Bitcoin Forum
April 20, 2021, 10:16:07 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
1  Economy / Reputation / Re: THE TRUST SYSTEM: Are Counter-Feedbacks Counter Productive? on: March 28, 2021, 06:41:51 AM
Jolly I feel is living with a disease where he thinks whatever he does is right and what others do can be challenged.


Users leaving inappropriate trust ratings should not do it.


When you gave me negative feedback for no reason/strange reason, a lot of members including loyceV disagreed with how you left feedback.

If you cannot follow what you say, don't bother trying to force it on others.

Refresh some memories maybe: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5242995.0


@JollyGood, I know you've been working hard to keep the community safe from scammers, and that's commendable.  I would suggest you exsersise a bit of restraint in situations like this one.  Leaving reviews for a suspicion isn't against the rules, but it could create a sense that you are quick to leave inaccurate reviews.  That could compromise your position on DT, and therefor minimize the impact of your more accurate reviews.

First, I don't think I took JollyGood's side here, I literally said I wouldn't leave negative feedback for this. And second, I couldn't care less about how "powerful" he is. What do you think would happen? He'll tag and Flag me over a disagreement?

Nobody gives a shit about trust ratings. Just accept it and move on.

Unless you scammed somebody directly, which you didn't, a trust rating serves as a diary.

It is just an opinion. In your case Jolly thinks negatively about you. Why do you care? Nobody else does.


You even agreed with it by giving a merit.

I will have a 2nd thought in this. I think distrusting anyone because you do not like him or know him is wrong. We should be distrusting anyone if we see their judgments are fleeing. I have noticed harsh judgments from Jolly in the past too.

For reference, I have apologized more than 20 times to Jolly for a mistake which isn't even worth a negative so I don't know why even jolly is talking all this.
2  Economy / Reputation / Re: [Spammer Blacklist] The Shitlist on: February 26, 2021, 08:30:18 PM
I like how you reply on point and within the topic itself. I don't have much merits to send but I actually appreciate your ability to explain your actions which unfortunately not all the high ranked and highly respected members have.

I was feeling bored and I rather lose to an intellect than winning against an idiot, so I started this debate. Thanks for the explanation, satisfied.
3  Economy / Reputation / Re: [Spammer Blacklist] The Shitlist on: February 26, 2021, 07:45:49 PM
Not fluent in English? Here's a possible solution: use the Local section or learn enough English to be constructive? I certainly don't wander into the Local sections with broken grammar talking about how the bitcoin will go up or down and that it's unpredictable and that you should buy the dip.
Doesn't make sense to enter a signature campaign that primarily asks for English-based board posting without the skills to do so, wouldn't you agree?

Not fluent in English? Here's a possible solution: use the Local section or learn enough English to be constructive?

How does one determine he is now fluent in English and ready to spam the forum with better English? Someone must be better than you at English and according to them you should be learning now, so are you moving to local sections? Grin (Please don't, we need some good posters)


I certainly don't wander into the Local sections with broken grammar talking about how the bitcoin will go up or down and that it's unpredictable and that you should buy the dip.

Maybe someone starts the same trend as you have here in the local boards, then where shall the user go?


Doesn't make sense to enter a signature campaign that primarily asks for English-based board posting without the skills to do so, wouldn't you agree?

There is a designated signature campaign manager to moderate that and if you don't trust the manager to remove the spammers then the feedback shall be more suited to the manager as opposed to the participant.

4  Economy / Reputation / Re: USER VOD ABUSING TRUST SYSTEM on: February 26, 2021, 03:55:42 PM
@Waldaniam if you think Vod is rude then check my profile and you will see what rude actually means Smiley

I know vod is strict but I won't call him an abuser.

Nobody cares what noobs think. Especially when they are undeniably spouting crap.
You probably wouldn't view your parents as abusers. Clearly merging their DNA is gene pool abuse and abusive to humankind and the planet. This again is a strong point I doubt that  unassisted you could strongly refute.

Try reading vods bullshit basis for his red tags. They range from lies to clear derangement and memory loss.
Vod is a hazard to this forums trust system.

Then have another try. There is nothing wrong with being rude depending on the situation but being a liar or deliberately misleading people is wrong.

But nutildah said you smell like garlic and I don't like that smell so I am going to stay away.
5  Economy / Gambling / Re: Stake.com - Casino & Sportsbook - Play Smarter 🚀 🎰 🏀 ⚾ 🏈 🎾 🥊 🎲 on: February 23, 2021, 11:41:14 AM
Don't know why stake thinks its a smart idea to delay the monthly bonus. I have to check emails daily and its been 10 days of checking now.

