OzChess Security - Hacker Precautions

[Arrogant-One]

There may have been some uncertainty yesterday which led to Bill Gletsos, Kevin Bonham, and a few other accounts being temporarily banned. This occurred after I had gone home for the night, so I wasn't around to clarify things when an certain unusual circumstance occurred. The affected accounts are now unbanned, and only lost about 12 hours of posting time.

I commend everyone who took a proactive approach to defending the security of the forum. Better safe than sorry is a good motto.

Best

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I commend everyone who took a proactive approach to defending the security of the forum. Better safe than sorry is a good motto.

Look, thanks a lot for unbanning us but the security hazard appears to be firegoat7's unpredictable behaviour, and "better safe than sorry" would involve dismissing him before he causes your site any further embarrassment; no one should give a moment's credence to his demonstrably fake excuses.

What happened was that PhilD707 was online with last activity 11:21pm (this was showing as such for quite a while afterwards), then suddenly the new account "TheOrifice" appeared, registering at 11:23. I just chanced to come back online sometime between 11:23 and 11:27. "TheOrifice" had another activity (publicly visible through the front page) of reading the PM from Iconoclast (is it still the one that mentions God even though Iconoclast's an atheist?) and then headed straight to the Deceptive Shell Games thread to make his inane little pseudo-imitation offering.

Now it happens that "orifice" is Phil's pet nickname for me, which has utterly failed to be picked up thus far by any other poster on either forum, despite Phil using it 11 times here and four times (and in his location field) on Chesschat since last August. As insults go, it's utterly harmless, especially since Phil's use of it says far more about him than it does about me, but given that he is concerningly obsessed with it and no-one else has picked it up, and that it signed up two minutes after his main account fell idle, clearly it's a PhilD hydra.

Naturally I called him on this (with just three shouts in the shoutbox) and with firegoat7 the only mod showing as online, the spurious bans started within the next 20 minutes (or so). Certainly a surprise to me; I had certainly not broken any Ozchess rules, as there aren't any (beyond the signup standard which very clearly isn't enforced), and my comments were mild compared to those abounding all over this site! Bill came online to ask why and was immediately banned, and the only other account banned that wasn't mine was one that some of the staff here have falsely assumed to be me. Other accounts were online unhindered through this time.

Further compounding the problem, if the whole load of rubbish about security problems had had any merit then a one-day ban would have been sufficient while the problem was sorted out (or at least any need for further bannings was explained). But later on in the evening (firegoat7 still the only mod showing as online) some of the bans were increased to three days with the same rubbish reasons given - which in the case of a security issue would have been completely unnecessary.

This kind of spurious hotheaded ban under false pretences is a classic example of a "sad bastard" attitude that PhilD707 falsely accuses chesschat staff of, and also completely falsifies Iconoclast's claim that those from elsewhere who post here will be treated civilly.

firegoat7's bias was clear enough a few months ago when he wrote: "My opinion. Ban all the Chesschat moderators." While he did, to his credit, tentatively conclude that I had "done nothing wrong." by having hydras here (given the lack of a rule against it) it seems that the same standard does not extend to the shoutbox, probably because of scars inflicted in the "shoutbox trolling" debates which he seemed so curiously aggravated by.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

<snip>
Further compounding the problem, if the whole load of rubbish about security problems had had any merit then a one-day ban would have been sufficient while the problem was sorted out (or at least any need for further bannings was explained). But later on in the evening (firegoat7 still the only mod showing as online) some of the bans were increased to three days with the same rubbish reasons given - which in the case of a security issue would have been completely unnecessary.

<snip>.

This is the core weakness in your lambasting post.

From what you have posted, here and elsewhere, you do not apparently know the security risk perceived for which action was taken.
Thus, whether the action was necessary/appropriate/justified/ and whether the duration of the ban was appropriate, would appear to just be a guess on your part.

A volunteer sees a risk, makes a decision to mitigate, and there are repercussions. It seems like a reasonable course of conservative action to me.
20-20 hindsight is only available after the event.


MOZ

ps What we are not allowed to see is a post in the chesschat coffee lounge that labels the observation of the OzChess decision-maker as a security fabrication.
The OzChess decision-maker saw a risk and took a conservative action.
That risk has not been described anywhere in public to my knowledge at this point? How then can the allegation of security fabrication be logical, or even fair-minded?

