Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 06:57:35 PM

Quote from: kulipola-best on Today at 06:15:06 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 05:33:33 PM

So umm... like before, their rep sent me supporting evidences to their findings. I don't think I am allowed to share details of what that findings are, so I can only hope that my statement is acceptable at face value that I've see what they shared to me and have to say that even for my eyes, it's very clear case of multi-acc.

if you take on the function of an arbitrator, making such a decision, you must listen to both sides. Also, I must confirm or deny the words of the representative of bk8! Please contact me in private messages

No, I didn't take the role of an arbitrator. Like previous case with bk8, it's kinda shoved down to my throat, I didn't really opt in to it, but nonetheless better just make the best of it, since I can't unsee what I've see.

Yes, I listen to both sides. What do you want to say and/or show me as a rebuttal for a multi-acc?

No, that is not words, rather [with full intention to be vague to protect their security parameter and algorithm that they kinda entrusted to me] a series of data. And no, I don't think even CG or AG or other arbitration body shared this info to the complainant. I believe that is what the arbitrator usually asked to be shared to them privately through email, of which they'll then check and validate.

And last, unfortunately, no, I have to address this publicly to maintain transparency. Feel free to reach me through PM if you have the need to talk about something private, but the discussion --and the resolution attempt-- has to be, unfortunately, stay in public.

I don't know what they wrote to you! Maybe it's all fiction???
or maybe it's partially true.
or maybe I can comment on each "proof" so that each action will be as logical as possible!

I wrote you a private message. Could you answer me?