Topic: For the reputation of this forum: you HAVE to rule on this flag! Share 10mBTC (Read 1195 times)

Such incentive shouldn't be allowed even if this is for fun. It encourage the trolls to use the system in their favour. A troll load with money will make the next offer which will be irresistible for some users. They can always rephrase their feedback but troll gets that he wanted. Feedback shouldn't be used for financial benefits or any kind of personal benefit.

Thks for participating in this thread. I agree that the trust system is not really about trust, it's just a marketing tool, destined to give exposure to the organisations sponsoring this forum. Unfortunately, a lot of them are scams, and I fell for one of those that is FortuneJack.
That's why I'm also using this "trust system" to try to show to others what it is really about, but that has limited exposure of course because most users of this forum won't read it and are exposed to scams.



Hahaha good one, I wouldn't have read that if it was not for you.

The negative trust on paperwallet here is bullshit..

He didn’t pay for any specific outcome or votes, he only said he would pay/raffle for participation..

Why? I can imagine because most are afraid to step up and criticize fortunejack, because fortunejack is the money tree, the hand that feeds many sig posters..

And with its campaign manager, completely biased, running around giving negative trust to users for criticizing fortunejack!!
(What a shitshow of trust enforced censorship, hamputz)

With such extreme and obvious conflict of interest, how brazen does one have to be to even contemplate such?
Well, it may not be hard to become inflated when so many line up to kiss the Sir’s feet..



How dare anyone speak against fortunejack!!!


Paper wallets ratings are a mess too though, so lol y’all have fun..

Both sides are jackasses..
One didn’t read the bullshit terms he agreed to, while the other makes users agree to bullshit terms that nobody ever reads..


Iirc a while back a newer casino got red trusted for not putting limits on the bets placed to keep them under max payout if they win..
Got red trust for allowing users to make higher bets than they could win back..

But no..
This casino allows you to place bets that you won’t even get max bet back on.. They just delete your bet if you win and refund your bet amount..
I wonder how many lost bets they just keep instead of refunding if they won..

I don’t personally care..
If you don’t read the terms and/or do the math yourself.. Sucks to be you..
Nor do I like casinos either..

In the gambling world, they are only concerned with two rules that benefit them;

1. Minimum stake; they tell you the amount they are willing to accept from you, implying that they are only interested in users who can throw some decent $ to the company; it's rated 18 years and up, implying that every adult should know how much they are willing to lose; they didn't have to preach that on their page.

2. Maximum payout; for example, FJ's maximum payout is €300,000, which is what the company can afford to lose on a single bet; if your winnings exceeded that amount, the bet would be void, but they don't care if you lose €300,000 on a single bet.

Gambling is not for the weak. I started in 2009 and never had issues with any gambling site because I always play within the rules.

OK, so I just saw this thread, and while some of you may know from previous threads my dislike of certain parts of FJ's TOS, let's come back to earth for a moment.

1) Sure, what was lost is lost, but why gamble with 105K euros in the first place? Everyone knows that route won't give a large profit, so why take the risk? Especially on some random casino, for goodwill. [Yes I called FJ a random casino for the same reason I'd call nearly every other crypto casino random, as most people have not heard of them like Bet365 and Bwin for example.]

2) Casinos in general should not be allowing people to wager more than $10K at one because of negative emotions attached to gambling loss. Some of them already have such a wager ceiling - I don't know if FJ does but they shouldn't be allowing players to be reckless with their money, and that goes for similar casinos without a ceiling as well.

I don't understand how you even come to this conclusion. Like, I've tried to rationise it and the only thing am getting is you trying to question Hhampuz's reputation based on some user that was involved in the promotion of 1xbit. That's pathetic if you ask me and it doesn't make sense.

You seem to have complete disregard for terms, especially where it states that, the manager and project team has the right to add and remove anyone at anytime or to do as they wish with there campaign. Some this rules states that, the feedback could be regarded as legitimate or not. Try to get the logic behind these things and know that, it doesn't appeals to everyone at every point.