If I miss checking and bonus arrives, I will lose 2-3 days of reloads, if that's what you want stake, its not a good idea and better stop giving bonuses
6  Economy / Reputation / Re: legendster Unfair Neg trust given based on a having a bad day and disliking me on: February 23, 2021, 10:53:36 AM
legendster has a history of leaving raged feedbacks as you can see here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1210969

The user "JSRAW" busted his actions and got negative trust for that.

The problem are the users who have kept this guy in the DT by adding him to their trust list, despite so many guys having neutral on him and showing someone else's work as his was worth a negative not neutral, in my opinion.

Promoting a scam is not the best choice Mike Mayor and defending it is even worse. So you cannot really expect the community to stand up for you when you are the one at fault.
7  Economy / Reputation / Re: The question to DT. 37 Alt member farm. Cheating signatures of companies. on: February 23, 2021, 10:46:12 AM
Excellent catch but because I am bad at verifying things, I will wait for someone credible to confirm. You have done a great job and according to me they do deserve a -ve feedback for abusing merits and signature campaigns.
8  Economy / Reputation / Re: [Spammer Blacklist] The Shitlist on: February 23, 2021, 09:37:24 AM
I love the idea but I think forcing your standards to other users who might be not as well educated and fluent with English is not the right idea.

The feedback left on users profile is "Part of the Spammer Blacklist: this user has made at least 50 replies that are not up to forum standards."

The problem here is that you are setting the forum standard
No. Read my response in this post:

Moderators considered reports of your posts good. This means that moderators thought that at least 50 of your posts broke the forum rules, most likely regarding spam.

Feel free to check one past report dump as well, if you'd like: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPPBarEeNdvNhJH9hb24Y3Kp6Xeo6Z_m/view

Satisfied but ratings can be more soft, can't deny that.
9  Economy / Services / Re: [FULL]Stake.com Signature Campaign l Increased Payrates & Bonuses on: February 23, 2021, 09:02:03 AM
Hi, you might want to edit the OP because stake doesn't allow deposits via 3rd party so we cannot deposit from any other coins apart from the ones directly accepted by stake.


Brought to you by the original Bitcoin dicers Primedice.com, Stake.com is the most secure and fully transparent way to place bets with your cryptocurrencies. You can deposit with over 160 altcoins or with Fiat currencies, newly accepted by Stake.

So, this statement needs to be edited I think because no longer 160 coins are accepted.
10  Economy / Reputation / Re: [Spammer Blacklist] The Shitlist on: February 23, 2021, 08:48:19 AM
I love the idea but I think forcing your standards to other users who might be not as well educated and fluent with English is not the right idea.

The feedback left on users profile is "Part of the Spammer Blacklist: this user has made at least 50 replies that are not up to forum standards."

The problem here is that you are setting the forum standard, the better option might have been leaving a feedback like "Part of the Spammer Blacklist: this user has made at least 50 replies that are not up to my standards. This is for my own reference and nothing to do with forum officially."

Also tagging something like "This user is part the top 1000 worst spammers of all time." shows you mean to insult the user instead of making a list to help yourself in future. Who gave you the permission to call someone a spammer just because you didn't like his English? Would be be fine if someone calls you a spammer because your Spanish is not on point?

If you are actually intending to make the list for reference in future then leaving a small and non-insulting feedback might have been sufficient. If you want to insult users because of their language, I think you are not presenting yourself in the best manner and need to do better.
11  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Bitcasino.io blocked account with 1.6 btc. on: February 19, 2021, 04:44:55 AM

Karl is a fair, honest man & Bitcasino.io do not scam people. With all due respect to the OP, I understand it’s significant money to you but Bitcasino.io are a huge operation & 1.6BTC is nothing to them.


I have played and trust bitcasino to be fair but waiting 20 days without an update makes me feel like 1.6 BTC are more important to bitcasino then it is to the player.

If the price dropped to 1k suddenly will bitcasino compensate the user for the loss, in case he is cleared?
12  Economy / Reputation / Re: USER VOD ABUSING TRUST SYSTEM on: February 19, 2021, 04:16:26 AM
@Waldaniam if you think Vod is rude then check my profile and you will see what rude actually means Smiley

I know vod is strict but I won't call him an abuser.
13  Economy / Reputation / Re: Trust System on: February 19, 2021, 04:14:45 AM
I don't want to spread hate but even I have a useless feedback on my profile.

Betking was returning funds to users and I wasn't aware of their history and I by mistake appreciated that move by betking.

