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

[eddie13]

No, the vast majority of “trusted” users here don’t scam, but I would say many many bend their ethics a bit here and there to comply with some of the more heavy hitter “trusted” members for reasons of gaming the system, including getting accepted in signature campaigns, hopes of being or staying included on others trust lists to climb the ladder, and generally to get in the good side, or not get in the bad side of other powerful users..

Not scamming necessarily, but maybe not speaking out against other certain users or projects, and/or swapping +trust or inclusions with others they don’t really really trust or agree with just in effort to climb the ladder themselves..


I really hate what’s happened to Royse, but shit happens when you cross into the side of trying to make money..
Many times I see users bend their ethics and ignore this or that in order to get or keep up their gig..

The dynamic around campaign managers here is also terrible because everyone wants to suck up to them for sig spots and DT ladder climbing purposes, even when they obviously do shady and unethical shit..
They kindof get away with murder because of this..

Don’t really want to increase the drama around this Royse situation, but their are quite a few pots calling the kettle black here revolving around this situation..

Campaign/bounty management is dirty business..

[PaperWallet]

No, the vast majority of “trusted” users here don’t scam [...] necessarily, but maybe not speaking out against other certain users or projects, and/or swapping +trust or inclusions with others they don’t really really trust or agree with just in effort to climb the ladder themselves..

Thank you eddie13, you've answered multiple questions that were asked by members above, on what I meant by "Scam is the bottom line of livelihood of many "trusted" members here".

The deed is done, and Royse777 has already gotten that which he deserved

Ok thks for pointing that out, because this is what I want to show: Encouraging, getting involved in, and owning a scam organisation, is ok for the vast majority on this forum, which reflects itself on the trust system score.

It is ok because, if you've made some fair trades and deals in the past, so you've been honest to some extent, you get a green light to scam at least once on this forum.

I'm just making a summary of the general thought on this forum, and taking this case as a specific example.

[DaveF]

...
Campaign/bounty management is dirty business..

It's a fine line but I think bounty management is a dirty business. Campaign management MAY be a dirty business depending on how it's done.
As a rule bounties are paid long after weeks of work are done with tokens / coins that may or may not ever be worth anything.
Campaigns tend to (not always see the 777coin and others) be paid a few days after the week is up so it's usually more evident a lot more quickly if something funky is going on.

The other issue is that people don't tend to look. And I will stand sit here and fully admit that I am in that group. Royse777 reached out to me and asked if I wanted to wear the avatar and I said sure. (1) it was not that much money so even if I didn't get paid it would not matter followed by (2) I was not doing anything with my avatar at that moment and (3) I had dealings with him before so I didn't think much about it. Same with you eddie if you said wear this for $20 I probably would because (1) it's not much. (2) I'm still not doing anything with my avatar and (3) we have had dealings before and you did what you said you would.

So it then comes down to disclosure. Royce did not tell me in the message that he was involved with the casino. On the same note, I didn't ask or look.

So, if you came to me before this happened, yes I would probably not look or check. Now.....

As for the red tags I don't think he is going to get anymore.

I was going to let this entire thing go without comment, but have gotten some pokes from people because I was wearing the avatar. So for those people who have poked me with an obvious agenda, here is your post. And no I will not tag him.

-Dave

[JollyGood]

If your general thought on the forum is shared by a wider audience then it portrays the forum in a very bad light. I hope others do not see it as bad because the past positive conduct of someone cannot negate the negligence and scam of the present. Royse777 seems to have go off very lightly in this very serious matter.

I think there might be a few more red tags from users here and there as they discover threads about the Royse777/Bitlucy scam but most probably other DT members will not tag red otherwise it would have been done by now.

The deed is done, and Royse777 has already gotten that which he deserved

Ok thks for pointing that out, because this is what I want to show: Encouraging, getting involved in, and owning a scam organisation, is ok for the vast majority on this forum, which reflects itself on the trust system score.

It is ok because, if you've made some fair trades and deals in the past, so you've been honest to some extent, you get a green light to scam at least once on this forum.

I'm just making a summary of the general thought on this forum, and taking this case as a specific example.

[PaperWallet]

If your general thought on the forum is shared by a wider audience then it portrays the forum in a very bad light.

