Re: I no longer trust anyone who supports BC.Game, and neither should you.
Well, I actually need that to be very clear, for what I'll propose next, in regards to "publicly and officially deny" on the record... as I've made it quite abundance in many occasions, yet people keep questioning that. I need to be sure if you're referring to BC or all of the casinos mentioned and not mentioned on my above post.
Given you mention the plural, I'll guess it's safe to assume we're going with all of the casinos, that you accuse me of getting incentives from casinos for the work I've done.
Factually, I've addressed this several times on several occasions, but at this point, I am a bit tired and sick of the rambling of those people who can't appreciate a "Samaritan" work, of how many hours I pour to help others that at times need to take my own personal time and I wanted to... play, so here's my counter proposal for your challenge for me to publicly and officially deny that I get incentivized for solving cases on the record:
This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:
"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.
Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.
IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."
Do we have a deal?
Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.
Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.
Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.
Given you mention the plural, I'll guess it's safe to assume we're going with all of the casinos, that you accuse me of getting incentives from casinos for the work I've done.
Factually, I've addressed this several times on several occasions, but at this point, I am a bit tired and sick of the rambling of those people who can't appreciate a "Samaritan" work, of how many hours I pour to help others that at times need to take my own personal time and I wanted to... play, so here's my counter proposal for your challenge for me to publicly and officially deny that I get incentivized for solving cases on the record:
This is the written ageement we'll enter, read carefully and give your consent, as your consent or non-consent is the answer of your own challenge:
"I, holydarkness, will give you, BenCodie, until end of this month, 28th of February 2025, to prove that I, holydarkness, get incentivized by any casino for resolving cases and acting as bridge between the casinos and people.
Should you, BenCodie, successfully prove that I, holydarkness, getting incentivized by casinos, I, holydarkness, will accept the punishment that the forum deemed necessary, be it negative feedback or flags or both, as well as will pay you, BenCodie, USD 5,000 for your effort to unearth the misdeed that I, holydarkness, has done all this years.
IF you, BenCodie, failed to provide necessary and solid-based evidence of said accusation before 28th of February 2025 though, you, BenCodie, shall pay me, holydarkness, USD 50,000 for the inconvenience you, BenCodie, caused to me, holydarkness, that I, holydarkness, perceived as a smear campaign and libel attempt."
Do we have a deal?
Edit: oh, I have no interest to wait for your agreement by 28th, where you can just back down on the last second when you realized you're neck deep in shit. So, I give you until 23:59:59 forum time to give your answer. Should you agree, I'll need you to escrow the fund to a trusted escrow provider [I shall do that too]. Should you disagree, then kindly make a thoughtful and sincere public apology for throwing baseless accusation, with a commitment that should you ever question the "Samaritan" work I do, anyone are free to leave you tag or flag, since you backed down from your own commitment made today and the acknowledgement that also made today by backing up from the agreement by giving your non-consent, that I never get incentivized by casinos for the work I did bridging them and their players and get things resolved. Thus, your trustworthiness may be questioned.
Should you give no answer by 23:59:59, today, we shall conclude that you choose to back up from the deep shit you put yourself into.
Yes, you have freedom of speech, you're entitled to speak freely, but you have to remember that freedom of speech does not equal to freedom from consequences.
I originally stated that you are welcome to plainly, simply and clearly state that you do not receive an incentive to do what you do for casinos.
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.
All that you needed to reply from the beginning in response was something like this:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..
The incentive being outside of the signature campaign (if that wasn't already obvious)
As for my second statement, what I had put in brackets was an alternative way of wording what you have not publicly denied (that what you do is nothing more than charitable, and that you receive no incentive from casinos - alternatively phrased (or, in other words) that you work for the casinos as a bridge between them and the people - you are paid to do damage control:
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.
I am obviously not interested in your bet as I don't have access to your private communications (which even so, messages can be deleted) nor do I have access to your wallets (also can be deleted). I have only been interested in a sentence along the lines of:
I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users..
Since I mentioned you. Not sure what the problem is with welcome you to post something so simple...I personally would have accepted that, as putting something in clear writing is something that a lot of guilty people around here tend to avoid doing.
When you go against an agenda with a large payroll, you will always be told that you are wrong. In these cases, it's only a select few who are upset with what I am saying (understandably so, since it directly involves their conduct).
Payroll, says the clown. Like the casino that pays you for your signature, which is the same one that pays me?
The person you're replying to has a signature that doesn't pay them, and the other one who just offered you a bet to see if you put your money where your mouth is doesn't have a BC Game signature either.
But keep making a fool of yourself. I'm having a good laugh!
No, payroll is not just in the scope of a signature campaign. It's ironic that you came here claiming that I had a condescending tone, and yet both of your posts have been probably the most belittling and condescending posts I've seen on this forum in a while. Why are you either so offended or feel the need to come here just to insult me? Do you have some sort of involvement in the topic that you're reacting to, or what's your motivation for posting the way that you are?