You can start by informing Betcoin.AG's representative of the the issue so they will have a chance to attend to this case and give their side of story. But lemme take that part from you, just in case they set their inbox setting to reject message from newbie.

Edit: sent.

Wasn't what you offered basically already covered by, like... a lot of crypto out there, BUSD or USDT, for example. They offered same things, same --or even better-- transfer time, and... less fee. I'm not exactly sure how will this fee appealing, 5% for remittance is quite taxing, especially as your token is leaning toward remittance, not investment tools, which means they're designed to be used for transfer and then immediately converted to other currency.

I'll specifically quote this sentence for future reference.

As it is now known and made public that their account closure is on the same date of your request, it means we can summarize your activities as follows: you created aysugnr on an unspecified date, request account closure on 31 October --as per your reason you said here-- because you need to take a break, but in between 1 November and 19 November, you decided that the break is enough and you want to create hknays. Just for a mere assumption to give you the greatest benefit of doubt, I'll say you created hknays on 10 November, bet honestly for 9 days, and decided you had enough, requested account closure on 19 November, processed immediately, and then you yet again created snne on December 2 at the latest --proven by your earliest deposit shown on the screenshot here. Wouldn't you agree it's a bit questionable for someone to creating and closing accounts every two weeks?

You said you just want to take a break when you win and made profit, but later you said you usually lost (on the accounts you've closed) and that's why they can't confiscate any fund. But allow me to quote SB's statement which probably made after looking at your database,


Lastly, you claimed you never use any bonuses and your account closure was not due to attempts to hide bets, but when I re-read several things here to be sure there's nothing we missed, I found this



We'll entering an unfamiliar territory for me here, so I'd appreciate if anyone can clarify if I see this correctly or not, I am not well versed on sportsbetting terms, but if I look at the definition of boosted bet here, they defined odd boost as:


It sounds like a bonus for me. But aren't you never uses any bonus on your accounts?

Let's see if I can make you get the situation here. You had several accounts which you denied their existence on the first place and only admitting it after they straightforwardly mentioned the names, this is understandably cast a huge doubt on your credibility. They've deemed this case closed, and your complain would as much turned to deaf ear.

The thing you can do right now is to raise an appeal to the community on this forum, prove that you're wrongly accused, and hope that sportsbet respected the forum and reopened your case for review. But so far, you've proven nothing other than repetitively stating that you didn't take any bonus, my long post of the inconsistencies of your statements are even only partially --and vaguely-- clarified, you hadn't provide the proof that I've asked several times: the proof of time gap between each of your accounts.

Let me try to break it down even further like I explaining to a third grader why this is quite important. On SB point of view, and as far as whoever read this thread understand, you created multi acc which violated their ToS. You argued back that the accounts are not active simultaneously, you've closed each of those account before opening a new one, which means you didn't have multi account and SB's accusation is invalid. But as I've pointed out --and marked in blue-- on previous post, you also agreed that they have the right to confiscate your fund if they suspected you registered multiple accounts in attempt to hide your betting activity or bypass their trading limit.

You stated that the reason why you opened and closed accounts are because you need a break after winning, but --again, as I've pointed out-- your statements during this entire case keeps contradicting each other, add that to the fact on your email screenshot that the date between those accounts are extremely close, it is very justified for anyone to think and suspected that there's another, more dubious, reason why you keep opening and closing accounts. You argued that those date didn't reflect on the real timespan between each account because it took a very long time for them to process account closure --oops, sorry, I was meaning to say "closing intervals for your 3 accounts are not very short"-- but you never give any concrete evidence to back up this claim, and I've asked you repetitively. If any, you just cast a bigger doubt on everyone's mind.

Let me try to break it down yet again, in a "flowchart".

You want them to give proof that you're wrongly accused? You'll want them to reopened your case. But how exactly do they reopen a case they considered closed? You'll need them to reconsider the case. And how exactly will they reconsider your case? Unfortunatelly, you can only hope they respected the forum's request and looked at your case again. So, up to this point, simplified, who you need to convince right now are the forum, i.e. the people reading this thread. You still following me? Good. So how exactly do you make the forum to do that? Well, sweetheart, this forum, especially people "overseeing" this sub-board are very fair and neutral. They judge everything by facts and data, evidences. If you've provide an undisputed evidences that you're the right side here, they won't be reluctant to support you. So what you need is to provide evidences instead of throwing tantrums and baseless statements.

