Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 09:35:00 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 09:24:45 PM

Quote from: jeffyeps on Today at 07:36:16 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on April 26, 2024, 05:18:57 PM

I have to admit that I did not scrutinize the whole deposit and bets flow, so I can't determine it myself [nor that it stated anywhere here, that I know of] but you're betting your whole balance on that match?

How does any of this have any grounds. [...]

I was just trying to determine how justified and in line Stake's decision was. If you bet everything you have, the whole balance, into that match and they confiscate them for the reason of rigged game [we'll disregard whether you know about this or just following a trend for a moment], then it is understandable. You bet x amount of balance, the game was sketchy, so they confiscate that x amount of fund from you. That x just unluckily happened to be your entire balance.

But if you bet [let's say] USD 5,000 on that match and you have USD 2,000 left on your account, and they confiscate this too, then this is arguably unethical. That 2,000 has no involvement with the whole situation and shouldn't be "collateral" damage. That action, if that's what they did, was wrong in my opinion.

Quote from: jeffyeps on Today at 07:36:16 PM

Also holydarkness what do you mean by "fortunately" they don have other kyc issues. IF you look at any complaint site thats the majority of their issues ?

I said, "and fortunately, currently there are not new ones", and I mean it. Fortunately currently there are not new cases against them regarding KYC. Don't you agree it will be a very bitter and unfortunate event to happen to someone else? Weren't two cases already enough?

Read again [as I believe you read my statement wrongly] I am talking about future case --explained by the wording "currently there are not new ones", referring to the absence of new case in the present time-- to try to determine if Stake has turned into a KYC nightmare. I am not talking about cases that's already happened and still in the need of mediation

Quote from: jeffyeps on Today at 07:36:16 PM

and how is it hard to believe when you yourself on this thread said that level 2 should suffice in answering and returning of funds but now its a different story?[...]

I believe what you're referring to what I said is this?

Quote from: holydarkness on March 31, 2024, 05:39:12 PM

[...]
Nonetheless, I have to agree that their request to OP is a bit excessive. OP already performed KYC level 1 and 2, which should be enough to prove his identity and help casino flag the user if they abuse the ToS, I don't see the necessity of level 3 and 4 KYC if it's simply to investigate a bet.
[...]

Please read again, I am saying that level 1 and 2 should be enough to identify and help casino flag a user, not to return the fund. How logical is it for any platform to return a fund when someone fulfill the highest KYC level and disregarding the abuse they might or might not do?

Quote from: jeffyeps on Today at 07:36:16 PM

just say you are an advocate for stake. Ive complied with everything from these people and its still hard for you to believe? i dont know what more i have to prove to a person like you but you obviously are one of those guys thaat refuse think a casino cant defraud their customers. Honestly dont know why you keep frequenting this thread giving stake every benefit of the doubt and throwing words like "fortunately" they dont have any other kyc complaints
[...]

Interesting notion. I noticed, that you have a tendency to be offensive when someone said something that is against your narrative or what you want or whatever it is that's on the slightest degree against you, regardless the purpose of those question or statement.

So I am abiding your wish.

I previously tried to disregard your spiteful accusation [that I am here only to take benefit of the casinos, working for them, wishing to be offered to work for them by dong this, and so on, while I am here purely for the community] and try to keep actively overseeing this one. I understand correctly that you see me as someone very partial, perhaps even corrupt, as I am benefitted from those cases and looking forward to be employed by them?

I am withdrawing myself from this one and taking the back seat.

Don't blame you.

Holydarkness doesn't work for anyone. It's the go to statement for a lot of people in the wrong. Although I understand your frustration, if you want help then be courteous with people trying to help.

I still think you should be paid on this one. Seems obvious you weren't in on the fix since as stated before, you jumped in on the bet, you didn't start the wave, you rode the wave.

I understand his points but a lot of the times he is basing his bias on accusations without any further proof. Saying if op did such and such then he is in violation of these terms. Which is cool and all but its all based on what ifs. And now stake has not proven anything like they claimed with the multi accounting claim at the very first day of this problem, then we come to kyc information which again holydarkness is coming in with tos on why they do this which is what if. All the time holydarkness is giving subtle little hints that im in the wrong here betting on sketchy bets even tho ive proven everything time and time i am following all rules and followed this trend. Now what gets me taken back from this persons statements is the justification of the taking of my original bet.

Lets speak in hypotheticles for everyones sake even tho this is how the events went down. Say a player places a bet that is posted on casinos on public high rollers section and his account is full level 4 verified with proof of funds and everything and the game is found to have been rigged by a member of the sports foundation in what terms of service is stake or any casino entitled to all of the original stake ?

Again speaking that theres no proof player ever had or could have had any connection with the rigging of this bet, and all other factors on account check out.

Holydarkness says " If you bet everything you have, the whole balance, into that match and they confiscate them for the reason of rigged game [we'll disregard whether you know about this or just following a trend for a moment], then it is understandable. You bet x amount of balance, the game was sketchy, so they confiscate that x amount of fund from you. That x just unluckily happened to be your entire balance."

Im just wondering under what TOS on stakes betting does this follow a justified confiscation of funds under these hypothetical terms

Ive scrubbed all of their sports TOS and this is the only thing i can find in the player prop section
"We reserve the right to void bets placed on known outcomes or known results."

So say even if the outcome is a known result bets would be voided, not stolen.