[SCAM] Sportsbet.io (Withholding funds) [dispute settled]

[mindrust]

I cannot advocate for a process such as this where forum members are asked to arbitrate or give a judgement on matters such as these. As the Askgamblers.com website is there to rule on things such as this, why was that route not taken instead?

Askgamblers.com refused to look into it.

Also, wtf is askgamblers and why should we trust them? And how do you know they are not getting paychecks from the casinos?

I'd rather trust the forum members.

[JollyGood]

Thank you for mentioning that askgamblers.com refused to look in to this, upon checking through the posts I think it was related to them citing it was a breach of ToS and they do not arbitrate in those disputes but someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I just looked at their website, askgamblers.com their website is full of affiliate links so that clearly could be a matter of conflict of interest. I mean, if the ruled against a casino and in favour of a user to the tune of say $10,000 or $50,000 or more, I do not see many casinos taking a massive financial hit and still allowing askgamblers.com to earn off them. Just by looking at their website I would class them as unsuitable for making any sort of ruling via arbitration.

As for trusting forum members, without even knowing exactly which users are supposed to be participating in this scam allegation against Sportsbet, I would only trust those forum members that I trust. By the way you are on my trust list  

Askgamblers.com refused to look into it.

Also, wtf is askgamblers and why should we trust them? And how do you know they are not getting paychecks from the casinos?

I'd rather trust the forum members.

[suchmoon]

Come on. You know that's a neutral at best. It's a comment on them as an individual and their posting/trolling. Unless it is Neymarjr. or sportsbet.io you plan to tag for carrying on afterwards. Then it could be seen as a trade dispute and relevant to a warning about transacting with them.

I don't have a problem with comments and opinions. I would have a problem with someone saying e.g. "This proves that Sportsbet are scammers" or "neymarjr12 scammed Sportsbet" after mediation. That's like presenting fake proof that Steamtyme scammed suchmoon.

Not going to lie I was pretty opposed to this idea of a "Jury of mediators". Not that I don't trust/respect most of your judgement most of the time, it just seemed like a forced scenario. I had a minor exchange with sportsbet  after the decision had already been made to go ahead with this - I was unaware of that and we started talking about something different - My suggestion was for them to seek out that Askgamblers.com themselves and see if they would hear the case from that point.

I see this as precedent setting where individuals might see this as the new accepted method to demand answers from the backend of a company. Just my opinion. H

I'm quite sure that if the mediators do their job properly, the probability of anyone willing to submit to mediation again is very very low.

[actmyname]

I'm quite sure that if the mediators do their job properly, the probability of anyone willing to submit to mediation again is very very low.

Explains why my lawyer always bungles about and wastes time. Efficient workers don't get to max out their hours!

[Rigor1899]

I have the same situation. And I'm Russian as well! Apparently it really is a fraud with those who are unavailable to push the situation on large gambling forums!


Btw @neymarjr12
Could you enable receiving messages from newbies at bitcointalk.org?)

[hacker1001101001]

I thought red notes were only for bad trading experiences?

Red trust is for users who are high-risk in trading. Someone continuing to escalate a dispute after binding mediation - high-risk shithead IMO.

What an tone ! Piss off with your logic.

Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?

+1, who are this mediators ?

It's really extremely rare, if you want to find unbiased and neutral user's here.

[Get-Paid.com]

I have the same situation. And I'm Russian as well! Apparently it really is a fraud with those who are unavailable to push the situation on large gambling forums!


Btw @neymarjr12
Could you enable receiving messages from newbies at bitcointalk.org?)

Please post your issue in a new topic and follow the guidelines so your issue can get a proper attention.

[nutildah]

I'm not as nice as Royse777. Since both neymarjr12 and Sportsbet.io agreed to mediation this dispute is essentially resolved once the mediation concludes, one way or another. So anyone still fanning the flames will probably get a nice red note. Don't be that person.

Come on. You know that's a neutral at best. It's a comment on them as an individual and their posting/trolling.

The exact criteria for a red tag comes down to this:

You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

This definitely could signify somebody posting with less than honest intentions. Not sure why anybody would trade with an obvious throwaway sockpuppet account in the first place, but that doesn't preclude the warranting of a tag.

[Steamtyme]

I don't have a problem with comments and opinions. I would have a problem with someone saying e.g. "This proves that Sportsbet are scammers" or "neymarjr12 scammed Sportsbet" after mediation. That's like presenting fake proof that Steamtyme scammed suchmoon.

