⭐ Merited by mv1986 (1)
I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?
Why don't you ask the person who mentioned it first? What does JollyGood have to do with this?
Apparently, there are some forum members who got special treatment and got a glimpse of Royse's private conversations with Lucy. The rest of us can only speculate on what went on.
Yeah when I say hangout then you interpret it dinner date in person. Bud! you have not even looked at the details I have posted publicly (forget about private) yet you are here arguing BS to establish your thoughts.
Actually, it wasn't Jolly who interpreted the dinner date. So, rather than making accusations, you might want to be a little more precise with your arguments.
Do not be surprised at some of the comments being made here. Some members have taken a line or two from a long post only to take it out of context or misquote me to deliberately cause misdirection in a thread that is supposed to be about Royse777 and Bitlucy (not about me, you or any other member).
<snip>
Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.
<snip>
According to the bold part, you are expecting everyone to add you in their trust list. If they don't then they are staunch? You are now mad at the users who excluded you from their trust list including those did not add you at all. Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.
<snip>
I asked Royse777 if I can see the details and he/she shared it with me so I was among the circle too. But right now you are accusing us and saying closed circle as it sounds we gave him a friendly pass without justifying the entire situation.
Again, you are factually incorrect. I stated nothing of the sort, you can ramble on with your nonsense as much as you like. Furthermore, I have no interest in what you claim happened between yourself and Royse777 
Where is your problem?
I do not have oneRoyse777 decided to share the information with some of us or he did not share everything in open forum.
And?If not sharing in open forum is your problem then I can confirm, he didn't do it for his own privacy and security as well as few others too. None of us can protect him if something turn wrong against him.
If sharing the information with us is your problem then it's a strange feeling. 🙄
You said "If" and there is no "if" therefore you are wrong, again. I have zero problems but you are overlooking in to this too much. You are panic-posting in similar fashion to Royse777 with ramblings and misdirections. Try to relax, it might help with your temperament. If sharing the information with us is your problem then it's a strange feeling. 🙄
I kind of agree with DireWolfM14 but would like to add, someone is rightfully concerned about their security while you are being so curious to fix your drama.
In my opinion the drama was started when Royse777 and Bitlucy became associates but keeping that aside feel free to agree with who want and likewise feel free to disagree with who you want but afford the same luxury or courtesy to others to make their own decisions too.Even though your post is full of nonsense, I replied as a courtesy. Even though you have been overtly and most probably deliberately incorrect when quoting me and you have been creating your own misdirection here for your own purposes, I entertained it for a while but expect no more replies if you continue to create your own drama.
Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.
I'd say it was a bit of both. I'm not even sure Bitlucy intended to scam from the start, but it's obvious they tried to start a casino without having funds. They must have gambled on the first users losing a lot of money, and if that would have happened, they could have been successful and nobody would have known about the lack of funds.You are right, it is not clear if Bitlucy even intended to scam from the very beginning and it is also not clear if Bitlucy was created with the specific intention of an exit scam. If the latter was even true they amounts involved would not be worth the hassle in the first place.
It seems you are right again because they probably did not have the funds to actually start a casino in the first place and they hoped to make an income to cover any potential payouts based on initial and early customer losses. I agree, had they succeeded then it would never have been made public that Bitlucy was on the verge of collapse from day one of their operation and subsequent history could have been different but here we are.