Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
- Status
Hey, James, I recall one time you mentioned to me that you're white.
And then think about all the discussions we've had over the years about racism at Sciforums.
And when we stop to think that you were just defending your vested interest when giving sympathy to white supremacism, well, your own standard says you shouldn't be discussing white supremacism. Or misogyny, as such.
It's kind of an easy standard you've set, a low bar for disqualification.
Oh, by the way, have you taken the time to explain the Star Trek standard to the members? Or the part about how they're supposed to be psychic in order to know which of your trolling posts is written as a member or a moderator? Or, oh, hey, maybe you should explain to them the part about how it turns out we should have been moderating according to our personal vesteed interests the whole time.
Y'know, since this is that thread.
Or maybe you could just skip the chase and flag him, now.
Tiassa:
It sounds like you want to have another rant about me.
I don't think Sarkus wants that in this thread on cryptocurrencies. He wants you to discuss the topic.
If you have some questions for me, personally, try direct messaging, perhaps. Maybe have a point, too.
It sounds like you want to have another rant about me.
I don't think Sarkus wants that in this thread on cryptocurrencies. He wants you to discuss the topic.
If you have some questions for me, personally, try direct messaging, perhaps. Maybe have a point, too.
You have actually failed to demonstrate that anything I have said even warrants such consideration. There is nothing unethical about not doing something that is not warranted in the first place. Maybe you need reminding of that?
Unfortunately you seem to understand so little of the subject matter, and what you do understand you don't like, that you feel there must surely be an alterior motive for someone being positive about it. It's pathetic of you. It's clearly an ad hominem attack as you're not actually addressing any of the arguments put forward but rather trying to poison the well, casting aspersions on my character.
You want to talk ethics, then try being honest in your discussions. Unfortunately you've failed at that so often you're just coming across, yet again, as hypocritical.
So, tell me, what have I said that you think warrants me declaring even whether I have any vested interest or not? Simply been supportive of the technology? If so then I think you're making Tiassa's points on this for him quite clearly. If not, what is it I've said that warrants you repeatedly asking? Nothing at all, is the answer. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
And what all this informs us is that I'm not someone who is going to pander to harassment, and that I'm going to highlight dishonesty where I find it. That it seems to be you mostly at the end of it speaks to your own behaviour. And it is not lost on others.
Because you have no grounds to at present, other than your own inability to address the actual subject matter. You haven't yet shown that anything I've said warrants such a declaration. And I've stood up out of principle to your continued harassment in this thread to do so, to highlight, yet again, your pathetic and dishonest behaviour.
But I have no intention to push this matter further, and will let your baseless accusations slide. I also won't push for an apology, given how laughably non-apologetic your previous one to me was.
Sarkus:
The ethical question of when it is appropriate to declare your vested interests is not confined to discussions of Bitcoin. It is a wider issue. You ought to be able to consider it in a context divorced from your love of Bitcoin. Instead, you want to conflate the two things.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Don't shoot the messenger.
My moral failures, whatever they might be, don't excuse your moral failures.
I have no futher desire to discuss topic (1) with you. In fact, I have very little desire to discuss topic (2) with you further either, since it seems quite beyond you. Why waste more time? You seem inexhaustible at this type of back and forth. You'll keep at this forever, if I give you half a chance. So, I'm going to save myself the time. It seems to me that you've proven yourself not to be worth the effort, anyway. You seem quite unreasonable - the sort of person who doubles down on his own moral failures and who makes excuses for them, rather than learning from them and trying to do better.
But I strongly suspect you'll still want to post another post on this, after you read this one. And if I reply to that one, there will be more. We've done this dance before, you and I. You haven't given any signs that you know when to stop digging a hole.
Hardly. There is nothing unethical about doing something that is not unethical. Obvious.
I don't actually care how enthusiastic you are about Bitcoin. I'm not enthusiastic about it. You are. It doesn't matter.
The ethical question of when it is appropriate to declare your vested interests is not confined to discussions of Bitcoin. It is a wider issue. You ought to be able to consider it in a context divorced from your love of Bitcoin. Instead, you want to conflate the two things.
