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

[Poker Player]

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.

I don't think that has been the case here.

[PaperWallet]

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.

Yeah that's so good, that makes it 2 chances per alt, with the merit farming it's a pretty good deal.

And there's someone who's so good, so compassionate, so forgiving, that instead of giving a negative feedback, or a neutral one, gave Royse777 a positive feedback for his scam, on the 8th of last July. Of course, I am talking about the SIR himself, @Hhampuz.

But the fact that Royse777 feels entitled to ask for explanations to others instead of being humble (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408864.msg60699960#msg60699960) does not give me a good picture of her.

This is also true.
So @Royse777, please acknowledge that you've been acting erratically, not only by attacking those who tagged you, gave neutral feedback, or even just were trusting those who tagged you (LOL), but also by not even thanking those who gave you a positive feedback for your recent scam wins! This is disrespectful, and contrary to most basic protocols on this forum.

Instead, you should have given many thanks and respects to the Sir. Below is a good example of what formula to use.

Thank you Sir Hhampuz. … Thanks for the privilege given and opportunity.

[16xypjnxlrew]

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.

You are two in one and a scammer and a defender of a scammer. How can you defend a scammer and at the same time accuse me of a non-existent scam? At least one attempt at scam can be shown to everyone? Or are you bitter that everyone will see how you protect a thief?

[Poker Player]

And there's someone who's so good, so compassionate, so forgiving, that instead of giving a negative feedback, or a neutral one, gave Royse777 a positive feedback for his scam, on the 8th of last July. Of course, I am talking about the SIR himself, @Hhampuz.

Yes, of course. The SIR who is quite a bit more credible than you when it comes to feedbacks. By the way, thanks to this post I realized I hadn't added you to my distrust list yet, so thanks for that.

Apart from what the SIR did, there was another thing that caught my attention: CryptopreneurBrainboss deleted the positive feedback he had left to Royse777 some time ago and republished it exactly the same, the only thing was that when he published it recently it appeared on top of all the neutral feedbacks and the two negative ones due to the Bitlucy case.

This shows that Royse777 had gained empathy over time among people with great reputation in the forum.

[PaperWallet]

Apart from what the SIR did, there was another thing that caught my attention: CryptopreneurBrainboss deleted the positive feedback he had left to Royse777 some time ago and republished it exactly the same, the only thing was that when he published it recently it appeared on top of all the neutral feedbacks and the two negative ones due to the Bitlucy case.

This shows that Royse777 had gained empathy over time among people with great reputation in the forum.

Hahahaha lol. So you've actually shown that another person is also giving positive feedback BECAUSE Royse777 was involved in a scam. And the cattle is proud of their shepherds behaviour.

And as this did catch your attention as you say, don't you want to tag me as well as the SIR did? I have as many red tags as Royse777 has, isn't that unfair in your opinion as well?

[yahoo62278]

And there's someone who's so good, so compassionate, so forgiving, that instead of giving a negative feedback, or a neutral one, gave Royse777 a positive feedback for his scam, on the 8th of last July. Of course, I am talking about the SIR himself, @Hhampuz.

The feedback is correct or at least was, but it was given at a bad time. Prior to the bitlucy drama, Royse was considered a decent person and did help out with charity work. Feedback from Hhampuz and cryptoprenuerboss should have been left well before the bitlucy scam happened. It looks pretty suspect they leave the feedback trying to counter the drama. So timing really is the only issue with the feedback.

[Poker Player]

The feedback is correct or at least was, but it was given at a bad time. Prior to the bitlucy drama, Royse was considered a decent person and did help out with charity work. Feedback from Hhampuz and cryptoprenuerboss should have been left well before the bitlucy scam happened. It looks pretty suspect they leave the feedback trying to counter the drama. So timing really is the only issue with the feedback.

What do you see as suspicious here?

The case of CryptopreneurBrainboss does not surprise me because of what he commented in Butlucy's thread. He had a good idea about Royse777 because of the collaboration they had in the Covid-19 charity. Deleting the old feedback and reposting it, when some of us had already changed the feedback to neutral, seems to me to be an attempt to help restore his reputation.

And in the case of Hhampuz, didn't he end up managing a campaign that was taken away from Royse777?

I don't know, maybe as you are campaign managers you see hidden interests for power or something.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

***

I think the positive feedback was upgraded instead of leaving two separate feedback. Initially when the feedback was left I haven't participated in any signature campaign which Royse was incharge of so that part wasn't there or shoudn't have been there (if what I have now was exactly what was there before but probably not) and for the past few months him and I has crossed path severally in numerous campaigns under his management nevertheless Royse is a very trusted member to me and will always be rated as such. It's unfortunate what happened and hopefully he slowly restore his trust in the community instead of making it worst.

Also I have JollyGood in my custom trust list despite the situation ongoing with them both so if I was trying to push some kind of agenda I would have easily distrusted Jollygood but that's not the case. I'm not letting my trust for Royse cloud my judgement on Jollygood, I see them both as assets to the forum and it'll keep been like that until something goes seriously wrong.

[shasan]

Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

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???

[mindrust]

Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

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???

You cropped the relevant part of my post. The rest of my post was saying that he wasn’t responsible for making the payments. However, I do get your point and you are also right.

