Flag Against Rating Place

[holydarkness]

As it seems Flag require non-self-moderated topic, where my original thread I made was self moderated to prevent derailment by Rating Place himself and others, and that the focus of the thread itself is to air everything and bury the hatchet, to clarify everything, yet Rating Place seemingly has no intention of it, where one of the thing that need to be clarified is about sportsbook provider and sportsbook platform [casino/bookie] dynamic, known as turnkey, where flag by provider are not meant to be treated as just flag, but something that a turnkey sportsbook has to obey...

Ok, here we go.

So, actually Rating Place was right, in a way, I did changed the original agreement, because the original one was for me to simply show to a DT that a case was indeed made under the basis of provider's flag. But that's fine, using the original deals that he got so scared of would be like robbing a balloon from a baby. So, we entered a far more serious situation,

this is where Rating Place initially accept my call-out [of the new agreement]:

what are we betting? Do it in one sentence. All 5 of your contacts were wrong last time. The book is not the middleman. The flag travels, nothing else. One book may have a $5 limit on a player, the second Betby book $100 and NL at the third Betby book. It's an individual risk tolerance set by the sportsbook. This is the problem. You rule for the sportsbooks because of the misinformation they pass to you.

This is the contract:

Now now, boy, don't try to twist words again, it's a simple statement, you asked for one sentence, and I give you exactly one. Knows that --I believe most agreed-- you've entered a written agreement with me, following above reply.

The situation is simple: you accuse me of being clueless about how sportsbook and provider works. You brag about forcing sportsbook to pay both on-screen on your thread, or off-screen from PM and other methods. I raise a flag against you as you poses a risk of financial lost to members of our forum [the sportsbook] due to your confidence of your knowledge.

So I'll make it even more simple, since you're repetitively focusing on Xyes and BetPanda on this thread. This is the written agreement we've both entered as per your above reply:

"You, Rating Place, will escrow 1,560,000 USD, that will rightfully released and become holydarkness's upon holydarkness's capability to show proof that providers like betby do has direct influence and dictate outcomes on matches via flags because sportsbook like BetPanda or XYes follows their risk assessment."

No need to drag it. Simple "yes" or "no" will put us into binding agreement where you'll escrow the fund and I'll proceed by flooding this thread with abundant supporting evidence.

With back-and-forth smoke-and-mirror deflection-and-evasion in between, [deliberately taking screenshot to show the post number and flow of conversation] we go into this casual agreement at the very least:



Or a written contract if we follow many english dictionaries' definition of the word.



The agreement has been made, regardless that he tried to sneak away from it, and I have been waiting for Rating Place to escrow the fund so I can proceed with my own end of the deal. As it seemed he won't initiate, I'll be the one taking the first step.


Rating Place insist that in casino [sportsbook platform], a flag from a provider [sportsbook provider] is just a warning flag, that casino can just ignore, that ignoring will not come with some kind of retribution, because it is just a flag, and that the decision to pay or not is solely at Casinos' hand as the fund goes directly into their pocket.

Rating Place, this is Turn-Key Sportsbetting, Turnkey, this is  the guy I talked to you so often, who insist you don't exist and you don't bind casino and provider in unique dynamic:



I will add other description from my phone, [yes, I do deliberately browse with my phone to exaggerately show how easily retrievable that info is, if only one want to learn], complete with in-depth risk etc. but I'll pour it in the next post as this one already become a wall of text/image.

Point is: I've done my end of the deal, now Rating Place, I call you to honor our written agreement. Please contact me within 24 hours to get the address for the agreed amount or I will have to resort to flag of breach of written [or casual at the very least] agreement.

[extra explanation from chatGPT on #33] I also have DeepSeek version of it on my device, although it seemed redundant at this point

Where Rating Place wrote a rather contrary rebuttal, that he kept refusing to show the prompt he gave to the AI despite multiple encouragement,