You have failed to acknowledge any circumstance in which you believe it would be appropriate to declare your own vested interest, so far. Like it or not, that reflects on your character.
Sometimes the truth hurts. Don't shoot the messenger.
Nice try at deflection again, but no dice.
My moral failures, whatever they might be, don't excuse your moral failures.
Your enthusiastic attempts to promote Bitcoin. Like I said.
See above regarding using me to excuse your own moral failings. Two wrongs don't make a right. You're simply trying to distract from the issue.
Again, two topics: (1) the merits and demerits of Bitcoin; (2) the circumstances under which, ethically, one ought to declare one's vested interests.
I have no futher desire to discuss topic (1) with you. In fact, I have very little desire to discuss topic (2) with you further either, since it seems quite beyond you. Why waste more time? You seem inexhaustible at this type of back and forth. You'll keep at this forever, if I give you half a chance. So, I'm going to save myself the time. It seems to me that you've proven yourself not to be worth the effort, anyway. You seem quite unreasonable - the sort of person who doubles down on his own moral failures and who makes excuses for them, rather than learning from them and trying to do better.
We are in agreement then.
But I strongly suspect you'll still want to post another post on this, after you read this one. And if I reply to that one, there will be more. We've done this dance before, you and I. You haven't given any signs that you know when to stop digging a hole.
I'm glad we agree. And since I have done nothing that even warrants such consideration, I have not been unethical.
Clearly it does to you, as that is the basis for your harassment of me. It is the entire basis for your continued clamouring for me to declare any vested interest I have.
No, I am merely restraining the consideration to the context of this thread, which is about cryptocurrency, and not derailing a thread onto wider matters of ethics. If you want the wider discussion, start a thread about it in the sub-forum where it is more apt to do so, rather than harass me here on the matter when you clearly have nothing to say about the actual subject matter of this thread.
I don't need to acknowledge any in this thread, as this discussion is not about that. It is about cryptocurrencies. I am trying, despite your best efforts, to keep this thread on track. Start a new thread if you want to have that wider discussion. Stop trying to hijack it.
There is no truth to what you are saying, and you are not just the messenger but the one writing the garbage in the first place. You have yet to show that anything I have said warrants the ethical consideration you require, and all you're doing, still, is harassing me about this irrelevant and ridiculously low standard that you, and you alone, have set on the matter.
I never said they did, but unfortunatley all you're doing here is continuing to expose your own. Shame.
I am not promoting Bitcoin. I am discussing it. I am in favour of it as a technology. I think it has merits. If this is your idea of "promoting" then you are simply confirming everything Tiassa previously said with regard the standard you are setting in this regard, a standard which you are using to harass, because you have nothing better or more interesting to say on the actual subject matter.
Not at all. I've defended why I am not acting unethically, because there is nothing I have said that warrants such consideration as you seem to require. You have yet to show what I have said that does warrant it. You have said I have promoted Bitcoin, so show where I am doing so beyond simply discussing the pros and cons as one does in a normal conversation. Try not to simply confirm Tiassa's observation of your low standard in this regard, and thus the implications thereof.
Then scuttle off back to your hole. You haven't "discussed" anything in this topic for quite a while, instead just tried to troll and harass, and demosntrate your own dishonesty in the process. Best you not carry on with such, eh?
The only things that seem beyond anyone here are you grasping a sufficient understanding of cryptocurrencies to have anything interesting to say on the matter, and you grasping why your efforts of harassment are based on a bizarre standard, and the implications thereof. Not to mention that you seem to want to turn (2) into a wider discussion on the issue in this thread, which would simply be hijacking this thread about cryptocurrency.
But, hey, if you want to take my lack of complying with your harassment as evidence that it is "quite beyond" me, you do that, and I hope it makes you all warm and fuzzy.
As said previously, I am happy to highlight dishonesty wherever I see it, and you seem to just keep giving on that front. If you stop, maybe this thread will get back to actually discussing the issue. Or do you think that you're allowed to harass without right of reply?
