Quote from: ryzaadit on Today at 05:04:42 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on February 20, 2025, 09:07:33 PM

what I suggested to be shared, either publicly or through private eyes, were the instruction from their provider to initiate the action against OP, to prove that it is indeed the provider's request instead of WE88 abusing their ToS and ban players as they wished.

Still in the end, the user will try to ask how you can catch it and @OP or the user can claim denied that allegation + demand how they can detect the user being used for robots or arbitrage. This is why, sportsbet case is always a never-ending case (unless the case is about multi-account, abused promotion or avoiding limits by creating bunch of account).

- On the other hand, a casino can follow your request (while the provider are the one who notify/alert the casino).
- But in other side, the user or OP can denied those allegation no matter is from casino or provider + demands how they can caught him or detect his account to be marked as arbitrage or using robots stuff.

Plus, If you agree with the casino the @OP or user can just tell you. You're taking side with the casino.

Of course, putting aside the fact that the casino are fully free to refuse to provide what's asked [as other casinos are also not asked to supplement us with supporting evidence for similar situation], correct me if I am wrongly understand the situation which initially lead me to my proposal: what we try to prove or disprove here is one of the question by an overseer that the casino's statement that led them to confiscate OP's fund is baseless, that they pulling excuse and that the flag and the request to ban was not or never issued by their provider. And that's the extent of it. Not about how to prove the detection, nor an inquiry made by the OP.