When a turnkey provider flags a player for "value play," they are notifying the sportsbook operator that the player is consistently identifying and betting on odds that are priced incorrectly, representing a long-term risk to the house’s profit margins.
The decision-making process for payouts in this scenario follows a specific hierarchy:
1. The Settlement Decision (The Provider)
The provider’s role is to determine if the bet itself is valid based on the event outcome.
• Automatic Payout: If the game ends and the bet wins, the provider’s software automatically settles the bet as a "win" and credits the player's account balance.
• The Exception: If the "value" was actually a technical error (e.g., a "palpable error" where odds were inverted or a decimal was misplaced), the provider will flag it and often recommend the bet be voided, meaning the stake is returned but winnings are not paid.
2. The Cashier Decision (The Operator)
Once winnings are in the account, the operator (the brand name) has the final authority over the actual money and the player relationship.
• The Power to Pay: The provider provides the data and the flag, but the operator's internal risk team makes the final call on whether to approve a withdrawal.
• Account Actions: If the provider identifies a "value bettor," the operator will often pay out the current winnings to avoid legal or PR issues but will simultaneously "limit" or "guts" the account (restricting the player to very small maximum bet amounts in the future).
3. The Final Authority (The Regulator)
Ultimately, an operator cannot refuse to pay a winner simply because the player is "too smart."
• Legality of Skill: In most regulated jurisdictions, finding "value" is considered part of the game. Unless the operator can prove a violation of the rules (like fraud or collusion), they are generally legally required to pay for bets they accepted.
• The Dispute Process: If an operator refuses to release funds based solely on a player being a "value bettor," the player can escalate the issue to the governing Gaming Commission. Regulators often rule in favor of the player if the operator simply failed to price their odds correctly.
———————-

Yes, several other major companies provide turnkey solutions. While Kambi and Betby are two of the most prominent, the industry has several other "heavyweights" that offer similar "business-in-a-box" technology.
These providers are typically categorized by their "odds-making" style and the level of control they give the operator.
Major Turnkey & Odds Providers
• Sportradar (MTS/Oren): Originally a data company, they now offer a full platform called Oren. They are known for having the most extensive live data in the world. Their "Managed Trading Services" (MTS) handles all the odds and risk management for the operator.
• Genius Sports: Like Sportradar, they are a data giant that has moved into the platform space. They are the official data partner for the NFL, making them a top choice for sportsbooks that focus heavily on American football.
• OpenBet: This is the "heavy artillery" of the industry. They power some of the largest sportsbooks in the world (like DraftKings and FanDuel in various markets). They are built for massive scale—handling millions of bets simultaneously during events like the Super Bowl.
• EveryMatrix (OddsMatrix): They offer a highly modular "turnkey" system. An operator can take their entire package or just pick certain "modules," like their odds feed or their bonus system.
• BetConstruct: Known for having one of the widest varieties of sports and markets globally. They offer a very fast setup time and include "niche" markets like virtual sports and esports as part of their standard turnkey package.
• SOFTSWISS: A popular choice for operators who want a "modern" feel. They were among the first to fully integrate cryptocurrency betting into a professional turnkey sportsbook platform.
• Altenar: Often described as a "boutique" provider. They focus on being very flexible and "mobile-first," making them popular for operators in markets where most betting happens on smartphones rather than desktops.

And where other member jumped in and contribute to show the result by grok:

And still waiting for that prompt you gave on your AI to give such a vast difference from mine [that I do with three different AI, four if we count-in Gemini Search, though I only showed one], it's on the other thread, please proceed. You hindering the resolution of addressing the real problem between us here by keep deflecting, though I've given my best to facilitate a thread that's deliberately moderated to keep the topic focused on all the points you have against me.

Hello. Not wanting to get involved in this too much, i would like to share my use of AI on this subject.

For context, i copied the exact same questions, word for word holydarkness asked.
And i used SuperGrok (paid version), using "Expert" mode. I made 2 chats. Here are the results.

Chat #1:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_f6339459-64f4-43a9-8cb8-d8114502bd4d?rid=102333e8-aa12-4e9e-8716-608647bc9162

Chat #2:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_5902efe5-2fb9-476c-adc4-532680e71b3c

Is AI reliable to ask and discuss things like this? Take your own conclusions from both chats.

I would like to see Rating Place's prompt tho. Not really sure what's there to hide, to keep deflecting.

I have to call the deadline of his side where he owed me 1,560,000 USD, where in no way I forgave his act and words and misleading statements and narratives smeared my reputation, nor make me whole.

This is just reference thread, and thus will ignored [I can't lock it either, lol]. Bring the discussion, real discussion, not derailment and smoke and mirror and deflection to the "original thread": Re: Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem: [holy POV]. This thread will be treated as "locked" by me and will not be addressed nor engaged, especially if the post is just pointless words.

