Topic: REEE™: madnessteat - page 2. (Read 878 times)

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

yes) that realy seems korner's behavior

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.

I think you're manipulating everyone now just by asking that question.

Hmmm.... Does this mean that Lauda is a korner's alt?

I would recommend NOT posting in any of Lauda's selfmod topics..

Even if they quote you to drag you into their topic, and you reply, Lauda will delete your posts and leave chopped up out of context quotes of yours to try to make you look stupid..


I get plenty of PMs containing suggestions about my inclusions list and I highly doubt that Lauda considers such PM suggestions manipulation.. Now does he?

marlboroza , you also gave me a tilde at the time, but after checking my profile, you took it off https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-did-you-add-me-to-your-dt0-with-5102731. 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?

You tagged lauda because he published PM, would you tag TECSHARE for publishing PM? Actually, he is included to your trust network, are you sure you trust someone who published PM while tagging someone who did the same thing?

You will find answer in my question  

Ofcourse, but it's up to moderators to deal with the rules. The trust system is not about rules, but about trust. Is it possible to trust a user who shows personal correspondence? Would you trust someone who shares your messages without permission?


I think you're right here. In some cases, posting private message can resolve public disputes. If the publication is not provoked by public discussion, then I consider such a publication unacceptable.

I don't think it needs a red tag, not in this case anyway. Perhaps someone publishing a PM that they promised to keep secret would be worthy of negative trust, depending on circumstances. In this case it's just a dick move. Can't red-tag every dick.

you absolutly right
but in this case she did it with the aim of conspiracy and manipulation
everyone knows Lauda long time colluding for manipulate trust system

No, I believe you should not do that  Like what you said, it doesn't violate forum rules
This is about the ethical scope, we should not publicize private messages to the community. But it does not mean that it is not allowed, in some cases, users should publish the message to clarify the problem. In this case, it is absolutely allowed. A few other users have made private messages public when needed, Yahoo62278 is an example, he is transparent in the matters to be handled.
I think removing the tag would be more reasonable than the neutral change, you are looking quite stressed in personal messages  Let's think more comfortable in this case 

Another one of Dave's rambling trust comments.

Everyone has their own view of what should and should not be in trust.
*I* feel that it should be based only on financial matters. But that is just me. If you think Lauda cannot be trusted with financial dealings, red trust. If you think TECSHARE cannot be trusted with financial dealings, red trust. If you think I cannot be trusted with financial dealings red trust.
Everything else should be neutral with an explanation. It is VERY far from an ideal situation but it's what we have to work with.

The problem is (once again IMO) that personal feelings about people have nothing to do with the reality of if we can trust them to do what they said they will do.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The trust and feedback should be separate. I trust a lot of people on this forum.
My trust list (more or less) is people I have had dealings with or people I know have had dealings with that concern financial matters.
The people I have left trust for I have had financial dealings with.

Because that is what we have to work with.

I would love to have feedback / trust be separate.
This way someone could post *feedback* like "I trust kzv bacause....." or "I don't trust kzv because....." If we bought or sold or traded something or had another financial dealings I could leave you *trust* because I could say that you do or do not follow though on financial dealings.

This way I could take look at say. "wow, davef has a few dozen good trades, but he is an asshat and I just do not want to deal with him" Now other members are looking at my feedback / trust seeing a mixing of both.

I know I have done trades with some people who have not left me positive trust / feedback because of other things that have gone on with the forum. So be it.
I think it would be better if they could say, "yeah you can trust him I bought "X" from him and he shipped w/o issue" and then they could post about me being an arrogant ass and will give you an earful about why you are wrong doing things the way you are doing them.

Yeah, I have said it all before and will say it again. Just saw this and had to get it off my chest.

As for trust lists and ~ people on your list. With the DT1 / DT2 drama, it's becoming a bigger disaster. Not sure how to fix it, but that is also part of the problem. There are people who are 100% opposite and fight each other all day here. I trust them both in terms of financial dealings. Would not want to hang out with either of them. They ~ each other. Does adding them into my list really make a difference at that point?

Enough rambling from me. Got to go to work. [checks lottery ticket, didn't win, yep have to go]

-Dave

For me, I am not agree to leave negative feedback for posting personal messages. Sometimes (in some obvious case) its required to post for prove something, I have remember a case where a DT members demand some money to remove red tag. Then victim was forced to post evidence. However I am quite disagree to post personal messages on publicly, but shouldn't tag for that reason. This isn't something use trust system IMO. So posting PM case shouldn't handle with trust system.

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.

It seems like a pretty simple attempt to find out what your reasoning was. Under your definitions, anyone who doesn't simply agree with you without question is attempting to "manipulate the trust system".

no proofs for that and never will
all proofs provided by person above is fake and lie

I need proofs for that.

Make sure you do the same for Techy and OGNasty. 

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

archive