Topic: Hhampuz using his position on forum to vindicate scams - page 2. (Read 1419 times)

This is just off-topic here but still, you cannot deny that in some cases the local board participants are more active and engaging and they should not be ignored. Also, I don't think if it will do any good if people started to create new topics purposely when they are not required.



There is a difference between a scam exit and a service being shut down by the government and financial authorities.
Also, the campaign managers have no role in such cases as they are only managing the campaigns of the companies/services which were legit at the time they were running.

Only OP and his main account know.

..

Somehow we already know whose alt account OP is, don't we?


Only request I'm going to make: Hhampuz probably should reward new topic starters more. Topics getting many clicks compared to local boards where only few people are active?
Issue is many services are shady. It's only a question of time until we see an exit scam again or fraud operator like ChipMixer. 

I removed the support. Other day it was completely out of mind that I had support to the flag or I would withdraw the support when I removed the tag.

We are still waiting to see the reports from Betnomi victims.

Maybe the OP will decide it is time to lock the thread. He has after all made his point and he has read the replies from Hhampuz. Add to that he has read the replies and opinions of many members (which mostly do not agree with him). It is clear the OP did not get far with momentum of members behind his allegation.

Op, Issues like this usually occur between bettors and the platform they operate, but I haven't heard or seen many users of Robilt accuse the platform of such acts, from experience here, Rolbit has spent 2 years + in the forum and has got a reputation, So Hampuz is talking from the point of having managed and run the Rolbit campaign for a long now without issues of scams, so I see no wrong from Hampuz side, however, I think Hampuz should take the issue to get the Rolbit's management team in the know.

I agree with this, but this is different from what I was talking about. It's ok to rightly tag someone with red paint if that someone is a proven scammer as a warning to other members.

I was talking about actual cases where two users traded physical/digital goods. If I was part of such a trade with you, and I was satisfied, I would let those feelings be known using the feedback system, regardless what your other ratings say. It works the other way as well. You could have 50 positive trades, I am still going to leave you a negative if you scam me and don't fulfill your part of our agreement without thinking what the community will think of me.

If what you stated is true, I would like to read what Hhampuz wrote in those alleged instances and would like to know the context in which he wrote the words. Therefore regarding 1,3 and 4 can you provide links?

If you are claiming Hhampuz has been conducting himself in a wrong manner in the past, why did you not create your alt-account to post about it earlier?

I disagree on this. Feedbacks and reputation are not things that work out in isolation. Many users give negative feedback or positive (but mostly negative) based on the proof presented by others and that's how it should work.

A website appears on the forum and are accused by a lot of users of scamming, if I go through the reference provided and consider it valid, I can also drop a negative feedback.
If I had an isolated positive relationship with them, but see overwhelming cases of violation of user agreement with enough evidence to support it, I will refrain from giving a positive feedback. The user could be farming for positive feedbacks to help them look trustworthy and scam more people.

This does not mean my choice is solely influenced by others but I treat each case uniquely and decide on what action to take, if any.

This...is an interesting case. I've seen flaws in a lot of members on the forum however Hhampuz has never been one of them.

Though, given what I see almost every time to login to bitcointalk - being casinos using shady practices to confiscate funds, rip off players, while paying their promoters, campaign managers, etc. I am unfortunately, not surprised. That does not mean that Hhampuz is guilty for knowingly helping Rollbit despite also knowing malpractice, though something should definitely be done.

Another campaign for BC.Game that is running, is also one that is similar to this case. L0tt0.com on the other hand, is managed by BoXoB who also promoted a casino that ended up scamming for tens/hundreds of millions. I mention both of these cases as there definitely needs to be some sort of refinement of the responsibility that campaign managers have when they are running campaigns. They are, after all, a vehicle of trust and marketing between the casino and players.

If we take into account that the flags reference a post from April 19, and we read the neutral tag he left on May 6, I give even less weight to the flags.

Trust feedback is supposed to show your experience dealing with a person. It shouldn't match what others say and feel about that person. So, if you had a good trade with someone or did some business with them that you feel like sharing, the feedback system is the place to do that. The same is true if your experience was negative. Hhampuz has every right to post a about his positive experience the same way those who believe they were harmed can post about their negative experience. A big mistake people do before leaving feedback is checking who else has posted and what. If it's mostly negative, I am not going to say anything positive and vice versa. That's wrong. It's your experience that matters, regardless what the community thinks of it. 


I don't know how the support looked like the day you created this thread, but "everyone" supporting the flags is simply wrong. They currently have only BitcoinGirl.Club from the DT club that supports them together with a few non-DT members. Regarding Hhampuz's opposition of the flag. If he read and looked at the evidence and didn't agree Rollbit did anything wrong, he is correct by opposing the flag. If he opposed it just based on his previous positive encounters with the casino and its personnel without even looking at the evidence presented, I think he is in the wrong.   