I was tagged and still am tagged dspite apologizing but honestly I don't understand if I actually made that big a mistake.

The trust system on the forum is not working as it was meant to be, I never scammed anyone nor I even supported any scammer but just because I appreciated someone returning other's money, I was tagged.
14  Economy / Reputation / Re: condoras and vod colluding to scam others. on: February 16, 2021, 02:06:29 PM
Damn, you too? I was scammed by theymos last week on Telegram too but he deleted the messages so I have no proof of this but I'll still make a reply sorry.

Don't forget you scammed me last week and don't ask for proofs because you deleted the conversation obviously. I was even scammed by Trump after he lost elections for $10 but again I have no rpoofs.
15  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: 🔥Free 0.0001 BTC signup bonus on Tower.bet 🔥 🎲HiLo 🎲Crash 🎲 Roulette 🎲 on: February 05, 2021, 01:31:31 AM
justinzk8

The site looks good, lets see Smiley
16  Economy / Gambling / Re: FORTUNEJACK.COM |Deposit 777 play with 1777 mBTC |Live Casino, Slots, Betting on: January 08, 2021, 04:51:43 AM
If the bet was accepted, it should be paid out in full - according to the odds that were available at that moment.

All bookies heavily protect themselves behind a huge TOC wall which basically allows them to freeze your account, cancel your bets, limit your betting positions - they can do whatever they want.

It is our fault we accept it but it's a good thing we have many to choose from, so when things like these occur you make a mental note and pay attention where you play next time.

This still does not give them any right to do whatever they want and go against their own rules. It's extremely disrespectful, unprofessional, and unethical in every way.

I can counter every single point they make in their T&C about this and it's as if they still wouldn't care or change their decision. And it surely isn't my fault if I play by their rules and should win the bet as I normally would.

They really need to show respect to their own rules, their users, and fair play at all times.

And I can guarantee you that if the player I bet on lost the match, I would have never brought this up and peacefully moved on just like I always do anytime I lose a bet.

But when stuff like this happens and I'm denied one of the biggest my betting wins ever, it becomes very frustrating.


Hey there,

Here’s another update regarding the case we’re discussing right now.


FortuneJack has been listening to the thoughts of every member of the Bitcointalk community. Since the early years of our existence, our team has been trying to fulfil the needs of the players supporting our gambling platform as a whole. To be equally fair to every member of our gambling tribe, we’ve decided to credit the user operating under the @EpicChamp, the remaining amount of 0.0006 BTC which adds up to the top of the withdrawal he’s already made, totalling the deposit of the bet 0.14 BTC he made on the De Jong - Altmirano tennis challenger match.


Summary for the transactions & refunds from the beginning all over to the end of the event:

- player has made a bet of 0.14 BTC after the deposit had been made
- enabled the cash-out option of 0.1394 BTC (already withdrawn)
- player has just been credited the remaining amount of 0.0006 BTC, totalling the entire bet sum




As the notification email was sent to the user prior the cancellation, we think there’s nothing left to be paid. Additionally, because the player was aware of the mistakenly provided odd (stated within the thread that he was aware of the odds that were offered by other Sportsbooks), it makes us think that we’re dealing with some sort of fraudulent or unlawful use of the services, as stated into the above-attached section of Terms and Conditions.



Despite us not having an obligation to fully refund account’s fund, our team still has decided to offer the entire deposit amount back as goodwill from our side.

As for the complaint regarding us cutting off the remaining stake:



The above-mentioned scenario showcases the fact that extra winning would not be granted to the user, as the possible winning amount was calculated by coefficient inaccuracy. Additionally, in case us not cancelling the bet, we would be still charging account the extra winning before the approval of the requested withdrawal.


In conclusion, FJ strongly believes that the final decision made from our end fully aligns with the community’s intentions as well as indicates the rightful and equal usage of the Terms and Conditions to every single member of the platform, with no exceptions. From this point, we consider this case to be closed. However, we still welcome other members of the community to share their feedback as it’s always the go-to source for us to improve our platform for future use.



-
FortuneJack


Wow, thank you FortuneJack for your generous goodwill and for crediting me 0.0006 BTC for $23!

You do realize that this type of refund is an absolute no brainer and something that should have been done on the 1st day at the very least, right?

Now let me respond to a few things you just mentioned:

#1 - Let me please remind you that this was the exact notification email that was sent to me 2 hours before the match was about to start:

"Dear EpicChamp,

This is to inform you that   game coefficient  was  changed  from 2.6  to 1.7. Therefore, you  bet was cancelled .
Sorry  for the  inconvenience and wish   you  the best of  luck!


