I am not exactly fond of snipping posts, in concern of creating an impartial narrative instead of the whole message tried to be conveyed by an user, but the rest of the post is quite irrelevent and I want all of us to focus on this part, so... snipped.


Now, though your statement is correct to certain degree, that they've let you pass the KYC and thus that account is verified, that doesn't mean you're exempted from further analysis [as stated by FJ themselves]. And it doesn't necessarily proof that you did the KYC fair and square. Not that I am saying you faked it, but I've haunted this board way too long that I am well aware of malpractice in KYC verification. Ranging from buying credentials, to using someone else's ID, that I know people shouldn't just take statements as-is. This is not the first case I attended where someone passed KYC and later found trying to abuse the platform by faking credentials.

However, I'd also like to know the basis taken by FJ for this accusation. Lest it be baseless and wrongful. The forum are open and stand in neutral ground. FortuneJack, if you're still attending this thread and wouldn't mind to answer some follow-up questions, does all the other accounts suspected to be related to OP has also done their KYC? Do their photos or other details on the document bring a connection to OP? You don't have to divulge it here, just a simple yes or no would be much appreciated.

I barely ventured to the Lending section so I might be wrong, but IIRC, there are instances in the past where members with high  reputation --or even "moderate" ones like your example-- used their account as means of collateral, it's like saying, "my Hero rank speak for itself, I will repay the loan or anyone can bombard the account with negative trust." So yeah, unless my memory served me wrong --and there is a high probability of it, given I barely venture to the section-- "digital account" is a valid "collateral" for some.

I will have to beg to differ on the "never enough evidence to nail anyone" part, though your later part bear some weight of truth; "unless the suspect doesn't have what it takes to vindicate themselves", which can be read as, "unless the suspect can no longer defend themselves as being not guilty".

It is quite established throughout the forum that cases being raised here should be seen on case-by-case basis. And be it we applying the presumption of guilt or the presumption of innocence, both presumptions emphasize of piling evidences up to beyond rational doubt that someone did or did not do something that's being accused. The keyword, for this topic, is "piling evidences".

If we use your instances, sure separately, they are circumstantial. FatFork's writing style can be coincidental [as I've argued it myself], same address of John can be a transaction between colleagues, social media handles can be copied. But if they're piling on top of each other, it'll push the barrier of reasonal doubt. This is why Little Mouse and PP suggested to utilize neutral tag as a marker to remind ourselves about the account while we dig deeper before taking further steps based on the findings.

Okay, I think you might want to take some fresh air. We're all landing on a wrong footing here. No one accuses you, so far, to be the one violating the casino and cheated them. They are simply suggesting possible situation, it is not really necessary to be addressed with bolded words and eye-catching font size. We tried our best to see cases from several angles and consider every possibilities.

As for myself, I've said it on the opening sentence of my first post here, I just want to be sure that every ground is covered. I have never use FJ, but from your screenshot where there is a checkmark of your email (?) and phone number (?), I assume FJ also give a green checkmark for KYC, as other platform that I know will let you know which level of KYC you've already passed and which level is still there to be completed if asked or if you volunteered.

As you've informed their representative about the case here, let's give them some time to attend to this case. I'll send them a PM and informing them about this thread on Sunday in case there's no reply until Saturday [three days from today]. Meanwhile, let's wait for their explanation.

The working assumption here --with benefit of doubts, of course-- is that you passed KYC as you're sure as hell about it and probably there's a miscommunication between their compliance, security team, and probably other department due the VPN. One department got alerted about suspicious behaviour, not knowing that the account already passed a KYC and the flag is a false positive. But that's a lot of assumption. Let's just wait for their reply.

Just to make sure every ground is covered, does your profile reflected and showed you passed the KYC verification?

What I am venturing is, the possibility that their email informing you that your withdrawal has been released is due to their good will, as in they released it to you prior to them finished checking your credential, and later found some oddity on the data being submitted and checked. It might worth to mention that they did not say anything about the verified KYC ID on the email, only that your fund has been released. Had you get any chance to look at your profile after it and see that your account is indeed marked as verified and/or received a confirmation email regarding this?

Hhhhh... I actually don't think this is necessary and not really interested to give my time for this case anymore, but as servant of Steve the community, I decided against it and do a little dig, really little dig.

