Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 03:41:41 PM

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.

From what we discussed and what was said, I can confirm that holydarkness attempted to initiate settlement privately, even though he seen evidence of me being "in wrong", as an idea of his based on my previous attempts to do such thing and my willingness to finally close this chapter of life, as it becomes really exhausting. While appreciated, I never received any response to offers I presented through him, even though I believe they were more than generous and actually beneficial only to BCGame, knowing that I never did something wrong.

Well, TBH, just to eradicate any assumption that I pursued that settlement path because I know you're not wrong and try to get you compensated, it's not. From what's shown to me, the evidences of multi-acc showing what a should be an undeniable proof that the accounts are created in a somewhat questionable nature.

I really wish I am allowed to show what's shown to be as it'll simplify the matter by much. Yet as before, all I can say is: the accounts are tied not only by ID, but also by emails, that bear similarities and should not have been known by BC [thus, latched to their database].

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

As for permission @holydarkness, as I said privately, it is up to you whether or not to post it publicly, so you're free to do just that.

I'll hold to this, thank you.

So, mudslingers, what evidence do you want me to show you all that I try to assasinate this character while factually I am trying to get him something, despite my findings?

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

Now, I am going to throw something else out, which I was not willing to do because it would put a bad image.

Unfortunately @holydarkness, I have to agree with sentiment people are giving out to you here, although I would LOVE not to. To rewind this whole situation, lets start from a beginning of my case.

When I initiated post several times and privately passed you documentation in regards to the legal case in Curacao (bankruptcy ruling, my demand letter and other documentation), you have clearly ignored the fact that the ruling was based on cases brought by us (claimants) against BC.game and it was nowhere said that they should pay us. Last part, you are partially true, because I was unable to disclose such documentation to someone, but you were wrong that bankruptcy wasn't because of our claims.

I clearly showed it was.

On another note, I brought up in this thread several publications in regards to that bankruptcy, and you were persisting that we stay "on my case", even though it was related to my case directly. But I followed and created separate thread in [Reputation] forum section just not to keep mud in water.

After all said and done to keep this thread focused on my case, you brought up my history (which I won't defend, because it is mostly true) in the attempt to discredit anything that I am posting and give reasonable doubt to others. Which is (imho) irrelevant to case.

I've explained it before, in the intro of that post. I've learned about it and keep it for myself for a while, thus my silence as I am not sure whether or not to bring it up. As I don't want to introduce a doubt in overseers that the person we're in touch with are not the real player in dispute with BC. Upon someone being suspicious that you're not the same person, I let my findings published.

I apologize for that [have I not? If I haven't then this is my sincerest apology]. I also explained why bringing the matter important: as I need to know whether we're dealing with the real person who have dispute with BC or not. As it'll be impossible if he's still in prison. A fun fact, prior to bringing it up, I even tried to search if Indonesia has a prison-system that can tell us if a person is still an inmate or released.

The reason of that matter being brought up is simple: to know whether we're talking with the person himself or if it's someone else who try to gain advantage from the situation.

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

Further down your investigation, and according to your "findings" (even privately) you have ensured me and everyone else that BC.game has case of me so strong that I can't win it (based on what you've seen of course, I don't want to say you did anything wrong).

Now, let me present to the public their defense evidence in case against me sent back in September 13, 2024:

[Image snip]

Yes, it is beyond my reasonable doubt that you have those accounts, due to factor mentioned above as well as what's in my findings. The elements connecting the accounts are... plenty, not to mention that BC should not have this information in the first place unless provided when you signed up with different email address.

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

I am simply going to ask several questions which I already raised countless times over the course of few weeks of having this thread open:

1 - If they did had such an evidence in the very beginning, why wouldn't they provide it and basically kill this case from a very get-go?
2 - Or even better, knowing that they might be declared bankrupt and having all that evidence against me and other players, why wouldn't they open up bank account in Curacao (where they were licensed at a time), deposit amount of claims and fight it in court?
3 - Why wouldn't they provided such evidence before this case even went to court, aka response to my demand letter, or even before when I was the one initiating conversation in attempt to figure out the actual reason?
4 - Image provided in the evidence is blurred, yet there is a clear picture showing that two out of 3 accounts "linking" to me are banned, yet third one is not? Why would that be so?
5 - One better, why would they hide the other two accounts which I still claim were mine while one of those two was unwillingly and unknowingly created because of the technical error (bug)?

These are the questions I already asked like several times, to which you nor them could ever answer to me.

Unfortunately, I can't answer any of those, because I don't have any information about why their lawyer didn't provide what to which court. I barely brushed court cases and their bankruptcy as I am intending to handle that in the other thread, once this one closed [as I've also mentioned, in that thread]. Why? I thought the matter being tackled in this case is the multi-acc, thus, my inquiry is strictly to that topic? No? The topic about their bankruptcy and other global issues were reserved to its sister thread.

Now, why don't I ask directly? Because of that double-blind test, to be sure both parties didn't fabricate a narrative that works in their favor. Why? Because I stand neutral, I want both parties to reveal their narrative as pure as they can. So, instead of asking them "hey, can you tell me when UID 35733412 last active?" I ask other question. Instead of asking "can you tell me why 35733412 shown to be still active although OP said it's a touch-and-go?" I asked, "can you tell me with what device OP verify 35733412?"

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your help in trying to resolve this matter to the point where you helped me build even stronger case against them and pursue it even further, but bias towards BC.game exists.

I haven't got a chance to say it before when you brushed it in the past, but I'll say it now: great, if my inquiries help you see things that stood in front of you but you failed to see before, then I am glad I helped you.

I benefitted from nothing in this case. If you lose and BC win? Okay. That'll be just another entry in my list. If you win and BC lose? That's okay too. They'll probably lose their reputation here and remove themselves from the forum.

Do that affect me? Well... yes. In a positive way, actually, as I have less casino to "bridge". But will that affect me financially or any other thing that bring damage to me? No. Not the slightest. Even one mudslinger's silly accusation that I am paid by them to be their PR is illogical: I barely advantaged from this case [one specific pharmacy did gain an advantage from this, though, as I have to routinely get ergotamine], I am not even wearing their sig. there is literally zero benefit for me regardless the outcome of this case.

Quote from: gh0573d on Today at 05:00:03 PM

To be perfectly transparent with the others (and so to say hypocrite), I was willing to settle for 1/3rd of the claim, or even 1/2 of it with clause that would keep my mouth shut and take the blame for something I didn't do. I was hypocrite but this case really started to burn my time and money is something I need right now, so I was willing to throw my name even deeper down the drain just to get this finally closed.

I was wrong. Now after proving to what lengths they are ready to AVOID (not fight, but avoid) legal repercussions, I would really be laughing if you or anyone else would tell me that I was in wrong from a very beginning - they are scums, criminals.

Well, great.

You, amongst all, should have known better what I've exhausted to get them to settle. Not because I think you're right and they're wrong, but because from what I see [I've write this to you in private] they have ironclad evidences against you. They're sure they're the right one, you're sure you're the right one. You both sure you each have an ironclad evidence to beat the other. Court is a long and exhausting case, and from what I see from what they shown me, the indication of multi-acc is there. So if I can safe you all from the headache, I was willing to cross the line from a simple overseer and a "bridge" to get you both to settle.

And that's where I washed ashore, or if I may borrow your words that you said privately, "being in the crossfire", that now become more annoying with these character assassination. Which become especially hurtful because this is the first time I "leave the neutral ground" by trying to convince a casino to get something out, I go extra despite the findings, all while I have my own mess to face. And I'm here being thrown under the bus