Why is there anything to be shamed about? I have to take a refresher course to get reacquainted with your case, and after reading it, even with the situation betnomi is currently neck-depth in, it'll still be wrong to support your flag. Your case was proven that they did not delete your betting history, you just did not set the right filter, and the reason why your fund was confiscated for far too long is because you did not submit a document they requested for KYC. All processed accordingly the instance you provide it. Were you suggesting people should support a flag for a case with such basis?
The statement of which members agreed upon supporting type-1 flag, your flag, is:
"
Due largely to the factors mentioned in [...], I believe that anyone dealing with [...] is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."
None of it is valid because the reference that's became the basis of the flag shows otherwise. If people have to support these flags just because now betnomi --if we assume for a second here-- is proven to be abandoning the sinking ship, this will be a wrong way to support flag. This is why the need for anyone having their funds confiscated by betnomi to raise their scam accusation and --if they deem necessary-- a flag against the platform.
If all signs shows and verified to be a concrete evidences of an abuse, I am sure DTs will not hesitate to support the flag.
So you mean that Examplens isn't biased? Betnomi already cashed cicadasTR out so no need to go much deeper into that because he was right in the end since he won his case. And he didn't only mention that examplens opposed his flag, he opposed others as well (me included).
's case was built under a manipulated narrative where he said betnomi deleted his betting history while he simply deliberately tweaking the history filter to drive opinion to fit this narrative, and where the fact that he can "manually" search the bet history prove the exact opposite of the statement, and that the root of all it was because CicadasTR "made a typo" on one of the document related to his KYC process as well as refuses to submit a document that's been asked for months. Once submitted, everything is processed.
He did not "win" the case, he simply provided what's previously asked. If he provide it when asked in the first place, there is no need for that entire case. At least that's what my memory served me from my quick refresher course.
Disregarding the current situation right now, I am inclined to think the opposition toward cicadasTR's flag is an exercise of good judgment. The flag was a reference to an accusation thread where narrative was conditioned and the evidences were fabricated. Will you say
examplens is biased because he opposed a flag that's raised under a violation of ToS [refusal to perform KYC], a false accusation, and based on invalid evidences?