Quote from: JollyGood on Today at 04:38:31 PM

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]

A track record of only resolving issues that are posted on the forum alongside having tens to hundreds of issues in total is of enough substance to at least suspect that bc.game is stealing from members who do not have a voice on the forum, or who are more vulnerable to KYC checks due to privacy concerns or language barriers.

Quote from: JollyGood on Today at 04:38:31 PM

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.

When beliefs are put aside, anyone feeling any type of way toward me for getting paid to have a signature is likely a hypocrite, as they are more than likely to also be getting paid to wear a signature. The whole notion is still invalid and anyone who is judging me for wearing one while also wearing one, well, I could not really care less about those people's feelings.

As for your feedback, you can try and manipulate again by trying to say it's valid, though the fact is that it's invalid as it does not take into account that I did not think there were red flags at the time the campaign was posted/time I applied, while you say in your feedback that I applied for the campaign "despite knowing red flags" (untrue).

Ironically, a big deal was made out of me not posting when I had red flags, to which I responded "There was not enough hard proof yet", to which the general response was that I should have posted anyway to protect the community - now here I am doing so for bc.game, a platform showing red flags, and it doesn't seem all too appreciated. Funny that Roll Eyes