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

[actmyname]

-img-

That's not... how the meme works.

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

It has to be intentional, yeah? aTriz isn't known to be unintelligent.

aTriz had information that indicated the ICO was shady at best and he brushed it off as a marketing strategy.

Not defending him, but the only reason I can come up with to sort of justify this is the fact that one might tunnel vision when they're working for someone.

However, it's unacceptable for such a member to allow false marketing that represents 100x the raised amount for an ICO.

[ibminer]

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?

Your trustworthy meter is going down.

Did you not see my prior definitions of a scam?  It's quite simple. It is fraud, anyone committing fraud for financial gain is scamming. aTriz knows what fraud is, he saw it, and went along with it.

If you think aTriz is naive to what fraud is, here he is not too long ago saying how mad exchanges make him when they manipulate their numbers (fraud).

http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362

Not a far jump from what he allowed to go on.

[ibminer]

Absent collusion, managers will face termination if they failed to implement sufficient controls to detect activity outside of company policy, which in almost all cases is the most severe punishment a company is willing to impose.

Ok but the founder of the company, without a CEO or other roles, is likely the one to make policies. The general problem discussing any of this is that I, nor you, know the behind-the-scenes structure of ALU so it is hard to say what policies existed, if any. Should there have been policies that existed for a group like ALU, sure, but I don't know if there was or wasn't and what they would be.

Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue.

Not sure what you are referring to here, Lauda's comment about the "global issue" I believe was about an idea of campaign managers putting a disclaimer on ICOs to provide more transparency, see below:

Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though.

It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it.

Yes, that. There were clearly fraudulent statements in the bitblisscoin ANN thread that aTriz posted.

When you make a post from your own account, unless you give an indication you are quoting someone (or are otherwise relying on someone else), you are making the statement yourself.  This is not a complicated concept, and if you were to reject this, you could not hold anyone accountable for anything, ever....someone who failed to repay a loan could argue they did were not the one who promised to repay what was borrowed, it was really this other random guy who is wanting to raise money via an ICO.

In the above quote, lauda was saying that aTriz should not be held responsible for statements made in ANN posts he made.

I agree that aTriz making posts in the ANN thread with "we" and "us" as if he is a part of their group is certainly misleading, and why I mentioned a potential disclaimer. And I'd agree everyone else should be held to the same standard. I still didn't see Lauda do any of this.. defending a business partner in this way, on the heels of him being called out for fraudulent behavior, doesn't seem scandalous to me.

As for your comment:
"Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue."
I'm still not sure how you derive that Lauda is saying this?

If anything, your comment should have read:
"Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (posting content of an ICO without disassociating themselves from it) by saying that this is a global issue."

Your version of the comment implies Lauda knows all fraudulent information being posted by other managers and that Lauda even has the capability to make such a comment about fraudulent information being posted by others.

Actually you are wrong. I checked up on the accounts I had sold many months after I stopped dealing in forum accounts, and the overwhelming majority of them were not involved in any kind of scam-like activity, and a fairly decent number of them reasonably played an active "positive" role in the community.

If you don't believe me, you can go into the scam accusations section and see how many scams there are done by recently purchased accounts, it probably isn't very many.

My response: I've looked at scam accusations and have found several purchased accounts accused of scams, several very likely to be sold by you in the past, I've linked you to these accounts through a source I have whom does not want to be identified for fear of retaliation.
Verifiable? No. My words against yours? Maybe. That's what it's all about, isn't it, word play and influencing the reader?  <- did I really have to add this last sentence explaining my fake response?  or could I have left it out to sway readers and then argued with you on the validity?  What would be your response if I had not disclosed this was a fake response?  If it is "Well I would demand proof or evidence of your claims", then, practice what you preach.

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.

This issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it and goes well beyond basic economics. In order to explain it fully, I'd have to help [potential] scammers by revealing information I don't want to reveal on how to conduct scamming, which may very well be what you want me to do, but I will not.

[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?

Your trustworthy meter is going down.