[Rating Place]

edit to change to reply to holy's exact statements.

As it seems Flag require non-self-moderated topic, where my original thread I made was self moderated to prevent derailment by Rating Place himself and others, and that the focus of the thread itself is to air everything and bury the hatchet, to clarify everything, yet Rating Place seemingly has no intention of it, where one of the thing that need to be clarified is about sportsbook provider and sportsbook platform [casino/bookie] dynamic, known as turnkey, where flag by provider are not meant to be treated as just flag, but something that a turnkey sportsbook has to obey...

Quote from: holydarkness on May 10, 2026, 02:11:09 PM
Ok, here we go.

So, actually Rating Place was right, in a way, I did changed the original agreement Holy changed the agreement. I never saw the one he said was binding and didn't agree to the first., because the original one was for me to simply show to a DT that a case was indeed made under the basis of provider's flag. But that's fine, using the original deals that he got so scared of would be like robbing a balloon from a baby. So, we entered a far more serious situation,

this is where Rating Place initially accept my call-out [of the new agreement]:

Quote from: Rating Place on April 19, 2026, 05:53:12 PM
what are we betting? Do it in one sentence. All 5 of your contacts were wrong last time. The book is not the middleman. The flag travels, nothing else. One book may have a $5 limit on a player, the second Betby book $100 and NL at the third Betby book. It's an individual risk tolerance set by the sportsbook. This is the problem. You rule for the sportsbooks because of the misinformation they pass to you.

This is the contract:
Quote from: holydarkness on April 19, 2026, 07:27:23 PM
Now now, boy, don't try to twist words again, it's a simple statement, you asked for one sentence, and I give you exactly one. Knows that --I believe most agreed-- you've entered a written agreement with me  I never entered an agreement, following above reply.

The situation is simple: you accuse me of being clueless about how sportsbook and provider works. You brag about forcing sportsbook to pay both on-screen on your thread, or off-screen from PM and other methods. I raise a flag against you as you poses a risk of financial lost to members of our forum [the sportsbook] due to your confidence of your knowledge.

So I'll make it even more simple, since you're repetitively focusing on Xyes and BetPanda on this thread. This is the written agreement we've both entered as per your above reply:

"You, Rating Place, will escrow 1,560,000 USD, that will rightfully released and become holydarkness's upon holydarkness's capability to show proof that providers like betby do has direct influence and dictate outcomes on matches via flags because sportsbook like BetPanda or XYes follows their risk assessment."

No need to drag it. Simple "yes" or "no" will put us into binding agreement I never agreed. I didn't say yes where you'll escrow the fund no one is going to make a bet when only one side posts up and I'll proceed by flooding this thread with abundant supporting evidence.

With back-and-forth smoke-and-mirror deflection-and-evasion in between, [deliberately taking screenshot to show the post number and flow of conversation] we go into this casual agreement at the very least:



Or a written contract if we follow many english dictionaries' definition of the word.



The agreement has been made I never made an agreement, regardless that he tried to sneak away from it, and I have been waiting for Rating Place to escrow the fund so I can proceed with my own end of the deal. As it seemed he won't initiate, I'll be the one taking the first step. I never agreed to an agreement


Rating Place insist that in casino [sportsbook platform], a flag from a provider [sportsbook provider] is just a warning flag, that casino can just ignore, that ignoring will not come with some kind of retribution, because it is just a flag, and that the decision to pay or not is solely at Casinos' hand as the fund goes directly into their pocket.

Rating Place, this is Turn-Key Sportsbetting, Turnkey, this is  the guy I talked to you so often, who insist you don't exist and you don't bind casino and provider in unique dynamic:



I will add other description from my phone, [yes, I do deliberately browse with my phone to exaggerately show how easily retrievable that info is, if only one want to learn], complete with in-depth risk etc. but I'll pour it in the next post as this one already become a wall of text/image.

Point is: I've done my end of the deal, now Rating Place, I call you to honor our written agreement. Please contact me within 24 hours to get the address for the agreed amount or I will have to resort to flag of breach of written [or casual at the very least] agreement.

