Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 4. (Read 9492 times)

@Royse777

On January 22nd, did you think that @JollyGood is an important asset to the Bitcointalk Community?

Thank you for the information. Can you provide a link for where Royse777 made those comments apart from in the OP?

You are factually incorrect on several fronts.... my emotions never got in any way of anything related to Bitlucy therefore you are clutching at straws and are trying misdirection tactics.

Let us be clear, it was you who created this mess with Bitlucy therefore why should I be making myself feel better? I was not a part of it, all I did was point out that I left negative trust for you long before your outburst therefore accusations of bias should not be levelled at me yet you take the opportunity to post incoherent ramblings.

Where have I asked others join me and exactly what would they be joining for? You are in serious need of a reality check.

You are right when using the single-slip analogy, I cannot argue with that advice. I hope others read it and take heed too.

After reading your walls of text, it seems mostly created by you with a view to garner sympathy for yourself, it is easy to miss parts or not remember others. Having said that, I asked a question if a dinner took place and asked for clarification and did not establish my thoughts.

What would have been the harm if you replied stating you used the word hangout when you should have instead elaborated fully what you interpreted that word to mean considering the circumstances and what was at stake.

What would have been the problem is you had simply provided a link? It was this same type of aggressive yet nonsensical behaviour akin to a tantrum that has alienated some members.

Good news you are keeping this thread unlocked.

Since it will not be locked now, I would like to take the opportunity to go back to something yahoo62278 asked about before you started your conspiracy theories.

I partially defended your reasons for not wanting to show blockchain transactions between yourself and Bitlucy on the basis of you maybe having some reasons however his questions and concerns in the post below are valid therefore maybe you should at least consider providing some blockchain transactions as evidence to show you are not connected to Bitlucy far more than some are suggesting or thinking: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60500366

My opinion on the tiny bit that seems to have sparked the "attack between a few reputable members" which is "The proof of Royse's conversations with Lucy", in my humble opinion such proof has little to no value, at least, it shouldn't be the backbone of any conclusion someone arrives at.  Royse could easily fake a few conversations dating back to any date they chose, even the blockchain transactions could have been set up, there is no way in hell to know for sure if there was another person with the name of Lucy who is/was not actually Royse777.

So that leaves us with only one option and that's what Royse claims, it's either you take Royse's for it or you don't, if you think Royse was Lucy all along and then a few "screenshots" would change your mind -- I think there is something seriously wrong with your judgment.

Personally, I believe Royse is a genuine person, maybe she got a bit greedy and saw a "huge opportunity" which she didn't want to lose, which led her to ignore all the obvious red flags which then resulted in a loss for everyone who was involved, one might say that her judgment is not to be trusted and that would make sense, but again, I don't think she had any intention to cause damage.

Again, if you drive a car without a driver's license, might work out, sure, if nobody detects it. But if it is detected, it is getting pretty rough.

When you read that private conversation between the guy who got scammed and the "CEO", you'll clearly get my point. That is why I said I can't even believe for a second that Royse really thought it could work out with that dude. Then again, Royse might have been the passenger, also without a license. Somewhat in her defense I'd say. It also feels a bit like megalomania on Royse' part when she said it's going to be the biggest online casino on the planet. Well, on what evidence or substance was that based on? Did this CEO sign a message from a wallet with 10,000 Bitcoin?

I'd say it was a bit of both. I'm not even sure Bitlucy intended to scam from the start, but it's obvious they tried to start a casino without having funds. They must have gambled on the first users losing a lot of money, and if that would have happened, they could have been successful and nobody would have known about the lack of funds.

JollyGood didn't claim that there was a physical dinner date. JollyGood asked me to provide the source that I based my comment on. I can't find some piece right now because I cross-read a couple of threads and I don't exactly recall what place it was. I do think thought that @igehhh was the first to claim it at least in this thread.


Lol...

So maybe @igehhh has something to add regarding the dinner date.


On another note, there is a document circulating that really got me baffled. The user @teyttrs uploaded it after having an 11 day conversation with the mysterious CEO about getting paid, was suuuuper patient, and the last couple hundred lines ultimately proved what a scammer the unknown CEO is. Now the problem I have with this is: that user also was asked by others to calm down and there is no way people get scammed because "https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60055562" ("handled by Royse, regarding the discussion here about trust and so on...).

The unknown CEO is such a scumbag, even so stupid to have such a conversation with some unknown dude from the Internet, that I can't believe 1) someone like that person to run an Online Casino without 2) getting detected by someone with Royse' experience. She knows how all this stuff works, promotional campaigns, requiring funds for escrow and so on and so forth. She should have puledl the trigger earlier and warn all the community she appreciates, and that appreciates her so much... It is a sad ending and when I see how this unknown CEO communicates, Royse, if it is really true, how did this CEO talk to you without you getting suspicious when this CEO talks that way to everyone in PM?

