If I may add to other explanations already given here, as well as been implied on my previous post, they've put a warning banner when someone from restricted jusrisdiction accessed Cloudbet's page. If they're on casinos's payroll or taking casinos's side at any degree, wouldn't they try to get as many revenue as they can and thus, obscuring or probably won't even bother to put these warning?

I believe this was your complaint to CG, and to summarize the complaint [correct me if I'm wrong], you feel cheated because they're restricted in Australia, yet you feel that CG didn't do good enough effort to protect the users by giving the casino negative rating for providing services outside of their jurisdiction, although CG has put this warning banner?



And your proposed solution/demand is,

Hi,

Continuing our conversation from the other thread to keep things in order,

I'd like to address your concern about how no one seemed to notify Stake's representative about your case, as the opportunity offered itself, one thing that might be worth to put in the open in attempt to be completely honest, I'll admit that Stake's representatives are the hardest to reach for me as they barely replied to my invitation, but on the previous case that's posted before yours, of which I sent a message to notify one of the representative, I was graced by a reply assuring that they monitored the scam accusations and forwarded every cases on this board to the staff.

If you want to, though, I can contact the same representative to notify him about your thread, just in case they set their PM setting to not accepting message from newbies? That's the least I can do for you.

I feel that we're beginning to shift from the case of OP v. Rollbit to... Stake, so I think it'll be best to not continuing this matter as we'll derail the topic here. We can continue this matter back to your thread if you want to --just to keep it neat and make sure we stay on topic-- I am more than happy to discuss the matters that still concerned you there, though I've explained my assumption the best I can grasp on why and how did it it happened. So I don't think I can help you any further on it. I'll make a reply in your thread to address one of the concern you raised here, though.

---

I'll invite you to read first few pages of this board, there are threads to prove that Casinos don't cherry pick big wins or small wins [although big or small money are very subjective], they had complaint for cases involving 300-400 USD too, and they addressed the concerns justifiedly.

If I may straighten things out, I am not "trying to look from casino's representative" in sense that I am trying to lean toward their side. I am, in fact, trying to look from as many perspective as I can. In every cases that come to this forum that I attended, I'll give my best to ask both sides to provide their side of story and try to figure out what really happened. I notified and invited the casinos [or the platforms] to attend to the scam accusation thread and give their piece.

For those who frequently watch this board, they'll know I am not always siding with the casinos.

There were cases I am questioning casino's decisions and ruling because they obviously the wrong side there, but there are also cases where the players are evidently made fake statements and we were provided with things that contradict their statements. And then, there are cases that this forum simply... less effective to handle because it's an open forum and some evidences are very private, and thus, there's no other way to made a progress other than to refer them to ADR.

Believe me, if it's up to me, I'd much prefer for things to be solved in the forum if it can because I believe more eyes and brains overseeing a case are better than one person being assigned, where they held the final verdict, and susceptible to miss one or two key factors [for the record, I have nothing against ADR, just... that's what my honest opinion about the number of eyes overseeing cases] but sometimes, in this life, we can't get things the way we wanted it to be, can we? And I have to admit, the privacy that ADR offered gives numerous advantages to solve a case instead of having them to stay here and get stuck in progress because no evidences can be analyzed due to the security concern.

This very case, for example, I really hoped that I am free to provide the discussion with Razer that I had through PM just to show you that I tried to talk them to take other means of resolution instead of taking it to their licensor, to deescalate the case by having a middle way instead of to stand firm with their decision because they are very sure with their findings.

The long paragraphs above also address your topic about we being on the opposite side, I don't think that's necessarily true. I understand that you're fully commited to take customer's side, well... our only difference is that I am "taking the side" that's less questionable, I treat every complainants and the accused with grains of salt. So, in a way, we're not necessarily need to be on different side, suppose what you tried to achieve is finding the real truth behind every story instead of [to put it bluntly] blindly supporting every cases against casino, disregarding how questionable the scam accusation made by the player [another thing that I want the record to reflect, I believe you're a reasonable man, the sentence before this has a big implied "IF" within it, I am not accusing you that you'll blindly taking side of the players just out of spite for casinos, I'm just saying it like, "just in case you're intending to"].

