Runechips Disputing Improper Report Decision & DNT

Link to/reason for TWC/DNT/Ban: https://www.sythe.org/threads/casinos-and-sports-books-do-not-like-advantaged-players.4373232/

Link to your vouches: Legends Vouches

Detailed description of the events that took place and why you disagree with the decision:
I was DNT’ed after reporting Hahanerd for an unpaid balance that he owed me.

Clear Staff Bias In Favor Of Hahanerd
Respectfully, I’d like to ask for @Sythe or someone impartial to handle this dispute or re-review the report that I had made.

I am shocked with @Andy’s handling of the report. Aside from not understanding the situation properly, it’s mind blowing that Andy has not asked Hahanerd ONCE to verify the bets that he states to have placed. This shows clear bias in favor of Hahanerd. Read the report, not once. Is that normal?

I get that he’s a mod and I’m not, but we should still be held to the same burden of proof.

I saw the deleted screenshot Hahanerd provided in the report of his “bet log”. Is that supposed to be “proof” of the bets?

I feel like if this was anyone but a mod, they would be asked to prove what they are claiming. Why is it that Hahanerd is not being asked to provide any proof of his bets? To me, that would be staff doing their due diligence.

Inaccurate Analogy By Andy - Misstatement of Facts

To start things off I’d like to talk about Andy’s analogy.

The analogy Andy provided is NOT an accurate comparison to the events that actually took place.

Hahanerd had placed his bets several days prior to their cancellation. The bets had not started prior to being cancelled.

In the analogy Andy provided, the player was “mid-hand”, with cards dealt. That was not Hahanerd’s situation.

Up until this report, it was undisputed that none of the pending bets had begun prior to cancellation. It seems like that idea was planted in his head once the report came to light.

I once again repeat, prior to this report, Hahanerd had not ONCE disputed the fact that his bets had not yet started.

Accurate Analogy
I’d like to provide my own analogy for everyone to hopefully understand what really took place.

Imagine a skilled sports bettor is a REGULAR GAMBLER at a casino. He has been betting for months and the casino has been taking his action without hesitation for MONTHS!

He has been following all the casino rules. The casino does not know he is an advantage gambler.

One bright and sunny day, the bettor walks into the casino and starts to place sports bets like usual. He places his bets and they are set to begin on Saturday. The bettor leaves the casino.

Friday comes and the bettor gets a call from the casino. The casino informs the bettor that his bets have been cancelled and his account is to be closed. The bettor will no longer be allowed to place bets at the casino.

The bettor is frustrated but understands and goes about his day, as he knows that he is an advantage bettor and the casinos don’t like what he’s doing. He did not lose any money as the bets had not started.

Why does this matter? How does this relate to the case?

Because the reality is, Hahanerds bets were cancelled prior to their commencement. He did not dispute that prior to this report.

My analogy is an accurate portrayal of what took place. Hahanerd did not lose any additional money due to the cancellation of his bets.

No one knows what the outcome would have been with those bets. It’s possible that those bets even lost, and Hahanerd is using this as an opportunity to exploit the situation for his own gain.

Andy claims:
“While the sports platform is free to deny service to anyone they wish to, this ban came at a time where @Hahanerd had multiple ongoing wagers with the sports platform, which are also in a deleted post above, and appear to have landed largely in favor of @Hahanerd. Further, the sports book has denied possessing any logs for these bets, stating that they were cleared when the accounts were banned.”

Once again, this is a clear misstatement of the facts. Andy calls them “ongoing”, however the bets had not begun.

Andy once again cites the bad analogy that was an inaccurate representation of the facts.

Andy claims that Hahanerds bets were cancelled because they were “in his favor”. I’m telling you that his bets were cancelled once his account was flagged and at that point the platform no longer wanted to offer their services to him.

If a bet has not yet started, the casino/platform has a right to cancel that bet. It’s really just common sense. No one knows what the outcome of the games would have been.

What you are trying to say is that private businesses don’t have the right to refuse service.

The Bottom Line

Staff Bias
Respectfully, I must emphasize the clear staff bias in this case.

Despite multiple opportunities, Hahanerd has never been asked to prove the bets he claims to have placed. If Hahanerd was not a moderator, it is difficult to imagine staff allowing his unverified claims to stand without evidence.

We should both be held to the same standards.

Inaccurate Analogy by Andy
Andy’s analogy comparing this situation to a player “mid-hand” at a card table is factually wrong.

Hahanerd’s bets had not yet started. They were pending, not ongoing. Andy’s framing mischaracterizes the situation and incorrectly suggests Hahanerd lost something. Until this report, Hahanerd himself never disputed that his bets were pending and not in progress. This narrative shift only arose after the report had been made.

An inaccurate analogy cannot serve as the basis for a fair resolution.

Accurate Analogy of Events

A more fitting analogy is this:
- A regular gambler places bets at a casino on Wednesday, all scheduled for Saturday.
- On Friday, the casino calls and says his account is closed, and his pending bets are cancelled.
The gambler is frustrated, but no money was lost, because the bets never started.

That’s exactly what happened here. The bets were cancelled before commencement. There was no guaranteed outcome and no actual damages incurred.

Businesses Right to Refuse Service
The sportsbook, like any private business, has the right to refuse service or close an account. Once flagged, they cancelled the pending bets before the games began.

If a user has been flagged, that in itself is a recognition that they should no longer be allowed to wager. If that’s the case, why would the platform be obligated to honor pending bets that haven’t even started yet? At the point of being flagged, the logical and responsible action is to cancel all unsettled wagers. Allowing them to stand would directly contradict the reason for the flag in the first place.

Misstatements of Facts
Andy repeatedly refers to Hahanerds bets as “ongoing.” This is a misstatement of fact. They were not ongoing; they were pending. Claiming otherwise rewrites the factual timeline and creates a false sense of loss that never occurred.

Supporting Example
In our case, bets were not stopped mid-play. They were cancelled before they started, making the sports platforms authority even clearer.

• No bets had started.
• No money was lost.
• No outcome was guaranteed.
• The platform exercised its right to close the account and cancel pending wagers, which is both reasonable and permitted.

Factoring these cancelled bets into any settlement is inappropriate and the dispute should be resolved on the facts, not on speculative outcomes.

Link to previous disputes: N/A
Anything else you wish to say: No.