Topic: [LIST] Scam Accusation Cases Against Betting Platform on The Forum (Read 2175 times)

@HolyDarkness

The contractual relationship between victims and the illegal and criminal online casino operation Stake says that account verification is not compulsory!

Based on what law(s) are the 2 RuneScape players and the chat moderator authorized to demand personal documents from its victims when the victims ask to give the data they are entitled to get?

You still misunderstood my answer. Kindly read again so you can grasp what I conveyed.

But, if I may suggest a better thing for you to spend your time, rather than trying to throw muds, perhaps it's better to write that thread about your situation, so it can be finally added to the list like you wanted it to be? And the overseers can pitch in right after that. I think that can be considered as using your time more wisely than what you're doing right now, because... I don't think any of that mud will stick.

If any, IMO, it'll just lower your credibility on overseers' eyes when they read through your posts when they read your case as they saw you spending your time balling some muds and grasping straws to build the strawman.

My two cents.

I misunderstood your answer:


I understood you don't do dispute resolution, but now reading it again you said you don't do it in a way where your words bind them all.

So you believe as long as your words don't bind them all, it does not matter that you are not qualified.

I have to disagree, because handling a dispute mediation properly matters and this totally independent of whether or not your words bind them all.

A lot of victims put their hope into you and if their cases are not properly handled, it frustrates them even more!

From my point of view, you have lost any credibility with not adding Stake's provably rigged in-house games to your list!

You also confirmed that you are not qualified to handle Stake's provably rigged in-house games properly:

Again, as I already answered here, nothing. But --as I've also explained on that same post-- it shouldn't be of any concern since I did not do a binding dispute mediation. And again, I'll ask, you why are you wondering about it?

What qualifies you to do dispute mediation?

I experimented on this suggestion on one of Sportsbet's recent case [for no other reason than simply because it is the only case that got resolved during my sweep this week] of the casino v. accountdon.

What do you think about it?

I will really appreciate an honest and thorough feedback, like if you perhaps have a better suggestion on the name of the column [so far I named it "conclusion"; I am considering "verdict", but it sounds... uptight and court-like] or how the link to the resolution provided [so far, it's simply the number of the post on the thread where we can safely pull a conclusion to the case], or anything else.

As previously explained, the reason it is not added is extremely simple: because it's a post on other's thread instead of your own thread. They're posts, not a thread.

You have all the materials [as per your own statements] that you can just copy and paste [preferably with slight modification to make it readable and easier to understand at glance], and I will gladly add that to the list.

"I don't understand" the point of those complaints and the other ruckus behind your post when you can use those time to simply move all those data to a thread, then it'll be added to the list on my next sweep.

You claim that


and when I give you info (with proof) about a safety risk at Stake's in-house Black Jack, you find excuses to not add it.

So something is in contradiction to your announced purpose of this thread!

He is doing it volenteraly, and has been doing for a long time now.

He atleast tries to understand the user, and tries to help them; unlike some people who just shame the accuser just because they can.

You can see that someone opposed my flag just because “I seemed like I don’t care about money”. There are many other examples I can give.

Altough we had our differences and problems between us; I belive holydarkness is more than qualified; at least valid enough to do this job, given his long history.

Far as I know, nothing.

But that shouldn't be any concern since i didn't do dispute resolution between players and online casinos where my words bind them all. Why do you ask? Rather out of the blue, if I may add.

What qualifies you to do dispute resolution between players and online casinos?

You do need your own.

The entries on my list, column wise, consist of the name of the thread and the complainant. How do you propose me to write an entry about a post of yours, in someone else's thread?


Great, then there is no problem at all for you to create your own. You have got all you need. Just copy and paste them to your new thread. Otherwise, alternatively, you can start building your own thread of list, just like mine, only it works according to how you wished it. No one preventing you to create that thread.

My statistical data is presented in the thread Stake Originals: "PROVABLY FAIR" Statistical Evidence of Manipulation on the scam accusation board and there is no need to open my own thread.

