Mr. holydarkness,
It is funny that you ask this now. Because right in the beginning you had been told exactly why we cannot publicly show such sensitive information.
Hi holydarkness,
[...]
However, kindly note that our updated internal policies forbid us from sharing such details in public forums, unless particularly authorized by our management and approved by the player. This is for both privacy and anti-abuse concerns. In fact, for the sake of open and transparent communication with Bitcointalk community, we had shared such details on the forum in the past, which did get us quite some compliments. However such transparency was later exploited by abusers who saw it.
So
again, just so this is clear: We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours developing mechanisms to combat abusers. By publicly showing these sensitive details as evidence, the abusers lurking for abuse opportunities will figure out ways to beat our mechanism. In fact, this has happened before and we had been burnt.
Tbh, mister, we don't know why you are so obsessed with us. By refusing to update the feedback over a resolved case, you already made your reputation questionable.
By siding with a confirmed abuser according to AskGamblers and
calling this most reputable gambling mediator "an arbitrary platform", you made your reputation further questionable.
And now, by pretending not knowing something that you'd been explained to in the very beginning, you are making your reputation more questionable than ever.
But after all, it is your life and your reputation at stake. So if this is how you'd love to spend your life, there is really not much we can do, and we can only wish you good luck with your life.
This is our last message to you Mr. holydarkness. Involving in this kind of conversation with you isn't in line with our code of conduct. We would appreciate if you can leave this thread alone to forum members who are genuinely interested in our product, but since this is a public forum in a free world, well, guess we can only hope.
We wish you happiness in your life.
Best,
TrustDice Team
Pardon me, I got notified that you replied me on this thread yesterday and was intended to reply you right away as I have been drafting and weighting my next action and reply toward
that case for a while, even before you posted your latest reply, but I was catching myself up with certain case of a hacked issue on the neighboring thread --it's eleven pages that's quite heavy to digest-- and fell asleep right in the middle of the read. Let it be known to public that my mind and consideration was already made before you post your reply that's addressing and questioning my feedback, so that there's no future impression by you that I'm... obsessed with you, or with tagging you with negative feedback.
In fact, I initially have no intention to reply here and was planning to quote your post to the referenced thread based on the snippet of your answer from the notification that I got. But as it turns out your whole post has a chance of misleading people for my judgment --which I'll admit I played certain part on this misunderstanding--, I have to straighten one specific thing.
I'll divide your post into two parts where I'll post the snipped version --and more case centered-- into the more appropriate thread, and address the situation that's more general and had to be straightened out here, with the point in question marked in red.
Just so everybody is clear and there's no question for my standing for AG, as well as for future reference, when I said "arbitrary platform", i was meaning to say "arbitrator", with regards to this definition:
a person chosen to decide a dispute or settle differences, especially one formally empowered to examine the facts and decide the issue.
Not knowingly that there's a
difference between the two terms. I owned my language barrier and stand corrected