Bitcoin Forum

Since Lauda can't have an open discussion about this subject I decided to open this thread to allow actual free discussion of the topic, without Lauda being free to remove anything they don't agree with at will.

OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230267.msg53960811

Archive: https://archive.is/msSdf

I have tagged Lauda.
Publication of personal messages without consent. User cannot be trusted

archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20200304082735/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230267.msg53960811)

Make sure you do the same for Techy and OGNasty. 

I need proofs for that.

no proofs for that and never will
all proofs provided by person above is fake and lie

It seems like a pretty simple attempt to find out what your reasoning was. Under your definitions, anyone who doesn't simply agree with you without question is attempting to "manipulate the trust system".

Unfortunately, the publication of PMs is not a violation of forum rules. Therefore, when we send someone a PM, we can only hope for basic decency. I believe that the publication of PM (without consent) should be tagged.
I would like to know the opinion of the community. May be in this topic...
If in the opinion of the community it turns out that this is not a trust case, then I will remove the tag or will replace it to a neutral one.

For me, I am not agree to leave negative feedback for posting personal messages. Sometimes (in some obvious case) its required to post for prove something, I have remember a case where a DT members demand some money to remove red tag. Then victim was forced to post evidence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5195337.msg52855238#msg52855238). However I am quite disagree to post personal messages on publicly, but shouldn't tag for that reason. This isn't something use trust system IMO. So posting PM case shouldn't handle with trust system.

Another one of Dave's rambling trust comments.

Everyone has their own view of what should and should not be in trust.
*I* feel that it should be based only on financial matters. But that is just me. If you think Lauda cannot be trusted with financial dealings, red trust. If you think TECSHARE cannot be trusted with financial dealings, red trust. If you think I cannot be trusted with financial dealings red trust.
Everything else should be neutral with an explanation. It is VERY far from an ideal situation but it's what we have to work with.

The problem is (once again IMO) that personal feelings about people have nothing to do with the reality of if we can trust them to do what they said they will do.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The trust and feedback should be separate. I trust a lot of people on this forum.
My trust list (more or less) is people I have had dealings with or people I know have had dealings with that concern financial matters.
The people I have left trust for I have had financial dealings with.

Because that is what we have to work with.

I would love to have feedback / trust be separate.
This way someone could post *feedback* like "I trust kzv bacause....." or "I don't trust kzv because....." If we bought or sold or traded something or had another financial dealings I could leave you *trust* because I could say that you do or do not follow though on financial dealings.

This way I could take look at say. "wow, davef has a few dozen good trades, but he is an asshat and I just do not want to deal with him" Now other members are looking at my feedback / trust seeing a mixing of both.

I know I have done trades with some people who have not left me positive trust / feedback because of other things that have gone on with the forum. So be it.
I think it would be better if they could say, "yeah you can trust him I bought "X" from him and he shipped w/o issue" and then they could post about me being an arrogant ass and will give you an earful about why you are wrong doing things the way you are doing them.

Yeah, I have said it all before and will say it again. Just saw this and had to get it off my chest.

As for trust lists and ~ people on your list. With the DT1 / DT2 drama, it's becoming a bigger disaster. Not sure how to fix it, but that is also part of the problem. There are people who are 100% opposite and fight each other all day here. I trust them both in terms of financial dealings. Would not want to hang out with either of them. They ~ each other. Does adding them into my list really make a difference at that point?

Enough rambling from me. Got to go to work. [checks lottery ticket, didn't win, yep have to go]

-Dave

No, I believe you should not do that  ::) Like what you said, it doesn't violate forum rules
This is about the ethical scope, we should not publicize private messages to the community. But it does not mean that it is not allowed, in some cases, users should publish the message to clarify the problem. In this case, it is absolutely allowed. A few other users have made private messages public when needed, Yahoo62278 is an example, he is transparent in the matters to be handled.
I think removing the tag would be more reasonable than the neutral change, you are looking quite stressed in personal messages  ::) Let's think more comfortable in this case  ;)

you absolutly right
but in this case she did it with the aim of conspiracy and manipulation
everyone knows Lauda long time colluding for manipulate trust system

I don't think it needs a red tag, not in this case anyway. Perhaps someone publishing a PM that they promised to keep secret would be worthy of negative trust, depending on circumstances. In this case it's just a dick move. Can't red-tag every dick.