[extra explanation from chatGPT on #33] I also have DeepSeek version of it on my device, although it seemed redundant at this point

Where Rating Place wrote a rather contrary rebuttal that wasn't a rebuttal. I was showing you how Turnkey solutions work, that he kept refusing to show the prompt he gave to the AI despite multiple encouragement,


From this point down I'm showing AI definitions. This isn't a rebuttal of his bet. I didn't agree. He wanted to bet proof of something and I changed the topic to Turnkey
Quote from: Rating Place on May 13, 2026, 12:33:36 AM
When a turnkey provider flags a player for "value play," they are notifying the sportsbook operator that the player is consistently identifying and betting on odds that are priced incorrectly, representing a long-term risk to the house’s profit margins.
The decision-making process for payouts in this scenario follows a specific hierarchy:
1. The Settlement Decision (The Provider)
The provider’s role is to determine if the bet itself is valid based on the event outcome.
• Automatic Payout: If the game ends and the bet wins, the provider’s software automatically settles the bet as a "win" and credits the player's account balance.
• The Exception: If the "value" was actually a technical error (e.g., a "palpable error" where odds were inverted or a decimal was misplaced), the provider will flag it and often recommend the bet be voided, meaning the stake is returned but winnings are not paid.
2. The Cashier Decision (The Operator)
Once winnings are in the account, the operator (the brand name) has the final authority over the actual money and the player relationship.
• The Power to Pay: The provider provides the data and the flag, but the operator's internal risk team makes the final call on whether to approve a withdrawal.
• Account Actions: If the provider identifies a "value bettor," the operator will often pay out the current winnings to avoid legal or PR issues but will simultaneously "limit" or "guts" the account (restricting the player to very small maximum bet amounts in the future).
3. The Final Authority (The Regulator)
Ultimately, an operator cannot refuse to pay a winner simply because the player is "too smart."
• Legality of Skill: In most regulated jurisdictions, finding "value" is considered part of the game. Unless the operator can prove a violation of the rules (like fraud or collusion), they are generally legally required to pay for bets they accepted.
• The Dispute Process: If an operator refuses to release funds based solely on a player being a "value bettor," the player can escalate the issue to the governing Gaming Commission. Regulators often rule in favor of the player if the operator simply failed to price their odds correctly.
———————-

Yes, several other major companies provide turnkey solutions. While Kambi and Betby are two of the most prominent, the industry has several other "heavyweights" that offer similar "business-in-a-box" technology.
These providers are typically categorized by their "odds-making" style and the level of control they give the operator.
Major Turnkey & Odds Providers
• Sportradar (MTS/Oren): Originally a data company, they now offer a full platform called Oren. They are known for having the most extensive live data in the world. Their "Managed Trading Services" (MTS) handles all the odds and risk management for the operator.
• Genius Sports: Like Sportradar, they are a data giant that has moved into the platform space. They are the official data partner for the NFL, making them a top choice for sportsbooks that focus heavily on American football.
• OpenBet: This is the "heavy artillery" of the industry. They power some of the largest sportsbooks in the world (like DraftKings and FanDuel in various markets). They are built for massive scale—handling millions of bets simultaneously during events like the Super Bowl.
• EveryMatrix (OddsMatrix): They offer a highly modular "turnkey" system. An operator can take their entire package or just pick certain "modules," like their odds feed or their bonus system.
• BetConstruct: Known for having one of the widest varieties of sports and markets globally. They offer a very fast setup time and include "niche" markets like virtual sports and esports as part of their standard turnkey package.
• SOFTSWISS: A popular choice for operators who want a "modern" feel. They were among the first to fully integrate cryptocurrency betting into a professional turnkey sportsbook platform.
• Altenar: Often described as a "boutique" provider. They focus on being very flexible and "mobile-first," making them popular for operators in markets where most betting happens on smartphones rather than desktops.

And where other member jumped in and contribute to show the result by grok:

Quote from: T1HGO on May 21, 2026, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: holydarkness on May 21, 2026, 09:54:33 AM


And still waiting for that prompt you gave on your AI to give such a vast difference from mine [that I do with three different AI, four if we count-in Gemini Search, though I only showed one], it's on the other thread, please proceed. You hindering the resolution of addressing the real problem between us here by keep deflecting, though I've given my best to facilitate a thread that's deliberately moderated to keep the topic focused on all the points you have against me.



Hello. Not wanting to get involved in this too much, i would like to share my use of AI on this subject.

For context, i copied the exact same questions, word for word holydarkness asked.
And i used SuperGrok (paid version), using "Expert" mode. I made 2 chats. Here are the results.

