I think my long written explanation of the issue at hand clearly addresses you point:
(And I quote: For anything regarding lossback bonuses from VIP hosts, I concede as the public platform worked flawlessly for the aggravating party into further disseminating more hopelessly incorrect assumptions and accusations into the initial issue. It was fairly simple, but I guess not, and in the spirit of removing clutter and unnecessary issues from the matter at hand, i no longer have any further comment on LOSSBACK VIP HOST ISSUES.)
So as I can see, you clearly inflame participants of issues being challenged on this forum as a tactic to discredit. So I'll give you one more opportunity to explain how the above statement doesn't explicitly address your attempt to create an issue out of something that I no longer challenge?
Btw, whether you had anything to do with it or not (My guess is the continuing exposure I gave to the issue on any and all platforms frequented by BC.Game employees and/or consultants) this issue has finally been resolved, and since you're more concerned with stirring the pot rather than clamoring to take credit for the resolution of this topic, I'd like to thank BC.Game for finally issuing said bonus, and ask holydarkness to perhaps focus more on resolution rather than public relations.
Thank you bitcointalk.org for facilitating yet another solution for the little guys.
BTW, evidence for the expected smear campaign:
(Since I don't want any complaints about resolution size digressing from the important fact of issue resolution.)
(And I quote: For anything regarding lossback bonuses from VIP hosts, I concede as the public platform worked flawlessly for the aggravating party into further disseminating more hopelessly incorrect assumptions and accusations into the initial issue. It was fairly simple, but I guess not, and in the spirit of removing clutter and unnecessary issues from the matter at hand, i no longer have any further comment on LOSSBACK VIP HOST ISSUES.)
So as I can see, you clearly inflame participants of issues being challenged on this forum as a tactic to discredit. So I'll give you one more opportunity to explain how the above statement doesn't explicitly address your attempt to create an issue out of something that I no longer challenge?
Btw, whether you had anything to do with it or not (My guess is the continuing exposure I gave to the issue on any and all platforms frequented by BC.Game employees and/or consultants) this issue has finally been resolved, and since you're more concerned with stirring the pot rather than clamoring to take credit for the resolution of this topic, I'd like to thank BC.Game for finally issuing said bonus, and ask holydarkness to perhaps focus more on resolution rather than public relations.
Thank you bitcointalk.org for facilitating yet another solution for the little guys.
BTW, evidence for the expected smear campaign:
(Since I don't want any complaints about resolution size digressing from the important fact of issue resolution.)
[Reuploading the image to talkimg]
Ohh, this is rich.
I tried to understand your situation and get a clear answer [something like "yes, it's explicitly mentioned" or a "no, I just assume it'll be USD 200, given the first-and-second and third was 100 and 50"] of which after I get a confirmation that the host made a mistake [assuming the answer is a "yes" in any kind of form, completely disregarding whether it's the host issue, but rather whether BC still owed you certain amount or not] I'll try to get in touch with my BC contact and get the amount due paid.
Yes, the situation will be simple if you gave me that short answer. Instead, we got a wall of text, that barely address the question in a straight or clear answer, rather a way to --I realize now-- say "no, it's not explicitly stated, I made a mistake of assuming". And now I am inflaming the situation and stirring pot to take credit of having your situation resolved without actually trying to resolve it [and me focusing on a public relation]? I literally jotted your name on my to-do list, to remind me to reach my contact upon confirmation, and this is me inflaming and discrediting you? LOL. As I said, rich.
I asked you three times [that I can count of] to give an answer that can help us clearly assess the situation, and three times no definitive answer was given. To make it clear and to let whatever stirred in the pot stilled and settled, what I wanted to know is whether certain amount promised to you or not, of which, if it is, I'll hunt my BC contact to get them pay it. That's me stirring the pot?
Okay, noted and added for future reference.
And oh, no, fret not, let me ease you out of your last concern, I'll publicly state it: this resolution has nothing to do with me. This case got resolved by BC's internal team without my influence at all.
There, I guess all of your issue on this thread is resolved now. I see that you've mark the thread's title, lock this to prevent any meaningless discussion.
