Topic: Royse777 is a dishonest person and thus my negative feedback (Read 1150 times)

Thanks but I'll keep it open. I think I've already moved on by simply taking it for a laugh.

When I blew the wistle on Casino Critique and red tagged Royse777, I expected a lot more in terms of people removing me from their trust lists and even expected some retaliatory negative feedback like saying I was trust abusing or something, and in the end a lot less happened.

Regarding your analysis of the first part of the feedback I fully agree:


I even regret not blowing the whistle sooner.

As for the second part, I don't think even he believes it. When he says "It is believed that..."  that's because he knows he has no proof or even if the client really told him that, he knows from my reaction that I didn't say anything.

Right now I doubt 50% if Royse777 opened that thread falsely (e.g. sending that message to himself or having a friend send it to him), intending to leave me feedback, and the other 50% of me believes that actually the client sent him that PM but as an excuse. Simply when he saw the mess he wanted to get Royse777 off his back by saying that.

I had to check my untrusted feedback to read what Royse777 wrote about you. To me it seems a clear case of revenge feedback and a completely pointless thing but others can make up their own mind:





If someone sent a member an unsolicited PM and asked them to keep the contents secret and that person sending it was part-owner of a recent scam website who was now going to launch another website anonymously, why would anybody feel the need to be complicit via silence in the new website which could also be a scam?

Had anybody tried finding the actual post Royse777 linked in the first part of his feedback with the accusation?

On the second part, it is NOT believed you reached out to any of his potential clients to discourage them to work with Royse777. That was an accusation Royse777 made. Nobody believes that you or anybody reached out to potential business owners.

I have to say it is commendable you tried to de-escalate the situation by avoiding writing about Royse777 but I would add the name calling on your part is unnecessary and it does not put you in a good light. You should lock this thread and move on from the whole issue.

HAHAHA! I have seen that the crybaby has left me a negative feedback and apparently he is back in DT.

I had been without coming to reputation for de-escalating, and I do not want to escalate a lot, but what I do want is to stay at ease saying:

Crybaby, you are a crybaby, I don't care about your feedbacks, as if I get 24 negative feedbacks for saying that you are a dishonest crybaby.

 

I honestly thought the issue with Bitlucy have been long settled and forgotten, at least with Royce777 coming out to explain his side of the story, which personally, I believe its a mistake anybody would have made, i thought a topic like this should never come up again.
Also considering the fact that Royce777 has picked himself up from where he fell, and right now managing a good number of campaigns, and none of the participants in any of this campaigns have complained of non payment which i know of, neither has any of the brand he's promoting come out to complain about poor services from Royce777...

I think its time we bury every hatchet, we should spread love and support one another, showing hate and even going the extra mile to try to damage ones reputation is not ideal, Royce777 might have his faults, he might exhibit attitude we, on our individual terms do not like, but remember no body is a saint, we all have our faults, and remember they say that the best answer to a fool is silence, if you consider any of Royse777's attitude, or maybe manner of approach foolish, its not worth creating a topic for, just ignore and focus on what's important .

Yeah, sure.  Of those members above, only Lauda had a real scam accusation made against them with evidence strong enough to at least make it a debatable issue.  As for the rest of them, I don't recall any scams that resulted in reputations being destroyed.

That's what I'd advise Poker Player to do for now.  I can't see the future of course, but I'd be willing to bet Royse777 will be able to restore his reputation if given enough time.  I've seen plenty of shitbag scammers on this forum, and I don't think he falls into that category; he may have used some poor judgement in the Bitlucy thing, but I don't think he's here to rip people off.

That's not a ringing endorsement, Royse777, but nor is it a condemnation by any means.  Please prove me right.

You and cryptohunter is never going to change 
digaran is working in it.
Sorry off-topic 

Royse is/was known for supporting the scammer group arround here like Lauda,TMAN,VOD,suchmoon and co.

They are all full of shit and notorious liars trying to destroy everyones account and delete traces to their abuse thanks to their friend mods.
Its not worth the hassle everyone knows they are scammers but theymos won't do anything anyways.

