Topic: Royse777 is a dishonest person and thus my negative feedback - page 2. (Read 1116 times)

Do you think I need your suggestion/advice? I don't. Do you think I need approval from you before doing anything? I don't. Do you think I bother to prove anything that you demand? I don't.

You need to understand, you have no importance for me. Stop inviting me to response for your demand, to read your suggestions, to consider your approval. By now if you have brain then it's clear that I treat you same as the waste in my bin. How am I not in your ignore list yet?

So what made your mind to change?
This?

That is quite an extensive list, very detailed and it must have taken time to compile therefore your efforts have to be noted.

Initially I thought about staying out of this thread because it is not been self-moderated and eventually it will be overrun with walls of text especially when Royse777 gets in to defensive mode and couple of hangers-on will come to back her up but at least you made a reference for your feedback/trust and rational therefore members can read it if they are interested.

I disagree with some of your comments, it is not important to explain where but in the general aspect you seem to have matters mostly correct as far as I can recall.

Who actually believes this?

Who believes Royse777 paid over $6000 from their own pocket for the mistake she made and what evidence has been shown to back up that claim?

Does anybody know what the mistake was that she made?

I even saw a forum member repeat this claim as though it was a matter of fact. Where is the evidence $6000 was paid by Royse777 and to whom was it paid. Is there any actual link to an actual post (rather than a link to a thread OP) that can be seen to show blockchain evidence?

As far as I recall, the few complaints that were made in the forum did not any of the funds they were scammed out of. In one case an alleged threat was made against members involved in the Royse777/Bitlucy scam which was cited by Royse777 as an excuse to not pay losses even though she said she would pay out from her own pocket. Does anybody remember Royse777 wanting KYC from a victim before paying for their losses even though Bitlucy had already exit scammed?

The problem is your words which come secondary to your actions. When you do not get your way you cannot even handle a decent debate without getting extremely agitated and aggressive. As English is not your first language it is clear that is part of the problem but that does not negate the aggression and petulance on your part.

Such arrogance with an overinflated ego. Why could you not start the new year off with a change in attitude and be more approachable and respectful  

You are right if I read correctly, these are old issues but have now have a singular reference point compiled. Like you I do not see abuse here because a reference has been compiled.

Here is the deleted post from your Moderated Thread.
Answer if you have balls

Even though he is on your ignore list, You unignore him every few days to see what he doing and then renew your feedback. You had a point to tag him and you did it already. But, You keep pushing him by doing such childish things. You are trying to keep alive the drama and that's why you doing it. Right?

The last feedback from you is personal.
I hope you have the balls to reply with a good point and not just delete my post and go away.
Your last post shows your anger and rage.

In general, I don't like to get into this kind of argument too much, but I want to give my opinion unbiased regarding Royse777 as the campaign manager of the forum.

I have not dealt with Royse777 personally before, but on my part I want to confirm that I participated in many campaigns previously with Royse777, every time I participated in those campaigns, there was no problem, the payment was made regularly without delay or problems with subscribers, even He was open to discussing members who might be complaining that their posts were not counted accurately.
Also, during all those campaigns, I did not hear about any problem between him and the sponsor of the campaign. All these things make me say that he is a really successful campaign manager and a very good member of the forum.

As for the poker player, I also see him as a very good member of the forum. I always read his good and constructive posts and discussions. Of course he has a point of view that he believes is in favor of the members of the forum.

Therefore, since the point of view of the two parties was presented through this topic, I do not see a reason to prolong the dispute more than that, the members of the forum are the ones who judge the issue, each member according to his point of view.

I wasn't very frequent in this area of the forum, because I was never one to do big business with other members. But, in the last few months I have been paying attention to this section, for several reasons - which may go through some negotiations.

But, from what I've seen in the last few months, what appears here are tantrums between users. What need do I have to know that user X doesn't like Y?
We don't have to like everyone, nor do we all have the same opinions on matters. That's what makes this community interesting and different from many others.

