Topic: LFC_bitcoin sending PMs to his friends to oppose flag and bribing DT inclusion - page 12. (Read 5768 times)

As you pointed above, there is a single thread of asking for supporting or opposing flags. That something good as a community. Community should be stand together to save the community member. I don't know what exactly LFC sent to some users but if he had sent PM to influence the flag, not as he said to look over, that's something not good. Anyway, I don't think a respected user like LFC could be spamming other inbox and try to influence them to oppose the flag.
Why not we make a request to share the PM by Bitcoingirl.club, @sidechain? I think you should PM him to share the PM if you think LFC was trying to censor anything here.

Why make it private while we already have an open thread for asking support or oppose a flag? Why to some selective friends but not to general to everyone?

Can we ask LFC_bitcoin, BitcoinGirl to share the message, BitcoinGirl already talked about receiving PM and LFC_bitcoin admitted of sending PMs to some users.
We are interested to know what was in there that bought oppose to the flag from people who had no contribution in the topic but opposed the flag? We want to be sure that LFC_bitcoin did not tell them anything that create an alert but "take a look at the flag".

Or we just believe LFC_bitcoin and BitcoinGirl that LFC_bitcoin said, "take a look at the flag" like we believe that SP is a highly reputed sportsbet and they will not scam anyone. This will be ironic.

I'm not talking about "methods". Asking to oppose or support a flag is not a problem, be it a thread or a PM, as long as it doesn't break other rules - like spamming. Refusing to do so is also fine, as we can see in BitcoinGirl's response. You're trying to create new rules that don't make any sense. We do need more DT members and other users to weigh in on disputes like that, not less.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5486/54869057.html
How it is nonsense?

The two methods are not looking same.

Not perfectly fine because he was asking to oppose the flag. Read the response his Wall Observer friend which he cut off.
Why he cut off something if there were no reason?

A user with no record of feedback activity but only one sent to SB and member rank with no interest in the forum who has not made any reputation is very close to newbie account, even if that was a Full member account.

You did not think but caught red handed.

> Feedback left on July 23 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54873718
> 7/24/2020 9:34:05 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 trusts rohang DT2
> July 26, 2020, 11:47:25 AM https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54873718
> 7/26/2020 1:54:07 PM   DT2 selection   LFC_Bitcoin DT1 no longer trusts rohang
https://bpip.org/TrustLog

Your arguments are very fake.
> You sent PM to your friends and asked to oppose a flag to save your employer
> You added users with no history to your trust list so that their feedback show as DT and reflects on the flag opposition

Clear?

Surprised to know your level of intellectual and defending methods but Good laugh LAMO

I see your being humiliated here not efialtis.

I do not think he will. He proved he has very low level of IQ and a pathetic liar. Better ask BitcoinGirl. I hope he will co-operate, he immediately addressed his mistake and apologized to efialtis.

Except he asked to oppose the flag to save his employer again please see the response from his friend which he cut off. I am sure that will be an issue for you. Thank you for your input.

I am very sure that LFC_bitcoin is a liar and lying:

Can you ask BitcoinGirl, El duderino_ and others those oppose the flag and working for SP and Bitcasino?

This is not obvious to me, and if this is true, I would have viewed statements by several people in both threads very differently.

It appears those who are defending SP the loudest are being paid by one of these two websites (it may be more if anyone commenting have sock puppets receiving payment), including one person who is making the nonsensical argument that what SB did amounts to “declining to do business” with someone they had accepted bets from.

I get that the economy is not good right now, but if you are advertising for a company who is engaging in shady behavior, the right thing to do is to stop advertising for said company, not to shill for the company.

Since I've been tagged by OP I'll chime in, but I am not going to get sucked in to the back and forth drama.

---

In terms of the actual case:

There was a similar case a few weeks ago with bitcasino.io, where a user was not allowed to withdraw his winnings, and bitcasino.io stated that the user was using multiple accounts. They clearly spelt out their reasoning behind this statement in this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54754514. They also said something quite relevant to this case:


Given that Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io are owned by the same company, I see no reason why one arm would be willing to spell out how they came to a match, while the other says they cannot expose their methodology.

