Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?
+1, who are this mediators ? It's really extremely rare, if you want to find unbiased and neutral user's here. I don't mind admitting I am one of the mediators. Looks fine overall, won't bother with names like you, Royse777 or asche. I hope the weaker side is not taken advantage of, as it's clear that there are highly trusted biased users posting in this thread itself. Some of them even threatening with trust abuse if the right thing is spoken. Just to set the expectations clearly:
I'm not as nice as Royse777. Since both neymarjr12 and Sportsbet.io agreed to mediation this dispute is essentially resolved once the mediation concludes, one way or another. So anyone still fanning the flames will probably get a nice red note. Don't be that person.
Anybody who responds to this thread who isn’t directly involved in the investigation after my post is at the risk of receiving negative trust
|
|
|
|
It really doesn't, but as you said that you have made some bets and it never happened to you, they should change something in ToS, it is confusing and just because it is part of ToS, site could force player to place large bet. Ambiguous wording in contracts means that you are going to run into some problems. That is why they always make a big fuss out of the whole "You" and "We" pronoun game because any non-specificity can result in a legal loophole... for you or for we.  They can just selective scam anyone with the help of this rule. Even I don't think it's mandatory to wager 1/2 of the deposit amount at a single bet to be able to withdraw your own money from the site in any fair online casino. This sounds shady as hell in itself and can make it easy for the casino to earn money by selectively enforcing this type of rules and making it less fair for the players. FortuneJack should comment on this 8.1.2 rule and clarify it's usecase or how is it relevant atleast. |
|
|
|
I thought red notes were only for bad trading experiences?
Red trust is for users who are high-risk in trading. Someone continuing to escalate a dispute after binding mediation - high-risk shithead IMO. What an tone ! Piss off with your logic.
Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?
+1, who are this mediators ? It's really extremely rare, if you want to find unbiased and neutral user's here. |
|
|
|
Sorry for the delayed response.
It was interesting reading through interviews with many “famous” forum members. This would have been a great initiative for the 10 year anniversary of the forum.
It was even interesting read to go through your interview, which show's you to be an interesting person overall, more interesting than I thought. You getting painted here in dark light is just some effects of most probably unethical people's opinions online, yet you have an reputation and respect here among many, even if you don't think so. Hope you have an extremely happy life ahead. |
|
|
|
Don't mean to get all TS on you.
I think the text of the flag banner is the same for type 2, 3, and "legacy" negative rating. I meant not merely a [suspected, alleged, etc] scam (that'd be type 1 flag or negative rating). For type 3 there needs to be a violation of a written contract that resulted in damages. There, now we're ready to join the guild. So, it's looks OK for the so called "emotionally driven DT" to ignore the selective KYC scamming and non verifiable excuses from the accused mergly because the victim is abided by bullshit TOS or even as you said due to a mistake in selecting a correct type of flag. You are just making the situation more complex by making the victim look confused, rather you could have just instructed him to do the right thing in the first place as Royse777 tried to. |
|
|
|
- Anyone trying to make me look ridiculous as for "PM'ing users to oppose" - There is proof of that and if that's not enough - there is also lots of proof the guys running this thing have been doing this for a long time - proof available, too.
I totally agree with you, there are several events noted from same DT users you are concerned of in the past to manipulate trust lists and other persons view's via sending PMs, this even includes threading user's to kick out from DT in one way or another. You would be interested to know how Lauda would do this ! |
|
|
|
I wish marlboroza was online.
Me too. 
Let's not get to the point where established members are pissing each other off over a disagreement on how a business chose to handle a suspected cheater.
You think it's just about judging how a business is handling it's costumers or suspected cheater ? No ! It is about how people here with power handle the issues with biased judgements. To much of dense brain's around. |
|
|
|
Sad to see it turned out this way for @elmanchez. Some of his explanations about such previous exchange scam accusations on him were pitiful at most. But looking at how the above PM confirms, it seems he was probably motived to pull out money any way possible. I am still hoping for his explanation if there is any.
There is nothing sad in the fact that one scammer was discovered along with what appears to be a whole bunch of alt accounts with which a lot of bad has been done to forum users. What is sad that he still did not get perma ban, given all the evidence presented. This is something which should go into the category of plagiarism, without mercy and too much thinking - the man literally made a criminal online organization. I was sad about how hard it is to track a single person doing multiple scam attempts, and how un-noticed one can go here, leading to such unexpected damage as done to the OP. Anyways, I agree a permanent ban is valid due to ban envision in this case, but I would not go as far as calling him a criminal though. |
|
|
|
Should all these accounts who obviously left fake feedback get red tag aswell?
Since all this accounts are evading a ban, theirs posts which includes the scam link of the Gamblingsuport should be reported with linking the main banned account. Red tagging is not an wise option indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Sad to see it turned out this way for @elmanchez. Some of his explanations about such previous exchange scam accusations on him were pitiful at most. But looking at how the above PM confirms, it seems he was probably motived to pull out money any way possible. I am still hoping for his explanation if there is any.
|
|
|
|
@gentlemand: as you can see, it is highly not recommended to not get involved with the Otoman horde. Even if you take their part, they'll still attack you. They did this for the past 900 years.
