Quote from: holydarkness on May 20, 2025, 04:35:34 PM

Quote from: Jordan675 on May 20, 2025, 12:36:44 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on May 19, 2025, 04:44:48 PM

Can we see this email from CG with above statement, please? I can't help but wonder why they say they doesn't agree with stake'se decision on one channel, and said the other publicly.
[...]

https://imgur.com/a/nu2dRUx

"Additionally, there have been some questions regarding the validity of the documents submitted and whether you are indeed the legitimate holder of the casino account. While we do not entirely concur with the casino team's perspective in this, it does correlate with prior violations of the established rules. 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."

The next sentence "However, that does not negate all the other rule violations that were explained to you." is misinformed. This is referring to my using VPN which I told CG as a possible explanation of my account having same IP as other accounts. CG misinterpreted Stake ToS and said using VPN is not allowed, when this is not true at all. It's only not allowed to bypass geoblocking, which is not the case for me at all. I just use VPN to protect my privacy.

Eddie's telegram is @zerosumedge.

That is actually the exact point I wanted to address when I read the image provided, prior to reading your post. I think that's them telling you that despite they can't verify the KYC counter-evidence [as they are not forensic expert], the other counter-evidence and findings are supporting the verdict. Again, as mentioned before [and I'll add here that this thread is quite messy as I just realized I've addressed this CG ruling before], casinos detect multi acc not only with IP, thus same IP due to Nord VPN is not what they refer as "other rule violations".

As you can read yourself, it's plural, violations. I believe the casino provided the arbitrator with several evidence of same things. Like I address in the past.

So, their message depicted in the screenshot you provided could be read as: they're not 100% sure with KYC documents, but other data that Stake provide, points to that direction.

No, there are no other violations. The only thing they are accusing me of is falsifying my KYC/multi-accounting, and the only "evidence" they have is IP + deposit wallet (which I did from another casino's hot wallet). The evidence is circumstantial at best, and CG agrees with this. And let me reiterate again Stake is keeping my deposit, money that is mine, not my winnings, due to circumstantial evidence.

I had a feeling you might try to use the other "violations" against me as you seem to want to take the casino's side in any way possible, which is why I explained to you the other violations were misinformed. Here is proof: https://imgur.com/a/eJRQnsR. This is the first reply to me they had prior to the one you just saw, and this shows what the "other violation" they were referring to is in the second reply. They thought using a VPN is another violation which is not true.

You are clearly biased due to whatever agenda you have, which is none of my business. Like I said, you can mark the case however you choose on your end, but this case is not resolved, and I will be proceeding by filing a complaint with their licensing authority.