LoyceVs PM publisher

[LoyceV]

This service is meant to provide evidence when a PM-trade falls apart.

Background
Once in a while a scam accusations requires evidence of a PM-history. Since screenshots can easily be altered, it's not easy to prove what was said without either involving a Global Mod, or by giving someone access to your account to check your PMs.
Yesterday, I got the idea to create a bot for this.

How it works
When sending a PM, CC LoyceVs PM publisher. Don't send anything you want to keep private (such as your address!), the bot will publish everything you send. If a deal falls apart, the evidence is readily available to post on the Scam Accusations board.

Delay
By default, I publish PMs after 7 days. The sender can change this by adding "delay=<days>" anywhere in the body of the message. This also works if the command is quoted. If it's shown more than once, I use the first occurrence.
Example:

Code:

delay=30

The delay can be anything from 0 to 999 days.

Data URL
I publish the data on loyce.club/PM_publisher/.

Updates
For now, this bot updates every 5 minutes.

Disclaimer
I will publish any PM I receive on LoyceVs PM publisher!
Even when I delay publishing, I have access to the messages. My webhost can read them too, and of course Bitcointalk Admins can read any messages on the forum. Don't send any personal data.
I'm not sure which board fits best. For now, I'll post this in Meta.
When replying to a PM, obviously I can only archive it if LoyceVs PM publisher also receives the message.

Warning
I can't know who received a BCC.
Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.

Miscellaneous
I use forum time for this project (in most of my other projects I used Amsterdam time).

Bugs
Let me know if anything fails. Let's say this is experimental.

Test it!
Feel free to send a PM (with or without CC to someone). I need some data to test this

[1714678395]

1714678395

[1714678395]

1714678395

[1714678395]

1714678395

[OmegaStarScream]

Not sure if this is a bug or its because I PMed the BOT directly, but I just sent a message and it's not showing my name?:

Code:

11. PM 10925544 (delayed by 7 days) from to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 05:39:51 PM)

[LoyceV]

Not sure if this is a bug or its because I PMed the BOT directly, but I just sent a message and it's not showing my name?:

It's a bug, the HTML format changed a bit. I'll fix it Fixed
This is a bit trial and error. I'll see what pops up next.

Code:

11. PM 10925544 (delayed by 7 days) from OmegaStarScream to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 05:39:51 PM)

[Timelord2067]

I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)

I've also gone the other way with a generic delay=999 to keep people in suspense whether or not there's a hidden message.

I take it you can just log in and review any posts?

[LoyceV]

I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)

I take the 6 characters after "delay=", then remove anything that's not a number, and limit it to 999. Your 0.25 turned into 25 days:

Code:

13. PM 10925957 (delayed by 025 days) from Timelord2067 to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 10:16:32 PM)

I take it you can just log in and review any posts?

Yes. And while testing I may actually do that, but if all works fine I plan not to look it at again.

[SFR10]

I can't verify quotes inside a PM. All I know for sure is who sent it.

I might be missing something here, but apart from not being able to verify the content of the quotes, the same thing goes for verifying if someone actually sent them...

Here's a "fake" example:

• Sorry, I'm straight
  

  But I really like you
  

Update:

Lost in translation, I've rephrased it:

Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.

The warning was meant not to trust any quotes that can't be verified independently.

Thank you for clarifying it.

But I really like you

Lol.

[LoyceV]

I might be missing something here, but apart from not being able to verify the content of the quotes, the same thing goes for verifying if someone actually sent them...

Lost in translation, I've rephrased it:

Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.

The warning was meant not to trust any quotes that can't be verified independently.

But I really like you

Lol.

[mocacinno]

I just sent a test-PM. Hopefully everything works fine

I'm quickly going over the usecases, and i wonder if i'd be able to make a feature request (if this feature is deemed usefull by other people aswell, and offcourse only if you're interested in programming it)?

