Topic: Do you think Lightlord behavior is acceptable? - page 3. (Read 4311 times)

I am pretty sure he just misinterpreted that CBB is waiting for the escrow funds from Lightlord as "waiting for his payment" for his service of managing the campaign.

That's not true. The bounty manager received his payout on the same day as the rest of the bounty participants. You can look up the transactions from the 1Bitvest... address.

As Poker Player explained, Brainboss has paused campaigns until he receives funds in escrow for future payments.

Source for that? I don't know if you are not expressing yourself well.

I have looked at the campaign threads and Brainboss's latest posts but have seen nothing. He's waiting for funds in escrow, that's for sure, but I haven't seen anything about Lightlord not paying him.

lightlord paid all unpaid bounty rewards including "bonus for delay" as shared on the forum. But this time the bounty manager wrote that he could not get his own payment. So, it seems that the campaign is on pause and seems unlikely that it will continue after payment. If the BM finally gets the payment that should be made to it, then there is no problem in my opinion.

For years one of the first things I did after any sizable win was throw a chunk into bitvest and lock it for a few weeks.  June was the last time I did that, requested a withdraw for a few dozen LTC and got radio silence for 3 days - heard some grumblings from others when I asked around at the time. It's a shame, but it's just not worth the stress to put your money in a place that's run like this.  I hope they turn things around and gain back everyones trust, I'd def give them another shot but it would require real effort on their part.

Loyce's bot summoned me, so here I am 

Yes Poker Player is absolutely right, and the flag would have only been the beginning, I made that very clear to one of the mods. There are way more effective ways to hurt them really hard on top of creating flags.

The thing with the loss that didn't occur is that they were simply lucky in my case. I tried to withdraw a sizeable amount of Doge to sell for Bitcoin. At the time I requested the wd, price was at ~600 Sats, when I finally could withdraw it was still about in this range. If it had dropped by say 100 or even 200 Sats within this time I would have made a pretty big loss (USD and BTC-wise). But even with about the same price I could have easily lost on a missed opportunity (whatever, a car, a house that got sold otherwise in the meantime).

When I invested into bitvest I tried everything first with small amounts and did rely on their promise to be able to withdraw any amount within 18 hours backed on lightlord's excellent trust and reputation. But it was part of the agreement that I proposed that if I get my money on my last ultimatum that I won't follow-up on it in anyway, neither flags nor other measures I have had prepared and I uphold that agreement from my side. There is indeed a bit of a dilemma in this, but I decided to keep my word as I still feel very lucky having got my investments back.

Actually I first only planned to divest a small amount from bitvest to secure some of my gains and the reason for that were previous credible reports from people in the bitvest thread that they can't withdraw for days and do not get any answers no matter how they try contact bitvest, which kind of started to unsettle me considering the amounts I had invested there. Once I found I couldn't even divest a small part of my investment I got worried and decided to pull out everything ASAP. Mods told me that this is an ongoing problem since longer but I should just trust that I get my money at some point. So this is obviously has been going on longer than two months.

I don't think this calls for a flag. He seems to be paying eventually, so there is no outstanding obligation / breach of contract (basis for type 2 or type 3 flag). There probably isn't a high risk of losing money (basis for type 1 flag). There is however (IMO) a high risk of not getting your money in a timely manner and there is misleading information on the website about how they handle their wallets. That's my thought process anyway ATM.


Red trust does not necessarily mean that money has been lost. That would be subject to a type 2/3 flag.

So the question really is whether it's a "high risk" to deal with someone who tends to pay late after much prodding, or someone who doesn't seem to have a contingency plan for their business (while implying that they do).


Payment rate is part of the deal. Getting paid late is not. This is not about spam (spam is not a concern for the trust system), it's about money being owed.

is late payment really a good reason for a negative tag? it doesn’t matter if it’s a signature campaign payment or a casino withdrawal.
as far as I could see, he did not give any excuses about casino withdrawal delay, nor any accusations against users or an attempt to avoid payment. I guess users of its casinos should be alerted to the probable possibility of late payment, but not that they will run out of their money. it seems to me that there is an important difference.

