You can't take down a flag in the sense of deleting them, you can only retract it. If you want to retract the flag against Razer, feel free to do it, as well as if you want to have both account flagged. I think it is allowed, given that,


and assuming that the multi-user flag is raised under the basis that both accounts are related to the case and dealing with any of them --under your POV-- will poses a risk of losing money.


I'll try to PM Razer again in the meantime in hope that he'll reviewed this case again.

---

Edit: [this might be the end of it]

I exchanged couples of PM with Razer throughout the day, and he gave me permission to share the last of his reply to me, containing their stance for this case.


Hope this helps.

Hi, I'm not related to SportsBet at any degree, obviously, but I can understand your frustration as a vvip member. Do you mind to give a tad bit more of patience while I am trying to hail someone from SB to look into your case more closely? I am PMing them right now and hopefully they'll attend to it soonest they can.

I think you can rest assured as I don't think Rollbit has any plan to jeopardize their efforts in all these years. The case is not that simple --or perhaps... it is simple-- stakemeharder and rollbit both shared the blame here. stakemeharder explained it themselves on the opening post of their accusation thread that they utilized certain strategy that many gambling sites will likely frowned upon, and Razer is not exactly silent, he has shared Rollbit's insight for this matter.


I don't mean to be rude, but if you bother to look at the thread being talked here, you'll see that Rollbit did not allow the issue to linger too long. They attended to the case the instance they went online and noticed my PM informing them about it, they've come with an explanation.

If there is any "mistake" that Razer made, is that he's not explaining in detail of the violation made by stakemeharder and instead throwing a blanket statement. Which... the people overseeing that thread has been trying to remedy, to get a better explanation and insight for the case, although --IMO-- stakemeharder's case is quite clear.

---

If you both still interested to pursue this case and engage in further discussion regarding this matter, I invite you both to continue the discussion here instead of on this thread as to not derailing this thread as well as to focusing the whole discussion and development in one place. Talking about one matter on two --or multiple-- threads at once will just confuses anyone overseeing the case as they'll have to go back and forth between the intersecting threads to keep themselves updated.

OP, I can't support the flag no matter how many times I consider and reconsider and reconsider about it for the reason I explained here. I am well aware that at this point, my following request would have a very high probability of casting an impression that I tried to drag this case and delaying you from reaching to their licensor, but rest assured that it is not my intention. It is up to you to choose.

However, if I may propose, give them another week or so? Your flag now has BitcoinGirl.Club's support. That's 1 DT power. As your flag is a type-2 flag, you'll need two more DT supports for it to become active and the banner to be shown on their threads. However, the deadline you set is quite narrow by the time I wrote this post, in about 24 hours or so, and I don't think it's enough to get 2 DT supports and Razer to notice about it. So, suppose that even you finally managed to activate your flag, Razer might be won't realize about it.

The decision is yours, though.

---

Edit: Oh fork! OP, my deepest apology! It just registered to my mind that although Razer is the official representative of Rollbit and tackling cases related to Rollbit, they're not the official account of Rollbit, so suppose your flag is active, it will have little to zero impact to Rollbit's reputation on this forum, and thus to the goal you seek by raising the flag is for naught.

The banner will only shown on the thread created by Razer, which is none. The flag should be addressed to Rollbitcom as the official account of rollbit and the thread owner instead. The link to raise a flag will be this one.

As the one who provide you the link to teach you how to raise a flag, I once again apologize. This is unintentional.

I appreciate your decision and for supporting the flag. I wish I could do the same, but unfortunately I still stand by the opinion that stakemeharder was not entirely not at fault here, nor does Rollbit. Both shared the blame. stakemeharder for utilizing a --probably-- value betting, though it's still unclear and they probably did that not on purpose, and Rollbit for not being ready to mitigate all potential risks when they offered promotion(s).

I even argued with myself since stakemeharder raised the flag and "complained" that no one supporting it about whether it's ethical to support the flag just for the sake of encouraging Razer to give something more in-depth like I did with tagging them on the other case. However, after taking this to the back of my brain for few days, I think that very act will cross the line of DT abuse if I did, because the clause of the flag dictate,


while I don't exactly affirming it to be --completely-- true to the best of my knowledge.

