Topic: Incorrect use of red feedback. (Read 929 times)

Topic closed

You guys already made him famous. It seems like it is a trend to create a thread in the reputation board every few weeks. Which leads to spreading his name more and more, and I believe people check his profile. Why don't you think that everyone might not feel as you think? Everyone has a different point of view. Since Royse has explained his every case, His potential clients may get convinced whenever they read it. Creating more threads means advertising more about Royse.

Everyone is free to Include anyone on his trust list and the opposite. So, whoever thinks they don't trust Royse anymore has already excluded him from their trust list. If you believe his feedback is incorrect, you should ~ him. That's all you have to do. It seems the drama is endless. We may see more threads in the future.

How will it looks if those that abuse the use of flags on others account be given same tags as well to taste the sweetness of it, not until a fact is established on a member to be a scammer or to have participated on an inappropriate manners on the forum and well referenced, then i see no reason to be tagging others when you can report a user or ignore him, this even prevent you from seing any further shit about such person once you press the ignore button on them.

I avoided participating in the thread but decided to post as my name was mentioned twice falsely accusing me of misdemeanours. Since the accusations against me are ludicrous I will not even address them but I will make some short comments and I would confidently state the vast majority of consensus would agree:

Based on evidence available, I do not believe aifinex, naim027 and Poker Player are alt-accounts. Based on evidence available, I do not believe Poker Player contacted any prospective clients to warn them away from any campaign manager.

Posting on-topic and discussing as per the OP title regarding the use or misuse of negative trust by another member is probably the best thing going forward or for the OP to consider locking the thread if it continues to go off-topic as it serves no purpose unless it stays on-topic.



 

I don't see any injustice in this case, there is a reason and history why he left that negative feedback.
Man I have to say Royse777 is for sure getting more and more popular thanks to OP and Poker guy  
This guys made Royse one of the managers with most signature campaigns in forum, so he must be doing something good or this ''advertisement'' is not working  as they intended.
I hope you guys finally give it a rest, if you can't be friendly in forum than just ignore each other.

There's one thing that need to be clarified about giving a feedback on user, we shouldn't take their judge into our hands by leaving them a negative feedback in place of neutral tags, because the comments or reference go along way in explaining the purpose for doing such, if you don't like a user doesn't mean you should attack him by any chance leaving a negative feedback and keep telling the world you left a neutral feedback.

That's what it seems to me. I'm going to try not to come here for a week or so, although this section is a bit addictive because it's like the bitcointalk gossip.

To the OP I would say that no matter how much he writes a detailed thread with many reasons explaining why Royse777 shouldn't be in DT, there are people who will neither read it nor change their trust list even if they read the thread.


Surprisingly to me, even I myself have played devil's advocate, saying that his feedback, although ideally it should be neutral, it is not so bad that it should involve distrust by DT members.

A- The client doesn't have to stop working with him to make the feedback relevant.

B- So what?  You have the right. 

I don't know the backstory here or really care.  And I think you guys should go look at OgNasty/Vod history and think if you want to end up like them.  It only takes one of you to take the high road and drop this nonsense. I promise you this feud will not result in a "winner", just a lot of wasted time.

But yeah, I can't help myself from commenting on the "sound facts and arguments" followed by something that's not.

Yes, if you look at the analysis I made above trying to do it from an objective point of view, I come to the same conclusion.



Apart from that, you only have to look at the command of languages that one and the other have. When have you ever seen me write in Russian? Or in French? OP is indeed an alt account of someone but at a glance we can see that we have nothing to do with each other.

Besides, that's what I said before. When I was calling Royse777 crybaby and all, if I had contacted his clients I would have told him too. I mean I called him everything, I blew the whistle on Casino Critique, I wrote negative feedback on his profile, I wrote a thread explaining why I thought he was a dishonest person, and I was going to hide for having contacted one of his clients? Come on, don't make me laugh.

Naim027 was never banned after he was exposed, wasn't he?
I know it is a little bit off-topic to this thread but, even though I personally do not think Poker Player is Naim027, I find it is reasonable enough to assume he might be around here, it seems he does not have much of a  problem using alternative accounts.

---

Also, I am yet to do my own search on that service which some are claiming to be a proxy of the infamous 1xbit. Is there any thread around here where I can find a summary of the alleged proofs and history? I would like to take a look at it. 

Unlikely.

@LoyceV, sorry for back to back mentions. Are you alt of Royse777 by any chance?

