The trust and flag system is meant to be political and is political in nature. I would expect PMs to be sent to lobby support or opposition to flags. I think anyone complaining about a person sending PMs trying to lobby support is trying to gin up trouble.

I still have concerns about various conflicts of interest, but that someone send a personal message does nothing to change my stance.

Nadler is in a very safe district, winning each of his general elections with a margin of victory in excess of 50 points. His only real threat to being removed from office is via a primary defeat, although he appears to be a part of two parties, so even this may not be a major threat.

Due to the above, he has little incentive to do anything except tow the party line. His statement will not harm him personally, however I am curious as to how this will affect others in his party who are not in as safe of districts.

This is not obvious to me, and if this is true, I would have viewed statements by several people in both threads very differently.

It appears those who are defending SP the loudest are being paid by one of these two websites (it may be more if anyone commenting have sock puppets receiving payment), including one person who is making the nonsensical argument that what SB did amounts to “declining to do business” with someone they had accepted bets from.

I get that the economy is not good right now, but if you are advertising for a company who is engaging in shady behavior, the right thing to do is to stop advertising for said company, not to shill for the company.

It is not a good look when you are not only opposing a flag, but using your trust list to exclude anyone who supports a flag against an entity that has employed you "for years".

I see a conflict of interest in your actions.

All this will do is download the public information on everyone on your friend's list (according to my reading of the code). I believe this is also against Facebook's TOS.

Trump should take steps to freeze bank accounts of those that fund ANTIFA as suggested in your article. Someone is clearly funding the terrorism occurring in Portland, and steps should be taken to cutoff the funding, so the terrorism will stop.

IMO, a lot of the time when a bitcoin casino is asking a customer to go through KYC, the purpose is to get their identity so the casino can go to law enforcement about actual cheating, such as hacking, or knowing the 'secret' seed in advance.

SB should disclose why they were asking the OP for his KYC information. They should also clarify as to what basis they are saying that the OP "did not pass" KYC....

SB has not paid the OP the 0.101 BTC they are offering.

Most of the time, with mortgages and with rent, your lender or landlord will not accept less than the total amount due. A tenant or borrower offering a partial payment may be rejected, and this offer will not make a person owe a lower amount. The OP has not accepted a payment in the lower amount that SB is offering, and as such, he is still allegedly owed the full 0.373 BTC.

Is there even an allegation that neymarjr12 did this? If not, I would classify this as speculation(or even something less), although this may be one legitimate reason to prohibit multi-accounting.

I want to know what specifically neymarjr12 is alleged to do to cause harm to SB.

I would be willing to give Sportsbet the benefit of the doubt that the OP was multi-accounting. It is not clear if this was an innocent mistake on the part of the OP (for example creating an account in 2017 when he wanted to bet on the outcome of a game, and forgetting about it), or if the multiple accounts the OP allegedly had actually caused Sportsbet some type of harm. This is why I posed the below questions above:
As far as I am aware, Sportsbet has not articulated the harm the OP caused in having alledged multiple accounts.

Sportsbet has not alleged the OP is from a 'prohibited location' and as such, my assumption is this is not the case.

This is not my understanding. The OP placed bets with his deposit, that Sportsbet appeared to have accepted that turned out to be winning bets. The net winnings are excluded from what is being offered to the OP.

Yea, I get your point

An entity who receives blind trust that they will never steal from customers will end up stealing eventually.

My understanding is AskGamblers rejected the claim without reviewing it due to their policy on not getting involved in TOS disputes.

I would also not ignore what anyone has to say for the sole reason that someone is a new user, or is using a new account. This mindset will give anyone a license to scam new users without consequence.

I was under the impression that bluffing is part of a strategy playing poker.

From what I can tell, Sportsbet indicated they were accepting the OP's business, and subsequently decided they would not pay out the OP's winnings after the outcome of the bets were determined. To me, this is different than refusing to do business with the OP.
Spotsbet has indicated they believe the OP was using multiple accounts on their platform.

---

My question for Sportsbet is, what harm did the OP cause in his alleged multiple accounts? Was he receiving some kind of free bets he was not entitled to on some of the accounts? Was he placing opposing bets on the same game on two accounts?

