I think some clarification is needed here, some aspect needed to be straigthened out.
First of all,
Coinbox1allow me to edit-slash-quote the post you quoted with the unsnipped version that will give a broader and almost different meaning than what your cleverly snipped version conveyed, marked in italic with key notes marked in red.
[...]
Dear Bitcointalk community,
Throughout this entire thread, we discussed with Mr. Pmalek about this case for days. However, as Mr. Pmalek started to distort our words and put words in our mouths, the conversation gets increasingly non-constructive and unproductive. Having this type of conversion is inconsistent with how we do business, therefore we eventually decide to stop participating in this thread.
Here is an example of how Mr. Pmalek distorts our words.
We said:
As a reputable casino & bookie, we try our best communicate with the Bitcointalk community, but when you say NBA games "always begin with a delay", it doesn't seem consistent with what I (the marketing guy behind this post) know.
I no longer watch NBA these days, but when I did, delays of over 10 minutes were rare. My knowledge might not be the most up-to-date and perhaps NBAs do always start with a delay these days. Therefore, could you kindly provide a reliable source of statistics supporting the claim that NBA games "always begin with a delay" and "can be as little as 10 minutes or even up to 30-40 mins"?
Then Mr. Pmalek started to distort the meaning of that sentence:
You just said in your previous sentence that from your experience NBA matches begin later than expected, even if only 10 minutes.
No, we didn’t say "NBA matches begin later than expected". We said “delays of over 10 minutes were rare." In English, when we say something is "rare", it means the thing is very unusual. It doesn't mean the thing's opposite definitely always happens. So when we say "delays of over 10 minutes were rare", it means "delays of over 10 minutes" are very unusual. It doesn't mean "delays of below 10 minutes" definitely always happens. For everyone's reference, here comes a ink to
Cambridge Dictionary.
If I may stressed the point you tried to prove on those posts were that OP bet at a very late of the game, because the game started at 02.00 of OP's local time, with an assumption that average NBA game lasts 2h13m, so at 03.54, OP's bet --according to you, at that moment-- is near the end of the game where the result is predictable --I'd leave the "fact" that according to your own data and assumption at that point, there's still 19 mins left on the game, that's 1 quarter of a basketball match itself-- and can be considered as a late betting, which later
Pmalek argued that your calculation should include the delay that happen on the opening of the game, thus OP's timing to place his bet is even further from the end of the game.
Sadly, instead of examining his own behaviors, Mr. Pmalek decided to strike first and accuse us first.
This is his accusation:
Don't try to twist my words please. I wasn't talking about NBA exclusively, was I?. I said US sports, as in all the major sports being played in The States. And then I mentioned the ones I am familiar with. On top of that, I would like to mention NCAA college basketball as well. Sometimes it happens that two NCAA matches are broadcast on the same channel one after the other. If one match starts late (which they do) or lasts longer than expected, so does the other one. If the first match goes into overtime, for example, the second sometimes doesn't tip off before the first one ends. There are various combinations. If you are not aware of US sports beginning with a delay than I am afraid you don't know that much.
But let's take a look at what he said:
I am familiar with the MLS, NBA, and NHL (I can't say anything for other leagues/sports), and they always begin with a delay. That can be as little as 10 minutes or even up to 30-40 mins.
So
they clearly include
NBA. And
that means the delay of
they. So Mr. Pmalek did mean "NBA always begin with a delay".
Yes, he did include NBA, but he wasn't exclusively talking about NBA, he's referring to --as per your own word, edited to be gramatically correct with the rest of my sentence--
them, namely the sports he's familiar with.
And we understood he meant it and we asked a follow-up question. But it is where he claims we twisted his words:
Therefore, could you kindly provide a reliable source of statistics supporting the claim that NBA games "always begin with a delay" and "can be as little as 10 minutes or even up to 30-40 mins"?
As explained above, his sentences did mean "NBA always begin with a delay", then, strangely enough, he accuses us of saying so. So forgive us that we have to refute such false accusation.
No, his sentence means a broader scope, not exclusively NBA, an educated-based-on-experience answer where most sport in US --that he's familiar with-- begins with delay, disregarding the length of the delay, a delay is a delay. Sports almost never played right on the time stated on their schedule.
And, returning us back to the point being discussed, what he said is basically fall along the line: you should add time of delay to your calculation.
This entire discussion became entirely useless though, because OP came with an extremely specific and official timeline published by NBA themselves --where the delay
did happen for 10 minutes.
What I tried to say for these part of my post is: painting Pmalek as someone bad is really frown inducing, because he asked you multiple times to give another example, he gave you an un-sided request that perhaps there is another case that can show and prove your claim that OP did a late bet. He gave you what was due to you: a benefit of doubts. Which you never use.
And to be fair, it is you who attacked Pmalek --sneakily if I may add, by editing your first post on this thread where it can be easily missed by anyone who jumped straight to the last post they read-- by saying he distorted your words and the conversation became non constructive and unproductive. He asked you for another case to be dissected, how's this unproductive? How's this inconsistent with how you do business? Simply put, we almost can say he tried to say, "This case you gave is unproven to be true, please give another example that better show the point you tried to say about OP." Isn't that you do your business? Profesionally and always seeking for proven truth?
Make no mistake, someone else's behavior won't affect OP's case. We still look forward to resolving this issue with the OP, who’s been labelled as abuser by our sports provider initially. If anyone can find following information, please feel free to send to
info@trustdice.win so we can forward it to our sports provider for them to reconsider:
- The actual time the game was delayed.
- The exact score and countdown at 3:54 a.m. (UTC) on December 1, when the OP placed his bet.
- The exact time the timer started running and the actual length of the game.
Sincerely,
TrustDice Team
OP had the details, all of the points you wanted to know and wrote above, for your perusal and you still ignored them. How's this trying to resolve the issue with OP?
Now, seeing how
Coinbox1 reacted to Pmalek's post, I think it is necessary to add this note before I said what i'll say next: the sentence below is purely describing my personal opinion and judgement, and it should not be used to build your --and by "you" I mean anyone reading this thread-- opinion of OP, Trustdice, Trustdice's representative Coinbox1, or anyone else in this thread.
"OP, seeing Coinbox1's choice of action and how they reacted and behaved to the development of this case reminds me of what I initially thought when I read their post
here, that they're trying to grasp at the straws. If their action is the reflection of how the platform operates and how they handled future issues, I'm afraid this is a detrimental behavior. I've been aware that
Poika5 had raised a
flag here against Coinbox1 on behalf of this thread, that I've been reluctant to support until further development and shows of good will or cooperation from them. But, seeing how they reacted, answered, and keeps refusing to give a strong evidence for their counter-accusation against you, I am inclined to believe they are not about to show any good will. Thus, I am supporting Poika5's flag. Their flag is a type-1, you are free to create another flag of type-2 or 3 if you want to and I'll probably support that too if they still refuse to show another case to support their counter-accusation against you and prove that you're cheating them."
Edit: fixing the flag link
