Questioning the ruling on BigBoiBets

[baman]

I don’t know if this is the right section for this subject so if it isn’t, sorry.


I’m a friend of @LogoGambling’s and I recently heard about this case against BBB that resulted in him, and BBB, getting banned. He recently told me he’s no longer banned but still BBB is so I’ll continue this post. I’m requesting another admin to re look into this case because the ruling handed down was based on irrelevant information and appears to be biased. The previous case is linked down below this sentence.


BigBoiBets refusing to fulfill their part of the deal


Throughout this thread you can see Champ taking Probemas’ story of it being a hack and running with it instead of being unbiased and listening to both sides of the case. Notice how he assumes it’s a hack throughout the entire thread without there being a shred of proof from Probemas showing it was a hack.


For anyone who wants a quick synopsis of the circumstances of this case this is what it boils down to:


Probemas and his workers had a partnership with BigBoiBets


Probemas’ worker had control of an account on the website named “Helper” who worked as a cashier on BigBoiBets


Helper was provided with a substantial amount of chips in order to do transactions with players on the website. The chips are transferred to players, in exchange for runescape gold, if they want to play on this website. If the player wants to receive their runescape gold they transfer these chips back to the cashier and the cashier trades them the corresponding amount of runescape gold.


The facts of this situation is this:


This Helper account transferred 100m (Worth 100b eoc) of chips (Worth about $7k) to an account named Sugaray over approximately 31 hours. This was not Sugaray cashing in, which would be very suspicious in itself since nobody EVER cashes in that much in that short amount of time, this was Helper directly transferring to Sugaray.


Some particularly noteworthy transactions during this time frame include:


https://gyazo.com/23b9e6632f7c621171c032780569e97a?token=5658b60d4aefe34970a1e65009b20852


-An allegedly compromised Helper directly transfers (without Sugaray cashing in) 4.2M chips on August 2ndat 21:45:30

-32 seconds later Sugaray requests to cash out (receive Runescape gold for chips) 4.2M chips with an allegedly uncompromised Helper


Screenshot - 6358c217644ae67c4f950d51fd1b2911 - Gyazo


-An allegedly compromised Helper directly transfers (without Sugaray cashing in) 3M worth of chips on August 2ndat 22:33:00

-33 seconds later Sugaray requests to cash out 6M chips with an allegedly uncompromised Helper


Screenshot - 3a672eca89df34f59e6b58ee316b1ea7 - Gyazo


-An allegedly compromised Helper directly transfers (without Sugaray cashing in) 6M worth of chips on August 3rdat 00:10:49

-57 seconds later Sugaray requests to cash out 6M chips with an allegedly uncompromised Helper



These are just a few notable transactions. Most of the transactions have an allegedly compromised Helper account transfer a large amount of chips to Sugaray then seconds or minutes later have an allegedly uncompromised Helper account cashing them out. So basically Probemas is allegeding that multiple times the Helper account went from compromised when transferring to this mule account to uncompromised when it’s time to give that mule account their gold in game within a matter of minutes or seconds multiple times over the course of 31 hours.


Most damning of course is the fact that sugaray and Helper had the same IP connection.


Why Probemas’ claim was automatically believed by the admin Champ despite evidence and logic pointed otherwise is beyond me. Why the claim that Sugaray’s account being directly linked to Helper’s account was immediately discarded is also beyond me. This isn’t an attack against Champ but I’d love to know how his decision came to be despite BBB being the side to provide evidence and logic while Probemas didn’t.


Now what should have been asked on the previous thread by the admin was: Probemas, when did your worker(s) notice that their chips were missing?


How did your worker(s) not notice such a massive amount of chips, worth 100b EOC, were missing over a 31 hour time period?


Was your worker(s) in control of the account when they were cashing out Sugaray? If so, does that mean your worker(s) was also in control of the account when they transferred Sugaray a large amount of chips seconds before cashing them out?


All the admin did was attack BigBoiBets for irrelevant questions about security because they INSTANTLY believed Probemas’ claim that they were hacked. Keep in mind that, assuming this is an inside job, which it is, it would not have mattered if BigBoiBets required a 256 key encryption key for logging in and 200FA Authentication. That’s irrelevant when it’s an inside job. Also, if account security was a huge concern why did Probemas accept the position in the first place?