Tl;dr: give your evidences.

Hello, upon reading your whitepaper I found that the said document is heavily plagiarizes several sources. I invite you to defend yourself on the accusation I raised against your project here

What happened: Plagiarizing whitepaper
Suspect's Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3524446
Suspect's Website: https://memv.net/ | archived
Suspect's ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5430664.0 | archived
Suspect's litepaper: https://memv.net/MEMV-Whitepaper-v1.pdf | archived
Plagiarized Sources:
[1] https://www.retailbiz.com.au/contributor/virtual-augmented-reality-actually-reshaping-retail/
[2] https://www.unlock-bc.com/81018/uae-future-blockchain-summit-to-showcase-blockchain-within-metaverse/

Support/oppose flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3073

Some screenshot for easy view:

---

Notifying the suspect.                                

I liked this POV.

---

Depending on how Coinbox1 reacted to and the outcome of Poika5's case on the other thread, and if they replied to what yahoo62278 asked above --an explanation of what really happened-- I'll consider changing my tag to neutral to serve as a reminder.

Coinbox1, please note that by "reacted to and the outcome of" Poika5's case, I am not meaning to ask you to work it to their favor, I asked you to address the situation properly, to be transparent and give facts according to the evidences you have. If Poika5 is wrong on their case, then provide the clear evidences, and if you made mistake on that case, then explain to the community. It called being responsible and professional.


In addition to the fact that you've opposed the flag itself, I'll take this as a request to withdraw my support. As I said, I'll honor your decision; withdrawn.

Yeah so... it'll sounds a little bit awkward and rude but I didn't mean to... however, point number 1 is exactly what other projects offered, they tax every transaction, and certain amount of these tax goes to a buyback pool which later will burn those bought back token. IIRC, some project even offered an automatically reduced supply. For instance, you bough a token which current rate would give you 1,000 token, you'll receive only 900 instead, since the 100 automatically sent to the burn address... although I have to admit that I am not sure if this is just my imagination or some of those project do offered this exact concept. As I said, it's kinda vague, it's difficult to clearly remember the concept they offered since paying attention to each one of those projects are near impossible during that deflationary-NFT-bored-panda phase. There are hundreds of them with almost identical concept.

For point number 2, you do aware that total supply of BUSD is 18 billion, right? That's several digits higher than the millions. And for point number 3, as I don't want to assume, what is LQ?

I'd congratulate you, Laki21000, I hope the amount won, added, and returned to you can be used for good things in your life. For your question about flags, I have to say Pmalek raised a good point, if you have forgave them, then you can withdraw your flag ¹ because, after all, half of the content of the flag is no longer accurate. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, though.

I'll be honest here, most of this post was written yesterday and I was ready to post it at that time. However, I decided to take it to my sleep and see if I got a better insight in the morning and be as objective as I can.

By the sunrise, I spare my time on the arbitrators' site to read all of the cases raised against TrustDice and found that on CasinoGuru there are 7 complains raised against them --one of them is yours. Three of it were sportsbet related and can't be solved by CG and thus we didn't know the outcome of it, although one from them moved his case to AG --see below. Two other cases I had to side with TD, they provide a strong evidence of multi-acc abuse on one case and the other one was... let's say the other party is kinda... impulsive and it's out of TD's hand, not TD's responsibility. The last two, though, solved after those user escalated this case to CG. In one of them, the CG representative even judged that TD is more-or-less abusing their rules to work in their favor.

