Can you still believe aTriz words? Reopened, too many open questions

[Rakeshdobar1]

Surprisingly, aTriz denied the few sexual advances I made. He's just a nice chap. I didn't cam him, as much as I would have liked to

Edit: OP lied (saying that I have scammed people and insinuating that I will scam more), and instead of letting me reply, locked the thread instantly. Take his words with a grain of salt because he has been proven to be a manipulative liar.

 
Others who are on the cam seeing you cumming are bad people??  
Fingering? Cumming?? Why not killing people for Money mBTC.

I am not against Atriz but i believe that few group of people are using DT system to fuck this forum for their ego.
Remove only one person from DT and everything will be normal as back when neither QS was here nor Lauda was Notable.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Alia you are not the topic here! Open a thread in the off-topic area.

I wasn't talking to you, shitbag. Your whole life should be in the off-topic section, imho.

And now the true colours start to show.

[alia]

Alia you are not the topic here! Open a thread in the off-topic area.

I wasn't talking to you, shitbag. Your whole life should be in the off-topic section, imho.

And now the true colours start to show.

Sorry for the harshness... not a fan of dumb people saying dumb stuff.

[scam_detector]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

[alia]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

Yeah, because fuck reason and logic! To hell with all of that!

[o_e_l_e_o]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion.

[alia]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion.

Exactly my point. It seemed like he wanted to get the last word in, and cut off the dialogue without any chance of a rebuttal. Cute move, but it clearly didn't work

[Quickseller]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion.

The other thread really should remain open until there is a resolution which has clearly not happened.

[JayJuanGee]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion.

Exactly my point. It seemed like he wanted to get the last word in, and cut off the dialogue without any chance of a rebuttal. Cute move, but it clearly didn't work

Actually, even though I believe Alia is not really helping her case, I do agree with the point that the other thread should not have been locked during the ongoing discussion, and that topic should not have to move to another thread in order to continue  - even though it does seem fair enough to open this new thread.

[alia]

Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.

To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion.

Exactly my point. It seemed like he wanted to get the last word in, and cut off the dialogue without any chance of a rebuttal. Cute move, but it clearly didn't work

Actually, even though I believe Alia is not really helping her case, I do agree with the point that the other thread should not have been locked during the ongoing discussion, and that topic should not have to move to another thread in order to continue  - even though it does seem fair enough to open this new thread.

Feels like I was just a stepping stone, and OP's real targets are Lauda and aTriz, as his main account mdayonliner show. Anyway, I'm off to bed, let's hope I wake up to some more good drama that I can debunk.

[scam_detector]

If you really want, then I open the thread again. You will end up where you started again. The discussion has not progressed for a few pages. 

[JayJuanGee]

If you really want, then I open the thread again. You will end up where you started again. The discussion has not progressed for a few pages. 

I think that you gotta let some of that nonsense play out for a while.  There had been still some new quasi-topical revelations there, even though sometimes a bit painful, too.

[tmfp]

I suggested to scam detector that he should think about locking his other thread, as and when he believed that the substantive points had been made.
If only other thread starters would do the same.
Out of the last 24 posts, 16 were personal alia/nullius recriminations, and her/his/its other recent responses were just abuse or drivel.
The alia account is effectively dead, just a noisy twitching corpse now.


It was an unpleasant surprise to see someone who appeared to be level headed like aTriz, making the errors of judgement he has made in vouching for a gambling script and pre paying a large signature deal with a newbie, based on a 'contract' apparently scribbled on the back of an envelope.

[Wendigo]

This shit is fucking hilarious really. Just do a search for the real name of revcback and you would find an interesting interview. There is a sibling indeed

[ibminer]

It is disappointing(concerning?) that a 1 month old e-whore account would have gotten a 5 month upfront payment from aTriz on a 3 year contract with a clause stating that red trust doesn't matter.  Maybe it is because I'm not active in the campaign management business but this seems highly irrational to me?     I'm curious to hear more from aTriz on this.

I also want to note: Without knowing who the OP is nor what potential ulterior motives they may or may not have, I have avoided responding directly to whoever it is. I'm just looking for evidence and/or verifiable information.