Best Regards,
Customer Service Department
FortuneJack Team"

And since you need to provide a legitimate reason for canceling a bet, in this email you are saying that you canceled my bet because of a drop of odds from "2.6 to 1.7" - this is your reason in this email; in other words, a "change of odds".

Well, not only is this inaccurate, but even if the odds did drop from 2.6 to 1.7, it is not that uncommon in tennis + sports betting and is not a valid explanation for canceling a bet in advance. That is not a significant drop at all and it happens everyday for different sports, yet bets never get canceled because of this. I'm sure you're experienced enough in the gambling industry to know this.

However, later on in this forum you told me something completely different - you claimed that you decided to cancel my bet due to a "technical" or "mechanical" error which was a mistake in the odds, rather than a "change of odds" from 2.6 to 1.7. Well, there is a big difference between these 2 types of mistakes or reasons/explanations, and you did not mention anything about this to me in the email.

The fact is that De Jong was given on your website between 3.0 - 2.6 odds in the first 2-3 hours when the lines went live. So if this was such an accident or technical error, why did you "intentionally" keep slowly dropping his odds by 0.2 units every 30mins for 2-3 hours?

Because if this really was a technical error, you would have paused the line right away and made the necessary change within the first 30mins, instead of 2-3 hours. And since you didn't do that, that tells me this was NOT a "technical" or mechanical error, but rather a common misjudgment mistake on your ends for De Jong's chances of winning the match.

And just now you wrote:

"As the notification email was sent to the user prior to the cancellation, we think there’s nothing left to be paid."

So you think that just because you sent me this unjustifiable email in advance that it is ok to not return my remaining stake on top of not counting my bet as a win?

My biggest problem is WHY did you decide to cancel this bet in the first place? What valid explanation do you have for canceling this bet? A small mistake in odds (which was open for 2-3 hours) is not a valid explanation.

I still do not understand why you decided to cancel my bet and think this is ok. No other gambling site canceled this bet in advance for their users, even for those who bet on De Jong at 2.6+ odds.

You are the only one who canceled this bet in advance - why did you do it? Don't you find it a bit weird and illogical that out of all the gambling sites in the world, you are the ONLY one who canceled this bet for those who bet on De Jong at 2.6+ odds when no one else did?

And at the very least, you need to return my remaining stake of this bet for 0.0672 BTC. That is what was at stake for me and it is a lot of money to just ignore and not get paid for in the case of a bet cancelation.

So there is still a lot left to be paid, not "nothing", and a much bigger amount than just 0.0006 BTC or else I wouldn't be bringing this up on bitcointalk community.

2. You also wrote this about me:

"Additionally, because the player was aware of the mistakenly provided odd (stated within the thread that he was aware of the odds that were offered by other Sportsbooks), it makes us think that we’re dealing with some sort of fraudulent or unlawful use of the services, as stated into the above-attached section of Terms and Conditions."

So first off, now you are saying that instead of canceling my bet because of a change of odds, OR because of a technical error - that you decided to cancel this bet because of potential fraudulent or unlawful activities? What does that even mean? This was a regular challenger match that was played out without anything illegal or fraudulent activities going on. Because if it did, it would have been paused or canceled by every other gambling site too, and it wasn't.

And you did not even officially cancel this match on your website for all your users either - you only canceled it for me because I had slightly more favorable odds and that's it.

How is that ever ok or acceptable to do? You cannot just cancel a bet for 1 person and not for everyone else, that's not how it works and is wrong in many ways.

So please stop claiming a bunch of random & inaccurate explanations for wrongly canceling this bet in advance. It should never have been canceled in the first place, and because the player I bet on won the match then it should be 100% counted as a win.

2nd, I was definetely not aware of any mistaking odds - because at the time I did not believe it was a "mistake". As I explained several times already, I can give you 10+ reasons for why it would make sense for Altamirano (De Jong's opponent) to be the higher favorite for this match. For example, he is older by 5 years, much more experienced at the challenger level, and has a much higher career ranking than De Jong.  

So him being placed at 1.4-1.5 favorite to win and De Jong being 2.6 was not very surprising for me and did not feel like a mistake at all. There are many reasons why this would make perfect sense and at the time I did not think it was a mistake by you or by other gambling sites that also had this match. In fact, during the match the 2nd set was very competitive and could have gone either way if Altamirano would have held his serve at 4-5 to make the score 5-5. At 5-5 he would have had a good chance to win the 2nd set, and then anything could have happened in the 3rd. So him being a 1.4-1.5 favorite & De Jong being at 2.6 is very realistic and understandable. I do not consider this to be a mistake or technical error at all.