I wonder if it would be usefull to add an optional destruct-code in the PM aswell? This way, you could send a first PM with a destruct code, if a deal falls trough the PM gets published... But if the deal goes fine, the initial sender can send a PM with the destruct code and the initial PM will be erased instead of published? Or maybe a cache functionality using a cache code: the PM you CC'd with an optional cache-code never gets published, unless your alt account receives a second PM with the cache code? Just brainstorming here 

[LoyceV]

I wonder if it would be usefull to add an optional destruct-code in the PM aswell? This way, you could send a first PM with a destruct code, if a deal falls trough the PM gets published... But if the deal goes fine, the initial sender can send a PM with the destruct code and the initial PM will be erased instead of published?

It can't be just the sender deciding on this: the receiver can require evidence too.
I thought of adding a command like "remove=10925297", but it has to be confirmed by the sender and all receivers. However, if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved. So I decided to abandon this idea unless a better solution comes up.

[khaled0111]

Thank you LoyceV for yet another great tool!
I can think of many scenarios where this bot can be useful. However, usually in scam accusation threads it's the authenticity of the received messages that has to be verified. So, anyone who is going to make a deal via PMs and want to use the bot in an effective way, the first thing he has to do is to convince the other party to CC LoyceVs PM publisher.
Regarding destructing archived PMs, it's a useful feature but I agree with you: both parties (the sender and the receiver) must agree to it otherwise it can be abused.
There is another alternative, though. You can remove the delay feature and never publish PMs unless the sender or the receiver asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread. This can be done by sending a message to the bot with a command like this:

publish PM #N, thread_id

[LoyceV]

unless the sender or the receive asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread.

That creates the same problem: I can't know who the receiver is if they were in a BCC. And even if there are 2 known receivers already, there could always be a third in BCC.

I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=<days left>. That way the campaign manager can already see the entries, and once the contest ends, anyone can verify all entries.
You don't even have to (fully) trust me on this: each participant can verify their own entry. Disclaimer: I currently process a maximum of 20 new PMs in 2 hours. If it ever gets that popular, I'll have to check more than just the first page.

[NeuroticFish]

It can't be just the sender deciding on this: the receiver can require evidence too.

Indeed, it has to be asked by all the parts of the conversation - sender and receivers.
And yes, the BCC parts have "no rights" in this.

I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=<days left>. That way the campaign manager can already see the entries, and once the contest ends, anyone can verify all entries.

This is nice and far less tricky than handling PMs.

[khaled0111]

unless the sender or the receive asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread.

That creates the same problem: I can't know who the receiver is if they were in a BCC. And even if there are 2 known receivers already, there could always be a third in BCC.

There is a way to solve this but not sure if it's worth the hassle! You can hide PM ids on the PM_publisher/ page. Anyone who sends a publish request has to provide the the sender username and the correct PM_id as arguments. If they match then he is indeed a BCC recipient. You'll have to limit the number of requests a user can send (i.e 5 per day) to prevent him from trying to guess the correct id.
This suggestion is regarding the publish feature not the destruct suggested by mocacinno

[uchegod-21]

This is a great project, thank you LoyceV for pointing me to this place. This project will no doubt solve some scam issues. If I have intention to scam someone and then remembers that we would be using LoyceV PM publisher, I will either reject the offer which will be a sign that my intention is not clear

You can remove the delay feature and never publish PMs unless the sender or the receiver asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread

This is my concern. Will it be in such a way that if I get bored ill just go and read people's pm?

[LoyceV]

There is a way to solve this but not sure if it's worth the hassle! You can hide PM ids on the PM_publisher/ page. Anyone who sends a publish request has to provide the the sender username and the correct PM_id as arguments. If they match then he is indeed a BCC recipient. You'll have to limit the number of requests a user can send (i.e 5 per day) to prevent him from trying to guess the correct id.

I don't think it's worth the hassle.

[RickDeckard]

I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=<days left>. That way the campaign manager can already see the entries, and once the contest ends, anyone can verify all entries.
You don't even have to (fully) trust me on this: each participant can verify their own entry. Disclaimer: I currently process a maximum of 20 new PMs in 2 hours. If it ever gets that popular, I'll have to check more than just the first page.

