For the reputation of this forum: you HAVE to rule on this flag! Share 10mBTC

[GazetaBitcoin]

I also opposed the flag. For one reason, at least, this being the following: once OP used FortuneJack's services, he agreed to their Terms and Conditions. The terms may be incorrect, as LoyceV emphasized, but since OP used the services he also agreed to the respective Terms. Maybe he did not properly read them, but this is irrelevant.

Dura lex, sed lex, Latins used to say - The law is harsh but it is the law. Same thing applies to a contract (or, in this case, FortuneJack's terms). If OP signs a contract with someone, and he agrees to work for that person 8h / day, 40h / week for next 40 years, with no payment for his work, then he has no right to complain afterwords, nor to say that the contract is incorrect towards him, as he previously agreed with contract terms, when he signed it...

[PaperWallet]

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really?  

As long as the payment isn't based on the outcome, and the reward is public, I think it's okay. It's different when people pay for for positive reviews or negative feedback (I've seen both cases).
It's certainly a first

That's not what the trust system is for. At best this is low-effort spam, incentivizing which is against the rules when posting on the forum, and I can't think of any reason why such incentive could be good for the trust system either.

Really? Low effort spam? You’re suchanidiot.

[LoyceV]

Really? Low effort spam?

Asking users to post their Bitcoin address can lead to low effort spam:

Please make sure that your BTC address is visible either on your profile or just leave it in a comment here.

That's only allowed in Games and rounds.
So far, this hasn't happened though.

[PaperWallet]

Dear Forum Members,
Only 3 days left to participate! No participants will be accepted after the 30th of May 17h UTC.

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

[LoyceV]

Dear Forum Members,
Only 3 days left to participate! No participants will be accepted after the 30th of May 17h UTC.

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

Lol. You're a sore loser when you don't get your way. For the record: I withdraw my offer to act as an escrow. Your latest post makes it look like you were hoping to buy Support instead of asking people to freely choose Support or Oppose.

[PaperWallet]

Dear Forum Members,
Only 3 days left to participate! No participants will be accepted after the 30th of May 17h UTC.

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

Lol. You're a sore loser when you don't get your way. For the record: I withdraw my offer to act as an escrow. Your latest post makes it look like you were hoping to buy Support instead of asking people to freely choose Support or Oppose.

It’s so funny that you are revoking your escrow offer when I have already rejected you.

Again: I do not want to damage a trust score system I am trying to test. If you think so, all you have to do is report it to get erased. That’s all.

[LoyceV]

all you have to do is report it to get erased.

Feedback isn't moderated. You're free to say almost anything you want here, including attacking Admin if you please.

[PaperWallet]

Hello everyone,
A reminder:

You have until tomorrow 17h UTC to participate! So hurry up!

all you have to do is report it to get erased.

Feedback isn't moderated. You're free to say almost anything you want here, including attacking Admin if you please.

It doesn’t matter you can still contact Cyrus and he’ll do the job. As I said I prefer to revoke my freedom of speech right for the sake of more important things that require merit and the sanity of the trust system. I was also getting negative trust points from some other idiots but looks like they deleted them.

[DireWolfM14]

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

You can lock, delete, or move this thread to the archive section all by your self.  You don't a moderator to do it.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

Oh FFS, would you make up your mind.  No one here is that desperate for your 1mBTC, blessed or cursed.  Personally, I'm tempted to oppose your flag just to see if you'll honor your word (and your curse,) because I think you're full of shit on both accounts.

As I said I prefer to revoke my freedom of speech right for the sake of more important things that require merit and the sanity of the trust system. I was also getting negative trust points from some other idiots but looks like they deleted them.

What are you talking about?  There's no revoking your right to be jackass after it's already happened.  This is the interwebs and everything is archived.  You won't be getting any good-boy points for paying up, and you're not losing anything by not.  No one cares.

[Stalker22]

This was an interesting experiment. If I'm not mistaken, the first of its kind on this forum. However, it appears that there are not many forum members who are interested in the offer. In a way, I actually like that.