Did you not see my prior definitions of a scam?  It's quite simple. It is fraud, anyone committing fraud for financial gain is scamming. aTriz knows what fraud is, he saw it, and went along with it.

If you think aTriz is naive to what fraud is, here he is not too long ago saying how mad exchanges make him when they manipulate their numbers (fraud).

http://archive.is/sFeNG#selection-24257.0-24257.362

Not a far jump from what he allowed to go on.

Hmm, I see your point there. But when it comes to marketing, most ICOs employ tactics that could be considered shady, e.g. Artificially increasing hype in their ANN thread, incentivising positive reviews, buying telegram members and activity, all of this under the guise of guerilla marketing. It must be difficult to draw the line in what is acceptable, and what isn't when the entire ecosystem is built upon shady marketing ethics. I am not saying aTriz was right, obviously he's a complete moron for not ditching Bitblisscoin when the evidence started mounting, I'm just pointing out that it's an easy mistake to make, and one I'm sure he would rectify if given the chance.

[Roboabhishek]

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

-sni-

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.

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

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

It's understandable what you mean here but looking at past I don't think there were enough members:-

1. Who were frankly telling about the company and revealing the marketing strategy to the community even when it could put them in danger.
2. Who were paying back their loans when they were negged.
3. Who tried to resolve the accusation against them rather than making a nuisance out of it.


To deserve the 2nd chance.
I can give several examples but I think you are smart enough to figure out those from the way you talk.


Everyone does mistakes and after having several deals with atriz on and off forum regarding loans and a few other things I don't think he had any bad intention in his mind he just didn't paid any attention.

As we know atriz admitted that they hardly collected more than 1BTC so if Atriz can pay for the loss Caused by Bitbliss to the guy in the video and promise to be careful in future regarding managing bounties/sign campaigns for the companies like this one then he must be given a second chance.

Would like to see how many agree with me.

[allahabadi]

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

-sni-

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.

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

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

It's understandable what you mean here but looking at past I don't think there were enough members:-

1. Who were frankly telling about the company and revealing the marketing strategy to the community even when it could put them in danger.
2. Who were paying back their loans when they were negged.
3. Who tried to resolve the accusation against them rather than making a nuisance out of it.


To deserve the 2nd chance.
I can give several examples but I think you are smart enough to figure out those from the way you talk.


Everyone does mistakes and after having several deals with atriz on and off forum regarding loans and a few other things I don't think he had any bad intention in his mind he just didn't paid any attention.

As we know atriz admitted that they hardly collected more than 1BTC so if Atriz can pay for the loss Caused by Bitbliss to the guy in the video and promise to be careful in future regarding managing bounties/sign campaigns for the companies like this one then he must be given a second chance.

Would like to see how many agree with me.

Sorry if this will sound rude

STOP CONFUSING BITBLISSCOIN AND CHRYSOSCOIN

-snip-
Hmm, I see your point there. But when it comes to marketing, most ICOs employ tactics that could be considered shady, e.g. Artificially increasing hype in their ANN thread[1], incentivising positive reviews[2], buying telegram members and activity[3], all of this under the guise of guerilla marketing. It must be difficult to draw the line in what is acceptable[4], and what isn't when the entire ecosystem is built upon shady marketing ethics. I am not saying aTriz was right, obviously he's a complete moron for not ditching Bitblisscoin when the evidence [5] started mounting, I'm just pointing out that it's an easy mistake[6] to make, and one I'm sure he would rectify if given the chance[7].

[1] Against forum rules, @mprep usually thrashes those threads and has even temp banned the OP.

[2] Again a Scammy attribute, call them out.

[3] Call them out.

[4] It's quite easy unless someone you like or love gets caught in between. For me, a single lie does it, unless the circumstances change.

[5] In his own words, he was somehow forced to lie, I wonder how?

[6] That's just your opinion and not a fact.

[7] As I have already asked you, HOW ?

-snip-
[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. A number of people have been commenting without reading all the facts of the matter and have their own predisposed notions. Get rid of them and grasp the facts.

