OzChess Security - Hacker Precautions

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

No. It was not your account that was perceived to be used.

So if that is the case, then why was Kevin's accounts banned.

Did firegoat7 perceive my account had been hacked.
If so then why ban Kevin's accounts before I had even logged on here.
If not then why was my account banned after I logged on here questioning why Kevin's accounts had been banned.

What is abundantly clear in all this is that the only accounts banned belonged to Chesschat mods or believed to belong to Chesschat mods (antisense).

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

What is a fact is that the only accounts banned belonged to Kevin Bonham, myself and antisense (incorrectly believed to be a hydra of Kevin's)

I assume what you say is true. I have no reason to doubt it or debate that.
I entered the thread, and continued in the thread, because it was contended by Kevin that

• Post 97 The Arbiter
• Fg’s “demonstrably fake excuses”
  
• CL post
• Security fabrication
  
• Post 100
• unconvincing rubbish to cover up a bogus ban
  
• Post 103
• I suspect he banned in a knee-jerk reaction to seeing me appear in the shoutbox
  
• I (prior to this post) have made no guess on the nature of "security risk" being mitigated, since I have not believed and do not believe that firegoat even perceived one, whatever you might have been told.

After continued emphasis by me that there was evidence that I had seen and been questioned on a security risk, Kevin posted

• Post 106
• OK, I accept that it is possible that firegoat's behaviour merely represents a near-complete meltdown of rational function on an epic scale

which moves from denial of a perceived security risk to acceptance of a perceived security risk.
However there was such hyperbole in Kevin's full relevant paragraph that probably our few readers missed the subtle shift; welcome as it was, to a degree of acceptance of a perceived security risk.

How is that going to happen given Frosty has had his account here suspended over the behaviour of the site owner.

Given Kevin showed little interest in this offer it seems pointless to pursue.

That isnt an answer.

Again this is nothing but a fobbing off on your part of actually giving valid reasons firegoat7s actions.

I think I have already said in this thread that I don't know why he took particular mitigation actions.
But I am reasonably certain there was a perceived security risk. As I said previously he may have mistakenly thought to quarantine your accounts to mitigate the risk. I have not asked him.

Yeah right. What a complete load of rubbish. The only accounts banned here were those belonging to the only two chesschat mods who have non suspended accounts here.

As you remarked earlier.

Well if he has no desire to logon to Chesschat then we can assist him in fullfilling that aim,

I do know he is reading this thread. But when disbelief is shown (by yourself and Kevin) of the basic circumstance of a perceived security risk, what chance is there of a rational discussion of the mitigation actions that were taken.
It is a weakness of OzChess that we have no (procedural or community) way of resolving this disbelief to Kevin's satisfaction.

however he could accessed Chesschat as a guest and view its shoutbox and it would have been obvious to him that it was indeed Kevin and me that were using our accounts over here on OzChess.

20-20 hindsight is not available to all.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

So if that is the case, then why was Kevin's accounts banned.

Did firegoat7 perceive my account had been hacked.
If so then why ban Kevin's accounts before I had even logged on here.
If not then why was my account banned after I logged on here questioning why Kevin's accounts had been banned.

What is abundantly clear in all this is that the only accounts banned belonged to Chesschat mods or believed to belong to Chesschat mods (antisense).

I note the if in your text.
There should be no if.
There is no doubt in what I posted "It was not your (KB) account that was perceived to be used."

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

I note the if in your text.
There should be no if.
There is no doubt in what I posted "It was not your (KB) account that was perceived to be used."

Fine, nitpick and ignore the actual questions in the remainder of my post.

To make it easy for you I will rephrase it and ask again.


Given it was not Kevin's) account that was perceived to be used then why was Kevin's accounts banned.

Did firegoat7 perceive my account had been hacked.
If so then why ban Kevin's accounts before I had even logged on here.
If not then why was my account banned after I logged on here questioning why Kevin's accounts had been banned.

What is abundantly clear in all this is that the only accounts banned belonged to Chesschat mods or believed to belong to Chesschat mods (antisense).

[MOZ]

If there are casual readers out there, hello to you.

Well done if you are still wading through this thread.

I need to alert you to the posting of two important posts on this topic which would provide a more cogent view of Bill and Kevin's position than the interleaved robust debate that is proceeding here at snail's pace.
Unfortunately Kevin and Bill have chosen to post on another chatboard and in a restricted part of that chatboard. The rules of that restricted forum prohibit me quoting and responding here.

Nevertheless, I hope you are not disadvantaged.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Fine, nitpick and ignore the actual questions in the remainder of my post.

To make it easy for you I will rephrase it and ask again.


Given it was not Kevin's) account that was perceived to be used then why was Kevin's accounts banned.

