Topic: Having an "I solemnly swear / attestation / liar liar pants on fire" thread (Read 448 times)

Just make a thread to shame and compile archives of lies: why make it localized? You can screen users for the possible threads of hypocrisy.

Better yet, if only there was a way to permanently put a reference to the post with comments of your own, perhaps even with an indicator that follows the user around the forum.

Hahaha......it's a usual thing that I have heard over the times I've been here ....and that has -- infact -- made me confident on myself, the development process and ....uhhhh, gurus like you as well... Thanks for the acknowledgement ☺️

Did you just address us as neigh-sayers?? Is that supposed to be figurative or --say, ironical? Yeah?  
I know why you're so firmly rooted on your said points; trying to make us believe a proceed that's almost impossible... hehe..
Your honnie- bunnie kept it real with you but, I know Peeps like you in real life; you'll always wanna give a try ... who knows?? ....but that's prolly an appropriate engagement anyways.

Edit* @dkbit98
I agree with your points about Naim's case; the trust system could fasten the loosed, crappy brain-bolts.

Sandra 💇

This would be almost impossible to prove, and I don't see how anything  can be improved with this.
You are always going t have liars everywhere, and I think most of the people here told some lies for various reasons, most obvious is privacy.
Some could say that Satoshi was the first liar, when he said that he is a man from Japan in one of his profiles

Naim027 is an asshole and abuser, but that is why we have trust system and it works good with cases like this.
When I suspect someone doing stuff like him I could add in my personal Bitcointalk UserNotes script, or write in in public on his profile.

Any tool you would use instead of Trust system would be public, so I don't see any difference here.
You can use Bitcointalk UserNotes script if you don't want to make your notes public.

He just reuses Satoshi Nakamoto signatures, insists on secret verification by a group of people, etc...

Some reasons why I appreciate this forum, such insights to a single case and most times all are true. Speaking of privacy ad lies in contest to the forum as stated in OP on various possible scenarios where one might tell a lie, it could all be laid on privacy reasons and comes with some backings don't you think.

In all, the truth they say is never left covered for ever and would surely surface some day then, it becomes a lot to take in and settle on when all could have been suckd up a long time ago. When we lie every now and then, what becomes of our words. Unfortunately, it's a part of human nature and one might feel the need not to be open to everyone.

Since some participants may have also lied in the survey, the question arises as to whether or not such surveys are actually useful.
Liar's paradox

According to a 2002 study conducted by American psychologist Robert S. Feldman, people lie on average two to three times for every 10 minutes of conversation time. Far more frequently than they are prepared to admit, even to themselves.
https://connectingpoint.nepm.org/the-psychology-of-lying-with-robert-feldman/

Luckily, we have scrappers for that. And there could be a similar rule like in the thread for signed messages where someone is required to quote your post.

Haha. I don't think he ever signed anything though, did he? He always wanted to do things on his own computers and never sent the "signed" message to another party for verification. He insisted that everything be done on his own machines.

It depends: if the question about a certain location was because someone was murdered there, lying has different implications than lying because you don't want someone to know where you live.

To put things into perspective: ‘You look great!’ Average person tells 4 lies per day, survey shows. The number of lies varies largely per study: Average person lies 200 times per day.

I like this part:

It will be extremely difficult to implement such a thread without people going back and editing their posts.

But moreover, "cyber oaths" prove nothing if you can't trust the person's word at face value. Even a signed message won't help here (just ask Craig S. Wright how that's going for him).

I should have paid more attention to the wording in the example used. Good point.

The pictures can't tell why the person was there, but the point is he lied about being in Austria. Despite the 'locational' dishonesty, would you refuse to do business with such a person because of that? Especially if there is a trusted escrow involved.

I like this example, it shows how interpretations can vary: if you live in Austria, I'd say you're not visiting Austria. So it wasn't a lie.

Good one!

Whether or not it could be risky to trade with someone would depend on the lie. If the person claims to never have scammed and lied to a customer in his life and doesn't have alt accounts, and we later find out he did exactly that by connecting his Telegram to both Bitcointalk accounts, for example, it's obviously not someone you should be comfortable dealing with.

