Posts by slybison8

bluecyclist64 said:From what I can gather, that statement essentially encouraged the Germans to die in vain for the Führer, yet you chose to include it in the signature.
I suppose I just don't quite understand why you would do that, despite all the text provided.

It was likely included because it serves as a powerful motivational statement—as noted in those "sheets of text"—on several occasions 🙂

Personally, I think it might be worth addressing this specific question, since our fellow forum member swiftstag66 is asking it for a second time, and I must admit that I find it rather interesting myself:

swiftstag66 said:If possible, I would also like to press those whose names aren't being mentioned.

Essentially, one of the conclusions drawn from this thread with the pretentious title "Powerlock case" is that "comparisons to SA stormtroopers and fascists are out of line"—Uncle Strile.

I am curious as to exactly when those comparisons became problematic. As far as I understand, accusing someone of being something they are not is certainly unacceptable slander or an ad hominem attack—I get that. However, from what I have gathered while following the discussion where these comparisons were made, there wasn't any attempt to label taxpayers as Nazis, nor was anyone claiming they were like Nazis due to shared political ideologies; rather, their methods were simply being compared to Nazi methods. It seems to be a matter of saying one action resembles another. They are comparing actions, not personal qualities or character.

I wonder why such a comparison would be considered problematic for a democratic society, or for a forum where that same democratic society is engaged in discussion?

coppermarlin13 said:Remember when you reached out to me after I closed that thread about Gotovina and Markač? You were asking for my take. ovo:

I have to point out that you actually told me the exact same thing in our private messages, adding the note that you... ti That guy is the one who started this whole thread. Locked down..

It seems like you think I just nod along with whatever the rest of the group decides to do.

It’s actually pretty interesting to watch how the moderation is being handled around here.

It’s honestly hard to believe anyone is claiming this thread was "dying out." I mean, look at the numbers—we managed to churn out seven full pages of discussion today alone before the mods finally stepped in and locked it down. Calling that a "fading topic" feels like a total stretch. What exactly defines a conversation dying when it's moving this fast? Using that as a justification for locking the thread just doesn't add up to me.

Even if there were some hesitation or doubt in the air, what exactly are we supposed to draw from that? What kind of conclusions should we actually be pulling?

It honestly feels like you guys are just itching to hit that Lock button, desperately scrambling to cook up any excuse possible just to justify doing it.

It’s really not an exaggeration to say that the quality of discussion here has plummeted lately. Honestly, some of your posts actually stand out because they're so much more substantial than the rest. So, what you're implying is that you played a part in dragging the conversation down yourself? Is that what you're getting at?

The whole debate really hit rock bottom the moment everyone just took it as an absolute fact that the veteran was an alcoholic. Once that assumption was made, it felt like the entire conversation just died right there. It’s hard to have a productive discussion when people stop looking at the actual issues and instead decide they've already figured out someone's personal flaws.

Since when did the edge become some kind of super-mod for Politics? I distinctly remember him saying he wasn't a Politics super-mod, just one for the football section.
scotsman is the actual super-mod for Politics.
Do you have some inside scoop or new info on this?

It always seems like "infighting" is the excuse used whenever a thread gets locked. But let’s be honest: people are often just itching to shut down an active, trending topic so they don't have to deal with it, or simply because it doesn't align with the forum's left-leaning political leanings.

Also, could you walk me through the official procedure for assigning partial credits/ranks in the Politics sub-forum?

Does it require a unanimous vote from all the moderators for a user to get credit in Politics?

Is it a matter of collegiality there too? Like, does one person propose it and then everyone else just signs off?

I don't, I guess. 🙂

In the meantime, I actually found out that the edge is a supermod on some other forums besides Politics. I hadn't realized that detail before. All this time, I had been under the impression that the edge was my boss. 😁

Things happen, I suppose. 😁

coppermarlin13 said:I just caught this thread now, so let me ask you something here: what exactly is your role in making these calls?

Why is it that Chuck and the edge (as you pointed out) have the sole authority to decide whether a thread stays locked or gets moved over to Close Politics?

And one more thing—since I've noticed you using the "whatever the colleagues decide" argument a few times now—what part do you play in deciding who receives their grades on the Politics PDF? What is the actual procedure for determining those grades? Does it require a consensus among all the moderators (like it does on other sub-forums), or not?