AskGambler has 10 cases for TD --one of them is Poika5's-- 5 of them are resolved with evidences. One was marked as rejected because the accuser didn't provide KYC after the specified time, although it might worth mentioning that their case was hung without response for one month, reopened and reopened again after that, for $627, which understandably too much hassle and bothersome for some people. One was marked as unresolved because TD stopped replying the case, it's about taking bets from restricted country --I'd urge you all to read the case, it's very interesting-- two were resolved after they escalated their case to AG, where in one case TD just refunded the money without any explanation after they can't provide evidence for their counter accusation, much like Laki's case, it was sportsbetting case as well. And the other one was the one I mentioned above, the user who moved to AG after CG didn't handle sportsbetting. His funds were claimed to be frozen because of "an error".

From these cases, I think it's quite unbiased to say that although TD made several good job on gambling platform and were wronged by multi acc abuser, their sportsbet division is very poor and they are easy on throwing ban without proper evidences to back up their action --not to mention that one case where they throw their rules to justify their action-- and only lift their ban after their user raises some noise.

Thus, no matter what's the outcome of Poika5's case --whether they being wronged by TD too or they wronged TD-- I think there still a lot of non-newbie on this forum who looked for betting platform, and if your type-2 flag removed, there will be no warning for these higher-than-newbie members, there's a chance they fall into this inconvenient situation. I will stil honor your decision, though, and I'll withdraw my support for the flag if you asked me to.

While for Poika5's newbie flag, in tone with Pmalek, I think it should stay to warn anyone in the future about this issue and the possible unpleasant scenarios if they decided to sign up to TrustDice.

Regardless of what happens with the flags, my tag will stay for the same reason I based my opinion for the type-1 flag: I can't trust this site or the guys behind them.

First, the fact that they insisted on something without trying to consider the evidences or pleas made by their user. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they finally solved your problem simply because you created a huge noise which ultimately made them ended up with two active flags and several tags from DT.

Second, although I am not sure if the decision is fully made by the representative of the site, the-guy-behind-this-post, without other people from the site knowing or if their "higher ups" knows and fully supported these action, but it's proven that they love to play sneaky by editing their first reply where existing people are less likely to notice and twist words into a narrative that works to their favor for those who read just the first few posts: they're the good guy who tried to solve problem, but the case became unconstructive because some people twisted our words.

It is not a good characteristic of a trusted site. If they really honest and determined to solve issues, they'll address these concern directly and in the open, by replying to the last post --not to mention quote statements properly and correctly instead of a tailored snippets that drives a completely different meaning-- and addressed these "unconstructive people" with strong evidences.

Third, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but part of this sentence extremely disturbs me:


I can't see any other reason behind the unecessary extra words "from Croatia" than an attempt of implying a message, "we know where you're from, we know who you are". And this is really really worrying. Does this reflect on how they address people who has a conflict of interest with them, be it in the present or the future? A threat? I'm open for a less-paranoid suggestions on what's the meaning behind those unnecessary addition.

Oh, Coinbox1, hot news for you, you guessed wrong. You're not the first who tried to publicly doxx me and failed miserably though, IIRC somene once said I'm from India --or was it Pakistan?-- it's fun, but you're not welcome to try again.


You're joking, right? The OP was not even late betting, they're wrongly accused.

---

¹can we actually delete a flag we raised? I thought there's this warning at the bottom of the flag page about "flag can not be deleted"?

What do you mean I'm a secret supporter? I paint my house with their color theme and their logo! My neighbors were complaining because my house was too eye catching. And you should see my room, I have special altar for them that I worshipped ten times a day. I mean, a secret supporter? Secret? Didn't you see my personal text already? That sentence below my avatar? Yeah.

Sarcasm above aside, just a little clarification so it won't bite me in my unattractive ass in the future, I didn't say you can re-open your closed account. I have no idea what's their policy for that matter and never give any thought on this matter.

Now, onto the topic... well, I didn't mean to be rude, but in between your --what I can only describe as-- tantrum, I think I'm lost. Like, honestly. Which question directed to me or to whom and who'd you're yelling at on some of your sentences? You emailed me, I checked and forwarded you what now? I'm certain that we had never exchanged any email, I even somewhat sure you don't know my email address.

Now, if you can provide us with screenshots of all of the beginning emails to them to close your accounts, it'll be helpful. I just wanted to know how long was it between your requests for account closure to take a break and you re-signing up.


