[Rules] Clarification required

[kzv]

I have a question for the administration

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

Should personal messages (on this forum) be treated as private by default?


I am really confused in this terms. Because english is not my native language. In my native language (in Russian) words "personal" and "private" are synonyms

https://kartaslov.ru/%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B-%D0%BA-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9



Cинoнимы - synonym
пpивaтный - private
пepcoнaльный - personal

[1713432352]

1713432352

[1713432352]

1713432352

[1713432352]

1713432352

[truth or dare]

Actually I may be wrong looking at past events.

Looking back actually it seems yes they should be kept private.

Many advocated red trust was given to bill gator for publishing LFC bitcoin admission that lauda bullies him to exclude bill gator from default trust.

I think many including lauda said this publishing of PM is a red tag offence.

Many members say this is a red tag offence. So unless it is to prove someone scammed it is not allowed.


Saltyspittoon admin for 6 years say it is not allowed

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51187764#msg51187764

Flyinghellfish mod says not allowed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51187882#msg51187882

lauda says they would never leak any PM

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

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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

Actually I may be wrong looking at past events.

Looking back actually it seems yes they should be kept private.

Huh.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has a reasonable expectation that their PMs are going to be kept private.  Some members think they're private conversations while others definitely don't--and I've posted quotes from PMs before myself, but in my case it all depends on how "private" I thought the PM was in the first place.  And if someone asked me not to repeat what was sent to me, I certainly wouldn't, but I don't think that's happened yet.

And if the community frowns on that practice, I would respect that.  I'm not sure there's been any consensus on the matter, despite a few opinions being expressed here and there.

[Quickseller]

Salty is wrong and FH is an idiot.

The mods/administration will not leak/disclose information about PMs to third parties without the consent of either the sender or receiver of the message. This is different from the sender or receiver deciding to disclose the contents of a message themselves.

Conversations are repeated every day and this is normal. Sending a PM is not unlike having a conversation with a friend in your house. Either party is able to repeat what us said as they wish and either party has the right to do so. 

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

Actually I may be wrong looking at past events.

Looking back actually it seems yes they should be kept private.

Huh.

I was saying that people see the word “personal” and for some reason think it says “private”


Here is a crazy idea as to how to avoid having PMs that make you look badly published.

Don’t say anything that would reflect poorly on you.

[Vod]

Conversations are repeated every day and this is normal. Sending a PM is not unlike having a conversation with a friend in your house. Either party is able to repeat what us said as they wish and either party has the right to do so.  

What about cutting out vital context and then pretending you never received it?  You seem to trust people who do that.

I'm questioning kzv's judgement here.  Tag Lauda for posting everything with no malicious intent, but don't tag someone who cherry picked words to attack someone maliciously?  

[DireWolfM14]

Up until recently I thought the abbreviation "PM" meant private message, but I now recognize how erroneous that really is.  Like TP said, no one should expect privacy when sending a personal message.  This is the internet after all, and any message you send can be made public.  Whether it should or shouldn't be private can be debated, but if privacy is expected we would be forced to rely on trusting the individual to whom the message was sent.

I would suggest that if you expect privacy, you should make it explicit in the message that you have that expectation.

[Vod]

Here is a crazy idea as to how to avoid having PMs that make you look badly published.

Don’t say anything that would reflect poorly on you.

I can go into my PMs at any time and cut out a portion of what you wrote me, and then pretend you meant something else.   You are OK with that?

[Quickseller]

Conversations are repeated every day and this is normal. Sending a PM is not unlike having a conversation with a friend in your house. Either party is able to repeat what us said as they wish and either party has the right to do so. 

What about cutting out vital context and then pretending you never received it?  You seem to trust people who do that.

I'm questioning kzv's judgement here.  Tag Lauda for posting everything with no malicious intent, but don't tag someone who cherry picked words to attack someone maliciously?   

If for example you publish something out of context that I send you, I can publish additional context if I wish.

Both parties have the opportunity to publish what they wish.

I also don’t see much difference between quoting a PM to send to a third party and posting it in public. In both cases, the message gets repeated.

