Topic: Can you still believe aTriz words? Reopened, too many open questions - page 23. (Read 5752 times)

The three year contract that aTriz entered into gave both parties who are very new to the signature campaign market an undeserved appearance of trustworthiness. If aTriz is entering into three year signature campaign contracts then surely he is sufficiently experienced to manage my campaign (yet of course this ignores the fact that aTriz has virtually no experience in this field, a couple of months worth maybe).

In regards to the gambling script, it is clear that aTriz knows there is no way to beat the house in a provably fair casino with a house edge based on his posting history, someone quoted several of his old posts that demonstrate this. He was vouching for something he very well knew was being misrepresented.

If you ignore the above, then he was vouching for something he didn’t understand and could not possibly vouch for. If you believe this, then why would you believe anything else aTriz says? Why would it be appropriate to entrust aTriz if he has a history of not doing his due diligence?

I don't think he's obligated to pay. He entered into the contract thinking someone was who they said they were and that person is clearly a liar who is misrepresenting themselves, so IMO the contract could be void just based on the fact it was created under false pretenses. I'd also add that standard public policies amongst the community has generally been that red trust == removal from signature campaigns which I believe adds further reasoning.

That would imply that he knows more than what a variable initialization looks like. To my knowledge, he does not.

/thread.

Did he check script for backdoors?

I am curious to know what in the written contact makes you come to this conclusion. The only way I see aTriz getting out of the contract is if alia doesn’t make at least 30 posts per month.

I can see why aTriz wanted her sig space, and I can totally understand locking her down for 3 years. On the face of it she was popular and an active poster sure it was a risk but it was also a cheap deal. $300 a month isn't a lot for someone who was already on Theymos's watch list and who had convinced theymos to change her forum name.

As for the gambling vouch, didn't he just say that it worked?

OP you really need to get a life or post from your min account

Or my suggestion. He forces her to wear this signature:

 

Preface

I think a few words are in order about why I am peculiarly interested in this topic.  It goes beyond my own liking for aTriz:  I feel a certain sense of moral responsiblity in the matter.

As I made clear to “alia” near the end of the last thread:


I think a great many people never would have even heard of Alia, if not for actions on my own part.  I was well-intended—and I was neither the first nor only one fooled.  But I did get fooled; and I raised her profile.

Especially in the Legendary section, I think a good many of you reading this can attest to yourselves that you never even would have heard of Alia, were it not for me.

On that last point, aTriz will need to speak for himself.  Though I seriously doubt that Alia would have ever come to his attention if not for me, I do not have any direct knowledge of how he found her signature-sale thread, nor of private business dealings between them.

---

scam_detector, whoever you are, I thought you came off reasonably in the other thread when we settled your accusation against me, and also when I nailed Alia for having to known Dave from “the best” “wallet recovery service” (Dave speaks).  I also will here assume good faith on your part, since you were the one who brought the Alia matter to light.

To better keep focus on the substantive issues, first I wish to point out a few things about where the Alia scam thread got off track.


Please do understand the response by people who are in fact subjected to daily troll attacks by known as well as new sockpuppet accounts.  You may disdain these ongoing feuds—but the people involved in them can’t, not when they get spurious attack threads launched against them which sometimes grow to 15 pages in the first day.

If you were to deal with that every day—well, foremost, I think that’s really why you avoid these feuds.  Also, why you are using an alt account.  You don’t want to deal with that every day.  For if you did, it would eat your time; and you would quite reasonably come to develop some reflexes about an anonymous party hurling about accusations.  Ok, it’s this today.

I do think that this is the reason why no action was taken until ibminer tagged Alia and posted in that thread.

For my part, you will observe, I did not enter that thread with a simple “go away, troll” response to you.  That was indeed my own initial reflex; and I wrote a post to such effect.  The reason why that was never posted was part prudence, part luck:  Prudence, insofar as I have developed the habit of checking pertinent trust pages before I post about an issue; and luck, because RGBKey and Joel_Jantsen had tagged Alia.

I didn’t take you seriously, scam_detector.  I took RGBKey seriously, because I have interacted with him in Development & Technology Discussion; I know he’s smart, and not a troll.  Moreover, his negative was reinforced by the harsh words in Joel_Jantsen’s neutral (since changed to negative).

I slammed on the brakes when I saw that.  Then, ibminer posted...

The foregoing is illustrative of why you received the initial response you did, quoted above.

Another problem with that thread was the way you tied the Alia and aTriz issues together.  Being somewhat closer to the situation than you are—I snorted when I saw that.  The very title made it come off like the wacky sorts of accusations heard here daily.  Of course, this problem should be solved by the dividing of issues between threads.

Now here, I think it is wise to presume your intent is to state in good faith what you believe to be a meritorious accusation against aTriz.

