Disregarding their ridiculous accusation that OP send DDoS attack to their server [of which CG also can't find anything tying OP to the attack], the arbitrator decided that given there was a pop up upon registration [I am not sure what the pop up say as I haven't try them myself], OP should have been warned about the predicament that'll fall upon him by having another account.
Honoring CG's decision, I am marking this one as resolved.
[Image snip]
Thanks for updating us!
This only lower the credibility of CG in my opinion.
I'd like to think that CG's credibility is still high. There are instances they go to a length to resolve a case. One that easily come from the top of my head was that they [I think that it was under unofficial capacity, through the initiative of the employee themselves] made an account here just to further explain things surrounding the case to a player.
If any, the disadvantage of arbitrator like CG or AG is that one case got reviewed by one individual and one individual only, where the chance of an oversight is rather big compared to when a case being reviewed by several eyes, each questions and scrutinize on several different aspects.
The better question will be whether that pop-up already set in place when OP made his second account, or is that an additional feature made only recently by betcrypto to help them with their narrative. I don't think anyone happen to have an archived version or a screenshot of their page displaying that pop-up message in the past, so it's hard to proof from when did that pop-up really being implemented.
No matter what CG is saying but I will call a spade a spade.
Because a credible casino will need many factors to identify and confirm a multi-acc. Upon sign-up, best they can get is IP address and device fingerprints that open to false-positive, not to mention cases where an abuser tries to mask their cheating attempt by using different device and IP. With the progress of the player, connection between an older account and the new ones will be more obvious and the risk of wrong detection [though not completely eliminated] can be somewhat minimized.
An arbitrator is only as good as his last ruling. This one was wrong whether it came from the top or bottom of CG. Previous cases don't have anything to do with this case and should be ignored.