hilariousandco, Mitchell,Vod,Ognasty Bitblisscoin.com could be a scamsite

[Quickseller]

Well so far I have only seen aTriz handling almost all the campaigns except for one or two being run by you. What I see is just that four managers have come up together as a team and doing their own work individually, but just having the same name.

aTriz is the one who usually posts the ANN threads, which doesn't necessarily imply that he manages the whole campaign or any aspect of it.

If this is true, then I don't think you can shift the blame for the incident on aTriz.

[1714862031]

1714862031

[Lauda]

Well so far I have only seen aTriz handling almost all the campaigns except for one or two being run by you. What I see is just that four managers have come up together as a team and doing their own work individually, but just having the same name.

aTriz is the one who usually posts the ANN threads, which doesn't necessarily imply that he manages the whole campaign or any aspect of it.

If this is true, then I don't think you can shift the blame for the incident on aTriz.

A very dumb little snowflake you seem to be. As nullius has told you several times already, the book of cheap smear tactics that you are using is very predictable and don't work. As much as your vengeful heart desires revenge for all the wrong reasons, you ain't getting any especially not in cases where you are undeniably wrong (this being one such case).

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz.

QED.

[Quickseller]

Well so far I have only seen aTriz handling almost all the campaigns except for one or two being run by you. What I see is just that four managers have come up together as a team and doing their own work individually, but just having the same name.

aTriz is the one who usually posts the ANN threads, which doesn't necessarily imply that he manages the whole campaign or any aspect of it.

If this is true, then I don't think you can shift the blame for the incident on aTriz.

A very dumb little snowflake you seem to be. As nullius has told you several times already, the book of cheap smear tactics that you are using is very predictable and don't work. As much as your vengeful heart desires revenge for all the wrong reasons, you ain't getting any especially not in cases where you are undeniably wrong (this being one such case).

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz.

QED.

What exactly do you think that aTriz did that was so wrong?

[suchmoon]

Your statement also ignores basic economics. If someone pays $250 to buy an account, if they were to attempt to use that account to scam someone, they would be risking that entire $250, even if they are unsuccessful. They would need to successfully steal $250 just to break even. Someone who buys an account has a fairly strong incentive not to scam with it. Similarly, someone who is the owner of an account that could be sold for $250 would be better off selling his account rather than trying to steal money from a NPV perspective.

[donmiguello]

Lauda Tagged my team members just because they are working with me (they were not even part of that project which has accused(falsely), infact they were not even in my team when I managed that project) but still she tagged them just to damage our services.

The difference being, they knew. Your case is not related to a singular project, and your reference rating properly reflects on that.

They knew what? and what they suppose to know already?  and yet even a single scam haven't proved on me...  just because you took some false referrence and tagged me as a scammer (and forced your sidekicks to do the same ) doesn't make me a scammer. every sensible person who read your feedbacks if open the reference link can realize that is false.


the fact is we both are in same situation now... I am sure Atriz remember once I told him.. "if a manager call another manager scammer just because one of his bounty he've managed which turned into scam, then he should wait and see when same will happen with himself"..
I believe at an individual Atriz is not a scammer , we both did the same mistake, a bounty manager have no connection with a project's core team. if a project turn into scam the manager would be the first one who get scam from them.

and now I see you tagged Atriz also to save yourself...

What a "Wet Cat"  

you are the only active manager with 15  red trust , say welcome to Atriz to the club .

[jamalaezaz]

Lauda Tagged my team members just because they are working with me (they were not even part of that project which has accused(falsely), infact they were not even in my team when I managed that project) but still she tagged them just to damage our services.

The difference being, they knew. Your case is not related to a singular project, and your reference rating properly reflects on that.

