[Threshold]

Pwned.

Valg, you nailed their attitude perfectly. No amount of evidence or fact will punch through their Fanboy Goggles.

That's what I was shooting for by comparing them to the "Flat Earthers", but your modern analogy is far more amusing.

[the_logos]

I think you misunderstand the nature of proof then. This is not 100% proof either. Videotapes can be altered, exclude certan mitigating (or completely context-changing)circumstances, etc. A videotape represents extra evidence, but it is not certain proof. The reason justice systems exist is because there is no such thing as certain proof, and thus educated guesses must be made based on the available evidence. That's exactly what Synozeer did.

Is it 100% certain that MM cheated? No. On the other hand, is it 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. But, if you ask me if I'm certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, I'm going to say 'yes' unless the context in which we are speaking is one in which formal logical proofs are expected. That's not the case in any justice system or system of man-made rules in the world.

There's a continuum there, and where you draw the line for declaring guilt is pretty arbitrary. The line on the continuum from 0% proof to 100% proof that Synozeer chose to draw is perhaps in a different place than where you choose to draw it, but that is his right, as he's the judge.

--matt

[The_Disciple]

What's relevant is that two people who generally can't agree on anything can agree on this.

It's like the Anarchists and the Fascists have banded together for a special one-time-only event to tell you how wrong you are.  That might not say anything to you, but it does to me.

[The_Disciple]

Innocent until proven guilty may theoretically be the standard in a United States criminal court.

It is not, and has never been, the standard of proof necessary in life, nor should it be.  The sooner you come to terms with that, the less you'll uselessly butt your head against the entire human race.

[somied]

As you said, declaring guilt within the context of this situation is completely up to the owner of this site. That's why I'm not disputing the actual ban, or even the evidence which he took into account to make his decision. Of course, "guilt" here only implies that the evidence was good enough to warrant a ban in his opinion, which does not constitute fact. And actuallly, if you'll read the first email on the list in the correspondence between him and Vassago, the reasons given for MM's suspension were all 'suspicious behavior', and not 'illegal activity'. That in and of itself is enough to prove my point, but in case you're still not convinced, consider this:

If I happen to go purchase a 9mm, black ski mask, and duffle bag this Friday and some other person with the same items robs the First National Bank downtown that same day, I'll surely be a suspect when they find out, but when push comes to shove I'd never be found guilty based solely on this evidence, because - yes, that's right kiddies - it's only circumstantial. Now having said that, if I was the one who robbed the bank, and that's all the evidence they had against me, I would still never be found guilty for the same exact reason.

As you can see (well, at least a few of you I hope... some of you are just too stubborn) whether or not MM actually did it isn't the question - it's whether or not any of you can prove it, and thus far the answer to that is no.

I'm sorry, you seem to be extremely misinformed. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution, not the defense. That is how it's been in every legal situation in every uncorrupted justice system that has ever existed since the dawn of time, bar none (and I can say this, because I did specify uncorrupted). It is also common sense, but I won't elaborate on that because it's a trait some of you are obviously lacking or choosing to ignore.

[edit] And by the way, The_Disciple is Al Qaeda's #1 go-to-guy here in the States. It's obviously true because I said so, and I don't have to prove it, he should just be executed for treason because he can't prove his innocence.

[KaVir]

You're talking about criminal law here, which is completely irrelevent, and would be irrelevent even were this a legal case - even if TopMudSites had taken legal action, Vassago would not be in any danger of being imprisoned or executed simply for cheating.

While a criminal case has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt", a civil case such as this would be would only have to be proven on the "balance of probabilities" - in other words, it would only have to be proven "likely" that Vassago was guilty.  Such evidence has already been presented, and so the would have shifted to Vassago.

See here:

"Non-criminal in nature, civil cases involve conflicts between parties over property rights, personal injury, breech of contract, and the like.  In these cases, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof and must demonstrate their version of the facts to be true by a preponderance of evidence.  In layman’s terms, this burden of proof requires that the defendant prove that their argument is more likely to be true than false.  This is also called the balance of probabilities.  When a plaintiff wins a civil case, the courts will typically order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for their damages."

