❃❃ ▶▷ BETCOIN.ag ◁◀ ❃❃#Signature Campaign-High Pay, Monthly Bonus, Special Award

[cjmoles]

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it.  At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement.  I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic.  I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

I tried having a discussion with Betcoin, but the NDA by BetSoft preventing me from knowing any details about the jasonort incident doesn't really help any "rational discussion", does it?

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin.  They are a huge gaming platform provider, they are licensed, and they have jurisdictions where remedies for arbitration can be conducted.  If Betsoft is found to be rogue, then that will have an enormous impact on the entire industry.  As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay.  However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.  As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy.  We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).  Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

[1714187862]

1714187862

[1714187862]

1714187862

[1714187862]

1714187862

[1714187862]

1714187862

[DarkDays]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

[cjmoles]

True.  Multi-accounting has ruined lucrative careers....Look up the stoxtrader (Nick Grudzian)/Leatherass (Dusty Schmitt) incident.  It's very serious.  Dusty wasn't even directly involved, yet his career took a huge hit.  Having multiple accounts on a single poker site is against a poker sites terms and conditions, regardless if the bad actor admits to collusion, short stacking, rat-holing, softplay, or multiple entry because it is hard to prove intent.  It was sufficient enough to ruin Dusty's career that multiple accounts were established, even though he wasn't proven to be the culprit; Nick was the Culprit.  

It is the responsibility of the site operator to ban multiple accounts to protect the integrity of the game.

This will lead you to the consensus in the poker community on the practice of multi-accounting:   http://www.internettexasholdem.com/poker-forum/general-board/nick-quotstoxtraderquot-grudzian-resigns-over-cheating-61589.html  There's also a link to the 2plus2 thread that detailed the incident.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I hope we can discuss this reasonably.  It seems like you have issues with other people who feel the same way that I do, but I hope that you don't transfer those feelings onto me, just as I won't transfer how I feel about Betcoin on to you.

Deal?

Also, I've been playing poker professionally for a very long time, so I assure you you don't have to link any reference material to me.  It's why I feel so strongly about Betcoin shaping up...I know what it does to the game to have dishonesty and shadiness.
 
If you know what 'multi-accounting' means, and you're accusing Twitchy of multi accounting when you know that the reason he created all of those accounts was to chat with support and chat in the public chat box, you are being dishonest with your accusation.  Because you know that he did not do what you are accusing him of doing.  It's like knowing that someone got banned from a store for cursing out the owner and then telling everyone "Well you get banned from stores for stealing, and that guy got banned from the store so he MUST have stolen a bunch of stuff!"  That's wrong, and amusingly enough that's literally libel (which is a word that I've seen Betcoin and Betcoin employees throw around on this forum often, always incorrectly).  Again, I only know what he's told me and what I've seen with my eyes.  If you have proof that he used multiple accounts to play in the same tournament or cash game, that's a whole different story.  But nobody has ever accused him of doing so, even Betcoin who has a history of doxxing their users.

Now my question...did Betcoin Jessica/Jessica White encourage/ask you to/pay you to/reward you for leaving Twitchy negative feedback?  Would you be willing to show a screenshot of your cashier/recent activity tab on Betcoin to prove that you did not in fact get paid/rewarded for doing so?

It's pretty telling that you are responding to everyone/everything...but not my reasonable question/request.

It's a tendency that I've noticed that everyone whose involved with Betcoin has.

I had responded and posted screenshots directly after your questions; however, trolls immediately took the screenshots I posted and began "photo shopping" and using the information I posted in a manipulative manner....therefore, I deleted my post.

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it.  At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement.  I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic.  I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

The problem I have with this response is that you have still refused to answer my question.  Do you understand why I'll have to assume that the answer is that you did get asked/paid to trash Twitchy?

Your last paragraph is clearly just grasping at straws.  I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you and you are refusing to engage me...after you spoke your piece.  That's not fair.

Okay....Look, twitchyseal gave me negative trust first and I responded to his unwarranted accusations in kind.  Why would somebody have to pay me to defend myself?  So, the answer to your crazy fucking question is NO!....Nobody had to pay me to defend myself; furthermore, I am retired, have plenty of money, and have no need for handouts.  I sport Betcoin's signature because I believe in their product and I want to see them succeed.  Any stipend I get from wearing the Betcoin signature, I throw back at the tables to support the platform.  I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

[Lutpin]

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin.

