I still find the whole situation strange because though it was about time a world cup took place in the Middle East (providing they had the infrastructure), the tournament will take place during the main seasons around the world.

Imagine what it will be like for players that have to give 100% for their clubs in their domestic league, then have to travel for the biggest footballing spectacle in the world, to acclimatise there in a country most players have never visited and then to actually participate in the tournament knowing there will be no rest after because they will return to their domestic leagues to carry on where they left off.

This will be one of the strangest football seasons on record....

How effective was Joshua really when he was going in with a scrap/brawl mindset? His win rate was excellent of course with only Ruiz and Usyk being his only defeats but in both he was outboxed. He won those so-called scraps and brawls, a prime example being parts of his fight against Parker which Joshua won on a points decision but they did nit endear him as a great fighter.

Joshua seemed to be in a scrap or brawl type of fight against Ruiz in the earlier rounds before he was knocked out therefore I doubt he will be able to bully Usyk in the ring simply because Usyk will not let him. I cannot see Joshua winning this rematch.

In a news report it shows Qatar having made stunning base camps for the participating teams and for the match officials which would otherwise cost approximately £5000-£6000 per room per night.

The players and officials will be pampered and their every need taken care of but will this reflect with on field performances? 

Yes I merely asked about a link to read for myself if a dinner with the CEO took place since that was quoted by members earlier.

First of all thank you for the link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562) because I was not really interested in that thread and probably never visited it until I clicked your provided link.

Secondly, the words written by the user in question with those overzealous and over-protective remarks towards Bitlucy and then including the comment that gave Bitlucy far more of a seal of approval than it deserved by mentioning (words to effect of) Royse777 would not manage a scam campaign. That part is hugely problematic because it in essence means three important things:

i) asking users to put their trust in a certain newly created website by sending funds to them on the basis a particular forum member is promoting them

ii) shutting down any form of dissent, concern or claim in earlier manifestations before they became widespread - again, on the basis a particular forum member is promoting a certain newly created website

iii) it allows the particular forum member to either buy time to try to fix any issues by liaising with the website (since their reputation is on the line if a scam takes place) or it allows that particular forum member to refuse to accept the red flags and with that ignorance fall deeper in to a bigger hole.

The unfortunate side-effect of both is that by not pulling the plug earlier and by not completely disassociating with the website at the first opportunity, that particular forum member has facilitated a mechanism where the number of victims could increase. This was one of the reasons why I stated in my feedback there was negligence on part of Royse777.

As I will mention below again, I have not read in full the 11 day conversation between the user in question with the Bitlucy CEO, I will try to read it to get an understanding.

Maybe Royse777 was gullible. Maybe a combination of being gullible and greedy led to Royse777 getting in to this situation. Maybe something else.

I hope to read it in full within 48 hours, the text in the lines I have read shows a very informal chat from a CEO who is conducting himself as a typical salesman rather than a professional individual but I need to read through it to understand what chat took place over the days they communicated.

The flag was removed by the user that created it therefore regardless of support or opposition, it does not mean much now.

I never knew about this post, I read what Royse777 wrote and once again thank you for the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927

It was utter stupidity on part of Royse777 to post using words which were probably deliberately used in order to have dual meaning, such as Royse777 stating being "good friends with the CEO for over a year" as well as "hanging out regularly".

What does that mean to a layman when someone says they are "hanging out regularly" with each other and have "build up trust of each other over a year"?

Exactly who could be blamed for putting their trust in a trusted forum member after reading him or her vouching for a business they are part owner of without actually stating "trust me and take my word for it, this is no scam" but never uttering the words?

By simply using the reputation attached as to be taken as a seal of approval to those unfortunate to believe it, Royse777 is in this situation today. I would not surprised at all if using her own reputation was part of the leverage Royse777 employed in negotiations with the Bitlucy CEO to become part owner maybe with a promise of adding her name to the casino for the sake of showing it as legitimate and it being not-a-scam... but then again until or unless a full transcript of their chats is made public we do not know what prompted the Bitlucy CEO to not only employ Royse777 as a campaign manager but also to give a percentage of the company in lieu of being awarded the title of Co-Partner & Marketing Director

Who would not believe a campaign manager with green trust when they state they are part owner of a casino or when that same member effectively says "Hey, trust this website because I am staking my reputation on it after all I am part-owner and because the CEO and I have built up a massive amount of trust over a period of a year. For your information we are very close and we are hanging out regularly. On top that, between us we both understand the gambling industry inside out because we have phenomenal experience in this field and we shared a common interest in starting a casino therefore we simply decided because we are the best people who can create a new casino which will become the largest crypto casino/sportsbook ever, we will do it"

To answer the question: Me. I would not believe it.