As far as I am concerned, although I do not believe Sportsbet.io are scammers in this situation based on the evidence presented so far, it does not paint them in a good light that they are unwilling to offer any proof for their side of the story.

---

In terms of LFC_Bitcoin:

I did not receive any PM, and I have not seen its contents, but from what I can surmise based on this thread, then I have no issue with it.

Given what theymos has said here, coupled with the fact that theymos himself sent out PMs asking other users to exclude a user from their trust lists, I see no issue with sending a PM asking other users to review a flag.

With all due respect I really don't see any indications that you are. It's quite easy to envision a scenario where they don't want to reveal exactly how they determined the player was multi-accounting, because if they did then scammers would realize "Oh, they look for those kind of things, I'll have to find a way around this."

The KYC ID process is likely tied into this, but there's a small chance that its not. I think it would be great if Sportsbet wanted to expand on their findings and clarify the situation here, but even if they don't, I'm not going to be supporting any flags against them based on this issue.


They do hundreds of millions of dollars of business every year and have been at it for four years -- they are as "real world" as they come. Their business isn't exactly hurting, either.


Of course, and they did. In my very first post on this issue I mentioned that perhaps it was a false positive and that no sportsbook is perfect in that regard. However, what it boils down to is we don't really know one way or the other, and if you want to take a newbie account's word over theirs on the issue, well, that's up to you. Just don't expect others to follow suit. If suddenly a bunch of similar complaints started appearing in the future, perhaps I'd be more inclined to think otherwise.

So what now?

If the author of the flag made a mistake in choosing type 3, and can't change it to type 2, he should give up any chance of flagging an account?



@OP why not just create a flag 2 type, I think the one thing most people agree here is that it is the best suited to describe the issue faced.

---

What about telling why or how he failed KYC? Don't think this would give away any of their 'secret sauce'.

And regarding multi-accounting as a whole, it's not that difficult lol, I doubt you need any secret sauce to have an effective system that flags suspected accounts (and I'm talking from experience here).

Not saying it makes them shady, but they really look nosy and look pretty sure that they can treat customers however they want without any consequence. In the real world this is how you loose market shares/customers.
Looks like we didn't reach that business maturity yet, and that's why they don't give a shit.

So just imagine a moment their "black box" or "secret sauce" or however you call it tags you falsely for multi accounting, and gives them ground to refuses payment of a few thousand bucks, wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself on the matter in a civilized manner? I would. And that's why I'm concerned.

If the accuser is just another lamer/scammer, just show it. It's not that difficult ffs.

Then again if the accuser actually knew he was in the wrong, I don't see why he would stir shit up and not just accept the repayment from SP.

Today the ball (if you will) is in SP's court. And I would really want them to put an end to that story, one way or the other!

But really, the "non verifiable excuses from the accused" are a big part of why I can't support the flag.

- You have the OP who claims he submitted proper KYC and has no other accounts.

- You have Sportsbet who claims he didn't submit proper KYC, and he does have other accounts.

Sportsbet doesn't want to give away the recipe of their secret sauce for how they detect multi-accounting, not because they are shady a-holes but because if they did it would be all the easier for future cheaters to avoid getting caught.

Now, some people may just think that's an excuse to not have to pay out the BTC in question, but I think that if they had any doubt in their mind they could be wrong about what happened, they would just pay it out as its a trivial amount for them.

Then you have people coming in left and right trying to stir up a big drama for whatever reason among the DT, which isn't cool. Accusations of vote manipulation and so forth won't lead to a resolution, as our feeble system of democracy is the only thing we've got..

Just don't play at Sportsbet if you don't trust them: problem solved. Fighting hard to activate what could very well be an unjust flag (given Sportbet's longstanding reputation) isn't a viable solution. What the vocal proponents of the flag think they are doing "for the greater good" might not necessarily be so, and not everybody has to share their opinion.

