You are contacting other members with private messages and you telling them to avoid doing business with Royse... that is borderline insane, and your negative feedback for Royse is trust abuse in my oppinion.
I don't 100% agree with negative feedback for Royse777 (though he was definitely evasive about his role in the Casino Critique case), but I don't think Poker Player leaving a neg or starting up this thread constitutes abuse, either. On the other hand, I think everyone who's already familiar with the issues he brought up has already made their judgement and justifying the negative feedback in this way is unnecessary.
These are kind of old issues at this point, no?
I believe this is a classic example for "time heals all wounds" in the sense that we forget what happened.
julerz12 got a negative rating, ok, I agree. He handled funds entrusted to him in an irresponsible manner. But he responds in a trustworthy manner and makes very clear that he wants to pay back the damages he is responsible for. This is not about whether or not it is true what he says, but for as long as he delivers, the arguments against him decrease in meaning and significance.
Royse777 says that she can't make transparent some of the important transactions, people involved, also not some of the chats that happened with trustworthy members of this forum, the list of examples for what she can't do is long.
The chat which was dropped between the alleged boss of Bitlucy and a potential employee (I read it in full) was quite crazy. I can't prove anything, but if this chat actually has any truth value, I really ask myself what role Royse777 actually played in this casino disaster.
It was not a short chat, and this is what not many people (if anybody) read in full. It was hours and hours long.
After all, the intentions and interests of Royse777 in the Bitlucy "business" were obvious: big role in the upper management, use the loyal community to get it off the ground, be a stakeholder and yes, also a shareholder '(self-admitted) at the same time: win win for? ...... Royse777. A shareholder who never warned the community, the "beloved" community, that payouts aren't happening anymore while allowing for deposits, who is that kind of person?
If Hhampuz ran a casino, not making clear what his/her own role was, and totally crashed it to the ground, than saying that making chats public and transactions public is not possible for security reasons, who would Hhampuz be these days? Taking on a stakeholder AND shareholder role comes with additional risk.
In my humble opinion, that was pretty evil.
If Royse777 earns her way back by living up to promises and contracts, I am all for it. But I get the feeling that the truth gets out of sight just because time is running by.
There are people trying to solve problems by fostering transparency or by letting actions speak for themselves (compensate for damages), and there are people who keep going, hoping for time to heal all wounds.
Royse777 may have her community, and that still might be an asset to her, but from my point of view, someone trying to proactively remedy a certain problematic situation should still deserve the benefit of the doubt while someone hiding behind "I can't be transparent for security reasons" should perhaps be in a less favorable situation unless the vaaaast majority of the community agrees that there is substance or could be substance to that claim.
I am not ruling out that there might be substance to her claim, but proof has never been provided.
I do get Poker Players point. Everyone here talks about politics and how equal everything should be. But in the end, 99% of the members know how all of this works. I am in no way connected to Poker Player, have never been, but I truly understand his rant.