[truth or dare]

Salty is wrong and FH is an idiot.

The mods/administration will not leak/disclose information about PMs to third parties without the consent of either the sender or receiver of the message. This is different from the sender or receiver deciding to disclose the contents of a message themselves.

Conversations are repeated every day and this is normal. Sending a PM is not unlike having a conversation with a friend in your house. Either party is able to repeat what us said as they wish and either party has the right to do so.  

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

Actually I may be wrong looking at past events.

Looking back actually it seems yes they should be kept private.

Huh.

I was saying that people see the word “personal” and for some reason think it says “private”

What about lauda? he says he will never "leak" PM under any circumstances?
Idiot? wrong? hypocrite? liar?

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

[Quickseller]

Here is a crazy idea as to how to avoid having PMs that make you look badly published.

Don’t say anything that would reflect poorly on you.

I can go into my PMs at any time and cut out a portion of what you wrote me, and then pretend you meant something else.   You are OK with that?

If you took things out of context, I can publish more information and that would reflect poorly on you because you would be misleading people.

[truth or dare]

Up until recently I thought the abbreviation "PM" meant private message, but I now recognize how erroneous that really is.  Like TP said, no one should expect privacy when sending a personal message.  This is the internet after all, and any message you send can be made public.  Whether it should or shouldn't be private can be debated, but if privacy is expected we would be forced to rely on trusting the individual to whom the message was sent.

I would suggest that if you expect privacy, you should make it explicit in the message that you have that expectation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51188268#msg51188268

Love it when you suddenly realize it suits you better if your understanding of something is reversed.

When you act in a certain way towards me or my DT colluding group it is wrong and untrustworthy. When I or my DT colluding group act in that way towards others we suddenly realize it is okay and totally trustworthy.

When will Theymos snap out of it and put an end to the double standards scum bags in DT?

What a bunch of snakes we have in DT.

[Vod]

If you took things out of context, I can publish more information and that would reflect poorly on you because you would be misleading people.

Reflect poorly on me?   Who cares - as long as people still "trust" me.   

[theymos]

PMs are like emails. It's rude to publish a PM without permission, but you won't get banned for it.

[bonesjonesreturns]

There we have our clear answer.
It is wrong to make public a PM without consent,  but not admin level intervention.

This would seem like the common decency to most.

I can see the member that says they don't "leak" PM under any reason, and disparage members who have " leaked " PM. Then he demonstrate you can not trust his words because he " leaked" a PM now himself. This does not surprise me as this member have a track record of lying and cheating on this forum.

The links above brilliantly researched show the horrible double standards a certain group of DT will seek to impress upon honest and decent members.

Those that define themselves as untrustworthy via their own actions and words should be reminded where there is incontrovertible proof.

Shame not more clear directions can be bestowed, so more objectivity and consistency  can be achieved,  rather than the flip-flopping and double standards that unbridled subjectivity and poor guidance in the form of  lack of definition and clarity affords those that seek to abuse.

No revealing PM. Especially when you youselfs call others untrustworthy scum for doing it.
As direwolf say : lauda,  how can we have confidence in you lauda when you don't recognise confidential ( when it suit you)? Good question direwolf .

Always good to see what members real opinions are before those opinions have negative impact upon themselves.

[Quickseller]

If you took things out of context, I can publish more information and that would reflect poorly on you because you would be misleading people.

Reflect poorly on me?   Who cares - as long as people still "trust" me.  

If it happens enough, you will eventually lose positive ratings, and may accumulate some negative ratings after you establish a pattern of taking things out of context. Same with trust list inclusions. It doesn’t necessarily matter that a PM quote was disclosed, someone could similarly take something out of context without publishing a PM.

In some ways, someone publishing a PM is better than someone describing a message/conversation because the use of the “quote” puts them more on the record as to what was actually said/what actually transpired verses paraphrasing.