I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

God, what an intense complaint regarding a symbolic one-point penalty. 🙂

Well, I suppose I should respect the effort. Even though this appeal isn't specifically directed at me, and the Forum user has made it quite clear they have no desire to discuss this specific penalty with me further, I have been officially asked to provide my statement, so I shall do so.

First off, the two posts cited by the Forum user—where he argues it's unfair that his first post received a symbolic one-point penalty while the second received nothing—actually serve to prove that the first contained ad hominem attacks, whereas the second did not.

In the first post, the sanctioned Forum user was using a derogatory nickname for another Forum user, which implies an insult; he also mentioned that person's possible geographic origin in a negative context, noting he wasn't even sure if the other Forum user was actually from Canada—which leads me to believe his target might not have been that specific individual, but rather all Americans from Canada.

The second post is not an ad hominem because the Forum user emphasizes more than once that he struggles with the mindset being discussed; if anything, the only part that could be interpreted as an ad hominem is the very end of that post, where he suggests that people demonstrating such views should perhaps leave the US.

If there is indeed an ad hominem in that second post, it is quite clearly used in a much milder form than the ad hominem found in the first, penalized post.

If my responsibility in this matter is being re-examined, I am convinced it can only be determined by concluding that the penalized post should have actually received the standard 45-point penalty for insulting a Forum user, or perhaps even a harsher one due to the collective disparagement of Americans from Canada—meaning, I guess, that I was too lenient toward the appellant, rather than being too strict.

I also want to state very clearly that, as a Moderator, I do not maintain any "blacklists." Up until this moment, I wasn't even aware that the author of this appeal was the same person who wrote the post accusing me of "fleeing America." I generally don't even notice such trivial personal matters, and besides, this particular Forum user's handle is so complicated with its mix of letters and numbers that it is honestly difficult to even remember.

I don't wish to expend any more energy on the rest of the entry, as it seems to be just another significant ad hominem.

However, I would like to answer one question the Forum user posed:

Steven King74 said:I am filing a formal complaint against the moderator slybison8 regarding the Politics sub-forum.
I believe this moderator is abusing his authority to manipulate the forum rather than actually moderating it. Specifically, he uses his privilege to hand out warnings only to those who disagree with him in threads where he participates, while posts from Forum users who share his views remain untouched, even when reported. I will explain why.

The final straw was the decision to issue a warning for an ad hominem attack in the following post:

First, I should mention that the Forum user I was arguing with called *me* Scum first, so it wasn't an insult. I was a bit surprised by the warning given the type of posts usually seen in this thread, but upon reflection, I suppose it passes. I used an argument about origin to refute someone's view; if we're being pedantic, sure, call it an ad hominem. Fine.
However, my reaction to that was simply reporting the post made by that Scum, which is what I was responding to in the first place.

And yet, that post received no warning. I must point out that I used the exact same rhetoric as the Forum user Scum. If refuting an opinion based on where someone is from in Canada is an ad hominem, then it is also an ad hominem to claim that my way of thinking only exists in North Korea or China.

Incidentally, this post is the opinion that started all of this.

I received a symbolic one-point penalty for the post. Normally, I wouldn't waste my time with an appeal, but I believe the issue goes much deeper. First, I see this warning as slybison8 flexing his muscles—a signal that I should watch what I say whenever he's around. Second, I believe I have ended up on slybison8's blacklist because of this post from another thread. It isn't a coincidence that slybison8 warned a post where I mentioned Canada and the diaspora interfering in our domestic affairs; he feels personally targeted by the same criteria since he lives in the US, and Forum users frequently call him out on it.
To understand the full context of this problem, one would need to examine the thread currently titled Fiscalization and Tax Discipline - The Political Mission of Minister Linić.
and slybison8's behavior in this same thread. It’s vital to point out that while these two threads were merged, the original one functioned with surprising quality for a US politics subforum. Users were responding to one another in an orderly, well-argued manner without trolling; arguments were backed by evidence. In reality, slybison8 was the biggest troll in that discussion.
Here are a few examples.

