Game Protect flag

[marlboroza]

Take your time and read 43 70+ pages of this thread before you decide to support or not to support this flag. Their behavior raised many red flags and unless GP wants to share all information about their service which they claim they run this flag will not be withdrawn.

Also read this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153445.msg51716484#msg51716484 and this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116037.0.

Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=435 <---
Update 1 : important info, make sure to read this thread as well, especially pages 8,9 and 10 starting from this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5163510.msg51996052#msg51996052.
Update 2: very important info, seems game-protect's client is not satisfied with service, instead addressing client's concern game-protect shared confidential email. Seems game-protect removed posts but archived version still exist, if someone wants to read removed posts just go to archive.is and copy/paste this in search field.
Update 3: kind of late update, seems game-protect scammed someone https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183189.0

[1714196914]

1714196914

[1714196914]

1714196914

[1714196914]

1714196914

[actmyname]

Yeah... I remember one of the websites that he promoted was on his "scam list".

Don't remember if that was before or after he got his referral link. They have a very distorted version of how gambling should function.

Flag supported.

[marlboroza]

Yeah... I remember one of the websites that he promoted was on his "scam list".

If it was only one site 

[Hhampuz]

I've witnessed first hand how they bully services away from this forum. It's a real shame that users like that are even allowed to continue their bullshit but what else to expect. Flag supported fwiw.

[babo]

Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=435

Good job! Flag supported.

[wwzsocki]

After reading the full thread and after my personal discussions with Game-Protect, I decided to support this flag from obvious reasons.

There are too many times he is involved in or accused of scams and multiple forum members abuses.

[eternalgloom]

Definitely support it, but I don't really think it matters.
He's always been flagged into oblivion and just goes on without caring one bit.

You have to admit he's one persistent little bugger.
Think about all the time he could have spent on doing something productive, instead of desperately trying to promote his severely flawed concept on this forum.

[Timelord2067]

Take your time and read 43 pages of this thread before you decide to support or not to support this flag. Their behavior raised many red flags and unless GP wants to share all information about their service which they claim they run this flag will not be withdrawn.

Also read this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153445.msg51716484#msg51716484 and this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5116037.0.

Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=435

According to your second link there is already a flag that has been created for this issue: [Archive]

Edit - I’ve created a flag. Please support it -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=372

My understanding is that @theymos stated two flags cannot be created for the same issue.

[suchmoon]

My understanding is that @theymos stated two flags cannot be created for the same issue.

If a flag has incorrect info, a new one can (and should) be created with the correct info.

The old one should be withdrawn though.

[Timelord2067]

My understanding is that @theymos stated two flags cannot be created for the same issue.

If a flag has incorrect info, a new one can (and should) be created with the correct info.

The old one should be withdrawn though.

You'll have to take that up with @LFC_Bitcoin who's post (announcing he had created a flag) you use as proof for your own flag creation.

[marlboroza]

My understanding is that @theymos stated two flags cannot be created for the same issue.

If a flag has incorrect info, a new one can (and should) be created with the correct info.

The old one should be withdrawn though.

You'll have to take that up with @LFC_Bitcoin who's post (announcing he had created a flag) you use as proof for your own flag creation.

I don't think suchmoon created flag, but I have to recheck this.

Anyway, that post has some useful information therefore it is linked in this thread, together with other 2 links you missed. As it is written in topic:

Take your time and read 43 pages of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535816.0) thread before you decide to support or not to support this flag.

I suppose you have read all 43 pages before you decided to oppose flag and you missed suchmoon's post which is only 2 posts under post you have archived^[1]?  
[1](archived timelord's post: http://archive.is/0mKdA#selection-3979.92-3983.1 for the record of archived LCF's post)

[suchmoon]

I don't think suchmoon created flag, but I have to recheck this.

Let us know what you find out. Maybe you're suchmoon's alt or maybe suchmoon blackmailed you into creating the flag. So many possibilities.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Supported the flag. Although I was always positive on the Game-Protect's side assuming they're fighting the scam casinos and trying to get user's money back but I'm not aware of a single case where they successfully managed to help someone out. At this point, it looks like they're just another business trying to make money off casinos by either 'extortion' or 'blackmailing'.

[The Cryptovator]

Supported red flag. Still I have not got point how he/she is protecting gamblers. Just few days back I have seen he/she was asking for recover fund who have lost on sportsbet. Wondering what is the method of recover fund if someone lost or scammed their fund. This obvious shady behaviour in my opinion.

[target]

Game-protect has been terrorizing casino threads in the gambling section accusing license of casinos to be fake particularly the eosbet which he said its curacao license isn't real.

He was almost hired to escrow the funds of Gamblingtec signature campaign., the users who come across the campaign was very suspicious about it that the manager didn't hire anyone at all. The campaign promotes lotto but taking a closer look at the lotto website, its also promotes Gambling licensing by GamblingTec.com and Offshore hosting by CuracaoWebhosting.com

[actmyname]

Game-protect has been terrorizing casino threads in the gambling section accusing license of casinos to be fake. He was almost hired to escrow the funds of Gamblingtec signature campaign., the users who come across the campaign was very suspicious about it that the manager didn't hire anyone at all. The campaign promotes lotto but taking a closer look at the lotto website, its also promotes Gambling licensing by GamblingTec.com and Offshore hosting by CuracaoWebhosting.com

It's not that the licenses are fake... it's that game-protect isn't satisfied with the lack thereof or the use of a Curacao/Costa Rica license.

Makes sense for new, suspicious sites... but to continue solely on that argument (yet hypocritically support unlicensed sites via affiliate links) is asinine.

The Gamblingtec campaign is something else... feels like a troll, almost.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=suchmoon link=topic=5163510.msg51774981#msg51774981 date=1562766453]
[quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5163510.msg51774937#msg51774937 date=1562766186]
My understanding is that @theymos stated two flags cannot be created for the same issue.
[/quote]

If a flag has incorrect info, a new one can (and should) be created with the correct info.

The old one should be withdrawn though.[/quote]

As at this morning my time the original still has it's creator and supporters vouching for it:



@subSTRATA looks to be the only one who has voted twice for the New! and Improved! Flag.:

 

The op does not explain their reasoning yet is critical in-that they perceive anyone who hasn't read over forty pages can't have gathered the necessary information to make a reasoned decision of their own.  Well, I seem to have been the only to notice this is a duplicate flag, hence my opposition to it and further attacking me isn't productive.

[yogg]

The op does not explain their reasoning yet is critical in-that they perceive anyone who hasn't read over forty pages can't have gathered the necessary information to make a reasoned decision of their own.  Well, I seem to have been the only to notice this is a duplicate flag, hence my opposition to it and further attacking me isn't productive.

game-protect has been around for ages, and trolling non stop.
I witnessed at least one public occurrence of game-protect extorting money from a gambling website operator to stop whatever harassment he was conducting.
Besides bragging in a condescending manner and being obnoxious, I think game-protect brought more hassle than relief to the forum.

This is why I support this flag. I believe that anyone dealing with them is at risk of losing money.

[TECSHARE]

Having not read the threads linked yet, I assume this is some sort of protection racket? Am I correct in this assumption?

[Hhampuz]

Having not read the threads linked yet, I assume this is some sort of protection racket? Am I correct in this assumption?

That is exactly what I have been told in emails from gambling sites, yes.