I think game-protect should clearly be banned, he just spews a ridiculous amount of bullshit to drum up his crappy site that does nothing other than ask people to sign up with his referral links. Almost all his posts are just shilling it, or directly linking to it.
While I don't necessarily agree with, I don't think JollyGood should be banned though. Definitely having and bumping 4 different threads complaining about betking though shouldn't be allowed, and they should be merged or 3 of them locked or something.
I agree with your general point though, the quality of the forum is really going to shit. Partly due to unchecked spamming by people like game-protect, and partly by the huge amount of low-quality posts people are (literally!) paid to make as part of their sig/avatar campaigns.
Thank you for your post.
Well, I have asked Dean Nolan several times to answer some questions to explain why he failed to live up to the whitepaper proposals even though more than $6.5 million was raised in the ICO. When he deleted my post in his self-moderated thread I maybe got twitchy and decided to make the posts. It is too early to say whether in hindsight I would do it again or not.
The irony of what you wrote about users getting paid for avatars/campaigns is related directly when Betking had its ICO in 2017 I was warning people the ICO was a scam because of the way the Betking tokens were being pushed and all the misleading information Dean Nolan the owner of Betking provided in order to dupe investors.
It was those very same users getting paid for avatars/campaigns by none other than Dean Nolan and Betking that were posting in droves to drown out the voices of reason alerting users to be careful. Dean Nolan and his beloved Betking cannot have it both ways. The most Dean Nolan and Betking managed to do was to lock the Betking thead and re-open another self-moderate done.
Dean Nolan should be explaining his actions to investors and also any other person that wants to know why he failed to fulfill the whitepaper proposals and how he will rectify the situation partially refunding or fully reimbursing investors. People invested on whitepaper promises, not lies and scams.
When Dean Nolan sent me a PM implying Stake paid me to post against him I took a screenshot and sent to the Stake team. Dean Nolan tried to wriggle out of it by saying to the Stake team "
I assume he was paid by another site". Everybody knows Dean Nolan is a spoiled jealous prat but the Stake team kindly turned a blind eye even though if Dean Nolan had his way he would want all gambling sites wiped out so he could have a monopoly. The Stake team are great, Dean Nolan should take a leaf out of their book:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45280777This is what I have been trying to ask Dean Nolan but he declines to answer. I am not too concerned about the Betking website regarding the way users place bets or deposit/withdraw crypto. I am asking him to explain various things regarding the ICO set up and the siphoning of funds under false guises:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45824718@Dean Nolan (Betking)
There is a list of questions for you to answer, would you please be kind enough to answer them?
If yes, please do not post URLs to previous posts. Just simple questions will be put forward and we hope simple answers will be given for all to see. That way several things can be cleared up and clarified.
If no, then kindly explain why you declined to answer simple questions regarding Betking Tokens, Betking ICO and Betking in general.
Would you please consider it? By the way, we are in October 2018 now but Dean Nolan has his beloved Betking website still shows © 2013-2017 even though betking.io was registered in 2015. Dean Nolan is making no mention of the Betking predecessor called PocketRocketsCasino which was around in 2013 but it is normal for Dean Nolan to stretch things when he wants.
Time to pay your coder to change the "2017" to "2018" and then pay your coder again to update it on new years day