Oh, I'm fully aware of the size of BetSoft.
Doesn't change the fact that I consider them to be shady and I advice everyone to stay away from them and casinos which offer their games without thinking about their responsibility to their customers.

As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay.

This wasn't resolved. It was burried under an NDA. Resolving an incident doesn't work that way.

As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy.

Nope. I respect the privacy Jason Ort wants to have, not the one BetSoft forces on them.
How can you say the issue was "resolved" above when you say here that you respect the will of BetSoft to burry anything related to it without resolving it?

We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).

I can asume wrong doings from the information I have which is partly publicly available and which I partly gathered in confidence.

Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

Personally, you already should be highly disappointed. BetSoft acted very wrong in this all, and Betcoin.AG allowed them to.

I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

I'm not posting with any other account in this thread.

[TwitchySeal]

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it.  At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement.  I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic.  I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

I tried having a discussion with Betcoin, but the NDA by BetSoft preventing me from knowing any details about the jasonort incident doesn't really help any "rational discussion", does it?

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin.  They are a huge gaming platform provider, they are licensed, and they have jurisdictions where remedies for arbitration can be conducted.  If Betsoft is found to be rogue, then that will have an enormous impact on the entire industry.  As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay.  However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.  As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy.  We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).  Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

Cjmoles would be right if they hadn't lost their alderny license years ago.  Their curacao license is essentially worthless, arbitration is not an option.

[DarkDays]

Okay....Look, twitchyseal gave me negative trust first and I responded to his unwarranted accusations in kind.  Why would somebody have to pay me to defend myself?  So, the answer to your crazy fucking question is NO!....Nobody had to pay me to defend myself; furthermore, I am retired, have plenty of money, and have no need for handouts.  I sport Betcoin's signature because I believe in their product and I want to see them succeed.  Any stipend I get from wearing the Betcoin signature, I throw back at the tables to support the platform.  I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

So me asking you if they paid you to badmouth someone (which they've been caught doing in the past) is "crazy", but you accusing me of being a "multi-account" (which you've never proven anyone is) is not?  #onlybetcoinlogic

You've exposed who your master is.  Sad.

[cjmoles]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

[cjmoles]

Okay....Look, twitchyseal gave me negative trust first and I responded to his unwarranted accusations in kind.  Why would somebody have to pay me to defend myself?  So, the answer to your crazy fucking question is NO!....Nobody had to pay me to defend myself; furthermore, I am retired, have plenty of money, and have no need for handouts.  I sport Betcoin's signature because I believe in their product and I want to see them succeed.  Any stipend I get from wearing the Betcoin signature, I throw back at the tables to support the platform.  I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

So me asking you if they paid you to badmouth someone (which they've been caught doing in the past) is "crazy", but you accusing me of being a "multi-account" (which you've never proven anyone is) is not?  #onlybetcoinlogic

You've exposed who your master is.  Sad.

I never accused you....I think that I said that I am not sure so that it difficult to assume your motivations.

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it.  At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement.  I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic.  I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

I tried having a discussion with Betcoin, but the NDA by BetSoft preventing me from knowing any details about the jasonort incident doesn't really help any "rational discussion", does it?

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin.  They are a huge gaming platform provider, they are licensed, and they have jurisdictions where remedies for arbitration can be conducted.  If Betsoft is found to be rogue, then that will have an enormous impact on the entire industry.  As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay.  However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.  As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy.  We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).  Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

Cjmoles would be right if they hadn't lost their alderny license years ago.  Their curacao license is essentially worthless, arbitration is not an option.

Are you sure about that?

https://validator.curacao-egaming.com/e55930b7-7152-40bf-97c6-410e25fc3c2b

[TwitchySeal]

Okay....Look, twitchyseal gave me negative trust first and I responded to his unwarranted accusations in kind.  Why would somebody have to pay me to defend myself?  So, the answer to your crazy fucking question is NO!....Nobody had to pay me to defend myself; furthermore, I am retired, have plenty of money, and have no need for handouts.  I sport Betcoin's signature because I believe in their product and I want to see them succeed.  Any stipend I get from wearing the Betcoin signature, I throw back at the tables to support the platform.  I'm not even sure if you are a separate entity from the other multi-accounters in this thread so it makes it difficult to assume your motivations.

