How about this:
"I, holydarkness, do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users."
It's not there semantically as it does not include campaign managers.
Yawn.
I'm quite close of losing my interest in helping you get your clarification. Especially as it's proven you did not read explanation carefully and your logic is indeed, flawed; which I'll try to explain below, so kindly be honest to yourself this time and really spare the time instead of saying that you're sorry for the time wasted, while you actually didn't even pay attention to all of the text.
1I insist on the wording to be specific, as one should be in this forum where many members twist their words and statements to evade guilt. It's nothing personal, it's just for a clear record.
Orrrrr... so you can use it for things like this?
[...]
@holydarkness is the self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, he works for free and is motivated by nothing more than making sure you both get paid. Since he has contact with casino higher ups, you both should bundle all the evidence you have, make your threads stronger, and contact him when done.
Since you're investigating casinos like BC and another bunch of casinos, it must have been made abundantly clear to you that I specified in a lot of threads against Stake that I can't help users for Stake-related issues, as I don't have Stake's contact.
So, what's that post about? Unless you're not
genuinely reading those threads and it's just empty words? Like the genuity of your feeling for the time wasted reading my post, while you later admit you didn't read thoroughly?
So, the agreement will still stands, with a bit of modification. I'll say what you asked above, copy and paste them, to be exactly as you instructed.
But if in the future, someone ever use the statement and/or the situation,
verbatim or semantically,
in a negative connotation, just like what you did above, [and to make it abundantly clear, the word "bridge", used like above quoted, is obviously and automatically fall into the semantic category of the statement], you'll pay me 25,000 USD for every time the situation occurs, as well as explaining to the public of that self-proclaimed thingy or whatever semantic and/or verbatim word they used. Stressing the point, as I am fair, it'll only take effect if it's used in negative connotation.
The logic is simple:
- Casinos (and their shady counterparts) have figured they can steal from players under the guise of KYC and stringent verification processes.
- They also understand that as a result, they must manage PR by having members (like yourself) answer those who decide to voice on the forum.
- Result: Casinos get good PR and gain good reputation on bitcointalk while taking advantage of members who do not want to complete kyc or do not have a voice due to language barrier or simple unawareness of being able to increase chances of recovery by posting on the forum.
To manage PR, they need a bridge. The reason I highlighted in the last quote to specify that you don't get paid by other parties (like campaign managers) as the chain of command would likely be casino > campaign manager > "bridge" (as you call it).
The logic is flawed:
- at least half of the accusations against casinos in SA board were an attempt by the player to strongarm the casino. The part where the casinos
did made mistake and/or their requirement for KYC and the likes are fulfilled by the player, are quickly fixed.
- KYC is part of the casinos ToS. It's on every users [in this forum, outside this forum, and in real life] duty to read ToS, since they're agreed to it without any coercion. If the player didn't want to do KYC, then don't play on the casino who clearly state they can ask for it anytime they want. There are KYC-free casinos out there. Use them.
- I am kinda sure I am working with
[2] a completely different staffs from what a campaign manager were in touch with. CM are dealing with [I assume] marketing team, I am exchanging words with compliance and security guys. Or, someone that's on an even higher up position, that can maneuver inter-departments, but quite likely are not the one who are in touch with CMs. And other than the extremely few [desperate] occasions where I asked a CM for a contact of the staff they're in touch with for that campaign purpose, which will later redirect me to other staffs, I barely brushed with any CMs for issues.
Feel free to ask your current CM about how many times I am reaching him for disputes against casinos that he managed.
It should be abundantly clear if you answered my question
1 from the beginning. I mean, can you imagine how awkward it'll be? The CM [or whoever in touch with me] said something like, "hey, this is 100 USD, your fee for our casino's case against HolyDickness that let us win and voided the fund from the player", and later on "uhh, hi, sorry, but uhh... the case with HornyDarkness? Yeah, we have to pay 350,000 USD because you help the player get to the bottom of it. Uhh... can you perhaps pay us back some fee? Since we have to pay the player because of you. Oh, while we're at it, the other case also cost us 80,000 USD. Where can we bill you? You want the sum of the amount you owed us because you made us have to pay the player although we pay you to be a bridge?"
Logic.
Use them fix them, since yours is obviously broken.
Yes, to be frank I am sick of your walls and walls of text that to me, can be condensed into fewer sentences. Figure of speech or not, there is truth in that figure of speech. You are a part of ensuring that casinos hold up their end of the deal that they should be honoring by default...and that is a problem. Your job (or good will) should not exist in a world where casinos are operating fairly. That was my point.
The world of which... part of the cases are the players tried to manipulate the casino, bigger half of it is about them violating ToS, the other part are about player needed KYC to be resetted as they [not the casino] made mistake from their side during the process, and the others are players jumping out of patience where the providers [not the casinos] are asking for investigation?
Again, to believe you do this out of nothing but the goodness of your heart is hard. Very hard...but if you do, good on you (in a way).
No, I do it to build up a momentum that'll bait you to create this thread, of which I can challenge you and reap easy 25,000 USD for every time someone used the statement [in negative connotation], in semantic or verbatim way, that you worked so hard to insist me to say. It's a long term plan. And most definitely not out of nothing but the goodness of my heart, I specifically tried to reap from you.
My tail is far from tucked behind my legs. You have avoided exact wording and the final statement that you do not receive any form of incentive or financial motivation (from any party whatsoever) to communicate with casinos to resolve scam accusations for users. is still yet to be confirmed. You've used semantics only to confirm that you don't get paid directly by casinos.
Well, the ball is in your court. Agree as above, and I'll copy paste what you want me to copy paste.
If it is confirmed by you that you don't get paid to be the bridge by any party whatsoever, I'll include it in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that you are serving.
If I don't get paid to be the bridge you'll... what, now? Include me in the megathread that will expose the corrupt people that I am [not] serving but you'll apparently say I am serving? That's what will happen to me if I confirmed that I don't get paid? Jesus and Mary the Holy Mother of God... and Joseph, who forgot to pull! So what'll happen if [let's amuse ourself for a second for a made up scenario] I say that I am paid? I'll be skinned alive with butter knife?
My suggestion? Stop wasting your time being the bridge between casinos and the players, as you are aiding them to selectively scam individuals who do not post here on bitcointalk without even knowing it (in my opinion, you believe what you want).
Your suggestion is dully noted [not a typo].
1 this one is not answered yet: "In what crazy world would a company pay someone to get them lose money?" and IIRC, it will be the third time I ask. Is there a specific reason you keep missing to explain the logic behind this? Like... your whole narrative crumbled?
2 do I have to explain that "working with" here is a figure of speech where I am not actually working with and for them, but rather attempting "together" to get to the bottom of cases? 'Fraid that you can't catch that.