Yet here you are, taking the effort. I genuinely look forward to you stopping your harassment, stopping your dishonesty, and this thread getting back to the issue of cryptocurrencies.
And yet more self-righteousness twaddle from you. All I have been guilty of in this thread is not kowtowing to your continued harassment, by not subscribing to the ridiculous standard you have set for when disclousre of vested interests is required. If it is unreasonable of me to defend myself from such baseless and self-righteous accusations as you seem willing to throw around, then yeah, I'm unreasonable. Deal with it.
As it is your continued accusations are nothing but your own blinkered desire to paint me in a bad light, because you know you have nothing else. Don't want to wast your time with me? Good, I expect you not to continue to harass me. Leave this thread to those that want to actually discuss the subject of cryptocurrencies. Can you do that?
I'm in no hole, but happy to help you dig yours. I'd prefer to stick to the thread subject, but you keep dragging it away, even openly wanting to derail it. And note that you're the one who can not bear giving people the last word, even closing threads only after a parting shot just so you can do so.
So, stop harassing me. If you want to post here then stick to the thread subject, which is cryptocurrencies, not the wider question of ethics and disclosure of vested interests (which you can start a thread for in the appropriate place if you really want to have that discussion with anyone, and failure to do so will clearly show that you've only raised it here, with the standard you have, so as to be able to harass people), and come back out of your hole when you have something actually interesting to say on the matter.
But no, you'll hypocritically want the last word.
I wait in antici... (say it!)... pation.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it seems to me perfectly fair for members to express an opinion on crypto, irrespective of personal interests in it, provided they are doing so as individuals and are not commercially engaged in promoting a product.
I don't see evidence of the latter in this thread, actually. Both the members you mention are long-term members of the forum, with a track record of posting in good faith. It's not as if we had a new arrival, enthusing about crypto and sending us links to sites on which we are encouraged to lose, I mean "invest", all our money.
Once again you completely butcher representing what the issue here is/was, but that's only to be expected from you. First, I have not been "promoting" Bitcoin, as you seem to suggest, any more than I might "promote" Star Trek for being an enjoyable show that I watch, or how good I think SpaceX might be doing. Second, it is not ethical matters in relation to Bitcoin that were the off-topic posts here per se, but rather it was your continued harassment of myself and Seattle to provide such unwarranted disclosure, and your openly stated desire to have this thread discuss more generally about the ethical considerations of when one should declare vested interests. But, of course, you throw baby out with the bathwater in your hissyfit, because it will help you not address anything, and you'll continue to fail to actually address the criticism specific about your standard for disclosure as it applies to me in this thread, and no doubt you will fail as well in the new thread.So removing the posts and putting them elsewhere, sure, whatever, but it wasn't required, other than for you to be able to deliberately misrepresent the situation to your own ends. All that was required was for you to start a new thread about the wider subject of business ethics, especially around when it is appropriate for disclosure, that you seemed so keen on. Your actions here only confirm your own miserable character, as suspected would be the case. Ah, well.
I look forward to your ongoing relevant contributions to this thread, though, as informed as you clearly are on the subject matter.
In Sarkus's case, we don't know whether he is commerically engaged to promote Bitcoin, because he refuses to tell us.
Their track records are not unblemished, actually. I would say that Sarkus's refusal to make the appropriate disclosure is a blemish. It's not like it would be hard to declare that he has an interest, or doesn't have one. Yet, we get this strange display from him. It makes me wonder why.
You don't see your talking up of the merits of Bitcoin as a promotion? You really have no idea, do you?
I'm skipping the rest of your post, since it is useless ad hominem rubbish.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Crypto can be expected to have its advocates and detractors, like any other product. We discuss other products on that basis, without suspecting undisclosed commercial interests may be at work.
If, say, sculptor were to start a thread extolling the virtues of a particular lawnmower, or angle grinder, (dull, I agree, but just the sort of thing he might do) it would be pretty odd to demand that he disclose whether or not he had a commercial interest in it, wouldn’t it? It would come across as a bit, well, paranoid, I should think.
