Discussion about RitzGrandCasino

[hilariousandco]

Thread started by a guy with -6 trust seems legit.

He's a nice neutral Trust: of 0: -0 / +0(0) to everybody else. Love it when people think leaving feedback for people effects their score.

[btcmania]

Thread started by a guy with -6 trust seems legit.

He's a nice neutral Trust: of 0: -0 / +0(0) to everybody else. Love it when people think leaving feedback for people effects their score.

I see -6 which means others have realized he's a loser with too much time on his hands. Countless hours arguing over casinos and Ponzi's... must look good on a resume. Yay!!!!

Hurrrrrr Durrrrrrr.

[hilariousandco]

Thread started by a guy with -6 trust seems legit.

He's a nice neutral Trust: of 0: -0 / +0(0) to everybody else. Love it when people think leaving feedback for people effects their score.

I see -6 which means others have realized he's a loser with too much time on his hands. Countless hours arguing over casinos and Ponzi's... must look good on a resume. Yay!!!!

Hurrrrrr Durrrrrrr.

One negative feedback left doesn't equal one point.

[btcmania]

One negative feedback left doesn't equal one point.

I could care less if one negative feedback means an hour of gay sex with a transsexual midget. It's an internet forum and you guys are getting all butthurt over who runs what sort of Ponzi or casino site. If that's your biggest worry in life, it's time to leave mom's basement.

It's now being abused by people particularly those who threaten to leave negative trust because (not because of a bad trade, not because of a scam) but because they spammed something. I'm quite sure that it wasn't created for spam, that's what a report to moderator function is for. Maybe tomorrow someone will decide I'll leave a negative trust because I don't like this guy's grammar and punctuation.

This is why I think the majority of these anti-gambling campaigners are morons. They cry, spam, cry some more and spam some more and then when they can't get their own way they leave bad trust feedback.

Fucking morons.

[hilariousandco]

One negative feedback left doesn't equal one point.

I could care less if one negative feedback means an hour of gay sex with a transsexual midget. It's an internet forum and you guys are getting all butthurt over who runs what sort of Ponzi or casino site. If that's your biggest worry in life, it's time to leave mom's basement.

It's now being abused by people particularly those who threaten to leave negative trust because (not because of a bad trade, not because of a scam) but because they spammed something. I'm quite sure that it wasn't created for spam, that's what a report to moderator function is for. Maybe tomorrow someone will decide I'll leave a negative trust because I don't like this guy's grammar and punctuation.

This is why I think the majority of these anti-gambling campaigners are morons. They cry, spam, cry some more and spam some more and then when they can't get their own way they leave bad trust feedback.

Fucking morons.

Feedback doesn't really matter if they're not on the trusted list. People will likely just ignore feedback if it's left for silly things and isn't sourced.

[BadBear]

I've seen almost daily new threads or bumps from this guy. Or the threads appear new because they are self moderated and he removes all comments? I think this guy should be suspended from posting for a while and we create a general thread about the site that is not self moderated.

I've seen several complaints along these lines, and looked back through the last 20 pages and only found 3 threads created by him, is there more I'm missing or what? I mean locking an old thread to make a new one is okay, as long as it isn't excessive. I think people are just getting confused because he deletes the old bump and reposts it, which is okay (and encouraged, do you really want to read 10 replies in a row of BUMP?) as long as it isn't an early bump (24 hours).

Can you please update the title of this thread to something like "Official Discussion about Ritz Grand Casino" and we make this thread stay instead of all the new ones he is posting and bumping? Otherwise I will try to create an "official discussion" of this casino so that he's not allowed to create more threads.

Yeah, I'm not going to stop someone from making a thread about his website just because you make one, don't be ridiculous.

[btcmania]

Feedback doesn't really matter if they're not on the trusted list. People will likely just ignore feedback if it's left for silly things and isn't sourced.

You are missing the point.