As a continuation of the answer: Many people and many forum members will not believe it either.

As a further continuation of the answer, it is safe to say: some people and some forum members will believe it and the reason for that misguided belief would not be because a newbie account created 30 minutes ago was vouching for a newly created casino... on the contrary the reason why some people including forum members would believe it is because someone highly trusted and in a position of trust and in good standing with peers (operating an account with several years history) has basically stated they own part of the very same business they are vouching for.

Previous good character or previous good conduct or previous good standing along previous contributions cannot negate the utterly appalling decision making process taken by Royse777 related to Bitlucy, nor should the facts about the Royse777/Bitlucy relationship be watered down because there is no evidence Royse777 intended to scam from the beginning but there those that expressed opposing views and that is their right.

We have had or almost had zero contact before corresponding in this thread. I cannot recall interacting with you but I enjoyed reading your posts for the quality and time taken to write them presenting them with links providing background information with evidence. You have also shown the correct attitude when standing up and taking a stand in what you believe in such as the high quality posts in this thread even in the face of opposing views.

It is slightly off-topic but to be fair my time for clamping down on scam after scam, almost day after day of doing it are behind me now though I do try to take an interest and post intermittently in the Reputation and Scam Accusation boards. Thankfully there are many forum members contributing positively in the Scam Accusations board on a regular basis and I am grateful to them.

Anyway, moving onwards and back to the issue on hand regarding this particular thread:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?

Well if you are correct then what do you think drove Royse777 to get in to a partnership in what was a doomed relationship from the very beginning? I do agree with you, megalomania seems the correct word because the way Royse777 was posting about her relationship with the Bitlucy CEO and the part-ownership of Bitlucy shows telltale signs of it.

I agree, the alleged proof does not bring closure in this situation at all.

What somewhat compounds the issue of the alleged conversations is what motives Royse777 had for releasing them to a select few as well as why that particular select few were chosen. The latter (if I recall correctly) was recently addressed by Royse777 in a semi-rant of a mostly incoherent post but the motives for wanting to share in the first place were never addressed. It remains unknown what Royse777 wanted to gain from it.

I agree.

I broadly agree because you have summed it up in an apt manner. I think greed played a huge part in the mindset of Royse777 in that period and I think the degree to which she leveraged her reputation as a campaign manager and trusted forum member in order to deepen the relationship with Bitlucy to become an unknown percentage owner of the company remains unknown.

Can you elaborate on what is coming?

As for you not having regrets about your posting style and chosen words, I hoped you would have a different view retrospectively but I am not in your position and therefore cannot fully understand what you are going through. I do think posting with some control of frustration and anger will be better when engaging with members.

I made no such assumption but I do think engaging a general courteous manner with all parties including a reputable gambling/gaming website even if you make a scam allegation against them. I would say that the correct protocol would be to keep calm when engaging with members across the spectrum with differing views while presenting facts and evidence to back up your claim and standing your ground.

And though it would probably mean nothing in the context of this thread, as far my opinion is concerned I am 100% certain (on the basis of what I have read thus far) what is clear is that FortuneJack have not accepted any wrong doing on their part and they claim they operate within their Terms and Conditions.

You seem to have failed, you did not succeed when you attempted to get the community to pressure FortuneJack. The majority of forum members that are aware of the situation have not backed you, your claim or your flag. Does that mean you should change something in your approach or does that mean you are still going to remain on the same track.

It is clear they will never pay you what you are claiming because they deny scamming you and they claim they are operating within their Terms of Service that you signed up to when you decided to play there.

The only option you have is a legal one and that route will mean you having to find a lawyer either on a no-win-no-fee basis or basically you will have to pay their fees from your own pocket. And if you ever got to that stage there is no guarantee you will win.

