tl;dr: we are on a stalemate, flag supported. It now has 3 DT supports and should be active.
Bear with me, it'll be a long post, I spent my entire day --literally-- mulling over this. I even sat on the floor, waiting for my laundry while reading back and forth between posts.
Several days have passed since the representative of this casino showed up and said they would take a look at the reason why $12000 was confiscated and the player got banned. Since nothing is happening and we still don't know more, I am going to support the player's flag.
[...]
In the spirit of being fair and just, the official of Ole777 has actually replied with the reason why $12,000 was confiscated from OP, although they somehow replied on their ann instead on this, more proper thread. Their reply had also been
quoted and replied by OP here on this thread
[...]
Lastly for spyrosc200
"If you really want to help, please don't come back with general statements for arbitrage betting and/or syndicate betting and all that stuff that you know in advance that they are just lies and joke explanations."
Sadly they won't disclose further information but I am still working on convincing them about it, but yes. Your account was labelled under arbitrage/syndicate betting.
Nonetheless, it wasn't an answer that's constructive to the development of this case or --at the very least-- invoking confidence for the platform. Tracing back, basically, most of their explanation for these situations is, "you're caught in syndicate and arbitrage betting, that's all".
[...]
Bitcointalk Username: Bachezy
OLE7.IO Username: didi123
Now for this accusation, I was told by the CS representative that you were caught with arbitrage and syndicate betting.
They have not provided further information.
[...]
Sadly they won't disclose further information but I am still working on convincing them about it, but yes. Your account was labelled under arbitrage/syndicate betting.
On the same day that Carlos posted his answer on their ann thread, describing the tight situation he currently is, I
advised him to ask the compliance team to create an account here and answer these pile of issues, as they seems to be the key to all of the cases here, and their reluctance to provide the backing evidences of their counter-accusations only complicate things.
I can understand that a platform is reluctant to share their multi-acc abuse detection system because it'll make the system obsolete, but I can't fathom why won't a platform shows a proof of arbit, as --if I understand correctly-- it's mostly about the bettor's bet log and it won't do them any harm.
At some point earlier today, I realized that we are at a stalemate. The only way to move forward is if compliance team level down and shows their evidences. Otherwise, it's just an empty counter-accusation. We can drag it out for years and make Carlos goes back and forth between this forum and the compliance team and still at this exact point if they stays on their ground.
And this is detrimental for the cryptocommunity who want to play on their platform. We can't be sure how many people in the future joining up in a good faith --while we still trying to put this case to rest-- and got unlucky by getting into this similar inconvenient situation with no plausible evidence to justify the action taken against them.
At the same time, I'm still standing on
my belief that OP's flag
1 is still lacking the stated requirement. I even consulted to the guide on raising and/or supporting flag to get some insight on what step is the best to take here and what's the justified action, and theymos said,
[...]
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
[...]
Reference for the fact-statement mentioned above:
On my honor, I affirm the following:
1) This user violated a written contract, resulting in damages;
2) I have not been made whole by the user;
3) no existing flag covers this same incident;
4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic;
5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.
Furthermore, I promise to withdraw my support for this flag if this user makes me whole in the future.
I wouldn't hesitate to support the flag if it's a type-1 flag as the condition is instantly met for that flag. Flag type-3, though, is still not completely true, and that's purely because Carlos seems to still gave his full effort to ensure that point number 4 is not valid and point number 2 will never befell to the OP --aside from point number 1 that I will explain on the postscript.
However, in the consideration of my point of stalemate, I think this case is just as good as a dead-end if the compliance team keeps refusing to give their supporting evidence. And no matter how hard Carlos plead to the team, as long as they still holding on their decision to not sharing any incriminating proof against OP, point number 2 and 4 on the type-3 flag is as good as a proven and fulfilled.
Thus, in hope that the nice red banner on their ann would help us get through this situation, I supported the flag and leave a negative feedback to the suspect. The flag will now be active.
1by the way... i think flag type-2 is more accurate, since OP did not have a written contract with the suspect. The "contract" is the ToS that OP checked upon signing up, which basically an agreement. Unless I'm wrong and such action [checking the "i agree ..." box] can be considered as a written contract?
Edit:
[...]
Additionally,
@spyrosc200 You might consider creating a newbie flag against the casino as well. That would be visible to people who browse their ANN thread even if they are not logged in.
[...]
Type-2 and 3 flag will also be visible to newbie and guest once active, much like the type-1 flag