Did firegoat7 perceive my account had been hacked.
If so then why ban Kevin's accounts before I had even logged on here.
If not then why was my account banned after I logged on here questioning why Kevin's accounts had been banned.

What is abundantly clear in all this is that the only accounts banned belonged to Chesschat mods or believed to belong to Chesschat mods (antisense).

I can only repeat the rather unhelpful "I think I have already said in this thread that I don't know why he took particular mitigation actions.
But I am reasonably certain there was a perceived security risk. As I said previously he may have mistakenly thought to quarantine your accounts to mitigate the risk. I have not asked him." that I posted earlier.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

After continued emphasis by me that there was evidence that I had seen and been questioned on a security risk, Kevin posted

• Post 106
• OK, I accept that it is possible that firegoat's behaviour merely represents a near-complete meltdown of rational function on an epic scale

which moves from denial of a perceived security risk to acceptance of a perceived security risk.

I disagree with your assessment.

Originally Posted by MOZ

However there was such hyperbole in Kevin's full relevant paragraph that probably our few readers missed the subtle shift; welcome as it was, to a degree of acceptance of a perceived security risk.

Where exactly do you claim Kevin does this.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I think I have already said in this thread that I don't know why he took particular mitigation actions.

Based on publically available evidence there is no mitigation in his actions whatsoever.

Originally Posted by MOZ

But I am reasonably certain there was a perceived security risk. As I said previously he may have mistakenly thought to quarantine your accounts to mitigate the risk.

Yet amazingly no other accounts apparently required quarantining to mitigate risk. Only those belonging to chesschat mods or believed owned by them.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I have not asked him.

Perhaps you should and report back here.

Originally Posted by MOZ

As you remarked earlier.

Yes and no reason has been given why only those accounts and no others from the 220+ other accounts here were banned.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I do know he is reading this thread.

Good for him.

Originally Posted by MOZ

But when disbelief is shown (by yourself and Kevin) of the basic circumstance of a perceived security risk, what chance is there of a rational discussion of the mitigation actions that were taken.

He has made no attempt to offer any public proof to back up his action.

Originally Posted by MOZ

It is a weakness of OzChess that we have no (procedural or community) way of resolving this disbelief to Kevin's satisfaction.

You could always start by publishing firegoat7's PM to you about the "perceived security risk".

Originally Posted by MOZ

20-20 hindsight is not available to all.

Neither would it appear is common sense and logical thought on his part.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Yet amazingly no other accounts apparently required quarantining to mitigate risk. Only those belonging to chesschat mods or believed owned by them.

The onus is on you to prove your unsubstantiated assertion Sir, or withdraw your comment as mere speculation.

cheers Fg7

[Bill Gletsos]

The main page of this forum shows 44 banned members in the forum statistics area.

After firegoat7 banned members the other night it showed 49 banned members.
Those additional five members were : Kevin Bonham, lotlizard, The Arbiter, antisense and Bill Gletsos.

It is now back to 44 again after those 5 accounts were unbanned.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

I disagree with your assessment.
Where exactly do you claim Kevin does this.

Bill, I put a signpost right there above the line you are asking where it is from.
It was in post 106.
Here is what he said in full hyperbole "OK, I accept that it is possible that firegoat's behaviour merely represents a near-complete meltdown of rational function on an epic scale, with paranoia and/or hatred contributing factors to this event. (To the point where we might say it was only subconsciously deliberate.) It is not my leading hypothesis. His social graces also seem to be still melted down given the lack of a subsequent apology and full explanation for his screwup if that's so., and I have italicised the part you are asking whereis.

In fact I missed the change of position on first reading and commenting.
It was not until this clip to my ears by Kevin in post 109, "Calling my position intransigent when I just offered mental meltdown as an alternative to a deliberate and either bad-tempered or mischievous banning is unfair." did I see that he had changed his position.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Bill, I put a signpost right there above the line you are asking where it is from.

You claimed he was accepting "security reasons" as a reason. He makes no such concession.

Originally Posted by MOZ

It was in post 106.
Here is what he said in full hyperbole "OK, I accept that it is possible that firegoat's behaviour merely represents a near-complete meltdown of rational function on an epic scale, with paranoia and/or hatred contributing factors to this event. (To the point where we might say it was only subconsciously deliberate.) It is not my leading hypothesis. His social graces also seem to be still melted down given the lack of a subsequent apology and full explanation for his screwup if that's so., and I have italicised the part you are asking whereis.

In fact I missed the change of position on first reading and commenting.
It was not until this clip to my ears by Kevin in post 109, "Calling my position intransigent when I just offered mental meltdown as an alternative to a deliberate and either bad-tempered or mischievous banning is unfair." did I see that he had changed his position.