You are proven to be racist. None of your threads or comments here should be taken seriously. Jerk off with thinking yourself as a introductor for all the gangs, while you don't care or even know about the facts. Nice game you have made out of it. |
|
|
|
It only contains the telegram name and Eth address.
Even the telegram name and the ETH address are random or fake in the below quoted spreadsheet. I can see my name is included in this spreadsheet, but the ETH address and telegram ID is never seen by me before, I mean it's not mine. The telegram id doesn't exist at all. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think he is a bot, but he surely goes Off-topic in most of his replies.
|
|
|
|
According to the New York Times: Mr. O'Connor said other hackers had informed him that [the hacker] got access to the Twitter credentials when he found a way into Twitter’s internal Slack messaging channel and saw them posted there, along with a service that gave him access to the company’s servers. People investigating the case said that was consistent with what they had learned so far. A Twitter spokesman declined to comment, citing the active investigation. Needless to say, this is a very bad security practice. This is the equivalent to writing down security credentials on a piece of paper that is posted on a board that everyone in the office walks past every day. I don't think a leakage in slack group is a wise excuse, and it's highly unlikely that twitter employees were talking about something as vanurable as to getting access to the accounts of the most prominent figures in the world or in crypto at specific ( most of the hacked users were using the best security practices available like 2FA ), I mean which company allows to share such data even in an employees slack group ! This is not the excuse Twitter gave. This is a claim by someone the NYTimes has said was verified to be the hackers. I see, but still the hacker getting access to the credentials of many famous accounts through internal slack group is indigestible. |
|
|
|
According to the New York Times: Mr. O'Connor said other hackers had informed him that [the hacker] got access to the Twitter credentials when he found a way into Twitter’s internal Slack messaging channel and saw them posted there, along with a service that gave him access to the company’s servers. People investigating the case said that was consistent with what they had learned so far. A Twitter spokesman declined to comment, citing the active investigation. Needless to say, this is a very bad security practice. This is the equivalent to writing down security credentials on a piece of paper that is posted on a board that everyone in the office walks past every day. I don't think a leakage in slack group is a wise excuse, and it's highly unlikely that twitter employees were talking about something as vanurable as to getting access to the accounts of the most prominent figures in the world or in crypto at specific ( most of the hacked users were using the best security practices available like 2FA ), I mean which company allows to share such data even in an employees slack group ! |
|
|
|
Maybe most conflicts here do stem from revenge, there are lots of groups and cliques that gang up on users to get them off DT and so on and they have made it part of their policy to do it.
Proof of JollyGood being an NCP troll. He believes there are groups and cliques, also agree about them having made there policy to attack DT users. On the other hand he tries do the same, start a conflict, take a revenge and get along with his abusive gang which is still trusting and supporting his feedbacks, even after multiple proves of many of his feedbacks being nothing more than merge personal opinions which are not of any DT standard at all. JollyGood creating this thread even shows how hungry he is of drama and to jerk off his power on other users here. None of his rambling here or anywhere even in topics other than reputations should be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
First of all, a sentence starts with a capital letter, not with a lower case one. So your "hes" should be "Hes". Second of all, it's "he's", not "hes", as "he's" means "he is", while "hes" doesn't mean anything in English. Third of all, it's "Polish" and "Israeli", not "polish" abd "israeli". Fourth of all, I chose to ask if hes bribe was 2 shekels to show what a cheap baboon he is selling his soul for just 2 shekels. Last, but not least: is Harrow guys the alt account of the illiterate hacker? You called me dumb while you can't spell correctly "a-ha"?! Lol. My eyes were bleeding while reading how bad you tortured English language. Yes sir, Yes sir. 3 bags full. Thanks for that English class. hacker has nothing better to do than stalking me inside the forum. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe the change in the emotion is due to merits being less distributed on Off-topic.
|
|
|
|
Do you have any reference for this allegation?
Yes, here's a perfect example of him using big words and walls of text to feign a highly developed and impressive intellect. While the premise of his argument starts out about anarchy, what he actually describes is far from it. I'ts almost like he doesn't know the meaning of the word, but he must, mustn't he? His waffling about the word, and vacillations in logic are actually kind of pedestrian, and mostly just drivel to fill out what initially looks like a well thought-out and contributory post, but is actually nothing but a shit post (in my opinion.) You're welcome to think of me as envious of his ability to earn merit, as I'm welcome to consider you wrong in that assessment. I would expect some members to come to his defense, especially the ones who showered him with merit. I agree, even I have experienced the same level of immaturity in most or all of his posts which only aimed to attract noob user's to believe in his conspiracy and as @dragonvslinux said, mostly directed towards power hunger of DT. He had/has no logic over any reputation matters, if you check his realted posts, one can notice him trying to ramble his or Lauda's aganda in such important reputation threads with his unwanted, unwelcomed and deceptive walls of text which don't lead to any conclusions at all. He even started a perm ban appel thread against me even knowing I was already banned from wearing signature for 2 years, which shows his childish and illogical attitude take us to no conclusions. Such highly egotastic people should be avoided at most. |
|
|
|
|
If you could highlight us with the reasons behind the action, it would be more fair and could generate better ways around for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