At least VOD got reported to the police i should have done the same with suchmoon when she attacked my reputation causing some damage on the crypto project i run.


TO all these fuckers you are losers expecially you suchmoon.

Poker Player, Royse777 - you two should make an exhibition boxing fight (or any other competition) if you two dont like each other so much. Settle this situation once and for all, as this is not the first time you are throwing stones on each other.

Ok, so if this can't harm your reputation then why can't you ignore it?

You won't be able to prove a negative anyway (that the TG chat didn't exist, or that you didn't send a message to the client). It's your word against Royse's, and since he's the one making the claim (about you messaging the client) then he should prove it. That's what I would state, perhaps without excessive name calling, and leave it at that. Anyone who can do 2+2 would see this situation for what it is. Opening new threads - like you did with the unsubstantiated forgery accusation - doesn't help you at all. You should have considered other possibilities (e.g. someone pretending to be a potential client to screw with Royse777) before assuming that Royse777 made it up and trying to fit the evidence to your preconceived conclusion.

Just let it got buddy. it's not worth it.

Yeah we understand you don't trust him which is fine, but you guys opening topics and counter-topics after the other in the reputations board doesn't help it. It only portrays the situation as some sort of drama and no one sane enough wants to get involved in such drama.

Breath in.... Breath out.... and move on, if Royse777 fucks up again, that's on him. Let the people independently judge him, you don't have to try and influence them 

I believe this is a classic example for "time heals all wounds" in the sense that we forget what happened.

julerz12 got a negative rating, ok, I agree. He handled funds entrusted to him in an irresponsible manner. But he responds in a trustworthy manner and makes very clear that he wants to pay back the damages he is responsible for. This is not about whether or not it is true what he says, but for as long as he delivers, the arguments against him decrease in meaning and significance.

Royse777 says that she can't make transparent some of the important transactions, people involved, also not some of the chats that happened with trustworthy members of this forum, the list of examples for what she can't do is long.

The chat which was dropped between the alleged boss of Bitlucy and a potential employee (I read it in full) was quite crazy. I can't prove anything, but if this chat actually has any truth value, I really ask myself what role Royse777 actually played in this casino disaster.

It was not a short chat, and this is what not many people (if anybody) read in full. It was hours and hours long.

After all, the intentions and interests of Royse777 in the Bitlucy "business" were obvious: big role in the upper management, use the loyal community to get it off the ground, be a stakeholder and yes, also a shareholder '(self-admitted) at the same time: win win for? ...... Royse777.  A shareholder who never warned the community, the "beloved" community, that payouts aren't happening anymore while allowing for deposits, who is that kind of person?

If Hhampuz ran a casino, not making clear what his/her own role was, and totally crashed it to the ground, than saying that making chats public and transactions public is not possible for security reasons, who would Hhampuz be these days? Taking on a stakeholder AND shareholder role comes with additional risk.

In my humble opinion, that was pretty evil.

If Royse777 earns her way back by living up to promises and contracts, I am all for it. But I get the feeling that the truth gets out of sight just because time is running by.

There are people trying to solve problems by fostering transparency or by letting actions speak for themselves (compensate for damages), and there are people who keep going, hoping for time to heal all wounds.


Royse777 may have her community, and that still might be an asset to her, but from my point of view, someone trying to proactively remedy a certain problematic situation should still deserve the benefit of the doubt while someone hiding behind "I can't be transparent for security reasons" should perhaps be in a less favorable situation unless the vaaaast majority of the community agrees that there is substance or could be substance to that claim.

I am not ruling out that there might be substance to her claim, but proof has never been provided.


I do get Poker Players point. Everyone here talks about politics and how equal everything should be. But in the end, 99% of the members know how all of this works. I am in no way connected to Poker Player, have never been, but I truly understand his rant.

Yes, I think you are right. My conscience is clear and I'm going to give this some time because it's clear that a character like Royse777's is a matter of time before he gets into trouble again.

