Quote from: holydarkness on November 21, 2024, 08:31:23 PM

Quote from: kulipola-best on November 21, 2024, 09:35:26 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on November 20, 2024, 04:25:55 PM

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.

"Although you did not want to be a judge, the situation turned out so that you are in this role now.", 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.

that's right.
you can write right now that "you've heard both sides' arguments and are making a final verdict"

I'm just pointing out to you as a victim that if the bookmaker were a fraudster, he could have provided you with any pseudo-evidence. But how would you have been able to catch him then? By refusing to link the evidence to me, you're creating a precedent in which a fraudulent bookmaker becomes invulnerable to justice. And the whole discussion looks more like a circus.

In any case, this case can be used as an example for gambling commissions. That bookmakers are completely immune from justice.