then how about this one
I'm not going to indulge your whataboutisms as its a pointless exercise.
How is the non-existence of something evidence of anything?
If I own a casino, a very large casino, and my pattern of behavior is to freeze people's accounts, hold them hostage of KYC, and wait for them to either seek legal help, give in to my demands and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the accounts - then it is reasonable to assume that there are a portion of people who do not seek legal help, give in to demands, and/or make a public forum thread in order to unfreeze the account.
So you're operating under an assumption, and its unfair to single out bc.game from all the other casinos that are potentially doing the same kind of thing when making this assumption.
- How can you prove that bc.game is not swindling more vulnerable players/the portion of people I just described?
The burden of proof is on you since you're the one making the claims.
- Doesn't bc.game's track record and long list of accusations and problems increase the probability that this portion of people exists?
You're ignoring my demonstration that this casino is considerably more popular than most of its peers, so like I said before, its bound to have more complaints against it than less popular casinos.
- Does their current track record deserve a +20 / 0 trust rating? Shouldn't there at least be a warning of their history of poor behavior?
If you dig into the trust rating, which isn't shown to people not logged into the forum, you'll see most of the positive trusts are for fulfillment of promises & financial obligations. I have no problem with casinos having negative trusts as well, if they are based on legitimate reasons. Yours is based on unfounded allegations, and it really does seem like you are simply trying to punish the campaign manager for perceived wrongdoing.