Bitcoin Forum

Hello,
There has been a very active discussion about the involvement of user Royse777 in the Bitlucy scam here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.0

but the discussion has been locked by Royse777.

Unfortunately (but as expected, since scam is the bottom line of livelihood of many "trusted" members here), the scam promoter Royse777 only got 2 red tags among a ton of feedback on this matter.

Here I am reopening the subject for those interested, to see at the end how many red tags Royse777 is going to get. We do not want a locked thread to be an excuse for not giving a red tag, in case some members need to exchange more on this subject, here you have an open thread that is never going to be locked.

It's on you! May all of you who read this make the right decision!

And wish you all the best.

You may start a new campaign and offer rewards again.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0) We can request Royse777 to escrow the reward. 🤣

Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments but in the end he also didn't get his payments in time and he wasn't in charge for making payments.

Royse777 I know is an honest person. People can change in time or make mistakes but I don't see a big deal here.

Monsieur, svp,
It's for those who care about the trust system on the forum. Does it actually red tag the scammers or hide their history? This would actually fool even more victims if you don't red tag scammers, and encourage scam behaviour for other members since they know they'll get away with it like Royse777 did.
People reading this should also in most part distrust anything promoted on this forum (of course some will still fall for the trap)


I understand, they just failed in payments, and he was only a partner and a promoter for people not to get paid, not a big deal, just usual business.

Lol :D
OP is pissed he didn't get the supported he hoped for in his many posts about FortuneJack.

To answer OP's question: I think the DT-members who wanted to tag Royse777 have done it by now.

I think you're correct. Let's just not leave any doubt, here's an open discussion for anyone who is interested.

Actually you're just opening new playground to frustrated trolls like yourself. This is how I see this.
I felt sorry for you when you made that famous topic about supporting/opposing that flag. Now I'm no longer sorry and I am pretty much deciding between tagging you for trolling or just ignore you.

If this is addressed to me, I'd rather say decide quietly and do what you want but don't post out of topic messages.

There was another campaign manager who didn't make it in time for weeks, months. I forgot his nickname. lightsomething? In the end he got a few red-tags.

You have a fair point though. This is how businesses might go in the end. Sometimes it just don't work the way you imagine it would. There shouldn't be any excuses...

All the DT members don't involve with all the threads on the forum. Whether is a scam accusation or whatever. So how many red tags will get depends on how many DT members want to do so. Even I haven't read the story nor interested. Those already tag they read and think Royse777 deserves it. Also, some DT members leave positive feedback which is soft counter feedback. So it really depends on DTs mind.

but this time to remember well who has already given their opinion on the whole case, and not to troll and unfounded accuse others.

Why are you pushing to keep the drama alive? Members are not all treated the same way, that's not the forum being against newbies/new members, that's the forum letting a persons reputation speak for their character. If you spent years here and have always been a user with good morals and character and you make a mistake, the community is likely going to listen to your story and give you a pass. Depending on the mistake of course. Everyone is free to read the story and make their own judgement. You don't have to be DT to leave a feedback, and not everyone is going to agree.

Everything is based on a case by case basis man. Imo users aren't being biased towards anyone, some have just shown who they are in a better way then others.

Considering Royse777's actions since the BitLucy fiasco, it shouldn't be a surprise that he locked that thread. However, I expected him at least to keep his word.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60570852#msg60570852

How much negative trust do you want his profile to receive, so that your soul feels satisfied that “justice has been done”?
20 or 30 negative trusts?
Just because you want it done according to your wishes doesn't mean everyone should play by your rules. Members have a right to make any judgement differently or not.

Life is not clearly white and black.

In this forum, we have good members, knowledgeable and experienced. We have detectives and DT members and also new future asset of the forum too. They contribute lot of things in the forum and scam busting is one of such.

But not all accusations are correct. Let me dig into the past that with Livecoin campaign in 2018 or 2019, in forum, there were two sides: one support it is non scam, one consider it as a true scam.

Now, after a few years, they actually exit but back in the days, years ago, the story is not clear like nowadays.

I used to confuse with it, but I believe Livecoin is non scam, and after a long and careful consideration, asking for opinion of some members (that are more experienced than me) ^{they even could not say solid conclusion about Livecoin}, I joined their campaign but it is because I believed Livecoin is not scam back in that day. I did not attack Livecoin, called it as scam and then joined it later as a two-faced guy.

