Quote from: nutildah on Today at 03:35:52 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

then how about this one

I'm not going to indulge your whataboutisms as its a pointless exercise.

Can you help me to understand why we have such a contrasting opinion here? That is that in my opinion these answers are key for your input on the main topic, while in your opinion they are pointless to answer?

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 03:35:52 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

Quote

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.

So what you are saying that is if I am to raise awareness about this problem (that definitely exists on more casinos than just bc.game, as we've already established with your data), that I must do so for all casinos at once? In my mind that does not sound like a very natural process, and a bit of an unreasonable expectation/pressure to put on someone, is it fair for me to be thinking this way?

Of course I'm already of the assumption that you and many others in this thread instead prefer me to just stop speaking about it at all. Is that a rightful assumption?

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 03:35:52 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

- 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.

There is proof that there is reasonable cause for concern that there is theft occurring on an unspoken level, theft from parties who do not speak on this forum. This proof that there is reasonable cause for concern are the amount of threads that had to be posted before they were resolved, and the high probability that not 100% of the cases have been posted and have not been resolved (as it is unreasonable to assume that every single person was firstly willing to meet KYC demands from bc.game, and additionally that they would come to bitcointalk to post about the problem).

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 03:35:52 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

- 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.

That's because that's not how I see it. How I see it is that its peers also have this problem, and bc.game is one of the most prominent and (in my eyes) the most shadiest, hence I'm looking most closely at them over time.

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

- 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.
[/quote]

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.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 03:35:52 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 02:46:55 AM

- 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.

I am not targeting icopress, and I promise you that it only just so happens that I also believe he is shady while he manages the campaign for this casino. The two issues are not intertwined, but are probably correlated. That's my honest position. I am not attacking this casino just because I believe that icopress is a corrupt and shady character.

I made this thread as part of raising awareness of a genuine problem that I believe exists, and that you and others are now (seemingly purposefully) dismissing - That a form of corruption and/or scam exists, where a casino freezes players and keeps confiscated money from people who are not willing to both do KYC, and who do not become a part of the bitcointalk community to have the problem resolved. Traditionally, Bitcoin is more aligned with those who believe in privacy than those who believe that KYC is a fair and necessary practice, making anyone who is not willing to complete KYC is a large and vulnerable group of people - people who casinos would take advantage of.

I personally believe that you are are ignoring that this problem exists, or that you believe that it is not a problem (for some reason). I believe there is a reason why the problem is ignored and that the shared attitude by established members, and that it relates to corruption that I believe has influence from the gambling industry (and mixer industry) and relationships with the upper echelon of Bitcointalk.

What do you think about that? You're welcome to call me a crazy conspiracy theorist and that everything I said above is 100% untrue. In fact, if you, LoyceV, JollyGood, icopress, holydarkness, theymos and any other upper echelon members are all welcome to do the following:

1. Quote my words:

Quote from: BenCodie

Traditionally, Bitcoin is more aligned with those who believe in privacy than those who believe that KYC is a fair and necessary practice, making anyone who is not willing to complete KYC is a large and vulnerable group of people - people who casinos would take advantage of.

I personally believe that you are are ignoring that this problem exists, or that you believe that it is not a problem (for some reason). I believe there is a reason why the problem is ignored and that the shared attitude by established members, and that it relates to corruption that I believe has influence from the gambling industry (and mixer industry) and relationships with the upper echelon of Bitcointalk.

2. Say:
I, *username*, believe that BenCodie's quote is 100% untrue

If there are enough biased and unbiased members who say it, I will formally apologise sincerely, and we can all move on with our lives.

How does that sound everyone?