They knew what? and what they suppose to know already?  and yet even a single scam haven't proved on me...  just because you took some false referrence and tagged me as a scammer (and forced your sidekicks to do the same ) doesn't make me a scammer. every sensible person who read your feedbacks if open the reference link can realize that is false.


the fact is we both are in same situation now... I am sure Atriz remember once I told him.. "if a manager call another manager scammer just because one of his bounty he've managed which turned into scam, then he should wait and see when same will happen with himself"..
I believe at an individual Atriz is not a scammer , we both did the same mistake, a bounty manager have no connection with a project's core team. if a project turn into scam the manager would be the first one who get scam from them.

and now I see you tagged Atriz also to save yourself...

What a "Wet Cat"  

you are the only active manager with 15  red trust , say welcome to Atriz to the club .

the way the trust system being used nowadays. red trust means nothing... 30% of forum's active users are falsely tagged.
in my case these trusts add zero impact to my work and my portfolio.. only forced some trolls and bullies.. everyone is not nonesense to believe and make decisions on one side's opinion/feedback. you always have the rights to state your points and clarifications.

[pinkman12345]

If Jamal and co is guilty then ALU and co is also guilty.
If Jamal deserves red feedback then the ALU megacorpstar should also be.

Rules one and should be for all.

[allahabadi]

If Jamal and co is guilty then ALU and co is also guilty.
If Jamal deserves red feedback then the ALU megacorpstar should also be.

Rules one and should be for all.

[siddartha1492]

No.


https://imgur.com/a/pFd3v

It was a marketing strategy and they tried to say they raised so much in just a day or 2.

I doubt they raised anymore then 1 BTC.

You are ok with ICOs stating false information about how much they have raised to other potential investors... and you would call this a marketing strategy?

No, but when I'm 2 weeks into a bounty program I'm basically forced to go along with it.

Seriously, what were you drinking Atriz, truth syrup or what? Self admitting your dishonesty. Feeling so bad for you. If you hadn't admitted, you would have never been tagged. And if you were really in confusion, you should have taken some advice from Lauda. She would have certainly advised you to exit, rather than drag on. You will now be remembered as the Naivest Red Painted Elite (NRPE).
Between, I think quick popularity is somewhat of a curse on Bitcointalk. Alia, Atriz became quickly popular and quickly faded. Nullius, stay safe bruh...

[Lauda]

If Jamal and co is guilty then ALU and co is also guilty.
If Jamal deserves red feedback then the ALU megacorpstar should also be.

Rules one and should be for all.

Stop posting nonsense about things that you fundamentally don't understand. These cases aren't even remotely comparable, which is something that you would know had you done research before post padding your account once again.

Seriously, what were you drinking Atriz, truth syrup or what? Self admitting your dishonesty. Feeling so bad for you. If you hadn't admitted, you would have never been tagged.

Indeed, but not admitting it would essentially be even more dishonest.

And if you were really in confusion, you should have taken some advice from Lauda. She would have certainly advised you to exit, rather than drag on.

Sadly, way too late for that..

[drogbaaa]

All DT1 are trusted members but DT2 are the biggest problem of the forum because it dominated by a group of scammers and beggars.

[Lauda]

All DT1 are trusted members but DT2 are the biggest problem of the forum because it dominated by a group of scammers and beggars.

You seem to be a very educated, non-shill account, who should definitely be commenting on such matters.

Date Registered: April 07, 2018, 02:09:17 AM

[allahabadi]

-snip-
Seriously, what were you drinking Atriz, truth syrup or what? Self admitting your dishonesty. Feeling so bad for you.[1] If you hadn't admitted, you would have never been tagged.[2] And if you were really in confusion[3], you should have taken some advice from Lauda. She would have certainly advised you to exit[4], rather than drag on. You will now be remembered as the Naivest Red Painted Elite (NRPE).
Between, I think quick popularity is somewhat of a curse on Bitcointalk[5]. Alia, Atriz became quickly popular and quickly faded. Nullius, stay safe bruh...[6]

[1] Feeling bad for his dishonesty or the fact that he had to admit to it?

[2] Wouldn't have changed the fact that he's a scamster.

[3] Clearly he wasn't.

[4] Pure Speculation. I believe none of you would have expected this of him, till this turned up.

[5] Wrong premise; having double standards and acting like an upright self-conscious prick and being popular for calling out others is a curse and should be.

