Hi, thank you for coming here and addressing the issue. If I may clarify and better understand the situation, my guess earlier is correct, that OP was banned because they utilize a strategy that can be considered as a value betting, in form of taking advantage offered by rakeback? I am not sure I quite understand the part of your statement I underlined. Does this means the 10.2k was not OP's fund and their deposits? And the entirety of it was what OP gained from the rakeback and value bet?

As for OP, may I know what amount you deposited on rollbit?

Umm... I think that'll be quite unfair and burdening. Having them to have another bounty with mandatory task to visit this thread would imply Jr BM need to allocate another funds to serve the purpose. If the aim is to inform cluesless newbie hunters about the rules of this forum, it'll be more efficient and less taxing if they just wrote on their previous thread --the one which became the root of this situation-- with link to this thread and explanation about why what the hunters did were wrong.

I don't think you've read the thread carefully, or even the opening post. It's there on the image attached by OP, literally the top most of the thread, the thread started with the image. I'm not sure how you missed it. He was demanding it, mandating it.

As for the subtle reminder because maybe he's not aware or has forgotten, tell me this: will you trust a bounty manager that doesn't know the most basic rule of the forum? Or, if you're a company hiring him, then the question is: will you trust a manager who caught red handed buying fake reviews?

Let's see if I understand your proposal correctly. To play your game, in individual need to pay at least 10,000 USD and up to 10,000,000 USD, which will converted into your token, and you'll design a real world game for them, like in a real abandoned train station or Chernobyl?

The most important question first, why do they have to buy your token if it'll be more convenient to just pay in fiat? I assume from your MOC your clients are not an average citizen, I don't think they'll bother converting to your native token if they can just use their fiat

As someone who mostly access the forum through mobile device and touch screen rather than PC and mouse pointer, I can assure you that there's no feature to get notified... yet --I really hope tryninja didn't land on this thread and get the idea to add this feature on his notifier, LOL-- I accidentally pressed ignore button more often than I care to admit when I actually tried to click their trust score. And even if they get notified, prominent or not, you have the full right to put anyone you don't want to read their post on your ignore list.

---

If I may use this thread and chance to propose a feature, can we please move the ignore button somewhere else? On the right side of the post above "report to moderator" perhaps? Or more "hidden" like on the user's profile page? Sometimes I wished it didn't sit too close to the buttons I frequently clicked with this clumsy fingers of mine.

I beg to differ on this part of statement. Whitepaper, plagiarized, is indeed a major determining factor, but it is not the only factor that we just have to look at it to determine. In a sense that just because a project's whitepaper is free from plagiarism it doesn't instantly translates as the project is legit. I've meet many project with no traces of plagiarism but the project is still questionable. For instance, there was this project that propose to pool funds to buy company shares --in India, if I have to be specific-- from an "experienced" trader in US. Their whitepaper is well written, the profile matched my background check, but upon further investigation, that CEO doesn't even have an in-depth knowledge of regulations in India --that's readily available on simple internet search-- that made his proposal rather obsolete. They're never to be seen and heard on this forum anymore after I exposed this fact.

You can't treat every case as equal, where the casinos use multi-acc as an excuse to not pay their players. Every case has their own story. Some cases, the players did cheat the bookies, while on the other cases the casinos falsely accuse their players for something that they didn't do. This is why it is essential to understand both sides of the story.

And umm... what stake has to do with this case?

I have yet an opportunity to reach Cyrus, but I had once or twice reached hilariousandco for something and he answered my questions. The board you're referring to were moderated by both of them, I'll suggest you to try to reach either one of them, I think it is more likely than not that they'll give you a reply with answer --though I think what's suggested by several members here are answering enough.

Their team details worried me a bit, I can only confirm one from the four of them. I can't find anything about Mcclinton or Jenkins, Bishop is somewhat provable that he's a real person, but he doesn't mention the company on his profile. Only Jones does.

merging OP's consecutive posts into one

I can see that CG took a wise step by encouraging TD to do another video call. I'd like to advise you to use this occasion to ask in details what things would TD want you to show during the video call and to arrange it to a time where you're free so you can provide things they want you to show. Ask that on CG so there's a written proof that you've asked in details about what they require, so if they sprung something else that you can't provide --I hope we don't have to reach this point-- and it wasn't on their list, you have a written statement backing you up.

They did.

The complaint closed marked as unresolved and thus lower the rating of the casino on their platform. The mediator also set a black point. Not sure what that is, but I am assuming that's like penalty score. The next step you can do if you want to proceed with the case is --as suggested by CG-- to file a formal complaint to their license provider, gaming-curacao.

