Holydarkness , you are now at the point where you are just blatantly lying and it’s not a first. I never said that I “disregard proof”. I said that a player is innocent until proven guilty. The player starts off innocent. Facts must prove his guilt.
[...]I take the player’s side with no proof and make the book prove guilt.
?
Oh, let me retract that statement and rephrase them, it's not "disregard proof" it's "taking side with no proof". And why the hostile reaction? As I said, I honestly trying to see how is this beneficial as an overseer of scam accusations board and toward a case resolution.
Further, I don't think I've ever deliberately lie before. Can you perhaps give some reference of where I caught lying?
You start off saying that the player is guilty and must prove his innocence. It’s impossible to prove innocence because these casinos keep changing and tacking on new allegations mid stream. The casino must prove guilt.
I believe I always start off by saying everybody is guilty. Where do I ever say I start off saying the player is guilty? Please point me out and I'll humbly recant and clarify that statement publicly.
I believe it is known that I take the
modified "presumption of guilt", of which I've explained rather extensively somewhere in the past. With
you, actually. I recalled that I was addressing similar "accusation" from you that I always start off taking book's side. Too lazy to dig it up, but if we have to take a refresher course, summarized, I start off by assuming every side have more than they let us know, no one "is innocent" and we have to question everything, thus inquiring each and every side until there is enough evidence to understand the truth.
Those said, I believe my posts is riddled with inquiries toward you that
any is yet to be addressed? Will it ever be cleared? Do you want to drop it?
You have posted many times that the player must prove his innocence. This is the same as saying he starts off guilty. I’ll let this thread run its course a little more, then come back later to answer your questions. The current case comes down to jurisdiction but I’ll wait some in case there are more opinions on the case at hand.