The "light", in some way, doesn't matter. A crime is a crime whether it's done in dark or in broad light, whether a lot of people talk about it or no one cares.

I hope others do not see it as bad because the past positive conduct of someone cannot negate the negligence and scam of the present.

It depends on what you call  "positive" conduct. I believe this means fair trades. It's not like he's a big donor or he's so much useful to the community in some other way. That's what normal decent people should do. It does not entitle them to scam other people, who by the way may have never benefited from his previous "services" anyway.

I think there might be a few more red tags from users here and there as they discover threads about the Royse777/Bitlucy scam but most probably other DT members will not tag red otherwise it would have been done by now.

I have to agree.

[DireWolfM14]

If your general thought on the forum is shared by a wider audience then it portrays the forum in a very bad light.

The "light", in some way, doesn't matter. A crime is a crime whether it's done in dark or in broad light, whether a lot of people talk about it or no one cares.

Tolerance, rationality, and forgiveness can be very desirable attributes of a community.  Thuggish behavior from established members can also paint a community in a bad light.

I hope others do not see it as bad because the past positive conduct of someone cannot negate the negligence and scam of the present.

It depends on what you call  "positive" conduct. I believe this means fair trades. It's not like he's a big donor or he's so much useful to the community in some other way. That's what normal decent people should do. It does not entitle them to scam other people, who by the way may have never benefited from his previous "services" anyway.

This happens in real life all the time, because real people are not vampires.  The courts often take previous criminal history into account when determining adequate punishment.  Justice isn't only about punishment and retribution, it requires understanding, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness.

I think there might be a few more red tags from users here and there as they discover threads about the Royse777/Bitlucy scam but most probably other DT members will not tag red otherwise it would have been done by now.

I have to agree.

No, that won't happen.  Not for this, anyway.  I predict that the two remaining DT tags on Royse777's wall will largely go ignored.  One is from JigglyGoods, THE Trust System Spammer; the other from a newbie who uses the slightest drama to demonize those involved with casinos that don't subscribe to his service.  Both are transparently ridiculous.

[JollyGood]

The "light", in some way, doesn't matter. A crime is a crime whether it's done in dark or in broad light, whether a lot of people talk about it or no one cares.

I agree.

It depends on what you call  "positive" conduct. I believe this means fair trades. It's not like he's a big donor or he's so much useful to the community in some other way. That's what normal decent people should do. It does not entitle them to scam other people, who by the way may have never benefited from his previous "services" anyway.

I was referring to possible positive contributions to the forum such as quality posts but it was not limited to Royse777/Bitlucy, it was supposed to be generic. What one of the useless trolls in the forum might deem to be positive contributions by another user, could be deemed to be spamming or nonsense by me.

Either way, I agree, nobody has a right has right to scam anybody and quite simply a scam is a scam.

[PaperWallet]

I was referring to possible positive contributions to the forum such as quality posts but it was not limited to Royse777/Bitlucy, it was supposed to be generic. What one of the useless trolls in the forum might deem to be positive contributions by another user, could be deemed to be spamming or nonsense by me.
Either way, I agree, nobody has a right has right to scam anybody and quite simply a scam is a scam.

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

On the other hand, I've seen you write at some point "this community means so much to me". I also foresee at some point, in my opinion, if you continue down this path, the community members will put out of business here, or at least diminish your rank significantly. Already some members are talking about you being "booted out of the list of DT members".

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted out at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.
The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

[decodx]

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

Those aren't the words JollyGood said, and you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Give at least one example of a member who was left without consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer.

On the other hand, I've seen you write at some point "this community means so much to me". I also foresee at some point, in my opinion, if you continue down this path, the community members will put out of business here, or at least diminish your rank significantly. Already some members are talking about you being "booted out of the list of DT members".

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.

Since rank is earned through activity and merits, the community cannot diminish anyone's rank here. JollyGood being "booted out of DT1" won't stop him from doing what he does for this community, even if it does happen. Just my opinion.

The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

[logfiles]

The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Of course, the “bunch of thieves” he keeps referring to are those DT members who didn't support his paid flag against fortunejack and also didn't fulfill his wet dream fantasy of raining 30+ negs on Royse's profile.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The dynamic around campaign managers here is also terrible because everyone wants to suck up to them for sig spots and DT ladder climbing purposes

I don't visit the Services section or the bounty one, so I haven't noticed that first hand--but I don't doubt for a minute that members do kiss mucho ass so they can keep their spot in whatever thing they're involved with. 