But for some other more innocent lies to protect oneself or their privacy, it might not be that big of an issue. For example, I could ask you if you visited Austria this year. You say no. But 3 months ago you posted a few photos of some shops (not photos of yourself) where you used Bitcoin to pay for stuff and I happen to recognize those shops, the street where they are located, and know they are in Linz, Austria. You just lied to me when you didn't have to, but the reason you did it is because you maybe don't want people to know you live in Linz, and not because you are a scammer. 

Who could it be?

What if someone is ashamed of the open-mouth horse kiss they did while drunk? If someone would ask you about it, you could either deny it ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"^*), or say you don't want to answer, which makes you look guilty anyway.

Maybe she's hiding something

^* Not mine, but no plagiarism either: I sure hope the reader knows who said this famous quote.

@Sandra: Like TP, I enjoy the weird way you write posts, it's quite endearing. "Gloves" as a nickname made me smile.

Anyway, I ran this proposal by my honeybun (Mrs. Gloves) and she looked at me sympathetically, and sweetly explained that I don't understand humans very well, and that I should prepare for more pushback. So, between my compulsive need to "defend" this idea and what will probably be a stream of neigh-sayers (get it? because of the horse thing?) I'll take a step back from this topic and only poke my head in once in a while.

P.S. I added a few points to the initial post.

PowerGlove,
I understand that these is an appraisal; a type that's expected of everyone to Foster the rehabilitation process, in the long run. Everyone has an equal right to their prerogatives. AFAIK - it's driven in diverse ways... people don't say or suggest the same thing so for that reason, I'll say that you're right to make a move. The question is: is these some kinda segregation BTW the typically masked persons behind every account -- persons to Which you don't even know personally? Or are we just planning on for an unleveled rule to ruin our priceless liberty and engaged in wholesome TYRANNY?

Gloves, you've a visceral conscription and you won't need to convince anyone of that: but I'm afraid that this particular appraisal was a misconception. I was hoping to get on something that'll have me drowned in a pool of perplexity and anxiety at the same time ^{and get my panties soaked in sweat}  

Change is the only thing constant: anyone could decide to say anything at anytime and at the long run, feel remorseful or left in their plight, such that they have no other choice than to evade or revoke the statement. I might claim to be something I'm not today, then by tomorrow -- I'd say I was intoxicated, too anxious or stressed ( emotional degradation)...
The worst part is suggesting it as a ban-able offense; you're trying to create an atmosphere where people ain't given that pseudonymous freedom anymore and that'll automatically make out more forgeries outta people's asses.

Comee onnnn..... Dearrrrr --
when there's a RULE, there's a WRONG. introducing very many rules won't make things right....

If the purpose of this was to be made yet,  another way to trust peeps for not having different statement, is it even worth the time? Someone could keep pretending (some gurus are already good with that) until he/she gains a bunch of trust without ever being trustworthy, are you in any doubt?? How about the lies over the years? Will it be scrutinized as compared to the latter day? I'M NOT A LIAR -- atleast not in here -- BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR THAT..
lemme give others a chance to say their thoughts too.

Sandra 👩‍🦱

Just being genuine. With technical stuff, I feel at home, but with forum politics I'm not yet very sure of myself; so "too junior" in that context was neither sarcastic nor ironic.

Yup, I agree with you. Like I said to suchmoon, I didn't really think of that. But, I'm also mindful of how easily this mis-tagging could be avoided: Just don't make false (or any, for that matter) declarations in that thread.

That's where I disagree with you a little bit. I mean, aside from me horsing around, the thread is only meant to be used for a small set of declarations (see my edit); just stuff like alt accounts, merit abuse, trust abuse, etc.

In my mind, honesty is strongly correlated with trade risk, so while I may feel comfortable transacting with someone who has done one or two of those things, I would never trade with someone who had lied about any of them.