As for support (or opposition) for the flag, I will make my decision after taking a closer look at the entire case (and once the deadline for participation in the "experiment" expires). No offense, OP. Even though you may have had good intentions, I do not agree with your execution.

[PaperWallet]

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

You can lock, delete, or move this thread to the archive section all by your self.  You don't a moderator to do it.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

Oh FFS, would you make up your mind.  No one here is that desperate for your 1mBTC, blessed or cursed.  Personally, I'm tempted to oppose your flag just to see if you'll honor your word (and your curse,) because I think you're full of shit on both accounts.

As I said I prefer to revoke my freedom of speech right for the sake of more important things that require merit and the sanity of the trust system. I was also getting negative trust points from some other idiots but looks like they deleted them.

What are you talking about?  There's no revoking your right to be jackass after it's already happened.  This is the interwebs and everything is archived.  You won't be getting any good-boy points for paying up, and you're not losing anything by not.  No one cares.

You don’t need this 1mBTC for your curse, you’ve just earned it, but if you want that as well no problem. That was destined for Loyce you don’t have the intellectual level to jump in this anyway.


Less than 24h left to participate! Hurry up!

[Mr.right85]

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents. Some of his reputations counts for Fortunejack.com too and they are a one of the reputable company on the forum given the fact that, they haven't given any cause to be alarmed until now.

I practically read through your case and examined the proof you provided which were rock solid based on placing of bets but, when it comes to the terms for which these services where offered, you erred at OP and that simple neglect is what brought a cancellation upon your preceeding bets and wins.

I mean, I can't blame you, no I won't! Not many of us if any at all gives attention to terms & conditions to services rendered and you can tell that sometimes these T&C that are meant to guide us could also trap us and favour the company once you neglect them. Being ignorant of them becomes your first offence and to amend for that, most companies have relatively similar T&C so, you just have to grasps the bases and relate to all.

To be sure of your flag in this case at OP, I had to go over some of the T&C of Fortunejack.com and as you can see, an issue like this one is addressed right there in the T&C, last updated on November 05, 2019. Far before this event took place. I'll quote the portion that matters right here and ink it in red.

Placing a Bet and Maximum Payout per one Bet

The Company accepts current bets on various sports events based on a program published by the Company.

Bets are placed in mBTC and the minimum amount of a single bet amounts to 0.01 mBTC.

Information about any bet is kept in the database of the Company and in case of a controversial issue, the information kept in electronic archive of the Company is preemptive.

If a User places several identical bets, the Company reserves the right to cancel similar ones and consider the first placed bet as active.

Placing a bet is possible on guessing one or several sports results.

Link to Fortunejack.com sportsbook T&C

On this, Fortunejack.com is at right. What you ought to realise at OP is, bets comes into cognisance most times when it's a big win. There isn't a smart contract working that out without a human authorisation which comes after some scrutiny. That could account to why your bet wasn't cancelled when it was placed and only after winning. The better question here is:

Would that have been the case in the event of a lose?

Perhaps you can find that out when you loose to same betting pattern! Maybe you could fight them with this terms then. Else at the moment and with the presented facts, Fortunejack.com is at right and have paid you as due. Fortunejack.com is not a scam platform.

[PaperWallet]

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents. Some of his reputations counts for Fortunejack.com too and they are a one of the reputable company on the forum given the fact that, they haven't given any cause to be alarmed until now.

I practically read through your case and examined the proof you provided which were rock solid based on placing of bets but, when it comes to the terms for which these services where offered, you erred at OP and that simple neglect is what brought a cancellation upon your preceeding bets and wins.

I mean, I can't blame you, no I won't! Not many of us if any at all gives attention to terms & conditions to services rendered and you can tell that sometimes these T&C that are meant to guide us could also trap us and favour the company once you neglect them. Being ignorant of them becomes your first offence and to amend for that, most companies have relatively similar T&C so, you just have to grasps the bases and relate to all.

To be sure of your flag in this case at OP, I had to go over some of the T&C of Fortunejack.com and as you can see, an issue like this one is addressed right there in the T&C, last updated on November 05, 2019. Far before this event took place. I'll quote the portion that matters right here and ink it in red.

