Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter. [1]
Yes aTriz made a mistake[2] by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on[3], but just this information, in and of itself is not necessary evidence of a scam[4], at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance[5].
It's funny how quick to turn people are[6], yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam[7]. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light[8] indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?
Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?[9]
[1] This applies to hundreds of others who have been negged for one single issue and will never be given a second chance.
[2] I really like to see flexible excuses.
[3] Not just was he aware of it, he actively participated in it.
[4] How many scams does qualify one to be labelled as a scammer? Ans.
1[5] Did he make the offer upfront or after being publicly accused of it? I believe he would have done nothing had he not been called out for it. Also I think (might be wrong) @snakey was in Chrysoscoin and this is Bitblisscoin. If you consider Chrysoscoin to a scam in which Atriz was complicit, this makes his
2nd scam.
[6] Who turned on him? Are you hinting at those who changed their ratings?
[7] He definitely knew that they were lying and that he was complicit, accessory to it.
[8]
WRONG AND GROSS MISREPRESENTATION; Atriz stopped managing it after he was called out for it and admitted to going along with the lies; it wasn't like he stopped the campaign the day he was asked to lie.
[9] This is a totally rational route to take, people who will deal with this account in the future should know what he has done in the past and as members have rightly pointed out that Atriz has stopped responding to these and has not even tendered an apology (not that it should change his neg), he simply wants to ignore it and move ahead, also what would you suggest to make it right?
P.S. Did @snakey get his investment back?
P.P.S. Are there other claimants as well?
A well reasoned answer, that's what I like to see. I was not aware of Chrysocoin so I can't comment on that matter.
Just from the general atmosphere surrounding this, it feels like most of the community has turned on him, without actually giving him a chance to rectify his mistake. I understand this is often the case around here, where people are dealt negs for sometimes trivial things, and I can see that this is not a trivial matter, but surely it makes sense to allow someone to atone for something before laying down punishment. Negging someone who has tried to succeed and make amends, versus negging a complete random are not the same, seems like execution before trial.
As for what would make it right, I suggest the following;
1. Instituting new vetting measures for ICOs to ensure this never happens again, and maintaining a better standard of transparency in his ANN/Bounties, adequately highlighting that he does not endorse the product, and is merely acting as a representative.
2. Reimbursing those that were directly afflicted by his mistake, this might not happen instantly of course, but as long as he shows
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.
Overall, I know he made a mistake (possibly two), but execution before trial doesn't solve anything, I think most people would agree that aTriz will seek to resolve this, and is therefore worthy of reconsideration.
Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.
Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.
It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?
Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?
This is not the first time aTriz has shown extraordinary naiveté and disregard for common sense.
"Proven scam" is a meaningless criterion. Most scams are technically unproven until the scammers run away. aTriz had information that indicated the ICO was shady at best and he brushed it off as a marketing strategy. He needs to rethink if he really wants to have his name associated with such projects, not to mention the impact on other users - I think it's inappropriate for a green-trusted member to knowingly provide undue legitimacy to potential scams.
Let's not forget aTriz is paid for promoting the ICO, you are essentially saying aTriz should have turned down payment because the ICO was shady? 80% of ICOs have shady practices going on, where do you draw the line? Most ICOs spend exorbitant amounts of money to drive up hype, pay members to join their channels and pump the ANN thread with questions. In my opinion, this is similarly as misleading as falsifying investment levels.
