Quote from: holydarkness on November 16, 2024, 08:15:29 PM

Quote from: kulipola-best on November 16, 2024, 07:33:37 PM

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?

Maybe it's all fiction. But I sincerely doubt that they fabricate what they provided to me, as it's quite... detailed, where each proof actually interconnected with each other, confirming and validating their findings.

As for you to demand on commenting each "proof" yourself to make it as logical as possible --risking to sound like a broken record-- I am not sure I am allowed to provide that.

But the situation doesn't directly translates as a dead-end, with me unable to show their findinds and people doubted the validity of the data itself as it's being verified by one person.

So, if you still want to pursue this path of invalidating their findings [without you being able to see it yourself] I propose to ask the help of other DT, bring a couple more pair of eyes instead of merely mine. Here's this month's DT1, choose five names from it, and from the five names, I'll reduce more to two or three based on their activies and experience in mediating scam accusation.

Once you agreed with the name of the DT, I'll ask BK8 if they're ok with me sharing what they shared to me to them. With that permission from BK8, I'll reach each of the DT and ask their willingness to help validate the data provided, and see what their verdicts are.

Agree?

If I may... perhaps you'll want to nominate examplens, nutildah, yahoo62278 amongst the other name of your choosing [I'll automatically agree with these three names] you'll propose. Not because I am sure they'll take my side, it's simply because I know these three oversee and mediate scam accusations from neutral ground, with open mind, yet painfully detailed, and they probably would say yes if I PM them asking their willingness to help resolve a case by reviewing a data.

Last, about your PM. I don't see the added benefit of replying there while the queries you asked there has already been told in details here. You wanted to know whether you can finally know the reason of your blocking. well...

I invited you without knowing anything about you, but I saw the table with public cases that you keep. By the way, I would really like my case to appear there too.
As for these names, I know nothing about them. Let it be - yahoo62278

I would really like to get an answer from you in private messages at least once. Because I have already written 3 letters and I do not know if they reach you. While we are playing "guess what needs to be proven", I will at least try...

Now let's talk about the process.
Anything starts with someone having some claims and these claims have grounds. I have my own view of the case and it is also private. I do not want to talk about every action I take in order to guess for what reason the bookmaker decided not to pay me! And I hope you clearly distinguish between objective reasons and subjective ones!