When Kirito89 was asking me repeatedly to give him permission to post those emails and conversations publicly, why didn’t anyone stop him or point out that such information shouldn’t be requested publicly? Why didn’t anyone remind him that this kind of data shouldn’t be shared so casually? I’m sure you’ve read this part as well, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
Was Kirito89 not that professional, or was he unaware of his site’s terms, What should we call this? Was he trying to silence me? oR was he attempting to publicly label me a scammer by asking me to give him permission so that he could post the emails he claimed to have received from a blackmailer? I don't believe they actually received any emails from scammers; it could be them creating this drama to discredit my thread against them.
You mentioned that you couldn't find instances where Kirito89 asked for permission to publish the data aside from one. Here are the screenshots again for your reference: https://imgur.com/a/6yTLgbm https://imgur.com/a/17vZu5H https://imgur.com/a/SZHEeZK Okay, that's
two instances, with the one I previously mentioned that I was aware of, on #94, and the other that I early on missed, on #30, which after re-reading it, I got the impression that he's aiming to get it reviewed by limited eyes instead of publicly, as that probably quite doable with several red tapes cleared, which later escalated to be a permission to have it done publicly on #94, probably under the heated argument, and this is where [I imagined, not necessarily have to be the real scenario here] that he was told by his colleague and/or when he asked his supervisor for the permission he was informed that the red tape has become red solid bars of steel.
If you take the time to read through his responses thoroughly, you’ll notice how many times he has changed his narrative throughout this issue. But honestly, I don’t expect you to point out any of his inconsistencies or mistakes.
What I expect you to honestly not expecting from me is to point out the explanations I've give numerous times about how DuckDice's explanation never changed. Like... really, I've write high and long and tall and deep. I am not interested to write another essay. Remember "paradoxical" and "moot"? This is the textbook instance why having multi-acc about one case is not encouraged, because it make things very hard to follow... or, in your case, to back-track. And now you have three.
Before you weaponize my words of "not interested" into something ugly and/or against me, I'll clarify, I really am not interested to dig through your threads just to link you my explanation because I have done it, you can dig it yourself, and I have lot of other things to attend, I am not just overseeing your case, I simultaneously oversee perhaps half a dozen cases at a time, maybe more.
I believe you can clearly understand that it'll be exhausting and time consuming if I have to re-read all of your threads just to link you to what I've said and what I strongly believe you've read.
Meanwhile, you’ve never asked Duckdice.io representatve to prove their accusations or claims against me. Why is that? Like this one:
https://imgur.com/a/pCGawpm Have you ever asked Kirito89 to prove his claim that I said it’s a coincidence that the blackmailer’s email and mine are similar but different by one letter?
Isn't it the whole point of this past few discussion [that actually, IMO, have moved far too south from the original point of the thread that you proposed at the beginning of it; proof the fairness of their game]? Red tape? Red bar of steel? Privacy?
May I ask what you're really trying to achieve here by asking that question while we all know we're here in this very point where we currently stand because of exactly that?
Did you also read where Kirito89 claimed that he found out from his support team that my account was deleted by me? Link: https://imgur.com/a/zBKH7c7
While in another instance, he stated: “We don’t actually delete accounts until it’s user-requested.” Link: https://imgur.com/a/Uj6F1nlThis clearly indicates that a user can’t delete their account independently—it has to be done by support. Doesn’t this contradiction point to another one of his inconsistencies?
Again, already explained and I expect you not to expect me to point out to those explanation.
The screenshot itself is actually self-explaining. You revoked your customer agreement, thus initiate the "right to be forgotten" act of GDPR, which was coherent [and show consistency] with the next screenshot you provided: you self-deleted it by revoking your customer agreement.
Let’s not forget, it was Kirito89 who initially accused me and then shifted the narrative multiple times to align with his convenience. Isn’t it worth questioning?
Which narrative being shifted?