Makes sense. The idea was to have an open discussion without putting my reputation and account at stake. I think I am satisfied with the situation so may be closing the thread soon, allowing 24 hours for anyone who wishes to reply.

Thanks for bringing some sense into the discussion. And no I don't have any experience, good or bad, with 1xbit either but it was purely for explaining the situation.

It's not a problem at all.  As I said, it would be problematic if Hhampuz's review somehow mentioned the accusation or refuted it, but the review makes no mention of the scam accusation.


He's not going to get the details, so forget about it.  If Rollbit was your casino would you disclose sensitive data to some anonymous guy on the internet?  Even if he was responsible for promoting my business, I would protect as much information about my organization as jealously as possible.  Need to know basis, and Hhampuz doesn't need to know shit.  

And, you and I will have to disagree about whether that's interference or not.  Would Hhampuz's review prevent me from red-tagging the account if I felt there was sufficient evidence of scamming?  No, it would not.


That's exactly the right thing to do.  There's no more evidence of a scam than there is of no scam.  His experience with the team behind Rollbit is more significant than anyone else's on this forum, so why would we discount his assessment of their character?  You're jumping to the conclusion that he's trying to protect his client or his income, but I've known Hhampuz for too long to believe he would compromise his ethics in that way.


Lol, some people got their panties in a wad about 1xBit, but I'm not one of them.  Yeah, 1xBit got a lot of bad reviews and you know what they say about smoke and fire, but I've yet to see enough evidence to say that they are definitely scammers.  Their reviews were enough to keep me away.  And don't look to me to justify all the frivolous tagging of 1xBit sig-campaigners that went on around here.  That's JollyGood's job.

I have never questioned Rollbit's authenticity if you read it again. I would be equally against if someone from DT left them a negative feedback without proper reasoning on their part.

Leaving feedback and opposing flags without even knowing the case details, as Hhampuz admitted he isn't aware of the specific case, is a problem.

I will outline the problems here:

1- Hhampuz claims that he doesn't know about the case but left the feedback to the "sub-account" where -ve feedback was given and not the main account.

2- Let's assume suddenly after 2 years, he decided to give a +ve feedback while they are defending an accusation, which he has every right to, why would be giving that to a sub-account and not the main account? This is only possible when he is intending to counter the negative feedback.

3- If Hhampuz isn't aware of the specific case, should he oppose the flag?

4- I've noticed in the past too, Hhampuz has given feedback to people shouting against the casinos he promotes, such as Roobet and Duelbits. I am not saying the feedbacks are wrong or right but as an outside promoter for any business, I don't think he should act as the lawyer and defend everyone who speaks against the casinos, not least without valid reasons.


@DireWolfM14


Now that's the problem. If he does not have details about the case, despite knowing the people behind the scenes, then he shouldn't interfere and let a neutral investigation follow. Opposing the flag without a reason just based on his personal experience is not the right thing to do.

Imagine if I have played and paid (withdraw) by 1xbit, a known scam, should I go and defend everyone speaking against them? Just because I had good experience, doesn't mean everyone gets the same treatment. Letting a neutral investigation happen is what I am asking for, without using his position on the forum to suppress or incite the case.

The review is accurate from his perspective, the timing is irrelevant.  If he had written something excusing the scam accusation that would be different.  

Hhampuz has already stated that in his opinion the accusation is without merit.  He has no evidence to counter the accusation because Rollbit hasn't shared it with him.  It would be a breach of Rollbit's and their client's privacy to share that information with Hhampuz.  Sharing any personal or proprietary information with anyone on this forum (even the campaign manager) would be irresponsible of Rollbit, and likely a violation of their information protection policy.

I can only assume that Hhampuz added his review to the account that was red-tagged to counter the negative review, as you suggest.  However, as long as the review is accurate and pertinent to his interaction with the account I don't see it as a problem.  We're all human, and to me it's not only acceptable, but noble and loyal that he took it upon himself to counter a negative review he felt was based solely on speculation.  This is a client with which he's had years of experience, and his decision to defend their reputation by including himself as "character witness" isn't suspicious to me at all, even if was only to counter the negative review.

I see that you addressed so many people's response to your statement, I'd really appreciate if you can give your opinion regarding mine; that in order for this accusation to be valid, Rollbit themselves has to be proven as a scammer, whereas cases against them are currently mostly solved.

