"Learn Bitcoin" is silent when farmed account queries are raised

[mindrust]

He is 100% not the original creator/owner of the (Royse777 account that later was renamed as the) AB de Royse777 account.

It's not the only established and even highly trusted account that wasn't created by the original owner. I've seen at least one account that reached DT1 despite being bought years earlier, and wasn't tagged for it. But there was no need to tag him either.
I've seen another account that received many red tags after being found out, without any other reason for not being trusted. So I get that he doesn't want to answer the question if the answer is yes.

That’s a big inconsistency we have there.

If rules are rules, why don’t both of those accounts get the same treatment from the dt?

One might say, “the dude who bought his account is acting nice and honest. What if he bought his acc, i never saw him scamming anybody, he is as trustworthy as one can get. No need to tag him just because he bought his acc.”

Then the other might say the same thing for god of thunder

“What if he started a new account even though he was a liar and a scammer in his previous life in the forum? He is as decent as one can get now. Imma neva saw him scammin anybodie. He managed many siggy camps successfully. Let the admin decide if he should be banned.”

So… we have 2 acc buyers in that example. One is getting tagged and while the other isn’t. Both never scammed anybody. Both never showed any signs of a scammer. That’s no good. Stuff like that make dt’s ratings also questionable.

I am not saying GoT or the other account buyer that seems to be a nice guy which we don’t know his forum name should be tagged or not but some consistency would be nice to have.

[Satofan44]

That’s a big inconsistency we have there.

If rules are rules, why don’t both of those accounts get the same treatment from the dt?

One might say, “the dude who bought his account is acting nice and honest. What if he bought his acc, i never saw him scamming anybody, he is as trustworthy as one can get. No need to tag him just because he bought his acc.”

Then the other might say the same thing for god of thunder

“What if he started a new account even though he was a liar and a scammer in his previous life in the forum? He is as decent as one can get now. Imma neva saw him scammin anybodie. He managed many siggy camps successfully. Let the admin decide if he should be banned.”

So… we have 2 acc buyers in that example. One is getting tagged and while the other isn’t. Both never scammed anybody. Both never showed any signs of a scammer. That’s no good.

I am not saying GoT or the other account buyer that seems to be a nice guy which we don’t know his forum name should be tagged or not but some consistency would be nice to have.

It is inconsistent, there are many other inconsistencies here. The primary reason is that AB de Royse777 told a good narrative, complete fabrication and lies, but nevertheless he told one. Many DT members also have a financial incentive to believe him. Meanwhile, GoT didn't even put in the effort to come up with a story.

Stuff like that make dt’s ratings also questionable.

Generally DT members should not be allowed to give positive feedback to those that pay them, neither should campaign managers be allowed to create false vouches for each other. All those ratings are worthless. Those would be basic ethics, but there are no ethics rules or guidelines here -- and this leads to corruption and all sort of inconsistencies. That said, nobody wants to put in the work to try to change this DT system.  So we are stuck with the status quo. I'm looking at you Laura and many others.

All bought accounts should received negative feedback, it does not really matter how they behave with the acquired accounts. That is the most effective measure against that behavior. Harm mitigation can be effective, but when stupid stuff is considered you have bad rules or inconsistencies. For example, someone would say that it should not be done because that 1 in 10000 account buyers may not do something shady with it.  

[God Of Thunder]

You're making things needlessly complicated. Nobody is gonna ask you for KYC, nobody is gonna go off-forum and ask so-and-so about this-and-that to see if you're lying or not. You're just sitting here lying your ass off with a straight face.

Nobody said anything about Discord. But you were obviously using the same Twitter account as naim027, because you posted the same personal BSC address there that you did here. This is because you're the same person. That is the most direct and likely explanation.

Ok. That's the last straw. I've had it up to here. I no longer see any reason to respond to this thread. You already made up your mind, and I don't see that changing. I expected a minimum of respect from a member like you, as I believe I have shown the same. But you are talking to me as if you have some personal issues with me. Don't take things personally. You wanna piece of me?

Can't complain, I know the community.