Yes I noticed some of your posts in other threads, it is good to see you trying to become a more active member of the community by posting in other threads.

Regarding you wanting to ensure even if one person was to avoid FortuneJack or the other organisations that did not help you then it might be considered as some form of success, I think you have made the point. If you want to regularly bump this thread in order to sustain your aims then it means it might bring you some sort of closure while holding hopes of receiving a payment from FortuneJack.

Other forum members have stated their opinions on how they saw your case and they are entitled to their views. As far as my position is concerned, I still have not read all the information related to the scam allegation but FortuneJack deny wrongdoing as per their Terms and Condition and those were what you signed up on their website. It is clear they will not pay you because they claim they did nothing wrong.

Without a doubt they (FortuneJack) and all other gaming/gambling websites should not allow bets to be placed in the first place if they will be voided later. This is because of the obvious conflict of interest in a scenario:

- there is a win which they could refuse to pay and instead refund the wagered amount and inform the user of a breach of the ToS
- there is a losing bet placed but they will not inform the user about the breach of ToS therefore will not refund that particular bet and the user remains none the wiser

I would advise you to move on from this episode with a view that you wagered around €4700 and won around €92,000. As for the other €5700 you wagered which could have brought you around €100,000, just take it as you receiving your wagered amounts back but the winnings were disputed by the website operator.

If you decide to continue your claim: Can you point out in this link to their Terms and Conditions exactly which parts of the contract you claim were broken by FortuneJack?

And after that, can you point out in the same Terms and Conditions which parts of the contract FortuneJack claim were broken by you?

https://fortunejack.com/faq/terms_and_conditions

I did not know Mane asked for £250,00 per week to stay and I am not sure they wanted him gone. My understanding was that after six years at the club he wanted a new challenge and Klopp seems to confirm this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-transfers-klopp-mane-tour-27450686

Liverpool and Klopp would have been happy for him to stay, they could have replaced him two years down the line but Mane refused to sign a ne contract or discuss a pay rise. Rather than keep a player that wanted to move, they accepted an offer from Bayern Munich that could rise to £35 million if certain conditions were to be met, they decided to cash-in.





Real Madrid unveiled Hazard with great fanfare but he could not live up to the reputation because of those injuries. Sadly for him he will not be remembered at his time in Madrid for anything other than being a monumental failure and disappointment. I knew he had to leave that particular season because he was playing fantastic football for Chelsea and he could not refuse when Real Madrid chased him. The transfer fee was good for Chelsea too.

As for Ronaldo, he may end up staying at Manchester United which would mean after 19 consecutive seasons playing in the Champions League he will have to settle for the Europa League.

I have no idea how close he was to joining either Bayern Munich or Chelsea but right now it looks likely he will be staying at Manchester United as even though his financial demands will probably be met, no manager will risk upsetting his existing team and exisitng star players when a showman famous footballing legend signs bringing with him a massive media and social media following his every move which in itself brings a new spotlight on the club.

He already rejected a £105 million per year salary at a Middle Eastern club in order to play at the highest level in Europe if possible.

The time addicted gamblers or reformed gamblers spend on play-with-not-real-money gambling websites is something I did not factor in before therefore it is appreciated you bring it to the equation. Even if real money was not being wagered it is clear the time spent would have an effect on an addict or reformed gambler.

Maybe in the near future there will be a scientific study that provides data that can be analysed to see how beneficial or damaging these sorts of apps and websites are to addicted gamblers or reformed gamblers.

New victims will almost certainly be created when those intent on wanting to scam (behind a facade of a professional looking website) have an advertising budget for regularly promoting their brand.

As a result of not carrying out due-diligence and in the process becoming a victim at 1xbit, he could find his way here to make a complaint. I suppose that has been happening here for a long time and it will continue to the be the way until they shut down their business voluntarily or until a governmental agency shut it down.

I am sure if anything would make them sit up and take note it would be if they were going to be financially affected as a company. Whenever you have any news about their books/promotions and whatever else they create or publish in the hope they can gain a new round of investment, let me know because I also might contact them to tell them there far more to the Rock Trading than they are probably aware of.