Ofcourse, but it's up to moderators to deal with the rules. The trust system is not about rules, but about trust. Is it possible to trust a user who shows personal correspondence? Would you trust someone who shares your messages without permission?


I think you're right here. In some cases, posting private message can resolve public disputes. If the publication is not provoked by public discussion, then I consider such a publication unacceptable.

You tagged lauda because he published PM, would you tag TECSHARE for publishing PM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51187013#msg51187013.)? Actually, he is included to your trust network (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-02-29_Sat_06.37h/662400.html), are you sure you trust someone who published PM while tagging someone who did the same thing?

You will find answer in my question  ;)

marlboroza , you also gave me a tilde at the time, but after checking my profile, you took it off https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102731.0. Can I hear your opinion about the situation when Lauda accuses me of trying to manipulate her trust list https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230267.msg53960811?

I would recommend NOT posting in any of Lauda's selfmod topics..

Even if they quote you to drag you into their topic, and you reply, Lauda will delete your posts and leave chopped up out of context quotes of yours to try to make you look stupid..


I get plenty of PMs containing suggestions about my inclusions list and I highly doubt that Lauda considers such PM suggestions manipulation.. Now does he?

Hmmm.... Does this mean that Lauda is a korner's alt? :o

I think you're manipulating everyone now just by asking that question.

Publishing a personal message is 100% acceptable. Unless explicitly agreed upon ahead of time, there should not be any expectation of confidentiality when sending a PM. This is regardless of who publishes the message so long as it is being done by someone sending or receiving the message.

In the majority of the US, wiretapping laws only require the consent of one party to a conversation for it to be recorded.

It appears that a lot of people have trouble telling the difference between the words personal and private.

---

On a separate note, the trust system is intended to be political in nature. Lobbying for particular inclusions or exclusions is expected.

yes) that realy seems korner's behavior

I raise you this: http://loyce.club/archive/topics/523/5230267.html

I don't remember why I excluded you from my trust list a year ago, however, I did some research about it and it is very likely related to this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098584.msg49297792#msg49297792 and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098584.msg49299075#msg49299075.

I see that you asked lauda why he excluded you, then he asked you why you included some users, then you said lauda encourages others to exclude you then you excluded lauda.
https://i.imgur.com/lKqpuEW.png
I don't see anything political here.

Thank you for your opinion. I always thought you were fair to all kinds of disputes.

Thank you for this opinion. My English is not very good and I am not familiar with the US laws. So I decide to redirect the question to administration (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230469.0)

You are forgetting that trust has nothing to do with either forum rules or [US, RF, ..., whatever] legislation. Not being sued for something doesn't mean that you'll be a trustworthy person after doing that. I doubt that your friends will still be your friends after publication of recorded phone conversation, for example. This has nothing to do with rules or law.

Publishing private messages is a perfect example as well. You can't be sued or banned for that, bit this is a good reason to avoid any future interaction with such a person. Warning the others is also acceptable.

You asked me:
...and I literally did TL;DR on those PMs! I can't say that I see manipulation when I don't, if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question.

Lauda does not publish PM whatever the reason. Then again lauda is a liar and scammer that is proven, so really lauda will leak members PM if it suits him.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51188874#msg51188874

This is the thread where lauda was punishing bill gator for publishing a PM that revealed lauda was bullying people in private to remove their friends.

Read that thread.

I guess you can tag me as well, since I've admitted doing the same thing in the past.  I never posted anything as far as personal information, nor did I realize it was such a big deal (though I haven't posted a PM in a thread in quite some time).  If the community now thinks it's inappropriate to do so, I have no problem following that.  And I'm not worried about getting tagged, just wondering what the community consensus is.