[Satofan44]

You're making things needlessly complicated. Nobody is gonna ask you for KYC, nobody is gonna go off-forum and ask so-and-so about this-and-that to see if you're lying or not. You're just sitting here lying your ass off with a straight face.

Nobody said anything about Discord. But you were obviously using the same Twitter account as naim027, because you posted the same personal BSC address there that you did here. This is because you're the same person. That is the most direct and likely explanation.

Ok. That's the last straw. I've had it up to here. I no longer see any reason to respond to this thread. You already made up your mind, and I don't see that changing. I expected a minimum of respect from a member like you, as I believe I have shown the same. But you are talking to me as if you have some personal issues with me. Don't take things personally. You wanna piece of me?

Can't complain, I know the community.

What is this supposed to be? He didn't even give you a negative rating and this is your response, it seems that you are the one who took this in a personal way. No surprise, given that you are guilty of everything that you are accused of and many more things that are not revealed here.

[LoyceV]

That’s a big inconsistency we have there.
If rules are rules, why don’t both of those accounts get the same treatment from the dt?

That's because DT is not just one person, and there are no strict rules.

[The Cryptovator]

So… we have 2 acc buyers in that example. One is getting tagged and while the other isn’t. Both never scammed anybody. Both never showed any signs of a scammer. That’s no good. Stuff like that make dt’s ratings also questionable.

All bought accounts should received negative feedback, it does not really matter how they behave with the acquired accounts. That is the most effective measure against that behavior. Harm mitigation can be effective, but when stupid stuff is considered you have bad rules or inconsistencies. For example, someone would say that it should not be done because that 1 in 10000 account buyers may not do something shady with it. 

For both of you, I think I can reply together; it's almost the same pattern. I think all the DT members know about the questioned bought account. But no one has tagged or even exposed him. I don't want to mention the name to insult him right now. For me, his overall behaviour and contributions to the forum are worthy; hence, I avoid tagging him. I can remember the discussion, but it's hard to find the thread links. So almost all the DT members consider him (bought account?) to give him a chance, either the second or the first. Till now that account has been contributing to the forum and proving itself as trustworthy.

I know it doesn't look good, though; one bought account is tagged, and another hasn't been tagged. But the matter is timing; if instantly exposed, then I would tag the account. Only a couple of DT members tag the account buyer/seller; I was one of them. For me, if after leaving a negative tag, that account proves itself trustworthy and contributes to the forum, I would give it a second chance and remove the feedback. I am telling it from my perspective; other DT members would think differently and may not like my idea.

The main thing is the forum still now allows account buying and selling, but admins aren't against tagging the account. Also there is not any standard or rules for the DT (trust) ecosystem. So the DT system now depends on the person who is in the DT network; each DT maintains their own standards. This means if someone thinks to tag for some reason, others might not be interested there. That's the reason a bought account hasn't been tagged. And as far as I know, only one account got this advantage.

[JollyGood]

It's not the only established and even highly trusted account that wasn't created by the original owner. I've seen at least one account that reached DT1 despite being bought years earlier, and wasn't tagged for it. But there was no need to tag him either.
I've seen another account that received many red tags after being found out, without any other reason for not being trusted. So I get that he doesn't want to answer the question if the answer is yes.

When it relates to the AB de Royse777 aka Royse777 account, I have no trust in him at all. Others have their own opinion and they are entitled to it.

Having said that, an issue could be because many campaign participants are always hoping to move to something that pays more, they probably do not want to get on the wrong side of any manager as it reduces their chance of potentially joining a high (or higher) paying campaign by at least one. Why would they bother leaving tags and distrusting him when they are hoping he will hire them if an appropriate opportunity arose.

Two questions remain then. First whether it was hacked or sold. Second whether he is helping naim027 evade his ban and profit off of this forum, or whether he is naim027 himself (or part of his group). Untrustworthy people tend to stick together. Do you have data on how many DT members are enrolled in his campaigns? This would explain their failure to act on such an obvious case.

For the first point you mentioned, if there was a way to find out from the original owner and creator of the Royse777 account what really happened it would help provide clarity. Clearly the account changed hands back in 2017. How the events unfolded and how it happened is not known yet.

As for the second point, to my knowledge the Royse777 account never posted about firing naim027 therefore that fact along with the fact he is defending (another of the naim027 farmed accounts) God Of Thunder aka Learn Bitcoin shows extremely poor judgement. Exactly why he has that close relationship with naim027 also remains unclear. Regarding the DT members enrolled in campaigns he manages, I have not taken a look but he really does not manage much in this forum now anyway.

[LoyceV]

When it relates to the AB de Royse777 aka Royse777 account, I have no trust in him at all.

For what it's worth: I'm pretty sure he wouldn't scam me if he somehow owed me $500. Even if the account was bought, that must have happened before any of my interactions with the account, so what I've seen so far is what I get.

[nutildah]

You are also interfering in how I conduct my business.

You're the one that chose to interject yourself in this thread. I don't actually care how you run your business, but I will point out lies and inconsistencies when I see them. You didn't have to say anything at all, and IMO, you would have been a lot better off for it.

I will retire from this topic. Please do not involve me in anything that requires finding connection between Naim027 and things related to him. By now you all must know that I respect others secrets as long as I do not see it is going to an end of scamming others.

I don't think many of us care about this "secret" or any other secrets you might have. Its a distraction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I expected a minimum of respect from a member like you, as I believe I have shown the same.

Constantly lying to someone is not showing respect to them. You're completely remorseless about this; as such, I don't respect you.

But you are talking to me as if you have some personal issues with me. Don't take things personally.

OK.

You wanna piece of me?

"I don't want a piece, I want the whole thing."

[JollyGood]

Until you wrote about it, I had no idea about the $500 or the story behind it. I have no idea why he gave it to you or when it happened but it certainly would not have hurt him to have made that error to a high ranking DT member rather than to a newbie and can be called upon whenever the account is questioned. What are the chances of that?

It seems he deleted your post in his self-moderated thread. Maybe it was because you rightly disagreed with his nonsensical assumption that Satofan44 is an alt-account operated by a certain member: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5569118.0

When it relates to the AB de Royse777 aka Royse777 account, I have no trust in him at all.

For what it's worth: I'm pretty sure he wouldn't scam me he somehow owed me $500. Even if the account was bought, that must have happened before any of my interactions with the account, so what I've seen so far is what I get.

[LoyceV]

Until you wrote about it, I had no idea about the $500 or the story behind it.

This was a hypothetical scenario, but I now see I forgot the crucial word "if". He doesn't owe me anything.

[Mahdirakib]

I am not going to tell anything that you wouldn't believe

You are responsible for this. You have proven yourself as a lier so many times despite getting the opportunity of telling the truth.

because I am linked to someone who has a bad forum background, ~

And you are lying again! Instead of saying “I am linked to someone,” you should have admitted that you have the history of lying, merit trading, and violating forum rules using alternative accounts. You are denying the truth again like you tried to do it in the past. Although, you had accepted the reality later during then, but I doubt that you are going to do the same in this time.

If I’m not mistaken, you (I mean “naim027”) want to maintain one (or maybe more than one) good-standing account on this forum and stay active. But the majority of the forum members don't want to see your presence in the forum for your past history.

[JollyGood]

Now that he has unilaterally retired himself from this thread, it has given him the perfect opportunity to avoid answering the YES/NO question. Not only that, he will no longer try to explain why he is defending the God Of Thunder aka Learn Bitcoin account even though he knows it is operated by naim027. Furthermore, he has not stated that he no longer hires naim027 for his spreadsheets.

Whether there are secrets, alleged secrets or no secrets at all the fact remains it seems highly questionable conduct on part of Royse777. He could answer questions and make honest comments rather hide behind semantics.

I will retire from this topic. Please do not involve me in anything that requires finding connection between Naim027 and things related to him. By now you all must know that I respect others secrets as long as I do not see it is going to an end of scamming others.

I don't think many of us care about this "secret" or any other secrets you might have. Its a distraction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.