[somied]

First off, thanks for the first logical counter argument I've seen since the beginning of this thread, it's refreshing.

However, even your quoted sources proved my statement. The burden of proof -always- lies on prosecuting parties, in any situation in life, criminal, civil, or otherwise. The level of proof required for conviction in legal cases obviously varies from one to another, with more serious accusations generally requiring more proof.

Anyways, you're correct in the fact that were this a civil case (which it is most similar to in a legal sense), the burden of proof would only require that the allegations be proved "more likely to be true than not", which has already been proven. However, in civil cases convictions are not truth - far from it. Go look up the percentage of civil cases overturned after they are appealed and move to a higher court (and coinciding higher quality evidence requirements). The civil court system is designed in such a way to make cases flow as smoothly and quickly as possible without much regard to scrutiny. A vast majority of cases seen in civil court are basically "no contests", in that one party is so obviously guilty or not guilty that scrutiny would serve only to waste time and money.

[edit] I chose to relate that part of my post to law because justice systems were modelled around common social ethics and practices in everyday life. The fact that this isn't technically a legal case doesn't change the underlying concepts - you have to prove accusations; see the comment on the bottom of my last post.

[Solus]

There's nothing that can really be done. Lothos said Vassago was involved. What's Vassago going to do to prove otherwise? Just say he wasn't? For this part, its pretty much Lothos's word against Vassago's.

--

Threshold and such already decided to believe Vassago was involved without looking for proof. Even with proof, I doubt Threshold would be convienced - I, myself, have already pointed out web archieves show the button is there. I pointed out Materia Magica's message board mentions the button. I've even spoken as a witness who was clicking the button. Despite all this evidence, he ignores the button existed.

It looks rather pointless to argue. (Why should Vassago even bother?)

[The_Disciple]

Let's see:

1) People in general do, yes, work pretty much as civil courts do. They pass their judgements based on what it seems to them has most likely happened. This is only reasonable.

2) Just as many civil court cases are overturned, so do people (including the forums crowd here) find that they've made their initial judgement in error and revise it.

3) While the burden of proof, such as it is, in an initial case is the responsibility of the prosecutor, to secure an appeal, the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's new evidence or some reason to re-examine the case.

And that's what you have here. A bunch of people, based on the preponderance of the evidence, have made their decision. They're exercising their human capacity for reason and making the best guess based on the information they have at hand. It is not unethical for one individual to treat another as guilty of something if they may reasonably conclude that they are. For them to reconsider and change their judgement (i.e., overturn/appeal), the burden is upon the defendant to show that there's reason to reconsider.

So far, that hasn't happened in this thread. Any arguments that have been offered have, depending on how you prefer to look at it, been found insufficient for an appeal or have led to an appeal that upheld the original decision.

[Valg]

Actually, Threshold wrote the following on page 6:

For quite some time, there was *no* TMS vote link anywhere on his site. Not on the forums. Not on the front page. Nowhere. He got reported for this by one of his own players who visited TMS. At that time, other TMS folks logged in to MM and ask players if they knew about voting. Nobody did. So MM was getting hundreds of votes per day with no vote link, and the players of the game had no idea what "voting" was.  The punishment for that first incident was a warning and he was forced to actually put a vote link on his site.

There was a time when MM put a voting button up after people began pressuring them.  Of course you can find it in web archives, and of course you remember pushing it.  What you don't remember is the previous period of time where people here noticed MM's voting patterns when no button was present.  Vassago's own email paper trail damns him there, especially Adam's log from 4/04 where no one on MM seems to know what a TMS voting button is.

Of course, Threshold explained this to you on page 7, but you keep missing that point.

Vassago even tried to explain that the "step pattern" voting was normal for any game:
"I don't have the time to investigate or graph the other games' voting records, but I can guarantee you that if someone gets close to them they suddenly jump up as soon as one of their admins realizes it."