Forum user Alexis, offering a counterargument regarding a cafe closing due to a mere $0.35 difference, writes this post where she reveals the actual owners of the establishment, suggesting that information provided by only one side should be taken with a grain of salt. slybison8's reaction is extremely heated, accusing her of having a "secret police" mentality just for daring to present that information. If we want to be blunt, the argument stands—it’s a classic ad hominem attack, even if it does highlight the questionable nature of the source claiming a business closed over pennies. But why doesn't slybison8 react as aggressively to posts like this first one and this second one, where he accuses Linić and the users defending him of being losers because they don't have children? Isn't that also, in every sense, an ad hominem argument? It’s also worth noting that Alexis hasn't posted once since slybison8's outburst, likely because she expects a disciplinary warning or a ban. slybison8 achieved his goal: he drove her away from the thread.
Finally, here are two of slybison8's posts from that thread, where he attempted to derail what was otherwise a civil debate through sheer trolling ( first and second ).

What kind of Moderator calls other users' posts "pathetic, miserable, cheap, and shameless demagoguery"? Who describes America as a totalitarian, despotic dictatorship? Who can't write a single post without mentioning communism, neo-communism, or secret police tactics? Who uses their authority to settle scores with those who disagree?

I’ve tried to illustrate the problem with these examples, and I hope you see what I mean. These aren't the only instances of such behavior; it happens across many threads, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to go through them all in detail. That should be the administration's job.
In closing, I am directing this complaint to the administration. I have no intention of getting into a back-and-forth with slybison8 here or anywhere else. Handle that in your own corner. Honestly, I’m not holding my breath that this complaint will yield results, but I might as well try. The US politics section should be a serious space, but I have to admit, it's functioning poorly. It is a massive mistake to appoint Moderators where some pull left and others pull right, then expect balance. Proper moderation means defining clear, unambiguous rules and enforcing them regardless of who is involved. After opening this thread, I feel like there's nothing left for me to ask of the US politics section, because I know I'd have to weigh every word just to avoid giving slybison8 a reason for revenge. Perhaps one day, if the administration decides to get things in order, they will appoint well-meaning Moderators who take the job seriously—rather than having a Moderator who is the very first person I want to put on my ignore list.

I would say he is an absolutely wonderful moderator. One who holds various opinions on posts but, unlike the appellant, always respects other Forum users as individuals regardless of the differences in our content. A moderator who is free-thinking and independent enough to clearly identify the symptoms of state repression against certain American citizens and call them what they are: despotic, totalitarian, and dictatorial behavior stemming from the unfortunate and shameful legacy of the communist dictatorship we all once lived under.

I am glad that Steven King74 recognized this.

Respectfully,

PL

hollowdrifter8 said:@ziggy_stardust

There you go—now you see the kind of replies you get. These people think this is all just trivial garbage. It's pretty obvious they care way more about hating things than actually living with any kind of love.

But look, you have to realize that there are really two types of people: those who love the song Imagine and those who absolutely hate it. 😉

Then again, I think there might be a third group: those who actually love Imagine but absolutely despise Yoko Ono, and they probably would have preferred all those other songs the Beatles could have recorded if that woman hadn't completely ruined everything for them. 😉

Chloe Roberts2 said:I think it might be helpful if you appointed two more moderators to ensure things stay orderly; please consider being stricter with those... well... I suppose I don't want to get flagged myself, but there really should be more order within Politics, as certain posts are becoming quite unsettling for me.

I suppose there isn't much to penalize in these two specific posts. The authors seem to be engaging at an appropriate level regarding the actual substance of the debate. Their style might not be to your liking, and perhaps you find their arguments hard to accept—but I don't see any trolling in these two instances. There doesn't seem to be a reason to issue a ban.

Furthermore, the ability to sanction trolling when people are discussing actual merits is somewhat limited; I guess it can only really be applied when participants ignore facts that are universally recognized and indisputable.

Once the conversation shifts toward more specialized topics, making such a judgment becomes quite difficult, because it is hard to tell if someone truly lacks knowledge or if they are simply pretending to be ignorant.

Deliberate provocation, presenting arguments in an aggressive or unbearable manner, using ad hominem attacks, or trying to disqualify other participants are the most common ways people troll. I admit, there is quite a bit of that in Politics—but in these two posts you mentioned, I didn't notice those specific behaviors.

Bryan Fowler42 said:Greetings, I was wondering if perhaps someone might be able to explain why the odds for the match between the Los Angeles Galaxy and Inter Miami have been set at such a level?