Exactly. He offers mental breakdown as an alternative to deliberate and either bad-tempered or mischievous banning.
At no time does he say he accepts "security reasons" as an option.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

The main page of this forum shows 44 banned members in the forum statistics area.

After firegoat7 banned members the other night it showed 49 banned members.
Those additional five members were : Kevin Bonham, lotlizard, The Arbiter, antisense and Bill Gletsos.

It is now back to 44 again after those 5 accounts were unbanned.

If this is your only evidence then it is flawed.

cheers Fg7

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

....
Perhaps you should and report back here.
...

Why?
I saw the risk.
You and Kevin could have seen what I saw.
fg7 saw the same risk, and took an extra step and investigated the suspected account.
He asked me a question in regard to what he found.
He took mitigation actions.

I will always support someone who makes a decision when he sees a security risk.

If the mitigation actions turn out to be unsoundly based (as they were in this case) then they need to be reversed and it becomes a learning experience.
That Kevin wants to call for fg7's head as a mod is Kevin's right to argue.

I am not the ADMIN here.
I have simply been given more functionality than some others; and that is the extent of my role as a poster.

Originally Posted by MOZ

[*] Fg’s “demonstrably fake excuses”

For a while I thought you might come up with a scenario that would lead me away from that being so clearly the case. But you didn't support that scenario and my current view is "overwhelmingly likely to be fake". But see below, where I explain how firegoat's excuses can be fake without contradicting your claim that he discussed a security threat with you ... if that threat was not his actual reason for the bannings.

which moves from denial of a perceived security risk to acceptance of a perceived security risk.

Actually it moves from disbelief that a security risk was perceived to willingness to consider a remote chance that a security risk relevant to the bannings (again, see below) was perceived as a result of extreme brain impairment. I cannot stress how remote I now find this chance strongly enough.

Given Kevin showed little interest in this offer it seems pointless to pursue.

This twisting of my comments is very blatant, and either a deliberate misrepresentation or else a very poor piece of comprehension.

I indicated that my acceptance or otherwise of the "offer" was irrelevant since I would have no part in ensuring its fulfillment. Hence, it was really not an offer to me at all. I indicated that if you pursued that course I might comment. But really firegoat himself could cough up and release the PM so there would be no reason to go to such lengths anyway.

I think I have already said in this thread that I don't know why he took particular mitigation actions.
But I am reasonably certain there was a perceived security risk.

And there may have been, but one irrelevant to the bannings. I have been hostile to your claims of a perceived security risk because you have asserted them in a way that indicates firegoat perceived a security risk and imposed the bans believing that they would resolve it. Hence, wherever you write "perceived security risk" I have read it as "perceived security risk relevant to the bannings".

Here is something for you to consider: what about the (high) possibility that firegoat genuinely perceived a security risk that evening (related to this other mystery account you refer to but have failed to name), and also deliberately targeted us for a vindictive banning that really had nothing to do with that risk, although it was used as an excuse for it?

After all, you have completely failed to explain why the security risk in question would have justified any banning of any poster other than the account that was considered a security risk, which you have stated was none of the banned accounts. You clearly have no idea how the risk related to the selection of accounts to ban, or the way in which some bannings were extended. You have already stated this account was none of the banned accounts. You are assuming that there is a connection between the risk he discussed with you and the bans, but you haven't got the foggiest how to make it. Because there actually is no connection except for the timing and the appearance of a common term.

I shall indeed consider this to be quite probably true in the absence of comprehensive evidence to the contrary. It is consistent with such factual claims as you have made that I see no reason to doubt (ie receiving a PM from firegoat containing content of that type) and it is also consistent with such established truths as you have utterly failed to explain.

Hitherto I have been discussing "perceived security risk" in the context of one that would actually have been relevant to the bannings. In that sense it only made sense to assume firegoat was acting irrationally rather than vindictively if I assumed the level of irrationality to be extreme.

If the "perceived security risk" you refer to was actually not his reason for the bannings (despite him citing it as such), then that is quite a different story. And in that case, even though firegoat's excuse refers to a security risk he had discussed with you, his excuse remains a fake one, because it is not relevant to the bannings.

In that case, you are in error in assuming that because firegoat discussed a security risk with you, that therefore his bannings on the pretext of "security risk" were motivated by belief in that risk. You make this error, for example, where you write:

He saw a risk, and he took considered-mitigation-action.

What is much more likely is that he genuinely thought he saw a risk, but he also used "security risk" as a pretext for a vindictive action that actually had nothing to do with it at all, not even in his mind.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

If this is your only evidence then it is flawed.

Did you ban any other posters than the ones I noted at the time of your "perceived security risk".