So do you have a problem with aTriz disclosing the script in order to prove the script actually exists?

The script was being sold for ~$10,000, which is a lot of money if you are a 19 year old girl, a 15 year old boy, or both ($5k for each of them). She would only need to sell one copy in order to have profited very handsomely. When you have a vouch from a fairly reputable person, it wouldn't even make sense to ask to use escrow because if you pay for the script and alia doesn't send it to you, you can simply ask the person who vouched for the script for a copy. Once alia receives payment for one copy of her script, she can simply abandon her account, and move onto another medium to scam another way (or otherwise leave).

A couple of things:
1 - PM stands for 'Personal message' and notice the word 'private' is not within the name
2 - If you want to maintain confidentiality, GPG (or another encryption means should be used), this is primarily how I judge if I will be willing to disclose information received via PM
3 - If GPG is not used, there is the potential for anyone with access to the forum DB to trivially read your PMs, even after they are deleted because the entire DB is backed up every day.


To your point, it is possible alia sent the script (if she in fact sent a script) encrypted, as she said she recommonds this be done, and/or that aTriz otherwise agreed to confidentiality. However, at this point, the legitimacy of the alleged script has been throughly debunked by multiple people in multiple ways, so it is probably safe to say that no one will be buying the script from her. It is very well possible that alia will agree to forgo any previously agreed upon confidentiality and doing so is certainly within her rights.

I would point out that alia threatened to release information about aTriz (source:
However from what I have seen, alia has not released any negative information about aTriz. One could argue that alia was bluffing when she made that statement, however aTriz would be very much aware that alia didn't have negative information about him and it should have reasonably be known that making that statement would make alia look very bad. To me, it does not make any sense this would be a bluff.

A lot of the concerns about aTriz were more or less being ignored in the thread about aTriz, and most of the conversation was surrounding the signature contract. If alia released the claim that aTriz did not actually receive/use the script he was claiming to vouch for, then this could easily be glossed over.

I don't think alia is exactly putting in a lot of effort into making it appear she is actually running any kind of script, she is explicitly saying she will not put her money where her mouth is and wont use her own money to bet, all of her bets are 'all in' bets that most gamblers will not incorporate into their betting strategy (for reasons such as superstition, but also more legitimate reasons, such as to save on tx fees -- also gambling is supposed to be fun, and betting all your money at once reduces the amount of time players can be having fun), and her gambling account is making a very small number of bets. All of this ignores the fact that the legitimacy of the script has been debunked, and the legitimacy of any positive results has been debunked.

If you operate under the assumption that alia is not using a script in this thread, then the only reasonable explanation as to what the point of this thread is would be to expose aTriz for giving fake vouches. 

As a counterpoint to the above, it is possible that alia is trying to frame aTriz into it looking like he was giving a fake vouch. However I don't think this is the case because when their relationship was scrutinized, the vouch did not appear legitimate even when ignoring all of the above. This is a script that was being sold for $10,000, however the basis for aTriz's vouch was that he made bets totaling well under of penny and had winnings of well under a penny (he said he used faucet money to test the script) -- think about that for a minute and let that sink in. think about just how ridiculous that sounds. 

Take a look at my above logic. I would probably go a step further and say that aTriz cannot even produce evidence of bets placed (by him) in the relevant timeframe.

Until aTriz can prove otherwise, it appears that aTriz was vouching for a script that didn't even exist

Maybe I was not clear.

alia allegedly sent aTriz some kind of gambling script for him to test and vouch for. aTriz claimed to test this $10,000 gambling script with faucet money for 10 minutes and vouched for it. In order for aTriz to test this script, alia would have had to have sent the script to him. I am curious to know if aTriz is able to produce/show the script that alia sent him.

According to the OP, alia is using the handle 'makealiagreatagain' on bustabit, however a review of the betting history on that account only shows four bets made, even though the OP claims to have run the script for two days.

I am willing to say there is a fairly decent chance that alia is not running a script, especially considering all of alia's bets appears to be 'all in' bets.

If alia is not currently using a script, then maybe there was never any kind of script in the first place.

I wonder if aTriz is able to produce a script of any kind that he was vouching for...

This started when your co-conspirator misquoted someone here, and everyone since then just used the 'quote' button.

I think there is a decent chance she is a 19 year old girl and has a 15 year old brother. I also wouldn’t hold it against her for having a scammer brother as long as she covers any losses he causes in her name.