I got this far in the thread, and you may have cooled down some, but if you're still aggravated enough to report those posts (even though you're not wrong in doing so, that kind of off-topic stuff is par for the course in Meta/Reputation threads), take a deep breath and slowly exhale.

Looking at the feedback Loyse777 left, I don't think it's absolutely inappropriate--but I do think it ought to be neutral and not negative, especially if he's on DT.  But if he truly doesn't trust the members he left that trust for and would have left it anyway, i.e., in a non-retaliatory manner, I might be on the fence about it.  DT members have left negs for way less than what happened in this case, with no ensuing drama.  However I don't think that's what's happening here; I do think Royse777's feedback is getting some get-back if you know what I mean.

Oh the drama.  Better phone my mamma!

It never ends with Loyse777, does it?  What happened?  It's like he went from being a respected member one minute, and then tossed into a leper's colony at mach 5 the next.  Don't answer that.  I know the story.

Edit:

OK, I now got this far in the thread and I have to say that I'm also not buying either of those theories, especially not the Naim027 claim.  He was a very poor writer if I remember correctly, and you are far from that.  That could be faked of course, but I still don't believe you're his or airfinex's alt.

Happy to agree to disagreement, given you recognise those feedbacks are certainly in the "gray area" as you put it.

Ultimately it's up to DT to decide whether the feedback should remain trusted or not and for now I'm abstaining from that decision and only here to raise my concerns. Despite not trusting your judgement I wouldn't be in a hurry to add you to my exclusion list anyway. That's reserved for repeatedly leaving incorrect feedback, as opposed to a couple of "dodgy" feedbacks that remain questionable. If you continued leaving retaliatory feedback to those who criticism you I probably would though and doubt I'd be the only one, as that would show more of a pattern of inaccurate feedback, not that this would bother you I think.


Fair enough. Point well made I guess.


Without evidence, it's completely pointless assuming PP and OP are the same person. OP created account in 2018, PP in 2020. Quick math = OP is not an alt of PP. The thread is otherwise about incorrect use of feedback, which anyone is able to raise as a concern. Not necessarily the one receiving it. In fact it's quite common that a different member would create a thread about such an issue...


Maybe there is more to the Bitlucy story than I cared to follow. I'm only looking at the current situation in front of me, rather than what happened in the past (even if probably quite relevant).


Exactly. Just be grateful with what you have. Maybe it could be more, but it certainly could be a lot less. Maybe try not to let the haters get to you so much in future?

Sorry, just to add some more context.


So far two that you can quotation. To me they are in the gray area and I chose to take the side I like. You or anyone else don't need to agree with me. Let's settle it as agree in disagreement. You always have the option to do the following in your trust page.

In fact, there is a public thread where I requested everyone to do the same. I also blacklisted myself by requesting theymos from DT1 network, removed myself as one of the merit source. All because to keep myself out of all potential drama that can cause.



Concerning retaliation?
If I was responding out of retaliation then JollyGood and efialts would had one to each already.

Poker Player and this OP account which I doubt it's a different person behind the account though (the thread exclusively create to talk about the feedback left on Poker Player's feedback page and take the blame to OP account so that PP can wash his dirty hand). I have no doubt in mind that he/his alt did not conduct my clients to cause me financial damage. The motive was not to help the clients but to change their mind (it's important to understand the motive hence bold font), which in two occasions it was successful.

There are no  X, Y or Z. It's only PP and JG LOL (with their possible alts to hide their face). Is it too hard to understand considering series of events that happened after Bitlucy fiasco?

Conclusion:
I don't live a life with what I lost. I live my life with the positive achievements I have. I rose from ashes many times.

In fact, look at the BRIGHT SIDE.
If Bitlucy did not happen to me, if I was not thrown away to the corner by some of these haters, if I was not tortured so much mentally that I had to see a specialist, I had to leave the place for long time where I love spending all my day then I would not be able to raise again. So let them do their things and I am happy with what I have.

There is a saying, action speaks louder than words.

Look, I'm going to ask you a rhetorical question, which I don't expect you to answer if you don't want to, first because it's rhetorical and second because you've said you're not going to answer anymore in the thread but I hope it makes anyone reading this think.

Do you really think that if I had contacted a client of yours, I would have had any problem in saying it at all? Do you think I had any need to create alts?

Why would I hide? I called you a crybaby and everything. No, I would have had no problem saying so, then or now.

