Jumping in again from where I watch from Io with telescope because... I promised myself I will break-down this matter next time it's repeated, and I thought yesterday that the wall of repetitive text finally ended when one post doesn't include the same mantra. But... as it is now being mentioned... if I may break it down with sincere hope others can navigate through reading the arguments with less difficulties as the response hold only the essence of what is asked without tailed by repetitive text:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594694.0 -
Frogbet.com - Little Mouse - Unpaid Review Reward - Stolen Deposit - FAIL ESCROW - case is resolved with the fund owed finally returned. The thread should be marked as resolved on its title, if we follow what applied to other SA threads. So, I don't see the need to repeat and include this in the massive wall of text.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594724.0 -
bitbollo needs help - Is it worth the blood? - it's actually a thread by OP, not 2nd topic of scam accusation against LM or frogbet, not sure why worded that way, not to mention it's about OP's question whether or not the repercussive effect of his pure attempt to jump in and deescalate the matter. Not at all about second topic of scam accusation against LM and frogbet.
A post from thread above ["
Re: bitbollo needs help - Is it worth the blood?"] - message received, they're sister casinos. There are many casinos who use similar registration number. I can't recall even if I try, not even a word, nor recall the poster's name, and thus can't revisit the post with bitlist, but I do remember that someone showed me once that sharing registration and licensing is common in casinos, one license can hold and be monetized to whitelabel a lot of other casinos. Does this mean scam? not directly. There are casino and their sister who still caters players and active on the forum, even until these days.
Same as above, it's from a thread where OP tried to understand the justification of his tag. Yes, message received that the casino doesn't pay under the predetermined timeline by the accuser,
bitbollo, doesn't seem to have the need to be repeated over and over on the massive wall of text that make things rather more difficult for overseers and spectators to follow
1.
With attempt --and wish to be seen as-- to remain neutral, me who frequenting SA thread think, if I may give my two cents on this, there were no CM who never experienced being "backstabbed" by the project they promote. Yes, DD is important for CM, I repeated the same message over and over to bounty managers [BM] of altcoin projects to minimize scam projects. But so far, CM, which are more elite than BM, are not subjective to being "backstabbed" by casinos or project they promote.
Today, it might be LM who happen to have 4 scams in the last 6 months, next time, it might be another CM who got a casino run with one million USD of their customer's fund, after they refuse to answer on SA.
The pattern are shared by most CM: they managed the campaign until the casino bumped into a case, when the casino refuses to answer on SA, or there are worrying sign of them rugpulling, the CM immediately pause the campaign until the laundry aired. Then resume or stop based on the outcome.
IF one should insist on tagging one CM for this situation, then the other CM are also eligible for tags. As most already acknowledge, give voice to their opinion, and wished it to be, some even give to the length of explaining, it's not about --IMO-- OP supporting scam after 7 days, it's a mere invitation to sit together and talk with coldheadedness. I've got the privilege to experience talking with both side,
bitbollo and
Little Mouse and I have both screenshots from both parties. I can attest that if anyone receive 8 [give or take 1 and only 1] sceenshots from any of them both, you got the full transcript, no edit, no cut. And I can also attest to who approach the case with more level-headedness.
Same as above paragraph, no CM is immune from casino's sudden turn. AFAIK, they escrowed budget for x-weeks, when the fund runs out, they ask for more, and whether or not the campaign continues is heavily depends on the transfer. That, and only that. CM are dealing with marketing team of casinos, not security, not compliance, not the higher-floor decision makers. No CM is immune and/or clean from any casino who abruptly got message from their contact [who get it from their bigwigs] that they're retracting themselves from the forum, or they choose not to participate in case deescalation.
I can say a lot about LM and his contribution in helping me get acquainted with casinos that greatly help me solve cases amicably, but that will make me sound siding with him. And thus I refrained. The purpose of this thread is simply to cut off the repetitive portion of wall of text, by breaking them down, so it can be cleared and clarified and need not to be repeated over and over and others can navigate through the discussion more easily.
1With all above said, I will say next that I can understand
bitbollo's position. A breach of arrangement was made. He expected a case to be resolved within 24 hours, and it dragged to more than 7 days. I can't say that
Little Mouse is not at fault either. Rather deciding poorly. From the perspective of one who already read the entire conversation from both sides and thus can attest that the puzzle is complete and no hidden piece, best approach LM can do should be to reimburse bitbollo within 24 hours from his own pocket, after it is made known to him that he returned the escrow too soon, and redirect the reimbursement to his wallet.
What worth to mention, however, is that case deescalation need more than 24 hours in most cases [take it from someone who frequenting SA board]. And it is heavily influenced by the fact that --as previously established-- CM are in communication with marketing team instead of compliance or security or risk or other department. Bitbollo's case [read this carefully] is most likely escalated from marketing to compliance and/or to risk to be determined whether or not it bears its weight, and returned back to marketing from whichever department the case got escalated to, with a note that roughly said, "we find no issue with the account, this is for your department to decide, as it is about promotion"
And there goes why it took longer than 24 hours, and why it take longer than 7 days, and why it need a thread and three tags and two flags before repayment is made.
Simplified: it is not matter of scam or not scam [whether a participant is paid or not], rather the matter of timeframe that is too narrow to sort in between interdepartmental communication.
Edit: tidying up the post format.