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Look, thanks a lot for unbanning us

You are welcome.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

"better safe than sorry" would involve dismissing him before he causes your site any further embarrassment;

Firstly, he hasn't caused one ounce of embarrassment to this site, and he took the very "better safe than sorry" approach you are now advocating.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

... no one should give a moment's credence to his demonstrably fake excuses.

You are being ridiculous. If he had wanted to ban the lot of you he had his chance as the Great Chief of Tribal Council. Instead he took a fair and even handed approach to you, demonstrating that he is fair and even handed in his dealings generally.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

What happened was that PhilD707 was online with last activity 11:21pm (this was showing as such for quite a while afterwards), then suddenly the new account "TheOrifice" appeared, registering at 11:23. I just chanced to come back online sometime between 11:23 and 11:27. "TheOrifice" had another activity (publicly visible through the front page) of reading the PM from Iconoclast (is it still the one that mentions God even though Iconoclast's an atheist?) and then headed straight to the Deceptive Shell Games thread to make his inane little pseudo-imitation offering.

??? What does Phil logging on have to do with anything? What does Matt being an atheist have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Now it happens that "orifice" is Phil's pet nickname for me, which has utterly failed to be picked up thus far by any other poster on either forum, despite Phil using it 11 times here and four times (and in his location field) on Chesschat since last August. As insults go, it's utterly harmless, especially since Phil's use of it says far more about him than it does about me, but given that he is concerningly obsessed with it and no-one else has picked it up, and that it signed up two minutes after his main account fell idle, clearly it's a PhilD hydra.

Accusing Phil of having a hydra is a bit rich considering you have admitted to having multiple hydras on OzChess yourself! Now I am not going to do an ip search to see if your claim is true or not because I suspect you are just being paranoid.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

I had certainly not broken any Ozchess rules,

That's exactly what you were told by Firegoat7.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Bill came online to ask why and was immediately banned, and the only other account banned that wasn't mine was one that some of the staff here have falsely assumed to be me.

As you were told already, there were some security issues we needed to sort out and banning various accounts was only a precautionary measure. The accounts were only banned for about 12 hours in all. Considering CC has been hacked once before (if Dion was correct about that, he was a regular on CC before I was) I am not about to start taking lessons in forum security management from you lot.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Further compounding the problem, if the whole load of rubbish about security problems had had any merit then a one-day ban would have been sufficient while the problem was sorted out (or at least any need for further bannings was explained).

As it turned out only 12 hours was needed.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

This kind of spurious hotheaded ban under false pretences is a classic example of a "sad bastard" attitude that PhilD707 falsely accuses chesschat staff of,

Are you that desperate to try and smear OzChess with the same bully boy attitudes your beloved CC is famous for. The fact is the banning was precautionary and done for security reasons. There is nothing more to it than that. You are making it sound like those 12 hours you were banned were the most precious 12 of your whole entire life.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

... also completely falsifies Iconoclast's claim that those from elsewhere who post here will be treated civilly.

Everyone from what I can see has treated you respectfully and courteously.

Originally Posted by MOZ

A volunteer sees a risk, makes a decision to mitigate, and there are repercussions. It seems like a reasonable course of conservative action to me. 20-20 hindsight is only available after the event.

Agreed! Hopefully you can talk some sense into him Moz. He is clearly trying to get me to go above my preferred 2 ppd rate.

Originally Posted by MOZ

From what you have posted, here and elsewhere, you do not apparently know the security risk perceived for which action was taken.

Your "guess" stuff can be very safely filed under "extremely wishful thinking".

You have not taken any account of my point about the later lengthening of the ban, which shows that the "security risk" guff is unconvincing rubbish to cover up a bogus ban, and that what we really had was a trigger-finger mod doing something stupid, making up a silly excuse, then later deciding he hadn't really made the ban long enough. Had there been a real "security risk" it could have been handled by taking the accounts in question offline for one day only, and then providing more detailed disclosure instead of a one-line fob-off to the affected parties immediately on their reinstatement.

You have also not explained the extraordinary coincidence that the only accounts banned because of the so-called security risk were those under investigation (one falsely) in the hydra fiasco, plus Bill using the shoutbox to ask why the bannings were put in place.