Here's the first thing that I found:



I say it's enough time for Snne to log out of her account and sign in with the new one. "That's circumstantial at best!" someone might argue, or "It's just coincidence!". So, ok, I dig deeper. Below is what Hakangulll said on their very first post


But let's see what Snne said about that account before,


As well as two screenshots for a nice cherry on top.


should I say... "oops.."? or, "aha!"? Hmm... instead, I'll say, "Ahaha, better luck next time, hakansnne"

Uhh... I am not sure. I think the best approach will be to use the complaint form and see if the final step, or somewhere in between brought you to the aforementioned email address and/or you got a confirmation email from the said email address after your submission. You can always write to the email address provided by Razer and mentioned you submitted a form few days ago if you never heard anything from CEG after few days.

After all, this is what CEG wrote on their guidelines and rules of complaint submission:



To be fair, they've stand by their opinion from day one and make it clear. It was me and the community that encouraged you to the "run around" to make sure you exhausted every possible solution, as per the licensor's notice,


So, I'll take the shares of blame for it if you feel pissed off by these delays.

Okay, two things to be straigtened up. One, you addressed the wrong person. Hhampuz --or me, but I think you're referring to Hhampuz and happened to quote me on your way-- so far, has not accused OP of using scanning service or bots. Two, if I may assume your post meant to be address to betcoin's representative, they're not accusing OP of "using a scanning service, later for the use of bots to place bets" in a sense that they changed their narrative of counter-accusation. They stood by their initial suspicion that OP utilized scanning service and would give his account a thorough swept to see if he had any other account and/or previous record of abuse that'll determine their next course of action.

Any mention close to the use of bots is this one,


and that refers to the scanner.

You are correct, we're not discussing about ADR. Simplified, they're informing me that they can't comment further about your case due to security reason, but they're more than welcome you to escalate it to the licensor and they'll participate on it --as shown by the quoted PM above.

It might be wise to inform you, if you haven't know about it already, that decision made by licensor is final and that both parties should adhere to their ruling.

I think OP tried to give them some time, and waiting if they'll reply with some proposed idea of repayment, as he said on the updating post. However, after a week, it became obvious they're not going to propose anything. And thus, the update.

I've been on read-only mode for this thread since yesterday and actually wanted to pass for this case but, uhh... OP, would you perhaps consider to exercise some patience? It's barely 12 hours from your change of decision from contacting 3rd party mediator to a proposed alternate resolution, where you gave them 7 days [that's just two posts above mine], so... perhaps wait a little, they're still within the timeframe you gave them yourself. Not to mention that consecutive posts is highly frowned by the mods of the forum.

I triple what's said by Little Mouse and PP. These evidences so far, even what's provided by FatFork above me --good digging, though, FatFork-- was still circumstantial. There's no definitive connection between the two accounts. Given they're speaking the same language, it's probable thst the grammatical error of, "I can help with you" is a common practice.

Until there's a direct evidences and connection, best way to approach this will be to tag with neutral and later change it as the situation developed.

You can't take down a flag in the sense of deleting them, you can only retract it. If you want to retract the flag against Razer, feel free to do it, as well as if you want to have both account flagged. I think it is allowed, given that,


and assuming that the multi-user flag is raised under the basis that both accounts are related to the case and dealing with any of them --under your POV-- will poses a risk of losing money.


I'll try to PM Razer again in the meantime in hope that he'll reviewed this case again.

---

Edit: [this might be the end of it]

I exchanged couples of PM with Razer throughout the day, and he gave me permission to share the last of his reply to me, containing their stance for this case.


Hope this helps.

Hi, I'm not related to SportsBet at any degree, obviously, but I can understand your frustration as a vvip member. Do you mind to give a tad bit more of patience while I am trying to hail someone from SB to look into your case more closely? I am PMing them right now and hopefully they'll attend to it soonest they can.

I think you can rest assured as I don't think Rollbit has any plan to jeopardize their efforts in all these years. The case is not that simple --or perhaps... it is simple-- stakemeharder and rollbit both shared the blame here. stakemeharder explained it themselves on the opening post of their accusation thread that they utilized certain strategy that many gambling sites will likely frowned upon, and Razer is not exactly silent, he has shared Rollbit's insight for this matter.


I don't mean to be rude, but if you bother to look at the thread being talked here, you'll see that Rollbit did not allow the issue to linger too long. They attended to the case the instance they went online and noticed my PM informing them about it, they've come with an explanation.