What’s the difference in the present case, in your view?
Because it is not relevant to what I have said, and disclosure is not warranted. It has no bearing on what I have stated about Bitcoin, or cryptocurrencies in general, and you have yet to demonstrate that it does.
Yet you still haven’t demonstrated that it is appropriate. I wonder why that is? Why do you think everyone has to kowtow to harassment to abide by your standard, when it seems that standard is nonsense?
You really can’t be that stupid, James. I have already told you why I am not disclosing, why I am not kowtowing to your ongoing harassment to do so. And you continue to fail to address why your standard should be abided by. Ironic, really, given that you have set up this thread to address just that, and you can't even be bothered to do so, your best so far being to question why I can't see it as such.
Not one that requires disclosure about vested interests, any more than disclosing whether one has a vested interest in Star Trek prior to enthusing about it, or whether one has a vested interest in SpaceX before expressing views about them. I.e. your “standard” that you are insisting upon here is one that would require anyone to disclose a vested interest before expressing any opinion on anything. It’s nonsense. So I am not kowtowing to your harassment to declare a vested interest. Simples, really.
Oh, the iron continues to drip.You have made this entire thread out of an ad hominem. Your harassment to get me to disclose any vested interests, rather than arguing what has actually been said, is a classic case of arguing the man rather than their argument.
Your subsequent harassment and efforts to besmirch my character is more classic ad hominem attacks by you. And then you create this thread and continue the same.
So I guess we can dismiss this entire thread as nonsense, according to your standard of dismissing all ad hominems. Simples.
You really need to understand when an ad hominem is not fallacious. You have dismissed Tiassa’s arguments (about this nonsense standard for disclosure you’re harassing me with) as being ad hominem and sent it to its own thread, where no doubt you will continue to ignore it as being ad hominem, even though it is actually not fallacious. Sometimes arguments against the person (ad hominem) are relevant and warranted. In fact your dismissal of his arguments as ad hominem and refusal to address what he has posted is itself an ad hominem from you, as you’re not addressing his arguments but rather accusing him of bad faith.
But as things pertain to the question of cryptocurrencies, your continued harassment is unwarranted. Your continued besmirching of my character for failing to kowtow to your harassment is unwarranted. The standard that you want to apply is nonsense, for reasons given both here and by Tiassa (in the posts that you have dismissed as being ad hominem). You have failed to justify any promotion that I have done around Bitcoin that warrants disclosure of vested interest, with the best you’ve offered so far being to question how I don’t see it as such. So basically, nothing. Yet still you persist.
So, the question is: do you have an idea?
exchemist:
Look, this isn't hard. It is ethically appropriate to disclose one's vested interest when one is a paid promoter of the product one is endorsing. It is also ethically appropriate to disclose one's vested interest if one stands to personally benefit financially from other people taking up the product that one is endorsing.
Do you agree?
It would not, in my opinion, be at all odd to ask whether sculptor had a vested financial interest in promoting a particular lawnmower - especially if he was suspiciously enthusiastic about promoting a particular make or model.
What is odd is when somebody throws a hissy fit because somebody else asked them whether they have a vested financial interest in a product they are promoting or endorsing. Don't you think?
What we suspect or don't suspect is a matter for each individual reader.
Look, this isn't hard. It is ethically appropriate to disclose one's vested interest when one is a paid promoter of the product one is endorsing. It is also ethically appropriate to disclose one's vested interest if one stands to personally benefit financially from other people taking up the product that one is endorsing.
Do you agree?
Nobody is demanding anything. I am urging people to act ethically.
It would not, in my opinion, be at all odd to ask whether sculptor had a vested financial interest in promoting a particular lawnmower - especially if he was suspiciously enthusiastic about promoting a particular make or model.
What is odd is when somebody throws a hissy fit because somebody else asked them whether they have a vested financial interest in a product they are promoting or endorsing. Don't you think?
It's great if you're inclined to trust in the good faith of random people who are promoting products on the internet. You're quite free to assume that they don't have vested interests if you want to. However, I'd prefer to know what's in it for them.
