This post is made in response --and in a way, act as a reply-- toward
Coinbox1 edited post
here
[...]
Throughout this entire thread, we discussed with Mr. holydarkness about this case for days. Initially we thought he might just want to act as an unbiased arbitrator, but later we realized that he’s been deliberately misinterpreting our statements and attempted to put words in our mouth, and he has done it for 3 times in this single thread. Fearing such misinformation techniques might mislead the audience, we decide to make these public.
I LOLed. Is this your MO? When you feel attacked and cornered, you sneak past people and edited the first post --where anyone who follows the case closely would likely missed that edit-- and twisting words? Or were you... *checking my note of borrowed words from you* just a very bad reader? Or a bad marketer, in your case. Snipping sentences and statement is not an ethical practice, darling.
Here, let me help you again, just like your previous practice on marketing campaign on the neighboring thread. Like before, the full sentence which contain a completely different meaning than what you tried to convey to the readers will be marked in italic, with key points marked in red.
The 1st time: he asked us about a clause in our T&C.
For Coinbox1, I don't think I understand the situation correctly, so please enlighten us. First, was OP's account banned because of the reason he mentioned on the quoted email --the unfair advantage-- or because they're yet to fulfill the KYC TnC?
Second, I'll assume for now that the quoted text from OP is legit and originated from your email to them, as below,[...]
* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport/esport
[...]
Were you saying that an educated guess in your sportsbetting is not allowed? Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?
We then explained it in details to him:
Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?
(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here) Most definitely not. "personal involvement" here typically means
- the player himself or herself and individuals who are connected to the player and therefore have access to the internal info, or even able to influence the outcome of the game;
- personal presence on the field of play during the game;
18.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport or using the late bets strategy;However this clause would most likely be triggered if you were in discussion with your old pal who is inside the team and paid him to access information that most people don't know about. The same applies if your old pal pays you to bet with his internal info. Unfortunately, crypto sports books like ours attract insider betting these days.
This is me trying to understand the situation, addressing both parties and see if I can get the feel of the situation. You gave several points of possible reason behind OP's ban, and as I am not familiar with your terms, I asked. The context of the post will be crystal clear if you didn't snip it out wherever you like.
He then claim we confirmed that OP was breaking that clause:
Thank you for the link, I've actually read and familiarize myself with them before writing my post. And although it is true that by the TnC your user are agreeing on a clause where they have to submit KYC if needed, your explanation did not exactly answered my question. But if I may infer from your seemingly deliberate vague answer, you banned their account because they had suspicious behavior --i.e. insider info-- and thus you feel you need to check their ID? Then why did your team still froze OP's account although they already offered to complete KYC?
This is simply not true. No where in our statement says it was the clause of the ban. The explanation was addresses to him for his question. Plus, in fact, we had explicitly written there that the explanation is not directly related to the case of this thread.
(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here)
We didn’t understand how he could make the mistake, and thought he might be just a very bad reader. We had to respectfully correct him:
I am afraid there is a major misunderstanding here. As I previously stated:
(Note: This is not related to this case in discussion here)
So when I discussed about insider info above, I was simply answering your question about the T&C clause related to insider info.
Such explanation has no direct relevance to the OP's case, or any specific cases. It was just to explain the clause.
This is where I LOLed. Like, really laughed, not just snorting air out of my nose for funny things kinda way, a full blown laugh. I can't really decide if you attempting a smear campaign --which is an extremely detrimental for a trusted casino platform-- a really poor reader, or simply just childish and so hell bent on revenge --for what exactly does the revenge serves, I am clueless-- that you use everything you can to get to it, or if I may re-use my repeated terms while attending your cases, "grasping at straws".
I clearly asked, the statement in that sentence --if you didn't snip it out to work into your favor-- is preceded by "if I may infer" and followed by a question mark. It indicates a question, not a statement. Which then you explained as below, and I replied nicely; in italic, you deleted that part because it didn't work in your favor, again.