What a jewel, he opens a thread against me with an invention, which he obviously cannot prove.

If you have a clear conscience and tell the truth, I think you are worrying too much about these details. It will always be impossible to use material that is highly sustainable to be manipulated as evidence for the prosecution or defense. Therefore, it is not worth the effort to despair over it.

Based on everything that has been said, no one in the community will get the wrong idea about you. Both actors were not damaged by these events. It will be more this type of debate that lowers your reputation than the accusations made.

Continue with your normal activities, and let the time speak for itself.

Yeah but nutildah didn't know about the subject and just in case more people didn't either I made this thread as I was advised.


No, because the fucking whining childish scammer made up a lie to harm my reputation, which he couldn't do even if it were true.

What fuckingliar777 has to do is to prove what he can't prove. Doesn't he say he has a screen recording? Let him show proof that I have sent PMs to his clients.

By the way, does anyone know how I could prove that I have not deleted PMs? Because I have not deleted any.

Your apparently right. The good gesture to any peaceful coexistence is understanding each others differences and be willing/ready to make necessary adjustments. Being right in a contest of words with nothing else to hedge on could be such a difficult thing to archive when it's put in contest. Its always going going to have a direction to turn with any capped pinnacle and so, I'll suggest they both be wrong in there perception of long ago and current claims to move on. That feels like the more easier thing to do.

I don't xoect my word to mean much here, like Suchmoon has stated, opinions don't significantly matter with all sides believing to have something to prove so, let the parties be wrong to be peaceful than be right and throw punches.

One can stand their ground and not stoop to the level of grotesque mud-slinging this is turning into. Let's say Royse777 lied, PP can add this statement to the OP and not add more negative ratings. I don't expect de-escalation any time soon but I think by now it's quite clear where the sides stand in this debacle and I doubt anyone's opinion will be significantly affected if one of them stops counterpunching.

It's such a difficult result to expect on the forum given that, which ever way it turns, it gets to reflect badly and its very much sticky so I wouldn't expect either of Poker Player or Royse777 not to stay there ground on that particular allegation given the too distinct position but, should anyone hope to end that quite conclusively, it would be the company. Having a copy of messages from both parties.

Either way, I am not any much interested and really hope for this drama to end as it begone. Hate and fabrications are something not to expect on forum users. This division to the point of not having to wish for our goods isn't helping.

Royse777 (can we skip the childish name mangling) posted telegram screenshots of a potential client telling him (Royse777) that they (the potential client) received a message from you. I don't know if the alleged message was telling them not to do business with Royse777 nor did they say it was a PM, and my statement is mostly hypothetical anyway. If you're saying you didn't send the message then one of you three is lying (you, Royse777, or the client) but honestly I couldn't care less at this point. Can you be the adult in this drama and step back? Someone should, might as well be you.

What? You are insane. Prove that, liar.

I'm not going to have long discussions with you because arguing with you is almost the same as arguing with crybaby777, but what I will not tolerate is your blatant lying.


What? Do you mean crybaby777 is saying that I have been PMing his clients and telling them no to do business with him?


If you weren't so biased, you would know that the changes were started by me softening the negative feedback, followed by your friend crying.


False, you are a liar. For starters the other manager had a completely different attitude from the start. He has an inactive flag due to lack of support and only negative feedback. Nothing to do with your friend.

I'm not going to put you on ignore at the moment to control what lies you tell about me, liar.

Edit after unignoring Royse777 and reading the blatant lie he's told about me:

I will post here the link to my demonstration that it is a lie that I am PMing anyone to tell them not to do business with crybaby777 and I have the content saved. If crybaby777 happens to delete the thread I will post the proof here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61610794

By the way he got another negative feedback for that blatant lie. On top of that he has the nerve to say that if we wanted a screen recording. Yes, we want a screen recording, yes.

If you don't like my second feedback you can distrust me, ignore me or whatever. I'm not going to change it. This person is not to be trusted and proves it every day.

@OP

Just one of example of the walls of text I referred to.

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: