Re: LFC_bitcoin sending PMs to his friends to oppose flag and bribing DT inclusion
So what now?
If the author of the flag made a mistake in choosing type 3, and can't change it to type 2, he should give up any chance of flagging an account?
Sportsbet doesn't want to give away the recipe of their secret sauce for how they detect multi-accounting, not because they are shady a-holes but because if they did it would be all the easier for future cheaters to avoid getting caught.
What about telling why or how he failed KYC? Don't think this would give away any of their 'secret sauce'.
And regarding multi-accounting as a whole, it's not that difficult lol, I doubt you need any secret sauce to have an effective system that flags suspected accounts (and I'm talking from experience here).
Not saying it makes them shady, but they really look nosy and look pretty sure that they can treat customers however they want without any consequence. In the real world this is how you loose market shares/customers.
Looks like we didn't reach that business maturity yet, and that's why they don't give a shit.
So just imagine a moment their "black box" or "secret sauce" or however you call it tags you falsely for multi accounting, and gives them ground to refuses payment of a few thousand bucks, wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself on the matter in a civilized manner? I would. And that's why I'm concerned.
If the accuser is just another lamer/scammer, just show it. It's not that difficult ffs.
Then again if the accuser actually knew he was in the wrong, I don't see why he would stir shit up and not just accept the repayment from SP.
Today the ball (if you will) is in SP's court. And I would really want them to put an end to that story, one way or the other!
If the author of the flag made a mistake in choosing type 3, and can't change it to type 2, he should give up any chance of flagging an account?
so called "emotionally driven DT"
Sportsbet doesn't want to give away the recipe of their secret sauce for how they detect multi-accounting, not because they are shady a-holes but because if they did it would be all the easier for future cheaters to avoid getting caught.
What about telling why or how he failed KYC? Don't think this would give away any of their 'secret sauce'.
And regarding multi-accounting as a whole, it's not that difficult lol, I doubt you need any secret sauce to have an effective system that flags suspected accounts (and I'm talking from experience here).
Not saying it makes them shady, but they really look nosy and look pretty sure that they can treat customers however they want without any consequence. In the real world this is how you loose market shares/customers.
Looks like we didn't reach that business maturity yet, and that's why they don't give a shit.
So just imagine a moment their "black box" or "secret sauce" or however you call it tags you falsely for multi accounting, and gives them ground to refuses payment of a few thousand bucks, wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself on the matter in a civilized manner? I would. And that's why I'm concerned.
If the accuser is just another lamer/scammer, just show it. It's not that difficult ffs.
Then again if the accuser actually knew he was in the wrong, I don't see why he would stir shit up and not just accept the repayment from SP.
Today the ball (if you will) is in SP's court. And I would really want them to put an end to that story, one way or the other!