[...] I'm honestly giving you constructive feedback here, and told you that if this job you've taken up (for free) is stressing you out, then stop for a while so that you can come back on a level where you simply say to people "Please give me more than 72 hours and I'll try my best to resolve this for you." instead of biting their head off for (rightfully) being upset. [...]
Though the post was for other case for other casino, and
he blurted his post just to attack me [hence me ignoring the post and the entire
nonsense he wrote there that
defies logic and sounded very
self-centered if not
entitled] the real headache actually majorly come from this casino and two others, not the casino he wrote me to [that I believe is not without agenda]. With one headache-inducing casino being remedied by the CM with them getting more involved with the cases and my contact, and the other casino being taken off of my plate, hopefully only this case with this casino being the source of me gulping erogtamine like it's vitamin C.
That above, and this,
Attack you? Nonsense? Defying logic? Self-centered? Entitled? Agenda? That's all quite righteous for someone who is doing public relations for a casino with hundreds of complaints and selectively scams its users based on who speaks up and who doesn't.
Attack you? I criticized your for biting someone's head off after they were angry for feeling wronged by bc.game, and threatening that you wouldn't help them for doing so.
Nonsense? Nothing I said was nonsense, all of it is in line with fact.
Defying logic? I don't see how logic was defied, it was fact-based more than it was to do with logic.
Self-centered? Nothing about what I wrote was about myself.
Entitled? Again, nothing I said was about myself. What was I entitled to?
You can begin with dropping that attitude. We are here to deescalate matters, not to escalate things. If you still insist to go with that extortion of "pay me and compensate me within 72 hours or face legal suits", don't bother to shoot me with your UID, I don't need another headache of entitled brat, I already have plenty of that kind on my list.
If above is doable, then send me PM with your UID, I'll need that to get my contact to zeroing into your account and see what's wrong from their side. And while you're at it, kindly upload those images to
talkimg. I can't access any of the images.
How many times has someone taken money from you or dome something illegitimate by you in your lifetime? From your response, not many. While a poor attitude isn't constructive, I think that anyone has the emotional right to be angry and to threaten legal action when they have been unlawfully treated.
Also, just a reminder that you are here to deescalate matters, not the people complaining. People who are complaining are here to escalate the issues because bc.game won't provide adequate support (hundreds of prior cases which support that statement).
I would advise against playing god with this power of yours to liaise between bc.game and players. If you took on the assignment to help players resolve issues that root from bc.game's ongoing misconduct and fraudulent behavior, it is only natural that you show some understanding when someone is angry as a result of being unfairly treated (especially given that it involves their money).
People panic and get angry when they are wrong done by or when they have their money frozen or locked without explanation. Calling the OP a brat over being angry about this situation is inappropriate (in my opinion).
If you are genuinely helping people and this job you have taken up (entirely for free and out of the goodness of your heart) is frustrating you, maybe stop for a while? Of course, bc.game will be labelled as a scam very soon after, though what's more important, your mental health, or you helping a shady casino stay alive by resolving cases for them for free?
Was that me playing god or was that you with a bias while me simply being practical and realistic?
OP threatened or get panicked or angry or whatever terms you want to write to describe his words and gave 72 hours deadline to review of his gameplay, restoration of his account, and compensation. The timeline will put us on... Saturday, before he escalate to relevanat authorities.
That means me and my contact only have until Friday to sort things out, as I prefer to leave my contacts on all casinos alone during weekend and quite frankly, would love to enjoy my weekends too. And yes, that's because I do things for free. For that exact reason, it's completely up to me too when to reply and address matters, out of my free time. If I'm busy or engaged in IRL matters, I'll prioritize my IRL matters before other people's cases.
Thus, I think it is need to be established if he'll stick with his attitude and if he insist on going to all of those what he describes within 72 hours or not.
If he insist on that deadline, I won't bother reaching my contact as there is a huge chance it won't be resolved within 72 hours. A review of his gameplay will likely be conducted by the provider [though we can only be certain after he supplement us with proper evidence to see what is he talking about], and every overseers who seriously oversee cases will very much likely understand that it can take as long as whatever the provider want to. So why bother nudging my contact with details of a matter that'll be removed from their [and my] hand a couple hours later because it got escalated to the proper authorities that'll shift the resolution attempt from their jurisdiction to another division?
So, was that me playing god or me being realistic? Was that you being biased?
Also, just a reminder, if you're still wondering whether I'm here genuinely helping people entirely for free and out of the goodness of my heart, the offer is and will always still on the table: I can write that exact statement you want me to say [as evidently you're still quite dubious about it], so the words can be your proof, just put the money on the table.
You could have just said "Please give me more than 72 hours and I'll try my best to resolve this for you." instead of including insults like "You can begin by dropping your attitude" and "I don't need another headache of entitled brat" to someone who
has a right to be angry for being wronged by bc.game?
I'm honestly giving you constructive feedback here, and told you that if this job you've taken up (for free) is stressing you out, then stop for a while so that you can come back on a level where you simply say to people "Please give me more than 72 hours and I'll try my best to resolve this for you." instead of biting their head off for (rightfully) being upset.
Also, just a reminder, if you're still wondering whether I'm here genuinely helping people entirely for free and out of the goodness of my heart, the offer is and will always still on the table: I can write that exact statement you want me to say [as evidently you're still quite dubious about it], so the words can be your proof, just put the money on the table.
I absolutely do still wonder why you do what you do, because I still don't understand why someone would work so hard to defend a shady casino that is riddled with malpractice without being paid to do so.
Usually when someone does something for free if it's a good and honest thing to do, and if they realized there was a bad side to what they are doing, they would stop. While helping players is a good thing you are doing, you are inadvertently helping a selectively scamming casino to continue operating by resolving the complaints that go public for them. To me, this doesn't align with a free person doing an honest deed, and to me, it aligns with someone who has ulterior motivations outside of just "helping players". However, I am not accusing you again or rehashing this argument, I am just sharing my line of thought that has lead us to so many arguments in the past.
About the bet, I am on the page that if you wanted to prove yourself with an exact statement saying you don't benefit in any way whatsoever from what you do, then you would just do it for the sake of validating your own integrity. I still don't really see why I have to put money on the table for that. I've said before too that it would also be a stupid bet, as the outcome can easily be rigged (since the outcome we'd be betting on is influenced by information that is private to you, such as private communications, which can easily be hidden or censored to enable you to win the bet). I'm not interested in stupid gambles, which is why I never have or will take you up on it.