OP, this thread runs on evidence, we can't help you if you don't give us any proof... or anything at all. Based from the impression I get from this part of your post,


you know the user quite close, or at least had an established communication with them. If you can provide their username, the best we can do is to invite them here to talk about this matter, or to tag them [suppose your evidence are strong and convincing enough that they indeed stole from you] and hopefully they'll return the fund to you. But with the current info you gave us here, there's not enough basis to build a case.

He had explained there with pretty much the same nonsense as what he gave here. And as Nutildah explained, the accounts are part of a proven campaign multi-acc abuser. I personally think there's not much else they can say.

So, just so we're clear here, you're ok with AG "being on the payroll" [if I may borrow your words] of casinos? What is your stance of an ADR/review site taking referral... oops, I mean being affiliated with casinos, again?


Hmm... nope, my responses has been consistent from the start: referral is the way casinos fund their services and keep it running. I am not swaying left or right from my initial argument. If you feel it detoriating and sounding desperate, it's probably because your strawman house started to crumble so you've begin grasping at the falling straws just to... keep the house intact.

And I'll say this again, I can't remove the tag. It was placed by Nutildah, and only him can remove it. You can ask him again on his thread, I saw that you've made your plea and explanation there, but I don't think he will, because there are evidences that you indeed abusing campaigns with multi acc.

First of all, I can't help you with the tag, only the user giving tag can remove what they put there, in this case, Nutildah. Second... how is that you closing your old and exposed account helps this case and convince people to remove the tag? We can't know for sure that you don't have another alt abusing bounties, given your cluster is quite big.

Based on Gladiator's summary above [very much thanks for that, I don't think I am going to watch a video-evidence too] the scammer or whoever that is who contacted you, doesn't have an account here? And you basically has zero pieces of information to track them?

Umm... I understand that the basis of your plea to remove the tag is because you've disposed the exposed account on March, no longer using it, thus this newest one should be exempted? Despite it's been proven by nutildah on the other thread that your acc-cluster is abusing bounty?

I wrote that great length to tell you that your proposed collusion between CG and casinos was baseless. Referral link were placed there to serve a purpose that's been repetitively explained to you. ADRs are independent agencies. If that's not enough, here's more,

You propose that CG wouldn't accept your review and taking sides with casinos because they're on the casinos payroll, namely by generating revenue through referral link. Thus, it's not too far fetched to apply the same idea, that other ADR who take referral link to generate revenue are also on casinos payroll, correct? And thus, should be and would be protecting their "employer", much like CG.

I'm glad that AG accepted your review, because... they can't possibly be on casinos payroll if they accepted bad reviews, correct?

Yet...





thought?

I got a reply from the person who forwarded all of the cases on this board to Stake's staff yesterday, he informed me that Stake's staff has, indeed, been notified about this thread.

The case here is the later one, the "only" bridging issue. OP owned and wanted to swap XFUN for FUN, a transaction that claimed to be instant yet always experience some delay for him. This time, his transactions got delayed... for unforeseeable time. His XFUN swap initiation went through, as evidenced here amongst three others but he never get FUN credited to his wallet.

I wouldn't call that censorship, per se, as censorship is defined as, "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security" [I stole this from google by typing "censorship", no source given by the search engine. So... sorry, no citation], or simplified, "blocks something from being read, heard, or seen", and though the content of the threads being referrenced here are deleted and "prevented" from being read or seen, it is not blocked or suppressed, there are ways to "recover" those posts.

It's self-moderation, not a censor, which, ironically for your case [not a sarcasm here, just stating a fact], is a way the forum offered for people to express their freedom of speech instead of limiting it, and the forum even offers a way to let the content that's being removed to still be available for public. There's a warning as well as a way to "counter" the removal literally above every of the pages of such thread,

"This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic."

Above all, the fact that you can create a thread about this, is the epitome that the forum did not censor opinion. We won't be able to read your opinion and this entire thread if they do.

And to set the record straight, I am not saying those things above because I am siding with JG, or with you. I believe there are times I disagree with JG as well as with you, though some might be voiced and some were kept to myself. There is a reason why I am not jumping to every threads made by you and JG [I still grab popcorn and sips coffee over it, though], and it's because I couldn't care less, it's mostly about conflict with two people who have more time to spend on the internet. Most of those topics can be avoided if either of you be more like bill. And the reason why I jumped into a thread that any of you raised is most likely because I feel the need to set some things straight, like this one; a censorship.

As what's referenced by Mahdirakib, TheQuin had explained freebitco's --and his-- position on this case. He did not deny the shared ownership, but those sites are out of his jurisdiction and area, he can't address you for their behalf. I'll quote the answer to give more context,

A pdf? On this case, are you allowed to re-upload the document or were the process is currently locked for you? If you can reupload them, do you mind retrying? Probably they made a mistake and your document will be accepted this time.

Umm... I actually wanted to give OP a benefits of doubt. So far he showed that he gave his best to provide what's asked. It seems to me he just doesn't understand what to upload instead of refusing to comply with the request. To be fair, the format accepted by Stake for the said file above are .pdf, .jpg, and .png. Thus, if OP indeed uploaded a screenshot [as I show on the image above as well as inquire the confirmation to OP], he could probably just misunderstood the exact requirement. After all, a screenshot is also a .jpg or .png, which an "acceptable" format according to the instruction.

