[Solus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Vassago even tried to explain that the "step pattern" voting was normal for any game

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]

Originally Posted by (Solus @ Feb. 07 2006,22:54) No proof that Vassago was behind the cheating exists. All we have are the words of a disgruntled player.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by What the_logos and others are doing is very immature. There is no reason to "throw salt in the wound", so to speak.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by (somied @ Feb. 08 2006,20:10) 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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


--matt

[somied]

Originally Posted by 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 information.

Wrong. Consider why plans for nuclear devices are not public information. "Well if everyone knows how to build one, then we're all on equal grounds and the world is a safer place!" Um.. ok?

The same applies to any and all sensitive information that could be used to inflict harm. It is kept on a need-to-know basis only. In this case, administration was the only party that needed to know.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (somied @ Feb. 08 2006,20:41) Wrong. Consider why plans for nuclear devices are not public information. "Well if everyone knows how to build one, then we're all on equal grounds and the world is a safer place!" Um.. ok? The same applies to any and all sensitive information that could be used to inflict harm. It is kept on a need-to-know basis only. In this case, administration was the only party that needed to know.

Yes, you are correct. Knowledge of how cheat in a traffic exchange website is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Good analogy!

Originally Posted by The same applies to any and all sensitive information that could be used to inflict harm. It is kept on a need-to-know basis only. In this case, administration was the only party that needed to know.

Really? How odd. I don't recall the ruling commission in baseball refusing to discuss what chemicals various athletes are reported to have used to cheat. I can't say I recall that the casinos in Vegas try to suppress information on how to count cards (I've even see documentaries in which the casinos themselves help spread the information.) Cheating in both of those contexts has far more wide-reaching consequences than on a small traffic exchange like TMS, and yet THEY don't feel like they have to cover things up.

--matt

[Maelgrim]

Originally Posted by The same applies to any and all sensitive information that could be used to inflict harm. It is kept on a need-to-know basis only. In this case, administration was the only party that needed to know.

Helloooo Moron!

Reality check. Vasago is not the only game admin on this site.

This was a matter which had the potential to affect all the games on the list, and thus had the potential to be detrimental to TMS's paying customers. Thus, it is well within the rights of the game administrators to make said information available for general perusement.

It is also well within their rights to decide the medium in which they choose to distribute said information, especially when there exists a risk of similar technique being used again.

Complaining that the information was distributed is like a rapist trying to ban footage of his crime because the video makes his arse look fat. Guess what? You #### up, expect all and sundry to hear about it, especially when it impinges upon others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce to you, Solus and Somied

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (somied @ Feb. 08 2006,20:41) Wrong.  Consider why plans for nuclear devices are not public information.  "Well if everyone knows how to build one, then we're all on equal grounds and the world is a safer place!"  Um.. ok? The same applies to any and all sensitive information that could be used to inflict harm.  It is kept on a need-to-know basis only.  In this case, administration was the only party that needed to know.

That's quite possibly the dumbest analogy I've ever read. I'm sorry, dude. You lose the Internet. I wasn't aware it was a competition, but since you've so obviously lost it must have been.

Software and nuclear physics do not have anything in common in this case. Knowledge of how TMS cheating is done could be used to prevent it in the future. That specific cheating method would be very hard to use successfully again now that the details of this method are known. Conversely, knowledge of how to build a nuclear device cannot realistically be used to prevent anyone from building a nuclear device anywhere ever again.

I hate to play the populist card, but there has to come a point when you read this thread and think to yourself, "Maybe I should spend my time someplace where at least some people might agree with my wacked-out point of view."

[Nalog]

Ive played Materia Magica, Ive played Aard, Imperian, Times of Trouble, and most recently MT. Ive thought out of all these MM and MT have been the best games, content wise and player wise. I read all the previous posts and I wouldnt be surprised if Vassago(ryan) knew of it all but I dont know what happened I do remember seeing vote vote vote I do not remember when, I do remember hearing MM had been banned from the voting here, but I was led to believe it was because other sites hated us, I am not sure anymore but I do have to say that Mr. IRE has said nothing but negative about any game that isnt his. If youre games are good you do not need to trash talk. Thats my two cents.

[somied]

@ the_logos:

You obviously missed the part where I said the info was on a "need-to-know" basis, not "completely hidden from everyone" basis. If you're going to attack my points, at least make sure and read them in their entirety. Had you done that, you'd see why your examples don't apply. The chemicals those players used was already widely known before the hearings, hence there was no reason to hide it. Nobody benefits from knowing -how- to count cards because it's not something you can just learn and do; it's more of an inherent 'talent', so to speak.

@ Maelgrim:

The only people that benefit from having knowledge about a traffic exchange website exploit are the admin of the site, and people who want to use the exploit. Thus, common sense tells us that if we want to prevent the exploit from being used we should 1) give the source code to the admin, and 2) prevent potential abusers from getting the source code. Well, guess which one of these -wasn't- accomplished by publically releasing it.

@ The_Disciple:

Please refer to my comment on people like you who can't attack the post, and resort to attacking the poster. Get back to me when you decide to join civil society and participate in a discussion that doesn't involve "LOL UR STUPID. YOU LOST THE INTERNET DOOD HAHAHA".

Oh, and I'm sorry, but the general public having access to the source code of an exploit does not prevent further abuse in any conceivable way. Providing the admin of this site with said source code is the only way to -help- prevent further abuse (if the admin took steps to utilize this info). The only thing accomplished by spreading the knowledge to the public is increasing the chances that someone else will use it. And contrary to the beliefs of a few of you, making the source code known, even to the admin, does not prevent its use, -especially- if it's altered to be better.

For example, it would be quite easy to alter his program to run consistently in the background adding votes gradually over the course of a 24 hour period, rather than in short bursts. This wouldn't be detectable by graphing, and you can probably blame the_logos if it ever happens (not that you would know if it did, unless Adam decides to start logging/checking voter IPs - and even then you could still use a lengthy list of proxies to remain undetected).


[edit] As an aside, this is my last post on this thread, and I won't be reading any responses to it, so feel free to ignore it if you wish.