I'm not here to approve of the actions by Poker Player, airfinex or others, especially if they are contacting potential clients of yours. In fact I think it's bang out of order. The main reason being that your trust feedback already highlights the Bitlucy fiasco (red tags or not), so there is no need to send a PM. But to be leaving retaliatory feedback? I think it reflects badly on you because it doesn't prove they are scammer. At worst they are interfering with you conducting your business here, but there's no case of scamming. Scamming you out of prospective business you say? I don't buy it... for the following reason.

Potential clients could have easily found these concerns themselves from your trust page and I'd hope/imagine they would check these things. So I don't think it's fair/accurate to be exclusively blaming user X, Y or Z for loss of income, because you could be losing it anyway. Especially from clients that don't realise you'd be getting enough applicants for your campaigns anyway, that sounded like the main issue.

I do sympathise with the issues you are facing, but just because the situation is difficult for you, I don't think you should be leaving negative feedback as you have done so. I respect the work you do on the forum a lot, as one of the top bounty managers, but the way you deal with situations and the feedback you leave certain users leaves a lot to be desired. I also know I'm not the only one who thinks this, I'm just saying it out loud.

I find it BS to be honest. I have never contacted anyone to tell them not to work with you.

Me and airfinex being alts is another BS that is obvious to anyone looking at the two profiles. I was also accused at the time that Naim027 and I were alts, so I'm not even going to stop to take it apart.

You can believe it or not, but I neither contacted anyone via Telegram at the time nor have I contacted them now to tell them to hire you or not. The OP did, and I guess other people did too, but not me.

The latest:






Their spell did not work though.

Ah yeah, some will say screenshots can be manipulated. So this time it's from desktop application. Furthermore, give me a good reason why I would do screenshot manipulation, at least today where I am now, I think doing such things are just a very costly waste of time for me.


2nd latest:





I was their first choice, we were even close to close the deal and then this. I don't know if it was the same PM or DM information send to harm my business by any of these like OP, Poker Player or anyone else or the client found it himself. It costs me over $6k weekly budget campaign.
Even though we are not working in the main campaign (in fact I dropped a side offer which I think not worth it for them to spend money) but we are working together in some other sectors.



A confirmation, call it 2nd blow
This topic from OP of course.
Their spell did not work here too.

First blow:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61584717
Never talked about the project budget so I have no idea how much I lost.

I have no idea if there are any other case but so far 4 cases in front of me. Out of 4, two was successful and two was failed. The success rate is 50%, it's not a small number.

@dragonvslinux, you say this
Look everything from my side of eyes.

You and others seen everything from the Bitlucy fiasco and everything that happened with few members afterwords. You can easily figure out who could be the potential low life members can do such things. You will find not more than 2 if you narrow down the search, two key person and they could have many alts to hide their real account face. One is Poker Player without any doubt and have fun with finding other one.

Cheers,

My last response to this topic. Enjoy.

You probably should make time for it imo, or avoid leaving feedback if you don't. You're still a DT member so your feedback is considered trusted. Despite your trustworthy nature as a campaign manager, I do understand people's concerns about you being hot-headed, petty and retaliatory. Ultimately it's personally why I stopped trusting your judgement. Nothing to do with the Bitlucy fiasco.


This I don't doubt. I noticed you accepted somebody to one your campaigns who believes you're a scammer. Says more that that user than it does about you 

You need merit to this account too?

You are right, you needed it to this account too. Here you had it.

See, these feedback things don't come to my mind. I don't have any time to think on who to leave feedback or who not too. My schedule is so much packed that my time is exclusive to produce exclusive results. Anyway, it's not your league to understand.

Ah one more thing, if you ever find yourself running out of options to join a signature campaign, apply any of my campaign I manage (read some of the regrets came out from you of receiving under payment), I don't guarantee a spot but you will be in the shortlist for sure, depending on the overall merit of the applications on the particular campaign you will either get in or rejected to try the next one.

My professional and personal subjects are different. When anyone I see have good value to provide in my campaigns, they are my assets no matter how I am with them in personal level.

This thread is curious. It starts with off-topic replies that I reported and were not deleted, as usual in this section. Then we have one who what he writes is not off-topic, as it is one of the two topics of the thread, but apologizes for derailing. Another one writing a long rant explaining to airfinex how the trust system works, that he has not understood what the thread is about, that airfinex is not confusing between trust list and trust feedback, he simply questions that the feedback is negative, he sees it as unfair.

Then we have my friend Royse777 with his ego boosted, going cocky, lol.

To top it off, we have this:


Lol. Really? Quote me. I'm sure I didn't say any of that. You probably misunderstood me. Quote me and we'll see.

