You bring this topic because of this?
[TrustDice ANN] Cease of Engagement on Scam Accusation boardThis is likely because of this:
Trustdice.win , UPD: TRUSTDICE SCAM, 2138$ USDT confiscated. (SOLVED)The case has been solved and the money has been given back.
It is unfair that Coinbox1 which is Trustdice representative on this forum is still tagged red by Pmalek and holydarkness. But if the reference is clicked on, it would be known that the case has been solved. But it supposed to have been changed to neutral or the tag to have be removed.I still always think that as long as a betting site is active on this forum, there may still be cases like this and we will like Coinbox1and other gambling site representatives not to fed up as long as their gambling site remain trustworthy to be used by people. We know some situations can be very frustrating and depressing.
If you bother to read the entire case described throughout the thread, you'll see that your sentence I marked in italic is somewhat insubstantial, borderline misleading. I've even explained several times why the tag stays, and have been offering them option to remove the tag, which they didn't fulfill.
Now, if you said that their cease and desist letter was a reflection of what happened on the case you referred, again, if you've been reading the entire thread instead of just blurting things out, you'll see that the statement by Coinbox1 won't make sense in reflect to your "accusation", i.e. because me and
Pmalek acted unfairly.
This is what they wrote, let's break it down statement per statement, specifically on paragraph 3 as that's where they wrote the reason behind their action:
Upon reviewing our past communications on this forum, we have decided to stop participating in any topic on this Scam Accusations board going forward.
If there is any complaint post in the future, please direct the complainant to this announcement. We will still be monitoring tickets on reputable arbitration sites e.g. AskGamblers and CasinoGuru to clear up the confusion.
The primary reason for this decision is the behavior of certain members of this board who, at least from our perspective, have repeatedly distorted our statements and made public threats in our previous communications. This kind of conversation they are fond of, and in general, their preferred ways of communication, is not something we should be involved in according to our code of conduct, and it is simply too much for our employees to bear emotionally. Just like most forum members, our employees are living people. Men, women, with family and kids. We have a responsibility to ensure they are not subject to unnecessary emotional harms. For this reason, we found it extremely difficult to continue as before, because our employees' mental health was at risk.
Best,
TrustDice Team
The primary reason for this decision is the behavior of certain members of this board who, at least from our perspective, have repeatedly distorted our statements and made public threats in our previous communications.
Neither me nor Pmalek distort their statements, you can read both of the thread carefully, I am pretty much sure we said and commented based on their previous statements, quoted in full. If any, they're the one who distort our statements, they systematically snipped our sentence to match their narratives while the whole sentence itself said a completely opposite meaning. I've broken it down
here and
here. I'll humbly asked you to spare some time reading the threads, and if that's too much of a time for you, then that two specific posts and tell me who twisted whose words?
This kind of conversation they are fond of, and in general, their preferred ways of communication, is not something we should be involved in according to our code of conduct, and it is simply too much for our employees to bear emotionally. Just like most forum members, our employees are living people. Men, women, with family and kids. We have a responsibility to ensure they are not subject to unnecessary emotional harms. For this reason, we found it extremely difficult to continue as before, because our employees' mental health was at risk.
The kind of conversation we're fond of, our preferred ways of communication, is by providing evidences to the public, to address everything with transparency and available for public's eyes. If that's not fitting to their code of conduct, then I question which kind of problem solving method is fitting to their code of conduct.
And about bearing it emotionally... I am not sure how exactly providing evidences of what someone said could burden one's emotion so greatly. In my country and my culture, it called being responsible of what I said and owning my actions. They banned someone for late betting and other reasons and when they're asked to prove it, they deemed it harming them emotionally? And that's just if we refer "them" as in the employees. If we broaden the scope and interpret their "them" as the
Men, women, with family and kids, it's even more absurd.
It is employees' responsibility to choose if they want to leave their problem at the office or drag it out to their loved ones. Again, this is us asking them proof and the basis of their counter-accusation. If they said it harm them emotionally, would it too far fetched to say they're playing victim? Pretty much sure in every place in this near-round rock we called Earth if we accuse someone of something, we also have to provide the evidences.
If any, shouldn't it be me and Pmalek who feels victimized and left emotionally harmed by their actions? They distorted --and caught red handed doing so-- our statements, they lied to the public and smeared our reputation. If I and Pmalek could still continue on living without any emotional stress after such gross action while they had to go into their shell just because we asked them to provide proof of what they said, well....
Now, if we talk about the case itself, it is actually
not solved, per se. They accused their user of
multiple late betting (par. 3, line 2) and provide one example, proven to be wrong and asked, politely, several times to provide another example, and they basically goes, "Ok, you're right, our bad. Here's some extra fund to compensate our misdemeanor".
There's still no proof if the user is indeed cheated the system by multiple late bettings or the platform wrongly accused them. There's no clarification and they didn't own up to the accusation and statement they made to the user other than backing up and paying some compensation when they've exhausted all their possible way out.
I think that's all I want to say from my side, I'd really love to hear your feedback about this.
[...]
Members have different opinions on every situation maybe some members have grudges against the casino or one of his friends has bad experience playing at that casino hence the bad feedback.
I am not. And I will never do such gross action of tagging someone without substantial proof to justify the tag just because I had a bad blood with them.
Is It Good For The Casinos And The Accusers If the casino operators decided to post a disclaimer that they will not answer accusations here in Bitcointalk but prefer to address them on other platforms that they think are fair and moderated like Askgambler and other platforms?
What's your take on this I don't want to be specific but the question applies to all casino operators.
If I may give my personal opinion, I'll say it's not a good practice. If a platform decided to stop addressing cases on this forum and prefer a platform which more discreeat and the final decision is made by one person, I think it's fair to ask whether they prefer the solution method because they're more comfortable with the reliable platform or they're too afraid to open their case to public where everyone can contribute to the case and they can't exactly control the outcome they wanted.
Just like what several other members have pointed out. True that arbitrary platform like AG and CG on some cases are somewhat... more capable because they'll require every statement to be backed by evidences, where the evidences are kept private for their eyes only. For some cases it is good, for example for the case of multi-acc, this forum couldn't verify the victim's credibility by asking them to provide KYC, while those platform could, thanks to their rules of secrecy.
But for some other cases, where the case
Oshosondy mentioned ironically serves as a very excellent example, solving it through arbitrary platform where only one person assigned to review the case and became the ultimate judge and jury, is not convenient or fair.
Having several eyes to see and validate the evidences --as well as brought some evidences themselves, just like the referred case-- is a good way to solve problems as unbiased as possible.
Edit: I just scrolled past coinbox1's latest post and learned that they painted it like I am a very bad and stubborn guy for keeping my tag for the case marked as "solved" although the past page of that thread describes my standing very nicely. But, as it seems to raise unnecessary annoyance and since it took mere seconds to adjust it like what
mahdirakib suggested, the tag for said case is now retracted and will be replaced with a new one with more accurate reference.