Now, for now, I believe Royse777 is non scam but it can be changed in future. We can not say about future at the moment.  ::)

---

Please stop the drama about Royse777, except if you have something new (evidence) to say.

When looking at her behaviour in that now locked thread, Royse777 came across as immature, temperamental, aggressive and of course the list goes on but she never once came across as remorseful or apologetic.

I think Royse777 locking the thread after posting another wall of text containing nonsensical drama to misdirect away from any questions posed at her, did not surprise me especially after she was being asked questions why she wanted to carry out KYC on a victim when Bitlucy did not exist any longer. After all, Royse777 made a promise to make victims whole again but is now escaping that too by citing another round of nonsense and misdirection.

Also, by you alluding some members would not tag Royse777 because they were in receipt of payments for wearing the signature, you should either apologise and withdraw that comment or elaborate further because you are calling in to question the character of several members without naming names.

I would not expect Royse777 to keep her word, I am not surprised at her locking the thread. She never answered the questions related to her part-ownership of the company and so much more instead creating more misdirection so it was a convenient time for Royse777 to lock it.

In my opinion Royse777 was shown far too much goodwill and sympathy by members here, none of it deserved but those that left positive, neutral or negative trust gave their reasons and each is free to do what they want.

Troll circus show topic is open again and main clowns had to post something because this is their ''bread'' and ''air'' they need to survive in forum.
I think we need a major redesign of DT membership asap, or maybe we need to create special category DC for Default Clowns, wannabe experts, judges and executioners.
OP get a life and don't worry so much about Royse.

Oh I think I know some of them who wants to give them double or triple negative tag, just to get some extra satisfaction.

I think this looks like a Ku Klux Klan topic or vampire meeting and they want to see some more blood.

It is correct that Royse777 was shown too much goodwill and sympathy by members here. The goodwill is because of the trust he gathered before the scam incident happened. To some members who aren't trusted nor have track of positive trust in the forum, there would have been pills of red trust. But it is very fair that some DT members after reading Royse777 version of the story turned their red tag to neutral.
I believe that by now Royse777 would have been vindicated and the remaining red trusts removed, but I am surprised it has lingered.
I sincerely wish Royse777 can come out of this 100% because for the little I have seen him/her in the forum, he/she is trustworthy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  You seem to be implying that most trusted members scam for a living, and that simply isn't true.  If you've got a personal axe to grind with Royse777, that's fine, but if you really believe that "many" trusted members on the forum behave unethically, perhaps this isn't the right place to spend your time.

I haven't been following this drama at all, and I just now read Royse777's post in his locked thread where he explained everything that went down between Bitlucy and him.  Frankly, if he's guilty of anything it's being too trusting.  And yes, it looks like he should have bailed on the project earlier than he did, but I'm not privy to the interactions he had with all of the people he dealt with, so I can't say I would have done anything different--nor can any of you, if you're being honest with yourselves.

I like this quote from bitmover in Royse777's thread:


IMO, there's no way in hell Royse777 deserves to have his rep destroyed because of his association with Bitlucy.  Those trusted members who've gone rogue usually go the way of Master-P or those fucking idiots who misappropriated charity funds a while back, with b1ankcode (I forget his leetspeak username) being one of them.  They just disappear into the night instead of taking the time to write a detailed explanation of their side of the story, and Royse777 did nothing of the sort.

All of y'all go look at yourselves in the mirror and stop slinging shit at the most convenient (but wrong) target.

This is a very wrong and quite offensive statement to make, this is indirectly accusing every trusted member of this forum of being a scammer, what an assumption, on this note, I will like to know how many trusted members of this forum who have scammed you, call them out or just get out.

You are wrong again, he or she (Royse777) initially had up to 6 red tags or more, but after he came out to explain to every one what really transpired between him(Royse777) and Bitlucy, I believe the taggers withdrew their red tags as they realized that Royse777 wasn't really a scammer but only allowed himself to be used without him knowing he was being used, no doubt, he(Royse777) has leant his lesson and I believe he's currently healing from the wounds.

The deed is done, and Royse777 has already gotten that which he deserved, it is in the past now, allow what is already in the past to remain in the past, if every issues treated on this forum were to be kept alive till date, i believe that by now, there will be no more room to treat new ones ;D, so please allow the sleeping dog to lay.

