Saint-loup, not trying to start a whole new drama of someone accusing someone else that brought the forum a new thread in repu with pages of unnecessary posts as I don't have time for that. Rather, I am here to clear any doubt, suppose it ever raised, following the above post of yours [the part itself is deliberately removed in order not to stir anything in the muddy pot, and only relevant info being addressed, on the exact thread, to stay being on topic] of how the list being treated and how an outcome pulled, as well as serving as a preventive measures in case your post on the other thread unintentionallt gave the thread owner an idea and ammunition to twist another narrative.

As this thread also marked as resolved despite the thread owner's present dissatisfaction, I'll break this one down on how the decision about the status of the case was made [despite OP's opinion].

A quick recap in case you did not read the thread, this is a case of a player accessing from restricted teritory, Spain, where Rollbit through Razer uses me as a proxy to relay about their [obvious] ruling. The complete ToS finalizing and binding the thread can be found on post #51.

OP could not accept this and choose other, more... "persuasive" method, which translates into something that's borderline attempting to force the casino to play by creating a public attention and peer pressure, as depicted on post #55 as well as submitting formal complaint to DGOJ, as initially hinted on 60, and ralized on 63.

The consideration to put it as resolved [other than the clear cut explanation of a ToS being broken], was explained on my post number #62. Which, judging from OP bumping his thread after a while and I have never seen that "public announcement", it was situation number 3.

I will appreciate your insight on this, if you think the case worth being marked as "in progress" [or perhaps other status] alongside with the explanation why it should be that.