And I can guarantee you that this situation has nothing to do with any kind of "fraudulent or unlawful use of services".

3. You also said:

"The above-mentioned scenario showcases the fact that extra winning would not be granted to the user, as the possible winning amount was calculated by coefficient inaccuracy."

First off, this sentence implies that the "extra WINNING" would not be granted. But the STAKE of the bet must be fully granted/returned in the case of a bet cancelation for whatever reason - whether it because of a coefficient inaccuracy, a withdrawal, retirement, bad weather, doesn't matter. Any time a bet gets canceled, you need to return the bettor their full stake of the bet. And you still have not done that.

And I'm sorry, but I had waaaaay more than 0.0006 BTC remaining on my bet as the stake - I had 0.0672 BTC at 2.6 odds, which is equivalent to $2650 right now. It is the biggest bet I ever made online.

You also gave me the option to partially cash out any % of my bet the evening before the match if I wanted to, and I decided to cash out 50% and keep the other 50% open. You gave me this option yourself volunarality according to your own rules (+ the ability to cash out everything in full for 0.238 BTC and profit ~0.1 BTC on the stop if I wanted to), and now you are trying to take this back and keep it to yourself?

How is that fair or ethical in any way?

That's like giving your best friend an expensive gift for their birthday (like a brand new iPhone) with them graciously accepting it, and then a few days later FORCEFULLY taking it away from their hands & keeping it to yourself without their permission or consent (aka stealing) because you both got into some stupid argument. However, the MOMENT you gave your best friend that brand new iPhone, it is now 100% their asset, and taking it away from them in a forceful manner without their permission or consent does not only break all moral, ethical, and social rules - but all FORMAL rules too as it is 100% ILLEGAL and would be considered stealing, where you can be put in jail for that.

That is exactly what you are doing against me in this situation.

I do not agree with this decision at all because it is unfair, unethical, and goes 100% against all my values, beliefs, and morals as a human being and as a very honest & fair person.

If you canceled the bet in advance then you should have returned my full stake right away, but even more than that the bet should have never been canceled to begin with, and I deserve to be rewarded for winning this bet.

And believe me that if my player lost this match, I would have NEVER complained about this or brought it up. I would have moved on as I always do anytime I lose a bet. But this case is different and it is not right for you to cancel a bet like this just because the odds changed, because it happens every day and is beyond my control.

It's just part of the game, someone always gets better and more favorable odds than someone else before the match or game starts. The only time when it makes sense to cancel a bet is if there is a withdrawal in advance, a retirement during the match, or match postponement due to weather.

So please reconsider your decision and do the right & honorable thing in this situation by counting my bet as an honest win and compensating me for the full amount instead of only 0.0006 BTC.

It would be a great sign of your goodwill and reputation, and I would be very grateful for that.

Thank you in advance and I look forward to seeing you do the right thing,

EpicChamp

People earn bread from  their signature campaigns and other stunts so you better stop complaining about them. I know you are right here but the thing is that no one cares and some reputed paid puppets will red trust you soon. You will find absolutely no support as you can see despite everyone agreed with you on your threads, that's because FJ has a lot of hold here in the forum among trusted members and they will do anything to project FJ.
17  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: Bitcasino.io 💜— Find the treasure #3 💰Win up to 100 free spins on: November 23, 2020, 01:30:18 PM
D1
Justinbounties
18  Economy / Gambling / Re: BetKing.io Relaunch (uncensored betking-scam thread) on: November 10, 2020, 05:09:04 PM
I also thought they did a good deed by partnering with bitsler but to be honest JollyGood is right in his stance because if a site scams once there is no reason to believe that they won't scam in future and they scammed huge amounts. I would NEVER play at betking no matter if they come again and would recommend everyone to stay away from it. Dean Nolan messed things up and scammed a huge huge amount and if you play there now you are risking your money for no reason.
19  Economy / Services / Re: ⭐🌟Maxx Bounty Service ⭐🌟 ANN, Bounty Manager, Signature Creation & Promote ICO on: October 23, 2020, 09:17:38 PM
please improve the grammar on the OP Smiley
20  Economy / Services / Re: Betnomi Sig and avatar campaign on: October 22, 2020, 09:00:05 AM
Bitcointalk Username: JustinBounty
Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1894536
Post Count: ..... (including this one): 120
Betnomi Name: justinbounty
Forum Rank: Member
Wear sig and avatar: Yes

Please see the reason for my negative feedback which will help you understand that I am not a scammer Smiley
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!