But that didn't stop him from misinterpreting things. The 2nd time was when he he claimed our Customer Support mentioning 1 clause means that’s the cause of the ban.
Ahh, I see. Yes, I'll openly admit that there is a major misunderstanding from my side. The way your team explained to OP on email suggested that their account is banned due to insider info --why else would you mention this point on email if that is not the reason or related at any degree to their account freezing-- and I take that it's far from it, then? OP's account is not suspected of insider info?
In doing this, he completely ignored that fact that our Customer Support mentioned 3 clauses in the email, which all could be the cause:
We regret to inform you that your TrustDice account has been banned and the withdrawal funds were confiscated, this decision was taken according to the following terms and conditions.
18.1. Without restricting our ability to rely on other remedies that may be available to us, we may suspend and/or terminate your account, cancel any outstanding bets and/or confiscate any or all funds in your account at our absolute discretion if:
* we determine that you are acting in a manner that is detrimental to the conduct of our business;
* We determine that you are using TrustDice.win in a manner that gives you an unfair advantage, for example making bets on insight or professional knowledge about a sport gained via personal involvement or participation in the particular field of sport/esport or using the late bets strategy;
* we suspect that you have registered, manage or direct your betting activity on multiple user accounts in an attempt to hide your betting activity, bypass our set trading limits or violate any promotion Terms and Conditions;
You omitted my reply toward this post, where I openly admit I misunderstood the case and asked you for clarification. May I point it out that we ended up on that hole of misunderstanding because you kept refusing to give information --didn't have to be specific, like I said on the sentences below it,
here?
The 3rd time was when he accused us of not providing reasons for the ban:
I'm not threatening you here, just giving a simple words from my observation, but by refusing to specify the reason like this, you actually cast an impression that you're the one being wrong here. Anyone reading this case would probably think like me, that if you have nothing to hide and sure that OP is an abuser, you'll be more than happy to provide --at the very least-- the reason why they're being banned. They offered you to complete KYC and you --unless you have an evidence that OP's claim and screenshot is not true-- banned them instead, and then just after the situation escalated to this forum you asked for KYC. If you ask me, it's kinda looks fishy. Lest it be too late and a flag raised and stir a lot of unnecessary inconvenience like the other case OP had in the past.
But we clearly did, and that was even directly addressed to Mr.holydarkness himself. Yet he chose to ignore it and makes false accusations:
Have you studied OP's account closely and have solid proof before freezing it or were you just ban-first-ask-later?
Prior to the ban, our Risk Management team have found substantial abnormalities surrounding the OP's account and other suspicious behaviors.
No, you did not give a clear reason behind OP's ban. You kept insisting that OP had to do KYC before you can give that piece of information out, disregarding that OP had already offered to provide KYC far before this situation escalated, which you replied by instantly banning them. OP offered to complete KYC the second time, and you ignored their question.
As the nature of this conversation gets increasing non-factual, we decide to cease engaging in this thread because this kind of conversion doesn’t align with our company policies.
With regard to the OP's accusation, as both party agreed,
an AskGambler ticket was opened in case anyone wants to follow this up.
Thank you.
TrustDice Team
My statements, questions, and assumptions are based on facts given at the point of the situation, so I think the nature of the conversation is rather factual. You know what's even more factual? This:
Hey OP,
Poika5, so this is how dispute usually works in so many platform, so it's just a matter of fact. The platform usually gives certain amount of time for each party to respond and provide comments or evidences against the opposing party. In AG, they gave 100 hours --if I'm not wrong-- I know that basically you're waiting for TD to verify your KYC and there's nothing that you can do until then. But since the last comment was from TD's side, the ball is in your court. As this post was made,
you have less than 25 hours to say something or the case will probably marked as clear by the system --and yes, this is my way to tell that I'm following the development of the case closely and daily, even after it moved platform.
So you might want to say something, anything, to put the ball back in TD's court.
About why they're so fast in replying your last comment there --which throws the ball to your court-- and so persistent on KYC but then took days just to verify it is... well, I can only assume, and I'll keep that assumption for myself.
