Peloso's off of DT1 now it seems.
Topic: madnessteat (Read 1106 times)
madnessteat is of course part of this trust abuse, by including one of the worst members possible into DT. This proves my claim even more and this is the ending post of this thread.
Uniformity. Got it. Thanks.
OMG LOLDo I get a uniformity guild uniform to go with it?
Uniformity. Got it. Thanks.
OMG LOL
Do I get a uniformity guild uniform to go with it?
The only one in that group that I don't exclude is kzv, who coincidentally (or not) is the one person who asked for a public discussion on this subject and later revised his red trust to neutral.
As I said, no changes to my trust list are forthcoming as a result of this.
Uniformity. Got it. Thanks. As I said, no changes to my trust list are forthcoming as a result of this.
That is not what I meant. See here.
Not sure what you meant then. I'm excluding most of those users so should I unexclude or include them?The only one in that group that I don't exclude is kzv, who coincidentally (or not) is the one person who asked for a public discussion on this subject and later revised his red trust to neutral.
As I said, no changes to my trust list are forthcoming as a result of this.
That is not what I meant. See here.
Not sure what you meant then. I'm excluding most of those users so should I unexclude or include them?That is not what I meant. See here.
Not sure what you meant then. I'm excluding most of those users so should I unexclude or include them?
I had high hopes for you, suchmoon.
I'm sorry for disappointing you in whatever it is that you were hoping for.
You might want to brush up on what the merit system is for before you make any more asinine cryptohuntery conclusions from that.
Now, look at this from Lauda’s position: Suppose that someone created a thread against you a year ago based on your trust list, and is now repeatedly PMing you about same and accusing you of doing something wrong with it. Please describe that situation carefully: If you approve of madnessteat’s behaviour, then your own critics may forseeably take that as an invitation.
I get PMs about trust lists quite often, some more accusatory than others... it's a non-issue.
I can see dumping an entire PM chain to defend oneself - I don't think a person would be guilty of a moral crime.
It is funny really. Had I played along, and one of Russians published MY PM chain (this very chain, just modified) it would be applauded for. This is why I criticize everyone left and right. Either apply uniformly or do not apply anything at all.Why, what an idea: Actual objective standards!
On “Ethics and Judgment”
Sure it's not a "crime" here to publish a PM but doing so, especially for no real reason, sends a message (pun intended) about one's judgement and ethics.
suchmoon, yes, let’s talk about “ethics and judgment”.
To reach this point requires a delicate dance:
...is superlatively trustworthy... I will personally vouch...
Without saying too much, I will give the general outline: It starts with a casual exchange of some PMs that, for my part, could cause me some extra headaches or minor embarrassment if revealed by the other party. It then proceeds to encrypted communications, where perhaps I may begin to discuss matters that I would never mention in a Personal Message which is readily accessible to Cloudflare/NSA, forum admins and high-ranking staff, e-mail providers who my handle any e-mailed copies of PMs, the forum’s server providers, said e-mail providers’ server providers, any blackhats who can compromise the forum’s huge, creaky pile of PHP code...
:-/
This doesn’t mean that I chat about anything too “interesting” via encrypted communiations, with Lauda or otherwise; I am not involved in anything “too ‘interesting’”, anyway. What it does mean is that I can talk about things that I simply refuse to broadcast before the unseen all-seeing eyes of numerous known and unknown persons. To get to know someone’s character on a level where I would say, “I trust this person!”, it is necessary to be able to speak at least a little bit freely, in private.
(Obviously, it is best to start with encrypted communications; but for reasons that baffle me, applied cryptography is mostly unpopular on a “crypto” forum devoted to Satoshi’s cypherpunk money.)
I had high hopes for you, suchmoon. But you never even got far enough with me that I felt I really needed to push the issue of using encryption. Based on your public demands that Lauda violate my confidences and criticisms of her for her refusal to do so, such as you have even repeated in this thread, I would never trust you with confidential information. So as for “ethics and judgment”.
And as for Lauda’s...
Browbeating a Dead Horse
Browbeat? You used to know what words mean.