What gets me is the fact she is very clearly (or was) trying to sell a gambling script that is impossible to live up to how she was representing it. I would say the same about anyone who is vouching for said script, aTriz included.

Honestly, at this point it looks like alia is just trolling. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or shown that will change my (or anyone’s) opinion about her status as a scammer. The points that she is trying to prove are moot.

Well it is good that we are on the same page.


I am not sure the point to this thread though...

Don't try to address this

You should start with a larger bet. If you do, if you are right then you will have enough money so it won’t matter what anyone else thinks and can just retire.

You would be suspicious of a hidden link if aTriz....honored his obligation...I don’t think that makes very much sense.

If there was a hidden link....couldn’t aTtiz simply pay alia in secret?

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

Some people want to post garbage for their signature campaign quota.

My theory makes more sense than what was been presented as fact regarding the signature campaign deal.

tinder?

You clearly do not know what you are talking about...

Although I do not have evidence of this, I would speculate that aTriz was essentially selling trust by way of entering into a long term signature deal, and giving what is basically a fake vouch, even though he knew the product was worthless.

The US$300/month payment is on the high range for even legendary members, especially for only 30 posts/month, and in terms of US dollars, the cost of signature space is a lot higher than it has been in the past (in large part because of the massive increase in the BTCUSD price).

My speculation is that alia paid aTriz to give the fake vouch, enter into the long term signature deal, and say that 5 months (~1,500) were paid up front (I have not seen where aTriz say this, however others have said this) to give alia false credibility. It is very well possible that no money has actually changed hands for the signature deal.

It is outright insane to trust a new user with $1500, especially when you have a fair amount of trust yourself, and when the other person is claiming to have well above that in crypto, so they can't say they need the money for x expenses.

Have you seen the communications between alia and aTriz regarding this deal? If not, then I don't think it is fair to say alia was misrepresenting anything to aTriz because you don't know what was represented.

Broadly speaking, alia has represented she is a 19 year old girl, and based on the fact she appears to have a fair amount of generally happy camgirl customers, I would say there is a decent chance alia is in fact a young women/girl. Also, as per this reddit thread, I think there is a decent chance there is a 15 year old boy in alia's family (although this could be alia her(him)self.

Alia did misrepresent the gambling script he was selling, however aTriz facilicatd this fraud, so I don't think it would be fair to argue this to be a false pretense that duped aTriz. aTriz very clearly knew what he was talking about when he gave the vouch, as pointed out multiple times.

I want to point out that I very much think alia is a scammer, largely because of the gambling script. I think it is somewhat plausible that flavors is the brother of alia (despite the issue of bumping using the incorrect account -- one could argue they sometimes use a shared computer), however luckily this is a moot point because I can confirm both accounts are scammers because of separate actions.

This is often a term that some signature campaigns impose, however not all signature campaigns impose this rule. I would point out that the issue of "red trust" is not mentioned in the contract, so I would argue that the question of if the terms have been broken should be blind to the trust rating (or color).

Hmm, this is true, alia entered into the contract the day before trying to sell the script. I would still argue that since aTriz actively facilitated this fraud, that had he known this ahead of time would not have deterred him from entering into the contract.  
I don't think this is right. The thread aTriz posted his vouch in makes no mention of any kind of sexual favors. (a 'control+f search of the thread for both sex and [/i]favor[/i] yields no results).


The signature space of a newbie is not worth 'a dime' to start with. According to the overview of signature campaigns thread, there are exactly zero signature campaigns available for newbies and junior members.
You forgot to quote the term of the contract that alia broke. Also, the below quote contradicts this statement

Trains don't sail. They leave the station.

The service was more or less worthless before alia received negative trust, and the negative trust does not change this.

Using this logic will set a very bad precedent, and will only make it easier for scammers to continue scamming once they receive negative trust and have scam accusations opened against them. If this logic is upheld, then scammers would start to say that they can't accept escrow and they must receive money up front for trades with the explanation that the community will not attempt to enforce contracts with those with negative trust, therefore anyone's existing reputation cannot be relied upon.

I am curious to know how you would feel if this was a loan instead of a deal to wear a signature. Would you feel the same way? If so, what is different?

I don't buy this. Making excess posts benefit the party trying to terminate the contract because of this alleged "breach", and is in no way harmed because of this. If aTriz were to try to enforce this as a 'limit' then alia could simply delete excessive posts, which would go against public policy as it would give an incentive for a scammer to delete posts, potentially removing evidence of scamming.

It makes sense that Lauda was previously defending this girl