[suchmoon]

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.

Personally I draw the line at "ICO". I think you're extremely generous with the 80% figure. I'd say it's in high 90s. The ones that are not scams should develop their product first and sell it later, not the other way around. But that's a discussion outside the scope of this thread.

I guess most people would probably draw the line at "lying", as in lying about their ICO funding progress and other basics. 80% ICOs being shady doesn't make it right. Being paid doesn't make it right.

I can't tell aTriz what he should do, I'm just saying that I can't trust him if he knowingly supports fraudulent ICOs. He can choose to continue on the same path and hope that the red tags won't affect him too much with regards to the shady 80% of ICOs. Or he can figure out a way to vet his customers.

[Parodium]

[3] Call them out, call them out, call them out.

[7] As I have already asked you, HOW ?

I have already responded with how I think he could make this right;

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 he is committed to do so.
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.

As for calling out ICOs with shady tactics (most of them), few of them would ever announce they are engaged in these activities, so it is not possible to call them out.

[allahabadi]

[3] Call them out, call them out, call them out.

[7] As I have already asked you, HOW ?

I have already responded with how I think he could make this right;

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 he is committed to do so.
3. Listen to community feedback regarding sketchy behavior, and respond to criticism if he possesses knowledge that would shed light on the matter.

I'm Sorry for having overlooked these. I think the point 1 will eliminate the need for points 2 and 3; also is that not what GOOD, TRUSTED and EXPERIENCED BMs are supposed to do? What separates them from any Tom, Dick and Harry who are handling Campaigns?

As for calling out ICOs with shady tactics (most of them), few of them would ever announce they are engaged in these activities, so it is not possible to call them out.

All the more reason for the BMs to act quick, when one ICO actually demands them to engage in Scammy attitude; so that it deters other ICOs from acting in a similar manner.

[endlasuresh]

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?

So Lauda can Tag people for a single thing or even their is no fault? aTriz and Lauda did a nice job in the past, if you just search here within 3 months you will find a lot of information on them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2973511.0

When he did several times Lauda who tries to escape with false statements and keep aTriz Trust in good position.

Edited for changing link

[Jerusareth]

I was shocked by this knowing aTriz as a good campaign manager and a green trusted forum member and now turning into a red one. Time flies though but what will be the outcome of this and what will happen to his current bounty campaigns? is ALU still on? does Lauda still working with him or their group will be broken by this issues?

[jamalaezaz]

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?

So Lauda can Tag people for a single thing or even their is no fault? aTriz and Lauda did a nice job in the past, if you just search here within 3 months you will find a lot of information on them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2973511.0

When he did several times Lauda who tries to escape with false statements and keep aTriz Trust in good position.

you posted a phishing link.

[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?

So Lauda can Tag people for a single thing or even their is no fault? aTriz and Lauda did a nice job in the past, if you just search here within 3 months you will find a lot of information on them.
- omitted phishing link - Parodium Notes: Bitcointalk.(to) is a phisher, do not log in here.

When he did several times Lauda who tries to escape with false statements and keep aTriz Trust in good position.

Whatever Lauda does is irrelevant though I don't agree with her negging him, aTriz is the one under fire here. Yes DT members have the responsibility to lay out negs, but they are not executioners.

Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I know they have a responsibility here, but there are dozens of DT members, nobody reasonable should expect Lauda to neg aTriz in these circumstances.

I know it's a completely different scale, but in most countries spouses are not legally required to testify against each other, nor are family members. By extension, if a friend of mine came under fire, I would not testify against them, though of course other people are welcome to do so. But that's just me.

[allahabadi]

-snip-
Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I would gladly testify and if ordered to punish, would do so; I don't continue friendships with liars and cheats. What's the guarantee that the liar won't fuck my cat behind my back? He/She has lost my trust, I'd ask the individual to Fuck Off.

[Lauda]

Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I know they have a responsibility here, but there are dozens of DT members, nobody reasonable should expect Lauda to neg aTriz in these circumstances.

