Quote from: holydarkness on June 18, 2025, 07:02:30 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on June 18, 2025, 11:02:21 AM

SER holydarkness, THANK YOU for giving us a little glimpse in what the WHOLE story might, or COULD, look like when such issues/complaints are being posted in these topics by newbies/brand new accounts again. I have never doubted the casinos, although I was also giving the user some benefit of the doubt. But as I debated who do we actually believe in such situations if we didn't have the WHOLE story?

I would personally start doubting the casino if its campaign manager in BitcoinTalk closes the signature campaign prematurely.

A little correction, above is an explanation related to multi-acc [and taking out Rollbit's recent blanket statement of "name your other account" from equation] cases. SA are filled with cases that's not just about multi-acc, as I previously brushed. Each cases has their own elements and should be treated as case-by-case basis, namely we can't exactly see them as equal.

And about who to believe, I tend to approach cases with believing no side. I approach cases by questioning the sincerity of both sides. Thus I ask for the narrative from both.

Some members and mudslingers questioning why I "only" questions the players [the newbies who raise dispute]. Well, I actually questions the casinos too about the nature of the cases, only simply, it happens through direct contact and not in form of forum posts. I used to strive and encourage both parties to bring discussion to public, so others can follow the development too, but as things and time goes and trust built, more likely than not, it is more feasible [and practical] to discuss things with the representative of the casinos through direct contact as the discussion happens seamlessly, not to mention that they can share what otherwise can't be shared publicly [as they slowly gained trust on me].

Some said that the discussion that happen behind the forum screen as me coaching the representatives, though. LOL.

If you have some time to kill and happen to have a need or urgency to give yourself some torture, go visit SA, it's a source of endless headache.

It's understandable if you try to be in the viewpoint of both the individual, giving the presumption that his/her issue is a false-positive, AND the casino, WITH the presumption that the admins have no choice but to take action on the issue BECAUSE there was a flag.

Quote from: JiiBs on June 19, 2025, 08:49:39 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on June 17, 2025, 07:30:25 PM

In terms of sportsbetting abusers, the "communication" are carried in form of record on the sportsbook provider's database [again, taking Betby's recent situation out of equation]. The sportsbook provider is the one that made the flag. A flag raised for an offense made by a player on a sportbetting carries on and tied to the person and follow them even when they move casinos.

It might take time for a sportsbook provider to realize that username "holy" on Rollbit is the same person as username "darkness" in, let's say, BetPanda, and UID 12345678 on BC. But eventually algorithm will caught them, and thus, even without offense on Shuffle or BC or BetCoin or DuckDice or other casino who share same provider, the "presumption" [or rather... judgment] will eventually fall to "darkness" and "UID 12345678" in form of either ban-hammer or being limited.

Oh wow! This last two statements speaks a lot of what could be the probable on the series of cases we see here. Especially given the fact that, these game providers do some of these flashings themselves and are responsible for a lot of casinos. It finally explains why, though certain game offerings being accessed by VPN and won, could actually result in the winner being denied withdrawal due to a flag.

Could that be the case for some gamblers really?
Because, at the point of a won bet, it would have just notified the before and focuses be made on the later since, the casino operates within the jurisdiction of the gambler but certain game offerings are accessed using VPN and here, I’m just speculating.

In some case with multi-accounting as the reason why some users are flagged, there we one user who said that the reason why him and his brother were playing in the same casino, using the same I.P. Address.

I believe casino should make it VERY OBVIOUS that multiple players under one household is NOT allowed. This is an issue if the user uses his/her relatives' I.D. to KYC another account.