I would have thought this was way beyond even your penchant for defending the utterly lost cause but my experience is that it is probably boundless.

I note your sympathy-fishing comment re "volunteers", as I noted its absence from many instances where firegoat7 made abusive attacks on me here there and everywhere (that unlike this one were generally completely unsound), and I dismiss it as a sympathy you have failed to consistently espouse.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

Your "guess" stuff can be very safely filed under "extremely wishful thinking".

The difference between your position and my position is that I have detail on the perceived security risk, whereas you are guessing by looking at events that occurred around the same time.
You simply lack the information that would enable you to see your first guess has been wide of the mark.

You have not taken any account of my point about the later lengthening of the ban, which shows that the "security risk" guff is unconvincing rubbish to cover up a bogus ban

You are starting from the wrong premise, so conclusions you draw on correct risk mitigation are bound to be incorrectly drawn.

and that what we really had was a trigger-finger mod doing something stupid,

And, in retrospect, he may well agree to this description.
But, it does not validate your first guess.
He saw a risk, and he took considered-mitigation-action.

making up a silly excuse,

You have no evidence of this. In fact, from what I know, you are very likley to be wrong on this point.

then later deciding he hadn't really made the ban long enough.

Again, this is your (implied)conclusion that it was an inappropriate action.
With 20-20 hindsight it was, as AO has published.
But, at the time of decision-making it was the decision-makers best judgment.

Had there been a real "security risk" it could have been handled by taking the accounts in question offline for one day only, and then providing more detailed disclosure instead of a one-line fob-off to the affected parties immediately on their reinstatement.

Again, 20-20 hindsight of a better approach in no way supports your first guess.

You have also not explained the extraordinary coincidence that the only accounts banned because of the so-called security risk were those under investigation (one falsely) in the hydra fiasco, plus Bill using the shoutbox to ask why the bannings were put in place.

No, I have not explained that.
Eventually this will be addressed.
However, it would be useful for you to first recognise that risks (other than what you guess) are possible. Until you can see that point you will be locked into feeling that you were the target victim rather than just a possible perpetrator.

I would have thought this was way beyond even your penchant for defending the utterly lost cause but my experience is that it is probably boundless.

And this probably the root-cause of your misjudgment on this issue. You are extrapolating from events that have no relevance here. It has caused you to make an incorrect first guess on the risk being mitigated.
And now it is causing you to make an incorrect call on why I am defending the fact that some action had to be taken on the perceived risk.
You would be better advised to make calls based on facts rather than guesses. You don't have the relevant fact at the moment.

I note your sympathy-fishing comment re "volunteers"

Ok. Strike that word. Substitute 'inexperienced handler of a security risk'. Sorry for the abbreviation.

as I noted its absence from many instances where firegoat7 made abusive attacks on me here there and everywhere (that unlike this one were generally completely unsound), and I dismiss it as a sympathy you have failed to consistently espouse.

The space below is reserved for you to list all the other posters who have not sympathised with you on your flame-wars with fg7. Chesschat has about 6,700 members; a fair whack of them are like me ...they just let the two of you slug it out.


This incident is not flame-war.
There was a security risk.
Action was called for.
After the real nature of the risk became known then it was clearly no risk at all.
The actions were then reversed.

MOZ

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

If he had wanted to ban the lot of you he had his chance as the Great Chief of Tribal Council.

Aaaah, but then he would have had to do so for a reason that was obviously inconsistent and grudge-driven. This way he gets to do it for a made-up reason that seems to have duped one of his fellow mods (I greatly doubt that you believe a word of it), though it is quite unlikely anyone else bar PhilD on a bad day will fall for it.

Accusing Phil of having a hydra is a bit rich considering you have admitted to having multiple hydras on OzChess yourself!

I am not complaining about him merely having a hydra; I just thought it should be known that that account was him being silly (and caught in the act), lest anyone suspect otherwise! If he wishes to continue displaying his obsession with the word "orifice" publicly, that's his problem!

He's not very good at this hydra game, anyway. Just tonight he posted a post as The Orifice, then the post disappeared and was reposted (with cosmetic alterations) by his PhilD707 account!

Now I am not going to do an ip search to see if your claim is true or not because I suspect you are just being paranoid.

You don't suspect that, and an IP search would not necessarily reveal the facts anyway, as you would know.

