'John Abraham ≈ naim027' Coincidence or Connection?

[decodx]

Yes, they worked for us, and we never suspected they could be the same person. During their working time, they worked at different times while our support agents tried not to overlap.

Basically, you can't really say for sure if both accounts on the bitcointalk forum are controlled by the same person or not? If you think back and recall the interactions you had with them, is it possible that they could be the same individual?

The evidence presented by forum members in this thread, linking the two accounts, appears to be indisputable. Do you have any evidence that contradicts this conclusion?

[1715291906]

1715291906

[1715291906]

1715291906

[Mahdirakib]

Yes, they worked for us, and we never suspected they could be the same person. During their working time, they worked at different times while our support agents tried not to overlap.

It means Paradice team never verified who is working behind Naim (naim027) and John (John Abraham) account. It doesn't prove they are two different people as their working time was different. Because, 'naim027' has the history of taking benefits from the forum signature campaign with some alt accounts while his main account was banned for plagiarism. Maybe he did the same thing on Paradice with two different names.

I am Seva from Paradice.in

We don't know who is actually working behind the Paradice representative account at this moment, but 'naim027' has played a dirty game with the account when he had access to it. 'naim027' has traded merits with his alt accounts from the Paradice representative account. He has put your account at risk too.

[Not your key not your BTC]

the forum change to be the actor's forum where at the end of the game the member received an Oscar.

is it possible from 3 million members forum, originally only 50 members, with all kinds of alt?

the doctoral candidate will research this for the thesis, and possibly all data will open in 1 exchange.

[Poker Player]

How interesting.

John resigned on 26th March 2021. While Naim worked with us till 5th May 2023.
Both handled our BitcoinTalk profile. John handled our profile from 2020 to 2021, and Naim handled it from 2021 to 2023.

It's funny how people confess to crimes and don't realize it. Not exactly a crime but a clear violation of the rules. I mean, when naim027 was banned for plagiarism, not only ban evaded with his alts AnotherAlt, Crypt0S0ul, also with Paradice.in account Cratoon.

Naim asked me at least to say that they worked for us. Yes, they worked for us, and we never suspected they could be the same person. During their working time, they worked at different times while our support agents tried not to overlap.

Hi, naim027, do you want us to believe that you only managed that account up to a month ago?

[AB de Royse777]

It's funny how people confess to crimes and don't realize it. Not exactly a crime but a clear violation of the rules. I mean, when naim027 was banned for plagiarism, not only ban evaded with his alts AnotherAlt, Crypt0S0ul, also with Paradice.in account Cratoon.

Not talking about any of the accounts but in general.

How interesting to read it that your brain is malfunctioning!
That official account of Paradice.in is not someone personal property. It's representing a business. If any account of that business is ban then we can consider other accounts (if available) of the business were ban evading. An employee is not the business, a business is not the employee.

Royse777 is my personal account and CasinoCritique is the business account representing the project casinocritique.com (handled by other members too).
For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading? There can be another situation too. For some reasons if the casinocritique account receives a temp ban then do you think Royse777 will ban evading?

[Poker Player]

How interesting to read it that your brain is malfunctioning!

It's not.

Royse777 is my personal account and CasinoCritique is the business account representing the project casinocritique.com (handled by other members too).
For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading?

If your account is banned and CasinoCritique's account comes to tell us that when you were banned you were managing CasinoCritique's account, then CasinoCritique was ban evading. All this added to the fact that you were also ban evading in the same period with at least two other alts. And if you send merits back and forth from Royse777's account and other alts to CasinoCritique, then you are merit abusing.

And by the way, I forgot one thing. If I find out that in CasinoCritique is naim027 as a member of the team or someone who has 11 red tags, I will red tag the account. One bad apple spoils the basket.

[AB de Royse777]

How interesting to read it that your brain is malfunctioning!

It's not.

It still is malfunctioning.

Royse777 is my personal account and CasinoCritique is the business account representing the project casinocritique.com (handled by other members too).
For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading?