[6] Huh, really? Are they being mugged or threatened? The only thing that we need to be safe from is our greed and warped sense of reality.

[2girls]

All DT1 are trusted members but DT2 are the biggest problem of the forum because it dominated by a group of scammers and beggars.

You seem to be a very educated, non-shill account, who should definitely be commenting on such matters.

Date Registered: April 07, 2018, 02:09:17 AM

You should know that anyone with April 07, 2015 with a clean account wont argue with You.  

Its an UNEVEN Play Field in which few scammers abusing thier power to rule out the Argument and Competition .

[endlasuresh]

No.


https://imgur.com/a/pFd3v

It was a marketing strategy and they tried to say they raised so much in just a day or 2.

I doubt they raised anymore then 1 BTC.

You are ok with ICOs stating false information about how much they have raised to other potential investors... and you would call this a marketing strategy?

No, but when I'm 2 weeks into a bounty program I'm basically forced to go along with it.

Seriously, what were you drinking Atriz, truth syrup or what? Self admitting your dishonesty. Feeling so bad for you. If you hadn't admitted, you would have never been tagged. And if you were really in confusion, you should have taken some advice from Lauda. She would have certainly advised you to exit, rather than drag on. You will now be remembered as the Naivest Red Painted Elite (NRPE).
Between, I think quick popularity is somewhat of a curse on Bitcointalk. Alia, Atriz became quickly popular and quickly faded. Nullius, stay safe bruh...

He proved a lot in the past where he paid to a plagiarism content and does your Lauda is sleeping at that time?

Does it is not a part of ALU services or their is no partnership, share etc between these three people?

[Parodium]

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.

Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.

It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?

[allahabadi]

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter. [1]

Yes aTriz made a mistake[2] by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on[3], but just this information, in and of itself is not necessary evidence of a scam[4], at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance[5].

It's funny how quick to turn people are[6], yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam[7]. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light[8] indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?[9]

[1] This applies to hundreds of others who have been negged for one single issue and will never be given a second chance.

[2] I really like to see flexible excuses.

[3] Not just was he aware of it, he actively participated in it.

[4] How many scams does qualify one to be labelled as a scammer? Ans. 1

[5] Did he make the offer upfront or after being publicly accused of it? I believe he would have done nothing had he not been called out for it. Also I think (might be wrong) @snakey was in Chrysoscoin and this is Bitblisscoin. If you consider Chrysoscoin to a scam in which Atriz was complicit, this makes his 2nd scam.

[6] Who turned on him? Are you hinting at those who changed their ratings?  

[7] He definitely knew that they were lying and that he was complicit, accessory to it.

[8] WRONG AND GROSS MISREPRESENTATION; Atriz stopped managing it after he was called out for it and admitted to going along with the lies; it wasn't like he stopped the campaign the day he was asked to lie.

[9] This is a totally rational route to take, people who will deal with this account in the future should know what he has done in the past and as members have rightly pointed out that Atriz has stopped responding to these and has not even tendered an apology (not that it should change his neg), he simply wants to ignore it and move ahead, also what would you suggest to make it right?



P.S. Did @snakey get his investment back?

P.P.S. Are there other claimants as well?

[suchmoon]

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.

Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.

It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?

This is not the first time aTriz has shown extraordinary naiveté and disregard for common sense.

"Proven scam" is a meaningless criterion. Most scams are technically unproven until the scammers run away. aTriz had information that indicated the ICO was shady at best and he brushed it off as a marketing strategy. He needs to rethink if he really wants to have his name associated with such projects, not to mention the impact on other users - I think it's inappropriate for a green-trusted member to knowingly provide undue legitimacy to potential scams.

[Parodium]

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter. [1]

Yes aTriz made a mistake[2] by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on[3], but just this information, in and of itself is not necessary evidence of a scam[4], at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance[5].

It's funny how quick to turn people are[6], yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam[7]. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light[8] indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?[9]

[1] This applies to hundreds of others who have been negged for one single issue and will never be given a second chance.