I'd like to begin with a full disclaimer that I am not a representative or part of any casino, so I am most certainly didn't know how exactly they work and why, and my answer is completely based on my assumption, at least, "assumption", as it's hinted here and there the why they does so on several threads. [Maybe Kirito89 can confirm my assumption below, as per his own platform's policy and system?]

Though it'll be very ideal and nice if it can be actualized, the why they didn't catch multi-acc abuser right away from their first bet, or even straight from the first time they sign up, is because it'll be a huge waste of effort, or a very expensive ones, to filter out users right from the first time they sign up. I assume there must be a good amount of user signing up on daily basis. To manually check them one by one through so many filters in matter of seconds before sending them a verification email will be... fun. Not to mention the false positive.

So instead, they developed and perpetually fine-tuning a fraud detection system that flag users through several parameters, so these multi-acc abuse detection is not an instant matter. Instead, it's a process that happens and verified gradually [to prevent false positive] through several filters while the abuser playing in the said platform.

I appreciate this gesture and decision to deescalate the situation.

---

OP, Eoveriero, can you please confirm if you've got the amount said above in your account and if it's withdrawable? After that, please mark this one as solved and lock the thread to prevent further pointless discussion.

As you're not familiar with flag system, I'll assume you're also not familiar with what I mean above in marking as solved and lock the thread. Marking the thread as solved can easily be done by editing your opening post and change the thread title to "solved" or the synonym of it. Locking the thread can be done by clicking the "lock topic" button on the lower left side of this page.

It's is a "review site", yes, in a way. But it also facilitate as an ADR [alternative dispute resolution], to help mediate issue experienced by casinos's users. To raise a dispute to FortuneJack there, go to "Safety Index explained" tab, there will be a bright orange box to submit a complaint

If I may add to emphasize as well as explaining why providing adequate evidence is an essential matters on raising a flag, the lowest flag [type-1 flag] will require at least one DT support to be activated [and there has to be more DT supporting it rather than opposing it, but let's not confuse you with that]. No matter how many non-DT supporting it, if there's no DT give their support, the flag won't be active.

Meanwhile, the statement written and has to be confirmed by anyone supporting [or opposing] a flag is,


No DT will support if there is not enough evidence that make them sure to the best of their knowledge that the flag is warranted [this is the reason why I previously said that my support is yet to be decided]

Hi,

It's nice that we can... meet again in different topic.

I understand the previous experience with casinos left a very bitter taste in you, but some statements are not quite true. Some casinos do still request their complaining customers to CG or AG and will fully cooperate there. I will not mention the name of the platform or the specific post saying this as I don't want people to think I am promoting them. But... well, there are.

As for how complainants will not be winning a case in Curacao ^{[master license holder]}, call me naive, and though I have no way to prove the otherwise, I still hope some cases are actually solved in favor of the players. There are complaints raised against Rollbit that they redirected to their licensor and we never heard back from the complainants.

Though there's a possibility that their silence simply means the situation is not solved yet, I'd like to give a benefit of doubts that the cases are actually solved in favor of the complainants in a way or two and they doesn't feel the need to be bothered enough by updating the development here, because if it doesn't, wouldn't it be more likely than not for those complainants to come back here and venting their frustration instead of accepting their "defeat" in silence?

May I suggest you to pursue other means of resolution before escalating it to a flag? Raising a complaint to an ADR like CasinoGuru, perhaps? I can guide you to raise a flag [though my support on the flag is yet to be decided] if you want to go straight to it, but... I just think you might be interested to try to deescalate the situation?

Botswana? That country sandwiched between other countries in Africa? You asked a lawyer in Botswana if Curacao, an island in Carribean, is part of their country?


Used to, many years ago, and for fun as well as within minuscule amount, so it'll be better to say I am not. Why?

There is a regulation in Curacao. If your lawyer won't take case there, may I suggest that it's probably because you don't have a strong case that he's willing to take or sure to win? And I noticed you said a Dutch lawyer? Not any? Means you haven't exhaust all of your options of lawyers who will take your case?