They used a ridiculous claim against you in order to deprive you of use of your own funds for several years to the value of over 35,000 EURO and that is a horrible thing they did. You have suffered a lot because of their unfair and probably illegal behaviour towards you therefore I can understand your sentiments towards them.

Can you provide any screenshots to back up your claim?

Can you provide any sort of blockchain evidence showing when and how much funds you sent to the 1xbit scammers? Without seeing some sort of evidence to back up your claim it will be difficult for you gather a lot of support.

Yes it is part and parcel of the situation when money is at stake, there will always be scammers out there trying to scam other scammers. In this case, scammers trying their luck in the forum with fabricated claims in the hope getting some payout after 1xbit are pressured but 1xbit forum representatives have never done anything because of community pressure.

As you said... trash does attract mosquitoes 

You are right I did not make the statement, I merely asked about the situation.

Correct again, I merely asked if there were any links provided to show the effect and asked if the event actually took place.

Do not be surprised at some of the comments being made here. Some members have taken a line or two from a long post only to take it out of context or misquote me to deliberately cause misdirection in a thread that is supposed to be about Royse777 and Bitlucy (not about me, you or any other member).

You are factually incorrect because according to the bold part it is incoherent unless the full sentence is taken in to provide context but it seems you possibly took my post and deliberately linked it towards words I simply did not write. Having said that if you want to copy and paste the comment (you either failed to understand or deliberately are trying to create diversion tactics) by all means open a new thread in any board you want to discuss it.

Again, you are factually incorrect. I stated nothing of the sort, you can ramble on with your nonsense as much as you like. Furthermore, I have no interest in what you claim happened between yourself and Royse777  

I do not have one

And?

You said "If" and there is no "if" therefore you are wrong, again. I have zero problems but you are overlooking in to this too much. You are panic-posting in similar fashion to Royse777 with ramblings and misdirections. Try to relax, it might help with your temperament.

In my opinion the drama was started when Royse777 and Bitlucy became associates but keeping that aside feel free to agree with who want and likewise feel free to disagree with who you want but afford the same luxury or courtesy to others to make their own decisions too.

Even though your post is full of nonsense, I replied as a courtesy. Even though you have been overtly and most probably deliberately incorrect when quoting me and you have been creating your own misdirection here for your own purposes, I entertained it for a while but expect no more replies if you continue to create your own drama.

I should have been clearer: "Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence on part of Royse777 (to get in to that situation)."

You are right, it is not clear if Bitlucy even intended to scam from the very beginning and it is also not clear if Bitlucy was created with the specific intention of an exit scam. If the latter was even true the amounts involved would not be worth the hassle in the first place.

It seems you are right again because they probably did not have the funds to actually start a casino in the first place and they hoped to make an income to cover any potential payouts based on initial and early customer losses. I agree, had they succeeded then it would never have been made public that Bitlucy was on the verge of collapse from day one of their operation and subsequent history could have been different but here we are.

Absolutely. He was an effective player for them but was unfairly put in a lower salary bracket to the top earners at the club. How was it Mane was earning £90,000 per week when Salah was earning £180,000 per week? Was Salah worth double of what Mane was receiving? I hope he will be happy at his new club in Germany. Liverpool fans and players will miss him.

Hazard played some brilliant football at Chelsea when he was fully fit but he failed to live up to his huge price tag when he was purchased by Real Madrid. I think Sterling has been consistent throughout the last decade almost and will be a top player for Chelsea.

Thank you... we all try in our own ways to contribute to the forum 

I think posting and re-posting their flags and negative trust is the least we can do because every day newbies are signing up to register in the forum and they are being exposed to scam after scam and eventually they will fall victim to one.

I concur, many newbies could have avoided becoming victims if they have read the threads or had simply carried out due-diligence beforehand. Having said that I do not accept every scam allegation against the 1xbit scammers is genuine.

It seems a small number of users making allegations against 1xbit are probably trolls, attention seekers and those that are looking for a payout therefore each allegation should be judged on an individual basis. If I am not shown any verifiable evidence 1xbit scammed a user then I will not back their claim.

Thank you for the information. Can you provide a link for where Royse777 made those comments apart from in the OP?

You are factually incorrect on several fronts.... my emotions never got in any way of anything related to Bitlucy therefore you are clutching at straws and are trying misdirection tactics.