I’m requesting an admin besides Champ to actually read the evidence and logic of both parties and come to a decision based off of that. There was no where in the original post where Probemas provided screenshots to support his claims but Champ instantly took his word and his version of everything that happened and gave BBB a strict DNT just off his word. Or at the very least can Champ provide me a possible scenario that makes sense that would result in him making the conclusion that yes, in fact, BBB did get hacked and Probemas was the victim. Because there’s no scenario that results in an account getting hacked, the rightful user regaining control 30-60 seconds later, then continuing to do transactions without realizing a massive amount of chips continue to be missing over the span of 31 hours. Oh and again, Helper and sugaray had the same IP connected to them.


Also, I would encourage for @video and @Shin to include their input because their understanding of the website would add valuable insight into proving/disproving Probemas’ claim and they can better understand how illogical it would be for an account to intermittently be compromised and not compromised over the course of seconds.

 

Video and shin were asked to be left out and that will continue to be the case, if BBB wants to appeal their ban they can go through the process just like every other person on this site has to upon being banned lol.

 

imo, the report looked like Champ was going for BBB's head counting on BBB ability to give back $7000 and thinking they would. That's my pov, there must of been some private chats which is why Champ was beginning to become impatient.

 

[Pain]

This wont go anywhere due to the way Sythe is currently setup - This is simply a case of BBB has reason to believe it was Probemas's team - Probemas believes it was BBB's team - Neither of them have adequate systems to properly determine whos liable so BBB points the finger at Probemas and Probemas points the finger at BBB - Neither wants to bite such a big loss so they are at odds.

In reality the solution to this should of been simple this is similar to the Ariba/Magebets partnership. Bigboibets would hold partial accountability for lets say "less than acceptable" security measures(like 2FA on the agents account would of instantly resolved whos liable here as an example) and Probemas would hold partial liability for being stupid enough to make a bad partnership with BBB - Since BBB's security was inadequate but Probemas also knowingly CHOSE to partner with them knowing he would be liable and knowing their security was not adequate( you can clearly see he has a good knowledge of the internal workings of BBB just by the report) as far as my opinion is concerned its the same thing as Ariba/Magebets - If your dumb enough to risk a partnership with someone/something you know isn't up to scratch/isn't right(in this case - BBB's security) than your going to bare partial liability as that partner.

Probemas was essentially a partner with a royalty in this case - In essence "lending" out his gold assets and livechat agents in return for a undisclosed monetary amount - There was an unknown theft that due to BBB's less-than-par security - Caused BBB and Probemas $7352 in damages - BBB bares a debatable % of that liability for failure to have properly secured cashier accounts - Probemas bares a % of that liability for contracting/partnering with BBB in the first place. It's ridiculous to claim that BBB is solely responsible for the theft and that the burden of proof solely lays on him - While their security is an issue Probemas also knowingly partnered KNOWING about that shitty security - It does not make sense to me the statement Champ made that it's BBB's responsibility since it's their company - Probemas was a contractor/partner with THAT COMPANY meaning he is just as liable as the other company parties and he was just as aware of that companies(BBB's) potential security issues as the other parties were.

It seems to me that a better resolution would of been similar to Ariba where both parties are held accountable - Which is where I would of thought Champ and Sythes "fair" arbitration system would of came in - To determine how much each party is held liable for - BBB for lax security and Probemas for partnering with a company knowing about that lax security - That axe cuts both ways in my opinion. I'd of rather seen Champ and staff hold Probemas 50% liable and BBB 50% liable since their both involved in the company and since adequate proof cant be determined as to WHO was at fault - They should bear the cost equally.

$7359 was taken - @Probemas retained $1009 than reported BBB so 7359 x 0.5 = $3679.50 of liability would be born by both parties - $3679.50 - $1009= $2670.50 is owed back to Probemas. Upon return of that sum BBB would be unbanned and life goes on. That's how a responsible business partnership would of sorted this out without potentially ruining their business relationship.

Its really unfair to screw BBB or to screw Probemas TBH - You cant justify screwing one when the other is partnered with the company aswell - a 50/50 liability split seems completely reasonable to me with the knowledge provided.

It seems that a 50/50 liability split could of potentially saved their business relationship to - Probemas was willing to cough up 100% of the damages - It seems to me that instead of burning their relationship to the ground they probably could of reached some form of splitting the damages agreement with the requirement BBB adds 2FA login requirements for each agents cashier account.