You are wasting your time arguing with butthurt scammers, account farmers and the remainder of the biased witch hunters. At the time when I still didn't neg. rate aTriz, they were complaining and calling me a hypocrite. When I did neg. rate aTriz, they still complained because.. reasons.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[allahabadi]

Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I know they have a responsibility here, but there are dozens of DT members, nobody reasonable should expect Lauda to neg aTriz in these circumstances.

You are wasting your time arguing with butthurt scammers[1], account farmers and the remainder or the biased witch hunters. At the time when I still didn't neg. rate aTriz, they were complaining and calling ma a hypocrite. When I do neg. rate aTriz, they still complain because[2].. reasons.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd like to offer the esteemed upright Lord Lauda the post of the ArchBishop of The Church of Ponzian Mind for being non-deceitful and negging Atriz after it was quite apparent that he was colluding in a fraud.


[1] Does that include Atriz?

[2] I dunno about others, but seriously you and The Pharmacist have done the right thing, even though I assume you are great chums with Atriz.

[Parodium]

-snip-
Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I would gladly testify and if ordered to punish, would do so; I don't continue friendships with liars and cheats. What's the guarantee that the liar won't fuck my cat behind my back? He/She has lost my trust, I'd ask the individual to Fuck Off.

I can't imagine you have many friends then, everybody lies, you must be the second coming of Jesus to be such a pure specimen.

Regardless what the individual has done, it is of my personal opinion that friends should not form part of the firing squad, simple as that. There is an entire community here, hundreds of thousands of people who can lay down judgement, asking Lauda to do it is wrong. I don't blame Lauda, obviously she was backed into a corner and it became her rep or his, but this situation isn't beneficial for anybody.

[allahabadi]

-snip-
Think of this simple analogy. Presumably Lauda and aTriz were friends before this incidence, would you expect a friend to participate in the firing squad once a sentence is laid down? I certainly wouldn't.

I would gladly testify and if ordered to punish, would do so; I don't continue friendships with liars and cheats. What's the guarantee that the liar won't fuck my cat behind my back? He/She has lost my trust, I'd ask the individual to Fuck Off.

I can't imagine you have many friends then

• , everybody lies[1], you must be the second coming of Jesus[2] to be such a pure specimen.
  
  Regardless what the individual has done, it is of my personal opinion[3] that friends should not form part of the firing squad, simple as that. There is an entire community here, hundreds of thousands of people who can lay down judgement, asking Lauda to do it is wrong[4]. I don't blame Lauda, obviously she was backed into a corner and it became her rep or his, but this situation[5] isn't beneficial for anybody.
  

[1] Talk about yourself, quoting you for future reference so that people know that you believe everyone including you to be a liar. As I can't judge others, you for one are certainly a liar and not me.

[2] Therein lies your problem mate, if you believe that there was ever a Jesus or God. There might be an individual by that name, but certainly no Son of the God shit.

[3] You are more than welcome to have personal opinions.

[4] So in your opinion Lauda did a wrong thing by negging Atriz?

[5] It is; for future investors who'll deal with Atriz handled ICOs', they'll be aware of his antics and marketing morals.

• I have like-minded friends, it's not that difficult not to lie; Try it.

-snip-
Regardless what the individual has done,
-snip-

That's a very HARD BLANKET STATEMENT, what if your friend rapes your pop/mom/brother/sister/cat?

[actmyname]

Regardless what the individual has done, it is of my personal opinion that friends should not form part of the firing squad, simple as that. There is an entire community here, hundreds of thousands of people who can lay down judgement, asking Lauda to do it is wrong. I don't blame Lauda, obviously she was backed into a corner and it became her rep or his, but this situation isn't beneficial for anybody.

Almost seems like just virtue signaling if someone has to shoot out a negative feedback after a number have already been sent. Not that it's not fine but just redundant.

Moreover, they don't have to outright send a feedback but they can simply disagree with the behavior. I think the pressure to warrant a neg is fueled by indignant individuals.

[Hhampuz]

This thread is still open and active because...?