Quote from: BenCodie on February 27, 2025, 11:59:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on February 26, 2025, 02:17:15 PM

I tallied all the casino threads in Scam Accusations that were either posted or bumped in the last year (17 pages -- it should be noted that many of these complaints were resolved, miscommunications, erroneous or duplications), and here is a list of the top 10 casinos by total # of threads, along with their domain rating according to ahrefs (a rough indicator of the popularity of a website based on its number of backlinks):

BC.GAME: 44 - 79
Rollbit: 37 - 62
Stake: 28 - 80
Shuffle: 19 - 63
Sportsbet.io: 17 - 76
Freebitco.in: 12 - 80
TrustDice: 9 - 68
Fortunejack: 8 - 70
Chips.gg: 7 - 40
DuelBits: 7 - 66

So dividing the complaints by domain rating gives you an idea of how frequent complaints are relative to the site's number of backlinks:

BC.GAME: 0.557
Rollbit: 0.597
Stake: 0.35
Shuffle: 0.302
Sportsbet.io: 0.224
Freebitco.in: 0.15
TrustDice: 0.132
Fortunejack: 0.114
Chips.gg: 0.175
DuelBits: 0.106

So this does put BC.GAME on the high side.

Another way to measure would be by complaints/traffic (in thousands of hits per month, also from ahrefs):

BC.GAME: 44/649.7 = 0.068
Rollbit: 37/22 = 1.68
Stake: 28/1700 = 0.016
Shuffle: 19/15.3 = 1.24
Sportsbet.io: 17/560.2 = 0.03
Freebitco.in: 12/431.1 = 0.028
TrustDice: 9/17.3 = 0.52
Fortunejack: 8/8.4 = 0.952
Chips.gg: 7/0.666 = 10.5
DuelBits: 7/12.7 = 0.551

Here the results are much more varied, but BC.GAME is much lower than average.

The point being, if a site get a lot more traffic, its bound to have more complaints.

This doesn't take into account cases that were never posted by more vulnerable victims, which is a key point of this thread.

As mentioned by a member earlier in this thread, the burden of proof is with you because you are the one making the allegation. You have presented nothing of substance against BC.Game (or against icopress for that matter).

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 03:34:43 PM

The details involve your purposeful ignorance of the dates in which I began to see red flags with whirl wind - when you claimed that I applied for their campaign despite having red flags, when the truth was that I had noticed red flags many months after I applied for their campaign. You created and locked threads, created walls of text, and even left an invalid neutral trust rating based on this information that you made up or misunderstood.

I disagree with your version of events. The manner in which you exposed your selfish behaviour towards the community (regarding the Whirlwind campaign) was your own doing and you only have yourself to blame for how members feel towards you. Furthermore, the feedback I left for your is valid and appropriate but based on the seriousness of the situation probably should have been negative. Your retaliatory feedback was unjustified but it does not concern me.