Sadly, someone on TMS took the initiative to graph votes vs. time for multiple games, and only MM had the "step pattern".  Oops.

[Solus]

As I said before, the button existed since 2003. I can even find posts on Materia Magica's forums that prove this is so.  People mention the button. Players started posting and chanting 'vote vote vote' in early 2003. And as I said before, web archives show the button during 2003.

Also, during the April 2004 email that you mentioned, Vassago shows Adam where this button is. It is also during this same time that Materia Magica got banned for the splurt voting.

--

As for the questions people were asked, only 6 of those people are worth counting.
No offense to Adam, but he did a poor job asking people about the URL for voting. Most people won't understand what someone means when someone randomally asks "Whats the URL for voting" without some context. (Voting for what? Bush? Some contest being held by the players? (Such as "Home Audits--Best Homes of Alyria Conest" or the contest Kaden tried to start? (Both of which were brought up in April 2004.)))
----
I say 6 because 3 of the people he asked the proper question don't count.
Adam doesn't have Vai's response logged, so he doesn't count. Kyrstyan knew about it, so I'm not counting her, and Gantetshu was a brand new character still in Lasler, so he shouldn't be expected to know the URL.
----
As Vassago stated, people may use a bookmark, a link, the reminder (which only people over level 45 see a few minutes after they log on.), or they may not want to bother looking up the URL so the newbie can vote.

Vassago explained splurt voting is normal. Not step voting.
Splurt voting is normal. I tracked the top ten games and saw splurts.

(Over the course of an hour, Aardwolf recieved 7 votes, then 14, then 5...
Achaea recieved 12, 12, 2...
The Carrion fields recieved 6, 12, 2...
Lusternia recieved 9, 1, 2...)

Small splurts like this should be expected. As such, if someone complains about voting splurts, so what? It doesn't sound like something you should worry about.
Of course, the splurts Materia Magica is accused of were on a MUCH grander scale according to the graph.

Alas, Adam's e-mail never told Vassago how huge the splurts were; as such, Vassago may not have been concerned that there were splurts. (And don't forget, Vassago doesn't recieve the graph until after Lothos's cheating gets Materia Magica banned.)

--

No proof that Vassago was behind the cheating exists. All we have are the words of a disgruntled player.

[The_Disciple]

Everyone can see the elephant in the room, even if you say it isn't there.

Occam's Razor has been invoked in this thread before (not by me) and I'll do so again. The explanation wherein he is involved is several orders of magnitude simpler than the one where he isn't, at this point.

Maybe Vassago can help OJ find the 'real killers.' Until then, let's give this a rest.

[somied]

It is not unethical for an individual to have an -opinion- about the guilt of another person, given reasonable evidence; it -is-, however, unethical for said individual to treat this opinion as undeniable truth and publically berate the other person.

You were right on all acounts except this one dyscrepency, which just so happens to be the one I've been arguing since post #1.

As you may recall, I personally believe the log is true, Lothos did it, and Vassago had a hand in it. This is only my opinion, though, formed by the 'evidence' that I've seen and a little common sense. I have the right to my own opinion, as do every one of you. I -do not- have the right to treat my opinion as anything more than an opinion, however. And neither do any of you.

What the_logos and others are doing is very immature. There is no reason to "throw salt in the wound", so to speak. If anyone on this forum were actually interested enough in the details of MM's ban, they are perfectly capable of researching it by themselves to satisfy their own curiosity. His reasoning of "just sharing information" or however it was put, is quite weak and just a facade for some kind of vindictive playground taunting.

[an anonymous coward]

Things that we have learned:

1. People are giving this way too much thought.
2. Solus has Vassago's balls on his chin.

[the_logos]

Funny, because an individual's opinion is what every justice system in the world is based on. Judges, juries, etc. All just individuals whose opinions are based on the evidence heard. It's perfectly acceptable in all forms of media to refer to a person as 'guilty' after the relevant judge (whether that be a formal judge, a jury, or the ruling body for whatever set of rules is at hand) has found that person to be guilty. For instance, Scott Peterson (guy who was found guilty of murdering his wife) is routinely referred to as guilty. Why? Because the resolution system surrounding the rules we play by (the legal system) found him so. Does that make him 100% guilty? Of course not. Guilt-beyond-a-doubt is not possible to prove. Formal methods of proof are not required for everyday conversation OR for the purposes of a legal system, however.