If you take things out of context enough, other people won’t take you seriously. There is some number of people who I had trusted in the past, who made statements in public that took facts out of context and once more information came out, it was clear (to me) they were trying to mislead with their statements, and I wouldn’t trust what they say without independent verification. In fact, looking back at some of their previous dealings, there is a decent chance that other statements may not have been fully transparent.

There we have our clear answer.
It is wrong to make public a PM without consent,  but not admin level intervention.

There are different levels of “wrong”.

Being rude is wrong, but it is not the same as breaching promised confidently or to stealing, both of which are also wrong.

I would not describe releasing a PM as rude. I would describe a PM as any other conversation that takes place in someone’s house. Unless a promise to keep its contents a secret was made before the disclosure, there should be no expectation of confidentiality. As discussed above, explicitly quoting a PM verses paraphrasing a conversation can put someone more on the record as to what was said, so if you quote a PM and selectively edit it to change what it says, your credibility will be harmed.

[Vod]

If it happens enough, you will eventually lose positive ratings, and may accumulate some negative ratings after you establish a pattern of taking things out of context.

That was a good guess, but experience shows us the people who post PMs out of context tend to go unaffected.  :/

[Lauda]

What about lauda? he says he will never "leak" PM under any circumstances?
Idiot? wrong? hypocrite? liar?

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

That is Lauda before theymos made massive changes to the system here, and all statements prior are void. That is a Lauda that was not up against several scammer gangs from multiple sections. Anything that even seems remotely fishy, do not expect it to be kept hidden. I only publish that which I have to, and always omit that that should be omitted before I do.

Here is a crazy idea as to how to avoid having PMs that make you look badly published.

Don’t say anything that would reflect poorly on you.

QS, the voice of reason this time.
Most people here do not realize that multiple parties have access to PMs at all times, and tend to say many personal things unfortunately. I only have very few pages of PMs, which I regularly clean to protect others in case my account gets compromised and whatnot. Funny this is, with a tiny bit of irony.


~ Your concerned neighborhood cat.  

[bonesjonesreturns]

What about lauda? he says he will never "leak" PM under any circumstances?
Idiot? wrong? hypocrite? liar?

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

That is Lauda before theymos made massive changes to the system here, and all statements prior are void. That is a Lauda that was not up against several scammer gangs from multiple sections. Anything that even seems remotely fishy, do not expect it to be kept hidden. I only publish that which I have to, and always omit that that should be omitted before I do.

Here is a crazy idea as to how to avoid having PMs that make you look badly published.

Don’t say anything that would reflect poorly on you.

QS, the voice of reason this time.
Most people here do not realize that multiple parties have access to PMs at all times, and tend to say many personal things unfortunately. I only have very few pages of PMs, which I regularly clean to protect others in case my account gets compromised and whatnot. Funny this is, with a tiny bit of irony.


~ Your concerned neighborhood cat.  

Can you explain the massive changes that have been made that should have required this 180 degree change to accommodate your own contravention of you own stated stance of it being untrustworthy to " leak " private messages?
These massive changes since this date
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145975.msg51184559#msg51184559

I'll await your explanation.  For now it is clearly a stands as case of double standards if not an outright lie.

[DooMAD]

I love how 99% of the topics in Meta are treated by some users as opportunities to bitch about something a user they don't like did in the trust system at some point in the past. [/sarcasm]

Can you not just answer the damn questions and leave the sniping for the Reputation boards? 

[Quickseller]

If it happens enough, you will eventually lose positive ratings, and may accumulate some negative ratings after you establish a pattern of taking things out of context.

That was a good guess, but experience shows us the people who post PMs out of context tend to go unaffected.  :/

Im not sure I know what situation you are referring to. It is fairly rare that PMs are published and I can’t recall someone constantly publishing PMs out of context.

Like I said, publishing a PM over just saying what someone says is better because it puts them on the record with the use of a *quote*. If someone establishes a pattern of constantly misleading others, they will lose credibility.

Forum trust scores are just numbers and often are not reflective of how trustworthy someone really is. A person can have a high trust score but someone, after doing their due diligence, might decide it would be a bad idea to trust that person due to past transgressions, either in the specific transaction, or in any transaction.