I am going to give my honest and as rational an opinion as I can about the feedback, which boils down to the fact that I understand that it is incorrect feedback, but not so incorrect as to distrust him.

On the one hand, the arguments that feedback relies on are poor. Basing it on the fact that an unsolicited PM about a new project to raise money from someone who had been in the middle of a scam recently is confidential information is laughable. And the part of "It is believed that..." is even more laughable. Even if I had contacted his client, it would not be enough for a negative feedback, as airfinex says. In fact, it is not consistent why Royse777 has not left a negative feedback to him, who has said that he did contact Sinbad.io and has posted a screenshot to prove it.

The laughable feedback base does not show that there is any trading risk with me, that the only transactions I have made on the forum, has been working for signature campaigns getting paid for it and making donations.

Now, is the feedback so bad as to distrust him? I don't think so. Abstracting from the past and supposing that I had Royse777 on my trust list because I trust his feedbacks I don't think that even if analyzing that feedback I would conclude that it has a poor base, it would lead me to distrust him if I believe that the rest he has left are correct.

First, I don't think it has anything to do with the members Royce is getting out of the campaigns he's running. Royce's career on the forum is exciting, and his ability to prove his competence in performing his work amazes us all, despite all the crises he went through. It is true that a large percentage of bitcointalk community trust him, but this does not mean that everyone is a friend. Most of these topics were published by new accounts controlled by members who do not want to use their accounts in order to target his reputation and destroy him for nothing but because he is successful. Unfortunately, the enemies of success do always exist.
Secondly, in any campaign there is a rule that says that the campaign manager has the right to remove any member as he deems appropriate for the success of the campaign. I don't think anyone has the right to be angry about this.

Royse you are not the only manager in the forum and why always you. I believed because of your act of removing users from your campaigns without good offence are some of the issues that bringing this type of thread. And also the last time I checked Royse Trust list Poker Player has removed his red flag from your profile and also I saw Poker Player made a comment on post yesterday and he was recommending you to be used by companies and I was very happy that you guys have reconciled but for me to come and see this here again is a total disappointment.

Royse I will also use this medium to say that as you are removing participants in your campaigns is very bad, because their hope is already there to work and you removed the person suddenly. The person will feel bad and disappointed. I have read a lot threads that against you in this reputation board which is not good. Please I am begging you to calm. There are some things you have to avoid to carry everyone along as a manager. Please calm down.
One love and let love lead in the forum.

I didn't know that. I am supposed to write askgamblers there. If it's proven that they are the sister website of 1xbit/1xbet, and have some unsolved scam accusations. Then the community should let Royse777 know about it and let him decide what he wants to do with the campaign. I have a feeling that after all that drama that happened with him, he won't continue such a campaign and he won't play with his reputation.

I didn't verify what you said yet. But, If they were already ruled against by askgamblers, and if it's already proven that they are a sister company of 1xcrap. Your Tag is still valid. About ~ you, I don't have a custom trust list yet. If I do (I may do it this week), I believe you will be on my trust list because your feedback looks reasonable. 

I have nothing against you personally, and all the threads that I create are supported by arguments. I think you're doing an excellent job of your duties, I was just commenting on what I think is unfair. I think you should edit your red review and remove the postscript that says that he "dissuaded your client." I don't care if you put the red tip back in place after that, but you should definitely remove the part I'm talking about.

I don't know what your deal is but give it a rest.  They've already been ruled against by askgamblers and still didn't pay another player they scammed the exact same way.  

At this point even if they end up paying GekkeBelg the neg rep is staying.  ~ me if you don't like it.

i don't hold anything against you at all and accept all that you have written
everything else i have just written in the said thread from airfinex
i am already curious, which cow will be the next, which will be driven through his village...

Send me a legal notice :-D
Do you need more merit?

Try the next one. Depending on the merit of the topic you will get more.
You can do it. Hurry!

Very very easy to handle, if a manager thinks he is accepting any negative or neutral feedback participant then he should go ahead, but if it appears that they don't have interest in accepting such user then there's no need to bother accepting them and later requesting for them to get rid of their trust tags, i think every campaigning organizations also have their own set rules and taste when it comes to offers for participation in their campaign.

Another Day and Another Reputation thread about this guy. Why are you guys making him so popular? Don't you see he is getting more and more projects when people come up with new reputation threads? He must be enjoying the shit show. I won't judge his feedback on the Poker player as I didn't go through the discussion topic and reference. But it is not cool to disclose someone's privacy. From his perspective, it's not trustworthy. So, the feedback is correct from his perspective.

