting on bitcointalk. Of course, none of you who posted will be effected by this, because you exist on bitcointalk and thus it is not a part of the strategy to scam you. However, those who are not a part of bitcointalk can and will be scammed, until they post here. This is a form of scamming, whether people want to admit it or not.

[nutildah]

OK, so you didn't actually provide "new proof" of anything. I don't think you really understand what that word means.

How is it that all of you, after 11 days of inactivity, have come here to defend bc.game? Were any of you paid for this post, or directed here in some way? I know what I'd bet, if I were a betting man.

Your paranoia is now bordering on the level of psychosis. Everyone that disagrees with you is somehow "corrupt" or a paid agent.

If 50 legitimate cases are made about bc.game and all 50 are resolved only because they were posted here, how do we know there are not more that are not resolved, who did not post here?

That's the thing: we don't know. Nobody knows. Again, the non-existence of something isn't evidence of anything. 50 cases and 50 resolutions would be an astounding rate compared to every other casino that's ever been complained about on this forum, and a sign that they care about their customers.

And I know this doesn't matter to you, but as I already pointed out, BC.GAME is literally the 2nd biggest casino that has a signature campaign here on the forum, with only Stake being bigger. Ergo, they're bound to have more complaints against them than other casinos. They assuredly don't get every decision right 100% of the time -- nobody does.

This does not mean I endorse BC.GAME in any way; I'm just stating some simple logic.

[BenCodie]

OK, so you didn't actually provide "new proof" of anything. I don't think you really understand what that word means.

It says "New info" and the new info is someone directly claiming that bc.game had made a final decision and only after they came here to post is when their situation was resolved.

How is it that all of you, after 11 days of inactivity, have come here to defend bc.game? Were any of you paid for this post, or directed here in some way? I know what I'd bet, if I were a betting man.

Your paranoia is now bordering on the level of psychosis. Everyone that disagrees with you is somehow "corrupt" or a paid agent.

That's what you're stooping to? Putting a psychosis label on me? Who is everyone? No one has proved it wrong, while I continue to build research that includes so much negligence, beating around the bush and circumstantial evidence to support that corruption and paid agents exist on the forum, if they aren't already an alt/farmed account of the group responsible.

Besides, I made a valid observation and asked valid questions, since after 11 days of inactivity 3 people came here, completely overlooked the point, and posted in favor of bc.game. All I asked is if they were paid to post or directed here in some way, which is not an unreasonable thing to ask them. Can confidently say:
No one on the forum directly paid or incentivized by any other member to make posts that are guided or designed to support another party
or
farmed accounts and alts aren't used to add support to groups and narratives

Ignore them both or come up with some lingual loophole just like all of the other quotes in my collection.

If 50 legitimate cases are made about bc.game and all 50 are resolved only because they were posted here, how do we know there are not more that are not resolved, who did not post here?

That's the thing: we don't know. Nobody knows. Again, the non-existence of something isn't evidence of anything. 50 cases and 50 resolutions would be an astounding rate compared to every other casino that's ever been complained about on this forum, and a sign that they care about their customers.

And I know this doesn't matter to you, but as I already pointed out, BC.GAME is literally the 2nd biggest casino that has a signature campaign here on the forum, with only Stake being bigger. Ergo, they're bound to have more complaints against them than other casinos. They assuredly don't get every decision right 100% of the time -- nobody does.

This does not mean I endorse BC.GAME in any way; I'm just stating some simple logic.

Clearly you didn't look at the new information which validates that bc.game had made a final decision and only after the user came here to post did they overturn the case. The user himself said that if they did not come here to post, they would not have had their case resolved.

You should stop posting for your own sake. This post stinks of negligence.