Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 09:44:26 AM

Quote from: Jordan675 on Today at 12:21:12 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on April 28, 2025, 06:43:01 AM

The point here is not who we choose over who because one is bigger than other. We run on evidence on this part of the thread, so do the ADR. And the casino gave the ADR the complete evidence of their findings for multiple accounts. The believe here is not due to a "bigger" casino aganist "small" player, its who provide detailed and verifiable evidence.

Edit: tidying quote

I run on evidence too. There is 0 verifiable evidence in the casinoguru thread. It's just their word vs my word. I am claiming I didn't multi account or falsify KYC, they said I did, and you are choosing to believe them over me. It is clear what's happening here. This case is not closed.

"And the casino gave the ADR the complete evidence of their findings for multiple accounts." I didn't see any of this so called "evidence" besides them just making circumstantial statements. I explained myself and my perspective too and addressed each of their suspicions. It's very clear this is not a fair argument.

But they do, in private, for the mediator's eyes only, in order to safeguard their detection algorithm, to not let public know what points [and how] they determine an account tied to another. The exchange of evidence is shown on these dialogues:

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/29/U2JHbc.jpeg
https://talkimg.com/images/2025/04/29/U2JZSP.jpeg

The mediator is clearly biased. They have said this to me in a followup email: "There were valid questions raised about this by the casino security team, but as we are not forensic experts and we lack the authority to decide whether or not the documents you have provided for the KYC procedure are valid or have been tampered/edited, we could not fully agree with the casino team's conclusions here." They made a decision on the case without being sure of the evidence themselves. This more than clearly suggests it was circumstantial evidence at best.

"But they do, in private". From my perspective that means absolutely nothing. If that could be admitted as verifiable evidence, then let me tell you this, I sent undeniable evidence with 100% certainty that Stake took a systematic approach to scamming me and millions of other users out of their money in a similar fashion to the mediator, but due to privacy concerns, unfortunately I cannot share this with you (obviously not true, I am just proving a point here).