Topic: hilariousandco, Mitchell,Vod,Ognasty Bitblisscoin.com could be a scamsite - page 5. (Read 8417 times)

From a technical perspective, yes it is possible aTriz opened those threads not as a member/partner of ALU, but as an individual campaign manager, however realistically this was not the case.

Further evidence that aTriz was not removed from ALU is the fact that he was not removed from any of the ALU related materials, such as the website (now taken down), and the thread (now locked), as well as that fact that none of the other ALU "partners" have made statements that they are taking over the campaign management of any of the campaigns aTriz was previously running (unless you are going to argue that aTriz was/is running all of the bounty campaigns in the threads he opened, which would be a ridiculous argument). 


I would also point out that Lauda said upthread that the person who opened campaign threads (which in almost every case was aTriz) was not necessarily the person who was running the campaign. This was clearly done to 'muddy the waters' to distort who was ultimately responsible for each campaign.

Another interesting fact is that aTriz opened several bounty campaign threads for what was arguably obvious ICO scams while he also opened a scam accusation against an ICO who attempted to use ALU's services whose shadiness was uncovered during some kind of due diligence that aTriz claimed to have been performing. This might imply that someone other than aTriz was the one who made the decision to allow the what I would consider obvious scam campaigns to continue unabated. This is far from proof that lauda was the one who made this decision, however the intentional muddied waters should give (additional) doubt to lauda's integrity (assuming of court you are turning a blind eye to his prior extortion attempt).   

I don't think so. aTriz can deal with bounty management on his own, yeah? All it means is that ALU is no longer associated with them.

Also, I'm not exactly sure about what ALU's role in aTriz's bounties is: doesn't aTriz escrow the funds anyway? The only thing I can assume is that Untold does the design.

Has he started the new campaigns under the ALU name? Has Lauda endorsed these campaigns? Just because they've worked together doesn't mean that Lauda can/will control anything and everything that aTriz does.. does it?

The fact that aTriz started bounty threads after lauda made this statement disagrees with this claim.

It's either virtue signal or get complaints about not tagging aTriz because of consistency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Most of the time if someone is making logically sound arguments, they aren't considered an alt. However, the wanton behavior found in many of these scam/reputation threads is to accuse one of being a QS/Lauda alt, to which most the time either accusation is based on dismissive nature.

These prejudices have become normal behavior to which I would vehemently disagree with. It's not right to completely disregard users using ad-hominem attacks, never mind accusing them of being an individual and then basing the attack on that.

---

I'm trying to be objective here: I just find the "you're an alt, your opinion is invalid" argument completely silly.

[1] If getting anything refers to non-negging and doing as many ICOs he did prior to this or joining ALU. I should think NO; but Jamal is still doing Campaigns and there are people who join it. I do believe in redemption unlike a few who live with lofty ideas, but the parameters should be constant.

[2] Where? Possibly I missed that; but it was a temporary BAN.

[3] Yes, I saw that virtue signalling and I appreciate it.

[4] They should have done that and aTriz shouldn't have lied; if he believes that others should have such standards; he should have had them too. As @suchmoon pointed he was well aware of what constitutes scammy behaviour.

[5] I totally agree; my money, my risk.

[6] Well that's why those who do were under fire and not you.

[7] Well if that is the route he has chosen for himself, I think it's a disgrace that ALU still calls itself trusted and experienced when they could not identify a scammer who worked with them on quite a few projects.


** The book Vinod Rai wrote is quite good; apart from that nothing is. I sincerely believe he was a PR machinery for the Opposition that had finally given him his dues** by appointing him Chief of Banks Board Bureau; a position he should have ideally recused himself from. Anyways it might be shutdown soon after his departure and registered in the annals of Babudom as another misadventure.


Jealous are we? Congrats you got yourself a merit.

I do hope that you start reading my posts from the start and not jump on the first and last pages.

P.S. Since Lauda added me to SMAS; also I did handle a couple of bounties and left them midway because I felt inefficient enough to be as dedicated as few trusted and experienced BMs.  

P.P.S. I thought people cared if shitposters switched over and started to care. But NO!!! Not when it exposes a few demigods on this forum.

P.P.P.S I'm surprised I haven't been christened as an alt till date.

When did you switch from "Joined twitter! Thank you!" to....this topic...and caring so much about certain....things?

Glad that we are on the same page on this. I do hope that endlasuresh can prove o_e_l_e_o (dude! such a pain typing your name!!lol) wrong here by being a bit more receptive to my efforts.

This depends on him as an individual. The anonymity afforded by bitcoin ensures that nobody can hold him to his word if he is okay with leaving the aTriz account altogether. I do hope he can make the amends he proposed. Fact is, t there is nothing he'll get out of it considering the vitiated atmosphere.

Is there any precedent to someone losing rep and getting it back after refunding a bunch of people?? I saw a thread once where a previously trusted guy put up a list of people he was refunding one at a time. It was a long list. Maybe some of the old members remember what I am referring to. I am pretty sure he never got the rep back.

