Quote from: Peeps Place on December 20, 2022, 12:01:18 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on December 20, 2022, 11:37:18 AM

I'd congratulate you, Laki21000, I hope the amount won, added, and returned to you can be used for good things in your life. For your question about flags, I have to say Pmalek raised a good point, if you have forgave them, then you can withdraw your flag ¹ because, after all, half of the content of the flag is no longer accurate. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, though.

I'll be honest here, most of this post was written yesterday and I was ready to post it at that time. However, I decided to take it to my sleep and see if I got a better insight in the morning and be as objective as I can.

By the sunrise, I spare my time on the arbitrators' site to read all of the cases raised against TrustDice and found that on CasinoGuru there are 7 complains raised against them --one of them is yours. Three of it were sportsbet related and can't be solved by CG and thus we didn't know the outcome of it, although one from them moved his case to AG --see below. Two other cases I had to side with TD, they provide a strong evidence of multi-acc abuse on one case and the other one was... let's say the other party is kinda... impulsive and it's out of TD's hand, not TD's responsibility. The last two, though, solved after those user escalated this case to CG. In one of them, the CG representative even judged that TD is more-or-less abusing their rules to work in their favor.

AskGambler has 10 cases for TD --one of them is Poika5's-- 5 of them are resolved with evidences. One was marked as rejected because the accuser didn't provide KYC after the specified time, although it might worth mentioning that their case was hung without response for one month, reopened and reopened again after that, for $627, which understandably too much hassle and bothersome for some people. One was marked as unresolved because TD stopped replying the case, it's about taking bets from restricted country --I'd urge you all to read the case, it's very interesting-- two were resolved after they escalated their case to AG, where in one case TD just refunded the money without any explanation after they can't provide evidence for their counter accusation, much like Laki's case, it was sportsbetting case as well. And the other one was the one I mentioned above, the user who moved to AG after CG didn't handle sportsbetting. His funds were claimed to be frozen because of "an error".

From these cases, I think it's quite unbiased to say that although TD made several good job on gambling platform and were wronged by multi acc abuser, their sportsbet division is very poor and they are easy on throwing ban without proper evidences to back up their action --not to mention that one case where they throw their rules to justify their action-- and only lift their ban after their user raises some noise.

Thus, no matter what's the outcome of Poika5's case --whether they being wronged by TD too or they wronged TD-- I think there still a lot of non-newbie on this forum who looked for betting platform, and if your type-2 flag removed, there will be no warning for these higher-than-newbie members, there's a chance they fall into this inconvenient situation. I will stil honor your decision, though, and I'll withdraw my support for the flag if you asked me to.

While for Poika5's newbie flag, in tone with Pmalek, I think it should stay to warn anyone in the future about this issue and the possible unpleasant scenarios if they decided to sign up to TrustDice.

Regardless of what happens with the flags, my tag will stay for the same reason I based my opinion for the type-1 flag: I can't trust this site or the guys behind them.

First, the fact that they insisted on something without trying to consider the evidences or pleas made by their user. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they finally solved your problem simply because you created a huge noise which ultimately made them ended up with two active flags and several tags from DT.

Second, although I am not sure if the decision is fully made by the representative of the site, the-guy-behind-this-post, without other people from the site knowing or if their "higher ups" knows and fully supported these action, but it's proven that they love to play sneaky by editing their first reply where existing people are less likely to notice and twist words into a narrative that works to their favor for those who read just the first few posts: they're the good guy who tried to solve problem, but the case became unconstructive because some people twisted our words.

It is not a good characteristic of a trusted site. If they really honest and determined to solve issues, they'll address these concern directly and in the open, by replying to the last post --not to mention quote statements properly and correctly instead of a tailored snippets that drives a completely different meaning-- and addressed these "unconstructive people" with strong evidences.

Third, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but part of this sentence extremely disturbs me:

Quote from: Coinbox1 on December 06, 2022, 08:21:12 AM

[...]
In addition, we notice that Mr. holydarkness, another gentleman from Croaita, is also behaving in a similar manner.
[...]

I can't see any other reason behind the unecessary extra words "from Croatia" than an attempt of implying a message, "we know where you're from, we know who you are". And this is really really worrying. Does this reflect on how they address people who has a conflict of interest with them, be it in the present or the future? A threat? I'm open for a less-paranoid suggestions on what's the meaning behind those unnecessary addition.

Oh, Coinbox1, hot news for you, you guessed wrong. You're not the first who tried to publicly doxx me and failed miserably though, IIRC somene once said I'm from India --or was it Pakistan?-- it's fun, but you're not welcome to try again.

Quote from: Peeps Place on December 19, 2022, 07:01:25 PM

Quote from: Coinbox1 on December 19, 2022, 02:21:56 PM

Quote from: Laki21000 on December 19, 2022, 01:44:30 PM

I am very happy that you admitted your mistakes after 2 weeks of hard discussion, however give me a couple of answers to my questions, will you progress on the feedback question from the players? they wont block again with similar extremely gross errors in the study of violations, because for example, I will also bet for my own pleasure and you decide to block me again, only on other points of your rules

I discussed with both our Customer Support and Risk Management and your account is all set back to normal right now. With that being said, for full disclosure, if your bet limit might be modified by our sports provider, which is beyond our control.

Without knowing what will happen in the future, it would be irresponsible of me to give you a guarantee that you will never be accused of another violation in the future. To this end, I strongly recommend that you carefully read our T&C and Sports Betting rules.

You obviously have ample reasons to take your money and leave, which we fully understand. But when you do it, we equally recommend you to carefully read through their T&C and other rules. Late betting bans aren't uncommon in sports books. So are arbitrage betting bans.

Best regards,
TrustDice Team

Appreciate that you did the right thing. Past posting is something that all books have to deal with. In the end, you did the right thing and I re-instated your grade.

edit- the only thing that I don't like is that you should have bitten your lip rather than give a warning. It still looks like an accusation. When a player makes a live bet, it's always close to a change, thus called "live" instead of "pregame". Put a player on a longer delay if you fear his live bets. Don't give us a warning or threat.

You're joking, right? The OP was not even late betting, they're wrongly accused.

¹can we actually delete a flag we raised? I thought there's this warning at the bottom of the flag page about "flag can not be deleted"?

I said that Trusdice shouldn't make an accusation of past posting. "the only thing that I don't like is that you should have bitten your lip rather than give a warning. It still looks like an accusation." Even in Trustdice's reply they seem to be saying that there is wrongdoing.

Trustdice doesn't make the decision on limiting players and seeing things such as past posts. The odds provider will limit players and it can get carried over to all books using that provider. That's why when you try a new book, you may get limited fast. They figure out who you are from play at another book using the same provider. I'm sure that Trustdice can override if wanted.

This means that the odds provider caused the problem? It doesn't seem that Trustdice was looking to scam.