Give the PMs to Jolly..
Let’s see what he says..
What would I say and what impact would my say-so have on the current situation?
To be honest with you eddie, there is an unhelpful movement within the forum where some members who find themselves in certain situations decide to use the PM route for their own particular agenda. I am unsure what Royse777 would gain from showing PMs to certain members in order to demonstrate (using an unknown barometer), that she was not a scammer amongst other things. For example, if several forum members registered to play at a website that I was promoting and things went completely pear-shaped, what good would it do to the community if you and several others stated you had seen various PMs from me and were advocating I was not a scammer? Likewise, what good would it do to the community if after receiving the PMs you and several other members decided to not comment at all or to state the PMs were doctored?
Royse777 would probably not even consider sending me the PMs probably because I am one to extensively analyse various bits of information and maybe because I am known to have very little sympathy towards those who should know better. Keeping that aside, we have not always seen eye to eye and have had issues in the past. I recently removed her from my exclusion list only to re-add her a short time later because of the Bitlucy drama.
Even now to this point there is some degree of sympathy for her because of the situation she finds herself in but after reading the
scam allegation thread and the
come clean thread, has everything really been said and done? It seems as though several facts and vital bits of information are not being put in the public domain by Royse777.
Returning to what you said about me being sent the PMs... I doubt I will be sent any of the private correspondence (between Bitlucy and Royse777) to peruse.
I still have seen zero evidence to suggest that Royse777 intended to scam
There are a lot of issues with this statement:
1-You don't have to have evidence for everything, except maybe for when sending someone to prison or death penalty. Some things you'll just have to assume. It is very clear, at best, that Royse777 knew that those who trusted him were very much likely to get scammed, and he did not do anything because he also knew that this wouldn't affect his job on this forum.
2-The trust score, as it is being advertised, is supposed to evaluate the trade risk, not if the person is intentionally scamming or not. So this must also include if someone is stupid enough to get you scammed.
3-PM are not proof of anything. He could have prepared this beforehand and was conversing with himself just to show it after the scam.
So if this was a place that is supposed to not encourage scams, there shouldn't be any need to keep people like Royse777 and let them ride with a high trust score.
I think we should agree to disagree on the issue of you saying not having evidence can suffice in almost every case. In general, some evidence is needed before a serious conclusion can be made but I am inclined to partly agree with you when you say that Royse777 did know users were likely to get scammed and nothing for a period of time. In my own opinion that period of time (the interim of being aware users would most probably lose financially and her actually saying so and taking action) cannot be mitigated at all... but others disagree with my view and they have just as much right to their opinion as I have a right to mine.
As for the trade-risk comment you made, I broadly agree with it but with my own perspective added for consideration that is why I left the negative tag. In my opinion the flag should have stayed, I supported it along with others yet on the other hand others opposed it. The one who created the flag decided to withdraw it (as he was well within his rights to do so) but each member has their opinion how to conduct themselves in this highly unusual set of circumstances:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632;page=iflagsYour final comment about PMs should not be specific to Royse777 but could be applied generally to any form of issue where evidence or communication was presented. From what I understand the situation to be (based on what I have read), I am fairly certain you are wrong because Royse777 was not sending PMs to herself using multiple accounts in order to use as a defence if/when a scam was to ever take place. On the contrary, it seems fairly clear she was duped in to participating in the Bitlucy facade but questions about the full extent of her involvement in the business and the extent of the relationship between her and the Bitlucy owner - are open to debate because she has not made all the details public.
~
If memory serves correct, I recall a thread where you were looking for either partners or investors because you were creating a casino or a casino type of website from scratch. Did you decide to cancel the idea or is it something that is still in the pipeline?
It's been cancelled since January even though I only locked that thread last week, not only because of the developers but I had to leave the project for personal reasons (I was not the owner, only a former associate of him).
It looked as though we were very busy last year - and we were - with many aspects such as support and advertising, but ultimately the project was running late and could not be finished, so everything just fizzled out.
Out of curiosity, how much of the decision to pull the plug on the project was down to there being dwindling finances?
Well, I have to say from what I recall you seem very talented in your code related tips, advice, comments and contributions in the forum therefore how much of the project not proceeding was simply a side effect because you were no longer a part of it? I would not be surprised if you were carrying the bulk of the workload which resulted in you being the main catalyst therefore that probably played a massive part.
I hope in the near future your skills will be put to good use in a different project where your talents will be showcased to their maximum potential.