Placing a Bet and Maximum Payout per one Bet

The Company accepts current bets on various sports events based on a program published by the Company.

Bets are placed in mBTC and the minimum amount of a single bet amounts to 0.01 mBTC.

Information about any bet is kept in the database of the Company and in case of a controversial issue, the information kept in electronic archive of the Company is preemptive.

If a User places several identical bets, the Company reserves the right to cancel similar ones and consider the first placed bet as active.

Placing a bet is possible on guessing one or several sports results.

Link to Fortunejack.com sportsbook T&C

On this, Fortunejack.com is at right. What you ought to realise at OP is, bets comes into cognisance most times when it's a big win. There isn't a smart contract working that out without a human authorisation which comes after some scrutiny. That could account to why your bet wasn't cancelled when it was placed and only after winning. The better question here is:

Would that have been the case in the event of a lose?

Perhaps you can find that out when you loose to same betting pattern! Maybe you could fight them with this terms then. Else at the moment and with the presented facts, Fortunejack.com is at right and have paid you as due. Fortunejack.com is not a scam platform.

I love these Sr members with 260 posts and as that much merit.

Wow, you’re such a phenom and am 100% certain there is no cheating in this (as well as members who get the FortuneJack banner, somehow became all hero members and were bragging about it)

[Mr.right85]

This is by far an interesting case and even now, I still continue to read through just to be more familiar with it. It's such a huge amount to lose du to T&C. I must commend you to have been able to come by such prediction and still got to make such huge stakes on them. Its only regrettable as they aren't valid due to the terms stated.

One thing we ought to understand is, these terms offers some regulations to what could stay them (sportsbook and casinos) in business. We shouldn't expect them not putting a limit to what is accepted as minimum or maximum stake per bet and what could be the maximum or minimum for payouts. I'm sure if this isn't included and such case comes up without them honouring the wins, we would query them just as we do now.
One truth to T&C is, when it doesn't suit you, you get to find another sportsbook or casino that gives you the free hand you need and bet with them. If these T&C have been in existence far before the issue arose, then it could be considered as binding.

What I don't seem to understand on the part of Fortunejack.com is:

Why accept a bet if it already violates your T&C?
Perhaps duplicate bets might not be duly moderated but its a different story on the part of wins. A smart contract could have not allowed the bets to be placed. Perhaps they needs to be an update on the system to prohibit that outrightly.
That would help to avoid instances like this!

In the end, terms are terms and they do apply very much as much as they've been stated before hand and I don't see why the shouldn't in this case. As much as this might mean nothing, I just share in your lose as, its a significant one indeed and the bets placed where one that came out of some accurate prediction and the guts to go huge on them. Sorry mate, it's happening!

[Marvelman]

What I don't seem to understand on the part of Fortunejack.com is:

Why accept a bet if it already violates your T&C?
Perhaps duplicate bets might not be duly moderated but its a different story on the part of wins. A smart contract could have not allowed the bets to be placed. Perhaps they needs to be an update on the system to prohibit that outrightly.
That would help to avoid instances like this!

In the end, terms are terms and they do apply very much as much as they've been stated before hand and I don't see why the shouldn't in this case. As much as this might mean nothing, I just share in your lose as, its a significant one indeed and the bets placed where one that came out of some accurate prediction and the guts to go huge on them. Sorry mate, it's happening!

I think this is a fair question. I don't understand much about casino software, but would it be such a big deal to disable bets that violate T&C rules before they are placed? If the casino accepts the bet and "shakes hands" with the player, isn't that some kind of agreement between the casino and the player that should be honored to the end? What would have happened if the bets had lost? Why did they voided the bets only after the match was over and the result was in the players' favor?

Clearly there are many issues here, and I understand the OP's frustration, but unfortunately I can't support the flag because of the casino's T&Cs. Also, because the T&Cs are set against the players, I am sure that courts would rule in favor of the player in this case. The laws in most jurisdictions protects consumers against misleading practices, and and I believe this is one such situation. When there is a conflict between internal T&Cs and the law, the law always trumps the terms set by the casino.