I think the most reasonable discussion of that would be served by not allowing conflation of spurious issues.  In the Alia thread, I identified discussion of four different issues—two Alia issues (which are here offtopic), and two aTriz issues.

One issue on-topic here, and (I think) not raised by you anywhere, is the spurious insinuation that aTriz did something wrong by locking in a three-year signature contract with Alia.  I think it’s clear, aTriz got scammed—and that’s the long and short of the matter.  In the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary, I would suggest explicitly dismissing this as a frivolous issue so as to focus on the gambling issue.

On the gambling issue, it is difficult for me to reach a firm opinion.  As I said in the Alia thread, I don’t know enough about gambling to assess this issue.  I have trouble following the discussion, since I do not know all the jargon.  It would take me hours of reading to even begin to get a handle on the issue, when I am already exhausted (now awake much >24 hours due to this Alia blowup...).  I’d be interested in hearing what unbiased, technically competent persons who know gambling have to say about the matter.

I do think it’s clear that aTriz doesn’t know anything about scripting on a technical level.

Also, missing from your thread-split OP is the question of culpability.  Somebody who knowingly promotes a scam is much worse than somebody who is scammed into believing in a scam.  When you write this:


Well, what would you do without the “users who apparently knew what they’re talking about”?  What if you, scam_detector, with your current level of gambling knowledge, were told by somebody who seemed knowledgeable that “their method works 100%”, etc.?

You might say that you’d avoid such a situation.  That’s easy to say when you are not in the situation.  Now, consider if a scammer has already engendered your trust sufficiently to lock you into long-term contracts with much prepayment.  The person is a sort of “rising star”, admired on the forum and apparently well-liked by some technically competent people.  That person apparently shows knowledge superior to yours—then tells you, “this will work 100%”.

Context can be important.  Without knowing the technical gambling part or what the script actually did, the best I can guess is:  aTriz probably did something at best foolhardy, at worst foolhardy; and he got scammed.

---

By keeping focused on a calm, reasonable examination of what Alia’s script did, gambling-wise—what aTriz knew or should have known about it—and what aTriz did or didn’t do about it, I think the matter can be handled without 25-page flamewars which are 90% off those topics.  On my presumption of you’re here, I believe that to be your goal, scam_detector.

I will now mostly defer to people who actually understand gambling issues.  Frankly, I myself would like to see this explained.  However, unless/until I crash asleep, I will promptly drive a spike through anything which looks like blaming the victim for getting scammed out of a three-year contract, etc.  (That issue, I very well do understand.)

So he apparently forgot a "not" in the statement ("Nope, I don't that was not in the contract"), which is understandable and why I misinterpreted this. He was likely responding to the fact that he cannot get his money back for the upfront payment because he didn't specify this in the contract. Still eager to hear from aTriz but I can accept this piece relating to the potential red trust clause and have revised my prior post.

Possibly. However, we rarely go on witch hunts on innocent people who made a bad business decision or two.

I'd like to clarify this:
1) Campaign management is usually running a campaign for a third party.
2) Hiring someone to advertise for your own service is not similar to the above[1]. You can create private advertising deals that are also related to the campaign that you're managing (as per 1).

---

[1] If it were, then every service that entered into private advertising deals with signatures would be considered a campaign manager; which does not make a lot of sense.

This rule is interesting:
For the whole term, a signature of his choice will be in my signature space

He should send (s)cam girl legendary signature, she won't be able to wear it, and I don't see "junior member signature" is mentioned anywhere in contract  

---

@OP i am not sure, but maybe aTriz was thinking with his dick  

Not really, no. He's addressing the exact question, and his response is "Nope, I don't that was in the contract". In other words: The case if alia gets a negative rating is/was not covered by the contract.

Indeed. When I was informed of the contract, I couldn't even remotely imagine a upfront 5 month payment. To get an answer from him on this, you're going to have to wait several hours though.

I have to assume aTriz is referring to something with his post... but I agree, it seems like the contract, as posted, should not hold aTriz accountable to continue payments. Still not sure why one would agree to a 5 month upfront payment in this situation. Seems like quite a risk for a user with no real prior history who has only been on the forum 1 month.

That implies that you have a valid argument. You do not. Try again. I do not like slopes.

Such a handy quote.

I have one word for you: Whataboutism 

No, you're massively full of hypocrisy. If you were concerned about such situations and similar, you'd be advocating against people advertising Betcoin post them getting a lot of negatives. This is just one example of many. However, those examples don't implicate aTriz so I guess, in my opinion, they aren't a massive problem.

Other than the amount that was paid upfront, I think the same. Although the input from others is welcome.

The question of negative trust is not addressed in the contact that aTriz agreed to and confirmed. The terms were 30-100 posts/month with alia wearing the signature of aTriz’s choice in exchange for ~$400 per month.

Looking at the terms of the contract, I don’t see any reason why aTriz should be able to back out of paying alia.