Because... they're not online since before that post? Thus they probably didn't read anything from this thread yet?

This post is made in response --and in a way, act as a reply-- toward Coinbox1 edited post here

---

I LOLed. Is this your MO? When you feel attacked and cornered, you sneak past people and edited the first post --where anyone who follows the case closely would likely missed that edit-- and twisting words? Or were you... *checking my note of borrowed words from you* just a very bad reader? Or a bad marketer, in your case. Snipping sentences and statement is not an ethical practice, darling.

Here, let me help you again, just like your previous practice on marketing campaign  on the neighboring thread. Like before, the full sentence which contain a completely different meaning than what you tried to convey to the readers will be marked in italic, with key points marked in red.


This is me trying to understand the situation, addressing both parties and see if I can get the feel of the situation. You gave several points of possible reason behind OP's ban, and as I am not familiar with your terms, I asked. The context of the post will be crystal clear if you didn't snip it out wherever you like.


This is where I LOLed. Like, really laughed, not just snorting air out of my nose for funny things kinda way, a full blown laugh. I can't really decide if you attempting a smear campaign --which is an extremely detrimental for a trusted casino platform-- a really poor reader, or simply just childish and so hell bent on revenge --for what exactly does the revenge serves, I am clueless-- that you use everything you can to get to it, or if I may re-use my repeated terms while attending your cases, "grasping at straws".

I clearly asked, the statement in that sentence --if you didn't snip it out to work into your favor-- is preceded by "if I may infer" and followed by a question mark. It indicates a question, not a statement. Which then you explained as below, and I replied nicely; in italic, you deleted that part because it didn't work in your favor, again.


You omitted my reply toward this post, where I openly admit I misunderstood the case and asked you for clarification. May I point it out that we ended up on that hole of misunderstanding because you kept refusing to give information --didn't have to be specific, like I said on the sentences below it, here?


No, you did not give a clear reason behind OP's ban. You kept insisting that OP had to do KYC before you can give that piece of information out, disregarding that OP had already offered to provide KYC far before this situation escalated, which you replied by instantly banning them. OP offered to complete KYC the second time, and you ignored their question.


My statements, questions, and assumptions are based on facts given at the point of the situation, so I think the nature of the conversation is rather factual. You know what's even more factual? This:

Hey OP, Poika5, so this is how dispute usually works in so many platform, so it's just a matter of fact. The platform usually gives certain amount of time for each party to respond and provide comments or evidences against the opposing party. In AG, they gave 100 hours --if I'm not wrong-- I know that basically you're waiting for TD to verify your KYC and there's nothing that you can do until then. But since the last comment was from TD's side, the ball is in your court. As this post was made,  you have less than 25 hours to say something or the case will probably marked as clear by the system --and yes, this is my way to tell that I'm following the development of the case closely and daily, even after it moved platform.

So you might want to say something, anything, to put the ball back in TD's court.

About why they're so fast in replying your last comment there --which throws the ball to your court-- and so persistent on KYC but then took days just to verify it is... well, I can only assume, and I'll keep that assumption for myself.

If you asked me, I'll say it's quite strange that someone opened an account and closed them and reopened another account just because they wanted to take a break. Normally, people would just leave their account idle and ready for use when they're up for some new chapter of fun. What's even more strange is, still in my opinion, using different email accounts for each new sign-ups.

My opinion aside, I am still waiting and started to get worried on why haven't you provide the date of your emails requesting account closure, I've asked three times including this one. You don't have anything to hide like the timespan between each account closure and sign-up are somewhat short, do you?

Thank you for this very useful information, I cordially invite you to visit an accusation of fake team profile thread that I've raised against you and defend yourself, here.