Let us be clear, it was you who created this mess with Bitlucy therefore why should I be making myself feel better? I was not a part of it, all I did was point out that I left negative trust for you long before your outburst therefore accusations of bias should not be levelled at me yet you take the opportunity to post incoherent ramblings.

Where have I asked others join me and exactly what would they be joining for? You are in serious need of a reality check.

You are right when using the single-slip analogy, I cannot argue with that advice. I hope others read it and take heed too.

After reading your walls of text, it seems mostly created by you with a view to garner sympathy for yourself, it is easy to miss parts or not remember others. Having said that, I asked a question if a dinner took place and asked for clarification and did not establish my thoughts.

What would have been the harm if you replied stating you used the word hangout when you should have instead elaborated fully what you interpreted that word to mean considering the circumstances and what was at stake.

What would have been the problem is you had simply provided a link? It was this same type of aggressive yet nonsensical behaviour akin to a tantrum that has alienated some members.

Good news you are keeping this thread unlocked.

Since it will not be locked now, I would like to take the opportunity to go back to something yahoo62278 asked about before you started your conspiracy theories.

I partially defended your reasons for not wanting to show blockchain transactions between yourself and Bitlucy on the basis of you maybe having some reasons however his questions and concerns in the post below are valid therefore maybe you should at least consider providing some blockchain transactions as evidence to show you are not connected to Bitlucy far more than some are suggesting or thinking: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500366#msg60500366

Even if they do not end up gambling with real money at that particular website or using that app, there is a serious danger they would end up gambling with real money elsewhere.

Maybe you are right these apps attract people that have not gambled before but earlier in the thread it was being discussed about the impact these apps would have on gambling addicts and/or reformed gamblers.

Arsenal suffered a monumental collapse at the end of last season which saw Tottenham leapfrog them for the final champions league place. With Manchester United out of the way because of poor form and Tottenham behind on points, Arsenal had a clear run to clinch the 4th and final champions league place but they suffered a horrible end of the season with bad results.

With just 3 games remaining their back to back away losses 3-0 at Tottenham and their 2-0 loss at Newcastle sealed their fate in 5th place and Europa League football. Had they beaten Tottenham they would have finished in 4th place instead.

If I was to choose between Arsenal or Spurs finishing higher, I would choose Spurs.

First, where is the link showing comments from FortuneJack stating the reasons they cancelled bets #2, #3 and #4 on the basis they were identical to bet#1?

Second, (without showing screenshots) in simple English can you confirm the amounts wagered and the winnings expected, or edit them from the following list:

bet#1 = €4750 @ 20.48 = €92,500
bet#2 = €495   @ 20.48 = €9642
bet#3 = €4750 @ 19.84 = €89,490
bet#4 = €500   @20.42  = €9710

Third, what was total amount you wagered in all the bets that you are disputing? According to what is in bold above the amount totals €10,495. Is this correct?

Fourth, according to what is in bold above the winnings amount to €201,342. Is this correct?

Fifth, if you are claiming €201,342 but you received €92,500 + the wagered €4750 totalling €97,250 from bet#1 along with €495, €4750 and €500 wagers on bets#2, #3 and #4 then things become clearer. That means you are claiming you were scammed out of €104,092. Is this correct?

I read some of what you wrote about data vanishing along with you stating what FortuneJack should and should not do but keeping all that and their ToS for a moment aside, can you confirm if the above is correct.

I do not know what happened in this case but am trying to understand.

I cannot be sure but I think I posted maybe once in one of your threads related to this issue and cannot be sure what I wrote. I am trying to read up to understand what you state happened, what FortuneJack say happened and what actually happened. It will take time and even then there might not be full clarity.

I must add I am very disappointed in the way you get aggressive and post with a lot of frustration instead engaging with members (who agree or disagree with your version of events) in an acceptable manner. What did you achieve by alienating the FortuneJack representative to the degree they made their final comment on the subject matter?

If you on one hand are taunting them making it clear you do not want them to make any more comments then why are posting in the forum seeking support? The logical thing to have done would be for you to keep them in the conversation because ultimately they are the ones who could (if they chose to) make any payment to you in the event they accept liability for an error. From what I read thus far they do not accept liability, they claim they did not scam you.