EDIT: Fixed for clarification. I misunderstood a post done by aTriz relating to the "red trust clause" mentioned above. Actual contract is here which came with a 5 month upfront payment.

[Lauda]

It is disappointing(concerning?) that a Jr. Member e-whore would have gotten a 5 month upfront payment from aTriz on a 3 year contract with a clause stating that red trust doesn't matter.  

That is not correct I believe. There is no clause addressing a potential trust rating of any kind; there are also no clauses addressing other potential *situations*

Maybe it is because I'm not active in the campaign management business but this seems highly irrational to me?    

Campaign management has nothing to do with striking private (custom) advertising deals. In campaign management, negative trust of members is usually a no-go. Yes, the deal was very vague and obviously a mistake on his end (hindsight is 10/10 as always).

[Quickseller]

I suggested to scam detector that he should think about locking his other thread, as and when he believed that the substantive points had been made.
If only other thread starters would do the same.
Out of the last 24 posts, 16 were personal alia/nullius recriminations, and her/his/its other recent responses were just abuse or drivel.
The alia account is effectively dead, just a noisy twitching corpse now.

The accused have the right to defend themselves no matter how clear it is they are a scammer and no matter how bad continuing to respond makes them look. Unless the OP wants to admit he was wrong about alia (it is fairly clear to me he was not), the thread should remain open.

The separate thread about aTriz is appropriate as comments about him seem to pretty quickly get buried, perhaps this was intentional...

[ibminer]

It is disappointing(concerning?) that a Jr. Member e-whore would have gotten a 5 month upfront payment from aTriz on a 3 year contract with a clause stating that red trust doesn't matter.  

That is not correct I believe. There is no clause addressing a potential trust rating of any kind; there are also no clauses addresses other potential *situations*

I'm going based off of what aTriz stated himself here:

Do you get your money back if she gets negative trust?

Nope I don't that was in the contract. Technically the contract means I have to buy her sig for 3 years, correct?

..which sounds like there was a clause in the contract exempting this user from negative trust and allowing them to continue in the campaign regardless of what negative trust they get.

Maybe it is because I'm not active in the campaign management business but this seems highly irrational to me?    

Campaign management has nothing to do with striking private (custom) advertising deals. In campaign management, negative trust of members is usually a no-go.

I guess I can separate the two as a publicly run signature campaign and a privately run signature campaign, but in either case, why would a private advertising deal on this forum include a clause allowing the user to get red trust and still be paid for advertising?

UPDATE:

Again, there is no clause at all let alone one exempting someone from negative trust. Read the actual contract: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3017111.msg31023940#msg31023940.

Thanks, I did not realize the private deal was publicly posted  I'm not quite sure what aTriz meant with his post then?

[Lauda]

..which sounds like there was a clause in the contract exempting this user from negative trust and allowing them to continue in the campaign regardless of what negative trust they get.

-snip-
I guess I can separate the two as a publicly run signature campaign and a privately run signature campaign, but in either case, why would a private advertising deal on this forum include a clause allowing the user to get red trust and still be paid for advertising?

Again, there is no clause at all let alone one exempting someone from negative trust. Read the actual contract: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3017111.msg31023940#msg31023940.

aTriz and I are going into a 3-year contract for my signature space. The terms are as follows:

- - I will post anywhere from 30 to 100 posts monthly on bitcointalk
- - By the end of the three year term, I will be a Legendary member
- - For the whole term, a signature of his choice will be in my signature space

If any of these terms are not met, aTriz has no obligation to continue payments, and I will refund him the total paid amount.

The total payment amount is 1.1 BTC, locked in at a rate of 12741.75 SGD per coin (9654.30 USD).
The payments will be done in BTC, but BTC will simply act as a payment method - the value will be pegged to the SGD amount, the total being 14015.93 SGD.

A monthly payment of (14015.93/36 = 389.33) SGD will be made (~294 USD, for reference). This will be converted and paid in BTC according to the preev.com BTC to SGD rate on the last day of every month.

[Quickseller]

The question of negative trust is not addressed in the contact that aTriz agreed to and confirmed. The terms were 30-100 posts/month with alia wearing the signature of aTriz’s choice in exchange for ~$400 per month.

Looking at the terms of the contract, I don’t see any reason why aTriz should be able to back out of paying alia.