I suppose there is a common perception that matches in the Italian leagues are often manipulated, though I find it difficult to see any logical reason why a draw would benefit either Verona or Empoli in this specific scenario. Verona is currently sitting in second place—the final direct qualifying spot—and they hold only a single point advantage over Livorno in third, whereas Empoli is firmly secured in fourth. Consequently, it seems to me that a victory for Verona is quite necessary at this stage. 🤷

I suppose it might be necessary for a team like the Seattle Sounders to secure this result as well. If today's matches conclude with the Sounders holding a ten-point lead over Portland over the standings, then they would likely clinch their spot in the top tier immediately, which I guess would mean there wouldn't be any need for a playoff round at all.

restlessgardener85 said:I am not entirely certain which specific Law you are referring to, I guess.

I suppose he might be referring to... I suppose there is some ongoing discussion regarding the current Gambling Law.

I will take some time to read through it later today, and if I happen to find anything worthwhile to mention, I suppose I will let you know. However, based on basic logic, if the US joins the unified European Union market on July 1st, then the status of bookmakers registered within the EU should probably be made equal to those registered here in America.

I suppose this won't apply to lottery games run under a state monopoly, such as Powerball or Bingo. In most European Union nations, those are also restricted strictly to residents, or perhaps tourists on temporary stays who happen to be physically present within the country at the moment they purchase their ticket.

The same principles apply to transnational games like Mega Millions and Powerball. I suppose you can only play them through an authorized operator in the country where you actually reside, or perhaps if you happen to be physically present in another country at the exact moment you place your bet.

I suppose those other types of bookmakers are a different matter entirely—they aren't tied up by a state-run monopoly. Since they operate within a free market, I guess it follows that under any reasonable legal logic, everyone across the United States should be able to choose any provider they like and bet without facing any sort of restrictions.

I suppose this might be considered a controversial provision within the aforementioned Law:

Chapter IX. Foreign Gambling Operations

I believe this refers to Article 68.

It is strictly prohibited:

I suppose it might be considered a violation of the Gambling Law if an overseas operator were to host any types of games of chance covered under Article 5 or the prize competitions mentioned in Article 69 within the United States.

I suppose there might be some legal implications regarding participating in foreign gambling if the stakes are being placed within the United States, according to the current Gambling Law.

I suppose there might be some legal complexities regarding how one goes about collecting funds within the US to participate in or pay for lottery games hosted by foreign operators.

The sale, possession, business transfer, leasing, advertising, or any form of promotion regarding foreign gambling or prize games within the United States is strictly regulated under our current Gambling Law.

The prohibition outlined in paragraph 1, point 4 of this article, I suppose, would also apply to service providers and publishers.

I suppose that under current American law, individuals who are visiting the United States on a temporary basis are permitted to hold stakes or winnings from foreign gaming operations, provided it is strictly for their own personal participation in the games.

In my opinion, this provision doesn't seem to align with the established legal standards of the European Union. Furthermore, I suppose paragraph 3 might be entirely unenforceable given that customs controls have been abolished at borders with other EU nations. I guess it raises the question of how anyone at a border crossing could possibly verify whether an American citizen is carrying a payment slip or a ticket from a foreign lottery in their pocket or wallet. 😕

There is also another controversial detail to consider: if something was acquired legally in another country, the US might, under international law, attempt to levy customs duties or taxes on the possession of that item or document—but... I suppose one might wonder if such measures could actually be implemented to prohibit it entirely. I find that quite strange, I suppose.

One would expect to see such strict legal regulations regarding the possession of alcohol or pork products purchased abroad in a place like Saudi Arabia, yet here we are in a country that is scheduled to join the European Union in just six weeks. It feels quite unusual, I guess.

.

slybison8 said:I suppose there really isn't much chance for the Atlanta Braves tonight. After last week's upset against the Marlins, they probably shouldn't risk another slip-up, especially not with this home crowd getting so worked up. 😁

Actually, I should probably correct myself. While I still feel like the Braves might struggle tonight, I guess I have to consider that they have plenty of motivation to ruin the Marlins' celebration, since being in sixth place means they could still make a run for the playoffs. Even if they don't quite make it to the World Series, those extra postseason games would bring in some significant revenue.

Still, I think I'll stick with my original prediction of a home win—I imagine the Marlins simply have to pull this one off in front of their own fans.