How odd. It was information that is highly relevant to the site insofar as it could happen again. I can't see any reason to withhold or try to suppress discussion about something so relevant to the site.

--matt

[somied]

Actually you're quite wrong. Judges and juries are encouraged to put aside their personal opinions and make deicisions based on known facts. Some people can't look past their own opinions and be completely unbiased like the job requires - this is why we have jury selection with the option to refuse certain biased people. This is also why there's such a scrutinizing process to becoming a judge, with even the slightest slip up ruining your chances.

In this case, you are the biased potential juror, and would never be given a seat on the jury.

That's a discussion to be had with administration, not the public. If you were indeed that concerned with such information potentially being used again, then simple logic dictates that you would have made it a point -NOT- to share it with the general public and instead given it directly to the administration via personal email.

However, that was quite obviously not your motivation. You were shooting for a "haha, see I told you so" in front of as many people as possible, and now that you're being called on it you're backpedaling and trying to come up with an excuse that just doesn't fly.

[Ilkidarios]

Wow, when I miss stuff I really miss A LOT.

[the_logos]

Judges and juries are encouraged to put aside their personal biases, not personal opinions. They are encouraged, in fact, to develop an opinion based on the evidence at hand. That is probably why a judges' ruling on a matter is called a "judicial opinion" in the US.

Indeed, they are not capable of giving other than their personal opinions on the matter. They are asked to give their opinions on whether enough evidence exists to declare someone guilty. They are not asked to base their decisions on known facts (of which there are precious few in the world in a formal logical sense), but on the evidence generally, which often includes much circumstantial evidence. For instance, Scott Peterson was convicted almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.

You seem to be confusing having an opinion, which is the only thing any rules trial is ever decided on (someone(s)' opinion), with having a pre-existing bias. If you believe Synozeer has a pre-existing bias against MM, complain to him, not the rest of us.

The administration was informed via a personal email. It's also of interest to everyone else who competes in voting, however, as we should all know how to watch for cheating. MM's cheating was an attack on every other MUD on the list that was below them, let's not forget.

Why exactly would anyone need an "I told you so" regarding MM? The near universal consensus is that MM was cheating. MM was kicked off for cheating. No credible source has come forward to present any argument to the contrary. *shrug*

--matt

[somied]

I'm sorry, but I find this outright laughable. "I wanted to prevent further abuse and cheating, so logically I provided the general public with links to a copy of the source code and explicit instructions on how to use it." Someone needs to beat you over the head profusely with the Magic Crowbar of Common Sense.

Actually I belive you are the one with the pre-existing bias - against any game that would challenge the potential revenue capacity of IRE. You jump at every opportunity to discredit your competitors. As an example, just how many games outside of the top 10 or 20 have you monitored the voting behavior of? My guess is a big fat zero. And why? Because they pose no threat to your 'supremacy'. But as soon as you see a newcomer begin to encroach on your 'territory', you feel threatened and suddenly you become an instant data analyst and voting trend researcher.

These are not the actions of a 'community do-gooder' whose only motivation is the welfare of an unbiased ranking system. These are the actions of a cut-throat commercial leader driven by profit and a superiorty complex.

[the_logos]

Well, a less naive, and more realistic, way to look at it is that the information was already out there. If some people know how to cheat, it's better that everyone else does as well so that everyone else knows what to look for and so that everyone's playing on the same field.

Funnily, people who make a hobby out of finding security holes in software often take the same approach. I'm unsure why you're so keen on repressing the spread of information.

Ahh, the last refuge of one who has lost an argument: Attack the person rather than the argument.


--matt