I explained the relevance, in some detail. See the post above this one, for another iteration of that explanation.
If you have a vested financial interest in promoting Bitcoin, I'd say it very much does have a bearing on how readers ought to view your enthusiastic promotion of that product. Like I said.
If you regard good business ethics as nonsense, that's your business, I suppose. Your readers will know to be very careful in any business dealings they might have with you. They should also take any advice you give on products or services with a very large dose of caution, because you seem to be untrustworthy.
You are, of course, not obliged to act ethically. It is a choice you can make, or not make.
I appreciate that many people can't rise to my high ethical standards. You aren't even able to recognise that there's an issue, it seems, if we are to take what you have written on the matter at face value.
You have told me you fail to see any relevance in disclosing your vested financial interests when there is a perception of possible conflict of interest. I get that, loud and clear.
It is your choice to act the way you act. I understand that, too.
That's the big question, when it comes to ethics, isn't it? Why be ethical? How can we derive an ought from and is? etc. etc.
Wrong. See above.
Next time, try to understand the issue before throwing a fit. It might work better for you.
Also, I am not insisting on anything. I am merely pointing out what ethical behaviour would be in this circumstance. Of course, I would always prefer to interact with an ethical person than with a con artist or other scoundrel.
You have made a point of repeatedly trumpeting your own ethical failings. I don't know why you'd want to do that, but apparently you do.
As a moderator, I am not imposing any standard on you or anybody else, on this.
I have issued you no official warning. You're still here, ranting away as usual. Nobody is censoring you or oppressing your right to act as you please, on this.
You'd be best keeping your head out of Tiassa's beef with me - especially since you don't even understand what it's about - and especially because it's based on wilful lies and misrepresentations.
Run along now, Sarkus.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Hmm, a lot of things aren't hard, at the moment, it seems - almost to the point of cliché.
Of course if one is a paid promoter, one should disclose that. I've made my stance on commercial interests fairly clear in my previous posts, I hope. But being an advocate for the virtues of a product is not ipso facto evidence of being a paid promoter.
If I were advocating a new lawnmower or angle grinder and a mod were to accuse me of being a paid promoter of it, in spite of my having a long track record of contributions to the forum on many subjects, none of them touching on lawnmowers or angle grinders, then, yes I would feel pissed off, because it would be an unwarranted accusation of bad faith. It would also be moving the discussion onto ad hominem territory, instead of focusing on the content of what I had to say.
If on the other hand I were a fairly new member, say twat1001, and after 1-2 weeks I were to start up a series of threads about lawnmowers or angle grinders, singing the praises of a particular model or class of them, then I think moderation would have a reason to be suspicious.
The thread in question was not started by either of the members you have been taking issue with. If you read post 7, by Sarkus, it does not read - at all - like somebody paid to promote crypto.
If I were a betting man, which I definitely am not, I would guess Seattle may possibly have been sufficiently convinced of its merits to have had a personal punt on crypto. Americans often do have a flutter on new types of investment, much more so than Europeans. Australians, I don't know about. Sarkus, from his comments, I see as an interested spectator.
I think it is impertinent of another member, even a moderator, to demand disclosure of whether or not they have a commercial interest, without very strong evidence that this may be so. Myself, I don't think there is any such evidence.
Last edited:
Are you really that stupid? I only ask as you've now completely changed tack in the above post from the cryptocurrency thread. In the cryptocurrency thread you were harassing me to disclose whether I have any vested interests or not, and now you are saying that people should disclose if they have some. Do you see the difference in your positions then and now?
I'm going to guess not, as heaven forbid I should think you've deliberately and dishonestly changed tack, but I may be mistaken.
Sure. No disagreement.
*sigh* Once again with the mirepresentation, but only to be expected. The nonsense is related to the standard that you wanted to impose (evidence by your continued harassment to that end) whereby someone should dislose whether they have vested interests or not. That is very different from someone acting ethically and disclosing the vested interests they have.
And you're not obliged to act dihonestly, but, still, it's the path you've seemingly taken, is it not?