[2] I really like to see flexible excuses.

[3] Not just was he aware of it, he actively participated in it.

[4] How many scams does qualify one to be labelled as a scammer? Ans. 1

[5] Did he make the offer upfront or after being publicly accused of it? I believe he would have done nothing had he not been called out for it. Also I think (might be wrong) @snakey was in Chrysoscoin and this is Bitblisscoin. If you consider Chrysoscoin to a scam in which Atriz was complicit, this makes his 2nd scam.

[6] Who turned on him? Are you hinting at those who changed their ratings?  

[7] He definitely knew that they were lying and that he was complicit, accessory to it.

[8] WRONG AND GROSS MISREPRESENTATION; Atriz stopped managing it after he was called out for it and admitted to going along with the lies; it wasn't like he stopped the campaign the day he was asked to lie.

[9] This is a totally rational route to take, people who will deal with this account in the future should know what he has done in the past and as members have rightly pointed out that Atriz has stopped responding to these and has not even tendered an apology (not that it should change his neg), he simply wants to ignore it and move ahead, also what would you suggest to make it right?



P.S. Did @snakey get his investment back?

P.P.S. Are there other claimants as well?

A well reasoned answer, that's what I like to see. I was not aware of Chrysocoin so I can't comment on that matter.

Just from the general atmosphere surrounding this, it feels like most of the community has turned on him, without actually giving him a chance to rectify his mistake. I understand this is often the case around here, where people are dealt negs for sometimes trivial things, and I can see that this is not a trivial matter, but surely it makes sense to allow someone to atone for something before laying down punishment. Negging someone who has tried to succeed and make amends, versus negging a complete random are not the same, seems like execution before trial.

As for what would make it right, I suggest the following;

1. Instituting new vetting measures for ICOs to ensure this never happens again, and maintaining a better standard of transparency in his ANN/Bounties, adequately highlighting that he does not endorse the product, and is merely acting as a representative.
2. Reimbursing those that were directly afflicted by his mistake, this might not happen instantly of course, but as long as he shows
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.

Overall, I know he made a mistake (possibly two), but execution before trial doesn't solve anything, I think most people would agree that aTriz will seek to resolve this, and is therefore worthy of reconsideration.

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.

Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.

It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?

This is not the first time aTriz has shown extraordinary naiveté and disregard for common sense.

"Proven scam" is a meaningless criterion. Most scams are technically unproven until the scammers run away. aTriz had information that indicated the ICO was shady at best and he brushed it off as a marketing strategy. He needs to rethink if he really wants to have his name associated with such projects, not to mention the impact on other users - I think it's inappropriate for a green-trusted member to knowingly provide undue legitimacy to potential scams.

Let's not forget aTriz is paid for promoting the ICO, you are essentially saying aTriz should have turned down payment because the ICO was shady? 80% of ICOs have shady practices going on, where do you draw the line? Most ICOs spend exorbitant amounts of money to drive up hype, pay members to join their channels and pump the ANN thread with questions. In my opinion, this is similarly as misleading as falsifying investment levels.

[Quickseller]

Just because a person makes a bad decision, does not make them intrinsically bad, or even a scammer for that matter.

Yes aTriz made a mistake by continuing to manage a campaign when he knew there was some shady business going on, but just this information, in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of a scam, at best this could simply be evidence of shady marketing tactics. To discount the dozens of other campaigns he has run successfully, and his attempts to make this right by personally refunding snakey shows that he is at least worthy of a second chance.

It's funny how quick to turn people are, yes aTriz was wrong to promote an ICO with the knowledge he had, but at that point nobody knew if the ICO was a scam. The fact is aTriz is no longer managing the campaign once it came to light indicates that he had no intention of promoting a proven scam, prior to this, it wasn't proven, so why is he being negged to death?

Wouldn't it have been more logical to tell aTriz how to make this right, rather than going this route?

this is not the first nor second time aTriz has made a “mistake” although in this case, I believe he may be a “fall guy” in order to protect others’ reputation. He is still not someone who should be trusted.