How are you so sure that this thread is never going to be locked  ??? ???, for your information, Mod can decide to lock it, and if they do, theres absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Nobody on this forum is a saint, Today, the discussion is on Royse777, tomorrow, the discussion might be on you, and i see you already won 2 red tags to yourself, maybe that is where your anger against Royse777 is coming from, you feel you don't deserve the red tags you got, and seeing someone whom you feel deserved more red tags and yet not getting it angers you.. this is true?

No, the vast majority of “trusted” users here don’t scam, but I would say many many bend their ethics a bit here and there to comply with some of the more heavy hitter “trusted” members for reasons of gaming the system, including getting accepted in signature campaigns, hopes of being or staying included on others trust lists to climb the ladder, and generally to get in the good side, or not get in the bad side of other powerful users..

Not scamming necessarily, but maybe not speaking out against other certain users or projects, and/or swapping +trust or inclusions with others they don’t really really trust or agree with just in effort to climb the ladder themselves..


I really hate what’s happened to Royse, but shit happens when you cross into the side of trying to make money..
Many times I see users bend their ethics and ignore this or that in order to get or keep up their gig..

The dynamic around campaign managers here is also terrible because everyone wants to suck up to them for sig spots and DT ladder climbing purposes, even when they obviously do shady and unethical shit..
They kindof get away with murder because of this..

Don’t really want to increase the drama around this Royse situation, but their are quite a few pots calling the kettle black here revolving around this situation..

Campaign/bounty management is dirty business..

Thank you eddie13, you've answered multiple questions that were asked by members above, on what I meant by "Scam is the bottom line of livelihood of many "trusted" members here".



Ok thks for pointing that out, because this is what I want to show: Encouraging, getting involved in, and owning a scam organisation, is ok for the vast majority on this forum, which reflects itself on the trust system score.

It is ok because, if you've made some fair trades and deals in the past, so you've been honest to some extent, you get a green light to scam at least once on this forum.

I'm just making a summary of the general thought on this forum, and taking this case as a specific example.

It's a fine line but I think bounty management is a dirty business. Campaign management MAY be a dirty business depending on how it's done.
As a rule bounties are paid long after weeks of work are done with tokens / coins that may or may not ever be worth anything.
Campaigns tend to (not always see the 777coin and others) be paid a few days after the week is up so it's usually more evident a lot more quickly if something funky is going on.

The other issue is that people don't tend to look. And I will stand sit here and fully admit that I am in that group. Royse777 reached out to me and asked if I wanted to wear the avatar and I said sure. (1) it was not that much money so even if I didn't get paid it would not matter followed by (2) I was not doing anything with my avatar at that moment and (3) I had dealings with him before so I didn't think much about it. Same with you eddie if you said wear this for $20 I probably would because (1) it's not much. (2) I'm still not doing anything with my avatar and (3) we have had dealings before and you did what you said you would.

So it then comes down to disclosure. Royce did not tell me in the message that he was involved with the casino. On the same note, I didn't ask or look.

So, if you came to me before this happened, yes I would probably not look or check. Now.....

As for the red tags I don't think he is going to get anymore.

I was going to let this entire thing go without comment, but have gotten some pokes from people because I was wearing the avatar. So for those people who have poked me with an obvious agenda, here is your post. And no I will not tag him.

-Dave

If your general thought on the forum is shared by a wider audience then it portrays the forum in a very bad light. I hope others do not see it as bad because the past positive conduct of someone cannot negate the negligence and scam of the present. Royse777 seems to have go off very lightly in this very serious matter.

I think there might be a few more red tags from users here and there as they discover threads about the Royse777/Bitlucy scam but most probably other DT members will not tag red otherwise it would have been done by now.

The "light", in some way, doesn't matter. A crime is a crime whether it's done in dark or in broad light, whether a lot of people talk about it or no one cares.


It depends on what you call  "positive" conduct. I believe this means fair trades. It's not like he's a big donor or he's so much useful to the community in some other way. That's what normal decent people should do. It does not entitle them to scam other people, who by the way may have never benefited from his previous "services" anyway.


I have to agree.

Tolerance, rationality, and forgiveness can be very desirable attributes of a community.  Thuggish behavior from established members can also paint a community in a bad light.