If there is any "mistake" that Razer made, is that he's not explaining in detail of the violation made by stakemeharder and instead throwing a blanket statement. Which... the people overseeing that thread has been trying to remedy, to get a better explanation and insight for the case, although --IMO-- stakemeharder's case is quite clear.

---

If you both still interested to pursue this case and engage in further discussion regarding this matter, I invite you both to continue the discussion here instead of on this thread as to not derailing this thread as well as to focusing the whole discussion and development in one place. Talking about one matter on two --or multiple-- threads at once will just confuses anyone overseeing the case as they'll have to go back and forth between the intersecting threads to keep themselves updated.

OP, I can't support the flag no matter how many times I consider and reconsider and reconsider about it for the reason I explained here. I am well aware that at this point, my following request would have a very high probability of casting an impression that I tried to drag this case and delaying you from reaching to their licensor, but rest assured that it is not my intention. It is up to you to choose.

However, if I may propose, give them another week or so? Your flag now has BitcoinGirl.Club's support. That's 1 DT power. As your flag is a type-2 flag, you'll need two more DT supports for it to become active and the banner to be shown on their threads. However, the deadline you set is quite narrow by the time I wrote this post, in about 24 hours or so, and I don't think it's enough to get 2 DT supports and Razer to notice about it. So, suppose that even you finally managed to activate your flag, Razer might be won't realize about it.

The decision is yours, though.

---

Edit: Oh fork! OP, my deepest apology! It just registered to my mind that although Razer is the official representative of Rollbit and tackling cases related to Rollbit, they're not the official account of Rollbit, so suppose your flag is active, it will have little to zero impact to Rollbit's reputation on this forum, and thus to the goal you seek by raising the flag is for naught.

The banner will only shown on the thread created by Razer, which is none. The flag should be addressed to Rollbitcom as the official account of rollbit and the thread owner instead. The link to raise a flag will be this one.

As the one who provide you the link to teach you how to raise a flag, I once again apologize. This is unintentional.

I appreciate your decision and for supporting the flag. I wish I could do the same, but unfortunately I still stand by the opinion that stakemeharder was not entirely not at fault here, nor does Rollbit. Both shared the blame. stakemeharder for utilizing a --probably-- value betting, though it's still unclear and they probably did that not on purpose, and Rollbit for not being ready to mitigate all potential risks when they offered promotion(s).

I even argued with myself since stakemeharder raised the flag and "complained" that no one supporting it about whether it's ethical to support the flag just for the sake of encouraging Razer to give something more in-depth like I did with tagging them on the other case. However, after taking this to the back of my brain for few days, I think that very act will cross the line of DT abuse if I did, because the clause of the flag dictate,


while I don't exactly affirming it to be --completely-- true to the best of my knowledge.

If I support the flag just to "encourage" Razer to give a reply and to make sure stakemeharder has exhausted all of the possible intermediary effort, that'll invalidate the support for the clause and I can be considered as abusing my DT power. Thus, I refrained from it until further prove provide itself... which it doesn't. LOL.

I think best I can do is to write on their thread informing them about this, and to ask them to perhaps consider giving more time to accumulate more support, if they wished so and not already had enough with the pace of this case.

The "real community" has discussed about it on the said user's accusation thread, as well as has given their chance to give their decision for the case; The OP of that thread has raised a flag and announce it on the support/opposition request of flag. It's all there in the open for the community to discuss and weight in.

If you think that Rollbit did wrong on that case and supported stakemeharder, you're more than welcome to participate on the flag and the community discussion by supporting it.

If you check my past history with TD, you'll find me having a colorful situations with them, and I mostly agree that their representative have a tendency of drama king. But for this case, I'll say there's nothing wrong from their side. The terms is agreed by you upon signing up, there are plenty of materials to study about the terms on this forum. IIRC, the wagering requirement even discussed on their ANN thread.


We appreciate it.

We'd really appreciate it more if you can change your thread title to better fit your goal, perhaps something like, "Warning: Trustdice Withdrawal Requirement" instead of "Just got scammed by Trustdice.win stay away". Which one you aimed for? A scam accusation report or a simple warning to the community?

I think those documents are pretty standard for KYC procedure, is it not? Not necessarily intrusive. An advanced KYC would even require Source of Wealth, SoW, and that's pretty much a common standard by casinos as part of their AML/ATF compliance.

All things said above, I understand that your current situation is you managed to upload the documents and they're pending for review?