[PaperWallet]

What I don't seem to understand on the part of Fortunejack.com is:

Why accept a bet if it already violates your T&C?
Perhaps duplicate bets might not be duly moderated but its a different story on the part of wins. A smart contract could have not allowed the bets to be placed. Perhaps they needs to be an update on the system to prohibit that outrightly.
That would help to avoid instances like this!

In the end, terms are terms and they do apply very much as much as they've been stated before hand and I don't see why the shouldn't in this case. As much as this might mean nothing, I just share in your lose as, its a significant one indeed and the bets placed where one that came out of some accurate prediction and the guts to go huge on them. Sorry mate, it's happening!

I think this is a fair question. I don't understand much about casino software, but would it be such a big deal to disable bets that violate T&C rules before they are placed? If the casino accepts the bet and "shakes hands" with the player, isn't that some kind of agreement between the casino and the player that should be honored to the end? What would have happened if the bets had lost? Why did they voided the bets only after the match was over and the result was in the players' favor?

Clearly there are many issues here, and I understand the OP's frustration, but unfortunately I can't support the flag because of the casino's T&Cs. Also, because the T&Cs are set against the players, I am sure that courts would rule in favor of the player in this case. The laws in most jurisdictions protects consumers against misleading practices, and and I believe this is one such situation. When there is a conflict between internal T&Cs and the law, the law always trumps the terms set by the casino.

It’s not about the terms per se. It’s about people here sponsoring scams, they are so used to “gotcha it’s in the terms”. But this is still not the case here. I know Fortunejack is writing their terms to sometimes defraud their users but they’re bad even at this. It’s just that the dishonest people here don’t even bother to read, when they hear the word “terms and conditions” that’s a free pass for their sponsored scammer.

[PaperWallet]

The participation is closed. The participants are:

Bambolina
Blossom15
cruso
examplens (cursed)
GazetaBitcoin (cursed)
igehhh (cursed)
LEVSKI7
Marvelman (cursed)
Sterbens (cursed)
yogg (cursed)


A perfect 10, as I predicted, so less work. Wait for 1 mBTC to reach your wallet by the 1st of June.

You are allowed to return it back to same wallet it came from, if you don’t want my second prediction above to come true.

[Marvelman]

It’s not about the terms per se. It’s about people here sponsoring scams, they are so used to “gotcha it’s in the terms”. But this is still not the case here. I know Fortunejack is writing their terms to sometimes defraud their users but they’re bad even at this. It’s just that the dishonest people here don’t even bother to read, when they hear the word “terms and conditions” that’s a free pass for their sponsored scammer.

In my opinion, it is all about terms. If there were no such clause in the T&C, this would be a completely different story and the community would recognize it. Take the 1xBit scam, for example. And it is my opinion that you were familiar with their terms before you placed those bets. Why else would you place several identical similar bets instead of one?

Again, I understand your frustration, but the casino did not scam you. True, they voided your bets in an odd and clumsy way, but they were enforcing the terms you agreed to beforehand.


[edit]
I am not superstitious and your words don't mean anything to me, but your attitude tells me that you aren't a man of your word. This fact alone sheds some new light on the matter...
I offered my honest opinion. You can disagree with it, I understand that. But calling someone dishonest about it and cursing coins is not okay. If you don't want to send coins, don't. That's all there is to it.

[PaperWallet]

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents.

Of course, this is the problem. If your best reputable members like Hhampuz do campaign managing for this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5400099.0

Then this forum is nothing short of a scam promoter, among other things. Lots of things about trust system and how things work are opaque and some sort of an evil group cannot make a living other than promoting scammers.

[DireWolfM14]

You don’t need this 1mBTC for your curse, you’ve just earned it

Promises, promises.

you don’t have the intellectual level to jump in this anyway.

Ooooh, so you're an intellectual?  An intellectual who believes in curses?  Do you cast spells, also?

You are allowed to return it back to same wallet it came from, if you don’t want my second prediction above to come true.

Lol, how pathetic.  Just save your cursed coins, nobody want's them anyway.

You got your money back, but you didn't get to play fast and loose with their casino.  That's not a scam.  As it is, I think it's been made pretty obvious that nobody (with any clout) supports your allegations.