Pages:
Author

Topic: How many red tags is the scammer Royse777 going to get? (Read 1754 times)

member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21
I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then
Which new elements have emerged, can you elaborate?
The collection of money for CasinoCritique and its somewhat not so straightforward ways.
I was saying to LoyceV he was wrong since he said that Royse777 will no longer receive any new red tags, since he received one more DT red tag after LoyceV statement. Although the red tag came after outing CasinoCritique, so it might not have been related exactly to the BitLucy scam. This is all there is to it.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 1696
Top Crypto Casino
With all that said and done, in response to the OP I guess the answer is: Royse777 will probably receive no more or not many tags because of the time elapsed.


Royse777 I know is an honest person. People can change in time or make mistakes but I don't see a big deal here.


I also saw him for a while. I can not dishonor his contribution to this forum. He already mentioned what happened and his answers seem acceptable to me. It feels bad when we see such a dedicated person lose his hard-earned trust and reputation damaged because of one company.
full member
Activity: 476
Merit: 212
Tontogether | Save Smart & Win Big

Royse777 I know is an honest person. People can change in time or make mistakes but I don't see a big deal here.


I also saw him for a while. I can not dishonor his contribution to this forum. He already mentioned what happened and his answers seem acceptable to me. It feels bad when we see such a dedicated person lose his hard-earned trust and reputation damaged because of one company.
legendary
Activity: 2478
Merit: 1696
Top Crypto Casino
I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???
I agree with your views. Royse777 overstepped that fine line between using her forum reputation as leverage to gain a percentage ownership of the Bitlucy website. She was contributing to several aspects of Bitlucy including running their bounty and signature campaigns in lieu of being part-owner and holding the post of Marketing Director.

At the time I was disappointed DT members did not apply negative tags in large numbers and several red tags were revised to neutral after a lot of PMs were being sent around.

None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.
You raise a valid point, still the fact the whole debacle happened and Royse777 did not blow the whistle at the first opportunity (instead allowing it to carry on before finally coming clean well in the knowledge the delay in coming forward would have potentially have created more victims), was gross negligence. On that basis how many people can actually trust Royse777 whether the intent to scam was there or not and how does a neutral tag suffice in a situation such as this where abandonment of basic duty was at the forefront of the issues?

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then
Which new elements have emerged, can you elaborate?
member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21
You may start a new campaign and offer rewards again. We can request Royse777 to escrow the reward. 🤣
Lol Cheesy
OP is pissed he didn't get the supported he hoped for in his many posts about FortuneJack.

To answer OP's question: I think the DT-members who wanted to tag Royse777 have done it by now.

So you were wrong
I don't think they were wrong really. We all were trying to give Royse the benefit of doubt. Most don't feel like they were out to intentionally scam and were actually scammed themselves. Given their previous reputation we wanted to "give a pass" so to speak. Some of us had more questions we wanted answered, partially to get the whole truth and partially to see if there was anything left out, but it wasn't intended to be an all out attack. The way some things were answered with massive attitude or with a hint of keeping secrets just made more questions come up.

Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 2645
Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o
So you were wrong
You don't care anything at all, do you? You are against everything on the forum. Why don't you make your own platform and cry there?
legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 6072
Crypto Swap Exchange
...Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.

The only thing that I will say to that is that *I* have done it (not here). For a while I had a friend in Poland who worked in a salvage yard who had access to some automotive parts that people here in the US wanted.

I wanted to help and make some money so I started an new account, on the Audi / VW forum. I was well known there as me and even helped run some events so I probably could have mode more $$$ had I let people know who the other account was.

But I wanted NOBODY to know who I was with the other account. Didn't need or want the hassle, didn't need the cross over crap (You said these ABS modules are junk why are you selling them?Huh) and so on. DaveF was DaveF and PartMover2000 had nothing to do with him. Could see the same thing here even before the BitLucy, i.e. you said this casino was good and now I have having "X" problem with it, why don't you fix it?

Full disclosure, Royse777 did contact me to do some work, and I was gong to do it, just never had the time. Money was never discussed.


-Dave

legendary
Activity: 3528
Merit: 4380
You may start a new campaign and offer rewards again. We can request Royse777 to escrow the reward. 🤣
Lol Cheesy
OP is pissed he didn't get the supported he hoped for in his many posts about FortuneJack.

To answer OP's question: I think the DT-members who wanted to tag Royse777 have done it by now.

