PrefaceI think a few words are in order about why I am peculiarly interested in this topic. It goes beyond my own liking for aTriz: I feel a certain sense of moral responsiblity in the matter.
As I made clear to “alia” near the end of the last thread:
How do I break this to you gently?
Do you even realize who put your account where it is right now, within the past twelve days? Instant fame. A circle of admirers in the Legendary and Hero ranks. Hmmm.
It wasn’t you who did that. Granted, I needed decent material to work with. But it wasn’t you who deliberately spread your name and links to your threads all over threads you didn’t even follow, which were followed by people who respect me.
Sorry to burst your bubble, hon. “You’d be surprised.”
I think a great many people never would have even heard of Alia, if not for actions on my own part. I was well-intended—and I was neither the first nor only one fooled. But I did get fooled; and I raised her profile.
Especially in the Legendary section, I think a good many of you reading this can attest to yourselves that you never even would have heard of Alia, were it not for me.
On that last point, aTriz will need to speak for himself. Though I seriously doubt that Alia would have ever come to his attention if not for me, I do not have any direct knowledge of how he found her signature-sale thread, nor of private business dealings between them.
scam_detector, whoever you are, I thought you came off reasonably in the other thread when we
settled your accusation against me, and also when I
nailed Alia for having to known Dave from “the best” “wallet recovery service” (
Dave speaks). I also will here assume good faith on your part, since you were the one who brought the Alia matter to light.
To better keep focus on the substantive issues, first I wish to point out a few things about where the Alia scam thread got off track.
In addition, the same people claim that I just opened the thread to target them all, which is ridiculous. No, not only Lauda has claimed this, but also QS. The problem with the whole thing now is that they all seem to be under paranoia and any accusation that goes in their direction is seen as an attack on them. They do not want to understand that the world is not just about them. There are people who give a shit on your quarrel (OG, QS, Lauda, etc.). Do you now realize why I had to create an alt account?
Please do understand the response by people who
are in fact subjected to daily troll attacks by known as well as new sockpuppet accounts. You may disdain these ongoing feuds—but the people involved in them
can’t, not when they get spurious attack threads launched against them which sometimes grow to 15 pages in the first day.
If you were to deal with that every day—well, foremost, I think that’s really why you avoid these feuds. Also, why you are using an alt account.
You don’t want to deal with that every day. For if you did, it would eat your time; and you would quite reasonably come to develop some reflexes about an anonymous party hurling about accusations.
Ok, it’s this today.I do think that this is the reason why no action was taken until ibminer tagged Alia and posted in that thread.
For my part, you will observe, I did not enter that thread with a simple “go away, troll” response to you. That was indeed my own initial reflex; and I wrote a post to such effect. The reason why that was never posted was part prudence, part luck: Prudence, insofar as I have developed the habit of checking pertinent trust pages before I post about an issue; and luck, because RGBKey and Joel_Jantsen had tagged Alia.
I didn’t take you seriously, scam_detector. I took RGBKey seriously, because I have interacted with him in Development & Technology Discussion; I know he’s smart, and not a troll. Moreover, his negative was reinforced by the harsh words in Joel_Jantsen’s neutral (since changed to negative).
I slammed on the brakes when I saw that. Then, ibminer posted...
The foregoing is illustrative of why you received the initial response you did, quoted above.
Another problem with that thread
was the way you tied the Alia and aTriz issues together. Being somewhat closer to the situation than you are—I snorted when I saw that. The very
title made it come off like the wacky sorts of accusations heard here daily. Of course, this problem should be solved by the dividing of issues between threads.
Now here, I think it is wise to presume your intent is to state in good faith what you believe to be a meritorious accusation against aTriz.
I think the most reasonable discussion of that would be served by not allowing conflation of spurious issues. In the Alia thread, I identified discussion of
four different issues—two Alia issues (which are here offtopic), and two aTriz issues.
One issue on-topic here,
and (I think) not raised by you anywhere, is the spurious insinuation that aTriz did something wrong by locking in a three-year signature contract with Alia. I think it’s clear, aTriz got scammed—and that’s the long and short of the matter. In the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary,
I would suggest explicitly dismissing this as a frivolous issue so as to focus on the gambling issue.On the gambling issue, it is difficult for me to reach a firm opinion. As I said in the Alia thread, I don’t know enough about gambling to assess this issue. I have trouble following the discussion, since I do not know all the jargon. It would take me hours of reading to even begin to get a handle on the issue, when I am already exhausted (now awake much >24 hours due to this Alia blowup...). I’d be interested in hearing what
unbiased, technically competent persons who know gambling have to say about the matter.
I do think it’s clear that aTriz doesn’t know anything about
scripting on a technical level.
Also, missing from your thread-split OP is the question of
culpability. Somebody who
knowingly promotes a scam is much worse than somebody who is scammed into believing in a scam. When you write this:
First he claims that their method works 100% and now he claims that he does not know how the system works. I have to admit, I also do not know how it works, but after seeing posts from users who apparently knew what they're talking about, I realized there was something shady about her method.
Well, what would you do
without the “users who apparently knew what they’re talking about”? What if
you, scam_detector, with your current level of gambling knowledge, were told by somebody who
seemed knowledgeable that “their method works 100%”, etc.?
You might say that you’d avoid such a situation. That’s easy to say
when you are not in the situation. Now, consider if a scammer has already engendered your trust sufficiently to lock you into long-term contracts with much prepayment. The person is a sort of “rising star”, admired on the forum and apparently well-liked by some technically competent people. That person
apparently shows knowledge superior to yours—then tells you, “this will work 100%”.
Context can be important. Without knowing the technical gambling part or what the script actually did, the best I can guess is: aTriz probably did something at best foolhardy, at worst foolhardy; and he got
scammed.
By keeping focused on a
calm, reasonable examination of what Alia’s script did, gambling-wise—what aTriz knew or should have known about it—and what aTriz did or didn’t do about it, I think the matter can be handled without 25-page flamewars which are 90% off those topics. On my presumption of you’re here, I believe that to be your goal, scam_detector.
I will now mostly defer to people who actually understand gambling issues. Frankly, I myself would like to see this explained. However, unless/until I crash asleep, I will promptly drive a spike through anything which looks like blaming the victim for getting scammed out of a three-year contract, etc. (
That issue, I very well do understand.)
Three letters.
. I had to let it sink first. I did not think a post could change my mind about another person (aTriz), but your post did it. Your post is a perfect example of how to argue conclusively and calmly. After reading your post I feel bad about having brought a very likely innocent person (aTriz) in connection with a scammer (alia) or accusing aTriz to be involved in the scam. I still believe that his actions should have consequences, but no longer think he should be painted red. That would be too harsh a punishment for which he most likely just naive acted. You have just climbed a level in my personal trust level (nullius).