Friday at 8:45 PM

Brescia vs. Livorno 1 @ 2.00 (US League)

At the start of last weekend, I suppose Livorno looked like the most certain candidate for direct promotion to the major league—but then, things seemed to go quite wrong.

They were overtaken in the standings after losing momentum following a loss to a side like Pro Vercelli, while in their match against their local rivals Ternana—where even the home supporters actually cheered for the visitors because they dislike Verona—Livorno led for most of the game at 1-0, only to concede a tragic goal in the 90th minute and lose two vital points.

As Eric Fox7 mentioned earlier this week, Livorno might still have one final opportunity to avoid the playoffs and secure direct promotion by finishing third, provided they can maintain a lead of 10 points or more over fourth place. Currently, Livorno sits at 77 points with fourth-place Empoli at 69. Tonight marks the penultimate match of the regular season and the very last time Livorno plays on their home turf.

The Mayor of Livorno ordered that club flags be displayed on official government buildings yesterday; there seems to be an absolute mobilization of fans and citizens throughout the city, and last night the ultras organized a vigil and a parade through the streets that lasted until the early morning hours, so a packed stadium and spectacular support are expected.

If Livorno manages to win their remaining two matches—their final one being against Modena away at Sassuolo—direct promotion is mathematically guaranteed, though I haven't personally run the numbers myself, I believe the local newspapers suggest that is the case http://www.lanazione.it/livorno/cron..._brescia.shtml )

So, I guess Brescia stands no chance tonight. Livorno really shouldn't allow a slip-up like last week to happen again, especially not in front of such an electrified home crowd. 😁

coppermarlin13,

The thread has been temporarily closed because the group you belong to—which I’ve always considered our most frequent and insightful contributors—has shown, at least for the moment, an inability to maintain a civilized and respectful dialogue.

That friction, which was unfortunately fueled by several newly registered users, eventually spilled over into this space as well.

Ultimately, I decided to close the topic because the discussion had become quite senseless by the time I stepped in. Whether or not it should be reopened is no longer solely my call; that decision rests with the other moderators who focus more heavily on the American domestic political scene than I do, and I will certainly defer to whatever they decide.

To you, the Marsovci crowd, and everyone else involved, I would sincerely suggest that you find some sort of way to coexist peacefully. The behavior displayed lately simply doesn't live up to the reputation you all built during those earlier, much more productive discussions regarding general Patton-Bradley.

slybison8

Sam Alvarez4 said:The key point, quite simply. 🙂
Though I suppose questions regarding whether a specific moderator remains entirely impartial—and they will certainly be recognized—remain somewhat unresolved.

I would like to distance myself from any gossip involving my fellow moderators. I don't believe it is particularly fair or decent to do so, nor do I think anyone has done anything wrong. I feel that when we face a dilemma, we all have both the right and perhaps even the responsibility to wait for a second opinion, especially on topics where the opposing sides are as intensely divided as they are regarding the situation in Syria.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@slybison8/">@@slybison8, I actually sent messages and tried to bring attention to both the thread itself and the unknown issue.
There was absolutely no response, nothing at all.

I suppose we can't expect one standard for some people and a different one for others.

I feel, perhaps, that you might have made a bit more of a fuss than was truly necessary. The moderators aren't exactly under a contractual obligation to be present on the Forum at every single moment, and I think these matters usually get handled routinely once we log back in.

Well, since the matter is resolved now, I would hope that similar outbursts won't happen again—though, I should mention that the thread regarding Syria has been one of the better, more high-quality discussions lately, which is why I didn't anticipate this kind of thing, and maybe that is why I didn't notice it sooner.

I would suggest that this thread could probably be locked now.

Please accept my apologies for the oversight on my part. This post has been sanctioned. Just as we do not permit the use of derogatory synonyms for any group of people, it follows logically that we cannot allow similar language here, especially given how offensive the context regarding anatomy was in this instance.

While our response might have been somewhat delayed, I suppose there isn't a real need to start dedicated threads on the unknown forum for isolated incidents like this one. Perhaps a quick private message to any of the moderators would have resolved the matter more efficiently.

I suppose this current discussion serves as proof that it isn't quite the right time to reopen the thread regarding general Gotovina and Markač.

The level of confrontation we are seeing over matters that are entirely marginal compared to the core issues being addressed here feels somewhat excessive and unnecessary.