About Coinplay, He is managing the campaign. He is not the owner. If Coinplay proves to be a scammer, he might want to consider it. For now, the Coinplay official agreed to cooperate with ask gamblers regarding the issue. Before any result comes from Coinplay AskGamblers, You cannot say they are scammers.


He knew this, which you may don't know. They removed 1xbet license after forum members discovered this;

May be TwitchySeal knows something that we don't yet otherwise I find it difficult why he left the negative feedback and the neutral even before the mediation is not done yet.

On the other hand just read it.
It sounds like pay me or I will destroy you. I gave up defending for the accounts come and use us to fulfill their demands. Many times, later I discovered it was the casino or the sportsbook who was the victim.

How in the hell someone can have 50 accounts with different gambling sites and play a lot of money with newly came casinos on the web? Why don't they go with highly trusted, reputable casinos like Stake, Sportsbet.io or even Duelbits? They know they can not fight against them if they caught abusing because those are too big to convince everyone.

The case seems to me a case of arbitrage betting to be honest, I could be damn wrong. But arbitrage betting is something we know all the sportsbooks don't take it easily and freeze if found the abuse.

I read their response and I stand by both feedbacks.  They're minimizing perceived connections with scam casino 1xbit just like 1xbit minimizes connections with scam casino 1xbet.  And besides,  If it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, and it scams players the same way as the well known scammer duck ....

Sorry for derail. 

Unfortunately, unlike your previous thread about Cygan on Cygan abuses DT - Proof! which is quite correct, this one is not simply because that is rougly how feedback meant to be used. If I may take snippets from Loyce's Guide,


Or if I may refer you to the post made by Little Mouse on that very own other thread of yours, helping Cygan to understand how both system works and their differences:


In other words, in case you still didn't get it, feedback is for your opinion when you dealt with someone and/or having a good or bad experience with them. Trust list is for when you trusted someone's judgement.

Departing from these basis, your thread on Cygan has its weight, he did use the system wrongly, as he openly admitted, due to being clueless about it. This thread on Royse777 and the feedback he left against Poker Player, did not. Royse left a negative feedback against PP based on his opinion instead of distrusting Poker Player [~Poker Player], so he actually use the "red" feedback correctly.

And no, I'm not writing this to take side with Royse or because I'm on his campaign or --if we stretch it out-- I'm currently wearing signature of the project being mentioned and questioned here. I'll still wrote the same suppose the situation is reversed where Poker Player is the one who left the feedback to Royse, or someone else leave feedback to some other else.

---

As for CoinPlay campaign, I have to say that yes, they're currently having a situation and in my very own personal opinion their team handled the situation quite poorly, I'll use this chance to state my stance for that case that I am quite disagree with how they handled it. They could do better.

I was, am, and will actively monitoring the situation --trust me, you don't know how much I went back and forth between parties involved on that case prior to it being published, and even after then-- I even made a draft of a very long post questioning both sides, written on Friday and ready to be sent when Saturday come, in case the deadline made by OP of that scam accusation reached and CP still choose to be silent, which now sitting quietly on my email because CP agreed on the request made by the OP.

If you carefully read the thread instead of --I can only assume-- skimming through it just to build your case, you'll be aware that the current and last conclusion of that case is:


So this demand of yours is quite... ridiculous senseless, because both parties has agreed to take them to an arbitrator. I don't see why Royse should intervene if the case is already under review by AskGamblers.


As for the feedback given by TwitchySeal on your screenshot, while I am not sure how true CP's clarification is --I think no one on this forum do, except CP themselves-- but if only TwitchySeal read two pages further, he'll see CP had made a clarification for the situation, which also has been acknowledged by several users ^{1 2 3} raising that concern and questioning the similarities:

---

Cygan, please accept my apology for mentioning your name several times on this post and inviting --perhaps unwelcomed-- attention to your profile, I have nothing against you, you're simply just case on point to aid on explaining the system to OP.

You are detracting from the thread.

We are here longer than you exists and trust me it's just another topic about Royse. It's just constructed to look like it's about the feedback on your trust page and coinplay accusations.

I got one left and exploded it for you 😂

It's better but I spent few minutes to find why I found 11 and the refined search result was 9 [out of 13, 4 were moved version of the same topic] until I realized two topics did not have the keyword "Royse777"

Edit:
Check this: https://ninjastic.space/search?after_date=2022-01-01T00%3A00%3A00&before_date=2023-04-03T05%3A17%3A06&child_boards=true&title=%22Royse777%22%20-Re%3A%20-MOVED%3A

Even better 😉!!!