If I support the flag just to "encourage" Razer to give a reply and to make sure stakemeharder has exhausted all of the possible intermediary effort, that'll invalidate the support for the clause and I can be considered as abusing my DT power. Thus, I refrained from it until further prove provide itself... which it doesn't. LOL.

I think best I can do is to write on their thread informing them about this, and to ask them to perhaps consider giving more time to accumulate more support, if they wished so and not already had enough with the pace of this case.

The "real community" has discussed about it on the said user's accusation thread, as well as has given their chance to give their decision for the case; The OP of that thread has raised a flag and announce it on the support/opposition request of flag. It's all there in the open for the community to discuss and weight in.

If you think that Rollbit did wrong on that case and supported stakemeharder, you're more than welcome to participate on the flag and the community discussion by supporting it.

If you check my past history with TD, you'll find me having a colorful situations with them, and I mostly agree that their representative have a tendency of drama king. But for this case, I'll say there's nothing wrong from their side. The terms is agreed by you upon signing up, there are plenty of materials to study about the terms on this forum. IIRC, the wagering requirement even discussed on their ANN thread.


We appreciate it.

We'd really appreciate it more if you can change your thread title to better fit your goal, perhaps something like, "Warning: Trustdice Withdrawal Requirement" instead of "Just got scammed by Trustdice.win stay away". Which one you aimed for? A scam accusation report or a simple warning to the community?

I think those documents are pretty standard for KYC procedure, is it not? Not necessarily intrusive. An advanced KYC would even require Source of Wealth, SoW, and that's pretty much a common standard by casinos as part of their AML/ATF compliance.

All things said above, I understand that your current situation is you managed to upload the documents and they're pending for review?

Ahh... umm... I think you got a tad bit confused, their name and case similarities indeed do a little trick and brain twist. I am not sure how related they are and/or if they're both operated by one man, but the topic referenced on the CG is posted by username kamen1, raised under the username kamen, with the content of the thread mentioned that they've tried to reach CG and got no answer --prior to me reaching maverick's representative to notify them about this-- while the poster of this thread, kezar1 never filed a complaint to CG, only directly to the licensor, as he stated on this thread. So maybe they are unrelated... maybe.

Sadly, I am not Steve, I am just an asshole who's quite nosy and eager to help people, I do proudly admit that many people finds me annoying because my questions did not fit into their agenda and the narrative they're trying to paint, though.

Now, because you're sure that the person reached to you --giving you a benefit of doubt here-- is not wrong and SB has made a terrible terrible mistake, I'd urge you to read this entire thread to get a better understanding for the case of your damsel. Or if you don't have time for it, my last post for this case before you necromanced it from the dead, which just two posts above yours, pretty much summarized what happened.

As for why I ask you so many detailed questions --I'll say that, IMO, those are not detailed-- SB's representatives have a tendency to stop visiting and commenting on threads that they deemed solved, whatever the reason is. They might be not even reading it anymore. So, I think thought, if you can give me a good reason to believe snne is not wrong here, I'd like to try to reach to the representatives to re-attend to this case.

But message received. You don't need me.

Even if he does, there's nothing CG can do. Based on OP's statement I quoted below this post, OP reached to their licensor, Isle of Man, and the licensor agreed on the findings made by the casino and ruled the case in favor to the casino. CG can not intermediate this as they will not intervening disputes that's already ruled out by the "highest possible" authority.

IIRC, every licensor stated that they're the last step of solving disputes due to this very reason, that their decision is final, and that gamblers should have been sure they've exhausted any possible means of resolution prior to escalating it to them

This is what also happened to the "neighboring" case of kamen1, where CG will not intermediating a case that's already ruled out by the licensor [the verdict of the said case is quoted below the line].

---

And I understand your account is not blocked, you can use it normally without any restriction, and that you're here purely from your good-will to help a damsel in distress?


You sure? Want to check your statement again?

I understand you correctly that you're saying the OP of this thread, Aysu Güner Mete, contacted you to inform you, "Hakangulll", that your account is flagged by SB as one of the multi-acc of theirs, and you came here to straighten this out? That you, Hakangulll and A.G.M. is two different people and doesn't share account?


Because...

Ahh, mea culpa. I read the thread months ago and was too focused on the merit requirement from members who trusted you for voting eligibility that I forgot the part about active-time requirement.