As imperfect people, we all make mistakes in the choices we make. The difference is whether the person is able to learn from those mistakes and change to try to improve in the future. Analysis should be done, whether the user has learned and changed or not.

If we don't like or support a user, there is an "ignore" option that can be used. I see a lot of people giving value to people they don't like.

Don't focus on the problems, focus on the solutions! Learn from past mistakes so as not to repeat them in the future. But for that, you don't have to be stuck in the past.

That said, any warnings and useful information we have about someone here on the forum is always good to share. Then letting each one evaluate what he should do based on that information.

If the trust rating indicates PP's poor judgement then exclusion is the way to deal with it. But I don't think it's abuse of the trust system, i.e. it doesn't really break any trust system rules or guidelines as far as I can see. Negative trust is for high risk, and PP stated as much in the feedback, and also created a thread to substantiate the claim (again, if you disagree with the facts/opinions/conclusions presented - that's a valid concern but I wouldn't call it abuse).

As I said in the other thread, I think contacting Royse777's clients is not cool, but as far as trust system is concerned, I wouldn't call it abuse unless PP said something like "if you do business with Royse777 I'll red-trust you".

I hope this is the last thread in the drama.

So you are saying we should start giving negative trust feedback to all dishonest members in this forum, or it's only ok to do this for Royse, call him names like ''crybaby'' ,mock him all the time, and talk with his customers/clients?
To me this sounds more like some kind of online stokers behavior, than a grown man who can evaluate who deserves negative trust feedback.
Referenced or not, I said this is my opinion and I criticized them both, asking them to stop with this circus show.
If they continue this path, I will have to ignore both of them in future because I don't enjoy watching Telenovelas.

I don't think it's abuse. Now that it's been properly referenced I don't see any problem with it.


It's not a self-mod thread, so how could he possibly expect it to be one-sided? Makes no sense. As evidenced by you being able to post your side of the story, which TBH you could have made less petty but that's your choice.

I don't 100% agree with negative feedback for Royse777 (though he was definitely evasive about his role in the Casino Critique case), but I don't think Poker Player leaving a neg or starting up this thread constitutes abuse, either.  On the other hand, I think everyone who's already familiar with the issues he brought up has already made their judgement and justifying the negative feedback in this way is unnecessary.

These are kind of old issues at this point, no?

I really do not have time to continue this childish, the only reason to make the post above is not to lose the next potential client. I believe I have lost few already.

Obviously potential clients will check the feedback reference and read only his side of story to make up their mind. That's he wants, doesn't he? The post above was a try for me to give the potential clients a report of the works I do. I believe it will help them to make a wise decision for the benefit of their investment.

I have no use of this thread anymore. Expect me living in peace.

Would both of you guys just grow up finally?!
Poker Player you are calling Royse a crybaby but at the same time you are acting like a spoiled brat who is changing his trust feedback all the time, and you look like obsessed with Royse.
From all the scams and lost funds that happened recently (including another bounty manager recently) you only choose to target one person, so I have to say that looks very bias.
You are contacting other members with private messages and you telling them to avoid doing business with Royse... that is borderline insane, and your negative feedback for Royse is trust abuse in my oppinion.

Thank God. Finally it ends. Next time when someone will leave a trade feedback or a character certificate on my trust page, it will stay at the top.

The snapshot since Bitlucy madness:



If anyone is wondering what happened in bitlucy then this is my side of story:
Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief
I paid over $6,000 cash, out of my own pocket for the mistake I made.