You are aware about this thread:




The post contains all the relevant information:

1) A screenshot of my latest Stake statistics

2) Stake's advertised 0,5% house edge

3) The international recognized law of great numbers which determines the technically maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome

If someone does not have the mental capacity to understand the content in my post, they also will not be able to understand the content when presented within my own thread and on the scam accusation board.

Despite of this, informing about Stake's provably rigged in-house games in their own "Fair Gambling For All" thread, is the right place doing so.



The post contains a screenshot of my latest Stake statistics and I made more screenshots during the course of my play.

Stake did not dispute the numbers stated in my Stake statistics.

 

Holydarkness, your entire argument is like watching a dog chase its own tail—pointless and embarrassing. My post about peace and awareness had *nothing* to do with resolution; it was a reflection on the bigger picture of gambling’s impact. But sure, keep twisting it into some nonsensical attack. Maybe next time, try “owning” a better understanding of context before you lecture others. Or perhaps clarity isn’t your strong suit—just like neutrality isn’t.  



 

Convenient? Oh, absolutely—your so-called “in progress” status is the perfect tool to stall, mislead, and exhaust people into giving up on their cases. It’s not about scrutiny; it’s about playing defense for casinos while pretending to be neutral. The idea that unresolved accusations inconvenience your affiliates is laughable—it’s just another tactic to keep things ambiguous and protect their image while silencing critics. Your logic hasn’t just “left the brain”—it never existed in the first place.  



 

Holydarkness, your entire existence on this forum screams “casino apologist.” Do you really think playing dumb with “proof” requests fools anyone? Your bias is blatant—you go out of your way to defend casinos, downplay accusations, and discredit victims. Ignoring people doesn’t erase the truth; it just makes your intentions even clearer. If you truly wanted to disprove your allegiances, you’d have acted like a neutral party from the start. Instead, your behavior is proof enough.  



 

Ah, so you’re the casinos’ unpaid messenger boy now? Pestering them on Telegram day and night until they “fix” things? That’s rich. You’re trying to pass off your obsessive loyalty to casinos as “just doing your job,” but the mask is off. If you’re so “neutral,” why is every single move you make perfectly aligned with their interests? The more you try to defend yourself, the more you expose your role as their shield.  



Holydarkness, your entire act is a circus, and you’re the clown juggling excuses. No one’s buying your neutrality, and every word you write only digs your hole deeper. Maybe it’s time you stop pretending to be an arbiter of justice and admit what everyone already knows—you’re just another casino puppet trying to silence dissent.

Uhh... what?

Like I said, though I put you on ignore, I have to see your post every now and then [in case you're curious, the only reason I realized you wrote to me on this thread is because I read it from tetaeridanus' post] to mark the status of the cases accordingly. Was below post not yours? You did not write it?


You moving forward does not mean you consider the case resolved? That is not moving forward, that is staying where you are. You should say "I am standing firm with both of my feet", not that touching elegy. Learn to own your words.


What interests and benefits are these that you're referring here, if I may ask?

If a case inconvenience me or "my affiliates", the most convenient way is to mark it as "resolved", as it means the case is closed. Being "in progress" is the total opposite of what you accuse me of doing, since it means the case is still ongoing, open, being scrutinized, awaiting development, inquired, and all terms that encompass the sense of being... well, in progress. How is this convenience me and "my affiliates"? Having an accusation being active that can damage their reputation? SMH. Logic has left the brain.

And, to date, you [amongst others who share similar mindset as you] have failed to disprove this allegation. I invited you to prove that I "sustain" myself from the service that is not "for free", so far I didn't see you prove it. And that's me failing to disprove the allegation? What prove to disprove? You haven't provide any...

Oh well, or perhaps you've provide it somewhere, but I didn't notice, since I put you on ignore.

If so, kindly send me the link that post that detailing my allegiances with casinos, with proof, I'll try to disprove them once received.

---

And why should it be marked as unresolved? Because the case didn't end well from your side? If we may turn the situation, shouldn't the case be marked as "resolved", given they've gave you explanation, got it retried, gave you an even longer explanation that justify their action?

