SportsBet.io doesn't pay out my profits!!

[actmyname]

If I'm wrong then I apologize about it, I was just upset on the way this Saturent user fooled everyone.
That's why I made this thread because he did waste lots of my time and I'm sure he wasted others' as well.

One user should not corrupt the entire population of Newbies. That is a ridiculous extrapolation and you are too intelligent to be fooled by that flawed logical progression. A single bad actor doesn't mean that the other cases were not legitimate, or that subsequent cases would not be legitimate. For one, the neymar case reached a resolution of some sort whereas the saturent one resulted in them ousting themselves.

[1715347114]

1715347114

[1715347114]

1715347114

[hilariousandco]

Now in a serious note, I think new users should not be allowed to post scam accusations in this forum until they become a high ranked member or have some other type of protection so newbies won't be able to do what they did in the past few weeks.

Theymos would never do this. Its counter-productive. Newbies are the most likely to be scammed and taken advantage of hence the need for them to be able to state their case here. People should probably just start ignoring all the newbie trolls though.

[Rikafip]

Now in a serious note, I think new users should not be allowed to post scam accusations in this forum until they become a high ranked member or have some other type of protection so newbies won't be able to do what they did in the past few weeks.

From  automatically supporting all those flags raised by newbies, you gone to another extreme. Newbies are already "handicapped" by lack of reputation so their claims simply don't have the same weight, so something like that would be an overkill.

Sure, majority of newbie claims are most likely false accusations, especially if raised against long standing and reputable businesses, but every once in a while there will be a legit complaint.

[adam0991]

Not sure why the OP of the thread you have linked removed this topic but it's a topic I am very interested to follow. I do not believe any of the post to be incorrect as sportsbet.io did not deny any of it on their reply, it seemed very real. It's very possible that OP and sportsbet.io came to an agreement in private in exchange for removing the thread?

I am not sure, but I'd like to know more about it but I imagine we won't find out much more.

You shouldn't support a flag just because it "seemed very real". Anyone can create a thread on this forum and there's certainly no lack of that recently. Now you're part of the elite group of sockpuppets going around and supporting any flags they find against some entity they dislike, as well as known scammers (game-protect) and plagiarising ICO bumpers (hacker-whatshername). Well done.

The reason for supporting the flag was so that PlayerX could get the answers from sportsbet they wanted and for sportsbet to take the case seriously, that’s what they were asking for help to do. Had sportsbet supplies answers then I would have removed the flag. The flag helps them take it seriously. Nothing more.

[actmyname]

The reason for supporting the flag was so that PlayerX could get the answers from sportsbet they wanted and for sportsbet to take the case seriously, that’s what they were asking for help to do. Had sportsbet supplies answers then I would have removed the flag. The flag helps them take it seriously. Nothing more.

That's an improper use of the flag system, though it's no fault of yours that you were mistaken about the mechanics and intent of it. Educate yourself here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0

Warning about scams is different from warning about possible scams.[/quote]Ah, yes, and as the breeze descends from our heads, the sun rises. We look down at each other, and the sun sets up a bright star that looks just like it's the brightest star in a constellation. It's not quite a big star, but it has been around a million times in all our existence. We're looking back at our past as well as the way we have interacted. The light of this universe has been changing our perception of the cosmos, and it is changing our perceptions about what is going on around us.

[suchmoon]

The reason for supporting the flag was so that PlayerX could get the answers from sportsbet they wanted and for sportsbet to take the case seriously, that’s what they were asking for help to do. Had sportsbet supplies answers then I would have removed the flag. The flag helps them take it seriously. Nothing more.

That's not what type 2/3 flags are for. To support a flag that claims a contract violation occurred there needs to be a referenced thread that shows the proof of the contract and the violation.

it's no fault of yours that you were mistaken about the mechanics and intent of it

It kind of is. The flags are very carefully worded if people cared to read before clicking buttons:

You are supporting the following, affirming that it is true to the best of your knowledge:
sportsbet.io violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. sportsbet.io 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 2020. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Nowhere does it say "support this if you want to send sportsbet.io a message".

[adam0991]

You are supporting the following, affirming that it is true to the best of your knowledge:
sportsbet.io violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. sportsbet.io 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 2020. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Nowhere does it say "support this if you want to send sportsbet.io a message".

Actually if you read the original thread, this comment is accurate. Therefore I stand by my support for the flag. Until a better explanation is provided or sportsbet provide evidence to the contrary, I believe it to be true due to they did not deny it.

[marlboroza]

this comment is accurate

You should not support flag type 1/2 because someone made a comment. Imagine, scam accusation board full of comments and people supporting red flag(s) just because someone said something.
OP is full of crap, in one topic(https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5490/54903210.html) he said:

s in regards to SportsBet.io's due of care - I have to be honest, I personally don't like SportsBet.io (and many other forum members can testify and tell you I'm not lying when I'm saying it) - however you need to understand your case is not the best one out there because you opened a new account.

...suggested accuser to hire a lawyer:

My suggestion to you is to NOT use any forums, not use intermediaries - your best bet is to use a solicitor/lawyer and sue SportsBet.io for their negligence.

...and supported flag, and in another topic:

I do appreciate what was revealed here anyway and would wait for the OP to explain this or else I would for the first time actually mark my vote - an opposition for a flag created against Sportsbet.io

...he withdraw support for flag because...accuser allegedly did the same thing.

And in third topic (neymar's case), he still supports flag even thought he is convinced saturnet == neymar and he believes that:

Even neymarjr should have received nothing.

@Get-Paid, In one topic you have someone who asked to be excluded and was able to create new accounts, lost money and you suggested them to hire lawyer because "sportsbet is "baaad", and in another topic you have someone who asked to be excluded, created new accounts, lost money and when they won sportsbet returned their deposit back and you think "accuser is baaad", "you tricked me, who gives a fuck about you" because the were not being honest.

Main point is - both accusers allegedly asked to be self excluded and both were able to open new accounts.
Anyway, as Get-Paid accused various newbies of being alt accounts, I don't see any particular reason why, according to OP, users shouldn't believe that accuser 1 and accuser 2 are not the same person, and, as OP supported flag created by newbie account posting words only it contradicts his suggestion from this topic.

Maybe OP is suggesting "don't allow newbies to open scam accusation unless I like it".