What happened:Fake team member and possibly another hit and run project by the "dev"
Suspect's Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1234777
Suspect's Website: https://fifafanbattle-club.com// | the archive I did kept redirecting me to "Socios", anyone knows why?
Suspect's ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5428603.0 | archived
Suspect's whitepaper: https://fifa-fan-battle-token.gitbook.io/whitepaper/ | archived archived team section too

Fake Team Members:
They introduced following people as their team members:


Three out of six of these people they listed as their team and contact, Peter, Sophia --by the time this post was made, you can find her under "FFBc_Sophia"-- and the account dedicated as DEV didn't have any identifiable photo, while the MOD himself, Dave, is MIA. However, Henry Mitchell and Luella Collier are kind enough to put a very professional profile picture to convince us:



For anybody watching Twitch --I don't--, there's a slight possibility you're familiar with Henry's face, username GODofDANGO, whose introduce himself as Eugene of Moscow on his IG profile, not Henry. He probably didn't even know where'd Henry come from. As for Luella... err... I'm not sure I'd like to spell it here, just conclude them yourself from the image, LOL.



No plagiarized whitepaper --that I know of-- so far, since their Whitepaper is very very light, a very strange thing for a project who claimed they've partnered with big league organizations like LALiga, UEFA Champion, and Serie-A, and other 120+ partners, which they are yet to provide the proof of partnership that I've been asking for.

Additional Notes:
It might be wise to mention that the OP for the project, GubiMixa1292 has a history of hit and run project in the past, [ANN] Brick Worlds Play2Earn PinkSale Whitelist which clearly very dead as per today and their website themselves are now offline. Suppose they tried to defend themselves by saying that they're just a hired community manager, they did a very poor job on DD since they accepted projects with such quality as that and this one.

GubiMixa1292 might also used their alt to fake enthusiasm and traffic, username john.eck that's already tagged by Avirunes back in 2019 for multi-acc and bounty abuse were necromanced back online after a very long period of sleep to "participate" in their event --yayy!!!-- and on the next post suddenly became their part of team.

---

The suspect has been notified                              

So how not very short are these intervals between three of your closed accounts and this new one spaced between each other? Like, specifically. And sportsbet.io, can you please confirm this by checking your database that those four of the accounts are not utilizing bonus or took advantage from you in any form, that the owner closed those accounts simply for a personal reason?

Good lord, please tell me you're not part of the team and you forgot to switch account before replying me. On the earier part of your post you're an enthusiastic supporter chasing 60$ and now you're replying on their behalf?

When can I see your whitepaper? And please show us the contract or any legal documents for those partnership,

A tad bit wrong, in a worse sense for trustdice. By your description, they simply made "an error" in coding, and they could --should-- just admit the mistake and fix the problem, and everything is good as new.

Unfortunately, in these whole 3 fun pages of banter and lovely conversation, Coinbox1 accused OP of utilizing a bug and placed bet at the end of the game, where facts given by everybody else on this thread shows otherwise, that the bet was placed about the early minutes of quarter 4 of NBA game, still very far from "near-the-end". They still insist on it and when Pmalek suggested them to provide other case --because they said OP did this several times-- they went ballistic and attacked Pmalek.


This decision they made, although shows a good gesture, is rather unfortunate. They decided to simply be "a generous platform" and "re-consider" your case after every evidence proven them to be wrong, indirectly --and reluctantly-- said that they've wrongly accuse you, let alone to reach through a very more private way to mitigate the crisis they elevated themselves, most likely to hide from public exposure of their foul play for baseless judgement, IMO this is clearly not a good gesture.

I was really expecting them to provide a concrete evidence by another case that you've indeed wronged them and their accusation is true. We'll probably in a very different situation if they stand by their accusation of multiple late bet and could provide the supporting evidences. Instead, this happens. And by these actions of theirs, I stand by my opinion that their behavior is detrimental, both the marketing-guy-behind-this-post who act improfessionally and the solution center of the platform themselves who made this case more difficult than it needed to. Thanks to both of them, there's no guarantee that anyone playing on their platform won't face similar treatment in the future.

I supported the flag.

So you have four, that you've admitted, out of eight that's being accused to you? You do aware that multi-acc is still multi-acc, right? No matter how much that you've admitted. And the way you denied that you've previously opened an account on the very first exchange of communication with them is justifiedly worsen their suspicion toward you.