A bit semantic, but if I may give further explanation to clarify the statement to avoid any member's confusion, currently DT1 status is "revoked" not because they're active or long inactive, the current DT1 system is constantly reshufled once every month to maintain fairness and its decentralism.

---

[Ackk... I didn't realize you're here, almost lose a chance to reply you and derail a nice thread by bringing some color into it.]

One may argue she stole his dignity. Hmm?


or perhaps IQ? Hmmm???

Hi, thank you for accepting my invitation and presenting yourself here. If you don't mind, can you explain why OP's KYC need 48 hours to be verified while your ToS specified it to be --you said and I quote-- up to 24 hours or less?

I am sure they're very much aware of this thread and the latest accusation thread raised against them. I looked into my DM with them on TG earlier today and found that it's read [double checkmark] somewhere in between I sent the DM and today, which means they've been aware of the re-invitation and choose to be silent. On their group, they also made a post replying a user about CCFI and yet ignored the inquiry made by someone else earlier --the screenshot is on my previous post-- about the scam accusation thread of MetaSystem, further clarifying their stance of this allegation.

As such, I had to resort to the drastic measure of labelling their account and the threads they made --as well as future threads and evasion-account they'll make-- with type-1 flag banner with reference to this thread for a "more" in-depth explanation why I think the flag is justified as well as serving as the "single flag-explanations topic". I hope members of the forum can see that it is not my attempt of abusing DT and flag system, noting that the flag was raised not under the belief that anyone dealing with them is in direct possibility of losing fund, but rather indirectly, as in if they invested on the project whose bounty they managed, they're exposing themselves to the said risk.

---

Flag Type-1: feel free to exercise your judgement to support/oppose

After mulling over it over a day, I am sending them a re-re-invitation to give their side of story to this thread before taking the step of raising a flag. Let's hope they decide to grace us with their presence.




It also came to my awareness that the participant of their bounty group had also mentioned the scam accusation against MetaSystem, so it's quite safe to assume Crypto Bountyes, or whoever pseudonym they choose to use, is well aware of the current situation.

The lack of TX details themselves, in my opinion, are the evidence. There is something suspicious by the silence. Let's put ourselves on the shoes of those people whose username put by DireWolfM14, they --or rather, we-- got a promise that our non-collateral loan was acccepted and then we never received it. If we are real and not the alt of Loansik12, wouldn't one of us, at least one of us, ask for clarification that goes along the line, "hello good sir, how do you do. When can I have my loan?", or "My good sir, I have not yet received the payment." or, "Sir, plz good sir, I need the loan to buy shiba 5 years and be millionaire, I need helping."

None did.

It'll be a different case if Loansik12 PMed them and rejected each of their loan. That'll nicely explain why there is no transaction on each of the wallet and none protested. But that'll be a breach of implicit --or could it be even a written one?-- contract. Loansik12 agreed upon a "contract", and then rejected them behind the screen, and most likely unilaterally. At the very least, it entitled them a suspicion. Why else would someone offered a non-collateral service, agreed, only to decline it later on behind the screen?

And ultimately, the silence itself. The thread spread from 28th of May to 12th of June, if they're not guilty, or they've send the payment, perhaps to a different address that's changed by mutual agreement behind the screen, they surely would try to defend themselves, provide TX ID, ask the borrower to made testament, or at the very least, those borrower will say something themselves and provide statement that'll defend Loansik12.

Can we agree on these?

If we have to venture into the realm of possibilities, there are several that I can think of.

One, merit fishing, hoping that people thought their action is an act of kindness and give them merit and later on sell them.

Two, almost similar to merit fishing, trust fishing. Perhaps they hoped that, encouraged by the "successful" transaction between their alt and fake deals, and possibly the alts themselves left feedback that'll encourage members to leave similar ones, they'll farm the trust and sell them, or use the built-up trust to make a huge loan themselves which will be defaulted.

Three, and this is a long reach, attempting to steal the collateral. When there is someone asking for deal and they asked for collateral, they might went, "you go first, send me the collateral." and later never actually send the loan to the borrower. Though they do asking for escrow on their now-deleted thread, it seems that was just barks, not the bites.

Whatever that is, wouldn't the fact that they fake deals is enough to warrant some suspicion and advise people to exercise caution upon doing any deal with them?