It appears from that screenshot that permission was given on both sides to share with the respective moderator teams. This kind of post to the chain just feels wrong and dirty.
Once the information was shared outside of the conversation between Aggroed and Gmuxx, that information was shared with the public. While the original sharing of information was limited in scope, neither party could object to either group doing what they wanted with that information. It's already out in the open.
While it might seem like a breach of privacy, what one shares with other users immediately leaves the scope of one's control. It's substantively no different than having a conversation with someone, who then goes on to repeat the conversation with another person or group of people. The advantage here is that the conversation can be repeated verbatim, without the telephone effect distorting the person's words.
Both sides of the conversation specifically limit the scope of the sharing in that screenshot. They both list that they want to share it with their respective moderator teams in the private channels on their Discord servers.
I fail to see how that is 'sharing it with the public'. They in effect said the same thing as 'Is it ok if I share this with a private group of individuals for whom it may be relevant?'
That is not the same as 'Is it ok if I share this with anyone and everyone I choose going forward?'
I feel you might be reaching for a rationalization in sharing it on the chain when this should have been a matter for internal and private discussion with the groups both sides agreed to share it with. We each get to have our own interpretation of this, I am simply stating that I disagree with yours.
Our rationalization is based on common-law traditions regarding whether communications made explicitly in the presence of or shared with third parties, either spontaneously or by agreement, are considered private. We don't feel this is a stretch, as this same communication made in person and recorded, and then subsequently shared with another group, would not be afforded any privacy, regardless of what the original parties wish.
This is an excellent conversation to have, however. Thank you for your replies.
That might be the technical reasoning behind your believing you could do it, but the spirit of both the requests to share is fairly clear. Even if you feel you didn't violate some sort of agreement to keep the sharing limited, I feel you violated a trust by doing this.
It feels hurtful and wrong to use these conversations to help paint what I suspect was a lot of people individually deciding that they wanted to vote elsewhere for their own reasons, based on the behavior of the witness team in question, rather than on any 'bullying' by one person.
What is to be gained by this? Showing everyone you are upset and bothered by some unvotes? Imagine standing up in a group and pointing at another person and claiming, "That guy, he is telling everyone to not support me, look at how bad that guy is!"
Where is that a reasoned and mature behavior?
I had kept my tiny, insignificant witness vote present, because I didn't feel the team had been doing anything I couldn't at least somewhat support, regardless of who was on it.
This however is a bit much. I welcome the day when the witness team begins acting more rational and I can return my vote.
I'm surprised you don't think that exposing possible coercion or undue influence against witness voters is not a worthy goal. As mentioned earlier, we had that reasoning explicitly given to us, and we had this message from Aggroed. Unless you're trying not to, it is pretty easy to draw a logical inference from one to the other.
That said, if Aggroed isn't behind this, and there is some other party or parties involved, we would like to make that known as well. Putting this out publicly was a conscious decision to draw attention to what we were told and what we believe is happening. There's nothing immature or unreasonable about exposing corruption or coercion.
Permission was given by both parties to both parties to share the text of the conversation, provided it was shared verbatim.
It appears from that screenshot that permission was given on both sides to share with the respective moderator teams. This kind of post to the chain just feels wrong and dirty.
Once the information was shared outside of the conversation between Aggroed and Gmuxx, that information was shared with the public. While the original sharing of information was limited in scope, neither party could object to either group doing what they wanted with that information. It's already out in the open.
While it might seem like a breach of privacy, what one shares with other users immediately leaves the scope of one's control. It's substantively no different than having a conversation with someone, who then goes on to repeat the conversation with another person or group of people. The advantage here is that the conversation can be repeated verbatim, without the telephone effect distorting the person's words.
Both sides of the conversation specifically limit the scope of the sharing in that screenshot. They both list that they want to share it with their respective moderator teams in the private channels on their Discord servers.
I fail to see how that is 'sharing it with the public'. They in effect said the same thing as 'Is it ok if I share this with a private group of individuals for whom it may be relevant?'
That is not the same as 'Is it ok if I share this with anyone and everyone I choose going forward?'
I feel you might be reaching for a rationalization in sharing it on the chain when this should have been a matter for internal and private discussion with the groups both sides agreed to share it with. We each get to have our own interpretation of this, I am simply stating that I disagree with yours.
Our rationalization is based on common-law traditions regarding whether communications made explicitly in the presence of or shared with third parties, either spontaneously or by agreement, are considered private. We don't feel this is a stretch, as this same communication made in person and recorded, and then subsequently shared with another group, would not be afforded any privacy, regardless of what the original parties wish.
This is an excellent conversation to have, however. Thank you for your replies.
That might be the technical reasoning behind your believing you could do it, but the spirit of both the requests to share is fairly clear. Even if you feel you didn't violate some sort of agreement to keep the sharing limited, I feel you violated a trust by doing this.
It feels hurtful and wrong to use these conversations to help paint what I suspect was a lot of people individually deciding that they wanted to vote elsewhere for their own reasons, based on the behavior of the witness team in question, rather than on any 'bullying' by one person.
What is to be gained by this? Showing everyone you are upset and bothered by some unvotes? Imagine standing up in a group and pointing at another person and claiming, "That guy, he is telling everyone to not support me, look at how bad that guy is!"
Where is that a reasoned and mature behavior?
I had kept my tiny, insignificant witness vote present, because I didn't feel the team had been doing anything I couldn't at least somewhat support, regardless of who was on it.
This however is a bit much. I welcome the day when the witness team begins acting more rational and I can return my vote.
I'm surprised you don't think that exposing possible coercion or undue influence against witness voters is not a worthy goal. As mentioned earlier, we had that reasoning explicitly given to us, and we had this message from Aggroed. Unless you're trying not to, it is pretty easy to draw a logical inference from one to the other.
That said, if Aggroed isn't behind this, and there is some other party or parties involved, we would like to make that known as well. Putting this out publicly was a conscious decision to draw attention to what we were told and what we believe is happening. There's nothing immature or unreasonable about exposing corruption or coercion.
Indeed, the tactic to discredit and gaslight is a well-established, well-known countermove when the facts hit a little to close to home.