Quoting for image view. I've also send a PM to Rollbit Razer notifying him about this issue. Let's wait him to be back online and see if he has an insight for this matter. But if I may give my amateur opinion based on your strategy quoted below, this seems like a value bet. I am not sure if rollbit explicitly forbid this and if it's specifically written on their ToS, but the general consensus applied by bookies is that it is see as something that's frowned upon.

Umm... taking a risk of sounding nosy... am I wrong if I wondered what the actual purpose of this thread is? OP seems have no interest to engage on the discussion occurred by raising this thread, as I can see him posting anywhere else but here. I initially thought he's concerned about having to watering down his english and cases of "false positive" on written-by-AI detection, but that's most likely not the case as he doesn't even bother to engage to any replies here.

Have you explained to them that the reason is simply you're not home and didn't bring your passport at that time? I can't see yet what's written by both parties on casino guru, but I hope what you write is that explanation. And if it isn't, then I suggest you to try explaining the situation to them. Make it simple and clear, they have tendency of misintepreting sentences and statement.

Speaking of which... I just read their ANN thread, I guess they never cease to amuse me. Are you also interested on explaining what's actually happened with your case on their ANN? The snippet of what they said about video call is this,


while the reality is this,



I don't recall any reluctance of video call from your side. Their side? Sure. But yours? IIRC you're more than welcoming the idea of video verification. I think everybody closely following this thread and case knows what actually happened with that... persuasion.

As Rollbit Razer had replied here, by default setting he'll know that there is a new post on this thread from "show new replies to your post", but his last online date was on 16, so he's yet to read the recent development of your case. PMing him seems rather redundant for that very reason.

Ok, thank you for the answer.

So to sum it up, the current situation is TD argue that the notarized document is probably not yours and someone else's instead because there's no photo on the certificate that could connect the passport to you, while there's actually abundant reference on that certificate that ties the issued certificate to the passport, and a photo of you on the passport file you previously sent as KYC that they can use to match and validate the ownership of the passport and the notarized document to... "the attendee". You might want to point this out to CG to invalidate the argument below,


Second, and I should have start with this, you might want to make it clear that instead of didn't have the passport, you simply didn't bring it during the video call because they didn't tell you the purpose of the video call and what to bring, so you left it, not knowing they'll asking you to show it again. There is a fine difference between "doesn't have the passport" and "doesn't bring the passport" that could lead to a major misinterpretation.


If I may suggest, you could perhaps made a post on CG explaining this situation as above, so the mediator can get a better grasp of what's currently, and actually, happen, and ask for another video call, this time they specify what do they need from you.

Sorry for being unclear on point number 2. I was asking about your passport, not the notarized document. The original passport, that one you give to immigration officer when you board a plane. Does it has a photo of you on it? Pretty much sure it has because... which country doesn't? But I'd like to cover every ground. If it has, TD's claim that they can't be sure the notarized document is indeed belong to you is not valid since all they need to do is match the passport number written on the notarized document with the KYC file they had on you and the photo on that file with the person sitting in front of the camera during video call. From that point, it's very easy to make a connection that those files belong to the same owner or not.

As for point number 3, I assume correctly you had your video call somewhere away from your home so you can't just do a quick run to your bedroom and grab the passport?

Before I made a lengthy post to share my insight on the current situation, I'd appreciate if you could clarify further by answering my previous questions; (1) is there something on the notarized certificate that ties the document with your passport, (2) is there a photo of you on the passport, and (3) why can't you show your passport on the video call?

How do you know that you're perfectly seen and heard if you can't hear back from them? I was imagining that you asked them "can you see me now? Hello? Can you hear me clearly?" and no answer. How possible is it that the connection error happened on both side, where they can perfectly see and hear themselves but can't hear you, and they decided for a reschedule after long attempts of "can you hear us?" replied with utter silence.

You missed one crucial key points on that post:


One indicator said by nutildah is if the improvement happened in one night from a messy English to a flawless ones. I didn't look at your post history, but if I may draw a conclusion from your post above, your main language is not English and you're gradually improving your skills; vocabularies, grammars, phrases, slangs, etc. On that case, I don't see why you should feel shock or saddened with the thread, given it barely matched your criteria, nor that I find any part on that thread that encourage people, implicitly or explicitly, to deliberately "retrogress" their english writing on BTT just to avoid being detected as AI.

The forum always encourages improvement. There are literally threads filled with suggestion for non-english speakers to use a translator and then to double check the grammar with grammarly or other similar software to let them post something that's close to a perfect english. So thinking that the forum would prefer you to "downgrade" your english is somewhat baseless.