And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post
No, I just didn't want to deal with this during the holidays.
[...]
Move this to your own thread, you're borderline OOT by presenting the evidences here, not to mention it's rather non-contributing to your own case as Coinbox1 probably didn't visit this thread anymore after 3 January --that's the last date of their edit on their first post on this thread.
The feedback is not solely made on the case of Laki21000, it also reflected on how they addressed the situation for accusations raised against them in general ~snip~
why do you think it'll be good and safe to remove the negative and turn into neutral if they didn't show any good gesture or any sliver of professionalism?
Although I haven't made any post here while the main discussion was going on, but I was following this accusation from the initial stage. I know that TrustDice team didn't show the professionalism here to solve the problem. They only did it after getting pressure from the forum members. It has created a bad impression in the forum about TrustDice services.
@Pmalek and you have left negative feedback with the reference of this solved accusation. OP has added 'solved' in this thread title. TrustDice team behavior was obviously wrong, but negative feedback doesn't fit with a solved accusation. Neutral feedback with a proper comment will work as a warning as well.
Poika5's accusation is still unresolved. TrustDice representative hasn't provided any proof there. It would be reasonable to leave negative feedback on TrustDice representative account based on that accusation. Although Sportsbet has provided the evidence of multi accounting in your mentioned thread, but crypto casinos rarely does it in a public forum. TrustDice team should post the proof here as they have made their reputation questionable by making false claim against 'Laki21000'.
So... you're suggesting me to... delete or change the trust into neutral with reference for this thread, and create a new negative one with reference to Poika5's case? Although it would be more technically correct, it seems redundant, no? It'll be better to just leave it the way it is until Poika's case got cleared then leave the feedback in reflect to the result of the case.