I acquired my first negative feedback because of nothing to do with trading or scamming people. It was because someone didn't like that I 'defended' Ponzi site operators. In actual fact I have a very long and lengthy article pinned to the Gambling page to caution people about scams. At the same time, I'm open to the idea that some Ponzi sites can exist that reward everyone as long as the players are all aware how the game works. If all donators know how the money pays out, and agree that it is okay, it's not a scam. A scam is when the new money is unaware of the idea they are paying the old money.

So because I chose to allow people to read the facts and decide on their own, I must be pro-Ponzi and must be a scammer.

Then we have the same moron threatening to leave negative trust because of people who are spamming the same content.

It's disturbing when someone takes it upon themselves to target your trust based on the fact you don't agree with them and then because you are spamming (which wasn't me by the way). What if tomorrow I decided I wanted to target people who were pro-casinos and said they encouraged scamming. Then I went and flooded every casino thread with large big red 'SCAM' letters.

OF course logic like this falls on deaf ears. Because I am not a sheeple and because I believe investors can make their own decisions I must be labeled as untrustable.

So I disagree... feedback DOES matter to me, in the sense that it's being misused as a weapon.

[hilariousandco]

No, I see your point, but the feedback is unmoderated and anyone can leave any crap, so it largely doesn't matter. The feedback is essentially worthless from those not on the trusted list. If some whiny bitch wants to leave you negative feedback then there's nothing you can do about it, so I wouldn't let it get to you.

[Carra23]

Have they proved that they are provably fair? There should not be criticism if they have.

How do you even prove it being provably fair?

In the end gamblers go there based on reputation. If they are not playing correctly they will be spooked and leave.

[BadBear]

Feedback doesn't really matter if they're not on the trusted list. People will likely just ignore feedback if it's left for silly things and isn't sourced.

You are missing the point.

I acquired my first negative feedback because of nothing to do with trading or scamming people. It was because someone didn't like that I 'defended' Ponzi site operators. In actual fact I have a very long and lengthy article pinned to the Gambling page to caution people about scams. At the same time, I'm open to the idea that some Ponzi sites can exist that reward everyone as long as the players are all aware how the game works. If all donators know how the money pays out, and agree that it is okay, it's not a scam. A scam is when the new money is unaware of the idea they are paying the old money.

So because I chose to allow people to read the facts and decide on their own, I must be pro-Ponzi and must be a scammer.

Then we have the same moron threatening to leave negative trust because of people who are spamming the same content.

It's disturbing when someone takes it upon themselves to target your trust based on the fact you don't agree with them and then because you are spamming (which wasn't me by the way). What if tomorrow I decided I wanted to target people who were pro-casinos and said they encouraged scamming. Then I went and flooded every casino thread with large big red 'SCAM' letters.

OF course logic like this falls on deaf ears. Because I am not a sheeple and because I believe investors can make their own decisions I must be labeled as untrustable.

So I disagree... feedback DOES matter to me, in the sense that it's being misused as a weapon.

Look at my feedback page if you want a laugh. Even got bad feedback because apparently I moved someone's thread to off topic, and he never even tried to talk to me about it.

[hilariousandco]

Feedback doesn't really matter if they're not on the trusted list. People will likely just ignore feedback if it's left for silly things and isn't sourced.

You are missing the point.

I acquired my first negative feedback because of nothing to do with trading or scamming people. It was because someone didn't like that I 'defended' Ponzi site operators. In actual fact I have a very long and lengthy article pinned to the Gambling page to caution people about scams. At the same time, I'm open to the idea that some Ponzi sites can exist that reward everyone as long as the players are all aware how the game works. If all donators know how the money pays out, and agree that it is okay, it's not a scam. A scam is when the new money is unaware of the idea they are paying the old money.

So because I chose to allow people to read the facts and decide on their own, I must be pro-Ponzi and must be a scammer.

Then we have the same moron threatening to leave negative trust because of people who are spamming the same content.

