Please make your vote for the flag created against game-protect

[game-protect]

According to you, a claim is not valid without a judgement!

For me the e-mail (posted many many times across multiple threads) between you and h4ns and your admission that you haven't paid him back is enough to see that you're a scammer.

Thank you for confirming that the email from 30.04.2019 h4ns published misleaded you to believe that I scammed him July 2019!  

Try reading the sentence to the end. YOUR admission that you haven't repaid him, combined with YOUR promise to repay (in the e-mail) is what makes it clear that you're a scammer. Nothing is "misleaded" here. You haven't denied that you made that promise and you haven't shown a refund. 2+2 = scam.

YOUR reference to the email sent 30.04.2019 as proof that I scammed h4ns July 2019 while h4ns himself informs that his suspicion was substantiated September 3rd after I asked him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€ obviously confirms that the scam accusation fully misleaded YOU to believe that I scammed h4ns July 2019!

[1715228279]

1715228279

[1715228279]

1715228279

[actmyname]

If the 'defamation campaign' happened before you "refunded" h4ns by reducing it from the 20 000€ total, then it's not a defamation campaign since you did not repay them.
If the 'defamation campaign' happened after you "refunded" h4ns by reducing it from the 20 000€ total, then the 20 000€ appeared out of thin air since you did not repay them.

Conclusion: you did not repay h4ns.
Corollary: you are a scammer.

[game-protect]

If the 'defamation campaign' happened before you "refunded" h4ns by reducing it from the 20 000€ total, then it's not a defamation campaign since you did not repay them.
If the 'defamation campaign' happened after you "refunded" h4ns by reducing it from the 20 000€ total, then the 20 000€ appeared out of thin air since you did not repay them.

You are obviously extremely mentally ill and or brain dead!

h4ns started a defamation campaign towards Game Protect September 3rd, after his brain substantiated that Game Protect is a scam / show, after I asked him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€.

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

His illegal defamation campaign towards Game Protect caused a compensation demand towards h4ns September 3rd!

[actmyname]

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

His illegal defamation campaign towards Game Protect caused a compensation demand towards h4ns September 3rd!

Since when is being suspicious of someone the same thing as defamation?

[game-protect]

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

His illegal defamation campaign towards Game Protect caused a compensation demand towards h4ns September 3rd!

Since when is being suspicious of someone the same thing as defamation?

Since never!

A suspicion is a suspicion and publicly false and misleading claiming that Game Protect is a scam / show is the criminal offense of defamation!

[actmyname]

Not breaking apart the quote pyramid because context is important here.

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

His illegal defamation campaign towards Game Protect caused a compensation demand towards h4ns September 3rd!

Since when is being suspicious of someone the same thing as defamation?

Since never!

A suspicion is a suspicion and publicly false and misleading claiming that Game Protect is a scam / show is the criminal offense of defamation!

So exactly: h4ns was suspicious on September 3rd. Did his 'defamation campaign' start when he became suspicious? It seems strange because the thread on Bitcointalk was only started on the 9th, so how could you refund his 210€ into the defamation total which did not exist at the time?


If you reduced the 20 000€ total BEFORE his 'defamation campaign' started, then the 20 000€ is based on thin air and unjustified.
If you reduced the 20 000€ total AFTER his 'defamation campaign' started, then you need to show where h4ns is lying for it to be defamation in the first place. You both agree that you were supposed to refund him 210€ so where is the lie?

[game-protect]

Not breaking apart the quote pyramid because context is important here.

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

His illegal defamation campaign towards Game Protect caused a compensation demand towards h4ns September 3rd!

Since when is being suspicious of someone the same thing as defamation?

Since never!

A suspicion is a suspicion and publicly false and misleading claiming that Game Protect is a scam / show is the criminal offense of defamation!

So exactly: h4ns was suspicious on September 3rd. Did his 'defamation campaign' start when he became suspicious? It seems strange because the thread on Bitcointalk was only started on the 9th, so how could you refund his 210€ into the defamation total which did not exist at the time?