I still think Royse is an honest dude. Maybe very unlucky.

Do we need to punish him for being unlucky? Like you said that’s how partnering works… I can’t deny that.

Somehow though it don’t make complete sense to me. Punishing an honest person for something he had no control over.

I am no DT anyway. They know better than me.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

[...]
I have not gone to the story but I felt interested to reply of your comment.

I get this many times from users. If you have not gone to the story then why are you asking generic questions? Why not get the time to read, investigate, understand then ask a question. It then become a good post instead of a random unnecessary post.

[PaperWallet]

Why would he get any red tags? I don't understand.

As I understood from his explanation, He was partnering with bitlucy which failed to make payments

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???

You must be a little far away from what happens regularly on this forum, not surprising since you're basically in the lending business and you only lend to high ranking members who wouldn't dare to scam you under the threat of seeing their accounts tagged, since they're also dealing with another high ranking member.

Although when things come to newbies/average users of this forum, who get to use one of the advertised platforms or services, whether be it a gambling website or other services, very much often they get scammed and the scammers get little to no consequences on the "trust score" of their account.

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.

[yahoo62278]

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.

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.

[examplens]

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.

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.

there is no point in discussing with a troll like PaperWallet. He does not want to accept a different reality than the one in his head, so any further explanation to him is a waste of time.
I'm surprised that the discussion in this thread has taken so long, considering that its primary goal was to crucify one high-ranked member.

[PaperWallet]

The mainstream here doesn't care or ask questions about responsibility/liability, but they're for the most part colluding into giving a pass for each others' scam operations.

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.

there is no point in discussing with a troll like PaperWallet. He does not want to accept a different reality than the one in his head, so any further explanation to him is a waste of time.
I'm surprised that the discussion in this thread has taken so long, considering that its primary goal was to crucify one high-ranked member.

Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402033.msg60348768#msg60348768

[examplens]

Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402033.msg60348768#msg60348768

I have decided not to participate in your stupidity and fabrications without any evidence. Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

btw. I oppose your flag against FortuneJack long before your game with the prize. withdrawing my vote because of your award would be a direct influence on me, which I did not want to allow.
Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

your trust list 14. may while the flag is created 08. may '22

Trust list for: PaperWallet (Trust: +0 / =1 / -1) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h)
Back to index

PaperWallet Trusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW win win win (Trust: awaiting update) (5 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW LoyceV (Trust: +28 / =0 / -0) (9888 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW AlexSimion (Trust: neutral) (110 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW Saisher (Trust: neutral) (32 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW LEVSKI7 (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

PaperWallet Distrusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW ~suchmoon (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (6831 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW ~FortuneJack (Trust: +5 / =3 / -0) (152 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW ~examplens (Trust: +4 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (14) 739 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW ~Sterbens (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (83 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW ~Hhampuz (Trust: +117 / =3 / -1) (3627 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


PaperWallet's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~PaperWallet's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. JollyGood (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1029 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.

[Poker Player]

Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

I distrusted him because of that.

This whole thread is a temper tantrum from someone who does not accept that he has done things wrong and has been punished in terms of trust for it, and who, instead of accepting it and moving on, continues to insist that others be punished to make himself feel less bad.

[PaperWallet]

Said the liar who is ready to sacrifice his honesty for my 1 mBTC lol

Among all of the people I've seen here you're the cheapest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402033.msg60348768#msg60348768

btw. I oppose your flag against FortuneJack long before your game with the prize. withdrawing my vote because of your award would be a direct influence on me, which I did not want to allow.
Obviously, because you immediately added to your distrust list members who oppose it (me, Hhampuz, Sterbens) and as trusted you added trolls like LEVSKI7 just because he supports your flag.

your trust list 14. may while the flag is created 08. may '22

Trust list for: PaperWallet (Trust: +0 / =1 / -1) (18 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2022-05-14_Sat_05.24h)
Back to index

PaperWallet Trusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW win win win (Trust: awaiting update) (5 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW LoyceV (Trust: +28 / =0 / -0) (9888 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW AlexSimion (Trust: neutral) (110 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW Saisher (Trust: neutral) (32 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW LEVSKI7 (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

PaperWallet Distrusts these users' judgement:
1. NEW ~suchmoon (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (6831 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. NEW ~FortuneJack (Trust: +5 / =3 / -0) (152 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. NEW ~examplens (Trust: +4 / =4 / -0) (DT1! (14) 739 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. NEW ~Sterbens (Trust: +0 / =1 / -3) (83 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. NEW ~Hhampuz (Trust: +117 / =3 / -1) (3627 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


PaperWallet's judgement is Trusted by:
-

~PaperWallet's judgement is Distrusted by:
1. JollyGood (Trust: +17 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1029 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.

This is proof of nothing. I distrusted many people, including those who never opposed my flag, like @suchmoon. From where I'm writing I know you're lying (again), and I know that you opposed my flag on the day and after I created the prize, but you pretend to have done so long before the prize (the prize was created on the 22nd of may, the flag was created on the 8th of may).

Not that it's a big deal, cheap bastards are common among "Legendary" and "Hero" members here, and it wouldn't matter because everyone else will defend you anyway if needed like they did to @Royse777.

[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

[yahoo62278]

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.