I am snipping the irrelevant post and merging parts of your post in single reply as [even though they're separated by a paragraph or two talking about different things] they're related.
[...]
I believe they could, asked to repeat the KYC. There are instances where when photos [though it's not the selfie photos, but I think it also happened in many occasions] are unfavorable, like blurry or accidentally covered, the casino asked for them to re-submit the photo in a more clear details.
Apologies for the confusion. What I meant was, the "kidnapper/captor" is requesting the "slave" to take new photos until they achieve a satisfactory one. Is that task too challenging? Keep in mind, we're talking about a photo, not a live stream on platforms like Twitch. How can the "captor" make such a mistake as to include a knife or weapon in the photo?
[...]
Please rephrase, I don't think I fully understand the part I mark in underline.
I was referring to the possibility that the "kidnapper" had complete control over the photo to be sent for KYC. So, if there was anything questionable about it, it would likely have been corrected before sending the photo, in my opinion. This is a practice observed on Dexter TV show, so I assume that individual would follow suit.
Thanks for clarifying. I guess, yes, that's highly logical, the kidnapper tries their best to take the best picture prior to uploading it and can take as much of the captive's photo to get it.
It brought a new possibility to my mind, though, namely what if [in our imaginative scenario], Blo is simply an account seller and not related to Joana at all? His business is with Johan, Joana's husband. For argumentative purpose, it's quite logical for a KYC seller to finally tapped out his ID [there are only so much of his relatives' ID that he can sell before he need to outsource], and that's when he met Johan. Promised Johan some cash to lend him ID, and Johan gave him both his and his wife's. Blo then sold the account to Bo, of whom use that ID to play in BC, because he previously got banned and he tried to get around that limitation.
Problem occured when the platform asked Bo to perform KYC, because even though Bo have Joana's govt. ID, he certainly can't show them the KYC profile, as it'll be completely different. So he reached Blo, asking for those selfie, Blo asked Johan to provide the photo, and Johan apparently did a very poor job because the KYC shown sign of duress.
The exact chain of people and the length of it may varies, but the gist was that the BC user simply bought an ID from someone, he was not the one taking picture, as such, he didn't exactly know what's the picture looks like, thus not knowing that it shows a sign of abuse, nor have the slightest idea of what happened, given he never had a chance to look into the picture.
As such, when he's asked to give his side, to explain from his side why would possibly BC marked the account under duress and rejected the KYC, he tried to be evasive, because he didn't have any idea of what's the picture looks like too.
Question for you: even though the scenario above is hypothetical, don't you think such even is a possibility?
It's BC.Game Support's turn to respond to this. I've already granted permission several days ago for the KYC photo to be sent to both you and me if necessary. I don't comprehend why it's taking them so long to address inquiries here or provide that evidence.
For this, I'm actually very conflicted. Let's say they do what you and several other people asked, shared the KYC photo in question to both you and me [or any other trusted member of the forum], it'll be for our eyes only, strictly limited to a few couple of eyes. Won't it be another case of "he said, she said"?
I can say that "oh, yes, the picture indeed shows signs of force" and you said "he lied, it's a completely normal photo with me sitting in front of a chair."
Same thing will happen if you escalate it to a mediator, where things are handled by one person. Though their neutrality can be trusted, it won't stop someone from saying something like "The Pogg is in bed with BC, they lied to me" [ironically, such baseless retaliatory accusation actually happened, though not with BC and not with Pogg]
I believe this is what's also on BC's mind, and that's why they kept being silent, they're trying to get a better approach.
So, here I am, if I may propose a better but more extreme solution, do you give your consent for them to provide it publicly here, with your face being blurred, and only part that --according to BC-- showed you being under duress is visible. I am currently contacting the highest ups [plural] of the forum and ask their permission to grant it as an exception [with some precaution taken, like blurring identifiable markers, etc.] to get this case resolved and/or if they need it to be solved in other manner.
Some have already replied to me, but I am waiting for all of them to give their insight prior to taking any action. For the time being, though, if I may repeat: do BC and the forum have your permission to publish your KYC image, with most of the identifiable aspect being blurred and only point of interests that made BC sure you're under duress being visible? Do you give your consent to this and will not consider it in any form as a way of doxxing you?
Second alternative I propose is to have multiple people check and validate the claim instead of just you and me. For this, I think blurring is not necessary, given the information is limited to a selected few's consumption instead of for public, and those selected few might get a better context if they see the details in full.
Though it will still leave room for "he said, she said, they said", the doubt will somewhat minimized as well as the exposure to your credential. If you agree to it, I will propose this [through mentioning their username here as well as sending them a PM] describing the situation in brief and ask if they would bear the burden of validation. The users will be those of high ranking, some frequently overseeing cases here on this sub-board, and I believe the forum acknowledges their neutrality. Still, for such, I'll need your consent in writing like above, that you agree to share that private information of yours to them and will not consider, in any form, that such action as doxxing you.
If you can help us understand how and why did BC conclude your KYC picture as "under duress", we might be able to get to the bottom of the situation, whether it is a clear sign, agreeable to a point, that the person performing KYC is unfit to verify their identity, or is it a biased situation where the staff performing KYC-check get overreactive and misread the dazed look as a completely different situation.
Only they have the answer to this; for me, it's just a regular photo.
So, again, I ask, can you describe, in a not-too-descriptive manner, your situation when you took your selfie for KYC? What could possibly triggers BC to think you're under duress? Were it simply because you're get over-excited and have a crazy-looking eyes, you got nervous and sweats a lot?
This matter should be directed to BC.Game. As for me, there's nothing relevant to comment on regarding this photo. It's up to them to present the photo and clarify any issues with it, not me.
This highlight the possibility of "he said, she said" as explained above. It is not an unlikely situation that if we did what proposed, BC sharing the photo in question strictly to you and me, you'll say "it looks regular to me" while I said something else that contradicts that statement.
I believe that's completely up to BC, to answer the previous questions, with mine included. All I can do is asking questions, proposing a solution, offering a possible scenario and educated guess, the decision to an action, as always, much like every other cases I've attended, is up to the casinos and their representative. But I believe the pace of you clarifying the situation will help.
Could you kindly pose some questions to BC publicly as well? Otherwise, it appears somewhat biased from my perspective.
To put it into perspective, we are currently focusing on the point of "picture under duress". BC currently have made their statement, that they think the KYC photo is questionable. We tried to find a way around to prove this, as posting it here [for the time being] will be against forum rules. Thus, I tried to gain perspective from you, and thus, it looks like me only questioning you and not BC.
Of course, I can ask BC to give more details, just like I asked you. "BC, tell us whether she's tied to a chair or held at gun point? Describe to us, without being too specific, what made you think she's under duress", but I somewhat have a feeling that it will bring an undesired outcome.
To be blunt, I actually begin wondering why is it so difficult for you to answer the question I asked, if you're really wanted to get to the bottom of this, all you need to do from your part is tell us what were you looked like during the process that convince them you're under duress. If you're being completely normal, you can say that "I sit normally, hands on each side of my body, hair a bit messy, I smiled at the camera, with my jaw slightly opened due to my disbelief" however, what we get so far [at least according to my observation] was that you parroting me, without describing your past situation in your own word.