*propaganda about security risks snipped - who do you think you're fooling?*

You are making it sound like those 12 hours you were banned were the most precious 12 of your whole entire life.

Suffice to say that such a wonderful display of instability by firegoat7, making a mockery of all his fight-the-power rants (strike that, they were a mockery to begin with) certainly brought me (and still brings me) great amusement at reducing him to such a pitiful self-contradicting action.

Despite that, you overstate the preciousness a little!

Now, of course, I am rubbing your nose in it by dismembering the lame apologism that you and MOZ are going through the feeble motions of providing. I don't especially care if it inflates your postcount anymore, since if it does, I shall take most of the credit, and point to the difference from your three months in a row of less than 10 posts per day!

Everyone from what I can see has treated you respectfully and courteously.

*yawn*

Do try removing the blindfold.

MOZ's last post contains some useful hints, assuming they can be taken at face value:

However, it would be useful for you to first recognise that risks (other than what you guess) are possible. Until you can see that point you will be locked into feeling that you were the target victim rather than just a possible perpetrator.

Again, this is your (implied)conclusion that it was an inappropriate action.
With 20-20 hindsight it was, as AO has published.

OK, so the above can be reasonably interpreted as follows (and if it is wrong, it is your fault for the way it is written):

You argue that firegoat assumed that I might be attempting to hack, or that someone might be using my accounts to hack - although the only evidence for this view is that I posted three shouts in the shoutbox, for the first time but all quite in character in context.

He therefore bans me and (he thinks) all my hydras, banning a poster who is not my hydra in the process. Then when Bill posts in the shoutbox he assumes Bill is hacking (or being hacked to perform a hack, or something else even more ridiculous) and bans Bill as well - again on no convincing evidence.

Firstly, even if it was just an extreme case of paranoia (leading to the merely subconsciously convenient banning of someone he hates and explicitly called for the banning of anyway) then that doesn't bode well in terms of his ability to mod me competently in the future and he should agree not to do so.

Secondly even if that had have been the case he should also have fessed up to his error promptly, apologised and undertaken to be more careful in the future. Instead he has worsened his behaviour by wrongly doubting my repeatedly given word concerning which accounts are mine.

Thirdly the extension of some bans is still not explained, and fourthly if he really believed we were hacking why would he ban using pseudo-friendly messages like "security problems just relax a bit" of the sort you'd send to a party you knew to be innocent?

Your story about him perceiving a genuine threat does not convince me. I suspect he banned in a knee-jerk reaction to seeing me appear in the shoutbox and the rationalisation comes later, perhaps he even comes to "believe" it. But it doesn't matter because either way he should apologise and make it good or else resign.

You have no evidence of this. In fact, from what I know, you are very likley to be wrong on this point.

I do not regard your claims of "knowing" as reliable, as I believe you've misinterpreted or else been misinformed. If firegoat told you something, do consider examining it very sceptically given his obvious bias against me and stated desire (in April) that all the chesschat mods be banned.

But, at the time of decision-making it was the decision-makers best judgment.

firegoat7's judgement concerning me, let alone his best judgement, has seldom so much as existed.

And this probably the root-cause of your misjudgment on this issue. You are extrapolating from events that have no relevance here. It has caused you to make an incorrect first guess on the risk being mitigated.

Wrong because 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.

This is therefore another of your misunderstandings.

You would be better advised to make calls based on facts rather than guesses. You don't have the relevant fact at the moment.

I don't believe that you do [s]either[/s]. You weren't on the scene and you've just been told something that you mistake for the facts although you cannot explain the subsequent ban (among other things.)

The space below is reserved for you to list all the other posters who have not sympathised with you on your flame-wars with fg7.

Irrelevant diversion. The context is those who have used the "volunteer card" to defend firegoat's bogus moderation. Those who have not employed the same card for me recently re firegoat's complaints against my modding (no need to drift this into "flame-wars" generally) are only relevant if they have used the card to defend firegoat in this case. The others are not guilty of any potential inconsistency, not having done the latter.

You would be better advised to make calls based on facts rather than guesses.

The one guessing is you, that the information you have received is reliable. The unexplained facts suggest otherwise.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

MOZ's last post contains some useful hints, assuming they can be taken at face value:

Good.
I had hoped to provide enough information so that you may think twice, and hav some doubt on your first guess.