Can we negative mark them because of the low payment rate in their signature campaigns? I mean, it is below any minimum, and directly affects the production of spam on the forum.

I will definitely consider to remove my negative feedback or change to neutral once I see that people are getting payed on time, without constant delays and having to pressure via negative tags and bunch of PMs. I am not convinced of that yet and for now I wouldn't join any of his campaigns, nor apply to any of his future job adds.

I believe that the most likely scenario is that in the coming months there will be no problems with withdrawals or signature campaign payments.

I don't know if it is worth creating a flag if there are no more problems at the moment, but you have much more experience than me in these matters.

Although I also think that what has happened is not from someone deserving of a good reputation. Let's look at a case:






Rereading this, I see again that they react to pressure. When psycodad gives them until the end of the month, I understand that otherwise he would have created a trust flag or something, then they pay him.

I need to clarify - this was about signature campaign payments. I think 10 consecutive on-time payments is not too much to ask after being chronically late for years, and it's be a good indication that there is a serious attempt to fix the issue. I can also see some merit in the argument that if the signature campaign members are willing to put up with this then why should I care, even though they're in a bit of a hostage situation.

The casino stuff is a whole other story. Having to chase the owner to withdraw your funds should be unacceptable under any circumstances. Being unable to withdraw because there is only one person capable of refilling the hot wallet and that person is sick - that's really messed up. This risk is not disclosed on the site, in fact it says that two people (lightlord and zodiac) have control of the the cold wallet funds, which would imply that either one of them could have refilled the wallet. I would call this situation "high risk".

So at this point I'm inclined to revise my rating from negative to a different negative but I'll ponder this for a little while.

I would like to know, especially those of you who left negative feedback to Lightlord and have not changed it, what you think about whether and when to change the feedback to neutral. I have seen that yahoo62278 has changed it to neutral. suchmoon said about 10 weeks seeing that the payments were working fine.

I don't know if any of you plan to leave it negative forever?

In my case I'm open to changing it, but I'm in no hurry.

I haven't seen lightlord use the word "experimental".

I'm just guessing here: if it's the usual anti-vaxxers who posted it, I don't think it belongs in this topic.

I think the mention of "vaccine" in this deleted post is what triggered it: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5816/58167481.html

Seems to be a touchy subject nowadays.

Can someone please fill me in on this 'lightlord was sick with experimental medication' bit?  I see some post he made about it referenced a few times but see nothing about it in his post history.

This is what I see right off the bat when I opened the thread


Oof

I'm not sure if this is important, but Lightlord is the creator of the Eloncoin thread and apparently the developer of this shitcoin. But this is not at all about that ... I found one interesting mention of one of the developers of this project two weeks before Lightlord's post was posted (I assume that this is about Lightlord).

Lightlord was active again on Discord today, as well as in the Eloncoin ANN thread:


@lightlord, I hope you're doing well now and that things will improve at least a little bit from now on, since the previous "normal" wasn't exactly good enough.

Unnecessary, in my opinion. Cases were resolved. No need to dig for further details especially it is personal stuff.

Assume I am light lord and told the truth. Do I have to show my face just to convince you that I was ill and just to have the sympathy to remove negative feedback on my account. I might consider a while and decide: NO.

---

I am out of this thread too. Previously, I did not care to join ^{with some reasons I described above}.

Very few people here in this thread seem to grasp that lightlord (and only lightlord) seems to have access to the two gambling site's funds.  Zodiac1233, the mysterious "life long friend" has only ever posted about the two gambling sites (and nothing else - ever) and never thought to come online to pass on a message from their ?? partner ?? lightlord in the past ten weeks.

As a rare few others are saying, this isn't their first time lightlord has fallen short in their responsibilities to their signature participants.  (this time 'round it was the pandemic that ate my homework)

I'm not inclined to remove my negative, and neither should you.