Rather than direct attention to my use of the word “browbeat”, why don’t you give the class a lesson on reading comprehension.* Ascertain the substance of the PMs that Lauda published, in-context and in the totality of the circumstances. Then, for extra credit, make a short list of colloquial English words that would suitably describe this type of interrogation, argumentativeness, and accusations of “manipulations of other people's opinions” from a person who has previously done one of those “conspiracy theory” threads that you usually oh so dearly love.
(* Protip: This sentence concludes with a period, because it is not actually interrogative: It is a rhetorical question which pointedly omits the question mark.)
Indeed, in this case, the only evidence of your opinion is that at the time, you thought that madnessteat’s prior thread was frivolous:
Merited by suchmoon (4)
I do not see any reason for you to open a thread here why somebody included/excluded me/or I am in nobody list. Everybody have their personal preference to include or exclude.
PS: Just curios to know what was your prior contribution to this system before this new system is announced.
PS: Just curios to know what was your prior contribution to this system before this new system is announced.
https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=r1s2g3
| 1/27/2019 2:47:33 PM | suchmoon (Summary) | r1s2g3 (Summary) | 4 | Re: Why did you add me to your DT0 with ~ |
Now, look at this from Lauda’s position: Suppose that someone created a thread against you a year ago based on your trust list, and is now repeatedly PMing you about same and accusing you of doing something wrong with it. Please describe that situation carefully: If you approve of madnessteat’s behaviour, then your own critics may forseeably take that as an invitation.
The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon.
Oops; I tried. Well, I kept it under a thousand words. Excluding quotations, etc., it amounts to less than a fifth of that!
I can see dumping an entire PM chain to defend oneself - I don't think a person would be guilty of a moral crime.
It is funny really. Had I played along, and one of Russians published MY PM chain (this very chain, just modified) it would be applauded for. This is why I criticize everyone left and right. Either apply uniformly or do not apply anything at all.I'll follow your exclusion list (among many other individuals) closely relating to these recent events, and let's see if uniformity is going to hold up on what is uncalled for and how it gets handled.
My exclusion list hasn't changed because of this nor is it expected to. Not everything that happens on this forum requires an exclusion or red trust. Sometimes just saying "it's a dick move" is enough.Thule 2020-03-04 Reference Published PM without consent.
Known scammer and abuser .
I would not trust him a single Cent.
Big part of community got their BCH stolen by him as escrow
peloso 2020-03-04 Reference Publication of personal messages without consent.
kzv 2020-03-04 Reference Publication of personal messages without consent. User cannot be trusted
peloso 2020-03-03 Reference Created a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list
Balthazar 2020-03-03 Reference Archive reference for previous feedback
Balthazar 2020-03-03 Reference Created a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list. If I remember correctly, this user was claiming that such activities are untrustworthy (see peloso user profile for details).
Known scammer and abuser .
I would not trust him a single Cent.
Big part of community got their BCH stolen by him as escrow
peloso 2020-03-04 Reference Publication of personal messages without consent.
kzv 2020-03-04 Reference Publication of personal messages without consent. User cannot be trusted
peloso 2020-03-03 Reference Created a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list
Balthazar 2020-03-03 Reference Archive reference for previous feedback
Balthazar 2020-03-03 Reference Created a pseudo-religious cult to manipulate default trust list. If I remember correctly, this user was claiming that such activities are untrustworthy (see peloso user profile for details).
I am dumping the whole PM conversation with madnessteat.
Classy.
LOL.
Lauda’s publication of unsolicited contact seeking to persuade, then browbeat her into changing her trust list is not only justifiable, but a positive public service for the good of the forum.
The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon.
The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon.
Browbeat? You used to know what words mean.
Sure it's not a "crime" here to publish a PM but doing so, especially for no real reason, sends a message (pun intended) about one's judgement and ethics.
Edit:
I am dumping the whole PM conversation with madnessteat.
Classy.
LOL.
Lauda is superlatively trustworthy with confidential information which she has promised to keep as such. I say this based on my substantial experience with her handling of confidential information. For obvious reasons, I cannot publicly disclose evidence of that experience; nevertheless, I will personally vouch that I would trust her with almost anything.
However, that is irrelevant to her publication of (0) unsolicited, hostile contacts that, separately and additionally, were (1) made via a communications medium that explicitly bears no expectation of privacy.
PMs are not private—explicitly not “private” messages. On this forum, neither rules nor custom prohibit their publication.
Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMs
For my part, I treat unencrypted PMs with the discretion of common courtesy. Likewise, if someone were to publish my unencrypted PMs gratuitously, for petty spite, and/or otherwise without any good cause or even a colourable reason, then I would consider that to show indiscretion—i.e., evidence of an untrustworthy character; and depending on the particulars of the circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, I may issue negative feedback accordingly. Otherwise, I have no illusions about the privacy of unencrypted Personal Messages: I treat them as a sort of one-on-one forum, or an open-door room aside from the main room at a party.
Encrypted communications with explicit bilateral promises of confidentiality are a quite different matter, of course.
That is sound “good cause”, per what I stated above.
There you go again. FYI, I do not communicate with Lauda via unencrypted Personal Messages; and in re Kalemder, no matter what the substance of what I told her, she has no choice but to keep my confidence, unless she were to explicitly betray my trust in her promises. Stop giving her grief for her more or less quiet refusal to do that! Should you be in the mood to grind an axe on this issue, take it up with me—but please be advised that I am not so kind as Lauda is.
PSA: On personal communications in a panopticon
Vide the very first post in my post history!
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare.
Anybody who expects privacy from unencrypted Personal Messages is lamentably misguided. Your unencrypted PMs can be read by many different parties without your knowledge. By close analogy, are you so stupid as to expect privacy for your unencrypted Gmail, your Facebook messages, your bank records, your credit/debit card purchase records, your tax records, your gold purchases, your phone’s SMS texts and voice calls, your phone’s locational data (including cell tower data) that physically track you as the contemptibly dumb, contentedly grazing tagged livestock that you are, your Google search terms, your Twitter DMs, your Skype calls, anything you say or do in the presence of your “smart” TV, the forms that you happily fill out for advertising gimmicks from companies who want your name, address, and birthday for commercial Big Data purposes, etc., etc., ad maximam nauseam!?
*crickets*
Sorry. So sorry. Perhaps that was the wrong question, in the sense of hitting the mark on issues that are more comfortable to ignore: An evil question. Keep grazing,grinning idiots happy masses; let not my musings disturb your ovine contentment. Cheers! Please enjoy a refreshment from my sponsors, and remember to retweet!
AD SPACE FOR SALE.
$$$ YOUR LOGO HERE! €€€
Quibbling about etiquette in the personal handling of unencrypted Personal Messages is not seeing the forest for the trees. You are casually chatting in the presence of a telescreen, and then worrying about whether the other party to the conversation may tell others what you said.
That was a tangent, but relevant to the absurdity of expectations of privacy for unencrypted Personal Messages.
I now return to the point:
Lauda’s publication of unsolicited contact seeking to persuade, then browbeat her into changing her trust list is not only justifiable, but a positive public service for the good of the forum.
The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon.
However, that is irrelevant to her publication of (0) unsolicited, hostile contacts that, separately and additionally, were (1) made via a communications medium that explicitly bears no expectation of privacy.
Was it really necessary to post private discussions on public?
PMs are not private—explicitly not “private” messages. On this forum, neither rules nor custom prohibit their publication.
Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMs
There is no restriction against it. PM = Personal Message, not Private Message.
Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy.
For my part, I treat unencrypted PMs with the discretion of common courtesy. Likewise, if someone were to publish my unencrypted PMs gratuitously, for petty spite, and/or otherwise without any good cause or even a colourable reason, then I would consider that to show indiscretion—i.e., evidence of an untrustworthy character; and depending on the particulars of the circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, I may issue negative feedback accordingly. Otherwise, I have no illusions about the privacy of unencrypted Personal Messages: I treat them as a sort of one-on-one forum, or an open-door room aside from the main room at a party.
Encrypted communications with explicit bilateral promises of confidentiality are a quite different matter, of course.
Yes. Any attempts, and I do not care by who, of even remote manipulation, coercion, threats and many other things instantly get posted by me.
That is sound “good cause”, per what I stated above.
Yet it doesn't provide any "evidence" so what was the point? Makes me think that the "secret evidence" in other cases, such as Kalemder's, is similarly flimsy to non-existent.
No, this is not a request to publish any more PMs, and not an excuse to blame others for your lapse in judgement.
No, this is not a request to publish any more PMs, and not an excuse to blame others for your lapse in judgement.