Imagine, 1xbit is said to be a known scam but still, users gamble on them! Do we call these users scammers too? What we do out here is subjective.

The issue with projects turning out to be scams is mostly, when you can't withdraw or they hold on to your deposit. Yours is different, your illegitimate bets that broke there T&C was cancelled, the stake on them refunded and the one that was legitimate was paid and I believe, you've withdrawn as due. The only cause for alarm here is there waiting until you won otherwise, you won't have raised a flag.

Next time, try different predictions and you won't have an issue. I like the fact that you could go huge and win. That's some courage a lot of gamblers lack and to be on point with your bet.

Payout is done, 10 mBTC were divided among 7 participants using BTC address on profile.
Bambolina: no BTC address
Blossom15
cruso
examplens
GazetaBitcoin
igehhh
LEVSKI7: no BTC address
Marvelman
Sterbens: no BTC address
yogg

As said, those opposed received some cursed coins, so you are allowed to send them back if you want to.

I wish you the best of luck.

Wait a bit, it was for 1st of June. You’re not that smart to bully me into this am doing this by myself. Don’t spend your day refreshing your BTC wallet though:) I know you’re cheaper than that but still.

Promises, promises.


Ooooh, so you're an intellectual?  An intellectual who believes in curses?  Do you cast spells, also?


Lol, how pathetic.  Just save your cursed coins, nobody want's them anyway.

---

You got your money back, but you didn't get to play fast and loose with their casino.  That's not a scam.  As it is, I think it's been made pretty obvious that nobody (with any clout) supports your allegations.

Of course, this is the problem. If your best reputable members like Hhampuz do campaign managing for this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/alt-of-1xbit-please-dont-promote-1xbit-1xbit-is-a-scam-site-5400099

Then this forum is nothing short of a scam promoter, among other things. Lots of things about trust system and how things work are opaque and some sort of an evil group cannot make a living other than promoting scammers.

In my opinion, it is all about terms. If there were no such clause in the T&C, this would be a completely different story and the community would recognize it. Take the 1xBit scam, for example. And it is my opinion that you were familiar with their terms before you placed those bets. Why else would you place several identical similar bets instead of one?

Again, I understand your frustration, but the casino did not scam you. True, they voided your bets in an odd and clumsy way, but they were enforcing the terms you agreed to beforehand.

---

[edit]
I am not superstitious and your words don't mean anything to me, but your attitude tells me that you aren't a man of your word. This fact alone sheds some new light on the matter...
I offered my honest opinion. You can disagree with it, I understand that. But calling someone dishonest about it and cursing coins is not okay. If you don't want to send coins, don't. That's all there is to it.

The participation is closed. The participants are:

Bambolina
Blossom15
cruso
examplens (cursed)
GazetaBitcoin (cursed)
igehhh (cursed)
LEVSKI7
Marvelman (cursed)
Sterbens (cursed)
yogg (cursed)


A perfect 10, as I predicted, so less work. Wait for 1 mBTC to reach your wallet by the 1st of June.

You are allowed to return it back to same wallet it came from, if you don’t want my second prediction above to come true.

It’s not about the terms per se. It’s about people here sponsoring scams, they are so used to “gotcha it’s in the terms”. But this is still not the case here. I know Fortunejack is writing their terms to sometimes defraud their users but they’re bad even at this. It’s just that the dishonest people here don’t even bother to read, when they hear the word “terms and conditions” that’s a free pass for their sponsored scammer.

I think this is a fair question. I don't understand much about casino software, but would it be such a big deal to disable bets that violate T&C rules before they are placed? If the casino accepts the bet and "shakes hands" with the player, isn't that some kind of agreement between the casino and the player that should be honored to the end? What would have happened if the bets had lost? Why did they voided the bets only after the match was over and the result was in the players' favor?