Let's see, you lie and then you get tagged and banned. I don't really see this place becoming a place where you can't lie but you are welcome to scam others without being banned. The trust feedback is already used wrongly, this would just add one more wrong way to use the trust feedback.

In your example of mouth kissing horses, I don't see why you should be tagged if we find a video where you do exactly that. That doesn't make you a high-risk person in trading. I know it's just a silly example, but still. I think this forum has other existential problems which need to be solved before introducing other ways to ban/use trust ratings for the wrong purposes.

I don't think that your idea will be beneficial to the forum. The forum has already given its users some kind of freedom. I mean if you want to be a suck or a troll, it's up to you.
If you personally feel someone is lying and deserves to be tagged, be bold enough to leave a tag.

Some people come up to claim they are Satoshi, will you expect them to go to the same thread and take an oath? And if nobody proves that they are Satoshi, does it automatically make them Satoshi?
I don't care much about the lies, because I've been lied to so many times, what matters is what I choose to believe and not what was told me.


Being sarcastic or ironic?

You have made a suggestion that was implemented in this forum and that should be an indication that ranks doesn't matter, what you bring to the table matters.

You're totally right, of course. Not all lies are equal and I don't want to encourage incorrect tagging, I didn't really think of that. On the other hand, if you don't want to face the (possibly unfair) consequences of lying, then just don't let yourself be goaded into posting a false declaration, you know?

Yeah, me too. But that's kind of what I find interesting about this (especially the banhammer version); I like the idea of speeding up investigations by having more signals available that someone might be being dishonest, and a refusal to post something in that thread is a pretty strong signal.

I also like the idea of having a place where reputations can be defended by posting things that are likely (or at least more likely) to be true. Of course, there needs to be the credible threat of being banned for any of the "game theory" to work out.

Yep, that's a good idea. A thread like that would probably need to already exist before a "Ban me if I'm lying" thread would be practical anyway.

That's between me and my filly.

This is like opening Pandora's box of drama! Dramatalk.org is still available.

What if I declare I'm full of shit?

Bitcointalk is going to be very quiet this way. I've seen so many cases of being "lost in translation", and different interpretations can give a totally different meaning to a certain statement.
Even government officials (AKA politicians) don't get fired for lying. In many cases in real life, lying is socially accepted and even expected. Most people don't want honesty because it hurts their feelings.

That's very specific. How about close-mouth?

Well, yes, I like both ideas, but consider this: liars are everywhere. It is inevitable that they will be here. I doubt that such people will voluntarily publish incriminating evidence about themselves here ... at least not if they have any common sense or self-preservation. Liars will always try to cover their tracks. If they admit to lying or confirm their lie and a thread provides proof of their guilt - then yes, they are guilty as charged. If they deny it - then there isn't much more you can do because of the nature of this place. You cannot force someone to admit they are a liar.

So, I think it will be more useful to have a thread where members can post evidence that someone is lying. And just like we have threads to expose alt accounts or plagiarists, I think it would be helpful for members to post evidence about someone who has lied. If someone is obviously lying, and you can prove it - then it would be great if we could have a thread where the evidence could be posted. It would also help if other members could verify those claims and offer additional proof, if necessary. I think a thread like this will help clear up confusion about what is true and what isn't, especially in regards to controversial topics.

Without reading the topic title, it looked to me like a thread where other users can archive evidence, with a specific format regarding different users, so anyone looking for it can easily search using that format and find it, and I was down for that.

A thread where users are sworn to truth is not quite feasible, neither do I think it would be used or that a forum rule would be added cause of that.
If there is evidence to show out a user to be lying it should be posted, they should not be compelled to prove innocence by posting on a thread.

Yeah I think there is not much of a benefit in doing something like that.

Staked addresses are useful for e.g. recovering an account or some other proof of identity. Staked truth (or lie) doesn't really benefit a truthful person and surely doesn't benefit a liar.

BTW tagging, let alone banning, for lying - not something we need IMO, unless that lie has broader consequences causing "high risk" in trading with the person. Which is a whole other thing beyond the scope of such thread and again, slim chance that "criminals" would incriminate themselves in said thread.

