Quote from: Don Pedro Dinero on Today at 05:15:33 PM

What a way to make a fool of themselves and self-destruct in public. I can think of plenty of ways to create this thread where someone could present the facts and open a reasoned debate. But no, the OP had to come and give us yet another lecture on the forum with that condescending tone.

Wasn't this the guy who criticised casinos and gambling, only to end up wearing a paid casino signature shortly afterwards?

And he's not even in DT, talking with that cocky attitude to DT members. It seems to me it won't be long before they distrust him, and I can already see that one of them has struck back.

Okay...I've got the condescending tone? I'd self reflect. I've not done anything than make a fair conclusion: Why should anyone trust a casino that has a new scam report and prays on victims on who do not speak out in public?

It's a fair conclusion to make.

In relation to being paid to put some text in my signature, I have explained this before and have no interest in re-hashing the argument. I disagree that wearing signatures are only for those who praise and promote casinos. Advertisements can be displayed anywhere, they aren't selected based on beliefs (hence ad networks and paid placement ads, do you think google (for example) personally endorses the paid ads at the top of their searches? No. As long as they follow guidelines, anything can be displayed - my guidelines are, as long as they are legitimate, they can pay for my signature).

Also, in relation to icopress, this is simply power abuse. I have a right to speak freely, and I have been punished for kicking the hornets nest. I am not surprised at all that he of all people has abused the trust system because of this thread. "I would definitely avoid trading with him because spreading charlatan ideas under the guise of snake oil is a big red flag." is a very inaccurate way to describe me.

Quote from: paid2 on Today at 01:58:01 PM

OP, feel free to tell me what in my feedback left to BC is not accurate:

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3373825

BC.GAME

2024-12-08

Paid several bonuses in Games & Rounds. I've always been able to withdraw my winnings without any issue. I would also like to mention that BC has sponsored a lot of events and contributes to the life of our forum in a good way, always with professionalism and reliability.

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

-snip-

This is a poor reason to give positive trust. So does that mean that I can run contests and giveaways in order to build my trust here? No, it should not mean that. There is no risk participating in a giveaway or a post, and it is not a trustworthy action to give away money or to sponsor something...for this reason is why so much corruption exists in the world through political donations and lobbying. Is that the same kind of system that this community should follow?

There is actually no risk participating in signature campaign, so following your logic, why did you left this feedback?

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=404695

AB de Royse777

2023-05-05

Reference

I participated in Royse777's campaigns for months with no issues. Payouts are always accurate and on-time. As a campaign manager Royse777 has no control over whether a business ceases to operate or not, therefore I don't believe he is worthy of negative trust from failed businesses that he has ran campaigns for. From my experience if a business had valid negative allegations against them, Royse777 promptly ended his services appropriately. A good example of this is CoinPlay (referenced). I will update my feedback if my opinion ever changes in validity.

I disagree. You risk providing an advertisement for a payment, and not receiving the payment. This is different to receiving a payment that requires nothing in return other than receiving the payment, or making a post (as is in a contest for example).

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 04:51:02 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

[...]

I also believe that holydarkness is not a random good Samaritan. There is incentive or motivation for him to do what he does from another party. I welcome him to publicly deny this officially for the record.
[...]

First of all, allow me to extend my deepest sympathy. Truly. It seems you're so much damaged and betrayed by the world that you find and perceive kindness and sincerity as rare as a unicorn with a mermaid tail flying above Avengers Tower.

That said, would you want to extend that question with other casinos too? Or is it strictly limited to BC?

Sportsbet? DuckDice? FortuneJack? Shuffle? Because I have their contacts too and they're one chat away from a discussion about cases, just like BC. Oh, Rollbit too, since I recently acquired their rep's personal contact.

How about Joya v. lightbet, since I even go to a length to get their attention, though the situation ended unresolved. But looking at how I exhaust a lot of effort to get them to address the matter, certainly the "incentive or motivation" is greater than what's with BC, who reachable through an instant app.

While we're at it, how about Roobet? I went far and deep to establish a contact, from reaching some contact, to reaching their live support, to emailing their support team as suggested, and repeating the process to other division as they dumped the situation to that division and they required me to explain from the beginning again.

Duelbits? I have email correspondencies with their rep to prove that I went to a length to get to the bottom of a case.

I don't have any intention to write this as a means to brag, simply to give an explicit picture of how I went deep on so many cases across casinos, not just BC. So, do you want to extend that question with those casinos too? And others that I don't bother to mention as it's in a distant past [and mentioning all of them would just make me sound like bragging]

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

[...]
I will further refine both the thread and the trust selections over time, separating the unresolved from the resolved and also add commentary so that the reader can distinguish or gauge the legitimacy of any unresolved cases without investigating for themselves. For now, the purpose of listing all threads is simple - whether issues are resolved or not, there were issues, and there isn't just one or two, there are tens, maybe hundreds if I counted past 15 pages...and as mentioned earlier in this post, the very legitimate question is "how many victims are there without a voice?".

[...]

Let me save some of your time, I have built a list of cases against casinos, with status of being resolved, unresolved, etc. the most recent cases have added feature as suggested by other player where the conclusion of the case were linked to the entry so people can easily find them.