This happens in real life all the time, because real people are not vampires.  The courts often take previous criminal history into account when determining adequate punishment.  Justice isn't only about punishment and retribution, it requires understanding, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness.


No, that won't happen.  Not for this, anyway.  I predict that the two remaining DT tags on Royse777's wall will largely go ignored.  One is from JigglyGoods, THE Trust System Spammer; the other from a newbie who uses the slightest drama to demonize those involved with casinos that don't subscribe to his service.  Both are transparently ridiculous.

I agree.

I was referring to possible positive contributions to the forum such as quality posts but it was not limited to Royse777/Bitlucy, it was supposed to be generic. What one of the useless trolls in the forum might deem to be positive contributions by another user, could be deemed to be spamming or nonsense by me.

Either way, I agree, nobody has a right has right to scam anybody and quite simply a scam is a scam.

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

On the other hand, I've seen you write at some point "this community means so much to me". I also foresee at some point, in my opinion, if you continue down this path, the community members will put out of business here, or at least diminish your rank significantly. Already some members are talking about you being "booted out of the list of DT members".

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted out at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.
The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

Those aren't the words JollyGood said, and you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Give at least one example of a member who was left without consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer.


Since rank is earned through activity and merits, the community cannot diminish anyone's rank here. JollyGood being "booted out of DT1" won't stop him from doing what he does for this community, even if it does happen. Just my opinion.


In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Of course, the “bunch of thieves” he keeps referring to are those DT members who didn't support his paid flag against fortunejack and also didn't fulfill his wet dream fantasy of raining 30+ negs on Royse's profile.

I don't visit the Services section or the bounty one, so I haven't noticed that first hand--but I don't doubt for a minute that members do kiss mucho ass so they can keep their spot in whatever thing they're involved with. 

As far as DT ladder climbing goes, I'm not sure exactly who's doing that but I know for a fact that it's much easier to do with the rotating system as opposed to the way it used to be, i.e., nearly impossible to even get on DT2 because getting the requisite DT1 inclusions was hard and often met with resistance from opposing DT1 members.  Things just ain't what they used to be.

I'm starting to get the impression that Royse777 might be doing things for money that he otherwise might not do.  He's sent me two PMs so far, asking me to communicate off-forum for something he's doing, and he hasn't replied to my last PM to him a couple of days ago.  It could be legit, whatever it is, but I'm just getting a funny feeling about it now that there's all this drama surrounding him.

And yeah, nobody here is perfect, and if you can point out a saint active on the forum I'll throw myself down in front of the cathedral of Theymos and immolate myself until you can make a tasty kebab out of what's left of me.  Bring ketchup.

???

The other red tag is by efialtis. I don't know if you can't see his feedback because of your custom trust list, but he is in DT1, and he has left two positive feedbacks to you.

He was one of those who heasitated a lot before giving negative feedback, giving Royse777 time, despite having clearly stated in the Bitlucy thread that it was a scam.

I think it's good that the community knows how to forgive and give a second chance to someone who has a good previous reputation in the forum. But the fact that Royse777 feels entitled to ask for explanations to others instead of being humble (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60699960#msg60699960) does not give me a good picture of her.


I bet she has sent a lot of PMs. You haven't been the only one.

So you're quoting me to say "this is not what JollyGood said". Pretty funny.

"one example of a member who was left without any consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer": @FortuneJack: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368279.0
Another example who did not get any significant consequences on his Bitcointalk account: @Royse777



You are correct about the rank. What I meant is he's going to have the functionality of his account significantly reduced. What good is it to have a Lengendary account while having double digits negative red tags?

I was just trying to warn JollyGood to be prepared mentally for such a scenario, given he's got a significant attachement to this community. I wouldn't pretend to know how much likely is that to happen, but I can see it very much possible the gang giving him -15 red tags overnight if other incidents like this one were to happen. Or maybe easier he'll be removed from DT which would be a shame given his contributions.



logfiles has answered your question:


Except I don't have any "wet dream fantasy", I haven't been impacted by Royse777 anyway, and I don't personally care. I am just showing the Royse777 case as an example of accepted behaviour on this forum.

Unfortunately that is what seems to be case because quite clearly instead of the Royse777 account being painted with red tags from members across the forum she was given a major reprieve with red tags changed to neutral or not have any tags at all.