If you are a project owner and curious to check my portfolio and work then feel free to visit my service page 💹📈 Bitcointalk Campaign Management 💪🔥 Signature & Bounty. Ask questions to yourself how could a dishonest person have over 6 active campaigns and all together entrusted by 0.70999878 btc (at current price $13,690) + $2,800 USDT.
That's $16,490 which is over 329 weeks salary Poker Player makes from the forum. Currently I am working with over 125 forum members who are in different signature campaigns working hard to promote different brands. It cost around $8,000 per week and all of them can confirm that they are receiving their payments every week on time.
The list of the members are available on the following spreadsheets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zM5sO2FmEYqDEIAn2q4l7YG9EZfGKUWeu0ulFQ8UUjw/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZK1BFHgbNivPuMESw7nODX8pTyJ98cjU2rrKb0t9rw/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hUz_o7OD8wP_9YiZUuBGL09WJI1fa7f_ZlDInPqNXyM/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o0KlIaLlRP69rfiZd5nRy-dJNKBs13ucbin2X9TXg0w/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14_t4rLhjqztJDaDBNYRL7dihP70xYA5xlR31StZZUNk/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SLhz6zEmBSrlZ0wNJDMvKI5vOgBZzVjG8b9FlXpn-oQ/edit?usp=sharing
I am looking forward to add your campaign in my portfolio and add it above. My actions should speak for me, not the words.

Thank you poker player to give me the opportunity to leave an executive report of the work I do while you are busy spreading hate against me. See you some day seeking a position in one of my campaign.

I would have liked to put this subject to rest a long time ago, but since Royse777 doesn't stop crying and some people don't seem to know what happened, I'm going to create this post, as recommended by LoyceV, to use it as a reference.

The summary of reasons is as follows:

1) His involvement in the Bitlucy case.
2) His dishonest way of acting by demanding people who left negative feedback to him to change the feedback and feeling entitled instead of being humble and keeping a low profile.
3) His dishonest way of acting by hiding behind an alt in the Casino Critique case.
4) His dishonest way of acting by covering up for naim027 scum.
5) His dishonest way of acting in the recent case of being banned for ad spam, although this is of minor importance, but reaffirms his dishonesty.

1) His involvement in the Bitlucy case.

I'll echo efialtis negative feedback:


2) His dishonest way of acting by demanding people who left negative feedback to him to change the feedback and feeling entitled instead of being humble and keeping a low profile.

I am not going to back it up in links because it is scattered throughout the various threads in Reputation, but those who have followed the story know what happened. Simply instead of shutting his mouth and trying to regain his reputation with a low profile, Royse777 started to pick on those who had not changed the feedback from negative to neutral, especially yahoo62278 and JollyGood. With yahoo62278 he got him to change the feedback from negative to neutral, I think because he was annoying and not to have to hear him anymore, but if we see the feedback we will see that despite the neutral color it is clearly negative in spirit.

Tell me if someone who doesn't know the story and doesn't care about color would make deals with Royse777 based on that feedback:


This is dishonest. Potential investors had a right to know who was behind that account.

Then a newbie appeared, probably an alt, and when there were already suspicions, he created this thread:

Royse777 is Casino Critique

Royse777 was slow to show up on the thread, but he did show up not to confirm it was true, but to throw his weight around and accuse JollyGood of using alts to harm his reputation.

4) His dishonest way of acting by covering up for naim027 scum.

Royse777 was, dishonestly, covering up for a person if you can call him that, who has repeatedly demonstrated no moral principles. And not only that, but that scum was his biggest alibi in the Bitlucy case.



5) His dishonest way of acting in the recent case of being banned for ad spam, although this is of minor importance, but reaffirms his dishonesty.

This point is not so important, but, again, we see that he knows he is doing something he should not be doing, and he does it:


And thank goodness he didn't find out who reported him, otherwise he'd already be crying and opening threads against him.

The bottom line is that he is a dishonest person and I personally wouldn't deal with him for $0.01. Does this mean that he will necessarily scam all the deals he does? No. In this life you are not either a completely honest person or a serial killer like Ted Bundy who took advantage of the kindness of women to kidnap, rape and kill them, there is a middle ground.

I think that whoever makes deals with Royse777 has a certain risk of losing his money, that's why the negative feedback, although for example, I do not believe in the case of the campaings that he will manage them well and there will be no problem, but simply because it is more profitable for him, not because of his (dis)honesty.

Bonus: boasts about employing naim027: