Not that simple.
My list does not list the status of a case simply based on the complainant's [or any individuals, really] request. The status on each and every of those cases are the conclusion of them, obtained through either undisputable evidence or findings, or implied signs [agreed by the overseers by no objection] that points to a clear result.
The conclusion of this case, if you insist it to be closed, is actually "resolved", as the casino gave their findings of clear violation.
I could have marked with as such [resolved] from the day I got their evidences, actually, but refrained from doing it, in concern that people will perceive me as "playing judge". So, instead, I invited you to challenge it by having other DT reviewing the evidence, so it's not just me and my mind who gave the conclusion based on what's provided; a second opinion, if you may.
Aaaannddd... here we are.
Although you did not want to be a judge, the situation turned out so that you are in this role now.
You cannot set the case status to "resolved" because you refuse to connect the evidence presented by the bookmaker with my person!
You are trying to behave as correctly as possible, while defending the fictitious subjective evidence of the bookmaker, losing the truth in this dispute! And as you have already made it clear to me, you will not continue to try to find out the truth.
the status of my case is "unresolved"
Ironically, if we have to oblige to your post, you actually contradict yourself.
", by your order, I am now the judge. You do aware that as a judge, I can make a call, the final call that binds to both parties, right? And by the power you vested in me, I can literally mark this as "resolved" and you are bound by that decision I make.
Just to point out the ironic contradiction of your post.