A scam took place, that cannot be denied. It is accurate a campaign manager used their reputation in the forum as leverage to negotiate part ownership of a scam casino but did not fully explain what happened and did not even apologise with sincerity and has the belief she is above others in this forum.

I would counter that view by saying that not all of them are thieves that are inflexible in front of scams but some have conducted themselves in a highly questionable manner. Some have managed to get on to DT with their own agenda but as far as my integrity is concerned it is far more important to me than my rank or financial gain.

I think I made over 10,000 posts before joining my first signature campaign therefore it demonstrates finances were not the driving force. Over the past 5 years or so I feel have contributed positively in some small way in the forum and will continue, I am not bothered by the cliques here.

I think it is less to do with forgiveness and more to do with a concerted effort trying to have the red tags avoided, or red tags removed or having them revised. The reason Royse777 feels entitled to ask others for explanations is because she has a bloated self-opinion at odds with humility and humbleness.

Royse777 did not even genuinely apologise for her part in the Royse777/Bitlucy scam therefore has no humility on the contrary feels superior to others.

Definitely  ;D

Thank you for exposing two scammers - Royse777, DireWolfM14. Now this scammer has 3 flags, I hope there will be more!

Activity: 322
Merit: 0
8 negative tags by DT members.
A flag overwhelmingly supported.

Do you really expect anyone at all to believe you?

In the case of Royse777 it could be more credible because of his involvement in the Bitlucy case, but DireWolfM14? You calling him a scammer just makes me laugh.

What do you want to say by citing activity, merits, negative tags and flags as an example? Did you read what these red flags were about or were you scared when you saw them? How can you not believe the facts? But DireWolfM14 asks to forgive the scammer Royse777, while accusing me of a non-existent scam

I can only speculate, but he probably means that you are not to be trusted. Based on the negative trust ratings you recently left for other forum members, I tend to agree with him.

You advertise a scam casino, and for this you received a negative trust. What's wrong with your negative trust?

I like efialtis, I think he's a really good dude.  But at times I think his judgement on these issues can be a bit skewed.  It's not the first time that I've suspected him of having a conflict of interest when it comes to drama involving casinos.  Just my opinion.

---

So, am I scammer or a defender of a scammer?  Make up your mind, already.  But, if you're going to call me a scammer then provide proof.  You wouldn't want anyone to think that you're just bitter because I've exposed your scam attempts.

I don't think that has been the case here.

Yeah that's so good, that makes it 2 chances per alt, with the merit farming it's a pretty good deal.

And there's someone who's so good, so compassionate, so forgiving, that instead of giving a negative feedback, or a neutral one, gave Royse777 a positive feedback for his scam, on the 8th of last July. Of course, I am talking about the SIR himself, @Hhampuz.



This is also true.
So @Royse777, please acknowledge that you've been acting erratically, not only by attacking those who tagged you, gave neutral feedback, or even just were trusting those who tagged you (LOL), but also by not even thanking those who gave you a positive feedback for your recent scam wins! This is disrespectful, and contrary to most basic protocols on this forum.

Instead, you should have given many thanks and respects to the Sir. Below is a good example of what formula to use.

You are two in one and a scammer and a defender of a scammer. How can you defend a scammer and at the same time accuse me of a non-existent scam? At least one attempt at scam can be shown to everyone? Or are you bitter that everyone will see how you protect a thief?

Yes, of course. The SIR who is quite a bit more credible than you when it comes to feedbacks. By the way, thanks to this post I realized I hadn't added you to my distrust list yet, so thanks for that.

Apart from what the SIR did, there was another thing that caught my attention: CryptopreneurBrainboss deleted the positive feedback he had left to Royse777 some time ago and republished it exactly the same, the only thing was that when he published it recently it appeared on top of all the neutral feedbacks and the two negative ones due to the Bitlucy case.

This shows that Royse777 had gained empathy over time among people with great reputation in the forum.

Hahahaha lol. So you've actually shown that another person is also giving positive feedback BECAUSE Royse777 was involved in a scam. And the cattle is proud of their shepherds behaviour.

And as this did catch your attention as you say, don't you want to tag me as well as the SIR did? I have as many red tags as Royse777 has, isn't that unfair in your opinion as well?

