OzChess Security - Hacker Precautions

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

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

OK. Fine by me.
Read it as you want to read it.

Just out the blue fg7 had a mental breakdown eh?

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Why?
I saw the risk.

Then explain what evidence you saw without obfuscation.

Originally Posted by MOZ

You and Kevin could have seen what I saw.

Enlighten us without obfuscation.

Originally Posted by MOZ

fg7 saw the same risk, and took an extra step and investigated the suspected account.

Good for him.

Originally Posted by MOZ

He asked me a question in regard to what he found.

Good for him.

Originally Posted by MOZ

He took mitigation actions.

For which he has given no explanation of why that entailed banning only those accounts belonging to Chesschat mods or believed to be belonging to them.

Originally Posted by MOZ

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

Too bad neither him or you will actually provide any evidence of supposed "security risk".

Originally Posted by MOZ

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.

For the record I agree with Kevin.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I am not the ADMIN here.

Wrong. You are listed on this site under Forum leaders as an Administrator.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I have simply been given more functionality than some others;

Yes the functionality of an Admin.

Originally Posted by MOZ

and that is the extent of my role as a poster.

You are not just a poster. You are an admin and have used your powers as an Admin.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

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.



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.



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.



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:



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.

Let me get flippancy out of the way first so that I can give you a considered answer.
1 You have been reading too many of Axiom's conspiracy articles.
2 Long answers such as the one you have given may attract the attention of the jeer squad.
3 I hesitate to reply to you because I cant meet your ultimatum that you placed on me.


Ok. That out of the way >>>>

Your scenario is quite clear and well written.
BUT

I am pretty confident it didn't happen like that.
I don't think he just thought here is a chance for a free kick. Ban the buggers.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

<sniP>
You are not just a poster. You are an admin and have used your powers as an Admin.

Having access to the functionality does not make one an ADMIN.
The only thing that would make you an ADMIN is legally accepting the responsibility and consequent liabilities.
On chesschat, the OWNER chooses to list my nick as CC Grandmaster; and flattering as that looks you know my rating.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Having access to the functionality does not make one an ADMIN.

It does when one uses that functionality and I know for a fact that you have used it.

Originally Posted by MOZ

The only thing that would make you an ADMIN is legally accepting the responsibility and consequent liabilities.

No using the functionality of an Admin makes on an admin.

Originally Posted by MOZ

On chesschat, the OWNER chooses to list my nick as CC Grandmaster; and flattering as that looks you know my rating.

I know it is hard for you but please refrain from obfuscating.
CC Grandmaster is a user title. Here your user title is NCO.
Those titles have no bearing on access to the Moderator or Admin control panels.
The Forum leaders section here shows you are an Administrator here.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

I don't think he just thought here is a chance for a free kick. Ban the buggers.

Then explain what evidence you saw of a security risk along with answering the rest of my questions in post #127.

Originally Posted by MOZ

Let me get flippancy out of the way first so that I can give you a considered answer.
1 You have been reading too many of Axiom's conspiracy articles.

Comment re flippancy noted, but actually I have not asserted any conspiracy whatsoever! I have merely advanced a quite simple two-part theory consistent with the evidence tabled/alluded to by both sides and far less artificial than the mental-meltdown stuff.

Far from being nutter stuff, the theory is brought to you by the letters O and R (no Phil, that doesn't stand for that word you're so obsessed with!) and the magic word "parsimonious".

The truly black-helicoptroid view here is the one that there was a perceived threat to this forum from another unnamed and apparently unbanned account that justified banning our and only our accounts. Did firegoat consider building a shelter in the backyard too?

2 Long answers such as the one you have given may attract the attention of the jeer squad.

Or they may be more interested in signal-to-noise ratios than wordcount. Shall we ask them? I have never had trouble dealing with people who try to flame me for writing long posts.

3 I hesitate to reply to you because I cant meet your ultimatum that you placed on me

Never mind, I have made the progress for you! Barring an outburst from the defendent, it looks like this case file could be wrapped up pretty soon.

I am pretty confident it didn't happen like that.

Your misplaced confidence is noted and no opinion on its prettiness advanced.

I don't think he just thought here is a chance for a free kick. Ban the buggers.

I doubt that he thought much at all.

Prolonged pondering is rarely the goat's style in conflict, which is one thing that makes him such a ludicrously easy target. It still may have been calculated mischief that has backfired totally, but lash out first, ask the right questions later (if at all) has long been more his nature when dealing with those that he feels aggravated by.

[Arrogant-One]

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)

Please try to catch up to this discussion if you want to be a part of it Bill. There is no doubt concerning which accounts were banned.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

How is that going to happen given Frosty has had his account here (voluntarily) suspended ....

I don't understand what Frosty has to do with any of this.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Then explain what evidence you saw without obfuscation.

No!

We are not answerable to you.

I think you do know and believe that there was a genuine security risk, but are simply playing the role of devil's advocate so that you can generate attention and unfair publicity over a non-existent issue, (ie.) unwarranted bannings.

Even Kevin now sees the light and claims that he understands the security concerns which were prevalent at the time (although he has yet to publicly apologize for his earlier misguided and inaccurate assertions).

Best Regards

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Even Kevin now sees the light and claims that he understands the security concerns which were prevalent at the time (although he has yet to publicly apologize for his earlier misguided and inaccurate assertions).

There is nothing for me to apologise for. There is no difference in the deplorability of the conduct involved between firegoat entirely concocting the concept of security risk as a pretext to ban us (the original scenario) and firegoat using an irrelevant perceived security risk as a bogus pretext to ban his enemies (extremely likely to be the fact.) Furthermore the trivial difference between these versions is more MOZ's fault than mine, for assuming the perceived risk he had heard of was the reason for the bannings (in #98) and not even raising the possibility that it was used as an excuse for unrelated action; I merely adopted (for the sake of argument) his misguided and inaccurate assertions, and drew the obvious conclusions.

The one who should apologise is firegoat (for spuriously banning us); if he doesn't you should sack him. At this stage he is the only one, but if anyone wishes to still act as his apologist from now on I shall consider them to have joined the queue. After all the times firegoat spuriously called for my resignation as mod on chesschat over his beatups, his nonsense, his ideological simplicities, it is such a pleasure to call for his dismissal in a case where (unless he gets sorry in a hurry!) it is clearly warranted. The other pleasure has been the number of things he used to claim to believe in that he has utterly contradicted in the process. Mr "Accountability" hiding behind a hidden user function after being busted for a bogus moderation; what a joke!

Please try to catch up to this discussion if you want to be a part of it Bill. There is no doubt concerning which accounts were banned.

MOZ clearly states in #107 that an account other than any of those banned was perceived to be a hacker. Was this perception in error, and if so why, if not, why was that account not banned?

[Zeitgeist]

[QUOTE Was this perception in error, and if so why, if not, why was that account not banned?[/quote]

Because it was an account that could not be banned?

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Please try to catch up to this discussion if you want to be a part of it Bill. There is no doubt concerning which accounts were banned.

The point that it ios clear from MOZ's previous statement in post #107 that an account other than one of the banned accounts was perceived as the hacker. If that was the case why wasnt it banned instead of the accounts that were banned.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I don't understand what Frosty has to do with any of this.

Please try to keep up. It was MOZ who first mentioned Frosty back in post #107. The further mentions of Frosty stemmed from that.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

No!

We are not answerable to you.

You and clearly are not answerable to anyone.
Firegoat7 is clearly unable to publically explain his actions.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[I think you do know and believe that there was a genuine security risk, but are simply playing the role of devil's advocate so that you can generate attention and unfair publicity over a non-existent issue, (ie.) unwarranted bannings.

Even Kevin now sees the light and claims that he understands the security concerns which were prevalent at the time (although he has yet to publicly apologize for his earlier misguided and inaccurate assertions).[/color][/font]

Based on Kevins response in post #135 that does not appear to be the case.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Because it was an account that could not be banned?

And what account would that be?

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

You can obfuscate as much as you likehowever the facts are simple.

It is ok by me if you don't want to debate the points I raised.
And, you can throw in an offbeat word like 'obfuscate' to try to disguise the fact that you have not attempted to debate the points.
But, by repeated use of the word (and its synonyms) you forfeit the right to expect detailed response to the questions you want answered. Engagement is a two-way street. You are closing the street from your direction.

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Because it was an account that could not be banned?

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

And what account would that be?

The account that an individual using moderator powers thinks he can't ban.

Starts with A and the next letter is not O

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

It is ok by me if you don't want to debate the points I raised.
And, you can throw in an offbeat word like 'obfuscate' to try to disguise the fact that you have not attempted to debate the points.
But, by repeated use of the word (and its synonyms) you forfeit the right to expect detailed response to the questions you want answered. Engagement is a two-way street. You are closing the street from your direction.

No you were the one who chose to avoid answering a number of my questions and obfuscated where you chose to answer.
As such it was you who chose to close the street.(MOZ edit....Bill's last sentence, re-created after an accidental edit by me, looks to capture the sense of the original)

Originally Posted by MOZ

The account that an individual using moderator powers thinks he can't ban.

Starts with A and the next letter is not O

The only possible account he could think that would apply to is the account called "admin" which is the main administrator account here.

However if there was a belief that this account was the one hacked then it makes absolutely no sense for firegoat7 to ban Kevin and my account to supposedly "quarantine them" since if the account "admin" had in fact been hacked it could do whatever it wished on this site.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

The only possible account he could think that would apply to is the account called "admin" which is the main administrator account here.

And have you just had an aha moment?

Now that the context of the late-night decision is seen, then
> the risk is seen to be of a higher dimension than previously contemplated;
>> the thought process turns to mitigation instead of correction.
And, one might speculate, >>> a focus of mitigation for who was on-line for it is possible they were most at risk with their accounts.

However if there was a belief that this account was the one hacked then it makes absolutely no sense for firegoat7 to ban Kevin and my account to supposedly "quarantine them" since if the account "admin" had in fact been hacked it could do whatever it wished on this site.

With 20-20 hindsight there would be no-one who would disagree.