My opposition is to show that there should be a deeper reconsideration of the situation around the flag. As such, I've asked the broader DTs to review and exercise their judgment in the matter by presenting the case on Loyce's support/opposition flag, just to be sure this case and flag is handled properly and justifiedly.
If the majority agreed that the flag is justified, I am happy to admit the wrong and withdraw my opposition.
Aren't all those who support the flag convincing enough for you? So you are asking all the DTs supporting the flag to justify their support? Just see how many DTs left a negative trust with a reference link to justify their ratings. I am genuinely surprised by your stance.
In general, you can make this claim to ask users to revise their ratings in the matter if new development updates arise in the case, but in this dispute there is no indication that the coinplay intends to pay the winnings after almost two years. Even so if they pay, evil has occurred. As mikey said; once a scumbag, it's always a scumbag.
I don't think you get what I am trying to say here. Because your point is the exact opposite of the discussion so far. It's not about the amount of DT supporting the flag being convincing me that it is justified or not in the first place, nor the tags [the tags... well, people can do whatever with that, afterall, trust list --and thus the eligibility of DT-- relies on the capability to leave feedback correctly]. It's the existence of the flag itself and the support [the act of supporting, not the amount of support]. We're talking about whether that flag even justified to be raised, let alone to be supported, not the amount of the supporter that made it active. So yes, it's not convincing me enough with the support, it's precedes the act of being convinced itself: it's the existence of the flag after everything supposedly settled.
To give you [and perhaps other DTs who come to this thread following my post] a better understanding, allow me pull a wall-of-quotes taken from several past cases, I'll deliberately remove the name of the casinos, so not to drag them to the mud,
We are pleased to say that this review took considerably less than 60 days. We are able to quickly determine that this member is part of a known syndicate who uses banned technology to take advantage of our generous odds, and creates many accounts to avoid limits. Any additional accounts involved will have the same result, so we highly recommend that the OP and his buddies stay far away. We have technology too, and will catch you every time.
12,000 being held, not even initial depo was returned. No tag, No flag. Next,
[...]
In this case, we had a player who was already easily determined to have been in violation of our terms of service. Another lie he told is that he made 2 or 3 deposits, but we were able to catch this on his very first deposit. It doesn't take us long, and he is exceptionally bad at it. Had it been his first offense, he likely would have had his deposit back. But based on certain account characteristics, it was likely that he had done this before on other accounts. After multiple failures to complete or comply with our KYC requirements, we investigated deeper and determined that this user had been previously banned for sportsbook abuse on a different account. At that point, we no longer needed to communicate with him, since we had already told him last time he was banned that if he created any additional accounts, they would be subject to all funds being withheld.
Same, more or less. But let's take a look at the bolder one below:
[...]
OP, you should have taken your deposit back when you had the chance. We have confirmed that $427 were spent in labor and resources in this investigation. After subtracting your $50 deposit you owe us a total of $377. Please remit this to your deposit address immediately or we will pursue any necessary action, within the bounds of the law, to retrieve it.
Stop creating accounts and stay far, far away.
You guys wonder why no casinos reply in here any more? It's because of people like this. OP, take your scammer ass somewhere else.
Let's move to next casino,
I have been a customer on ---- for 6 years.
I am diamond 3 on ---- with over 80 million wagered and MILLIONS in losses.
I had 500 usd on Oscar, literally embarrassing. Oscar fouls on purpose with no time left to lose the game on purpose and they are laughing. Funny part is, he actually rushed to foul him before the clock expired to make sure he would lose.
Host refused to refund me because he said the “sports team” said that no “cheating” occurred. Funny part is, this happened to another player on a fifa e sport match and host refunded in full. Absolute joke. It’s SO clear that this game was corrupted and stake does nothing. This was a clear and obvious refund especially for a loyal customer like myself.
Watch the video for yourself.
[...]
Not even refunded, not even tagged.
But they are still obligated to return all the funds currently held in my account.
They are really obligated to return your funds(deposit amount) but don’t expect that profit will be included since you violated their ToS. They usually have a popup message whenever they update their ToS to remind user to read.
You already mention and acknowledge that this is all about regional issue based on your above post.
Can you confirm if they refund you the deposit?
Let's shift to one of the biggest three casinos in the forum... well, what used to be:
Now that you are completely clear about ---- closing your account and refusing to engage in communication with you, no matter what you post will make any difference to their decision. If you claim they stole $4105 from you, what will you do to try to get the money back? If they now suspect you have more than one account and will not engage with you, what steps will you take next? I suppose AskGamblers and CasinoGuru are the only options but they will probably not help you because ---- is one of the giants in their business, they have no reason to steal $4105 from you.
Hello
Thank you for completing the verification process.
Unfortunately, your account verification was unsuccessful due to the following reason:
We have acquired evidence that you are acting in breach of our terms and conditions.
Under rule [...]
Your account will remain closed and there will be no further correspondence regarding this matter.
If you attempt to open any new accounts, any deposits you send to ---- in the future will not be returned.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact us again.
See the point I am trying to point out here? This casino has a bad reputation and tagged in the past for their lack of responsibility. Yes, I know that. Most likely than not, this casino is not salvagable, but still, the justification to raise a flag here, not to mention the act of it being supported by the DTs, where on this specific case, the OP got their initial deposit returned, while:
1. The act of returning depo as agreement to settle and the act of withdrawing from player is widely known by SA as act of settlement, thus no contract violation.
2. Those casinos above do less than this casino. They don't return depo, one even asked for a refund because they're in the minus and kinldy asked the player to depo the difference to their depo address.
So, if the act of returning depo and the act of withdraw the depo is perceived as acceptable to mark a situation as resolved, why do the player on this thread entitled to create a flag after he accepted the term of settlement by withdrawing, let alone being supported by other DTs?
Double standard? Yes, I am very well aware the casinos I mentioned above entitled to a huge benefits of doubt due to their reputation and the length of their stay here and this specific casino wasn't. It justifies the tag on this casino, at the very least, while the other casinos get away with it.
But a type-3 flag being supported, where the clause of the support said that the casino violate a written contract and didn't make the player whole, and that the player didn't forgive the act [I recite from mind, so wording is not precise], while he actually took the depo? Why do he then entitled to raise a flag? He take the casino's "gesture of good faith" [I'll remind all the reader who get to this point that those casinos above do less], one that we perceive as readiness to settle [feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, Cointxz]. And he feel the casino broke written contract and didn't make him whole?
We may argue that the player didn't know that touching the returned initial depo is perceived as readiness to settle here. I can understand and take that. After all, I wrote and stress it many many times to every player who have dispute with casinos where initial depo or certain amount was returned and/or can be withdrawn to NOT touch the offer, as it is perceived as readiness to settle.
So yeah, in a way, we may argue that the player did not know that unwritten rule.
But us, the DTs and frequent overseers of the case? We know that. We oversee other casinos got out from a case with less than what this casino do. We oversee other casinos close threads with initial depo being returned, so why do
some DTs condone the [if we spin it to other's shoes] act of violation of agreement from OP, be it written or casual, after he got what he agreed as settlement, by supporting the flag?
That is the point I am raising here: why some DTs supported the flag, despite the readiness to settle and the non-existence of violation of contract?
Edit: Oh, p.s.: it is made known and brought to my attention by someone that during his stay here on the forum, OP was banned and had four issues with four casinos. Shouldn't this invoke as much suspicion to the player at least to the same degree of shadiness as the former management of the casino?