The Curaçao Gaming Control Board does not seem like it will do anything to give you an outcome you want. You also have mentioned AskGamblers and stated they are effectively useless with you even resorting to profanities against them therefore it is safe to assume you believe you will not be assisted by any group or association in what you feel is improper conduct by FortuneJack.

As mentioned, I need to read up on this to understand what happened but assuming what I wrote above is accurate, what would be an acceptable outcome for you?

Your flag has far more opposition than it does support, it has no momentum and you seem to have zero chance of FortuneJack accepting liability for your claimed losses and they have already said they will make no more comments regarding this case and you have welcomed that by telling them you do not want them to come back to post about it.

Therefore keeping your stance in mind:  what do you hope to achieve by posting about your allegations in the forum?

Well here how I think how the top 6 teams in will stand in order at the end of the 22/23 season  

Manchester City
Chelsea
Liverpool
Manchester United
-----
Tottenham Hotspur
Arsenal
-----

I think Liverpool will suffer without Mane but ten Hag will have a positive impact at Manchester United. At the same time Tuchel will try to elevate Chelsea to another level.

Was this ever actually addressed by Royse777? Was a straight answer ever posted addressing this issue about the dinner? If so, can anybody provide a link before Royse777 locks this thread.

Was there an actual in-person dinner between Royse777 and Bitlucy where they met or was it an online chat only. I am confused, did they ever meet in real life to discuss Bitlucy as a business? Were they actually friends in real life or was this specifically a cyber friendship where the two main protagonists never met in real life?

Hard-push advertising is common everywhere in all walks of daily life but subtle influences most definitely would have an impact too especially in a community such as this forum because some members are more likely to send funds to an unknown website if they trust the person promoting that agenda. That is simple to understand.

Again you raised another valid point.... based on who is recommending the casino or betting website, it is likely to influence the decision made by either experienced or novice individuals.

If a forum member had -20 feedback was recommending this-is-a-great-casino-website.com I doubt it was gain much traction beyond zero but if a member with some sort of reputation was to recommend or vouch for this-is-a-great-website-i-can-vouch-for-it-because-i-am-promoting-it-and-maybe-am-a-part-owner-look-at-my-forum-reputation-and-do-not-miss-out.com then even if was not blatant promoting rather it was subtle, it can have an affect on any member ranging from gullible to experienced covering all in between.

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I never thought about it the way the you described it as leveraging their own reputation on a single deal for their own benefit. Come to think of it, there is nothing wrong with that assumption because from a particular vantage point it seems to be true.

It seems Royse777 hedged all bets (no pun intended) on Bitlucy but lost and in the process a small number of users became victims. Not pulling the plug and not disassociating herself from Bitlucy earlier when red flags were visible was negligent on part of Royse777.

Such as a football manager having to go (be sacked) even though he is not on the field kicking the ball but has to carry the consequences of the outfield players because he is responsible or part responsible for their actions? I see part of the analogy.

Thank you. I try to remain impartial, I try to not let sentiment sway me and I am glad to be on board because this community means a lot to me  

For clarity sake I should express I am surprised at the amount of good faith, pity, sympathy and compassion shown here by members towards Royse777. After looking at the facts as I saw them much earlier, I had a degree of sympathy too but that has subsided because of the way Royse777 has posted with an offensive aggressive stance which resulted in alienating herself from several members including myself but my red tag was given impartially before that happened.

As a forum member, my trust list (included and excluded) is there for all to see but that does not mean I would literally trust all of them beyond this forum and even within this forum we all define "trust" according to our interpretations rather than how theymos wanted it to be defined. We all apply the trust and exclusion and feedback system in ways some others would find incorrect. Even those that added me and others to their trust list would probably not really trust me and others outside this forum... a continuation of trust from inside the forum to outside it, is something not afforded easily.

Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.

Having said that, I would personally outside this forum trust just 3-4 members at maximum on my list literally and again I would define trust in the way I interpret. Regardless, I would not be influenced at all by reputations nor be bothered about falling foul of certain cliques, I would say what has to be said because I believe it to be the right thing... maybe that was part of the reason you made that comment about me using words such as strict, consistent and integrity.

Can you define what you mean by Royse777 lied about the dinner and provide a link?