I've just reported your posts for being off topic, although from previous experiences it seems to me that they will remain unhandled.

This thread is neither about how much Royse777 is talked about, which is what the BitcoinGirl.Club post is about, nor about how to search TryNinja's website.

Do you have anything to say about the two topics of this thread?

I remind you that they are the feedback that Royse777 left me and coinplay campaign.

Not exactly bulletproof, but you could do: "Royse777" -Re:

a.k.a excludes titles starting with "Re:" (like most posts).

https://ninjastic.space/search?after_date=2022-01-01T00%3A00%3A00&before_date=2023-04-03T05%3A17%3A06&child_boards=true&title=%22Royse777%22%20-Re%3A

One day maybe there will be an option to only include one post per thread.

A task for people who are good at showing data comparing different users for different metrics LOL

I wanted to check how many topics have been created with the keyword "Royse777" in the topic title but unfortunately Ninjastic does not give me only the topics list.
My failed try : https://ninjastic.space/search?after_date=2022-01-01T00%3A00%3A00&before_date=2023-04-03T05%3A17%3A06&child_boards=true&title=%22Royse777%22
@TryNinja, hello! 😂
Timestamp from January 2022

Here are what I managed to get:
1: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief posted on Reputation, created by himself.
2: How many red tags is the scammer Royse777 going to get? posted on Reputation by PaperWallet.
3: Royse777 is Casino Critique posted on Reputation by Royse777isCasinoCritique
4: Royse777 is a dishonest person and thus my negative feedback posted on Reputation by Poker Player
5: I received this private message (possible screenshot manipulation). posted on Reputation by Poker Player
6: My honest two questions to Royse777. posted on Reputation by Igebotz
7: Good Initiative by Royse777! posted on Meta by elevates and this is different than others. It's about his good works.
8: Somethings are unique and different Royse777 did today. posted on Service Discussion by elevates and another positive topic about him.
9: Royse777 is a big fraud. posted on Reputation by bladee, as usual no exactions but hate
10: What is wrong with Royse777? posted on Reputation by elevates. Poor elevates really did not understand the joke so this is with a different taste.
11: And the latest is this Incorrect use of red feedback. posted by airfinex. The title does not have the keyword "Royse777" and if I am not wrong then I saw many other topics about him without his username on the title.

Even with my poor searching skill, I managed to find 11 topics where 1 is elevates poor understanding of April jokes, 2 are from elevates again but with positive encouragement for him, 1 from himself [This is the start IMO so I ignored two to three other topics which were bounty threads] but the remaining 7 out of 11 are to throwing mud on the wall and expecting to ruin him [?].

At the end, he is one of the most desired campaign manager for the companies who want to advertise their business on the forum and currently have highest active signature campaigns [I hope I am not wrong] on his portfolio.

Now I suspect, are you all hired by him to maintain his TRP LOL?
It includes Poker Player and JollyGood too 😂

P.S: It will be interesting to see who is the most talked forum member since the last year. I can bet $100, no one will even be closer to Royse777.

Lol. I guess it won't be long before they accuse us of being alts. I imagine the other two who opened threads about Royse777 recently must be alts of mine as well. Yes, I confess. I have 143 alts.


The difference is that I didn't.

Can you put a link to the coinplay thread btw?

(Edited to add the following)

I see it is this one:

Coinplay.com | Brand New Crypto Sportsbook & Casino

As far as I can see, apart from the accusation of being related to 1xBit, there are also people in the thread complaining about not getting paid. We would have to discern on a case by case basis as we see many accusations on Scam Accusations that we later find out that the user had broken the rules and such.

I'm outraged and looking forward to the next one.

1. Royce will change the feedback left to neutral.
2. Royce will intervene in the discussion related to coinplay and, if he does not receive any results from the casino, will immediately stop the subscription campaign.


Please follow the order. It is not necessary to say in this thread that he is a Respected member and an excellent manager - these are public facts. We are talking about something else, and I would like to see how this person behaves.

I noticed one injustice and I think that Royce, as a member of DT, should be more responsible in approaching the feedback he leaves.


What he accuses the other user of is complete nonsense, since even if he warned someone about something, it was correct, but since Royce at some point had a lot of red marks. Any adequate project would refuse to cooperate with such a manager in order to maintain its reputation.



I also warned Sindban that Royce has quite a few red marks, and I think I'm not the only one.




Here's another good example. Royce is running a signature campaign that has an open allegation of fraud and a clear connection to the fraudulent 1xBIT casino.