No, until September 3rd h4ns was suspicious that Game Protect is a scam.

This suspicion substantiated September 3rd after I asked him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€.

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

After his suspicion was substantiated September 3rd, he immediately asked to get the 210€ back and I agreed and confirmed with immediately closing his pending support tickets.

Agreeing and confirming to give the 210€ back is not a scam in the real world!

September 3rd h4ns also started his defamation campaign on sportsbookreview.com



"Game-Protect is probably a scam, read the reviews in the Bitcointalk forum. He is the least trusted user in this forum"

You both agree that you were supposed to refund him 210€ so where is the lie?

One lie is that he claims I violated a written contract resulting in damages July 2019!

h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. game-protect did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around July 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

[actmyname]

This suspicion substantiated September 3rd after I asked him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€.

Quoting for reference.

After his suspicion was substantiated September 3rd, he immediately asked to get the 210€ back and I agreed and confirmed with immediately closing his pending support tickets. Agreeing and confirming to give the 210€ back is not a scam in the real world!

Sure... but weren't you supposed to give the money back much, much earlier?

September 3rd h4ns also started his defamation campaign on sportsbookreview.com

Defamation would be based on falsities, correct?

Let's start in reverse:

>He is the least trusted user in this forum.
True.
>Game-Protect is probably a scam, read the reviews in the Bitcointalk forum.
Opinion, substantiated with the multiple-month delay towards a previous financial agreement as well as alternative feedback from other users.
>The email address of gamestrict is similar to the one that allegedly belongs to the foundation that collects the money (same provider)
Opinion.
>It could be a sister-site of game-protect.com
Opinion, substantiated with the commonality in the name and game.

Where are the lies?

[game-protect]

After his suspicion was substantiated September 3rd, he immediately asked to get the 210€ back and I agreed and confirmed with immediately closing his pending support tickets. Agreeing and confirming to give the 210€ back is not a scam in the real world!

Sure... but weren't you supposed to give the money back much, much earlier?

If I was supposed to give the 210€ back much much earlier and failed, his suspicion would have been substantiated much much earlier, right?

And his suspicion would not have been substantiated only September 3rd, right?

And his suspicion would have been substantiated based on not giving him the 210€ back and not based on asking him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€, right?

My suspicion substantiated when he asked me to borrow him €10. For the second time (September 3rd).

[actmyname]

If I was supposed to give the 210€ back much much earlier, his suspicion would have been substantiated much much earlier, right?

Maybe, but h4ns could easily have given you the benefit of the doubt. And you were supposed to give it back earlier: you had created an agreement for that very purpose.

And not September 3rd and not based on asking him the second time if he can lend me BTC worth 10€, but based on not giving him the 210€ back, right?

I can't understand this fragmented sentence with no clear context. Rewrite it.

[game-protect]

If I was supposed to give the 210€ back much much earlier and failed, his suspicion would have been substantiated much much earlier, right?

Maybe, but h4ns could easily have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Someone who already has the suspicion that Game Protect is a scam / show (even though only based on extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit posted on bitcointalk.org and not based on own experience) does not give the benefit of doubt when the 210€ are due and not delivered!

The behavior of h4ns clearly confirms my assessment!

September 3rd he asked to get the 210€ back and the same day he felt the necessity to inform the public that Game Protect is almost certainly a scam.

Few days later September 9th he felt the necessity to open a public scam accusation on bitcointalk.org

So if the 210€ were much much earlier due, h4ns almost certainly would have informed the public much much earlier, right?

[actmyname]

If I was supposed to give the 210€ back much much earlier and failed, his suspicion would have been substantiated much much earlier, right?

Maybe, but h4ns could easily have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Someone who already has the suspicion that Game Protect is a scam / show (even though only based on extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit posted on bitcointalk.org and not based on own experience) does not give the benefit of doubt when the 210€ are due and not delivered!

So the 'defamation campaign' and opinion that you were a scammer was justified: that's what you're saying.

[game-protect]

If I was supposed to give the 210€ back much much earlier and failed, his suspicion would have been substantiated much much earlier, right?

