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?
) 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?