If your account is banned and CasinoCritique's account comes to tell us that when you were banned you were managing CasinoCritique's account, then CasinoCritique was ban evading. All this added to the fact that you were also ban evading in the same period with at least two other alts. And if you send merits back and forth from Royse777's account and other alts to CasinoCritique, then you are merit abusing.

Reference (Still malfunctioning)

Full disclosure: There are few other malfunctioning brains like you and they may agree with you.

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.[e]

CasinoCritique is not Royse777's (your) account.

Let me try to explain it a bit better to you.
I am (the person behind Royse777 right now) temp banned for 14 days. CasinoCritique is the account representing casinociritique.com. People handling casinocritque are: I, Mr. X, Mr. Y.

During my ban. Mr. X posted something, Mr. Y posted something and I also posted something too.

Since your brain is malfunctioning, you are going to say Royse777 is ban evading.
The answer is not going to be straight forward.

If casinocritique was not representing casinocritique.com but it was representing Royse777 then casinocritique was breaking rules.

And by the way, I forgot one thing. If I find out that in CasinoCritique is naim027 as a member of the team or someone who has 11 red tags, I will red tag the account. One bad apple spoils the basket.

Is that a threat you are giving? Find out with proof. Like do KYC, video conference or just STFU.
You don't decide an entire team by the action of one team member.

[Poker Player]

It still is malfunctioning.

...

Full disclosure: There are few other malfunctioning brains like you and they may agree with you.

This time I'll let you do the name calling. I'm not going to do the same.

Let me try to explain it a bit better to you.
I am (the person behind Royse777 right now) temp banned for 14 days. CasinoCritique is the account representing casinociritique.com. People handling casinocritque are: I, Mr. X, Mr. Y.

During my ban. Mr. X posted something, Mr. Y posted something and I also posted something too.

Whoever is behind it as the person ultimately responsible must ensure that this does not happen, and if he lets it happen, he is allowing ban evading. And I don't care if the account is run as a commune or cooperative with no maximum responsible, they are as responsible as the individual person who is ban evading.

[AB de Royse777]

And by the way, I forgot one thing. If I find out that in CasinoCritique is naim027 as a member of the team or someone who has 11 red tags, I will red tag the account. One bad apple spoils the basket.

Explain why you brought naim027 in the discussion while I was giving a general view without specifying any of the accused account?

Oh one thing you need to know.
Naim027 works on updating my spreadsheets. One of the many team members in 💹📈 Bitcointalk Campaign Management 💪🔥 Signature & Bounty

Some roles that my team members play in the campaign management.
ANN management
Spreadsheet checking
Graphic Designing
Telegram moderation
Content creation
Translation
For each of the jobs I have several people who work to ensure quality service, 24/7 customer service etc. One Naim027 is just a part of the 8 to 10 people who work all the time for campaign management.

I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.
Be my guest.

Whoever is behind it as the person ultimately responsible must ensure that this does not happen, and if he lets it happen, he is allowing ban evading. And I don't care if the account is run as a commune or cooperative with no maximum responsible, they are as responsible as the individual person who is ban evading.

Shut up!

[Despairo]

I can only say that Naim and John worked for Paradice.in
John resigned on 26th March 2021. While Naim worked with us till 5th May 2023.
Both handled our BitcoinTalk profile. John handled our profile from 2020 to 2021, and Naim handled it from 2021 to 2023.

It doesn't looks weird for you why John and Naim work on the different time frame? although I'm not really sure why John resigned on 2021 when he doesn't link his reputation in this forum. As long as they only work via online and they never met you in real life, it's not a solid evidence to say both of them are different person.

Anyway are we talking about John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Royse777 ≈ Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 now?

[AB de Royse777]

Royse777 ≈ Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 now?

You really think I have time for signature spamming, account farming and all these shits?

[Poker Player]

I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.

Sure. Right on top, as you like so much. I'm just going to wait a bit.

Naim027 works on updating my spreadsheets.

You mean that when he was banned, apart from working for CasinoCritique he was also working for you?

Shut up!

That's the argument you have to counter what I say?

[AB de Royse777]

I am waiting for you to tag me now because I employed Naim027.

Sure. Right on top, as you like so much. I'm just going to wait a bit.