Maybe, but h4ns could easily have given you the benefit of the doubt.

Someone who already has the suspicion that Game Protect is a scam / show (even though only based on extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit posted on bitcointalk.org and not based on own experience) does not give the benefit of doubt when the 210€ are due and not delivered!

So the 'defamation campaign' and opinion that you were a scammer was justified: that's what you're saying.

I am not a psychiatrist and do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains function, but I never said that his false and misleading defamation campaign is justified!

If your brain read this, then you doubtless suffer a serious mental disorder!

[actmyname]

I am not a psychiatrist and do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains function, but I never said that his false and misleading defamation campaign is justified!

So where's the lie?

If your brain read this, then you doubtless suffer a serious mental disorder!

I thought you weren't a psychiatrist and don't know how brains function.

[game-protect]

I am not a psychiatrist and do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains function, but I never said that his false and misleading defamation campaign is justified!

So where's the lie?

I already posted it, but here we go again:

One lie is that he claims I violated a written contract resulting in damages July 2019!

If your brain read this, then you doubtless suffer a serious mental disorder!

I thought you weren't a psychiatrist and don't know how brains function.

Yes, I do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains neurologically function, but it is easy for me to detect such brains based on the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit they post.

You can be the best car driver without knowing how a car technically runs!

Continuously stating things without any connection to the real world highly indicates a serious mental disorder!

[actmyname]

Yes, I do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains neurologically function, but it is easy for me to detect such brains based on the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit they post.

You would first need to understand what is considered "extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit", whatever that is. How do you know what mentally ill brains post?

You can be the best car driver without knowing how a car technically runs!

Sure but you need to know how to drive. If your analogy compares a car to a driver, then in this case it would be a brain to a... online gaming consumer protection service.

You know...

Continuously stating things without any connection to the real world highly indicates a serious mental disorder!

[game-protect]

Yes, I do not know how extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains neurologically function, but it is easy for me to detect such brains based on the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit they post.

You would first need to understand what is considered "extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit", whatever that is. How do you know what mentally ill brains post?

Continuous statements without any connection to the real / legal world highly indicate a serious mentall disorder or reading things that were never posted and so on.

You can be the best car driver without knowing how a car technically runs!

Sure but you need to know how to drive. If your analogy compares a car to a driver, then in this case it would be a brain to a... online gaming consumer protection service.

You know...

Continuously stating things without any connection to the real world highly indicates a serious mental disorder!

Online consumer protection service daily interacts with extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains and it is very easy for me to discover such brains.

[actmyname]

Online consumer protection service daily interacts with extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains and it is very easy for me to discover such brains.

I doubt many people are scrambling to your door to send you their psychoanalyses of medical records. As such, it is impossible to determine the mental illness or lack thereof for a certain individual without having the required qualifications, of which you have already stated you have none.

[game-protect]

Online consumer protection service daily interacts with extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains and it is very easy for me to discover such brains.

I doubt many people are scrambling to your door to send you their psychoanalyses of medical records.

Criminals also do not scramble to my door and nevertheless I discover them!

As such, it is impossible to determine the mental illness or lack thereof for a certain individual without having the required qualifications, of which you have already stated you have none.

You can detect a serious mental disorder solely based on the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit such a brain posts!

Please quote where I have stated that I do not have the required qualifications to discover extremely mentally ill and or brain dead brains?

[actmyname]

As such, it is impossible to determine the mental illness or lack thereof for a certain individual without having the required qualifications, of which you have already stated you have none.

You can detect a serious mental disorder solely based on the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit such a brain posts!

Is this true? Which qualified psychiatrist told you so?

Please quote where I have stated that I do not have the required qualifications to discover extremely mentally and or brain dead brains?

To determine the difference between an 'extremely mentally and or brain dead' brain and any other brain, you would need to know how to identify a dichotomy between brains with certainty.

Otherwise, that would be a lie! And perhaps a defamation suit will be aimed towards your direction?