Yep. I suppose it's a matter of how much usage you believe a thread like that would have, though. I mean, especially with the caveat that it should only be used for declarations that are potentially falsifiable by forum members, do you think it would be used so much that it would be unmaintainable? With millions of members, you'd think the "Stake your Bitcoin address here" thread would be overflowing, but it just quietly ticks over (582 pages and counting) with only a post every now and then (I know that's a very different demographic, and a topic that most people use one time and then never again, but still). Although, maybe I'm underestimating how often people would enjoy putting each other to the test and saying "Oh really, why don't you post that in the pinocchio thread?"

Edit: Reading Chymist's post again, it looks like maybe my horse-kissing joke might have confused things. Just in case it did, I want to be clear that the proposal is for people themselves to post their declarations in the right thread, not in random places like I did. I'm not expecting some poor soul to have to scour the forum looking for declarations to quote. All the maintainer of this hypothetical new topic would have to do is delete off-topic posts and occasionally quote a declaration themselves, when the community itself has failed to do so (which won't happen very often if the "Stake your Bitcoin address here" topic is anything to go by).

Oh man, you don't know what you're missing. 

I see a lot of problems with your suggestion, with the first being the maintenance of such a thread.  There's no way any moderators are going to have time to do a job like that--nor should they when there's so much crap that needs to be swept up off the filthy floors of some sections.  But even if it were just a volunteer (or even a team of volunteers), the task seems like it'd be a never-ending one, not to mention an organizational nightmare. 

Think of how many members there are on bitcointalk.  Millions.  Who chooses which statements by which members are important enough to be quoted in a thread like what you proposed?  It almost hurts my brain to think about it, sort of like contemplating infinity for too long.

I'm not saying those lying-ass liars that lie around lying 24/7 don't need to be called out on their falsehoods, but I don't see it being done like this.  By the way I just looked at when you registered, PowerGlove, and I could have sworn you were around for a lot longer than you have been.

I think it would be cool if the community had some kind of tool (however blunt) to help smoke out liars. So, the way I see it working is that someone senior (maybe a mod) maintains a thread (in Reputation?) that's meant to collect and quote truth "declarations" (kind of like how address staking works, the quoting is to prevent edits/deletions). The idea is that if someone says something like: "I don't have any alt accounts.", then you can encourage them to state that fact in this new topic. Then they go over there and post something to that effect in a format like this: "I, $MEMBER do hereby state the following: As of $TIMESTAMP, I $DECLARATION."

If it later turns out that this person was full of shit, then tagging can ensue. Even better, if this system were supported by a new forum rule that lying in that specific thread is a bannable offense, then people would think very carefully about what they write there. I don't believe that banning is too harsh of a punishment, because nothing (except community pressure) forces anyone to ever write anything in that topic, if they don't want to. Of course, their refusal to do so would also be a semi-reliable signal that they might be full of shit.

I'll go first: "I, PowerGlove do hereby state the following: As of Oct 15 2022, I've never open-mouth kissed a horse." [This is a joke and a terrible example]

Anyway, I'm not wedded to this idea and I realize I'm still too junior to make suggestions like these, but maybe it'll spark some interesting discussion between more experienced members!

Edit: To be clear, the only kinds of "declarations" that I have in mind are things which are potentially falsifiable by other forum members (otherwise, why bother) and that ends up being a pretty small set of things (alt accounts, merit abuse, trust abuse, etc.)

Here are a few things I'd like to say about this proposal:

• I had a very specific thing in mind when I thought of this (the recent naim027 drama, which is what got me thinking about honesty).
• I'm against reckless tagging and don't want to encourage misuse of the trust system.
• My position is scattered throughout this thread, and you'll have to read each my posts to understand it.
• This proposal is (I feel) a little more subtle and sophisticated than most people are giving it credit for.
• Please try and give it a "generous" reading, steel-manning leads to better discussion than straw-manning does.