It's not against the rules, but that doesn't mean it's not a reason to leave someone a neg for it--just like account selling.  But my own opinion is that it's not such a violation of community standards (or even such a big deal in general) as to deserve a neg.  If you send someone a PM and don't want it quoted, the best thing would be to let that be known up front.

Can you produce the evidence where you leaked a PM in public here?

We should analyse the details.

Also did you claim that you never would "Leak" a PM like lauda has stated?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51188874#msg51188874

I mean if someone defines an action as untrustworthy themselves then do  that same action. They define themselves as untrustworthy? right?

There is no consensus about practically anything here. Haven't you learned yet? It is only a big deal when it serves the motives of people looking for excuses to retaliate for critical speech of them and their friends. When it is them and their friends doing it, it is perfectly excusable.

Okay. Are you telling me explicitly that I manipulated Lauda's trust list?

Dropping my reply from an one way openion Censorship (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230267.0) thread to this objectively standard one.

LOL Can't believe that you are still hesitant with your decision  ::) You have received a lot of advice here, but you still don't believe us, you have another topic there, it just makes your situation more complicated. Until finally, I have not seen your change to the given feedback, although you said you would remove or change it  :-\

Yes, I see that there is no consensus on this issue. Publishing personal messages without permission is rude, but rudeness is not moderated.

I think that from time to time, the publication of PMs can be marked in red, neutral or not marked at all. The administration leaves this for subjective consideration.

In my opinion, users have the right to know in advance whether their personal messages can become public without permission. If the user does not care, then he will write message to a public place immediately. Bit if the user writes a personal message, then he does not want others to read this message. Is that logical?

I will correct the tag to neutral, only because the case does not concern me personally this time. But I am sure that madnessteat has the full moral right to leave negative feedback to Lauda in this case if he considers it necessary

The only consensus that seems to be made on the subject, is if some one explicitly agrees not to publish PMs, and then does so anyway, they are in violation of an agreement, and that would be the only clear case that would be tag worthy. All this back and forth is simply a result of wannabe forum cops running around and tagging people for publishing PMs, but then when they do it suddenly the standards aren't clear and we shouldn't be tagging people for it. As with anything, the situation should be examined and determined if there was:

-Damages
-Malicious intent
-Violated agreements
-Personal information contained
-Ulterior motives for publishing

I am sure there are more, but those seem to be the key aspects of this debate over posting PMs.

It is a shame that you seem to have ignored two important points that support your original red tag

* lauda himself specifically self defines the publish of PM as untrustworthy and said he never publishes PM under any circumstances. So you have your own view members should have a warning. You have laudas view he has done something untrustworthy. You have theymos word it is wrong.

You also have two admin that supported laudas attack on a member that did leak PM that claim it is u trustworthy.

* lauda is a confirmed and documented scammer. Would you care to see the evidence?


 if something does not personally touch you is not reason to let other future members placed in peril?

In light of all that has been revealed to you it seems strange to reverse the tag to one that provides little warning to others if any?

Correct the tag? Are you sure you mean correct?

This is speculation but it appears to be move made under pressure.

Yes. As Bitcoin, I prefer to stay in the main chain. If the opinion of the community changes, then my current position will be in orphan chain and I will do same as will be doing community.

Thanks for being honest. This is good.

Never though conflate a small corrupt group of self interested scammers and their roadies as the " community.

You seem a good candidate for DT I will hope TS and other honourable members notice and act appropriately.

You asked me for opinion and I gave you one. Then you implied that my opinion is not fair (at least this is how I understand your message, sorry if I misunderstood you) then I said I don't see manipulation. Now you are asking me if I am clearly telling you that I think that you manipulated Lauda's trust list, while I stated something completely opposite.

Excuse me. I misunderstood you the first time.

Guys, I want to thank those users who analyzed my actions and came to the conclusion that I did not try to manipulate the trust system. I thought there would be far fewer people who would support me in this situation, but when I saw dump from Loycev's website (http://loyce.club/trust/2020-03-07_Sat_06.19h/1894120.html), I was surprised.
Thank you all for your honesty and sincerity.