Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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.¹

You never had an interest in being specific - your actions are not that of an innocent one who is seeking to close a discussion as soon as possible and move on without qualms. It's that of one who beats around the bush with their words. I can't be blamed for not replying perfectly to walls and walls of text, when I have (since the beginning) only asked you to tell us all that you have no incentive to do what you do from any party. thousands of words later, you still haven't done that, and yet you continue to post demands and expectations from me that are irrelevant and designed to discredit me. This is not behavior of an innocent person. It's deflective and hostile.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

I 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?

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:23:34 PM

[...]
@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?

I'll apologize for my honest mistake. I don't follow you around everywhere and was not aware that you don't handle stake cases. I was actually being genuine in my post. You are a self-proclaimed bridge between casinos and players, you do work for free and you are motivated nothing more than making sure the player gets paid, is that not accurate, outside of my mistake of not following you so closely to know that Stake is not one of those casinos that you try to be the bridge for?

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

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.

I never agreed to this crap and I'm dismissing it again. You don't write the law here and I sure as hell am not agreeing to this paragraph that states I'll pay 25,000 USD every time I quote your own words. You called yourself a bridge. I described you as a bridge because I believe that's a fair thing to call you (you communicate with players and casinos thus a bridge between the two). There's really nothing wrong with that description.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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.

The logic is not flawed and none of what you said here flaws the overall point which was that your statement was flawed, as it only specified that you don't get paid by casinos and did not include any other parties. All you have done is validate that claim with what you've said, you've not flawed anything in what I have said.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

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.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

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?

I've already answered your question in what I said in the last post (who is not reading now, btw?)

It's called PR (Public relations). The casino is not paying to get them to lose money, they are paying to have any case that hurts their reputation solved (they aren't losing money by paying people their rightful balance, by the way, it is paying money to keep the balances of those who do not do KYC or do not make threads to be heard).

All of those quotes and sentences you made up in attempt to discredit the above are both childish and pathetic.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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?

Using a terms of service to steal does not make it the players fault. A fair outcome would be to refund deposits minus winnings (and/or losses) if the player does not ask for KYC and if KYC was really a requirement then KYC would be asked for upon signup like most exchanges these days not after deposit/playing/winning as cases many cases report/how it works.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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.

You can give it up with this 25,000 USD nonsense because I'm personally paying zero mind to this at this point.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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.

Or just prove to myself and everyone else that you do what you do for free? Right now it is still factual to say that you never clearly stated that you don't receive any form of financial motivation from any party whatsoever to be the bridge (as you say) between players and casinos through the very clear and short sentence I've provided and refined for you, designed to force you to lie, or to completely absolve you as a paid PR puppet:

"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."

For as long as you avoid copy and pasting the statement, you leave the door open to the conclusion that you are a PR puppet that is in some way financially motivated to do what he does.

The ball is in your court and has been for quite some time now. All of the unrelated garbage you're posting surrounding the request to prove that you are an innocent and good person who is truly doing their best to be between players and casinos for nothing more than human good, is just noise.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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!

1. You are serving the casinos by doing their PR/"customer service" work on the forum for them (for free, apparently/TBC), whether you like it or not that is an accurate way to describe what you are doing.
2. To be perfectly clear, I had meant/said that if you confirm that no party pays you to do be the bridge whatsoever, then I will be sure to explicitly mention that in the megathread that while you bridge between players and casinos by doing what you do, you don't get paid to do so (which is a lot better than being paid to do casino PR work for casinos especially if there is substantial research to support that casinos on this forum are selectively scamming players and only resolving matters posted publicly)

To be honest with you, the amount of posts and beating around the bush have already been noted, whether you confirm it or not does mean something but not as much as in comparison to if you had of just come to the thread, explicitly stated that you do not get paid and then that was that. Your behavior (again) does not signal an innocent person.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

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?

I think it's more about your actions between now and when the problem is more apparent and substantiated than it currently is now. You've been made aware that by doing the PR/"bridge" work that you do for casinos, that you may be enabling selective scamming as a result. By continuing, you are now aware of this possibility:

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

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).

...and when the problem is more apparent/publicly substantiated, you will certainly not look good by being made aware of it now and continuing with these actions anyway. Whether you are paid or not is actually somewhat irrelevant to the bigger picture at this stage, similar to exchanges I've had with nutildah and their obvious negligence to corruption in the forum, you being able to say "how was I supposed to know that's what was going on?" after these exchanges will simply not be possible for you in comparison to the problem coming to light and as if we never had these conversations.

Quote from: holydarkness on March 18, 2025, 07:31:55 PM

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.

If you think that you are working "together" with casinos to get to the bottom of cases (as if they are unaware of the cases to begin with), then my new personal thought is that you are just a naive person who thinks he is doing something good and is either unaware of or denying the possibility of casinos taking advantage of you doing their PR work for them, and enabling them to keep/take whatever is not publicly posted about.

To be clear, PR work in this context is communicating with players about the complaints that should have been solved by private support ticket to begin with and should be handled by the official account/representatives of the casino themselves.

Quote from: memehunter on Today at 07:17:31 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

Ever heard of PR stunts? Number one, that $7,000,000 payout could have been an inside move (speculation but not an impossibility) and number two, of course, not honoring that payout would have meant the end of bc.game. Just because a $7,000,000 payout was honored, doesn't mean that 1000 $1000 payouts ($1,000,000) have been honored and have not slipped through the cracks.

The above is speculation but should not be put past an already-shady casino as an impossibility.

Now that is your opinion and purely speculative. The facts are clear, bc.games honored a $7,000,000 payout and we all witnessed it. There is no single casino (nor will be Grin

) against which there is not even a single scam accusation somewhere. I appreciate your scepticism but I expected a lot more balanced view from an experienced member like you.

It would have been the end of bc.game if they did not honor it. Since the $7,000,00 was the players money to begin with, it's not like it came out of their pocket. It's hardly a sign of trust, just that they do what they are supposed to do by default (regardless of the size of the withdrawal).

Quote from: memehunter on Today at 07:17:31 AM

Quote from: BenCodie on March 18, 2025, 02:05:08 PM

Quote from: memehunter on March 15, 2025, 09:05:35 AM

Having said that, I want to register my objection to the negative trust given by @icopress on your profile. Although it seems like he is defaming the casino but it must be met with arguments like other reputed members have done. It is a kind of bullying. Even a neutral is not right in this case.

He won't listen to your objection because he already got away with abusing his power twice now on my profile. It doesn't bother me though considering the red tags he will surely receive when I eventually post my mega thread

I just wanted to register my objection so that it does not go unnoticed (on my behalf). I mean, I saw something which I think is wrong I spoke my mind.

Thank you for doing that. I agree with you and wish that others were as honest and confident to do the same (if they agree) rather than siding with power.