Not much more to say on the situation until new info comes to light.

Piss off with your retarded tone complaint. As I stated multiple times already, I think the accuser is full of shit but if they wanted to fix the flag there was nothing stopping them.

So, it's looks OK for the so called "emotionally driven DT" to ignore the selective KYC scamming and non verifiable excuses from the accused mergly because the victim is abided by bullshit TOS or even as you said due to a mistake in selecting a correct type of flag.

You are just making the situation more complex by making the victim look confused, rather you could have just instructed him to do the right thing in the first place as Royse777 tried to.

I think the accuser is lying. I can't knowingly support a flag based on a lie, regardless how I feel about the fairness of T&Cs and whatnot. Two wrongs and all that.

Ah! mindrust!!

So sportsbet.io decided to give him THE difference between the deposits and withdrawals not the whole. I hope there will be no question about correcting it now.

Cheers,

Multi-accouting, KYC not passed all these full of shit.

How is OP full of shit can you explain?

It is confirmed by the OP and sportsbet.io both, that he is not allowed to withdraw his winnings. Isn't that enough?

edit: you can support or oppose the flag for any reason. I don't oppose or support it neither. I am just wondering your thought process.

edit2: by his winnings, I meant his WINNINGS. I believe that's the correct term.

His deposits = d
His withdrawals = x
His winnings = w

The whole neymarJR  = d + w.

What sportsbet agreed to give is:

d-x

What the OP wants is:

(d-x) + w

Problem?

I think the text of the flag banner is the same for type 2, 3, and "legacy" negative rating.

I meant not merely a [suspected, alleged, etc] scam (that'd be type 1 flag or negative rating). For type 3 there needs to be a violation of a written contract that resulted in damages. There, now we're ready to join the guild.


Ok with what? I wouldn't support the flag regardless of its type because I think the accuser is full of shit. But that's just my opinion. It's likely that the flag would get more support if it was type 2 and if the accuser got their basic facts right (like the amount of the dispute).


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/loycevs-beginners-guide-to-correct-use-of-the-trust-system-5191802 (sadly incomplete regarding flags)

---

---

(two HRs so that folks above don't take the following personally)

I'm mildly appalled that merely pointing out the basic faults in this is causing so much controversy but that's par for the course with this kindergarten DT driven by toddler emotions.

Another thing I need to point out is all those bitching about Sportsbet's T&Cs can go ahead and red trust them or create a type 1 flag. You don't need a specific complaint for that. If you think that dealing with Sportsbet is high-risk it would be a responsible thing to do.

No disrespect but I think we need someone to create some Udemy type course about flag things :-P

/s

So the whole problem here was only the type of the flag?

Are you OK with it if the flag type was right?

I was the one who suggested neymarjr12 to create a flag type 3. Now it seems I misguided him, if it really matters the flag type 2 is valid over flag type 3. I will keep my support on the flag type 3 until there is a flag type 2.

This is not my case nor LFC_Bitcoin's. This is a case between neymarjr12 and sportsbet.io but some reasoning I see here which are convincing for me to ask for more details that was done in PM because it is relevant in this case and LFC_Bitcoin should not have any reason to hide anything if he has really nothing there that can question him.

I am sure they would or will but looking at the easy opposing from the members who opposed the flag so far, and seeing LFC_Bitcoin to add a newbie member account in his trust list which pointed by marlboroza makes this case very uncomfortable for LFC_Bitcoin.

---

I hope now you will not come up with this that everyone is free to add/remove anyone in their trust list. I already know this that yes one can.

To be fair, the Type 3 flag does trigger this language in the warning that hangs over the user's threads:


With the implied scam being that referenced in the flag's reference thread.

Don't mean to get all TS on you.

I'm pointing out a potential reason why the flag is lacking support.


Livecoin flag is type 2.


Type 3 flag is not about "a scam", it's about a violation of a written contract.