See, JamesR, there's actually three things running here:
One is the standard you tried to impose, through harassment, in people needing to declare not the vested interests they might have but whether or not they have vested interests. That is very different than simply saying it is ethical for someone with vested interests to declare them.
The other is that you have failed to address any of the criticisms laid at the feet of that standard you tried to impose, even separating out Tiassa's criticisms of it to another thread where you can simply make excuse to ignore them.
The third is your dishonest approach in switching from the standard you tried to impose in the other thread, and the standard you are now suggesting to be ethical.
Now, I'm actually going to be generous and assume that your switch from one standard (that you were harassing me with in the cryptocurrency thread) to the one here is a mistake on your part, that you genuinely didn't appreciate the difference, that it was an "honest" mistake on your part. And you can then apologise to me for not recognising the different standard, and for the undue harassment, and all the misrepresentations you have subsequently made due to your ignorance of the difference between those two standards.
The alternative, I guess, is that you double down on the standard you tried to impose, through harassment, in the crypto thread, and then deal with the dishonesty of deliberately switching to this different standard here, and your then deliberate misrepresentations of arguments against the one standard as being now against this new standard.
I mean, entirely up to you. But, well, ethically speaking...?
No, but as a poster you were trying to impose it through your continued harassment.
I'm not ranting, JamesR. I'm simply countering your abuse from the other thread, and what seem continued deliberate misrepresentations on your part, deliberate refusal to support that anything I've said warrants the disclosure you harassed me for, etc.
That it now all seems to be due to a (deliberate or otherwise) "mistake" on your part at least gives you an "out". Whether you take it or not, well, that's on you.
I'll insert myself in that "beef" in so far as what he has written applies to my arguments, i.e. the criticisms of the standard you harassed me with, that you have failed to thus far address, and here have tried to conflate with an entirely different standard (yet still assume my criticisms of the previous standard apply to this new one).
I await your honest and sincere apology, if you're ethical enough to provide one. After all, you did say "I appreciate that many people can't rise to my high ethical standards", so I do expect you to acknowledge when you fall so short.
exchemist:
These things usually don't happen in a vacuum or come out of the blue. Sarkus is having fits not so much because I dared to inquire as to whether he owns some Bitcoin or works in financial services, but because I once moderated him for something else and now he doesn't like me.
It would be nice if everybody was a good-faith actor with the best of intentions all the time, but in reality (and surprisingly often, on sciforums, as it turns out) that's not always the case. Lots of people have agendas and spend a lot of time looking for excuses to try to advance those agendas.
How this played out, in reality, was that I merely asked the question of Seattle and Sarkus: do you have any vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
That is not an accusation. It is a query. Not an unreasonable one, in my opinion.
Seattle initially reacted angrily to the question but later, to his credit, stated that he owns some Bitcoin but is not paid to promote it.
Sarkus, on the other hand, just started off angry and has remained that way. He has refused from the start to even say "yes" or "no" to whether he has any vested interest in Bitcoin. If the actual answer is "no", then all the histrionics and grandstanding from him don't make a lot of sense, except in the context of some personal grudge he is carrying from some earlier interaction with me. If, on the other hand, he actually does have a conflict of interest when it comes to promoting Bitcoin, then I'd have to assume that all the self-righteous grandstanding is a pathetic attempt on his part to avoid an ethical obligation to disclose.
If I had to guess, I'd lean towards the assumption that Sarkus is behaving this way due to past sour grapes, and probably doesn't stand to profit by promoting Bitcoin. But I really shouldn't have to make an assumption. A simple "No, I don't own or sell Bitcoin" would have been quite sufficient to assuage my concerns.
Occasionally, we do get promoters of the second type, but they are usually pushing their own internet sites rather than trying to sell penis enlarging pills or viagra substitutes.
I have not sanctioned anybody for failing to disclose. I have taken no action regarding this in my capacity as a moderator of this forum.
I do not agree that there must be evidence of a conflict of interest before it is acceptable to ask the question about the existence of a potential or actual conflict of interest.
