Let me spell it out — again:
The guy wins $1.5 million — legit, clean, no exploits — and instead of focusing on that, we’ve got people bringing up the fact that he did time in Indonesia like this is some courtroom drama. What’s next, are we gonna subpoena his high school teachers to see if he cheated on a math test in 2004?
This is textbook character assassination. You can’t disprove the win, you can’t prove he cheated, so now the goal is to paint him as a “bad person” to make everyone feel like he doesn’t deserve the money. It’s transparent, it’s pathetic, and frankly, it reeks of desperation.
And let’s not pretend the “multiple accounts” thing is anything more than a fig leaf. The extra account(s) weren’t used to gamble, claim bonuses, or manipulate anything. They were inactive. Period. Maybe he’s bad with emails, or tech in general — big crime, I know. Let’s burn him at the stake for being digitally clumsy.
The win happened on a single, verified account. No foul play. No edge taken. Just a casino scrambling to protect itself from a massive payout — and weaponizing a minor technicality to do it.
If he’d won a hundred bucks, no one would care about the second account. But $1.5 million? Suddenly everyone’s a TOS expert and a moral judge.
And of course, we’ve got the usual suspects like holydarkness doing their unpaid intern routine for the casino. If you think this is a righteous stand for “the rules,” and not just an excuse to screw a big winner, I’ve got some magic beans to sell you.
This isn’t enforcement. This is corporate damage control hiding behind a smear campaign.
Well, if you read carefully, that drama part was part of idle hand as I waited for my contact and tried to figure out things. The fact were sorted out with an apology to the OP, and stopped right there and then and was not discussed any further once clarified. Instead, things were focused on the topic and the points OP was/is/will facing and that drama was not factored in to the final findings.
If what I delivered is an attempt of smear campaign instead of fairly lying it out in the open of what I was presented with --from both parties-- there would or should be a point that's written like, "in regards of OP's past record, [...]", which was non-existent in the final findings I gave. So how is this a character assassination? Or, perhaps what should be asked is: whose character assassination is this you're pointing out? OP's? Or mine?
Oh, OP,
gh0573d, as this case is out of our hand and I can no longer help in any manner, I'd be really happy if you wouldn't mind to shed some light to the mud-slingers here of the extent I am doing behind what's seen by public to get the matter resolved and deescalated.