There you go, I can't quote since the thread is locked:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60052582

That file is removed in that post, but whoever wants to have a look at it can find it in this post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60053921


No joke, I really took the time and read it completely... I had the choice between hitting the gym or waste some time and chill. When I found this document while searching for stuff in response to @JollyGood's post, I thought I'll give it a read.

Part of my conclusion is:


And this is where I also wonder whether Royse did any research at all regarding the required skillset, be it technical, social, financial, industry experience etc. This unknown CEO from Bitlucy really had no clue what's going on. Links pointing to Betcoin.ag, wagering requirements totally unclear, no idea what arbitrage bets look like (you can read from the document I suggested above, etc. If I were to start a casino (which I won't unless I would find myself in a circle of proven experts for some weird reason), I would do tons of research. It's kind of a given in that industry. Especially when you partner up and buy shares in the company as Royse publicly said:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59956927

I mean, how does this all make sense? I know not everyone has partnered up with someone else and set up some contract or even a legal entity, but wouldn't you vest your partners beyond accepting fotos from Disney Land as proof of sufficient personal wealth in order to become the "biggest online Crypto casino and sportsbook on the planet." Quote was also from Royse, and I get all the enthusiasm when one is about to get something off the ground and is dreaming big, but come on...

I initially thought that Royse might have been scammed by a really, really clever person in a very sophisticated way. But after I read the document, and given that it came into existence through a chat with a person completely unknown to the CEO, neither "clever" nor "sophisticated" is likely to apply. Hence: gross negligence would be my judgment.

I stand by my word though that I would also support the possibility for Royse to get back on track. It is very true she doesn't owe any specific information to anyone, but that is her judgment as well. If she thinks that what she needs to protect from being known by others is more valuable, that is to be accepted. Other than that, I would still trust her as a campaign manager and even for some other things. But the harm has been done. When you drive too quickly, you get a red tag in a certain registry unless you have very, very good reason and can PROVE it! Other than that the red tag stands, and if you get caught again, things against you start to accelerate. Same speed but harsher penalty because there is this register that tells the driver to better not repeat what you have done wrong before. That is why I support JollyGood's judgment. Now someone might argue the registry doesn't apply because other drivers can't know whether the one in front of them has a big fat history with red tags.That is true, so we trust the police to do the right thing for us. But in this forum, there is no hidden police. It is the nature of forums like this that things are publicly discussed and publicly available when they involve public interest. If you ask me, the public interest is clearly given here, especially when people were still allowed to deposit while withdrawals weren't already functioning anymore. At let that is what I understand from the walls of text I read about the whole Bitlucy topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but deposits weren't stopped when withdrawals were already on ice. Big no-go!

When it comes @JollyGood, I have no personal relationship with him, never had any transactions with him or anything like that. I just started following him at some point because I liked that he cracked down on scam after scam AND he put effort into it. Not just distributing red tags as is sometimes claimed here by some, but certainly not by many... In my opinion @JollyGood is a real asset to the community. It is good to know that there is someone who really puts puzzle pieces together when there is something suspicious going on. Hardly anyone (if anyone at all?) would take the time and put in the effort. And in all fairness: he might really be on the edge in some cases, I don't know, I haven't studied them all (haha), but has he given away some clearly wrong red tags? Like, plainly wrong and arbitrarily? I'd be very surprised.

According to the bold part, you are expecting everyone to add you in their trust list. If they don't then they are staunch? You are now mad at the users who excluded you from their trust list including those did not add you at all.

I asked Royse777 if I can see the details and he/she shared it with me so I was among the circle too. But right now you are accusing us and saying closed circle as it sounds we gave him a friendly pass without justifying the entire situation.

Where is your problem? Royse777 decided to share the information with some of us or he did not share everything in open forum.
If not sharing in open forum is your problem then I can confirm, he didn't do it for his own privacy and security as well as few others too. None of us can protect him if something turn wrong against him.
If sharing the information with us is your problem then it's a strange feeling. 🙄

I kind of agree with DireWolfM14 but would like to add, someone is rightfully concerned about their security while you are being so curious to fix your drama.

My understanding of online discussion forums is that when you quote someone and ask a specific question, you are addressing that person. I could be wrong, though. 


In which one? 
But, let's stick to the topic.

It didn't mean to ask JollyGood. I quoted JollyGood posts because I agree with him and my question is the same. I asked that guy. Don't you think there is a better way to ask a question? The more day I spend here, The more I am getting surprised by members' behavior. It feels like I am in Korea. LOL

Why don't you ask the person who mentioned it first? What does JollyGood have to do with this?
Apparently, there are some forum members who got special treatment and got a glimpse of Royse's private conversations with Lucy. The rest of us can only speculate on what went on.

---

Actually, it wasn't Jolly who interpreted the dinner date. So, rather than making accusations, you might want to be a little more precise with your arguments.

I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?

JollyGood would be more aptly named JackBootedThug.  I find it amusing that he's been ignoring me for months, and refuses to engage in a dialogue about his abusive use of the trust system.  His silence speaks volumes.

Yet, he'll write walls of texts to harass people, demands they capitulate to his whims, even going so far as insisting they breach their own privacy or the privacy of others just so he can get his fix of drama.  All while holding them hostage with his red-tags.

So the moment I was offensive aggressive to you, you prioritize your emotion over facts and whatever you are trying now is to feel better for yourself? It's amazing how you are suggesting others to join you. Learn from my experience. A single slip will take away everything from you.

Yeah when I say hangout then you interpret it dinner date in person. Bud! you have not even looked at the details I have posted publicly (forget about private) yet you are here arguing BS to establish your thoughts.

I will keep this thread alive.

I highly doubt it since Royse claims they started communicating again shortly before the BitLucy casino launched. Considering the time period and that they apparently live on different continents, it is highly unlikely that they ever met in person. Royse mentioned that he participated in some meetings with potential partners, but these could very well have been virtual meetings only.

I believe he is referring to this:

Was this ever actually addressed by Royse777? Was a straight answer ever posted addressing this issue about the dinner? If so, can anybody provide a link before Royse777 locks this thread.

Was there an actual in-person dinner between Royse777 and Bitlucy where they met or was it an online chat only. I am confused, did they ever meet in real life to discuss Bitlucy as a business? Were they actually friends in real life or was this specifically a cyber friendship where the two main protagonists never met in real life?

Hard-push advertising is common everywhere in all walks of daily life but subtle influences most definitely would have an impact too especially in a community such as this forum because some members are more likely to send funds to an unknown website if they trust the person promoting that agenda. That is simple to understand.

Again you raised another valid point.... based on who is recommending the casino or betting website, it is likely to influence the decision made by either experienced or novice individuals.

If a forum member had -20 feedback was recommending this-is-a-great-casino-website.com I doubt it was gain much traction beyond zero but if a member with some sort of reputation was to recommend or vouch for this-is-a-great-website-i-can-vouch-for-it-because-i-am-promoting-it-and-maybe-am-a-part-owner-look-at-my-forum-reputation-and-do-not-miss-out.com then even if was not blatant promoting rather it was subtle, it can have an affect on any member ranging from gullible to experienced covering all in between.

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I never thought about it the way the you described it as leveraging their own reputation on a single deal for their own benefit. Come to think of it, there is nothing wrong with that assumption because from a particular vantage point it seems to be true.

It seems Royse777 hedged all bets (no pun intended) on Bitlucy but lost and in the process a small number of users became victims. Not pulling the plug and not disassociating herself from Bitlucy earlier when red flags were visible was negligent on part of Royse777.

Such as a football manager having to go (be sacked) even though he is not on the field kicking the ball but has to carry the consequences of the outfield players because he is responsible or part responsible for their actions? I see part of the analogy.

Thank you. I try to remain impartial, I try to not let sentiment sway me and I am glad to be on board because this community means a lot to me  

For clarity sake I should express I am surprised at the amount of good faith, pity, sympathy and compassion shown here by members towards Royse777. After looking at the facts as I saw them much earlier, I had a degree of sympathy too but that has subsided because of the way Royse777 has posted with an offensive aggressive stance which resulted in alienating herself from several members including myself but my red tag was given impartially before that happened.

As a forum member, my trust list (included and excluded) is there for all to see but that does not mean I would literally trust all of them beyond this forum and even within this forum we all define "trust" according to our interpretations rather than how theymos wanted it to be defined. We all apply the trust and exclusion and feedback system in ways some others would find incorrect. Even those that added me and others to their trust list would probably not really trust me and others outside this forum... a continuation of trust from inside the forum to outside it, is something not afforded easily.

Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.

Having said that, I would personally outside this forum trust just 3-4 members at maximum on my list literally and again I would define trust in the way I interpret. Regardless, I would not be influenced at all by reputations nor be bothered about falling foul of certain cliques, I would say what has to be said because I believe it to be the right thing... maybe that was part of the reason you made that comment about me using words such as strict, consistent and integrity.

Can you define what you mean by Royse777 lied about the dinner and provide a link?

Seeing your trust, it doesn't seem to me that you are to give moral lessons to anyone.

So what? you've already said it was ridiculous to red tag this scammer. You've already given your opinion, so what are you trying to imply here? Your post means nothing and doesn't level you up to be a honourable person, it's just professional nonesense talk from a person who can't be better at anything else.

Some people here are right about wanting to make a difference between honest and scam promoters, and rightly so tagging the scammer Royse777.

It's fair to point out that I was among the circle invited by Royse777 to review the evidence.  Unfortunately I didn't have to time to follow through, so I have nothing to add regarding the messages.  But, his invitation does say something considering I was the first DT member to red-tag him.  The circle of individuals he selected included those who were critical of his behavior.

You did what you had to do. I owe you nothing and I feel nothing to make you understand too.

Edit: I will close this thread after 24 hours from now.

PS: @Everyone, If I owe anything to anyone then it's the group of people who are still putting trust on me. I had a rough time but I hope you understand that I have given my best for it.

Cheers,