In fact, I believe it is best business practice to avoid even the perception of conflict of interest in one's dealings, to the extent that it is possible and practical to do so. Where such conflict is unavoidable, one has a positive ethical duty to declare.
I don't think we need to wait to catch a criminal "red handed" before enquiring as to whether a crime might have occurred.
Some people, especially lately, seem to want to go out of their way to take offence.
These things usually don't happen in a vacuum or come out of the blue. Sarkus is having fits not so much because I dared to inquire as to whether he owns some Bitcoin or works in financial services, but because I once moderated him for something else and now he doesn't like me.
It would be nice if everybody was a good-faith actor with the best of intentions all the time, but in reality (and surprisingly often, on sciforums, as it turns out) that's not always the case. Lots of people have agendas and spend a lot of time looking for excuses to try to advance those agendas.
I agree. It looks a lot like Sarkus doesn't, though, on matter of a duty to disclose. Or perhaps he thinks it's one rule for him and another for everybody else. It's hard to tell.
Accusations are one thing. I can totally understand somebody getting pissed off by accusations.
How this played out, in reality, was that I merely asked the question of Seattle and Sarkus: do you have any vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
That is not an accusation. It is a query. Not an unreasonable one, in my opinion.
Seattle initially reacted angrily to the question but later, to his credit, stated that he owns some Bitcoin but is not paid to promote it.
Sarkus, on the other hand, just started off angry and has remained that way. He has refused from the start to even say "yes" or "no" to whether he has any vested interest in Bitcoin. If the actual answer is "no", then all the histrionics and grandstanding from him don't make a lot of sense, except in the context of some personal grudge he is carrying from some earlier interaction with me. If, on the other hand, he actually does have a conflict of interest when it comes to promoting Bitcoin, then I'd have to assume that all the self-righteous grandstanding is a pathetic attempt on his part to avoid an ethical obligation to disclose.
If I had to guess, I'd lean towards the assumption that Sarkus is behaving this way due to past sour grapes, and probably doesn't stand to profit by promoting Bitcoin. But I really shouldn't have to make an assumption. A simple "No, I don't own or sell Bitcoin" would have been quite sufficient to assuage my concerns.
Actually, the people who most often spam sciforums are very unsophisticated about it. Their first post on signing up is usually an advertisement. Their strategy, in so far as they have one, is to send an army of bots to try to deluge the forum in spam, not to pretend to be a legitimate poster for a while and work in some subtle promotion.
Occasionally, we do get promoters of the second type, but they are usually pushing their own internet sites rather than trying to sell penis enlarging pills or viagra substitutes.
Post #7 in which thread?
See above. Full credit to Seattle for eventually admitting that he owns some Bitcoin, although he probably should have done that at the start.
There are plenty of Australians who have "invested" in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. A few winners and lots of big losers, as you'd expect. It's essentially a form of gambling.
To be clear: I have not once demanded any disclosures.
I have not sanctioned anybody for failing to disclose. I have taken no action regarding this in my capacity as a moderator of this forum.
I do not agree that there must be evidence of a conflict of interest before it is acceptable to ask the question about the existence of a potential or actual conflict of interest.
In fact, I believe it is best business practice to avoid even the perception of conflict of interest in one's dealings, to the extent that it is possible and practical to do so. Where such conflict is unavoidable, one has a positive ethical duty to declare.
I don't think we need to wait to catch a criminal "red handed" before enquiring as to whether a crime might have occurred.
Last edited:
Sarkus:
In post #14 of this thread, I explained to Seattle, as follows:
That was the first time I was explicit about my reasons for asking the question. Later, after Seattle had trouble understand the ethical issue at hand, I explained the Ethics 101 issues surrounding vested interests and appropriate disclosure.
Your claim that I "completely changed tack" is false. I have been consistent throughout about why I asked both of you the question, and why I believed it was important, in the context of your hearty endorsements of Bitcoin, that you answer it.
Your calling me stupid is just another pointless ad hominem - the sort of thing I have come to expect from you. You used to be capable of far better than this. Why not try to do better?
