Topic: How many red tags is the scammer Royse777 going to get? - page 2. (Read 1759 times)

What do you see as suspicious here?

The case of CryptopreneurBrainboss does not surprise me because of what he commented in Butlucy's thread. He had a good idea about Royse777 because of the collaboration they had in the Covid-19 charity. Deleting the old feedback and reposting it, when some of us had already changed the feedback to neutral, seems to me to be an attempt to help restore his reputation.

And in the case of Hhampuz, didn't he end up managing a campaign that was taken away from Royse777?

I don't know, maybe as you are campaign managers you see hidden interests for power or something.

The feedback is correct or at least was, but it was given at a bad time. Prior to the bitlucy drama, Royse was considered a decent person and did help out with charity work. Feedback from Hhampuz and cryptoprenuerboss should have been left well before the bitlucy scam happened. It looks pretty suspect they leave the feedback trying to counter the drama. So timing really is the only issue with the feedback.

Hahahaha lol. So you've actually shown that another person is also giving positive feedback BECAUSE Royse777 was involved in a scam. And the cattle is proud of their shepherds behaviour.

And as this did catch your attention as you say, don't you want to tag me as well as the SIR did? I have as many red tags as Royse777 has, isn't that unfair in your opinion as well?

Yes, of course. The SIR who is quite a bit more credible than you when it comes to feedbacks. By the way, thanks to this post I realized I hadn't added you to my distrust list yet, so thanks for that.

Apart from what the SIR did, there was another thing that caught my attention: CryptopreneurBrainboss deleted the positive feedback he had left to Royse777 some time ago and republished it exactly the same, the only thing was that when he published it recently it appeared on top of all the neutral feedbacks and the two negative ones due to the Bitlucy case.

This shows that Royse777 had gained empathy over time among people with great reputation in the forum.

You are two in one and a scammer and a defender of a scammer. How can you defend a scammer and at the same time accuse me of a non-existent scam? At least one attempt at scam can be shown to everyone? Or are you bitter that everyone will see how you protect a thief?

Yeah that's so good, that makes it 2 chances per alt, with the merit farming it's a pretty good deal.

And there's someone who's so good, so compassionate, so forgiving, that instead of giving a negative feedback, or a neutral one, gave Royse777 a positive feedback for his scam, on the 8th of last July. Of course, I am talking about the SIR himself, @Hhampuz.



This is also true.
So @Royse777, please acknowledge that you've been acting erratically, not only by attacking those who tagged you, gave neutral feedback, or even just were trusting those who tagged you (LOL), but also by not even thanking those who gave you a positive feedback for your recent scam wins! This is disrespectful, and contrary to most basic protocols on this forum.

Instead, you should have given many thanks and respects to the Sir. Below is a good example of what formula to use.

I don't think that has been the case here.

I like efialtis, I think he's a really good dude.  But at times I think his judgement on these issues can be a bit skewed.  It's not the first time that I've suspected him of having a conflict of interest when it comes to drama involving casinos.  Just my opinion.

---

So, am I scammer or a defender of a scammer?  Make up your mind, already.  But, if you're going to call me a scammer then provide proof.  You wouldn't want anyone to think that you're just bitter because I've exposed your scam attempts.

You advertise a scam casino, and for this you received a negative trust. What's wrong with your negative trust?

I can only speculate, but he probably means that you are not to be trusted. Based on the negative trust ratings you recently left for other forum members, I tend to agree with him.

What do you want to say by citing activity, merits, negative tags and flags as an example? Did you read what these red flags were about or were you scared when you saw them? How can you not believe the facts? But DireWolfM14 asks to forgive the scammer Royse777, while accusing me of a non-existent scam

Activity: 322
Merit: 0
8 negative tags by DT members.
A flag overwhelmingly supported.

Do you really expect anyone at all to believe you?

In the case of Royse777 it could be more credible because of his involvement in the Bitlucy case, but DireWolfM14? You calling him a scammer just makes me laugh.

Thank you for exposing two scammers - Royse777, DireWolfM14. Now this scammer has 3 flags, I hope there will be more!

Unfortunately that is what seems to be case because quite clearly instead of the Royse777 account being painted with red tags from members across the forum she was given a major reprieve with red tags changed to neutral or not have any tags at all.