There you go again. FYI, I do not communicate with Lauda via unencrypted Personal Messages; and in re Kalemder, no matter what the substance of what I told her, she has no choice but to keep my confidence, unless she were to explicitly betray my trust in her promises. Stop giving her grief for her more or less quiet refusal to do that! Should you be in the mood to grind an axe on this issue, take it up with me—but please be advised that I am not so kind as Lauda is.
PSA: On personal communications in a panopticon
Aside from myself, the PMs can be read by the administrators, the datacenter technicians, Cloudflare, and the NSA. They are public as is anyways.
Vide the very first post in my post history!
I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare.
Anybody who expects privacy from unencrypted Personal Messages is lamentably misguided. Your unencrypted PMs can be read by many different parties without your knowledge. By close analogy, are you so stupid as to expect privacy for your unencrypted Gmail, your Facebook messages, your bank records, your credit/debit card purchase records, your tax records, your gold purchases, your phone’s SMS texts and voice calls, your phone’s locational data (including cell tower data) that physically track you as the contemptibly dumb, contentedly grazing tagged livestock that you are, your Google search terms, your Twitter DMs, your Skype calls, anything you say or do in the presence of your “smart” TV, the forms that you happily fill out for advertising gimmicks from companies who want your name, address, and birthday for commercial Big Data purposes, etc., etc., ad maximam nauseam!?
*crickets*
Sorry. So sorry. Perhaps that was the wrong question, in the sense of hitting the mark on issues that are more comfortable to ignore: An evil question. Keep grazing,
AD SPACE FOR SALE.
$$$ YOUR LOGO HERE! €€€
Ahem...
Man and Technics
“Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago)
[...]
I don’t have a television... or a smartphone.
I believe nullius has a more optimistic view of the future than I do. :)
“Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago)
[...]
I don’t have a television... or a smartphone.
Quibbling about etiquette in the personal handling of unencrypted Personal Messages is not seeing the forest for the trees. You are casually chatting in the presence of a telescreen, and then worrying about whether the other party to the conversation may tell others what you said.
Quote
Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages.
That was a tangent, but relevant to the absurdity of expectations of privacy for unencrypted Personal Messages.
I now return to the point:
Lauda’s publication of unsolicited contact seeking to persuade, then browbeat her into changing her trust list is not only justifiable, but a positive public service for the good of the forum.
The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon.
I'll follow your exclusion list (among many other individuals) closely relating to these recent events, and let's see if uniformity is going to hold up on what is uncalled for and how it gets handled.
My exclusion list hasn't changed because of this nor is it expected to. Not everything that happens on this forum requires an exclusion or red trust. Sometimes just saying "it's a dick move" is enough.
I think everyone will be better if posting PMs without permissions will be prohibited by the rules of the forum
This is regardless of who publishes the message so long as it is being done by someone sending or receiving the message.
How would one publish the message without receiving it?
I can see dumping an entire PM chain to defend oneself - I don't think a person would be guilty of a moral crime.
Consider another example that happened to me - a user took a link I sent him in the middle of a conversation, stripped out all context, made me look like a pervert, then innocently asked "Vod, can you provide us some context? "
Post all of the thread - or at least all of an atomic post - or post nothing. If you pick and choose words, that should be considered malicious.
So @peloso and @kzv - if you believe Lauda's actions deserve red trust, consider what that user did to me. :/
Edit... this is a good quote showing malicious intent.
Explain why you sent me the below quote, or admit you enjoy looking at pictures of underage boys you fifty plus year old sick fuck.
This is due to your policy "No public evidence, can not do anything" on one hand, and me not tolerating abuse on the other hand.
Yet it doesn't provide any "evidence" so what was the point? Makes me think that the "secret evidence" in other cases, such as Kalemder's, is similarly flimsy to non-existent.No, this is not a request to publish any more PMs, and not an excuse to blame others for your lapse in judgement.
Publishing PMs is uncalled for.
I'll follow your exclusion list (among many other individuals) closely relating to these recent events, and let's see if uniformity is going to hold up on what is uncalled for and how it gets handled. I on the other hand strongly disagree, I believe theymos also sides with this view (not related to this particular case). That is, this view: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.
This is due to your policy "No public evidence, can not do anything" on one hand, and me not tolerating abuse on the other hand.
Yet it doesn't provide any "evidence" so what was the point? Makes me think that the "secret evidence" in other cases, such as Kalemder's, is similarly flimsy to non-existent.
No, this is not a request to publish any more PMs, and not an excuse to blame others for your lapse in judgement.
I will translate it (this is what happened):
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I will look into it - I have looked into it - Questions some inclusions/exclusions or sent ratings (depending on what is problematic). Keep in mind that this review is solely because User A asked.
Step 3: User A: I have excluded you.
This is what would have happened if I had acted differently:
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I have removed your exclusion.
Step 3: User A: Thanks (and possibly "I have included you" - and the cycle begins).
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I will look into it - I have looked into it - Questions some inclusions/exclusions or sent ratings (depending on what is problematic). Keep in mind that this review is solely because User A asked.
Step 3: User A: I have excluded you.
This is what would have happened if I had acted differently:
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I have removed your exclusion.
Step 3: User A: Thanks (and possibly "I have included you" - and the cycle begins).
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.
Quote
I also put you a tilde on my trust list.
I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Someone please tell me the meaning of this saying I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Is this a threatening way to manipulate trust? Or am I misunderstanding what it means? If you do not remove me from your exclusion list, I will put you on my exclusion list. In this way, it is like an act of retaliation LOL I used to send a message to a user asking him why he exclude me, but it just stopped there, there shouldn't be any revenge. We have the same hats, but we don't have the same thoughts, it's a pity
Where did you see any threats or suggestions in my PM?
You should not confuse a threat or suggestion with a fact that an action has already occurred. I didn't offer any deals. And my tilde isn't being held back.
The tilde is for a public attempt to influence user trust lists.
Lauda unable to remember what I got the tilde for, I reminded her in PM. The tilde was added at a time when TMAN created a topic about collusion in the Russian locale to undermine the trust system. Back then, Theymos called him an asshole. This is my only account and I was not involved in any collusion.
@Lauda I came home and we can continue this conversation. You still think I tried to manipulate your trust list or threatened you?
I am dumping the whole PM conversation with madnessteat.
Classy.Quote
I also put you a tilde on my trust list.
I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Someone please tell me the meaning of this saying I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Is this a threatening way to manipulate trust? Or am I misunderstanding what it means? If you do not remove me from your exclusion list, I will put you on my exclusion list. In this way, it is like an act of retaliation LOL I used to send a message to a user asking him why he exclude me, but it just stopped there, there shouldn't be any revenge. We have the same hats, but we don't have the same thoughts, it's a pity
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I will look into it - I have looked into it - Questions some inclusions/exclusions or sent ratings (depending on what is problematic). Keep in mind that this review is solely because User A asked.
Step 3: User A: I have excluded you.
This is what would have happened if I had acted differently:
Step 1: User A: You have me excluded, can you look into it?
Step 2: User B: I have removed your exclusion.
Step 3: User A: Thanks (and possibly "I have included you" - and the cycle begins).
Quote
I also put you a tilde on my trust list.
I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Someone please tell me the meaning of this saying I felt it was necessary to warn you.
Is this a threatening way to manipulate trust? Or am I misunderstanding what it means? If you do not remove me from your exclusion list, I will put you on my exclusion list. In this way, it is like an act of retaliation LOL I used to send a message to a user asking him why he exclude me, but it just stopped there, there shouldn't be any revenge. We have the same hats, but we don't have the same thoughts, it's a pity
Was it really necessary to post private discussions on public?
Yes. Any attempts, and I do not care by who, of even remote manipulation, coercion, threats and many other things instantly get posted by me. Aside from myself, the PMs can be read by the administrators, the datacenter technicians, Cloudflare, and the NSA. They are public as is anyways.However, you already answered him and ignored PM. That should ended there from your end.
I call absolute bullshit. Had I removed him from my list as he initially asked, not only would I not be excluded I would probably be included. This is a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours kind of abuse. Statements such as yours also sadly enable these people: Many examples by others "agree to disagree", "difference in opinion", "ignore it and it will go away".I have tagged Lauda.
Publication of personal messages without consent. User cannot be trusted
Make sure you do the same for Techy and OGNasty. Publication of personal messages without consent. User cannot be trusted