Quote from: BenCodie on Today at 01:19:02 PM

[...]
I am wondering why you are avoiding the provided statement:
"I, holydarkness, am a good Samaritan who does not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
[...]

It's there, semantically. And if you wondered why I refused to use the word, it's because I don't see, want to use, and/or self proclaim myself as "a good samaritan". Lest people use that statement against me and say I'm a narcisist, having god-complex, or seeing myself so highly as an equal to someone mentioned in a bible as a prodigy. Hence, the statement with exact point conveyed in it: that I am not paid by casinos to help bridging situations with players.

If I may return the favor though, why insist on the exact wording while the statement I gave you conveyed the point you're trying to prove? Unless that is not what you're trying to prove? While we're at it, do you mind to answer my question about the logic behind being paid by casinos for making them lose money? I really want to know your thought on this and I am ready to be impressed. Kindly don't let me down.

About the challenge, in other perspective, we can also say, "one can't prove what does not exist." Namely, the payment for acting as a bridge and go back and forth between casinos and players are nonexistent.

And about "push", it's been explained in the post. Did you not read the post? I thought you're "genuinely feel a little sorry for how much time are losing" from reading that many words of mine? Yet you seemingly missed the part where I cover the "push" part? That it's a "figure of speech that I am asking them and bothering them on daily basis to keep things in motion instead of pushing in the sense of applying some force." So which one is it? You read my post carefully and feel little sorry for how much time are losing [sic] or you did not read them, just skimmed through, hence missing the part where I explained about the figure of speech?

In case you wondered, it's not just BC, it's every single casino which their staff's personal contact is in my possession. Like... that's what being a bridge mean, to connect the player who raises dispute and the casino being disputed, and keep it flowing, until we find the bottom of it.

So, that's the gist of it. You got what you want, that's the extent of the statement I can give. It conveyed the exact meaning you're wanting me to say, that I am not paid by casinos to act as a bridge between them. But if you want me to say the exact word, unfortunately I can't, for the reason above: I don't want weaponize haters of mine by having them a chance to say I have an NPD or delusion of grandeur or the likes.

Leave it there with your tucked tail and dysfunctional back, or take a path where you insist me to say the exact word, which I will, upon you accepting to take responsibility where, in the future, when someone ever use this situation against me, the good Samaritan thingy, you'll pay me 10,000 USD for every time it's being used, plus explaining to that people why I said the good Samaritan word.