A scam took place, that cannot be denied. It is accurate a campaign manager used their reputation in the forum as leverage to negotiate part ownership of a scam casino but did not fully explain what happened and did not even apologise with sincerity and has the belief she is above others in this forum.

I would counter that view by saying that not all of them are thieves that are inflexible in front of scams but some have conducted themselves in a highly questionable manner. Some have managed to get on to DT with their own agenda but as far as my integrity is concerned it is far more important to me than my rank or financial gain.

I think I made over 10,000 posts before joining my first signature campaign therefore it demonstrates finances were not the driving force. Over the past 5 years or so I feel have contributed positively in some small way in the forum and will continue, I am not bothered by the cliques here.

I think it is less to do with forgiveness and more to do with a concerted effort trying to have the red tags avoided, or red tags removed or having them revised. The reason Royse777 feels entitled to ask others for explanations is because she has a bloated self-opinion at odds with humility and humbleness.

Royse777 did not even genuinely apologise for her part in the Royse777/Bitlucy scam therefore has no humility on the contrary feels superior to others.

Definitely  

So you're quoting me to say "this is not what JollyGood said". Pretty funny.

"one example of a member who was left without any consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer": @FortuneJack: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fortunejack-making-120000-dollars-disappear-from-my-account-5368279
Another example who did not get any significant consequences on his Bitcointalk account: @Royse777



You are correct about the rank. What I meant is he's going to have the functionality of his account significantly reduced. What good is it to have a Lengendary account while having double digits negative red tags?

I was just trying to warn JollyGood to be prepared mentally for such a scenario, given he's got a significant attachement to this community. I wouldn't pretend to know how much likely is that to happen, but I can see it very much possible the gang giving him -15 red tags overnight if other incidents like this one were to happen. Or maybe easier he'll be removed from DT which would be a shame given his contributions.



logfiles has answered your question:


Except I don't have any "wet dream fantasy", I haven't been impacted by Royse777 anyway, and I don't personally care. I am just showing the Royse777 case as an example of accepted behaviour on this forum.

The other red tag is by efialtis. I don't know if you can't see his feedback because of your custom trust list, but he is in DT1, and he has left two positive feedbacks to you.

He was one of those who heasitated a lot before giving negative feedback, giving Royse777 time, despite having clearly stated in the Bitlucy thread that it was a scam.

I think it's good that the community knows how to forgive and give a second chance to someone who has a good previous reputation in the forum. But the fact that Royse777 feels entitled to ask for explanations to others instead of being humble does not give me a good picture of her.


I bet she has sent a lot of PMs. You haven't been the only one.

I don't visit the Services section or the bounty one, so I haven't noticed that first hand--but I don't doubt for a minute that members do kiss mucho ass so they can keep their spot in whatever thing they're involved with. 

As far as DT ladder climbing goes, I'm not sure exactly who's doing that but I know for a fact that it's much easier to do with the rotating system as opposed to the way it used to be, i.e., nearly impossible to even get on DT2 because getting the requisite DT1 inclusions was hard and often met with resistance from opposing DT1 members.  Things just ain't what they used to be.

I'm starting to get the impression that Royse777 might be doing things for money that he otherwise might not do.  He's sent me two PMs so far, asking me to communicate off-forum for something he's doing, and he hasn't replied to my last PM to him a couple of days ago.  It could be legit, whatever it is, but I'm just getting a funny feeling about it now that there's all this drama surrounding him.

And yeah, nobody here is perfect, and if you can point out a saint active on the forum I'll throw myself down in front of the cathedral of Theymos and immolate myself until you can make a tasty kebab out of what's left of me.  Bring ketchup.

Of course, the “bunch of thieves” he keeps referring to are those DT members who didn't support his paid flag against fortunejack and also didn't fulfill his wet dream fantasy of raining 30+ negs on Royse's profile.

Those aren't the words JollyGood said, and you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Give at least one example of a member who was left without consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer.


Since rank is earned through activity and merits, the community cannot diminish anyone's rank here. JollyGood being "booted out of DT1" won't stop him from doing what he does for this community, even if it does happen. Just my opinion.


In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

On the other hand, I've seen you write at some point "this community means so much to me". I also foresee at some point, in my opinion, if you continue down this path, the community members will put out of business here, or at least diminish your rank significantly. Already some members are talking about you being "booted out of the list of DT members".

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted out at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.
The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.