It's disturbing when someone takes it upon themselves to target your trust based on the fact you don't agree with them and then because you are spamming (which wasn't me by the way). What if tomorrow I decided I wanted to target people who were pro-casinos and said they encouraged scamming. Then I went and flooded every casino thread with large big red 'SCAM' letters.

OF course logic like this falls on deaf ears. Because I am not a sheeple and because I believe investors can make their own decisions I must be labeled as untrustable.

So I disagree... feedback DOES matter to me, in the sense that it's being misused as a weapon.

Look at my feedback page if you want a laugh. Even got bad feedback because apparently I moved someone's thread to off topic, and he never even tried to talk to me about it.

Read mine. For some reason RitzGrandCasino left me negative after I posted this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497570.msg5473608#msg5473608 haha. Never even said anything bad or negative about them prior to him leaving me feedback.

[Kyraishi]

Well I'm so sad , I didn't got any good feedback or negative feedback (dont tag me red! xD) joking..
About the provably fair things, yeah some sites says they 're but they aren't at all.
like coinbet who has removed the provably fair logo since.

[hilariousandco]

Well I'm so sad , I didn't got any good feedback or negative feedback (dont tag me red! xD) joking..
About the provably fair things, yeah some sites says they 're but they aren't at all.
like coinbet who has removed the provably fair logo since.

Well it's honest of them to remove it, but why wouldn't they just make themselves provably fair instead?

[counter]

I don't know how to tell if a sight is provably fair so I try to play games like I would at the casino.  Games that have very low to no house edge.   

[durrrr]

i think all games at the casino have a house edge may be small but all always have house edge.

[jodybay]

i am getting confuse on rbgkey
i mean what's with all the hate bro?
anyway i will try to play on their casino when i get back to my laptop and tell you all guys the result
i will use his free credit 

[rohnearner]

i am getting confuse on rbgkey
i mean what's with all the hate bro?
anyway i will try to play on their casino when i get back to my laptop and tell you all guys the result
i will use his free credit 

even if it is with free credits ,  Best of luck and have success if you made up your mind to pay in ..! and I think The problem b/w rbgkey and RGC is personal, they both said some nasty things to each other..! i'll not judge anyone of them on the basis of what they say about each other..! :p no offense to anyone but I think this thread is more about taking out  frustration on RGC's success . that's my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree ...!

[hilariousandco]

i am getting confuse on rbgkey
i mean what's with all the hate bro?
anyway i will try to play on their casino when i get back to my laptop and tell you all guys the result
i will use his free credit 

even if it is with free credits ,  Best of luck and have success if you made up your mind to pay in ..! and I think The problem b/w rbgkey and RGC is personal, they both said some nasty things to each other..! i'll not judge anyone of them on the basis of what they say about each other..! :p no offense to anyone but I think this thread is more about taking out  frustration on RGC's success . that's my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree ...!

What success? Successfully acting like a child? Ritz has acted childishly and shadily from the start. I doubt this thread would even be here if he acted more professional. I also hope you're not eating your words on the 1st.

[rohnearner]

What success? Successfully acting like a child? Ritz has acted childishly and shadily from the start. I doubt this thread would even be here if he acted more professional. I also hope you're not eating your words on the 1st.

I don't want to be biased, but I think when they started their signature campaign few members here went harsh on them..! and later ended up being a part of the campaign..! We'll see what happens on 1st april.. I'll not say anything which is not in my hands. 

[hilariousandco]

What success? Successfully acting like a child? Ritz has acted childishly and shadily from the start. I doubt this thread would even be here if he acted more professional. I also hope you're not eating your words on the 1st.

I don't want to be biased, but I think when they started their signature campaign few members here went harsh on them..! and later ended up being a part of the campaign..! We'll see what happens on 1st april.. I'll not say anything which is not in my hands. 

By "harsh" I think you mean making reasonable requests to prove legitimacy? The burden of proof is on the casino owners. The last two deals offering more than Stunna scammed everyone of their users by not paying a bitcent out. He actually created the tension himself by acting like a child, deleting reasonable requests and leaving unjust negative feedback.