There are more lists on page two, as I've exceeded the number of maximum characters in one [well, three] posts on the first page as the list grows, so I have to move the older ones to the second page. And it only covers cases from 2023, mentioning that just in case you find that I didn't include cases pre-2023 of all casinos as something shady.

You've wasted a lot of time in this post...you've made a lot of statements about connections to casinos, but did not once publicly deny that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos to do so (in other words, you work for the casinos, as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control) - again, welcoming you to publicly and officially deny this on the record. I doubt you will.

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 03:33:04 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:18:35 AM

Below are the DT users who I have excluded from my trust list for giving positive feedback to BC.Game:

Lol. Last week, you removed me from your Trust list after I called you out on your baseless accusations.
Instead of excluding good users, you should ask yourself why only 1 inactive user included you on him Trust list, while 10 others excluded you.

I recall you leaving out answers to key questions that otherwise validate what I'm talking about. Another reputable member also has the proof and base to the accusations. I am not surprised to see you jump in to recover after our discussion last week. As for the trust list, I was gang distrusted a while ago for no good reason. I am clearly not approved by those who control the power here and have not been for a while. That's just how it is. Aside from that, I've made hundreds of good posts that help people, generally seek to do what is good and right in the forum and do my best to call out malpractice, just like bc.game. Though this is not only unappreciated though I have now been punished for it, since so many are fed by those who are not on the good side of the fence.

Quote from: icopress on Today at 01:40:04 PM

It doesn't really matter, but BC has paid out over $10,000,000 over the years (including through the threads mentioned) and there is only one bookmaker on the forum that has done more for this community than BC. Btw, the neutral tag I had left for this user for a year previously accurately described his position in this community, but it was neutral because I believed that everyone deserves a second chance. The tag has changed to red and I would definitely avoid trading with him because spreading charlatan ideas under the guise of snake oil is a big red flag.

Great work, you have finally done what you have wanted to do since you left that neutral feedback. This is power abuse at its finest. None of what I have said or done here warrants you the right to destroy the trust feedback that represents whether or not I can trade with people on this forum. You have left a negative feedback based on your opinion of me, which is completely unacceptable. Though of course, you will get away with it. Congratulations.

As for bc.game, they have paid out that much, though how much have they taken from those who did not make a thread? The scam strategy is clear to me in my opinion - confiscate funds, place difficult KYC and requirements to get the money back, and if they don't have the will or the desire to hand over their information or to open a public thread, then keep the funds. It is a reasonable assumption given how many times people have had to kick and scream on the forum in order for their thread to be resolved, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely it ever would have been.

Quote from: Helena Yu on Today at 07:12:03 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

This is a poor reason to give positive trust. So does that mean that I can run contests and giveaways in order to build my trust here? No, it should not mean that. There is no risk participating in a giveaway or a post, and it is not a trustworthy action to give away money or to sponsor something...for this reason is why so much corruption exists in the world through political donations and lobbying. Is that the same kind of system that this community should follow?

I mean, you can if you want, no one can limit you.

There's risk of participating giveaway, as I mentioned before, not all sponsor will distribute the reward. If the sponsor delay in distribute the reward or not give the reward, they deserve to get negative trust right?

CMIIW, they didn't force the winners to left positive trust, so it was the users. If you can caught them asking for positive trust, it will be an another discussion.

There is no trade involved in participating in a giveaway. No money or value is risked other than a minuscule amount of effort that can't possibly be considered enough to consider an entity or person as trustworthy. I think that's a rational opinion.

Quote from: examplens on Today at 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

The argument that "most of these are solved" are irrelevant. The main point is that BC.Game prey on those who do not post about their negative experience and who accept that they have been scammed and move on. Some people value their privacy and will not conduct KYC. Some are consumed or busy with their lives and do not want to fight online in attempt to get their funds back, or don't fight as they believe they have no voice. Some people don't even know there is a forum or avenue to post on to get their money back.

By considering that the argument "most of these are solved" is irrelevant, you exclude yourself from the position of being neutral and relevant for this type of calling out a service.

Everything you wrote below is looking at things from only one angle and you can apply that to all casinos.

It is irrelevant, as it is evidence that there are problems with the casino on an ongoing basis, which makes it less trustworthy. BC.game have a "stellar reputation" on their profile, though is that the truth of their reputation? These threads prove that it is not stellar. It is sub-par at best. Yes, the angle can be applied to all casinos probably, though bc.game currently stands out the most to me in comparison to others, and a lot of their trust has been farmed from giving away money, not from legitimately trading with members on the forum or doing things that are actually signs of trustworthiness...

If Bc.game gain trust from giving away money, why do they not have any negative feedback for holding or freezing money of their players? Isn't that the inverse?

Quote from: examplens on Today at 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 06:24:07 AM

The argument that "most of these are solved" are irrelevant. The main point is that BC.Game prey on those who do not post about their negative experience and who accept that they have been scammed and move on. Some people value their privacy and will not conduct KYC. Some are consumed or busy with their lives and do not want to fight online in attempt to get their funds back, or don't fight as they believe they have no voice. Some people don't even know there is a forum or avenue to post on to get their money back.

Quote

Some people don't even know there is a forum or avenue to post on to get their money back. So what, some are solved, what about the ones that aren't that we do not know about?

What about those who use the casino every day and are aware that it is their fault if they lose money on gambling? Nobody knows anything about them?

Willingly losing money is different to being wrongfully scammed.