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.]

You understand my post wrongly. If you read rohang's post, on the part that I quoted, he suggested OP, Eoveriero to keep the thread open instead of locking it and marking it as solved until FJ addressed Hirishimogato's issue

Mind to explain to me the logic behind this idea?

OP's case is solved, FJ made their statement and solved the situation [or at least it's on the way to it, just waiting for OP's confirmation] why shouldn't the thread be locked and marked as solved? The main topic of the thread had been addressed and cleared. Letting it open is kinda not fair. Unless you can tell me why that is such a good idea?

I'm a bit swamped right now, so I can't do a thorough search at the moment. Can you please provide the link or other reference that clearly states this open acknowledgement that CG is affiliated with casinos upon being asked? Because... I looked at their "About Us" page and couldn't find such acknowledgement. What I found is the exact opposite,



if you can point us out to this claim, it'll be very much appreciated.


And oh, while you're at it, though this topic is about CG and not cloudbet, can you please also list all of those 70+ scam accusations on this board with their link? I'd be more than happy to visit each of the cases and look around when I have more time in hand

Good will is simply... that, a good-will. It's taken after weighting several considerations, not who shouted the most or who own what. If you feel that you're treated unfairly, you're more than welcome to open your own thread with your supporting evidence, it'll be better as it'll be more focused on your situation, rather than having it here where the center of the topic is someone else's case. Asking OP to not close the topic [when his situation resolved] because yours is still not is... rather unfair, don't you agree?

It might be worth to mention that opening your own thread against FJ doesn't necessarily mean FJ will instantly give you the same outcome. That's not how this board operates.

If I may know further, did you send the whole file containing the said the letter of recommendation? Or is it just a page or two, screenshotted from your screen? This image below for instance,



is evidently a screenshot from your screen. Did you send them the exact same file as above? Or did you send them the original and whole document issued by the bank?

If I may add to other explanations already given here, as well as been implied on my previous post, they've put a warning banner when someone from restricted jusrisdiction accessed Cloudbet's page. If they're on casinos's payroll or taking casinos's side at any degree, wouldn't they try to get as many revenue as they can and thus, obscuring or probably won't even bother to put these warning?

I believe this was your complaint to CG, and to summarize the complaint [correct me if I'm wrong], you feel cheated because they're restricted in Australia, yet you feel that CG didn't do good enough effort to protect the users by giving the casino negative rating for providing services outside of their jurisdiction, although CG has put this warning banner?



And your proposed solution/demand is,

Hi,

Continuing our conversation from the other thread to keep things in order,

I'd like to address your concern about how no one seemed to notify Stake's representative about your case, as the opportunity offered itself, one thing that might be worth to put in the open in attempt to be completely honest, I'll admit that Stake's representatives are the hardest to reach for me as they barely replied to my invitation, but on the previous case that's posted before yours, of which I sent a message to notify one of the representative, I was graced by a reply assuring that they monitored the scam accusations and forwarded every cases on this board to the staff.

If you want to, though, I can contact the same representative to notify him about your thread, just in case they set their PM setting to not accepting message from newbies? That's the least I can do for you.

I feel that we're beginning to shift from the case of OP v. Rollbit to... Stake, so I think it'll be best to not continuing this matter as we'll derail the topic here. We can continue this matter back to your thread if you want to --just to keep it neat and make sure we stay on topic-- I am more than happy to discuss the matters that still concerned you there, though I've explained my assumption the best I can grasp on why and how did it it happened. So I don't think I can help you any further on it. I'll make a reply in your thread to address one of the concern you raised here, though.

---

I'll invite you to read first few pages of this board, there are threads to prove that Casinos don't cherry pick big wins or small wins [although big or small money are very subjective], they had complaint for cases involving 300-400 USD too, and they addressed the concerns justifiedly.

If I may straighten things out, I am not "trying to look from casino's representative" in sense that I am trying to lean toward their side. I am, in fact, trying to look from as many perspective as I can. In every cases that come to this forum that I attended, I'll give my best to ask both sides to provide their side of story and try to figure out what really happened. I notified and invited the casinos [or the platforms] to attend to the scam accusation thread and give their piece.

For those who frequently watch this board, they'll know I am not always siding with the casinos.

There were cases I am questioning casino's decisions and ruling because they obviously the wrong side there, but there are also cases where the players are evidently made fake statements and we were provided with things that contradict their statements. And then, there are cases that this forum simply... less effective to handle because it's an open forum and some evidences are very private, and thus, there's no other way to made a progress other than to refer them to ADR.

Believe me, if it's up to me, I'd much prefer for things to be solved in the forum if it can because I believe more eyes and brains overseeing a case are better than one person being assigned, where they held the final verdict, and susceptible to miss one or two key factors [for the record, I have nothing against ADR, just... that's what my honest opinion about the number of eyes overseeing cases] but sometimes, in this life, we can't get things the way we wanted it to be, can we? And I have to admit, the privacy that ADR offered gives numerous advantages to solve a case instead of having them to stay here and get stuck in progress because no evidences can be analyzed due to the security concern.

This very case, for example, I really hoped that I am free to provide the discussion with Razer that I had through PM just to show you that I tried to talk them to take other means of resolution instead of taking it to their licensor, to deescalate the case by having a middle way instead of to stand firm with their decision because they are very sure with their findings.

The long paragraphs above also address your topic about we being on the opposite side, I don't think that's necessarily true. I understand that you're fully commited to take customer's side, well... our only difference is that I am "taking the side" that's less questionable, I treat every complainants and the accused with grains of salt. So, in a way, we're not necessarily need to be on different side, suppose what you tried to achieve is finding the real truth behind every story instead of [to put it bluntly] blindly supporting every cases against casino, disregarding how questionable the scam accusation made by the player [another thing that I want the record to reflect, I believe you're a reasonable man, the sentence before this has a big implied "IF" within it, I am not accusing you that you'll blindly taking side of the players just out of spite for casinos, I'm just saying it like, "just in case you're intending to"].