I am also curious as to how Sportsbet is going to handle the OP's alternate accounts? They indicated above they will allow the OP to withdraw the difference between what he deposited and withdrew on the account he won the coin on. Did the OP's other alleged accounts have net losses, or net winnings? Will you allow the whoever has control of the OP's other alleged accounts withdraw the difference between the amount they deposited and withdrew?

I don't know the answers to the above questions, however if Sporsbet is dudecting net winnings, but not crediting net losses back to the OP's various accounts, it would not be a very good look.

What do you think is going on with the people in the video? There are not many things that could be happening to the people handcuffed, blindfolded and shaven in the video that are not serious human rights violations. In fact, I cannot think of anything that could be happening not involving serious human rights violations.

Many companies are already pulling out of China due to the fallout over the Coronavirus, and those that are can add this to the list as to why they are leaving. The NBA is ending its relationship with a training camp in Western China, where all this is happening.

I can see other companies relocate their supply chains out of China over this + the coronavirus. If there is more evidence of forced/slave labor being used to produce other products made in China, I can see more companies pulling out of China.

Trump has been a China hawk since long before he became a politician. As mentioned above, the US cannot simply end its trading relationship with China because we rely on Chines products for much of what we consume, including basic medicine. Most of the China hawks in the Republican party were elected as China hawks, and I don't think they are hawkish to gain a political advantage.

Yes, they are advertising their service in the Services section. There is only a handful of campaign mangers, and not enough to warrant their own section, as I discussed above.

Campaign mangers have been sending unsolicated PM's to potential clients for years, and have been receiving temp bans when this is reported for years. If you want your services advertised more widely, you should purchase some form of advertising.

No, we should not give campaign managers a place to receive prominent advertising space via the creation of a child board just for signature campaign managers. 

The campaign management business is reliant on reputation, and if you maintain a strong reputation, you will naturally receive clients. If you have less than pristine ethics, such as a willingness to advertise for companies you know to be scammy, you will receive few if any clients. In any case, you are free to advertise your services via paid signatures, forum banner ads, or otherwise.

A general rule is that there should be multiple pages worth of threads last posted in a single day for there to be a need for a separate board, and campaign management threads are nowhere close to this threshold.

 

I suspect the merit system has played a role in the reduction of active accounts, as spammers are less able to join bounty/signature campaigns because the merit system is a quick way to quickly filter out spammers, and also prevents users from being able to rank up if they post nonsense. I would also point out the metric is actually active accounts, not active users; I suspect the merit system, less numerous, and less profitable bounty/signature campaigns have made multi-account spammers less likely to try to spam the forum.

---

Most people who frequently post in this forum receive payment to do so via a signature advertisement. Signatures are not displayed in both Serious discussion and Ivory Tower, which removes incentives for those with a paid signature to post in these sections. This leads to others not posting there that don't have incentives to only post where signatures are displayed. I have visited these sections in the past to find little interesting content that I can respond to.

I might suggest a 'sister' section to Ivory Tower that has rank and merit requirements (and maybe recent merit requirements) for people to post in. This new section could allow signatures but be strictly moderated.

I would suggest your friend block the creep, and report the account to Facebook. Facebook may or may not report him to the police, but they will ban the person for having a fake profile (in addition to the blackmail). Facebook should be able to provide information about the person's IP addresses used to access the Facebook account to law enforcement.

I believe it is theoretically possible to embed a virus into an image file that can run arbitrary code on someone's computer. This is probably the only way you will be able to get more than the creep's IP address on your own. How this is done is outside of my area of expertise, and I would caution that sending a file with a virus is almost certainly illegal.

Deal with law enforcement.

I would not say it is a given that you should not trust someone under any circumstances. Better advice for the OP would be to direct him to use his own judgement and resources to decide if ThomasV should be trusted or not. Being that electrum is very widely used (this would not apply if it were not), the OP can search for reports of there being problems with electum loosing coin.

Most bitcoin users lack the technical expertise to understand electrum's source code if they were to compile it, and this is simply not realistic to expect 'normal' non-business users to do this.

BLM wants to spread communism to the US. Their founders are Marxist’s.

I think a lot of companies will pull out of China, however this is not something that can be done overnight. For example, China supplies the world’s antibiotics and alternative factories need to be built before China is cutoff, otherwise many will die from minor ailments. China is also a major producer of natural earth minerals that are used for computer chips and weapons systems, the US needs to build and ramp up these factories at home before China can be cutoff.