I am still with "in progress" due to what I show you on my last post on your thread. Depending on Razer's reply [or no reply], I'll wait for a month [suppose he stand firm with both of his feet] to see the general consensus of the DTs on your flag. And will mark the case according to their ruling. As I said, this thread is not authoritarian, it is not up to me to decide what status is on what case, nor the accuser's. It follows the forum's decision.

So, to make things simple, by January 31st, if the case is still open due to no-response from Razer, and your flag is active, which tell us that the DTs think you're the one being wronged here, I'll mark it as unresolved.

---

Thank you, it means a lot to me. Though... no flowers, please. Potted plants, alive, will be nice, LMAO.

Regarding the suggestion, I have to say that it crossed my mind a couple of times. I can see the merit of it, it'll bring a huge impact to understanding the case. But I am still doubtful about it because:

1. I've actually experimented with it in the past. What I had/have in mind was to have the status clickable, the status is the link itself. But that somehow will override the color-coding I assign to the cases and make them all hyperlink-blue. If I am not mistaken, there is [was?] a way to make hyperlink followed a color, but I somehow can't recreate this. [The fact that my knowledge about coding is as good as my cooking skill, certainly doesn't help]

2. On a latest occasion that offered itself to me, I assign a separate column assigned for notes, and I figure we can use this method if we want to apply that suggestion, but assigning extra column will make the table looks like this,



and it looks... bad. I have to mention that it's on tablet version, as I accessed this forum mostly on tablet and I barely on PC anymore these days, so I have not get a chance to look at it on PC version [looking at it with "desktop version" enabled from my browser will bring same result].

Do you mind to do me a favor and [if you happen to access the forum from PC] show me what does the table actually looks like from other member's screen?

edit: Oh? My bad. I checked the post after posting this one, as it turned out, I did not assign a new column for above screenshot, I simply add extra line to that column. I'll have to leave now, but let me see what will the table look like if I do add an extra column for notes and link to conclusion.

Selective Arbitration by Holydarkness Exposed:

Let’s not pretend here—Holydarkness is far from a neutral party. My allegation stands firm: he has a selective way of arbitrating scam threads that ultimately benefits him or aligns with his interests. The pattern is clear—threads or disputes that inconvenience him or his affiliates are conveniently “in progress” or brushed aside, while others that serve his narrative are handled promptly.

To date, he has failed to disprove this allegation, and the lack of transparency in his approach only reinforces it. If he’s truly impartial, he needs to address the double standards and provide clarity on his methods. Until then, his credibility remains under serious question.

Hello; yes like you said, I know that. However, he seems to mediate voluntarily in this topic. Which like you said, he deserves flowers . The problem is he left my topic, so I don’t know if he sees it. So I PM’d him, hoping for a return; and it’s been a while. Did I said support my flag? No. However if he is mediating these types of accusations, he should not disappear when there are all the evidence needed that shows an user is scammed. He is free to oppose it as well if he feels like it.

The situation is not in progress like shown, it’s over as unresolved. They dodged responsibility with a cheap mail; and are sipping their coffees now. Thanks, just thanks.

It is my very right to ask for support or opposition for my case. Which should be seen by everyone; what is done to me, will happen to others in the future.

Hi there @holydarkness

This is some excellent voluntary job you are doing here, and any member who wishes to have scams and scam accusations get clear off the crypto industry should be handing you some flowers already 

I have a suggestion. I am not sure if it's any easier, but let me mention it so that you can weigh it up.
Under status, especially for resolved or invalid cases, do you think it's a good idea to add a hyperlink showing where exactly the accusation was resolved or invalidated for easy follow up?

---

You PMed him. I believe you should wait for his response.  holydarkness did a great job creating this thread and like you said, he does not owe anyone since he is not a representative of any casino. There is no need to make him a fighting tool for any individual/casino or against any individual/casino.

He doesn’t owe you anything, calm down please.

---

Holydarkness, I have PM’d you.

Since you left my thread, what will be your update about this situation? My situation shouldn’t be “in progress” it should be unresolved.

Best regards.

I know it's your thread. But my issue with stake is not resolved. You should make changes asap.