Chat #1:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_f6339459-64f4-43a9-8cb8-d8114502bd4d?rid=102333e8-aa12-4e9e-8716-608647bc9162

Chat #2:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_5902efe5-2fb9-476c-adc4-532680e71b3c

Is AI reliable to ask and discuss things like this? Take your own conclusions from both chats.

I would like to see Rating Place's prompt tho. Not really sure what's there to hide, to keep deflecting.

I have to call the deadline of his side where he owed me 1,560,000 USD, where in no way I forgave his act and words and misleading statements and narratives smeared my reputation, nor make me whole.

This is just reference thread, and thus will ignored [I can't lock it either, lol]. Bring the discussion, real discussion, not derailment and smoke and mirror and deflection to the "original thread": Re: Negative trust from holydarkness – time to address the real problem: [holy POV]. This thread will be treated as "locked" by me and will not be addressed nor engaged, especially if the post is just pointless words.





"Again" is plural. It means that I got caught in another holy long debate.

[nutildah]

I read through the whole first post and don't quite understand what the flag is about. The agreement is a bit ambiguous. I'd rather post this here than in another thread because it is relevant to the flag:

With all due respect, press hard PAUSE on all of that. Stop deflecting and pour smoke and cast mirrors on your in your obscolensce.

RP does do a lot of that. We've known about it for years and now the rest of DT knows about it, or anybody who visits these boards, anyway.

As there is nobody left to take him seriously I recommend just leaving the whole thing be, and we'll have to learn to live with RP until he finally exhausts himself or gets banned, just as we did for game-protect.

[Rating Place]

I didn’t agree to anything and have no idea what it’s about. Holy just made a contract that said I had to escrow $1.5m, he had to escrow $0, it’s binding and posted it.

The DTs ganged up on me after holy red tagged me. You don’t all of a sudden become untrustworthy after 12 years. This thread is fine since there is a reason for you to post. Besides this one, you’ve trolled me for a year.

You keep thinking that you speak for everyone.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

@holydarkness

We both know you are a busy man, then why don't you just set this guy on ignore and don't waste your time with this issue. I mean we both know nothing will ever come from it and just ignoring him is by far the best thing you can do to to prevent yourself from losing brain cells and even more time.
Obviously you can do whatever you want but since you are a smart guy maybe just being the (FAR) bigger man and clicking on "ignore" is the best way to avoid further nonsensical stress.

[Rating Place]

@holydarkness

We both know you are a busy man, then why don't you just set this guy on ignore and don't waste your time with this issue. I mean we both know nothing will ever come from it and just ignoring him is by far the best thing you can do to to prevent yourself from losing brain cells and even more time.
Obviously you can do whatever you want but since you are a smart guy maybe just being the (FAR) bigger man and clicking on "ignore" is the best way to avoid further nonsensical stress.

Things are the opposite of what you post. Holy is that one that follows me and looks for the long arguments.

The sports betting complaints are complicated. You have to know about line movement, odds providers, arbitrage, value, fixed matches, reading tickets and a multitude of other things that have to be dealt with.

Sportsbooks are crooked and experience is needed. Holy argues with me on every point. He takes the book’s side believing their version. Casino cases are easy and straight forward.

[holydarkness]

@holydarkness

We both know you are a busy man, then why don't you just set this guy on ignore and don't waste your time with this issue. I mean we both know nothing will ever come from it and just ignoring him is by far the best thing you can do to to prevent yourself from losing brain cells and even more time.
Obviously you can do whatever you want but since you are a smart guy maybe just being the (FAR) bigger man and clicking on "ignore" is the best way to avoid further nonsensical stress.

I wish I can. I actually did that, at least twice. But I have to unignore him as his posts [unaddressed and unknown to me, as they're ignored] derailed dispute resolution. In one case, his posts paints me as criminal and corrupt, that ultimately discouraged the member who has dispute with casino to cease their engagement with me.

It was only after I remove the ignore [after considerable time of no-response] that I read what's written and need to remedy that.

But... yeah, with that case near its resolution, I think I can put RP on "ignore", namely ceasing from engagement with him. I think the spectacle he made by himself for himself is enough for future newbies who read his discouraging statement about me to really consider his words.

Thank you for the advise.

[T1HGO]

I have a question for the forum veterans.