As far as DT ladder climbing goes, I'm not sure exactly who's doing that but I know for a fact that it's much easier to do with the rotating system as opposed to the way it used to be, i.e., nearly impossible to even get on DT2 because getting the requisite DT1 inclusions was hard and often met with resistance from opposing DT1 members.  Things just ain't what they used to be.

Don’t really want to increase the drama around this Royse situation, but their are quite a few pots calling the kettle black here revolving around this situation..

I'm starting to get the impression that Royse777 might be doing things for money that he otherwise might not do.  He's sent me two PMs so far, asking me to communicate off-forum for something he's doing, and he hasn't replied to my last PM to him a couple of days ago.  It could be legit, whatever it is, but I'm just getting a funny feeling about it now that there's all this drama surrounding him.

And yeah, nobody here is perfect, and if you can point out a saint active on the forum I'll throw myself down in front of the cathedral of Theymos and immolate myself until you can make a tasty kebab out of what's left of me.  Bring ketchup.

[Poker Player]

No, that won't happen.  Not for this, anyway.  I predict that the two remaining DT tags on Royse777's wall will largely go ignored.  One is from JigglyGoods, THE Trust System Spammer; the other from a newbie who uses the slightest drama to demonize those involved with casinos that don't subscribe to his service.  Both are transparently ridiculous.

The other red tag is by efialtis. I don't know if you can't see his feedback because of your custom trust list, but he is in DT1, and he has left two positive feedbacks to you.

He was one of those who heasitated a lot before giving negative feedback, giving Royse777 time, despite having clearly stated in the Bitlucy thread that it was a scam.

I think it's good that the community knows how to forgive and give a second chance to someone who has a good previous reputation in the forum. But the fact that Royse777 feels entitled to ask for explanations to others instead of being humble does not give me a good picture of her.

I'm starting to get the impression that Royse777 might be doing things for money that he otherwise might not do.  He's sent me two PMs so far, asking me to communicate off-forum for something he's doing, and he hasn't replied to my last PM to him a couple of days ago.  It could be legit, whatever it is, but I'm just getting a funny feeling about it now that there's all this drama surrounding him.

I bet she has sent a lot of PMs. You haven't been the only one.

[PaperWallet]

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

Those aren't the words JollyGood said, and you're making assumptions without any basis in fact. Give at least one example of a member who was left without consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer.

So you're quoting me to say "this is not what JollyGood said". Pretty funny.

"one example of a member who was left without any consequences on his bitcointalk account after being proven to be a scammer": @FortuneJack: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368279.0
Another example who did not get any significant consequences on his Bitcointalk account: @Royse777

On the other hand, I've seen you write at some point "this community means so much to me". I also foresee at some point, in my opinion, if you continue down this path, the community members will put out of business here, or at least diminish your rank significantly. Already some members are talking about you being "booted out of the list of DT members".

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.

Since rank is earned through activity and merits, the community cannot diminish anyone's rank here. JollyGood being "booted out of DT1" won't stop him from doing what he does for this community, even if it does happen. Just my opinion.

You are correct about the rank. What I meant is he's going to have the functionality of his account significantly reduced. What good is it to have a Lengendary account while having double digits negative red tags?

I was just trying to warn JollyGood to be prepared mentally for such a scenario, given he's got a significant attachement to this community. I wouldn't pretend to know how much likely is that to happen, but I can see it very much possible the gang giving him -15 red tags overnight if other incidents like this one were to happen. Or maybe easier he'll be removed from DT which would be a shame given his contributions.

The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

logfiles has answered your question:

The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

In my opinion, this is a bullshit comment. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Of course, the “bunch of thieves” he keeps referring to are those DT members who didn't support his paid flag against fortunejack and also didn't fulfill his wet dream fantasy of raining 30+ negs on Royse's profile.

Except I don't have any "wet dream fantasy", I haven't been impacted by Royse777 anyway, and I don't personally care. I am just showing the Royse777 case as an example of accepted behaviour on this forum.