So me asking you if they paid you to badmouth someone (which they've been caught doing in the past) is "crazy", but you accusing me of being a "multi-account" (which you've never proven anyone is) is not?  #onlybetcoinlogic

You've exposed who your master is.  Sad.

I never accused you....I think that I said that I am not sure so that it difficult to assume your motivations.

The conduct against the participants of this signature campaign is unethical at best and dishonest on the face of it.  At first I considered the fud just misinformed banter, but now I realize that it is more than just rash judgement.  I am now under the impression that it is a concerted effort to shut down an effective signature campaign in order to re-direct player traffic.  I understand betcoin's stance against the trolls because it is not possible to have rational discussions with irrational agitators.

I tried having a discussion with Betcoin, but the NDA by BetSoft preventing me from knowing any details about the jasonort incident doesn't really help any "rational discussion", does it?

Lutpin, I'll try to assume you don't grasp the full gravity of the Betsoft incident, it is much bigger than Betcoin, bitcoincointalk, or bitcoin.  They are a huge gaming platform provider, they are licensed, and they have jurisdictions where remedies for arbitration can be conducted.  If Betsoft is found to be rogue, then that will have an enormous impact on the entire industry.  As is stands, the incident with jason was resolved and they are continuing to pay.  However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.  As for the NDA, we have to respect that privacy.  We cannot assume that a lack of detail is evidence of wrong doing because that, in and of itself, is an unsound argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence).  Personally, I would be highly disappointed if Betsoft were found to be rogue because they provide some of the very best slot software in the industry but I would be the first to scream foul if their software continued to be offered after such a finding.

Cjmoles would be right if they hadn't lost their alderny license years ago.  Their curacao license is essentially worthless, arbitration is not an option.

Are you sure about that?

https://validator.curacao-egaming.com/e55930b7-7152-40bf-97c6-410e25fc3c2b

yes

[DarkDays]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license". 

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

[game-protect]

Betcoin.ag Poker Terms of Service (TOS)

BetcoinPoker.com advises You to read all of these documents carefully as each forms part of the legally binding agreement between You and BetcoinPoker.com

-> It is juridical not possible to have a legally binding agreement with a domain name! Legally binding agreements are only possible between legal entities or private persons. The “Terms of Service” does also neither state the name of the operator nor a gambling license (if any exist), nothing!

-> False and misleading statements are the criminal offense of fraud!

Fraud Act 2016

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).


Betcoin.ag governed in Hong Kong or in Curacao or nowhere?

25. GOVERNING LAW

These Agreements shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. You irrevocably agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Curacao in The Netherlands Antilles for the settlement of any dispute or matters arising out of or concerning these Agreements or their enforceability.

Based on what shall the alleged agreements with Betcoin.ag be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong?

How could “These Agreements” be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong, while online gambling is not allowed in Hong Kong? Does this make sense?

If the Betcoin.ag operation shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong, why do you need to irrevocably agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Curacao in The Netherlands Antilles for the settlement of any dispute or matters arising out of or concerning these Agreements or their enforceability?

Is the company who operates Betcoin.ag incorporated in Curacao and holds a worthless Curacao eGaming license?

If this is the case, what is the name of the company? Why is the name of the operator not stated on their website?

If Betcoin.ag has a valid license, why do they not state the seal on their website?

Do you feel comfortable to send your Bitcoin to something while you do not know who the operator is?

Would it matter for you if this something would have a gambling license, or do you not care at all?

So, are you saying that anybody who endorses a bitcoin casino which is not licensed and regulated in some jurisdiction should not be trusted?

No. I am saying that anyone who lie from the start like Betcoin.ag should be not trusted and this totally independent of whether they have a license or not!

How many bitcoin casinos are actually licensed on this forum?  Do you know?

I did not check and do not care much...

Betcoin.ag caught my attention after paid post and avatar expert "Erza" saw the necessity to post nonsensical stuff in my thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535816.msg15619320#msg15619320

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535816.msg15631598#msg15631598

He should not get paid for those posts  

What would be better....a casino that is not licensed at all, or a casino that contracts out to software licensed and certified by gaming authorities off shore?