That is having a problem with peoples opinions which they comment after they draw conclusions from the findings/ruling of this arbitration.
We can't change the way people think or perceive this outcome. Either way once a decision is reached people will view someone as a bad actor and will likely speak out about it. That or they will go around tagging accounts if thy feel strongly enough about it.

Wait wait wait why am I the scammer. I have nice things... maybe you wanted my, um okay never mind. In this case though if we went to arbitration over say me shorting you some satoshis, b/c we didn't agree who covers fees. This goes to an arbitrator and they decide I was being a dick and trying to short you. People have every right to tell me how shitty I am, or to say they disagree with the ruling. Their opinion and voicing it shouldn't carry the threat of being negatively tagged. You may want to note how they viewed the case as their opinions don't align with your and tag them neutrally. The note is there but there is no punishment for an opinion and a comment.

See below where if it escalates, it could possibly enter the realm of acceptable.

The exact criteria for a red tag comes down to this:

You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

No it comes down to this.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
~snip~
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.

I would not consider drawing conclusions from the ruling of an arbitrated dispute to be unstable behavior. So again unless these posters are simultaneously acting in bad faith regarding Trades/Services, I advocate for neutral tags to note  opinions on their behavior/opinions/posts.

That or we could start tagging people for typos and grammar. They could mess up the terms which makes them a risk to trade with.

That's my piece and the more I wrote I feel I needed to end it with this. I try not to tell people how to do things and seem to be having a harder time of it lately. This is my opinion, take it for that.  It's your feedback use it as you will, but there are guidelines.

[nutildah]

The exact criteria for a red tag comes down to this:

You think that trading with this person is high-risk.

No it comes down to this.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
~snip~
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.

I would not consider drawing conclusions from the ruling of an arbitrated dispute to be unstable behavior. So again unless these posters are simultaneously acting in bad faith regarding Trades/Services, I advocate for neutral tags to note  opinions on their behavior/opinions/posts.

That or we could start tagging people for typos and grammar. They could mess up the terms which makes them a risk to trade with.

That's my piece and the more I wrote I feel I needed to end it with this. I try not to tell people how to do things and seem to be having a harder time of it lately. This is my opinion, take it for that.  It's your feedback use it as you will, but there are guidelines.

What I quoted and what you quoted signify the same thing. You're leaping to conclude that the ratings would necessarily be based on personal disagreements when this isn't the case.

Stretching out the argument out to include red tags for "typos and grammar" serves no purpose -- you're headed down the straw man path which is counterproductive to discussion of the issue at hand.

The actual disagreement between us is whether or not the trust system should be used proactively. You're entitled to your opinion on that matter, but to assume contrary opinions necessarily fall into the basket of wanting to use red trust to punish people for disagreeing with them is a stretch.

[Steamtyme]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.new#new

We can stop going off topic in this thread. I will not be responding to this line of discussion on appropriate use of the trust system in this thread any further. All future discussion if any can take place in an appropriate topic, as I replied there.

[adam0991]

Is there any progress on resolving this case yet? It can’t be that complicated

[Trofo]

Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?

+1, who are this mediators ?

It's really extremely rare, if you want to find unbiased and neutral user's here.

I don't mind admitting I am one of the mediators. I did not want to be one and I cautioned all interested parties that I believe this isn't the best way to resolve this case but agreed to do it if they want to go down that road. For now we have decided to stay somewhat anonymous but that may change in the future, or not.

This case has proven to be extremely hard on us and I (nor anyone else) will not share any details here before final decision is reached. I have already lost 10+ hours on this case and some guys have lost even more. We are getting nothing from this and in the end we will have to disappoint one of the disputing parties.

Both Sportsbet and Neymar have agreed to our mediation and accepted that our decision is final, so any more writing in this topic can not help either of them. We are in constant communication with both of them and they will be the first to know our decision as it should be. I guess it will be than made publicly in this topic as well.

Is there any progress on resolving this case yet? It can’t be that complicated

It is quite complicated when you realise your decision is final and you don't want to make mistakes. We have put the deadline on end of Saturday, so I guess results should be known by then.

[JollyGood]

Lawyers eh.. who needs them 

Back to this topic, will Sportsbet try to do this every time someone comes along and asks for it? Will other casinos follow suit?

Explains why my lawyer always bungles about and wastes time. Efficient workers don't get to max out their hours!

[mindrust]

Back to this topic, will Sportsbet try to do this every time someone comes along and asks for it? Will other casinos follow suit?

If they make a satisfactory public statement about these issues, they won't have to I believe.

All they had to do was explaining these two points:

1- How is neymarjr a multiaccounter?
2- Why didn't his KYC pass. (Fake/Forged documents? Impostor? Missing docs?)