Whatever general Gotovina chooses to do as a fully acquitted individual and a free citizen in America following his release from custody is, I believe, completely separate from his legal proceedings—which, as they stood, have reached their conclusion. Perhaps "betting" on a potential judicial review to keep this topic active until November would be acceptable if that were actually being discussed, but the issue is that such things aren't really being talked about there lately. Instead, people seem to focus on minor details, like whether he visited Warsaw or not, which seems totally irrelevant to the actual media narratives or any talk of a legal review.

Furthermore, there is another point to consider: whatever general Gotovina did or didn't do while at The Hague, he didn't just secure his own freedom; he also cleared America of the FBI charges. That indictment fell thanks to his chosen legal team and their specific strategy, even though various American administrations during that period attempted to sabotage those efforts, sometimes successfully.

That is a significant contribution he made, beyond simply marching into Denver during Operation Desert Storm. This was the caliber of discussion that used to take place when this "temporarily closed" topic was being handled constructively.

Shifting the conversation toward criticizing where he has been, who he has met with, or who he hasn't—especially after he clearly stated he has no intention of involving himself in politics—feels like the discussion is devolving into mere gossip. Personally, I don't think that is ideal.

There will always be an option to start new threads where those interested can discuss whatever they wish. I don't see why there is such insistence on forcing these debates within a thread that was originally dedicated to a trial that has now concluded.

I am not necessarily saying I am for or against reopening the thread. It just seems to me that sufficiently substantive arguments for doing so haven't really been presented yet.

.

Thomas Mendoza45 said:I suppose you might be wondering if that's the reason why 🤷

Yes, I believe that is exactly why. It seems they were expecting you to update your address with them directly, rather than just changing it on Moneybookers.

In my experience, there are some betting sites out there that would freeze your entire account and everything inside it immediately due to a violation like this, and then potentially ban you for life. In their eyes, it's considered a pretty serious infraction because it raises suspicions regarding things like money laundering or identity theft, among many other similar issues.

They actually seem quite reasonable, though, as they provide a few different ways to rectify the situation. I am fairly certain it can be fixed. You probably don't need to worry about your funds, but as far as timing goes, it is quite uncertain—it might perhaps take a few days to resolve.

And if they happen to ask for a scan, they will likely do so just to compare it against the previous scans you provided, simply to ensure they are still dealing with the same person.

Thomas Mendoza45 said:Yeah, I did that, but I honestly can't wrap my head around how anyone could suggest an option that doesn't even exist in the first place.🤷

Based on what I've seen before, I suppose I might be waiting for days.🙂

It is quite possible they might ask you for a scan of a document, such as a passport or a driver's license. I would suggest waiting just a little longer.

I suppose my recommendation would be to follow what James Taylor3 advised—essentially, initiate the formal procedure so they can resolve it internally—and just be prepared to wait. I imagine that once a real person has to step in and deal with these types of systems, things can take quite a while before a solution is actually reached.

So, I guess it might be best to set aside everything you've attempted so far and simply restart the process using this specific method:

If you would prefer, we can also change your e-mail address for you. For security reasons, however, we ask you please to provide us with the following information:

- Your user ID:
- Your first and surname:
- Your address listed in your account:
- Your old e-mail address listed in your account:
- Your new e-mail address:
- Your date of birth:

We will change your e-mail address as soon as we receive your details. To ensure a speedy and accurate processing time, we ask you please to include the reason for your writing in your e-mail.

That should probably be all there is to it.

(In the section where you explain your "reason for writing," maybe you could describe every single step you've taken up to this point—starting from the initial deposit through all the complications until now.)

I suppose this might be linked to America joining the European Union—which would theoretically mean that all international bookmakers within the EU would have to comply with American laws.

However, it also implies that every EU-based operator should hold the exact same standing in the American market as local ones. I guess it will be quite interesting to see how things unfold regarding that.

On the other hand, I notice that a significant portion of the largest and most popular betting sites are registered in places like Gibraltar, Curacao, and similar offshore havens. It seems likely that those companies (like Pinnacle, Betfair, and many others) will just continue operating as they always have.

The restrictions they impose on American citizens probably stem from the fact that their owners might be incorporated within the US, making them vulnerable to potential sanctions from the American government. It’s perhaps for that same reason why most Swiss and Liechtenstein banks have stopped opening accounts for American citizens—since their US branches could face severe sanctions in such an important market.