Okay. Let's try one more time:
Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
To be clear: I am asking you directly whether you stand to gain financially by promoting Bitcoin, either here or elsewhere. Do you, for example, own Bitcoin? Is it part of your paid employment to sell or promote Bitcoin?
This is the same question I asked you at the start of all this.
If the answer is "yes", then your ethical duty, when promoting Bitcoin, would be to disclose your vested interest.
If the answer is "no", then I can rest easy, knowing that your enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin on sciforums is just that: enthusiasm for Bitcoin, unsullied by a hope for personal advantage.
Refusing to answer the question, while still promoting the merits of Bitcoin, raises suspicions about your motives, as it should. Making a big song and dance about refusing to answer the question raises the red flag higher.
Tiassa's nonsense about me imposing standards barely refers to this current discussion. To the extent that it does, he has failed to engage with the relevant ethical issue at all. Instead, he has merely told some lies and made some wildly inappropriate personal attacks.
I'm not aware of anything I need to apologise to you for, regarding this matter. Your own behaviour has reflected very poorly on you. Maybe you should consider apologising, after you finally come clean about your interests in Bitcoin (if you have any).
This current thread contains most of the relevant material that was split from the cryptocurrency thread.
In post #14 of this thread, I explained to Seattle, as follows:
Is it not obvious to you that if somebody owns lots of Bitcoin, or is paid by somebody to promote Bitcoin, or whatever, then knowing those facts would put people in a better position to evaluate that person's enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin as the bestest investment in the world?
That was the first time I was explicit about my reasons for asking the question. Later, after Seattle had trouble understand the ethical issue at hand, I explained the Ethics 101 issues surrounding vested interests and appropriate disclosure.
Your claim that I "completely changed tack" is false. I have been consistent throughout about why I asked both of you the question, and why I believed it was important, in the context of your hearty endorsements of Bitcoin, that you answer it.
Your calling me stupid is just another pointless ad hominem - the sort of thing I have come to expect from you. You used to be capable of far better than this. Why not try to do better?
There is no difference.
What? No disagreement now? After all that?
Okay. Let's try one more time:
Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
To be clear: I am asking you directly whether you stand to gain financially by promoting Bitcoin, either here or elsewhere. Do you, for example, own Bitcoin? Is it part of your paid employment to sell or promote Bitcoin?
This is the same question I asked you at the start of all this.
I asked you directly. The answer to the question "Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?" is a simple "Yes" or "No".
If the answer is "yes", then your ethical duty, when promoting Bitcoin, would be to disclose your vested interest.
If the answer is "no", then I can rest easy, knowing that your enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin on sciforums is just that: enthusiasm for Bitcoin, unsullied by a hope for personal advantage.
Refusing to answer the question, while still promoting the merits of Bitcoin, raises suspicions about your motives, as it should. Making a big song and dance about refusing to answer the question raises the red flag higher.
Why don't you stop the ad hominems? They do you no favours. I have not been dishonest.
At no time did I ask you if you had any hypothetical vested interests. I asked you to disclose any actual vested interests you have.
I have not tried to impose any standard. I have suggested an ethical course of behaviour you (generic 'you') might like to follow in your life, if you care about such things. Take it or leave it. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
Tiassa's nonsense about me imposing standards barely refers to this current discussion. To the extent that it does, he has failed to engage with the relevant ethical issue at all. Instead, he has merely told some lies and made some wildly inappropriate personal attacks.
Wrong again. No dishonesty. No switching. No imposing. Three times demonstrably, factually wrong.
There is no mistake that I am aware of. None that you have identified.
I await your disclosure, if you now accept my position on the duty to disclose.
I'm not aware of anything I need to apologise to you for, regarding this matter. Your own behaviour has reflected very poorly on you. Maybe you should consider apologising, after you finally come clean about your interests in Bitcoin (if you have any).
I don't really care what you expect, at this point. My own moral compass points me towards trying to do better whenever I fail morally. Taking responsibility for one's own actions and behaviours is an important part of that. I regularly do that.
Last edited:
- Status