That would of been a far more acceptable outcome than this ass of a report which left a ruined business relationship - BBB banned and Probemas out $7359. Why you would just ban BBB instead of attempting to pursue a fair compromise with both parties is beyond me - So instead of potentially everyone being unbanned and a salvaged business relationship - Everybody loses. It's shit like this that makes me question the sanity of our staff team.

Since Champ is clearly hostile - Video & Shin got requested to be left out - You've got no administration outside Sythe with the ability to overturn so :shrug: ask Sythe to look at it or maybe this feedback thread would gain some attention - either way now that Champ just ban hammered BBB this situation will either drag for months on end as they fight it and will consume more staff time and resources or Sythe would have to review the matter - Either way all of this could of just been prevented by staff trying to reach a more reasonable solution with all parties. I swear sometimes staff are flexible and other times it's like dealing with a fucking rock. Guess which instance this case is.

 

[Apith]

Since Champ is clearly hostile - Video & Shin got requested to be left out - You've got no administration outside Sythe with the ability to overturn so :shrug: ask Sythe to look at it or maybe this feedback thread would gain some attention - either way now that Champ just ban hammered BBB this situation will either drag for months on end as they fight it and will consume more staff time and resources or Sythe would have to review the matter - Either way all of this could of just been prevented by staff trying to reach a more reasonable solution with all parties.

Champ is hostile? He said he was willing to get staff opinion if necessary. He asked BBB questions which BBB ignored. He reminded him to answer it and BBB ignored it again. I'm not sure what you think would happen to a user if there's a report on them and they choose to ignore staff questions, not once but twice. BBB had 108 hours to answer them and he did not. How can staff reach a more reasonable solution when BBB won't even answer their questions to help them investigate?

 

Throughout this thread you can see Champ taking Probemas’ story of it being a hack and running with it instead of being unbiased and listening to both sides of the case. Notice how he assumes it’s a hack throughout the entire thread without there being a shred of proof from Probemas showing it was a hack.

1) BBB should be able to prove if it is or is not a hack.
2) If it isn't a hack, BBB should have plenty of valid proof that $7,000+ was stolen, which Probemas could reclaim through legal action and then nobody loses out.

So the whole case really just comes down to why BBB would refuse to file a police report, knowing that it would solve pretty much everything?

Edit: Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a very simple resolution that just requires a bit of co-operation from BBB.

 

[Apith]

Edit: Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a very simple resolution that just requires a bit of co-operation from BBB.

This was all that was required from BBB in the report not to get banned. Simply answering Champ's question.

 

[baman]

This wont go anywhere due to the way Sythe is currently setup - This is simply a case of BBB has reason to believe it was Probemas's team - Probemas believes it was BBB's team - Neither of them have adequate systems to properly determine whos liable so BBB points the finger at Probemas and Probemas points the finger at BBB - Neither wants to bite such a big loss so they are at odds.

In reality the solution to this should of been simple this is similar to the Ariba/Magebets partnership. Bigboibets would hold partial accountability for lets say "less than acceptable" security measures(like 2FA on the agents account would of instantly resolved whos liable here as an example) and Probemas would hold partial liability for being stupid enough to make a bad partnership with BBB - Since BBB's security was inadequate but Probemas also knowingly CHOSE to partner with them knowing he would be liable and knowing their security was not adequate( you can clearly see he has a good knowledge of the internal workings of BBB just by the report) as far as my opinion is concerned its the same thing as Ariba/Magebets - If your dumb enough to risk a partnership with someone/something you know isn't up to scratch/isn't right(in this case - BBB's security) than your going to bare partial liability as that partner.

Probemas was essentially a partner with a royalty in this case - In essence "lending" out his gold assets and livechat agents in return for a undisclosed monetary amount - There was an unknown theft that due to BBB's less-than-par security - Caused BBB and Probemas $7352 in damages - BBB bares a debatable % of that liability for failure to have properly secured cashier accounts - Probemas bares a % of that liability for contracting/partnering with BBB in the first place. It's ridiculous to claim that BBB is solely responsible for the theft and that the burden of proof solely lays on him - While their security is an issue Probemas also knowingly partnered KNOWING about that shitty security - It does not make sense to me the statement Champ made that it's BBB's responsibility since it's their company - Probemas was a contractor/partner with THAT COMPANY meaning he is just as liable as the other company parties and he was just as aware of that companies(BBB's) potential security issues as the other parties were.

