Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 07:12:43 PM

Quote from: Rating Place on Today at 06:14:31 PM

You make mountains out of molehills. XYes contacted me, we didn't agree. If a book contacts me, I'll reply. If a player goes to my thread, I'll try to help. I'm not trying to step on toes in scam accusations, so I watch most of the time unless it's obvious. I'm not discussing what people tell me in private and I don't try to play big shot or name drop.

You are always looking for trouble and get all twisted up when I reply. It's more important to you to try and make me look bad then helping players. It's not going to work. Doing double blind studies was your best when all you had to do is ask why they didn't pay.

I what?!

You assured me on other thread that you've done arbitration of cases a lot longer than me. You wrote a PM to me that you can help do the case, of which become the reason I withdraw myself. And now you say, "If a book contacts me, I'll reply. If a player goes to my thread, I'll try to help." and, "I'm not trying to step on toes in scam accusations," as well as you encouraged a flag because you don't see the casino eye to eye? You've being an arbitrator for cases for a lot longer than me and this is how you approach cases?

Excuse me, I don't know what other think, if they're in my shoes, when they got that PM and that assurance, but for me it looks like you messed up. This whole thing can probably be avoided and situation deescalated if you're at least man enough to admit you can't handle things. Instead, you encoraged a flag, when the situation [as well as future cases] can probably be salvaged if you inform me earlier that you're failed, that whole "didn't see eye to eye" thing.

And now you [at least from where I see and read the added paragraph] tried to shift the blame to me. Me? Make it more important to make you look bad than helping players?

Allow me to summon the old unaddressed inquiry because I think you're also not man enough to admit those mistakes, both happens to be XYes' too,

Quote from: holydarkness on June 26, 2025, 09:56:06 PM

[...]
So to summarize, kindly clarify these:

1. You advised people to avoid casino detection. As an owner of a thread which rate casinos, what then? If players do your advise and avoid detection and got caught by whatever ToS violation? What do you expect us, as the forum, do?
2. Show us prove that I make up things and posting rules that's not from XYes page and adding CLV on my own.
3. You'll bet whatever I want to bet that I can or can not prove that XYes has proof or arbitrage betting or you don't care about the stuffs because things got too hot and too real and your tails suddenly tucked?
4. Point us to the things I made up both darwstall's and ziportans's thread.

Four questions. I am hoping you can explain to us all and supported with evidence of that alleged things that I made up. Otherwise I believe it is beyond reasonable doubt that those things can be considered as falsifying narrative and make-up statements.

Quote from: holydarkness on June 26, 2025, 10:23:55 PM

[...]
I'd like to add point 5 though: show me where in this thread that holy changing the rules saying that value betting was illegal.
[...]

And let's also summon your ninja-edit:

And you have the audacity to say [and I quote again], "It's more important to you to try and make me look bad then helping players."? While you twist my words and falsifying my statements, made up a statement I never make for the sole purpose of making me look bad, not to tell the public that I am the one sabotaging a case?

Now, when you're given the spot as you wished and you messed up because you don't see eye-to-eye, it's me make it more important to try and make it looks bad than helping players?

Helping players will be exhausting negotiation and try as relentless as possible to get a middle ground for both side, not encouraging a flag just because you bumped into a small wall. That's what a bridge do.

I am about to remove myself from a case, but that's not without an exhaustive effort of weeks trying to get the casino to meet in the middle, not just dropping after a day or two because you don't meet eye to eye.

And it's me making you look bad?

You look bad, that ship has sailed long ago, when you say you'll take the case and later encouraged a flag.

In a way, yes, it's me "making you look bad", simply because I let the public knows the truth what really happened: that you offered to take a case, then drop it for a simple disagreement [whatever that is], and then have the audacity to encourage a flag. You escalated a case to an epic proportion instead of deescalating things like what a bridge do, and that's me making you look bad?

Quote from: God Of Thunder on Today at 06:32:48 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 05:55:32 PM

God of Thunder, can you please give insight on what happened? Were you still in contact with them following my last talk with them [I believe I update you with this] where I withdraw myself as per a situation I understood that there is someone else who will talk with them for their player's behalf?

Unfortunately, I cannot tell you anything further about XYes or what to do because they are no longer my client. My XYes contact confirmed to me that they no longer need my service. So I assume the signature campaign is not going to resume, which is on HOLD.

[...]

I see. That's unfortunate.

I'm really sorry you're losing a client. Hopefully they'll return one day, after they see that this forum is neutral and not continue on bullying them and encouraging a flag because they failed to "see eye to eye". The forum is always neutral. We always are. That's why and how players run to us when they have cases they can't solve themselves, as well as casinos entrusting their cases and marketing with us.

I can't help but feel stupid. I wonder if we can salvage this case [and the other] if I was notified earlier and patch whatever reason they withdraw themselves. As well as can't help but wonder if the reason is "we didn't see eye to eye".

Once again, I'm really sorry that you lose this client. You helped me a lot in the beginning by establishing a means of communication with their team when the first case arise, even when that's not a task that a CM need to do [I know one specific CM that refuses to establish me contact with their client, despite the situation went really bad]. And unfortunately we're still ended up here. But maybe this is for the best.

holy - these cases are simple and you are still backing the casino saying they did nothing wrong.The reason why people are getting stiffed is because you keep backing XYes. I want to warn people and stop it.