If the operator is not stated on the website like at sportsbet.io, then a license is unlike better than no license. Because with the license you have at least a trace to whom you have sent your coins. That was the way how I discovered that Timothy John Heath (who already embezzled player deposits) is behind sportsbet.io and bitcasino.io

Can't have it both ways....either unregulated and decentralized currency or regulated and centralized currency.

Of course can you have licensed and decentralized currency! Sportsbet.io do it this way...

So you use the decentralized currency bitcoin as an excuse for the non regulation and shadiness of Betcoin.ag?

Are you in the right forum?

Definitely yes

[cjmoles]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions. That is not multi-accounting. I might add that they do not allow multiple skins on the network to be open from a single location. You should know that yourself. A multiple-account is more than one account opened at a single casino....thus the word "multiple" otherwise the word used would have been "single."  Furthermore, I was grandfathered into the WPN from casinos that the WPN absorbed from different networks. Blackchip poker was a merge casino....if you remember right....the same goes for many of the other WPN skins absorbed from different networks, such as BetDSI, Truepoker, PokerHost.....etc.


As for the licensing: My point is that they ARE licensed and there are avenues for remediation. I see that there are many casinos on this forum that cannot provide gaming licenses and do not provide a means for remediation whatsoever which peer review is the only option.  Should we also call out those casinos for operating without a license or operating in jurisdictions without meeting regulatory standards? Is it acceptable to endorse unlicensed, non-regulated casinos that operate outside of jurisdiction in one's signature?

So, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about where we can report unlicensed and unregulated gaming operations, or are we talking about giving somebody negative trust for running a scam? And, are we talking about giving signature campaigners negative trust for promoting competitive products that they believe in, or are we talking about who does and does not have the authority to make those decisions?

[TwitchySeal]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

[DarkDays]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

^^^

He gets it.

[cjmoles]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

^^^

He gets it.

The difference is that having single accounts on separate skins on the same network is not against a sites terms and conditions; whereas, having multiple accounts on a single skin within the same network is against terms and conditions.  And, the question is not whether one is "cheating" or "not cheating," the question is whether it's right to take vengeance out on others because one was banned for violating terms and conditions of a particular site. To be clear, violating the terms and conditions of a particular site IS against the rules and it is well within a sites discretion to ban such activity.  Whether one opens separate accounts to spam the platform with gay porn or if one opens separate accounts to take advantage of sign-up bonuses, it is still against the rules.  To be sure, I understand why twitchy is mad because his main account was quite established and he had invested a lot into it, but that still does not justify the subsequent behavior.

[TwitchySeal]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

^^^

He gets it.

The difference is that having single accounts on separate skins on the same network is not against a sites terms and conditions; whereas, having multiple accounts on a single skin within the same network is against terms and conditions.  And, the question is not whether one is "cheating" or "not cheating," the question is whether it's right to take vengeance out on others because one was banned for violating terms and conditions of a particular site. To be clear, violating the terms and conditions of a particular site IS against the rules and it is well within a sites discretion to ban such activity.  Whether one opens separate accounts to spam the platform with gay porn or if one opens separate accounts to take advantage of sign-up bonuses, it is still against the rules.  To be sure, I understand why twitchy is mad because his main account was quite established and he had invested a lot into it, but that still does not justify the subsequent behavior.

You are trying to discredit me by calling me a "multi-accounter".  We both know exactly what is implied when a poker player is called a "multi-accounter".  

Your initial feedback on me:



Cut the bull shit scumbag.

[cjmoles]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

^^^

He gets it.

The difference is that having single accounts on separate skins on the same network is not against a sites terms and conditions; whereas, having multiple accounts on a single skin within the same network is against terms and conditions.  And, the question is not whether one is "cheating" or "not cheating," the question is whether it's right to take vengeance out on others because one was banned for violating terms and conditions of a particular site. To be clear, violating the terms and conditions of a particular site IS against the rules and it is well within a sites discretion to ban such activity.  Whether one opens separate accounts to spam the platform with gay porn or if one opens separate accounts to take advantage of sign-up bonuses, it is still against the rules.  To be sure, I understand why twitchy is mad because his main account was quite established and he had invested a lot into it, but that still does not justify the subsequent behavior.

You are trying to discredit me by calling me a "multi-accounter".  We both know exactly what is implied when a poker player is called a "multi-accounter".  

Your initial feedback on me:



Cut the bull shit scumbag.

