OPDuel Appeal

We would like to begin by respectfully requesting that @Sythe personally review and handle this case, as it involves Techie, who serves as an administrator.

Link to/reason for TWC/DNT/BAN: OPDuel knowingly let a scammer gamble my 83.52 LTC
Link to your vouches: ⭐ [$1000 Donor] OPDuel Vouches ⚔️ Years of Trust ♠️ Thousands of Players ✅ 24/7 Support

Detailed Description of the events that took place and why you disagree with the decision:

We are disputing both the ban and the DNT, and requesting they be lifted and the matter reheard.

TL;DR: This dispute was handled by Techie, who explained the reasoning behind his decision and concluded that we should provide the account's balance history so the matter could be resolved.

This was the first time we were presented with the full reasoning and his conclusion. We responded to each of the points he raised and addressed every aspect of his analysis with supporting evidence. Finally, in a private section of this report, we provided the complete balance history, clearly showing the amount the user had withdrawn before we were contacted and the amount withdrawn afterward.

Rather than addressing the points we raised or reconsidering his conclusions in light of the evidence we provided, Techie stated that he would not continue reviewing our arguments and posted the response below. Each of his original points had been answered with supporting evidence, but none of that was engaged with before the ruling was issued.

If you as a Sythe admin are not willing to read a report, why handle it?

Screenshot - cfac4b9df64e5e358fa994227ec8d27c - Gyazo

He subsequently edited this response approximately 25 minutes later to read:

Screenshot - d82a5f82eb6198c53f803405f8e605f4 - Gyazo

He later amended his response to state, "Due to the lack of cooperation."

This characterization is difficult to reconcile with the record. Any Sythe moderator or administrator reviewing the reported posts referenced in this report will be able to verify that we provided the requested balance history and complied with every request made by Techie.

Not only is this statement inaccurate, but this was clearly an afterthought given that it was edited into the post some time after the original ruling was made. If the edit history on the final post is checked it will confirm this. Just one of the many ways that this ruling doesn’t make sense by any fair standards.

Furthermore, we were never given an opportunity to dispute the conclusions reached, discuss the findings, or resolve the matter before action was taken.

Regardless of the outcome of this report, we respectfully ask that it be reviewed carefully and on the basis of the evidence rather than assumptions. We encourage whoever is assigned to this matter to read the report in its entirety, including the reported posts containing sensitive information, as they provide the full context necessary to fairly assess the case.

We do not believe Techie should be involved in any capacity in the review of this report due to the concerns outlined throughout our appeal. If Techie wishes to provide a response or defend his actions, he is welcome to do so.

We believe that anyone who carefully reviews the evidence presented will be able to assess the issues raised regarding the handling of this matter and the decisions that were made. We welcome any clarification or justification he wishes to provide, and request that any relevant timelogs or supporting evidence be included (or provided in a deleted post if the information is sensitive) to substantiate the claims made in his responses.

[1] Why do you claim we did not cooperate? Every time you asked something we provided it.

[2] "had enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that these were stolen funds" - as we stated in the earlier post that was glossed over, there is more than reasonable doubt present here. The claim came from a direct competitor with a poor reputation and no credibility, and rested entirely on his own private logs, which we had no way to verify. To treat those logs as fact and seize a customer's funds on that basis would mean breaking the standard procedure followed by all major crypto casinos, on nothing more than the word of a scammer claiming that he himself was scammed. As our provided edge-case examples show, a situation like this could just as easily be one set up deliberately to target OPDuel and benefit a competing business.

[3] Can you provide evidence confirming that the alleged scam actually occurred? Specifically, we request proof that the scam was verified, including relevant chat logs, timestamps, or other documentation demonstrating that your validation of the event took place prior to this dispute/report being filed.

We are not a party responsible for resolving disputes or determining which side is correct. Therefore, given the public and private information available to you, we would expect that the alleged scam was properly investigated and confirmed with certainty before any conclusions were reached or actions were taken in relation to this report as any Moderator/Administrator would have done.

[4] We'd like to understand what specifically supports the conclusion that we were "willing to accept the stolen funds not only to profit." We provided the complete chat history, and the only comments in it regarding this user concern his use of the 1.01x wager mechanic and his blackjack play. Nothing in the record indicates an intention to retain funds for profit. The finding of profit-intent appears to be an assumption rather than something actually drawn from the evidence, and we'd ask what it actually rests on.

[5] Regarding the statement, "The options on your end would have been to reject the transaction once you learned it was stolen funds or...", can you clarify how our proposed edge cases would have been handled?

Specifically, if we had rejected the funds and one of the scenarios we outlined had occurred, what would have been the expected outcome for us? The situation is further complicated by the fact that the reporting party does not have a strong reputation or established credibility, which raises additional concerns about how such a decision would have been evaluated.

[6] We provided the requested balance records, which demonstrate that approximately 6-7B (around $1,750) had already been withdrawn. Based on the stated guidelines, this would appear to correspond to a ban of approximately 6 months, rather than one year.

[7] Can you provide any evidence explaining why you initially requested a balance history from us but did not issue a DNT at that time, yet later decided to DNT us after the reporter responded approximately 1.5 days later with what we have shown to be a series of inaccurate claims?

After we provided evidence demonstrating that those claims were false, we addressed this matter in our report and explained how your decision-making process and handling of the situation further support the basis of our appeal. The relevant section of our report states the following:

“Ironically, no DNT was issued initially. However, after the user's reply, which contained numerous false claims and no actual evidence, a DNT was unexpectedly issued. This situation perfectly demonstrates the core issue our entire appeal is based on: the dangers of taking action against someone based on unverified allegations and unsupported claims. When decisions are made without proper evidence or confirmation, it can lead to unfair outcomes and cause unnecessary harm to those involved.”

[8] Why did you state this at your response: ”Honestly I won't read this fully but from a quick skim it's all irrelevant to this case” and then replied on the quote we posted: ”Sythe has established rules that should be followed, but not every situation is straightforward or can be evaluated in a simple black-and-white manner. Some cases involve additional context and circumstances that need to be considered before reaching a conclusion.” The following : ”This is how the resolution was decided in this report.”

Techie, we appreciate that citation by you, as it is testament to the fact that this whole report was grossly mishandled, you admitted that you handled this report not on a simple black-and-white manner, but based on context which you will not be able to provide evidence you validated before making decisions. As well you yourself admitted you didn’t read our reply, but did a quick skim and considered it all “irrelevant”. Some of the stuff mentioned is very relevant and it was either dismissed or glossed over, information that speaks to the very heart of the case was dismissed, what was stated in the report to our final post is impossible to deem irrelevant. It is not possible to judge relevancy of a case based on context without reading it through properly, as context cases can be dependent on the smallest details.

Which fair moderator would handle a case based primarily on the context and evidence provided by one party, while ignoring that the opposing party has provided evidence showing that many of the claims made were false?

Techie never validated the additional claims presented and instead treated the reporter’s statements as factual. He then failed to properly consider our defense and the context we provided, claiming he wouldn't read it, ultimately reaching a decision based entirely on one party’s perspective.

In summary, Techie approached this with either bias or without proper due care and attention per point 8, every point raised by Techie in his report was addressed and rebutted with supporting evidence throughout this response. We did not require multiple opportunities to respond; each argument was addressed immediately upon being presented. Yet despite this he admits he did not fully read anything we posted, instead defaulting back to the conclusion he had made in his own head from the start.

We respectfully request a fair and impartial review of this matter, preferably by @Sythe. We ask that this submission be considered both as a dispute of the decision and as a report regarding Techie's handling of the case. As demonstrated throughout this report, the conclusions reached in his original report were based on assumptions that are not supported by the evidence. His handling of this matter raises serious concerns about his judgment and impartiality. Given the number of unsupported conclusions and procedural issues outlined above, we believe it is reasonable to question whether this was simply a series of significant errors or whether the decision-making process was influenced by bias or improper motives. For that reason, we believe these issues warrant an independent review.

In our dispute, we specifically asked Techie to take sufficient time to carefully review all evidence before reaching a final decision, as we had concerns that his judgment may have been influenced by bias. We requested that he:

”we respectfully request that these matters be reviewed and discussed internally by the Sythe staff before a decision is made.” The reason Techie did not accept this approach appears to be that doing so would require him to address and take responsibility for the inaccuracies identified in his previous statements. It would also require him to provide a response to the points and evidence we presented, which he has not yet been able to adequately address.

The real question here is not who is right or wrong, as that should become clear to anyone who carefully reviews the evidence presented. The question is whether Techie’s handling of this matter will be appropriately addressed and whether we will receive the appropriate resolution, including the removal of the ban.

Most information and complete debunking of all statements made by Techie can be found here: OPDuel knowingly let a scammer gamble my 83.52 LTC

There is a lot more major context in reported posts in the report, supporting everything we mentioned in both reports.

Regards,
OPDuel Team