Are you saying I like it so much or I said it somewhere (about like and dislike)?
Make sure you are using appropriate reference for it. Why not create a new topic to make a proper reference? Why wait?
Let me guess, you are going to have a meeting with your friends and then all of you will come together at once with your BS arguments.

You mean that when he was banned, apart from working for CasinoCritique he was also working for you?

Nain027 works for campaign management and is a team member like many others. Isn't it should be enough for you? Why anything else matters?
I don't have to tell you who I am employing, when I am employing. I am conducting an dependent business and right now I have many clients and forum members who participated my campaigns, they will rate me. If I ask a group to rate my business then I don't think overall it will bring a bad rating if not 5 out of 5 (although you tried many times in the past to approach my clients and convinced them not to hire my service because you have low moral).

Shut up!

That's the argument you have to counter what I say?

Do you think I give a shit?

We are off-topic. It's now why I employed naim027, is Royse777 taggable? - Type of topic. Go a create a new topic about it. You will have me there.

[jokers10]

Whoever is behind it as the person ultimately responsible must ensure that this does not happen, and if he lets it happen, he is allowing ban evading. And I don't care if the account is run as a commune or cooperative with no maximum responsible, they are as responsible as the individual person who is ban evading.

If a killer is working in a grocery store and that grocery store doesn't provide assassination service then that grocery store is not responsible for what its employee is doing outside the store.

When you represent some organisation but not as an owner, you are not representing yourself. So when you use some corporate belongings this doesn't make those belongings yours. Including corporate account. If that account wasn't used in personal purpose it doesn't matter who was behind the scene in any exact moment. Because it was an organisation not a person.

If you'll make an organisation responsible for investigating if their employee hasn't ever been banned on the forum they'll prefer not to work in here at all, because it is nonsense. Their account is representing them, not their employees, who can be changed multiple times during company work.

[decodx]

An employee is not the business, a business is not the employee.

What types of business? Is it sole proprietorship, or perhaps a self-employed person?? A partnership? Limited Liability Company (LLC)? Corporation? 

Royse777 is my personal account and CasinoCritique is the business account representing the project casinocritique.com (handled by other members too).
For some reason if Royse777 is banned, how many will say CasinoCritique is ban evading? There can be another situation too. For some reasons if the casinocritique account receives a temp ban then do you think Royse777 will ban evading?

So, you're saying that someone who gets banned can easily create a new account, pretend to represent a fictional (or real) business, and continue using the forum without any consequences? It seems you overlooked the fact that the Cratoon account was active across multiple boards and forum threads, not solely limited to discussions about Paradice casino. Additionally, there is evidence of a merit hunt in the WO thread, where the user received a significant number of merits from his alt accounts (naim027 and AnotherAlt), and sent them to build his other alt accounts (Crypt0S0ul and John Abraham). That can't be right, can it?

I think "ban evasion" is a very simple forum rule. This is how I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: If one of your accounts is banned, you, as an individual, are no longer allowed to use this platform, regardless of who you represent or work for. The ban applies to the person, not just the account.

If a killer is working in a grocery store and that grocery store doesn't provide assassination service then that grocery store is not responsible for what its employee is doing outside the store.

That's exaggerated to the point of absurdity. But, if the owner of a grocery store is aware that one of their employees is involved in criminal activities, including being a killer, and fails to report them to the authorities, they bear responsibility as it is their legal obligation to do so. In such a scenario, as a customer, would you feel comfortable patronizing such a grocery store?

[Poker Player]

I agree 100% with what you say decodx.

The ban applies to the person, not just the account.

Here is the crux of the matter.

When I have time I will answer you in the other thread, Royse777, my friend. 

[AB de Royse777]

It seems you overlooked the fact that the Cratoon account was active across multiple boards and forum threads, not solely limited to discussions about Paradice casino. Additionally, there is evidence of a merit hunt in the WO thread, where the user received a significant number of merits from his alt accounts (naim027 and AnotherAlt), and sent them to build his other alt accounts (Crypt0S0ul and John Abraham). That can't be right, can it?