If you have never utilize their bonus features, then why'd you say that it is the reason you closed one of your acc? And about the claim of the long process of closing account, hence the date, can you please provide the emails when you firstly submit the accounts closure request (note that I wrote in plural)?

I can't understand some of your statements, because what you said on the opening post and the other posts that follows are rather inconsistent. I'll try to snip without changing the point of the statement. Statement made in screenshot will be written in qoted text with the link to the image source below them. Your earlier post will be marked in red and the statements that follows and contradicted it will be in scarlet.


From this earliest part of your evidence, we can conclude that you're sure you don't have any other accout, but in a good gesture and as you won't mislead --misrepresent, in your words-- SB's representative, you're open to a suggestion that there's a possibility you had those account mentioned and forgot about them, and you tried to log-in with your password.

The situation you tried to paint here on the opening post is that you don't have any other account, but there's a possibility that --in a good gesture and form of cooperation-- you might had (an) account(s) in the past and forgot about them.

Then you said,


It'll be relatively understandable if someone created an account in the past with one of their email, and then forgot about it and created another one with their other email years later. But --at least-- three different emails with eight --including this one-- different accounts?

Another interesting thing to point out is that although you know you have a habit of creating an account and stopped --more about this below on inconsistency #2 and other point at the end of my post-- to take a break, you insisted on having no other account on the earliest part of your exchange of communication with SB.

If you're truly honest and clueless and innocent, the "I did. I had "hknays" and "aysugnr" before, but they're officially closed, below is the screenshot --or the forwarded email-- of my request" or, "I probably had. I have this habit of creating an account and stopped to take a break. Can you inform me those username, please?" would solve a lot of things. You can even said this anywhere from your opening post up to the point where SB gave their counter-evidence, and you didn't. Why?

Next, coming from the same post as above,




So, all of the other seven accounts you previously had, were you stopped playing using them because you won and withdrawn, and thus you've made SB your very personal sugar daddy and walking ATM,  or because you keep losing and need to take a break, thus you didn't profited at all from SB?

Next, bonus and perks. In one of your email to request an account closure, you said this,

https://i.hizliresim.com/fd0qx8g.jpeg


You can just use the "other" option as your answer, and you choose that you wanted to close your account because you deemed them to give insufficient reward. Why?

Next, you use TnC 10.1 as your defense, which specify that account that's been closed would also be released from TnC.


But allow me to quote the email given by SB to you from your earliest post in regards for the reason of account closure. I'll mark in blue the complete sentence of the possible reason.


By this rule, if they suspected that you registered an account in attempt to hide your betting activity, they reserve the right to ban you. To make it even more glaring, I'm referring to the activity where you possibly milked the bonus system, drained it on that account, feels them "insufficient", closed your account, and create a new one.

Let's suppose you did close your account for the sole reason of wanting to take a break after a big win --or lost-- an interesting thing to point out is the timestamp of the email for account closure, aysugnr on 31 October 2022 and hknays on 19 November 2022.



You're saying, according to your narrative, you had aysugnr, feels enough and need to take a break, asked for an account closure, and then less than 19 days later decided that you wanted some fun, created a new account with new email address, and asked for another account closure within a very short timeframe because you need a break, and created a yet new one... in less than one month after it?

You've correctly raised a type-2 flag, a flag for breach of implied or casual agreement, if that's what you meant to raise. You can edit your opening post and add the link to that post so readers would be able to find it easier --and support/oppose if they want to. As Pmalek said, you can also ask for other DT member's help to judge your case and then give their support to the flag on this thread.

I'll wait for couple of days, still giving Coinbox1 a benefit of doubts, to see if they'll give another case that shows you're indeed late-betting and their counter-accusation would then proven to be true. I am aware that they're online couple times after they edited their first reply on this post, they can even made a post on their thread, so they should've been aware about the updates on this thread or --at the very least, if they deliberately ignored this thread, which rather a big frown-- aware that their account is now tagged with negative trust. If they still refused to clear this issue despite their claim on their edited post and, by that, implicitly admitted that their counter-accusation is invalid and thus they're wrongfully freeze an honest user and denied your rights, they'll kinda forced it out of my hand and I won't have other option but to support the flag.