Topic: [Rules] Clarification required (Read 570 times)

We it seems must await the organ grinder. Ok,  for now you can fill in for your new entirely trustworthy non scamming, non extorting, non dangerous escrow mate that requires no warnings at all for the optimal protection of the innocent and honest members of this forum.

Scamming?  What this new man of straw before me. I think the flame thrower will dispense with him best.

We appear to have meandered away from laudas 180 and clear double standard on " leaking" PMs?

As had been established

Rude = wrong.

3.5 admins to 0.5

Your argument hinge upon " your " view there is no expectation of privacy. That was refuted by theymos else it would not be rude. If there was no reasonable expectation of privacy then it would not be rude.

Publish PM = wrong

Salty = wrong
FH = wrong
Theymos = wrong
Lauda = wrong when others reveal his intimidation and manipulation
Lauda =  correct when he want to leak PM
Diremonkey = no confidence in those that leak confidential material
Diremonkey = I will change my mind because I support lauda the when he said leaking is untrustworthy now I must support lauda and change again. Good monkey.

I come to your door with empty cup and ask can I have some of that sugar you have, I don't have my own sugar at my house this evening? You being nice, say of course, cum inside if you like, whilst I fill your cup. I say you are really are a very generous man. You go to the kitchen and fill my cup to the brim.  When you return to the dining room I am finishing up banging your wife. I report that I have done as you commanded and take the cup from your hand. I look disappointed and tell you I would have preferred beer.
You say to your wife that you think that was rude of her and myself. I look confused. You decide to consult theymos. He says it was treacherous villainy and a strong case for the death penalty ( a ban) ..or it could just be sub optimal depending on who just topped your wife up to the brim.

Or

I am walking past a house with lots of loud music. You run out looking frantic and tell me it's a swingers party and your wife is not going to let you bang this very hot model unless she get some new substantial meat. You can't help noticing I'm seriously packing ( even though I am wearing very loose fitting pants )and immediately promise me 100 bucks to get to this deal done now. I take a look at her and agree to the terms making sure to get the 100 up front. When I am finished 4 hours later you bring me a delicious cold beer and tell me that I'm a true gentleman, your wife shouts "a super stud too" in a tired but extremely satisfied dreamy voice.

One is rude and wrong to the vast majority
One is fair and perfectly fine to the vast majority

Warning to others is only required for scenario 1. 

Let's leave the " rude " is a actually correct or good debate for extra fun later on.
In this matter laudas own standards and opinions and their 180 transformation will be of specific interest.

Lauda? I'm looking forward to lots of public debates with lauda.

Rude ! = scamming

Rude = “offensively impolite or ill-mannered” (according to google)

rude = good?
rude = wrong?


rude is just theymos not wanting to put down some sensible objective definable rules we can work from.  Ever the anarchist and perhaps even the king of the trolls. Bags of popcorn ready with every new merit monstrosity. Can't wait for the DT1 threshold to be moved up to 500 or 1000 cycled merits. Obviously not enough popcorn stocked yet for that faux decentralized bombshell. Or even a lauda inclusion for extra entertainment. Maybe at the same time with a merit volume switch on meta and rep too. Maybe only scammers can be on default trust? that way they know what to look out for?

I have personally grown impatient with this compounded mess of merit and "trust"    but to remove laudas exclusion was simply grotesque. In light of his proven scamming and trust abuse of senior honest and faithful contributors to this forum.

Rude ? more like a complete betrayal of trust in vast majority of cases. If you wanted to say something to another member you can post in on the forum

The truth is the truth. If that is a unique view then that reflects poorly on this forum.

Of course you can present examples of my " views" that you feel are incorrect and we can debate them.

Let's await laudas explanation of this required 180 on " leaking" Private messages.

It was not vague with respect as to who it was you were referring. The others are you friends so you would not be critical of them. The vagueness was in defining the off topic irrelevant bitching parts of the highly relevant and valuable context others were prsentinf that were strictly on topic.

Anyway, has anyone seen lauda? his explanation is taking nearly as long as the one explaining his scamming and trust abuse. Almost like he is afraid to present it because it will immediately be debunked as a pack of feeble excuses to push double standards on other members when they stand up to his untrustworthy corrupt antics.

Your suggestion that incontrovertible proof, the plain truth, and other arguments no member has been able to debunk are simply unique opinions is quite telling.

There is no winning over people to abandon their unfair advantage over others. There is only providing warnings to others outside of the corrupted and broken systems of control.

There is also the satisfaction of watching them run away and hide like roaches when the spot light is focused on them. If you can not debunk a persons arguments or demonstrate any of their core points is incorrect then to run for the cowardly ignore button is all they have.

Doomad you are Doomed if you continue to openly support scammers, their double standards and abuse of the trust system. These posts will be read by millions of people as the history of bitcoin is examined by future generations.

I'm sticking with

Only lauda of the admins or prior admins claiming (now it suits him) that it is fine.

If theymos wants to come and say rude = fine. then he can. Until then I will take rude as wrong

More like

"Theymos = it is impolite"

But I'm sure your myopic mind is only capable of seeing it the way you'd prefer everyone else interpret it, so I guess your mischaracterisation is to be expected.



Couldn't have been that vague if you picked up on the fact that I was referring to you.   

Just grow up already.  Try to accept that you have a very unique take on things.  Very few people share your views and your methodology in attempting to convince them otherwise is clearly not working.  Your constant sniping in new and novel guises does nothing to endear you to the people you seem to be attempting to win over.  Forget everything you thought you knew about interaction with other humans and start again.  You'll find it's easier to persuade people when they aren't repulsed by your behaviour.

Please no derailing off topic whimpering with vague irrelvant conjecture.

I see only admin and prior admin " opinions" on "leaking" private messages and the validity of those opinions being debated.

" bitching about things they didn't like in the past"

is it correctly translated as

" scamming and double standards of my friends must not be mentioned even if they are clearly relevant and on topic"

There is the prior admin lauda, who is coming to explain the massive changes that subsequently took place that required him to 180 on " leaking " PMs, that is going to be very interesting. Hurry Please lauda. I look forward to this.

Can you Doomad be more useful to this debate by telling your friend lauda to return with his explanation. So far we have

Theymos = it is wrong
SaltySpitoon = it is wrong
Flying hellfish = it is wrong
Lauda = it is wrong to leak private messages if it reveals I am telling people to remove their friends against their will because they are intimidated by me and my toadies. I would never do it to others.

to
Lauda  = it is correct to leak other members PMs if it suits me,and I will cry if I get measures by my own standards.

It would be nice to see all admin and prior admin are on the same page. Some may believe it is not essential to pay any attention to a prior admin that was disgraced and was removed due to being strongly implicated in an extortion and has been proven a scammer who red tags his whistleblowers. I have sympathy for those with those views but why not give lauda the opportunity to demonstrate their was a massive change that required a full 180 on his opinion of "leaking" PMs and not just more double standards and manipulation.

I am hoping for the best.  Lauda don't let us down.

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.

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? 

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51184559

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

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.

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.  

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

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 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.

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.

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

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

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51188268

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.

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.

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

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51188874

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.

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?

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.