[JollyGood]

Yes so in this case quality posts in certain discussions on this forum is a green light for scamming forum visitors without any repercussions. That's what the community here has decided. The more quality posts you have, the bigger potential scammer you are without consequences for your Bitcointalk account.

Unfortunately that is what seems to be case because quite clearly instead of the Royse777 account being painted with red tags from members across the forum she was given a major reprieve with red tags changed to neutral or not have any tags at all.

A scam took place, that cannot be denied. It is accurate a campaign manager used their reputation in the forum as leverage to negotiate part ownership of a scam casino but did not fully explain what happened and did not even apologise with sincerity and has the belief she is above others in this forum.

I see you've contributed hugely to the community during the last five years and you might have some sort of attachment to it. Just be prepared mentally to get booted out at some point if you think your integrity is more important than your rank or financial gains in this forum.
The reality of the matter is you're in a group dominated by a bunch of thieves, and being inflexible in front of scams is nothing else but a disturbing sound to hear for most.

I would counter that view by saying that not all of them are thieves that are inflexible in front of scams but some have conducted themselves in a highly questionable manner. Some have managed to get on to DT with their own agenda but as far as my integrity is concerned it is far more important to me than my rank or financial gain.

I think I made over 10,000 posts before joining my first signature campaign therefore it demonstrates finances were not the driving force. Over the past 5 years or so I feel have contributed positively in some small way in the forum and will continue, I am not bothered by the cliques here.

I think it's good that the community knows how to forgive and give a second chance to someone who has a good previous reputation in the forum. But the fact that Royse777 feels entitled to ask for explanations to others instead of being humble does not give me a good picture of her.

I think it is less to do with forgiveness and more to do with a concerted effort trying to have the red tags avoided, or red tags removed or having them revised. The reason Royse777 feels entitled to ask others for explanations is because she has a bloated self-opinion at odds with humility and humbleness.

Royse777 did not even genuinely apologise for her part in the Royse777/Bitlucy scam therefore has no humility on the contrary feels superior to others.

I bet she has sent a lot of PMs. You haven't been the only one.

Definitely  

[16xypjnxlrew]

Thank you for exposing two scammers - Royse777, DireWolfM14. Now this scammer has 3 flags, I hope there will be more!

[Poker Player]

Thank you for exposing two scammers - Royse777, DireWolfM14. Now this scammer has 3 flags, I hope there will be more!

Activity: 322
Merit: 0
8 negative tags by DT members.
A flag overwhelmingly supported.

Do you really expect anyone at all to believe you?

In the case of Royse777 it could be more credible because of his involvement in the Bitlucy case, but DireWolfM14? You calling him a scammer just makes me laugh.

[16xypjnxlrew]

Activity: 322
Merit: 0
8 negative tags by DT members.
A flag overwhelmingly supported.

Do you really expect anyone at all to believe you?

In the case of Royse777 it could be more credible because of his involvement in the Bitlucy case, but DireWolfM14? You calling him a scammer just makes me laugh.

What do you want to say by citing activity, merits, negative tags and flags as an example? Did you read what these red flags were about or were you scared when you saw them? How can you not believe the facts? But DireWolfM14 asks to forgive the scammer Royse777, while accusing me of a non-existent scam

[FatFork]

What do you want to say by citing activity, merits, negative tags and flags as an example?

I can only speculate, but he probably means that you are not to be trusted. Based on the negative trust ratings you recently left for other forum members, I tend to agree with him.

[16xypjnxlrew]

I can only speculate, but he probably means that you are not to be trusted. Based on the negative trust ratings you recently left for other forum members, I tend to agree with him.

You advertise a scam casino, and for this you received a negative trust. What's wrong with your negative trust?

[DireWolfM14]

~

I like efialtis, I think he's a really good dude.  But at times I think his judgement on these issues can be a bit skewed.  It's not the first time that I've suspected him of having a conflict of interest when it comes to drama involving casinos.  Just my opinion.

Thank you for exposing two scammers - Royse777, DireWolfM14. Now this scammer has 3 flags, I hope there will be more!

So, am I scammer or a defender of a scammer?  Make up your mind, already.  But, if you're going to call me a scammer then provide proof.  You wouldn't want anyone to think that you're just bitter because I've exposed your scam attempts.