How many red tags is the scammer Royse777 going to get?

[DaveF]

...Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.

The only thing that I will say to that is that *I* have done it (not here). For a while I had a friend in Poland who worked in a salvage yard who had access to some automotive parts that people here in the US wanted.

I wanted to help and make some money so I started an new account, on the Audi / VW forum. I was well known there as me and even helped run some events so I probably could have mode more $$$ had I let people know who the other account was.

But I wanted NOBODY to know who I was with the other account. Didn't need or want the hassle, didn't need the cross over crap (You said these ABS modules are junk why are you selling them?) and so on. DaveF was DaveF and PartMover2000 had nothing to do with him. Could see the same thing here even before the BitLucy, i.e. you said this casino was good and now I have having "X" problem with it, why don't you fix it?

Full disclosure, Royse777 did contact me to do some work, and I was gong to do it, just never had the time. Money was never discussed.


-Dave

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

So you were wrong

You don't care anything at all, do you? You are against everything on the forum. Why don't you make your own platform and cry there?

[PaperWallet]

You may start a new campaign and offer rewards again. We can request Royse777 to escrow the reward. 🤣

Lol
OP is pissed he didn't get the supported he hoped for in his many posts about FortuneJack.

To answer OP's question: I think the DT-members who wanted to tag Royse777 have done it by now.

So you were wrong

I don't think they were wrong really. We all were trying to give Royse the benefit of doubt. Most don't feel like they were out to intentionally scam and were actually scammed themselves. Given their previous reputation we wanted to "give a pass" so to speak. Some of us had more questions we wanted answered, partially to get the whole truth and partially to see if there was anything left out, but it wasn't intended to be an all out attack. The way some things were answered with massive attitude or with a hint of keeping secrets just made more questions come up.

Bottom line, do we think Royse is a scammer in the sense he/she would steal your money? I honestly want to say no, but all this hiding and trying to collect money for casino critique while hiding whom you actually are makes me want to rethink that. Why not be honest? I'm not gonna tag them, but I do not fully trust them and haven't since the whole drama started. I think I was justified to add them to my ~list.

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then

[JollyGood]

I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment. Why partner stands for??? Is it only to take the share of the profit? Partner has no liability for the business/customer/user? I think all the partner should have same responsibility if there happen any scam. If we can take the share of the profit then why we will stay away from the liability/responsibility???

I agree with your views. Royse777 overstepped that fine line between using her forum reputation as leverage to gain a percentage ownership of the Bitlucy website. She was contributing to several aspects of Bitlucy including running their bounty and signature campaigns in lieu of being part-owner and holding the post of Marketing Director.

At the time I was disappointed DT members did not apply negative tags in large numbers and several red tags were revised to neutral after a lot of PMs were being sent around.

None of us want to see companies scam other users. People earn their bitcoin and do not deserve to be robbed of it. The DT are also not handing out passes to users unless a story makes sense and the user in question has shown they have character and morals vs likely to scam or rob.

If you'll notice, I was 1 of the 1st to tag Royse until I felt comfortable with some answers to questions. I was not in favor of some of the attitude I felt in some responses, but ultimately I felt Royse was not the person trying to scam anyone and was in fact scammed themselves. If Royse was a newbie here and had not proven themselves in the eyes of the community, then they likely would have been tagged by multiple DT with no questions asked.

You raise a valid point, still the fact the whole debacle happened and Royse777 did not blow the whistle at the first opportunity (instead allowing it to carry on before finally coming clean well in the knowledge the delay in coming forward would have potentially have created more victims), was gross negligence. On that basis how many people can actually trust Royse777 whether the intent to scam was there or not and how does a neutral tag suffice in a situation such as this where abandonment of basic duty was at the forefront of the issues?

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then

Which new elements have emerged, can you elaborate?

[DVlog]

Royse777 I know is an honest person. People can change in time or make mistakes but I don't see a big deal here.

I also saw him for a while. I can not dishonor his contribution to this forum. He already mentioned what happened and his answers seem acceptable to me. It feels bad when we see such a dedicated person lose his hard-earned trust and reputation damaged because of one company.

[JollyGood]

With all that said and done, in response to the OP I guess the answer is: Royse777 will probably receive no more or not many tags because of the time elapsed.

Royse777 I know is an honest person. People can change in time or make mistakes but I don't see a big deal here.

I also saw him for a while. I can not dishonor his contribution to this forum. He already mentioned what happened and his answers seem acceptable to me. It feels bad when we see such a dedicated person lose his hard-earned trust and reputation damaged because of one company.

[PaperWallet]

I understand. So the new tags were not really about the BitLucy scam and do not count towards the number of tags mentioned in the question of this thread.
So viewed this way yes LoyceV was not in fact wrong, because new elements have emerged since then

Which new elements have emerged, can you elaborate?

The collection of money for CasinoCritique and its somewhat not so straightforward ways.
I was saying to LoyceV he was wrong since he said that Royse777 will no longer receive any new red tags, since he received one more DT red tag after LoyceV statement. Although the red tag came after outing CasinoCritique, so it might not have been related exactly to the BitLucy scam. This is all there is to it.