@DireWolfM14 Thank you for making sense. People asking why I am using a throwaway account is exactly the reason I had to use it

Let's address some questions

@JollyGood


This doesn't make sense, neither am I making a complaint. I see something wrong happening on the forum and I created a thread about it. Discuss the problem mentioned, not the accounts and stats, those don't matter to me.

Even the staff members are involved in cheating giveaways, so the profiles and stars only last until you get caught and don't hold any value.


@yahoo62278


They can share with the trusted members of the forum, in this case Hhampuz and they can confirm the player was at fault. Believing what the casino says is just as wrong as believing what the players says. Either trust both or none.


@Despairo


The timing is the problem, not the feedback. He has worked with them since 2021 but ONLY left feedback after the -ve which is clearly to counter the negative and the neutral feedbacks.

If he sees that accusations are being made against a company he works with, he should ask for more details rather than skipping everything and giving out +ve feedbacks and countering the flags (without any explanation)


@LoyceV

Sorry, I was not aware you have high-volume sirens ringing around when someone mentions your name or messages you on the forum.

The discussion isn't about whether the player is right or the casino. It's about blindly supporting or opposing any party without ever commenting on the thread. I don't remember hhampuz ever replied on the scam accusation or flag threads.


@Learn Bitcoin


The fact you have to clarify your stance is the reason I used throwaway account

@JollyGood


If you are not ready to discuss a matter just because it's involving/accusing a reputed member, then please stay away from the thread. You can give him a fe more +ve feedbacks instead. I don't worship people.



@Hhampuz

Thank you for speaking up and making more sense than people worshipping you.


Great. Can you explain how you only left a feedback 2 weeks after the -ve (and neutral) feedback? Because to talk about it, you are working for them for 2 years and the account you gave feedback isn't even their main account.

If you were to give feedback without considering the -ve feedback, it would be to the Rollbit's main profile. No?


@albon


Are you ok? This is exactly what I am also saying lol. He should promote something but not defend them just because he is promoting them. It's called conflict of interest. You are staying in his campaign don't worry


@Hhampuz


So you are saying you never had any discussion with them about the scam accusations and flags crated against them?

If you know the case and you are defending them, you should have at least asked them some details

And quite hilarious how you gave them counter +ve feedback, defended the flags ALONE, but never even cared to discuss them about it

It's a difference of opinion @BitcoinGirl.Club, you think they should cuddle the users who come here to bitcointalk by giving you and other members here access to see what's going on behind the scenes. There's nothing they could do other than show you exactly what the user did which then means they open themselves up to more abuse. We'll just have to agree to disagree and I'll never operate on "what if's", with the information I have here and now there are no signs that Rollbit are or will scam their users.

And just for the record, I never ask my clients for any proof of how they find cheaters, nor do they share it with me on their own initiative. Besides that the people that handle these cases are rarely the same people that handle marketing.

Again, you will look at it one way which a lot of users here do, maybe many of you have had bad experiences with gambling sites and that's why you have some preconceived idea and jump straight to conclusions whenever a user comes here with an allegation.

When the negative was left at that time if you read the feedback then you will see there were lack of taking care of the accusations, not providing convincing explanations, denying payments. Even when they were asked they were repeating inconvincing/unrelated response.

Let's see an example:

So when you are requested to collaborate to clear an accusation but in response you continue response like this which do not have any evidence to support you, how many times you think you will feel ok [!] everything is good?

The reason I removed the negative feedback is because from holydarkness collections on his last post I see the accusations are reducing, it looks like they are solving accusations. If it was left the same like it was before when the feedback was given then you would not see I changed the mind. Your vouch worked to remove any other doubts too that was still left.

The feedback seemed wrongful to you because you saw evidence [I trust that they indeed showed you evidence] but it was not wrongful to everyone else [public domain] of us because there were nothing that were shown to us, nothing given to us to feel comfortable that Rollbit is in the right road.

Anyway, I think you are giving too much to them. Rollbit really needs to improve their forum relation, it's not something you can fix for them. Just because spending money in advertising does not mean anything about them will be overlooked. This time you took the matter in your hand. Would you do the same next time too or even 3rd time? I don't think it will be a good idea. So ask them to improve. If they don't then don't trust but verify will become obvious otherwise.

Don't misunderstand me, I am on your side. I assume you are aware of Betnomi right now. Imagine [keep it in imagination only] if any such thing happen with Rollbit tomorrow or in the very near future, don't you think you will be questioned before anyone else? Don't give too much to one project. You have many projects to take care and forum needs members like you.

If I believe that the case was wrong and Rollbit is not to blame for this user being banned or their funds being confiscated, I have to believe that any negative tag left on the Rollbit account regarding this case is wrong. Again, it's my interpretation of this case, and your opinion on the matter. I do not believe that Rollbit did anything wrong (from what has been shown as evidence).