I did not check anything about Cratoon account except found out that it's representing a casino. So if you are talking about Naim027 or AnotherAlt or Crypto0S0ul or John Abraham or anyone else or any other account - nothing is my concern. I am not into that discussion. I even starting with saying that it's in general. I am trying to make a sense why it was so easily overlooked.

I think "ban evasion" is a very simple forum rule. This is how I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: If one of your accounts is banned, you, as an individual, are no longer allowed to use this platform, regardless of who you represent or work for. The ban applies to the person, not just the account.

It's not that I don't know how a ban works to a person. Instead of making the font bold for me, do it for some newbie who needs your teaching.

So, you're saying that someone who gets banned can easily create a new account, pretend to represent a fictional (or real) business, and continue using the forum without any consequences?

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed

Why it's hard to understand. Isn't it self-explaining, assuming this is your reference for the argument.

Here is my interpretation:
Account x is owned by person a, he is the sole owner of the account.
Account y is owned by a company or business, it represent a business, a group of people, we have no idea who created it and who is handling it but it's representing a single entity and "Mr a" is one of them.

Your rule does not say anything about account y can not be used by "Mr a" as a part of the group.  It says a person can not use or create another account and the interpretation is for his own personal account/s. In example cases we have seen all these were, their own personal accounts.

Forget about the rules, how a business account can be treated as a personal account where it's obvious that the business account was not handled by the single person who was accused to have a ban on the forum?

Show me which new account is pretending to represent a fictional business and continue using the forum?

When I have time I will answer you in the other thread, Royse777, my friend. 

My friend? No, thank you.
You don't have the quality, status to consider you in my friends circle. You are a low moral pathetic individual. It's better for you if you stay out of my business.

[Mahdirakib]

That official account of Paradice.in is not someone personal property. It's representing a business.

But 'naim027' had used the Paradice representative account as his personal property by exchanging merits with his alt accounts. Don't you think it was offensive? Or you will consider it as a part of the business. Seems like you weren't aware of the merit trading history of 'naim027' which he did with the Paradice representative account.

Anyway are we talking about John Abraham ≈ naim027 or Cratoon ≈ John Abraham ≈ naim027 or ~

This topic was created to find more evidence between 'John Abraham and 'naim027' account. But some other users are trying to risk their reputation by taking the side of the professional liar (naim027) by ignoring the evidence.

[Cratoon]

To clarify some things, John has been working with us since 2020 and resigned on March 2021. Naim worked for us from 2020 to 2023, and we had to remove him.

While we don't want to reveal anyone's nationality, John Speaks the native local languages of mine and the CEO.

John was getting more than 3x Salary than Naim when he resigned. It's not a good business for someone to leave the high-salary job and continue doing the same job for a 3x low salary. I don't think John could be Naim.

I have no idea if Naim was banned and if he has multiple accounts. I asked him today, and he said yes, he has. I am not an expert on Bitcointalk. We hire workers for their job. We don't know their personal life. This is non of our business being a crypto casino.

I am here on request of Naim. I am not here to prove anything. I just gave my statement, and it's official. If you don't believe me, I am sorry. I don't have time to convince anyone.

[decodx]

Your rule does not say anything about account y can not be used by "Mr a" as a part of the group.  It says a person can not use or create another account and the interpretation is for his own personal account/s. In example cases we have seen all these were, their own personal accounts.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the forum (not mine) rule. (Again).

The rule specifically states that you cannot "use or create accounts" as long as one of your accounts is banned. I don't see what is not clear and open to interpretation. Nowhere is the distinction made between "personal" accounts and "business" accounts. I don't know where you got that from.

So, if account X (owned by person X) is banned, then person X is not allowed to manage company Y's account (or any other account) on this platform. The ban evasion rule would not make any sense otherwise.

But, I'd still appreciate hearing more opinions from other senior members or moderators regarding this matter. After all, anyone can make a mistake and misinterpret a rule, just like you have done in the past.

Forget about the rules, how a business account can be treated as a personal account where it's obvious that the business account was not handled by the single person who was accused to have a ban on the forum?

Show me which new account is pretending to represent a fictional business and continue using the forum?

I'll get back to this later because I need some time to gather references.