The feedback is correct or at least was, but it was given at a bad time. Prior to the bitlucy drama, Royse was considered a decent person and did help out with charity work. Feedback from Hhampuz and cryptoprenuerboss should have been left well before the bitlucy scam happened. It looks pretty suspect they leave the feedback trying to counter the drama. So timing really is the only issue with the feedback.

What do you see as suspicious here?

The case of CryptopreneurBrainboss does not surprise me because of what he commented in Butlucy's thread. He had a good idea about Royse777 because of the collaboration they had in the Covid-19 charity. Deleting the old feedback and reposting it, when some of us had already changed the feedback to neutral, seems to me to be an attempt to help restore his reputation.

And in the case of Hhampuz, didn't he end up managing a campaign that was taken away from Royse777?

I don't know, maybe as you are campaign managers you see hidden interests for power or something.

I think the positive feedback was upgraded instead of leaving two separate feedback. Initially when the feedback was left I haven't participated in any signature campaign which Royse was incharge of so that part wasn't there or shoudn't have been there (if what I have now was exactly what was there before but probably not) and for the past few months him and I has crossed path severally in numerous campaigns under his management nevertheless Royse is a very trusted member to me and will always be rated as such. It's unfortunate what happened and hopefully he slowly restore his trust in the community instead of making it worst.

Also I have JollyGood in my custom trust list despite the situation ongoing with them both so if I was trying to push some kind of agenda I would have easily distrusted Jollygood but that's not the case. I'm not letting my trust for Royse cloud my judgement on Jollygood, I see them both as assets to the forum and it'll keep been like that until something goes seriously wrong.

I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???

You cropped the relevant part of my post. The rest of my post was saying that he wasn’t responsible for making the payments. However, I do get your point and you are also right.

I still think Royse is an honest dude. Maybe very unlucky.

Do we need to punish him for being unlucky? Like you said that’s how partnering works… I can’t deny that.

Somehow though it don’t make complete sense to me. Punishing an honest person for something he had no control over.

I am no DT anyway. They know better than me.

I get this many times from users. If you have not gone to the story then why are you asking generic questions? Why not get the time to read, investigate, understand then ask a question. It then become a good post instead of a random unnecessary post.

You must be a little far away from what happens regularly on this forum, not surprising since you're basically in the lending business and you only lend to high ranking members who wouldn't dare to scam you under the threat of seeing their accounts tagged, since they're also dealing with another high ranking member.

Although when things come to newbies/average users of this forum, who get to use one of the advertised platforms or services, whether be it a gambling website or other services, very much often they get scammed and the scammers get little to no consequences on the "trust score" of their account.

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.

None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.

there is no point in discussing with a troll like PaperWallet. He does not want to accept a different reality than the one in his head, so any further explanation to him is a waste of time.
I'm surprised that the discussion in this thread has taken so long, considering that its primary goal was to crucify one high-ranked member.

Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402033.msg60348768#msg60348768

I have decided not to participate in your stupidity and fabrications without any evidence. Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

btw. I oppose your flag against FortuneJack long before your game with the prize. withdrawing my vote because of your award would be a direct influence on me, which I did not want to allow.
Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

your trust list 14. may while the flag is created 08. may '22 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368279.msg60077637#msg60077637)

Trust list for: PaperWallet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2807174) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2807174)  +0 / =1 / -1) (18 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/2807174.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/2807174.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=PaperWallet)) (created 2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h)
Back to index (https://loyce.club/trust/)

PaperWallet Trusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW win win win (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=185659) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=185659) awaiting update) (5 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/185659.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/185659.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=win win win))
2. NEW LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=459836) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=459836)  +28 / =0 / -0) (9888 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/459836.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/459836.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=LoyceV))
3. NEW AlexSimion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=531743) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=531743) neutral) (110 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/531743.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/531743.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=AlexSimion))
4. NEW Saisher (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1145246) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1145246) neutral) (32 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/1145246.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/1145246.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=Saisher))
5. NEW LEVSKI7 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2689577) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2689577)  +0 / =1 / -3) (11 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/2689577.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/2689577.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=LEVSKI7))

