REEE™: madnessteat

[LoyceV]

Archive: https://archive.is/msSdf

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

[1715019924]

1715019924

[1715019924]

1715019924

[1715019924]

1715019924

[1715019924]

1715019924

[1715019924]

1715019924

[marlboroza]

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.

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.

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 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.

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

I don't see anything political here.

[madnessteat]

~snip~

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

[kzv]

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.

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

[Balthazar]

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.

[marlboroza]

~snip~

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

You asked me:

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?

...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.

[truth or dare]

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.

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.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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

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.

[truth or dare]

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

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?

[TECSHARE]

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

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.

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.

[madnessteat]

~if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question.

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

[hacker1001101001]

Dropping my reply from an one way openion Censorship thread to this objectively standard one.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Even assuming that User A did something wrong - which is debatable since it's based mostly on a hypothetical quid pro quo - a reasonable response would be to exclude them (or keep the exclusion as the case may be) and/or block them. Publishing PMs is uncalled for.

They are even comfortable with publishing doxx to slash the user's opposing them or reducing there DT power, I wouldn't be surprised with there "dumping the whole conversation" thing. What an waste of good internet space. They save us from shit with building of this wrong standards of justice of there own.

[ChuckBuck]

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

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 

[kzv]

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

[TECSHARE]

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.

[bonesjonesreturns]

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

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.

[kzv]

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.

[bonesjonesreturns]

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.

[marlboroza]

~if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question.

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

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.

[madnessteat]

~if you are trying to ask me something else then ask me correct question.

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

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.