It was as simple as that.

Or...

People will know that your winnings is not really your winnings at sportsbet.io.

This information doesn't have to be known via flags. (Maybe it does?) I am not sure which one would be the more appropriate way but I guess even a neutral trust rating would do the trick but It will be known regardless.

Another funny thought:

If you were a newbie reading the casino's trust ratings and it was this positive rating you were reading...

"This casino does arbitrarily not pay their players' winnings"

What would you do? Would you take this rating as a posivite or negative one? 

[HCP]

BitcoinTALK-PROTECT

You owe me a new keyboard... and a beer! 

gets my vote for Post of the week!

[JollyGood]

In my opinion if Sportsbet explain how user neymarjr12 has multi-accounts then they might compromise their algorithm so for me that is something they should not necessarily make public.

As for the KYC failing, I think they should have explained to neymarjr12 exactly why it failed their checks and then it was up to neymarjr12 to explain why it failed because Sportsbet are falling under UK data protection laws and also European GDPR therefore they should not make any information public (because they could be target for litigation) but give as much as they can to neymarjr12 then let him make it public.

Even with all the discussion that has taken place in this thread I cannot support the flags against Sportsbet for reasons stated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263445.msg54893685#msg54893685

The only issue I have with Sportsbet is the fact they allow deposits to take place and allow bets to take place even though their algorithm flags the user - by this I can only conclude Sportsbet are happy to keep the funds if the user loses.

The problem arises when the user wins and maybe wins big, then Sportsbet can go through the history of the user account and show total funds deposited vs total amount won and then use any amount they want to settle the issue by saying they have a right to withhold winnings. Though that might be their right under their ToS it is morally incorrect and morally indefensible if they allow users they deem to be fraudsters to deposit money so they can keep it if the user loses but decide where or not to confiscate his funds if he wins.

Sportsbet are not the only casino to operate like this, too many casinos do it and it is a practice that really needs to change. Too many exchanges are doing the same thing but using KYC or other excuses to freeze funds.

Back to this topic, will Sportsbet try to do this every time someone comes along and asks for it? Will other casinos follow suit?

If they make a satisfactory public statement about these issues, they won't have to I believe.

All they had to do was explaining these two points:

1- How is neymarjr a multiaccounter?
2- Why didn't his KYC pass. (Fake/Forged documents? Impostor? Missing docs?)

It was as simple as that.

Or...

People will know that your winnings is not really your winnings at sportsbet.io.

This information doesn't have to be known via flags. (Maybe it does?) I am not sure which one would be the more appropriate way but I guess even a neutral trust rating would do the trick but It will be known regardless.

[Rigor1899]

I have the same situation. And I'm Russian as well! Apparently it really is a fraud with those who are unavailable to push the situation on large gambling forums!


Btw @neymarjr12
Could you enable receiving messages from newbies at bitcointalk.org?)

Please post your issue in a new topic and follow the guidelines so your issue can get a proper attention.

Actually I will

[hacker1001101001]

Can I ask for the list of users who are involved in this review process?

+1, who are this mediators ?

It's really extremely rare, if you want to find unbiased and neutral user's here.

I don't mind admitting I am one of the mediators.

Looks fine overall, won't bother with names like you, Royse777 or asche. I hope the weaker side is not taken advantage of, as it's clear that there are highly trusted biased users posting in this thread itself. Some of them even threatening with trust abuse if the right thing is spoken.

Just to set the expectations clearly:

I'm not as nice as Royse777. Since both neymarjr12 and Sportsbet.io agreed to mediation this dispute is essentially resolved once the mediation concludes, one way or another. So anyone still fanning the flames will probably get a nice red note. Don't be that person.

Anybody who responds to this thread who isn’t directly involved in the investigation after my post is at the risk of receiving negative trust

[JollyGood]

Did neymarjr12 give a wallet address in the end or will that happen later? Sportsbet have asked for it on at least 5 occasions that I know of but the OP making the allegation refuses to give it.

My experience with Sportsbet.io has been positive. Signature campaign payouts are always there, and I've been betting from time to time on their website with no issues. It seems irrational to me that a reputable website would scam someone. Clearly, it is not in their interest to lose reputation, customers and profits. And Sportsbet.io is ready to return the deposit (minus withdrawals) to the person who claims he was scammed. I understand why Sportsbet.io would not share how they linked the accounts as making this info public would help abusers to find new ways of breaking the rules.
It's a difficult case for sure, but it's not clear to me why neymarjr12 refuses to provide the address for the return of the deposit at least.
I also support the idea of buwaytress about using the reputable third party to close the case.