Grab your popcorn, it'll be a long story to read.@Pmalek & @holydarkness, Both of you have left a negative feedback on TrustDice representative account with the reference of this accusation. I know that there was some dramatic situation at the initial stage, but TrustDice team had paid the user on 19th December and apologised for the inconvenience. How reasonable is it to keep negative feedback based on a solved accusation? Isn't neutral feedback enough there as a warning?
The feedback is not solely made on the case of
Laki21000, it also reflected on how they addressed the situation for accusations raised against them in general, i.e. banning without trying to look for clear evidences first, or even tried to consider listening to the defense made by the accuser (the user they unilaterally banned), how they goes into grasping straws
like this, or how when they're cornered, instead of trying to address the situation professionally, they choose to twist words and changing narratives through a sneaky edit like
this or
this --not to mention that the original unedited-but-edited post was hinting
a hidden threat of "we know you"--
But, as I am quite agreed with what
examplens said on
paragraph two and liked the perspective I previously failed to see on the paragraph three, I was more than ready to change my tag, as stated on the quoted post below,
[...]
Depending on how Coinbox1 reacted to and the outcome of Poika5's case on the other thread, and if they replied to what yahoo62278 asked above --an explanation of what really happened-- I'll consider changing my tag to neutral to serve as a reminder.
Coinbox1, please note that by "reacted to and the outcome of" Poika5's case, I am not meaning to ask you to work it to their favor, I asked you to address the situation properly, to be transparent and give facts according to the evidences you have. If Poika5 is wrong on their case, then provide the clear evidences, and if you made mistake on that case, then explain to the community. It called being responsible and professional.
[...]
However, sadly, that outcome is not quite reached. We are still not in the clear on why
Poika5 was banned on the first place. Sure, they offered evidences that AG deemed trustworthy enough, namely
one of these (see the screenshot) which later rebutted by Poika5 on the whole post.
And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post, we can only assume on several things, one is that Poika5 did multi-acc-ing, or maybe it was the "inhuman activities", and when they realized it's a lose war, they buried themselves. If this is the case, and TD has proofs, I am failed to see why they can't provide the proof of multi acc here and need to have a third party with policy of hidden evidences. If I may mention name here, Sportsbet tackled
similar issue without needing to wait for so much ruckus.
If I may point out one thing that's seems amiss to me is how TD basically goes through this whole headache of blocking Poika5 when they offered KYC, twice, then insist that they need KYC to see the problem only after Poika got concerned of their privacy, then going through AG, dragging the whole situation on excruciating slowness, taking their time to verify KYC that the ticket almost closed by deadline only to come with the explanation that is far more obscure than what they've --forced-ly-- told us here on this forum
weeks before itAnother possibility --and I have to admit that my imagination runs pretty wild on this one-- is that they reached an agreement off the screen with Poika5, with NDA involved, hence the sudden AWOLness.
But, for this case and specifically at this situation, I hate assumptions. I am well aware that I am sarcastic and witty and a real pain in Jesus' arse, but I am --at least I perceive myself as-- fair and reasonable. I would much prefer to lean toward facts than wild assumptions.
I can accept and would consider that the sneaky edit and word twisting is more likely an unprofessionalism of one entity --who named himself the-marketing-guy-behind-this-post-- and would probably be unfair to be held against the entire company of TD. Basically, all they need was kicking that guy and replacing him with someone more professional, and future scam accusation issues would hopefully didn't have to get through the same misery of smear campaign. I am more than happy to forget about the whole word twisting scene --with the sincerest hope that they won't attempt the same stunt next time our path crosses-- they don't even needs to apologize to me for whatever bad impression they've made on me, i understand completely that it's a risk included in the package when you choose to poking people with persistent questions and annoyed their days, every day, just to get to the bottom of the truth and giving fair justice to anyone deserves it.
This brings us back to what my statement on previous post said, I will consider changing the tag to neutral if they can give clear reason for the case of Poika5, which would convince me that they're a transparent and fair business. However, again, this is not achieved. We got to the bottom of Laki's case with them basically admitted they made a mistake and tried to grease their way out of it, and Poika's with something that's far more unclear than what previous "interrogation" gave us.
I'm more than happy to change into neutral if they replied here, or on the more appropriate place, Poika's thread, the evidences they said they've well documented on this "manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player."
Bottomline and tl;dr: In my personal opinion, it is not safe for anyone to play on such platform which would confiscate your funds and would only consider your case after so much noise was made. We don't know how many people out there in the past already got to this similar situation and didn't get a good ending because they're not persistent enough like Laki. And that, deserves a warning. Maybe not a type-2 flag, but clearly a tag.
But let me turn the table, purely in the spirit of discussion and not being aggro, why do you think it'll be good and safe to remove the negative and turn into neutral if they didn't show any good gesture or any sliver of professionalism?