While I was going to work I though about this same usecase and I'm glad that I wasn't the only one. I think that this system would be beneficial in three ways (one of them I'm not sure if it's a good perspective):

• Most discussion that ensues on the voting of some members would only happen (if it happened) after results were published. While it may not appear, some discussions may actually be a bias to future members who are yet to vote and may feel constrained in voting in a specific user after seeing the feedback that the overall community has whenever that user is mentioned in a certain category. Not even only that, if I'm lacking for a user for a specific category I may be influenced by seeing what is the most recurrent nomination for a specific category in other posts and just assume that "Well, most members seem to like him/her, I'll just vote on him/her as well"...
• The PM would be considered a final vote and there wouldn't be room for edits/changes (it would depend on the rules established by whoever was running the event however).
• Not sure about this one: I think it's achievable to code a (python?) bot to scrap PM's, look for certain aspects (subject, see if member fills contest/event criteria, if the body is according to the format of entries, ...) and then automatically take care of recording the user input/classification/nomination if certain conditions are met. This could also be done in the thread itself I guess, but having a more contained environment vs an active thread full of discussion could show itself to be easier to navigate trough...

Still, this tool is a great way to ensure that there's an "overseer" - from neither side of the argumentation - that's just recording everything that's going back and forth in a conversation which may prove to be useful in the future - it may even be considered a tool to enforce future deals in the sense that I will only establish a conversation with someone if the seller/buyer is willing to record all conversations by means of this bot. Sure this won't stop scams from happening, but it offers a great tool to help balance the argumentation to be made if such event occurs.

[LoyceV]

Most discussion that ensues on the voting of some members would only happen (if it happened) after results were published. While it may not appear, some discussions may actually be a bias to future members who are yet to vote and may feel constrained in voting in a specific user after seeing the feedback that the overall community has whenever that user is mentioned in a certain category.

The opposite can also happen: I wouldn't have thought of everyone I voted for without being reminded of their names by someone else.

The PM would be considered a final vote and there wouldn't be room for edits/changes (it would depend on the rules established by whoever was running the event however).

Or a second PM would replace the first one.

I think it's achievable to code a (python?) bot to scrap PM's, look for certain aspects (subject, see if member fills contest/event criteria, if the body is according to the format of entries, ...)

In my experience, many people won't follow the correct format. Humans are better at interpretation than bots.

I've increased the update frequency from every 2 hours to every 5 minutes.

[PrimeNumber7]

I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)

I take the 6 characters after "delay=", then remove anything that's not a number, and limit it to 999. Your 0.25 turned into 25 days:

That is an unusual implementation. It is more common to either ignore invalid argument float instead of an int), or to convert a float to an integer using integer division, eg 0.25//1

I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.

[LoyceV]

That is an unusual implementation. It is more common to either ignore invalid argument float instead of an int), or to convert a float to an integer using integer division, eg 0.25//1

Removing all characters other than numbers was meant to handle a case where someone sends "delay=5" with bold font. This will read as "delay=<b>5", and still work fine. It's basically me being lazy I didn't bother to work with partial days (and frankly didn't expect someone to try).

I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.

I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid that. Lets' say it's not for most people

[Pmalek]

First of all, I have no reason not to trust you. I want to say that before I say anything else so as not to get misunderstood.
Second of all, great work on creating this for the community!

You have already said that you can edit any message that you want. Can you also delete a message from not appearing in the log at all?
I am just thinking how can it be used as evidence if one person can make changes to the evidence if he wanted to?

Let's say you really hate me for calling you a poopy diaper (I didn't though), and I use your bot for a deal that goes sideways. You edit the PMs to not favor my side of the story. I am now in a pickle. It's my word against LoyceV's and his bot. What chance do I stand against the all-mighty LoyceV when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying?

Again, don't take this the wrong way and you are not a poopy diaper either.