So you were wrong
I don't think they were wrong really. We all were trying to give Royse the benefit of doubt. Most don't feel like they were out to intentionally scam and were actually scammed themselves. Given their previous reputation we wanted to "give a pass" so to speak. Some of us had more questions we wanted answered, partially to get the whole truth and partially to see if there was anything left out, but it wasn't intended to be an all out attack. The way some things were answered with massive attitude or with a hint of keeping secrets just made more questions come up.

Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.
member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21
You may start a new campaign and offer rewards again. We can request Royse777 to escrow the reward. 🤣
Lol Cheesy
OP is pissed he didn't get the supported he hoped for in his many posts about FortuneJack.

To answer OP's question: I think the DT-members who wanted to tag Royse777 have done it by now.

So you were wrong
member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

I distrusted him because of that.

This whole thread is a temper tantrum from someone who does not accept that he has done things wrong and has been punished in terms of trust for it, and who, instead of accepting it and moving on, continues to insist that others be punished to make himself feel less bad.
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 2802
Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60348768

I have decided not to participate in your stupidity and fabrications without any evidence. Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

btw. I oppose your flag against FortuneJack long before your game with the prize. withdrawing my vote because of your award would be a direct influence on me, which I did not want to allow.
Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

your trust list 14. may while the flag is created 08. may '22

Trust list for: PaperWallet (Trust: +0 / =1 / -1) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h)
Back to index

PaperWallet Trusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW win win win (Trust: awaiting update) (5 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW LoyceV (Trust: +28 / =0 / -0) (9888 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW AlexSimion (Trust: neutral) (110 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW Saisher (Trust: neutral) (32 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW LEVSKI7 (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

PaperWallet Distrusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW ~suchmoon (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (6831 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW ~FortuneJack (Trust: +5 / =3 / -0) (152 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW ~examplens (Trust: +4 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (14) 739 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW ~Sterbens (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (83 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW ~Hhampuz (Trust: +117 / =3 / -1) (3627 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


PaperWallet's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~PaperWallet's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. JollyGood (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1029 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21


The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.
None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.



there is no point in discussing with a troll like PaperWallet. He does not want to accept a different reality than the one in his head, so any further explanation to him is a waste of time.
I'm surprised that the discussion in this thread has taken so long, considering that its primary goal was to crucify one high-ranked member.

Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60348768
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 2802


The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.
None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.



there is no point in discussing with a troll like PaperWallet. He does not want to accept a different reality than the one in his head, so any further explanation to him is a waste of time.
I'm surprised that the discussion in this thread has taken so long, considering that its primary goal was to crucify one high-ranked member.
legendary
Activity: 3528
Merit: 4380


The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.
None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.

member
Activity: 376
Merit: 21
Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???

You must be a little far away from what happens regularly on this forum, not surprising since you're basically in the lending business and you only lend to high ranking members who wouldn't dare to scam you under the threat of seeing their accounts tagged, since they're also dealing with another high ranking member.

Although when things come to newbies/average users of this forum, who get to use one of the advertised platforms or services, whether be it a gambling website or other services, very much often they get scammed and the scammers get little to no consequences on the "trust score" of their account.

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 2645
Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o
[...]
I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment.
I get this many times from users. If you have not gone to the story then why are you asking generic questions? Why not get the time to read, investigate, understand then ask a question. It then become a good post instead of a random unnecessary post.
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 2313
Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???

You cropped the relevant part of my post. The rest of my post was saying that he wasn’t responsible for making the payments. However, I do get your point and you are also right.

I still think Royse is an honest dude. Maybe very unlucky.

Do we need to punish him for being unlucky? Like you said that’s how partnering works… I can’t deny that.

Somehow though it don’t make complete sense to me. Punishing an honest person for something he had no control over.

I am no DT anyway. They know better than me.
copper member
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1241
Need a Bounty Manager? t.me/shasan32
Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???
legendary
Activity: 2184
Merit: 4113
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
***

I think the positive feedback was upgraded instead of leaving two separate feedback. Initially when the feedback was left I haven't participated in any signature campaign which Royse was incharge of so that part wasn't there or shoudn't have been there (if what I have now was exactly what was there before but probably not) and for the past few months him and I has crossed path severally in numerous campaigns under his management nevertheless Royse is a very trusted member to me and will always be rated as such. It's unfortunate what happened and hopefully he slowly restore his trust in the community instead of making it worst.

Also I have JollyGood in my custom trust list despite the situation ongoing with them both so if I was trying to push some kind of agenda I would have easily distrusted Jollygood but that's not the case. I'm not letting my trust for Royse cloud my judgement on Jollygood, I see them both as assets to the forum and it'll keep been like that until something goes seriously wrong.
Pages:
Jump to: