Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 8. (Read 9492 times)

Well, you must understand, another day another scam from the « trusted » members of this forum. Verdict: you can scam people here and keep your job, your trust score is still ok. Not the first time. I myself got a taste of this yet the scammer is still going perfectly fine on this forum, trust score untouched.  When someone is caught in a lie and a scam is involved, the trust score founder will tell you « this doesn’t change anything, you must understand there’s 2 sides of the story: the scammer’s side and the victim’s side, so let’s stay neutral and continue our scam business » So lying is ok, scamming a bit less but it’s ok since you didn’t mean to do it right? Of course not. Poor scammer.

But until some of the responsibles here or their bosses get to pay the real price of their criminal activities, some way or the other, nothing will change.

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame.  

Apology if that offended you. Being with it from the day 1 does not guarantee you are well informed. Hanging out does not mean that it was a dinner date in person. Bad choice of words to make the situation convincing for your argument. Process information without adding your imagination.

Disclaimer: I had access of some information that I was able to verify.

I see where is the problem. I expect Liverpool to win all their matches. I consider them unbeatable. Only in EPL, in a season they play 38 matches. I expect them to win all. Because I am a crazy fan. The expectation from Liverpool is so high to me that when they lose an ordinary match which is not gonna effect their point table at all, I feel upset. But when they lose an important match that cost them the title race, I feel devastated. I feel good by blaming each of the players on the ground to everyone relating to the club. Do I consider the pain that the players feel? They give their blood and sweat to win a match. Each of them are world class. I don't consider the hours they give to be in a match, I do not see the sacrifice they make to stay fit and be the footballer. All I have the result of the day. I don't know how appropriate this example was but I have a point.

Royse paid many users and worked with many projects. He organized many pools and non-profit events including a charity. None of them seem to go wrong. With the reputation he had, he could have easily collected money from many users with any excuse. Create a fake project, walk away with the funds. He could easily do that. You don't know when was the right time for him to pull the plug, you were not in his shoes. Lower your expectation. It's a person with flesh and blood. No saint.

I don't believe Royse should display a flag of high-risk. The system does not fit the explanation. I am opposing the flag.

I didn't expect this case is more complicated than I thought, many users have different perspective they look into this case. I think right now, it's a best for me to withdraw my support opinion since it's on grey area where it can't be said Royse777 either wrong or right. It doesn't mean I run away from this case, but I give more time for Royse777 to taking care this case especially the refund to 4 customers has been said by him before.

If it's too long and I don't see anything change, I will support the flag. If there's an activity where he already refund to the 4 customers, I would oppose the flag. I think this is the most correct in this situation.

Both are valid points. I haven't voted on the Flag because there are arguments for both sides.

---

---

When, after the disaster, I asked someone IRL why he didn't tell me about his financial problems instead of creating a web of lies, he said it was because he's ashamed. It gave me a "fake it till you make it" feeling, and I still think that's what "Lucy" was hoping for.

1. Royse was told that he would get 10% of the revenue as salary.. What are you all considering the extent of this whole “partner” thing to be?
If the casino was to be sold outright, would Royse have been entitled to 10% of the sale proceeds?
Did Royse have full access to the backend even? Could he have saw bad balance or fishy transactions?

2. Let’s say I go to work for a company that is coming out with a new car..
You can preorder these cars for a deposit..
My job is to advertise these..
The owner/CEO embezzles all the money from the deposits and disappears..
Do I go to jail? No..
Do I get sued personally? No..
The company is what gets sued/liquidated, and only the guilty employee/party goes to jail..


I would like to see this lie about them going out to dinner..

What am I looking for in that long ass chat log where Royse did not refute it being called a scam or something?




Well, except for Lightlord campaigns.. Some of the longest running on the forum..

Go ahead and oppose, that's your choice. I don't see where I am biased? Royse took on a partnership role, not campaign manager. When he does that, he/she is now responsible for the casinos actions IMO. Now, Royse has the choice to make the gamblers who have a complaint whole, or run off. Then, take the CEO to court to be repaid of seek criminal charges.

It's no different then robbing a bank. If we are walking down the road and go into a bank, and I rob it and we go home, if you don't turn me in you are considered an accomplice and guilty according to the law.

As an added note, I have not been managing any campaigns lately and I am not gaining anything here with my opinion. I am not making this a personal attack for my gain.

Owed by whom Royse777 or "Lucy" the CEO ?

DT have become a game without ethics.

Opposing the flag, by looking at some biased DTs here who can't even see through a simple situation of an innocent person being trapped.

---

Fully agree with you, on users acting as crabs here.

Generally, I agree with everything yahoo62278 said, and that is why I still support the flag. I mainly resent Royse777 for failing to alert the community when he had a clear knowledge that BitLucy intended to scam. As a matter of fact, he hasn't done so to this day, despite the information presented in this topic.

There might be some who haven't seen this, so I'll repost it again.


I know it's a long read, but I think it's worth reading. The juiciest part of it, of course, comes at the end. I'd love to see your comments on this because I think this vividly describes how a sweet-talking scammer "handles" his victims. The fact that Royse777 commented on the post, and didn't dispute the information presented, raises the question of why he continued to promote the casino for over a month after that.

I give Royse777 the benefit of doubt as far as I do not feel they set out to scam anyone. That fact alone changed my negative to a neutral. If I feel there was intent, my negative stays forever.

I still support the flag because I feel money is owed.

This statement from Royse777 themselves makes me feel that Royse777 is liable for any money owed, the same as the CEO. If Royse777 was strictly acting as a campaign manager and stopped promoting when he thought the company was a scam, then all is forgiven and life goes on. That's clearly not the case, Royse took ownership of any and all debts when agreeing to be a partner no matter how big or small a partner.

If all debts are settled or agreements are reached I have no problem removing support for the flag. I really cannot disagree with any who still have a negative on Royse at this point, but since I feel there wasn't intent to scam on the part of Royse777 I will keep my tag neutral.

As far as Royse still managing, I'm not against the user earning money because once again, they didn't have the intent to scam. It's up to potential clients as to whether or not they wanna hire Royse777. I do feel that maybe escrow might be an option for payments while money is owed, but that's not my call.

Ask theymos to blacklist you.

That's mainly because of the way BPIP works:
Royse777 was removed from DT1. After that, BPIP doesn't see who he (she) trusts anymore, and shows them as if Royse777 removed all of them.

How do you do that? I've had a look at the link and it seems to me that she has distrusted usually trusted people and the other way around. So people will exclude her. Is that it? Is this something usual? It seems kind of weird to me.

It's human nature; we've been like this since the beginning. There were men who were willing to die for Donald Trump when he lost the election; people do crazy things. Every year, members of Christ Embassy Church donate their January salary to their pastor (Pst. Chris). Humans were designed to make stupid decisions.

Anyway, how did the infamous thymos ICO go? Everyone became a billionaire, I suppose.

Being a marketing director and a co-partner?  Should pay more.

Sounds more like a pizza date to me 

The first rule of marketing is to know what you're selling! Something that everyone should understand.

Royse777 should head up and prove everyone of us wrong, he can.

I am not that much into English law, but there are certain categories:

1) Intent
2) Gross negligence
3) Light negligence
4) The classic "Ignorance is no excuse" (which is kind of a variation of 2) / 3) )

Given how this all enfolded from a time perspective, when warnings were received and responded to, I'd say that one of these categories probably applies. The only one that involves clear intent is obviously 1). 2) - 4) do not involve intent, but guess what happens at court: you get punished regardless. The only difference being is the severeness of the judgment against one. What also counts I'd say is the actual amount lost, obviously. So saying "There was no intention so who cares" just doesn't sound right to me. However, it also doesn't seem to be right that Royse can't make up for the mistake. Surely, there must be a fair way back to the pre-incident status quo, that's no question to me.

I really think it is important to know how much was actually lost and whether is realistic for that money to be paid back, even if over time. Or at least if the parties make deals that both sides can agree on. Now another problem is that, reading from some comment here, even balances went missing and that means winnings are essentially lost while deposits must be proven. It is not an easy process I guess, but open dialogue with the victims and a public explanation by all parties involved that a solution is under way, I guess red tags could carefully be reconsidered. As long as there are victims who prove they are still left behind, in my opinion red tags should prevail. I am even sorry to say that, and I am open to criticism regarding my statements here. But I think it is only fair also to those people who are new to the forum and do not know him as well. That is what the trust system is for: give them a fair chance to make a reasonable judgment whom to trust and whom not.


Edit: Sorry, but this just came to my mind in a certain way and I would like to add it.

We all too much argue from the perspective of forum reputation. If we make forum reputation the base principle of how the forum is governed and the trust system is applied, we run into a lot of problems. I'll elaborate on that in a second. If we have a sort of "rule by law" approach (and I know our pseudonyms here are neither lawyers nor judges), it makes much more sense.
If we go with the first approach, merits and trust could also turn out to be dangerous. Why would someone not abuse merit and trust if the forum demonstrated that you can get away with it exactly because of your awesome scores? Also, if someone is new to the forum and runs into a "Royse-like" situation, but with a less trusted or less-known manager, and the person opens a scam accusation thread. What would happen? Usually, most here would say "how stupid can you be, trusting a bounty manager with zero trust and low merit score?". And then the person responds "well I found this thread with this super high trust manager and I could have lost my money the same way I did with the low score manager, no?".

I always understood the merit and trust score as an asset to the person owning it. The person can decide whether to put that merit and trust score on the line whenever he or she wants. Royse chooses to put it on the line, Loyce decides against it. Both have their reasons. But when that score is put on the line because one engages in an activity for whatever incentive there is, shouldn't that person also be held liable for any damage others incur?

That is why I think the example one brought up here with the $50,000 that went lost is a good one. A red tag should have been given. Or let's say the lending market: someone with super high scores receives collateral and the money that someone borrowed is paid back in time according to the rules. Now out of a sudden the lender says the private key to the collateral is lost. Well, what are the options? Pay from own money or get red tagged, no matter what the trust score is. Perhaps it was true. The lender writes a three pages long outstandingly convincing explanation. Totally crazy story and it must be true. But the victim doesn't get paid. What would we say? In my opinion there can't be any doubt that it is a red tag unless there is a reimbursement at some point in time to which both parties agreed upon.


I also want to say this thread is hopefully not perceived as a hostile argument between some or all of us. I like reading your opinions and I think it is for the better of this forum if everyone pitches in. Might help for the forum to have a solution if these things happen again in the future.

Cheers for now!

He didn't cheat anyone imo, he's pretty much a victim himself, I'd agree he was naive and probably waited too long to pull the plug, however, I still believe if he had just come out as the campaign manager without saying that he was close to the owner/co-owner most of the victim would have joined any ways, none of the victim I've seen so far are close to Royse in the forum, so I'm not so sure how his statement were the main deciding factor for their action to bet on the site. Royse is not just as guilty as any manger that have promoted an ICO that turned out to be a scam, but also very every bounty participant that joined and influenced via the social media accounts, articles and/or video reviews.

The flag says:

Come on man! He didn't come short or failed at his role as a campaign manager or marketer, if there were many users as victims shouldn't that means he did a good job or his influential, ironically ? ..

What happened is not good for his reputation and, he should have known better given how long he's been in this sphere and how many scam casinos/bookies have come and gone on this forum so I wouldn't blame UniJoin for calling it quits with him, yes because most people will be cautious of using any service he's representing or introducing to the forum henceforth.

That's stupid not the smartest thing to do! Did you also invest in [ANN][ICO]HoweyCoins: the only BitcoinTalk-endorsed ICO - GUARANTEED PROFIT? It's literally the only ICO endorsed by theymos!

Seriously though: this is exactly why people lose their money on Twitter when someone's account gets hacked again. They just hand it over the the scammers.
This is the internet. I wouldn't trust investment advice from professionals. After all, why would they need my money if they're that good? So don't trust random people on the internet.

Hanging out together in a chat, I assume?

With your reputation and influence, if you introduce me to a site to invest in and also assure me that the owner of the site is your boyhood friend, I will invest 100% without hesitation, because I doubt you would be stupid to introduce a scam site on the forum and if I end up being scammed, it will be on you LoyceV because of your huge influence.

If I am paid $20k for my work and the total amount scammed is less than $15k, I can easily pay from my own pocket to restore my reputation. I'm just giving an example. I can't confirm where he paid off, so please get me some information.


You could have asked nicely, you are too late to the show, I've been on this table from day 1. 

Yesterday, Royse777 moved from DT1 to DT2. I assume he (she?) requested to be blacklisted.

Gotta agree with this. He for sure should have handled this situation much better, but was his intention to cheat anyone out of their money, or help someone doing that? I don't think so. So yeah, opposing the flag as well.

Clearly his employer does not think the same.
It's clear that they do not know his history as much as we do. So they panicked. Add some overzealous people and imagine the affects in their mind.


I think we need to be a little more careful before we say anything carelessly. It’s a lot easier to say many things without being a part of the event that did not go well. You hear a story, take it, think it, add your thoughts in it and then you tell it in a better form depending on how you processed it.

I am assuming you haven't read everything very well. Many people don’t, they do not give time to understand a situation but leave a post with the words they are comfortable with. As far as I can see their communication channel is telegram, conducted many meetings and had voice communication. It is also very clear that they do not live in the same place. Where did you get that dinner date in person? I want to know what I am reading is wrong.

"I was not stressing for my money but stressing for staff and customers withdrawals. This was important for me more than anything."
Not just it, many times he was talking about staff and withdrawal. If he was selfish he would push his first before anything else.

That's my point too. With all due respect, a few people are taking it as a chance to proof something from it so it benefits their own interest. After all one is down means several have the opportunity to fill up the empty space (hate it or love it).