ALU said he is out and Lauda has negged him. In terms of action, I don't think there is anything more they can do. It is our naivete if we expect there being any other possible option in this world of anonymity.
As far as the new criteria for projects is concerned, is there is anyone today who can objectively judge an ICO to be an exit scam or not? Apart from getting the funds escrowed beforehand, there is hardly any other judging criteria they can hold ICO devs upto. No individual or company managing ICOs can afford to hold these people to higher standards because then they simply lose business. This is a problem for the whole ecosystem and there is hardly anything ALU can do except putting up a disclaimer.

I see people saying great things about Amazix but they too have no control over whether the intended ICO is a scam or not. Infact, if a manager becomes too trustworthy, you can even find these ICO devs using their name to gain legitimacy. That is a dangerous trend in itself. There are still just two friends you have in the world of ICO investing:

• Do Your Own Research
• Never invest more than you can afford to lose

At such moments, rather than judging people, I like to ask what would I do? For example, I consider myself generally honest but never had to take a call on such a thing. We all are "generally honest" till we get a whiff of power and control. Power corrupts. You find a way to make some quick gains without anybody knowing and maybe take a quick decision. (Like Alia's code vouch, ignoring bitbliss' false representations). You do such things because you are in too deep. I like to draw the parallel to a lot of young Indians who are idealists when they join public services. But slowly the system takes a toll on you. Not everyone is a Vinod Rai (Love his book) and most end up serving the system they dreamed to change.

I have seen people fall in real life before so I don't hold my hopes too high. Also, like i said, given an option of never having to come back and just leaving everything behind, what would any normal man do? I think if there is an alt account he can jump to, he already has done that.

I am inclined to agree with you; not that it matters for this thread ain't about Lauda vs endlasuresh; it was just a side-track which was prima facie objectively handled by the aforementioned individual.




It's funny how this is turning into a thread for whataboutery and those defending actions of those who don't even need to be defended.


I think we simply need to get down to a few things :

1. When will aTriz refund all his ill-gotten gains as he has promised?
2. Will he implement the new guidelines that he framed and how would he do so?
3. What action has been settled upon by ALU; also what will they do to avoid such an act in the future?


P.S. ALU hasn't still made it clear as to what their new criteria for projects is and what type of association they are; guess it would be better for them; but it is there decision to make.

P.P.S. I do hope aTriz doesn't jump on to an alt account to make a mockery of this as he is apparently accustomed to skirt responsibility for his actions or is defended for his actions.

Kudos to you for taking the time to write that reply. His posts are such a word salad of nonsense that I gave up even trying to understand them, let alone respond to them. Unfortunately though, I suspect your post won't make the slightest difference to him.

What do you mean by saying that the real truth is that "I was about to leave forum but TMAN said bitcoin price will increase so I stayed"? How is bitcoin price increase related to you staying at the forum.
Negative trust doesn't have an expiration but it can be removed by those who have tagged you. It depends on the individual's judgement who gave it to you.

People who tend to support QS are told they are QS alts. It is one of those standing jokes like "Lauda did something, open a thread". His saying so doesn't make The Pharmacist a liar. It's your opinion of him which you are free to have and you can even give him a feedback for that.

My reason for supporting Lauda and the other members who went after the spammers is not because of the signature campaign. Signature campaigns are a way to earn BTC for those who give their time to the forum. There is still an ongoing debate about how it is proving to be bad for the forum.

Regarding that link, this guy was running an HYIP(he says he dint know) which is not allowed as per their terms and conditions. Why they'd with hold his funds is up to coinpayments. They are based out of Canada and only the involved parties can give clarity on it.
Although, in any such case where you have an unregistered company running from a third world country using a payment gateway like coinpayments, running what they deem as HYIP, they may have to freeze the funds to ensure they can repay any of the people defrauded.
You see the reviews and you can see that some people are complaining about the merchants too. So the merchant getting his funds frozen is one resort for coinpayments.

By the way, quit saying things like "your Lauda" and people wouldn't judge you so strongly like here:

---

Guilty by association. All the other people appearing on that spreadsheet got negged too. The question you should ask yourself is what have you done after that negative trust to show that you are a trustworthy and contributing member of the forum?? You've been carrying around the baton of vengeance in all these threads that pop up against the person who negged you.

What exactly are you asking? What i was saying is that the barrage of accusations made taking a decision on aTriz tricky and delayed. People had been screaming "scam, scam" for so long that when an actual wrongdoing on aTriz's part came to fore, people were unwilling to act hastily. Ultimately he got negged. you must have heard the story about the shepherd boy who cried wolf.

You don't have to show me anything. I have read the aTriz thread.

There is no need to drag everyone in this. aTriz is negged for what he did. Whether an individual (Pharmacist) negs him or not is their own personal perogative. Maybe he knows the guy better. If a friend of mine does something wrong, and I see it as a mistake, it's my choice whether I continue to trust them or not.

What did you mean by that green text? Frankly, stop saying such things and people will be a lot more understanding.
The intention of my post was to show you that you are unnecessarily becoming cannon fodder for the animosity between people who were here much before us. If you like doing that and see it as a contribution/ sacrifice you are willing to make for the forum then, by all means, continue doing that.

I am not so sure about his new account being in the default trust network currently but I am fairly confident he has moved on.