PaperWallet Distrusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW ~suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=234771)  +17 / =0 / -0) (6831 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/234771.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/234771.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=suchmoon))
2. NEW ~FortuneJack (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=303298) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=303298)  +5 / =3 / -0) (152 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/303298.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/303298.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=FortuneJack))
3. NEW ~examplens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=314792) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=314792)  +4 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (14) 739 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/314792.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/314792.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=examplens))
4. NEW ~Sterbens (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=875468) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=875468)  +0 / =1 / -3) (83 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/875468.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/875468.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=Sterbens))
5. NEW ~Hhampuz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=881377) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=881377)  +117 / =3 / -1) (3627 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/881377.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/881377.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=Hhampuz))


PaperWallet's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~PaperWallet's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. JollyGood (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1016855) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855)  +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1029 Merit earned (https://loyce.club/Merit/history/1016855.html)) (Trust list (https://loyce.club/trust/2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h/1016855.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/Profile?p=JollyGood))


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0).

I distrusted him because of that.

This whole thread is a temper tantrum from someone who does not accept that he has done things wrong and has been punished in terms of trust for it, and who, instead of accepting it and moving on, continues to insist that others be punished to make himself feel less bad.

This is proof of nothing. I distrusted many people, including those who never opposed my flag, like @suchmoon. From where I'm writing I know you're lying (again), and I know that you opposed my flag on the day and after I created the prize, but you pretend to have done so long before the prize (the prize was created on the 22nd of may, the flag was created on the 8th of may).

Not that it's a big deal, cheap bastards are common among "Legendary" and "Hero" members here, and it wouldn't matter because everyone else will defend you anyway if needed like they did to @Royse777.

So you were wrong

I don't think they were wrong really. We all were trying to give Royse the benefit of doubt. Most don't feel like they were out to intentionally scam and were actually scammed themselves. Given their previous reputation we wanted to "give a pass" so to speak. Some of us had more questions we wanted answered, partially to get the whole truth and partially to see if there was anything left out, but it wasn't intended to be an all out attack. The way some things were answered with massive attitude or with a hint of keeping secrets just made more questions come up.

Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.

The only thing that I will say to that is that *I* have done it (not here). For a while I had a friend in Poland who worked in a salvage yard who had access to some automotive parts that people here in the US wanted.

I wanted to help and make some money so I started an new account, on the Audi / VW forum. I was well known there as me and even helped run some events so I probably could have mode more $$$ had I let people know who the other account was.

But I wanted NOBODY to know who I was with the other account. Didn't need or want the hassle, didn't need the cross over crap (You said these ABS modules are junk why are you selling them????) and so on. DaveF was DaveF and PartMover2000 had nothing to do with him. Could see the same thing here even before the BitLucy, i.e. you said this casino was good and now I have having "X" problem with it, why don't you fix it?

Full disclosure, Royse777 did contact me to do some work, and I was gong to do it, just never had the time. Money was never discussed.


-Dave

You don't care anything at all, do you? You are against everything on the forum. Why don't you make your own platform and cry there?

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then

I agree with your views. Royse777 overstepped that fine line between using her forum reputation as leverage to gain a percentage ownership of the Bitlucy website. She was contributing to several aspects of Bitlucy including running their bounty and signature campaigns in lieu of being part-owner and holding the post of Marketing Director.

At the time I was disappointed DT members did not apply negative tags in large numbers and several red tags were revised to neutral after a lot of PMs were being sent around.

You raise a valid point, still the fact the whole debacle happened and Royse777 did not blow the whistle at the first opportunity (instead allowing it to carry on before finally coming clean well in the knowledge the delay in coming forward would have potentially have created more victims), was gross negligence. On that basis how many people can actually trust Royse777 whether the intent to scam was there or not and how does a neutral tag suffice in a situation such as this where abandonment of basic duty was at the forefront of the issues?

Which new elements have emerged, can you elaborate?

I also saw him for a while. I can not dishonor his contribution to this forum. He already mentioned what happened and his answers seem acceptable to me. It feels bad when we see such a dedicated person lose his hard-earned trust and reputation damaged because of one company.

With all that said and done, in response to the OP I guess the answer is: Royse777 will probably receive no more or not many tags because of the time elapsed.

The collection of money for CasinoCritique and its somewhat not so straightforward ways.
I was saying to LoyceV he was wrong since he said that Royse777 will no longer receive any new red tags, since he received one more DT red tag after LoyceV statement. Although the red tag came after outing CasinoCritique, so it might not have been related exactly to the BitLucy scam. This is all there is to it.