It seems to me that a better resolution would of been similar to Ariba where both parties are held accountable - Which is where I would of thought Champ and Sythes "fair" arbitration system would of came in - To determine how much each party is held liable for - BBB for lax security and Probemas for partnering with a company knowing about that lax security - That axe cuts both ways in my opinion. I'd of rather seen Champ and staff hold Probemas 50% liable and BBB 50% liable since their both involved in the company and since adequate proof cant be determined as to WHO was at fault - They should bear the cost equally.

$7359 was taken - @Probemas retained $1009 than reported BBB so 7359 x 0.5 = $3679.50 of liability would be born by both parties - $3679.50 - $1009= $2670.50 is owed back to Probemas. Upon return of that sum BBB would be unbanned and life goes on. That's how a responsible business partnership would of sorted this out without potentially ruining their business relationship.

Its really unfair to screw BBB or to screw Probemas TBH - You cant justify screwing one when the other is partnered with the company aswell - a 50/50 liability split seems completely reasonable to me with the knowledge provided.

It seems that a 50/50 liability split could of potentially saved their business relationship to - Probemas was willing to cough up 100% of the damages - It seems to me that instead of burning their relationship to the ground they probably could of reached some form of splitting the damages agreement with the requirement BBB adds 2FA login requirements for each agents cashier account.

That would of been a far more acceptable outcome than this ass of a report which left a ruined business relationship - BBB banned and Probemas out $7359. Why you would just ban BBB instead of attempting to pursue a fair compromise with both parties is beyond me - So instead of potentially everyone being unbanned and a salvaged business relationship - Everybody loses. It's shit like this that makes me question the sanity of our staff team.

Since Champ is clearly hostile - Video & Shin got requested to be left out - You've got no administration outside Sythe with the ability to overturn so :shrug: ask Sythe to look at it or maybe this feedback thread would gain some attention - either way now that Champ just ban hammered BBB this situation will either drag for months on end as they fight it and will consume more staff time and resources or Sythe would have to review the matter - Either way all of this could of just been prevented by staff trying to reach a more reasonable solution with all parties. I swear sometimes staff are flexible and other times it's like dealing with a fucking rock. Guess which instance this case is.

Thanks for the response and your resolution seems completely fair assuming BigBoiBets did get hacked. But BigBoiBets did not get hacked and again, I do not know what Probemas' word was quickly taken as fact by Champ and the Sythe staff even though it's just as much an assumption as BigBoiBets claiming it was an inside job. What makes it worse is that BigBoiBets actually provided proof and logic to show their side of the story but Champ still acted in favor of Probemas' accusation/assumption.

Can anyone even acknowledge the logic part of this situation because I feel like this is being skipped over. The evidence overwhelming indicates that Probemas' worker was behind it and yet it's still being ignored in favor of the claim that he was hacked. Why?

-BBB showed how this mule account and the Helper account IP matched.

-The Helper account transferred chips on the website to the mule account then cashed out the person within seconds multiple times.

-The cashier inexplicably did not notice literally 100B EOC worth of chips missing over a time period of 31 hours. To give a scope of how unlikely that is, @LogoGambling once had to loan the cashier account 2.2B EoC worth of chips so they could cash customers out. The Helper account somehow lost 45 times that amount without noticing over approximately one day.

Logically does none of this seem fishy to anyone, at all? It was literally mostly 6-12b worth of chips being transferred from the account at a time and some how one of the workers of a large gold company does not notice this? Is Probemas' word inexplicably going to stand about it being a hack or will the assumption shift to it being Probemas' worker behind this because the evidence and logic is on that side?

 

[Program]

BBB need have only been cooperative. He obviously refused to do so. There was no bias in this case. Champ was trying to get all the relevant information from BBB and BBB wasn't cooperating. This wasn't Champ just going gunhoe on his own either, multiple staff members including myself reviewed the case.

If I didn't know better I'd say they gave you a copy/paste of what to post here.

Like Champ said, when BBB is ready to be cooperative he can make a dispute.

 

BBB need have only been cooperative. He obviously refused to do so.

Literally, the only reason the case when the way it did,
I love to talk shit on the staff, but champ did not do anything wrong in this case, he gave him multiple warning to answer the question's and cooperate and he didn't, so he got banned

if the staff did something wrong, I'd be the first person to complain lol

 

[Apith]

Literally, the only reason the case when the way it did,
I love to talk shit on the staff, but champ did not do anything wrong in this case, he gave him multiple warning to answer the question's and cooperate and he didn't, so he got banned

if the staff did something wrong I'd be the first person to complain lol

Bit funny how Bus and OP are acting like staff closed the report in Probemas' favor already or deciding how the report should have went when the person they're trying to defend won't even help them investigate.

 

[baman]

Why did the last three comments completely gloss over the fact that I questioned why the staff instantly went with Probemas' assumption of a hack instead of getting all the facts from both parties then deciding? Problemas claiming there was a hack is as much of an assumption as BBB's claim that Probemas' worker is guilty of trying to rip off BBB and yet the former's claim was taken as fact instead of assumption while the latter's claim was completely ignored.

 

Were you paid by BBB for this?

 

Why did the last three comments completely gloss over the fact that I questioned why the staff instantly went with Probemas' assumption of a hack instead of getting all the facts from both parties then deciding? Problemas claiming there was a hack is as much of an assumption as BBB's claim that Probemas' worker is guilty of trying to rip off BBB and yet the former's claim was taken as fact instead of assumption while the latter's claim was completely ignored.

He didn't instantly go with Probemas' assumption. Probemas is the one that made the scam report, so ofcourse the logical thing to do next is to question the one who is being reported. Champ then asked BBB multiple questions and gave him more time than ANYONE has received to answer simple questions.

EDIT: Funny how you turned out to be a ban evader.. Cya

 

[baman]

He didn't instantly go with Probemas' assumption. Probemas is the one that made the scam report, so ofcourse the logical thing to do next is to question the one who is being reported. Champ then asked BBB multiple questions and gave him more time than ANYONE has received to answer simple questions.

EDIT: Funny how you turned out to be a ban evader.. Cya

The second post of that thread is quite literally Champ DNTing BBB based off Probemas' word. If you're going to have a problem with one side making assumptions without 100% proof that should go for the other side as well. That's one of the reasons why I don't think he handled this case properly. Speaking of logic, again, nobody has come up with a logical explanation as to how

-Probemas' worker has the same IP as the mule

-Probemas' worker can lose 100b EOC in chips over 31 hours without realizing

-The "Helper" account can go from compromised and transferring the money to the mule at one moment to, sometimes less than half a minute later, uncompromised and cashing out the mule.

And no, I am not a ban evader as I've never done anything worth getting banned over. Again with the attempt of deflection instead of saying something about the logic side of this case.

 

The second post of that thread is quite literally Champ DNTing BBB based off Probemas' word. If you're going to have a problem with one side making assumptions without 100% proof that should go for the other side as well. That's one of the reasons why I don't think he handled this case properly. Speaking of logic, again, nobody has come up with a logical explanation as to how

-Probemas' worker has the same IP as the mule

-Probemas' worker can lose 100b EOC in chips over 31 hours without realizing

-The "Helper" account can go from compromised and transferring the money to the mule at one moment to, sometimes less than half a minute later, uncompromised and cashing out the mule.

And no, I am not a ban evader as I've never done anything worth getting banned over. Again with the attempt of deflection instead of saying something about the logic side of this case.

You can clearly see I edited my post and added that in after I found out you are ban evading.

You can turn and twist this as much as you like. BBB had the option to answer simple questions and have the DNT removed if staff deemed his story to be true. But he refused. It's really that simple, I don't understand why you can't comprehend this.

I do agree with @Divine that both should have shared the loss and responsability equally as they were partners at the time, however the fact that BBB blatantly ignored all the questions asked by @Champ resulted in BBB's ban.

 

[baman]

You can clearly see I edited my post and added that in after I found out you are ban evading.

You can turn and twist this as much as you like. BBB had the option to answer simple questions and have the DNT removed if staff deemed his story to be true. But he refused. It's really that simple, I don't understand why you can't comprehend this.

I do agree with @Divine that both should have shared the loss and responsability equally as they were partners at the time, however the fact that BBB blatantly ignored all the questions asked by @Champ resulted in BBB's ban.

I don't see how you can't comprehend that Champ came to the conclusion to ask those questions based on the wrongful assumption that BBB was hacked. You can't just accept one side's assumptions then say that the other side can't just make assumptions because they need 100% proof. That's doesn't make any sense. Either you require proof from both sides before making a decision or you'll be basing your decision on both side's assumptions without ignoring one side.

I'll just ignore your nonsensical comments about ban evading because clearly you're just trying to push this thread into another direction.

 

[Pain]

Bit funny how Bus and OP are acting like staff closed the report in Probemas' favor already or deciding how the report should have went when the person they're trying to defend won't even help them investigate.

You seem to forget that users are not required to answer staff questions. Staff are free to rule whatever way they want if a user does not answer their questions but nobody is required to.

There is no rule - no sticky - nothing that justifies or states there is a punishment for not answering staff questions - people seem to forget that.

The Official Sythe.org Rules

Report A Scammer

Champ issued a DNT immediately without adequate evidence(I've seen all the evidence) - Than started squeezing BBB through the use of that DNT - When BBB responded with a long work-around without directly condemning themselves Champ and other staff banned BBB for refusing to condemn themselves.

In essence they blackmailed/pressured BBB into answering their questions and providing evidence to condemn themselves - BBB refused to do so so they tried applying more pressure and failed. BBB at no time is required to answer a single one of @Champ questions - Staff seem to forget that defendants have just as many rights as plantiffs(Probemas and BBB in this case). What staff did by issuing punishments in an attempt to force BBB to cave is power abuse as far as I see it.

Nobody is required to answer questions staff ask them - That's a inherit right granted by Sythe and there's a reason there's no rule to force them to do so - To keep plantiff's and defendants on even grounds - In this case Champ chose to apply pressure through the use of punishments in an attempt to put BBB onto un-even ground.

You want to ban him - Don't care. You want to TWC him - Don't care. Do NOT sit and tell me that it's okay to apply pressure through the use of punishments in an attempt to force a Sythe user to answer staffs questions though. That is power abuse.

 

I don't see how you can't comprehend that Champ came to the conclusion to ask those questions based on the wrongful assumption that BBB was hacked. You can't just accept one side's assumptions then say that the other side can't just make assumptions because they need 100% proof. That's doesn't make any sense. Either you require proof from both sides before making a decision or you'll be basing your decision on both side's assumptions without ignoring one side.

I'll just ignore your nonsensical comments about ban evading because clearly you're just trying to push this thread into another direction.

I mean.. Those were some pretty straightforward questions to ask.
Even if Probemas had made no report at all and the situation was known, those are the questions that anyone would ask. The police report would have solved the entire case, they refused. After that there are other questions that need to be answered, he refused to answer any and all questions. What do you expect them to do?

Probemas handed out over 7,000 USD out of GOOD WILL. Meanwhile BBB was pointing blame without evidence, refusing to co-operate, and refusing to answer simple questions. How do you expect them to DNT someone who has shown good faith over someone who blatantly refuses to solve the case?

He could have kept the $7000 and made the scam report regardless. Then what would have happened? Most likely both would have been DNT'd.

 

[baman]

I mean.. Those were some pretty straightforward questions to ask.
Even if Probemas had made no report at all and the situation was known, those are the questions that anyone would ask. The police report would have solved the entire case, they refused. After that there are other questions that need to be answered, he refused to answer any and all questions. What do you expect them to do?

Probemas handed out over 7,000 USD out of GOOD WILL. Meanwhile BBB was pointing blame without evidence, refusing to co-operate, and refusing to answer simple questions. How do you expect them to DNT someone who has shown good faith over someone who blatantly refuses to solve the case?

The questions that should be asked should be questions investigating the claims of both parties. Probemas made a claim that was instantly believed without screenshots or actual proof supporting his "hacked" claim. BBB made a claim that was instantly thrown out WITH screenshots and proof that implicates that it was an inside job.

What do I expect them to do? Exactly what they did to BBB but to both sides. Listen to both sides of the story, question them about the claims each side made, and make a well reasoned decision based on the proof both sides showed.

Here's a sample for you:

Probemas, BBB is alleging that over a 31 hour period 100B worth of EoC chips was siphoned from your worker's account without noticing. How does that manage to happen?

Problemas, BBB showed proof that the worker's account at one point transferred 6B worth of EoC chips to a mule's account then 32 seconds later the same worker cashed out the mule account. Do you have any idea how that managed to happened?

Problems, BBB showed proof that the worker and the mule account shared the same IP, is there any possible explanation for that?

I expect BOTH sides to have their claims examined and pressing questions to both parties. Not have one assumption believed then completely not acknowledging the other side's proof and explanation as to how things went.