Is it acceptable or okay to support a flag if i don't really agree with the reason presented/reference, even tho i agree that the flag is justified but for other reasons?

I think holydarkness has plenty of valid reasons to create the flag, but i just think this "bet agreement" is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

[holydarkness]

I have a question for the forum veterans.

Is it acceptable or okay to support a flag if i don't really agree with the reason presented/reference, even tho i agree that the flag is justified but for other reasons?

I think holydarkness has plenty of valid reasons to create the flag, but i just think this "bet agreement" is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

No.

When you support a flag, you affirm to the best of your knowledge that the clauses presented in the thread that become the basis of the flag [namely, this very own thread] is true, that the flagger [me] wasn't made whole by the flagged's [RP] act, and that in no way I forgave him. So, if you are not agree with the point presented in this thread, don't support it, oppose. Or take no action. Whichever.

But a thought that it's a stretch couldn't coexist with the clause that you affirm to the best of your knowledge that this thread [and thus the flag] bear its truth and weight.

[T1HGO]

I have a question for the forum veterans.

Is it acceptable or okay to support a flag if i don't really agree with the reason presented/reference, even tho i agree that the flag is justified but for other reasons?

I think holydarkness has plenty of valid reasons to create the flag, but i just think this "bet agreement" is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

No.

When you support a flag, you affirm to the best of your knowledge that the clauses presented in the thread that become the basis of the flag [namely, this very own thread] is true, that the flagger [me] wasn't made whole by the flagged's [RP] act, and that in no way I forgave him. So, if you are not agree with the point presented in this thread, don't support it, oppose. Or take no action. Whichever.

But a thought that it's a stretch couldn't coexist with the clause that you affirm to the best of your knowledge that this thread [and thus the flag] bear its truth and weight.

I see, thanks.

You should consider creating a flag, for defamation, stalking, lying, word twisting, deflection, creating false narratives and playing the victim to deceive overseers who are not familiar with this conflict and atributing random people's quotes to you. There is more than enough evidence to support it.

Not that it matters tho, my support is useless anyway.

[holydarkness]

No.

When you support a flag, you affirm to the best of your knowledge that the clauses presented in the thread that become the basis of the flag [namely, this very own thread] is true, that the flagger [me] wasn't made whole by the flagged's [RP] act, and that in no way I forgave him. So, if you are not agree with the point presented in this thread, don't support it, oppose. Or take no action. Whichever.

But a thought that it's a stretch couldn't coexist with the clause that you affirm to the best of your knowledge that this thread [and thus the flag] bear its truth and weight.

I see, thanks.

You should consider creating a flag, for defamation, stalking, lying, word twisting, deflection, creating false narratives and playing the victim to deceive overseers who are not familiar with this conflict and atributing random people's quotes to you. There is more than enough evidence to support it.

Not that it matters tho, my support is useless anyway.

Then it's a feedback, not a flag.

Unlike "customizable" feedback, flags are predetermined by the owner of the forum:

Type-1, Newbie Warning Flag, to warn newbies that dealing with certain entities follow risk of losing fund [require net >1 DT support]
Type-2, Casual Agreement Flag, to raise a flag upon financial damage under casual agreement and/or unforgiven act [require net >3 DTs support]
Type-3, Written Agreement Flag, to raise a flag upon financial damage under written consent of both parties and/or unforgiven act [require net >3 DTs support]

[T1HGO]

Then it's a feedback, not a flag.

Unlike "customizable" feedback, flags are predetermined by the owner of the forum:

Type-1, Newbie Warning Flag, to warn newbies that dealing with certain entities follow risk of losing fund [require net >1 DT support]
Type-2, Casual Agreement Flag, to raise a flag upon financial damage under casual agreement and/or unforgiven act [require net >3 DTs support]
Type-3, Written Agreement Flag, to raise a flag upon financial damage under written consent of both parties and/or unforgiven act [require net >3 DTs support]

Gotcha.

There should be a flag to cover the behavior mentioned above. I never bothered to take a look at forum's rules but i'm pretty sure his behavior violates a bunch of rules.

I guess in situations like these, people just red tag then?

Completely unrelated, but i saw yesterday user Vod raised a flag against someone else, and from what i understood from it(could be wrong here) is that the basis of this flag was defamation. So i'm guessiong his flag is a type-1 flag?