Clearly there are many issues here, and I understand the OP's frustration, but unfortunately I can't support the flag because of the casino's T&Cs. Also, because the T&Cs are set against the players, I am sure that courts would rule in favor of the player in this case. The laws in most jurisdictions protects consumers against misleading practices, and and I believe this is one such situation. When there is a conflict between internal T&Cs and the law, the law always trumps the terms set by the casino.

This is by far an interesting case and even now, I still continue to read through just to be more familiar with it. It's such a huge amount to lose du to T&C. I must commend you to have been able to come by such prediction and still got to make such huge stakes on them. Its only regrettable as they aren't valid due to the terms stated.

One thing we ought to understand is, these terms offers some regulations to what could stay them (sportsbook and casinos) in business. We shouldn't expect them not putting a limit to what is accepted as minimum or maximum stake per bet and what could be the maximum or minimum for payouts. I'm sure if this isn't included and such case comes up without them honouring the wins, we would query them just as we do now.
One truth to T&C is, when it doesn't suit you, you get to find another sportsbook or casino that gives you the free hand you need and bet with them. If these T&C have been in existence far before the issue arose, then it could be considered as binding.

What I don't seem to understand on the part of Fortunejack.com is:

Why accept a bet if it already violates your T&C?
Perhaps duplicate bets might not be duly moderated but its a different story on the part of wins. A smart contract could have not allowed the bets to be placed. Perhaps they needs to be an update on the system to prohibit that outrightly.
That would help to avoid instances like this!

In the end, terms are terms and they do apply very much as much as they've been stated before hand and I don't see why the shouldn't in this case. As much as this might mean nothing, I just share in your lose as, its a significant one indeed and the bets placed where one that came out of some accurate prediction and the guts to go huge on them. Sorry mate, it's happening!

I love these Sr members with 260 posts and as that much merit.

Wow, you’re such a phenom and am 100% certain there is no cheating in this (as well as members who get the FortuneJack banner, somehow became all hero members and were bragging about it)

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents. Some of his reputations counts for Fortunejack.com too and they are a one of the reputable company on the forum given the fact that, they haven't given any cause to be alarmed until now.

I practically read through your case and examined the proof you provided which were rock solid based on placing of bets but, when it comes to the terms for which these services where offered, you erred at OP and that simple neglect is what brought a cancellation upon your preceeding bets and wins.

I mean, I can't blame you, no I won't! Not many of us if any at all gives attention to terms & conditions to services rendered and you can tell that sometimes these T&C that are meant to guide us could also trap us and favour the company once you neglect them. Being ignorant of them becomes your first offence and to amend for that, most companies have relatively similar T&C so, you just have to grasps the bases and relate to all.

To be sure of your flag in this case at OP, I had to go over some of the T&C of Fortunejack.com and as you can see, an issue like this one is addressed right there in the T&C, last updated on November 05, 2019. Far before this event took place. I'll quote the portion that matters right here and ink it in red.
Link to Fortunejack.com sportsbook T&C

On this, Fortunejack.com is at right. What you ought to realise at OP is, bets comes into cognisance most times when it's a big win. There isn't a smart contract working that out without a human authorisation which comes after some scrutiny. That could account to why your bet wasn't cancelled when it was placed and only after winning. The better question here is:

Would that have been the case in the event of a lose?

Perhaps you can find that out when you loose to same betting pattern! Maybe you could fight them with this terms then. Else at the moment and with the presented facts, Fortunejack.com is at right and have paid you as due. Fortunejack.com is not a scam platform.

You don’t need this 1mBTC for your curse, you’ve just earned it, but if you want that as well no problem. That was destined for Loyce you don’t have the intellectual level to jump in this anyway.

---

Less than 24h left to participate! Hurry up!

This was an interesting experiment. If I'm not mistaken, the first of its kind on this forum. However, it appears that there are not many forum members who are interested in the offer. In a way, I actually like that.

As for support (or opposition) for the flag, I will make my decision after taking a closer look at the entire case (and once the deadline for participation in the "experiment" expires). No offense, OP. Even though you may have had good intentions, I do not agree with your execution.