Just a reminder to everyone that's trying to defend Coinplay for some odd reason:
Coinplay agreed to use askgamblers to arbitrate.
Askgamblers ruled against Coinplay.
Coinplay did not pay and ghosted.
There is absolutely no reason that Coinplay deserves any benefit of doubt in this situation.
I'm not defending Coinplay, in my eyes this ended up as a good lesson for both sides. Coinplay got slapped by the internet for not dealing with the issue, the player got their deposit back (regardless if they did or did not try to play the system)
By even suggesting that a player having their balance taken minus their deposit is somehow
What I'm trying to do though is figure out for my self what actually happened here, and it seems there's more to it.
#1. We have a Dutch player, who shouldn't be playing outside of his country, actively playing on several brands outside of his country.
#2. That player won a larger amount through activity on several accounts, and triggered the abuser matrix.
#3. That same player got reported that he was playing with different accounts, arbitrage and so on.
#4. The operator didn't want to argue, refunded his deposit and closed his account.
#5. Even if the player could manage to somehow prove that he wasn't abusing the operator and remove all the smoke surrounding him, if KYC would be asked for, he would fail it and again only get the deposit back.
[/quote]
You are defending coinplay by suggesting that returning a players deposit and keeping their profit (freerolling the player) is anything other than shady.
Your list should read:
#1. Coinplay and player had a dispute of players balance.
#2. Coinplay and player agree to use third party.
#3. Third party rules against Coinplay.
#4. Coinplay still doesn't pay player and ghosts the forum.