Hey asshole....you know damn well that's not what I have in your trust rating.  Stop misrepresenting the truth and maybe you would have a little more credibility.

EDIT: While having multiple accounts on a single site is against the TOC's and is, in fact, considered cheating, out of fairness, I changed your trust rating immediately following my initial post to more accurately reflect my position.  And, you know this.

EDIT AGAIN:  I feel like I am aiding in the hijacking of this thread so I'm going to refrain for now.  If you have another thread you'd wish to continue this discussion in, I will oblige you with my feedback.

I just don't feel it's right for one to take out personal frustrations on members of a legitimate signature campaign....that's all.

[TwitchySeal]

 However, the questions as to Betsoft's integrity will be answered by a respected audit conducted by qualified teams.

If you think the shady offshore "licensing" farms are going to do any sort of audit, you are very very wrong.

What is wrong with the impartial 9 month audit that was already done? https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games

...you know, the one that led to every major online sportsbook/casino to remove Betsoft games from their site?

Are you saying that casinolistings audited the Betsoft software?  Or, are you mistaking an interpretation of a 9 month limited scope statistical analysis for a software audit?  Are you also saying that all these casinos stopped providing Betsoft software: http://www.askgamblers.com/software/betsoft/ ?

Anyway, sorry....I'm done here.  i don't feel like I'm getting anywhere.

I'm saying that their audit will be FAR more comprehensive than anything that is done by the sovern nation that Betsoft pays a monthly fee to for a "license".  

Also, for someone who seems to feel so strongly about multi-accounters being evil, you sure do seem to have a LOT of WPN accounts

Yes...those are all single accounts at separate casinos....and it is well within the terms and conditions.  That is not multi-accounting

I agree with you.  But those are multiple accounts.  Wouldn't it be fucked up if someone tried to make it seem like your were cheating other players?  (the way you are to me?)

^^^

He gets it.

The difference is that having single accounts on separate skins on the same network is not against a sites terms and conditions; whereas, having multiple accounts on a single skin within the same network is against terms and conditions.  And, the question is not whether one is "cheating" or "not cheating," the question is whether it's right to take vengeance out on others because one was banned for violating terms and conditions of a particular site. To be clear, violating the terms and conditions of a particular site IS against the rules and it is well within a sites discretion to ban such activity.  Whether one opens separate accounts to spam the platform with gay porn or if one opens separate accounts to take advantage of sign-up bonuses, it is still against the rules.  To be sure, I understand why twitchy is mad because his main account was quite established and he had invested a lot into it, but that still does not justify the subsequent behavior.

You are trying to discredit me by calling me a "multi-accounter".  We both know exactly what is implied when a poker player is called a "multi-accounter".  

Your initial feedback on me:



Cut the bull shit scumbag.

Hey asshole....you know damn well that's not what I have in your trust rating.  Stop misrepresenting the truth and maybe you would have a little more credibility.

Why did you change it?  Why did you put it in the first place?

[roslinpl]

I would like to join your campaign. Please let me know if I'm eligible asap.
Best Regards

Is their any slot ? I would like to join the campaign.

Hello,

yes, there are free spots PM sent check your inbox.

I still didn`t recieve any message. Could you please advice?

Check again


Have a great day everyone!


Best regards.

[DarkDays]

The difference is that having single accounts on separate skins on the same network is not against a sites terms and conditions; whereas, having multiple accounts on a single skin within the same network is against terms and conditions.  And, the question is not whether one is "cheating" or "not cheating," the question is whether it's right to take vengeance out on others because one was banned for violating terms and conditions of a particular site. To be clear, violating the terms and conditions of a particular site IS against the rules and it is well within a sites discretion to ban such activity.  Whether one opens separate accounts to spam the platform with gay porn or if one opens separate accounts to take advantage of sign-up bonuses, it is still against the rules.  To be sure, I understand why twitchy is mad because his main account was quite established and he had invested a lot into it, but that still does not justify the subsequent behavior.

So you admit that having multiple accounts isn't bad/against the rules unless you use them to cheat/gain an unfair advantage.  So therefore, your comments to Twitchy were incorrect since he wasn't cheating or gaining an unfair advantage, he was just trying to talk to support to get his initial ban lifted/recoup the money that was stolen from him.

You should apologize to him.