I might be wrong, but far as I know, licensor handle case per user instead of a "class action", they deal with cases much like ADR handle cases: between the casino, the user, and them. And that's it. No other party being added to the equation, not even other users with same case. If they have same case, then they should raise their own complaint. I mean, the procedure of submitting a dispute to CG [their licensor] involves writing an email to their dispute line, that itself implied enough that the cases are handled one case at a time, per user.

How... exactly earning from referral link [of which it's been repetitively explained to you what this "revenue" most likely are for] made them on casinos' payroll? I am somewhat sure if you're willing to put it in writing that you'll handle all of their expenses, they'll agree to drop the referral link right on that second. The links are there not because they're under the casinos's payroll, they have to use the referral links to make sure they can foot the bill on their "mission" to help customers to be well mediated and get the best available [and tested] knowledge about casinos for free. Again, it doesn't make them affiliated with the casinos as in being their subsidiary, related-to, or being employed. It's simply their way to provide service without asking the users to pay them. Using your same argument, though, can we say wikipedia is affiliated and on several thousands of people's payroll? Because they annually open themselves for "coffee" donation?

But, as you're so hell bent [understandably, because this is the only basis of your accusation] on the payroll idea, let's amuse your idea for a second, let's suppose they are protecting casinos because they got paid [again, this is just to entertain an idea, not the actual situation] don't you agree that, naturally, it would also be on their best interest to not undermining and exposing their entire "shady" ADR operation by dropping cloudbet like a hot potato, to ensure the longevity of these "shady" business?

Especially since they're not that big of a casino. I mean... have you look at casinos that CG facilitates as an ADR and under their review? I won't pretend I have the data, but I'm sure there are plenty of casinos there, and judging from the gambling threads in this forum [or from this board only], there are many bigger "employer" that generates revenue that dwarfed cloudbet's. I honestly don't think cloudbet even on their top 20 referral-revenue.

From business perspective, this is not ideal.

And let's stop beating around the bush, this is not we [or me] being uncertain of what, this is us telling you that you made a strawman argument from the very beginning. You insist on something that's completely wrong just to validate your baseless accusation. We are all open for cases that have substantial proof, we oversee cases on neutral ground and don't take sides as we are not benefited from any side [you certainly won't accuse us of being on CG's payroll... oh wait, you did], but so far, you seemed have a very weak evidences, and the very one you provide [the referral link, or affiliation, if you prefer it that way] is already explained and "debunked".

If you have more to add, please provide them here with the backing evidences, we are more than happy to clear it for you.

I understand your case and OP's case are now both solved? Neat. I am happy for you both.

OP, as both are solved, there's no need to keep it open until tomorrow. Please lock this thread soonest you can to prevent further meaningless discussion.

I... honestly failed to understand this decision. You asked what to do, got informed about a mediation that Rollbit's official is ready to take and fully attend, but you seemed to won't even take this into consideration. As you're 100% sure of your case and all allegations toward you are wrong, wouldn't the best path is to accept Razer's invitation to move to their licensor? With your bulletproof case, the licensor will be ruling toward you, especially as you have nothing to hide.

I can't see how reaching to your group and friends will solve this.

The passage indeed piqued my curiosity, and, as we all here simply act as overseer, a neutral ground, we strive to look for more in-depth truth. I'll say it's very convenient that it's snipped right on that part, while the full explanation actually also inform people that they are not taking payment to boost a rating, which hold a major basis of your argument. I'll provide the statement in a screenshot version, just to maintain originality and transparency



Now, addressing the affiliate system you talked about, I am sure we are all here understand that, especially with the complete paragraphs above, the "affiliate" being mentioned here simply refer to "referral earning" [which the purpose of it already nicely explained by FatFork] instead of "affiliate" in the sense of being a subsidiary or having an official attachment to a platform?

---

Regarding the list, I am not joking when I said I am swamped, thank you for that link, I'll glance at it once I've freed some space from my plate. And since that's about Cloudbet [while this thread is for CG] and I see that you have another thread about cloudbet --which I also haven't read-- I'll probably move this discussion there

It's not against some rules, per se, but it's counterproductive.

OP's case is solved [we'll assume it like this until there's a further development that said otherwise], and are we really about to keep a solved thread open just to ask FJ to solve a different case? What if FJ addressed the situation and the outcome is not like what Hirishimogato wished?

FJ took OP's case under good-will, wouldn't having Hirishimogato's case to be addressed here and keep the thread open until it is addressed will require either FJ to give the same treatment to him just to close this topic [and it won't be fair for FJ as they'll kinda be "coerced" into doing so] or Hirishimogato got pissed for not having what he wanted [the same treatment as OP] granted and dragged this thread for a really long time, while the actual case here is solved. In peace.

Further, we didn't know the exact and full story of Hirishimogato. Should he provide his case with the suggested format here, on the second page of a thread where it could be easily overlooked? Because he sure can't make it on permanently stay on the opening post [which he could, if he has his own thread]. And what should people refer this thread in the future? Eoveriero v. FJ [Fortunejack scam me for 279.6 usd] or Hirishimogato v. FJ [Fortunejack scam my bonus reward, or whatever the title be named]? Let's suppose FJ is the one cheated [let's just... suppose], how could people know that there is a case of FJ scamming Hirishimogato in the future? There is no record of a thread made by him. What if Hirishimogato is the one who cheated FJ? I can go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

[And oh, it might be hard to believe, but I didn't say all of the above in patronizing tone, or angry. Just... flat.]