Nope, the type-1 flag will still be there and welcoming them once they see betnomi's post. After all, that's the specific purpose of the flag, to warn newbies and guests.




Boredom? Or, the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes.

Unless I'm wrong, initially --and probably still-- the preference for dark mode instead of light mode is to reduce eye strain, as you've established on your very own opening post, as well as Cantsay here, as well as to reduce glare [flashbang, anyone?] when accessing apps and platforms during bed time when our eyes already adjusted to the dark of our room.

So, if your concern and needs are based on those two initial reason of dark-mode preferences, there is little to zero sense on arguing specifically designed dark mode by the web developers because it feels like "pro". I don't think most people here "love" dark mode for aesthetic reason. They simply doesn't like being blinded by the sudden burst of brightness. Simple as that.

I use the "default" light theme on my tablet and laptop [though I rarely access through my laptop] and have my android phone force set dark-mode that let me experience the forum as what depicted by libert19 because more likely than not, I won't access the forum through that tiny screen unless I really have to, meaning I only use them if I'm the road and didn't bring one of my tablets or laptop, or when I'm ready for bed and got notified for something interesting by the notifier. And that dark mode works just fine.

At this point, what you can do is either wait here and got nothing or try to escalate to their licensor and get your case tried. Rollbit has give their agreement to fully cooperate there. I know this is not ideal and is not the resolution method you're hoping for, and --as I've previously mentioned-- I tried to suggest a way for them to solve this without having to go to GC, but they're firm with their decision as they're sure they have strong evidence of you having multiple account, that they can only provide to their licensor.

No, it would not make sense for three reasons.

One, the chaos that ensue when they left lingered for a quite long time and echoed probably to a lot of boards on this forum. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of users heard about the case.

Two, even if someone happened to be clueless about the case and interested to buy the account, they will appraise the account from their own, or from a guest account, and not from betnomi's own [I extremely doubted betnomi will, "here's the account, here's the password, see our trust score for yourself and then kindly return the account to us"] and the trust [and newbie flag] will still be there.

Three, I don't see a reason for buy an account with such a specific name tied to a brand. Never buy an account here, so I wouldn't know, but I assume they'll prefer an account named "popcorn123" or "rachel_something" than a "betnomi"

You don't need to file a "class action" to raise a flag. If you have a case and the DTs find your evidences are compelling and reasonable [some will prefer to have it beyond doubt], they'll support. For the time being, I agree that the best way is to wait and see if they'll response, there's a chance it's just a... glitch, or probably multiple things simply coincided.

I read correctly that your "normal" bets are also limited? Not only the bets with Free Money? Is it possible that they're asking for KYC? It's quite a known practice for a platform to limit someone's bet during a KYC process.

As a campaign manager, not to defend them. And that duty was long finished before the situation happened. Their campaign ended before all of this clusterfuck. In fact, if you read and follow the discussions about betnomi, you'll learn that icopress also suffered a damage from their act and he's been trying his best pursuing betnomi's representative to clear things up, so that can be considered as taking some responsibility.

I will try this again.

I can't stress this enough that I am in no way benefited from this case, at all. I am not in bed with Stake, I am not on their payroll, I am in no way affiliated with them, there is literally zero benefit for me on whatever outcome we get from this case, so I "couldn't care less" if Stake is the one who is wrong here or you understood them wrongly. What I do care is simply a resolution is reached on this case, no matter whose side it is. And currently all I can do is giving the narrative from what I understand to help you attain another point of view and/or to understand what happened more clearly.

Yes, I wrote the "second prong" part based on my assumption, that the permanent exclusion can't lock itself on tetaeridanus due to the "crash" on their database, but the part of "first prong", the external prevention is what casino guru found out after they thoroughly read Stake's explanation. So that part is an established fact.

I can understand if you won't accept this explanation-with-partial-assumption of mine, and I'm really sorry that you're in your current situation [not the addiction, I was talking about your family and your debt]. I believe this is where we part ways? I'll wish you a good luck and hope you can get out of this tunnel [not abyss or hole, tunnel, you just need to keep going, one step at a time] you're currently in.