OK, so the above can be reasonably interpreted as follows (and if it is wrong, it is your fault for the way it is written):

LOL
As if you could not misjudge or misinterpret.

You argue that firegoat assumed that I might be attempting to hack, or that someone might be using my accounts to hack - although the only evidence for this view is that I posted three shouts in the shoutbox, for the first time but all quite in character in context.

No.
I argue that the decision-maker saw a security risk and took what he thought were mitigating actions.
I know who which account he thought was the hacker, but he was unaware who was controlling the account.
As was I an hour (or so) earlier.

He therefore bans me and (he thinks) all my hydras, banning a poster who is not my hydra in the process. Then when Bill posts in the shoutbox he assumes Bill is hacking (or being hacked to perform a hack, or something else even more ridiculous) and bans Bill as well - again on no convincing evidence.

These were just more mitigating actions for the perceived risk.

Firstly, even if it was just an extreme case of paranoia (leading to the merely subconsciously convenient banning of someone he hates and explicitly called for the banning of anyway) then that doesn't bode well in terms of his ability to mod me competently in the future and he should agree not to do so.

His actions were to mitigate a risk.Whether he was at that time feeling paranoia, or panic, or even just relaxed and comfortable is just speculation in public atm.

Secondly even if that had have been the case he should also have fessed up to his error promptly, apologised and undertaken to be more careful in the future. Instead he has worsened his behaviour by wrongly doubting my repeatedly given word concerning which accounts are mine.

I am defending his right to make decisions in the face of a percived security risk.
The appropriateness of what he does after the risk becomes resolved is a topic for a later post (or two).
First, we have to get you to the point where you concede your first guess may have been wrong. I know it to be.

Thirdly the extension of some bans is still not explained, and fourthly if he really believed we were hacking why would he ban using pseudo-friendly messages like "security problems just relax a bit" of the sort you'd send to a party you knew to be innocent?

Do you want me to speculate on the style of writing of the poster. Or are you just remarking that life has some mysteries on occasion?
Btw I agree, the extensions are not explained atm.

Your story about him perceiving a genuine threat does not convince me. I suspect he banned in a knee-jerk reaction to seeing me appear in the shoutbox and the rationalisation comes later, perhaps he even comes to "believe" it.

With respect, I am sure you will find you are wrong.

But it doesn't matter because either way he should apologise and make it good or else resign.

Stuff for a later discussion.

I do not regard your claims of "knowing" as reliable, as I believe you've misinterpreted or else been misinformed.

I saw the same risk.

If firegoat told you something, do consider examining it very sceptically given his obvious bias against me and stated desire (in April) that all the chesschat mods be banned.

Ohk.

firegoat7's judgement concerning me, let alone his best judgement, has seldom so much as existed.

Wrong because I (prior to this post) have made no guess on the nature of "security risk" being mitigated,

You have made the guess originally that there was no security risk, but in fact a retaliation of sorts.

, since I have not believed and do not believe that firegoat even perceived one, whatever you might have been told.

As you have said before.
But, the risk was there. I saw it.
In fact he asked me a question about it via a PM.

This is therefore another of your misunderstandings.



I don't believe that you do [s]either[/s]. You weren't on the scene

I was on the scene to see the risk and answer a question on it.

and you've just been told something that you mistake for the facts although you cannot explain the subsequent ban (among other things.)

Incorrect.

Irrelevant diversion. The context is those who have used the "volunteer card" to defend firegoat's bogus moderation. Those who have not employed the same card for me recently re firegoat's complaints against my modding (no need to drift this into "flame-wars" generally) are only relevant if they have used the card to defend firegoat in this case. The others are not guilty of any potential inconsistency, not having done the latter.

Pass, because I called your point irrelevant first.
Ply the ball not the man.

The one guessing is you, that the information you have received is reliable. The unexplained facts suggest otherwise.

Yes, it is guess by me.
But I believe it is reliable because
> I saw the risk condition
>> I answered a PM question from fg7 on the risk.
I am defending his right to take mitigating actions.
I am not passing judgment on their suitability; but a quick reversal was done.
I am not passing judgment on fg7 future as a MOD; that is between you as a member of this bb and him.

[Bill Gletsos]

MOZ,

If all this claiming of a security risk had the slightest validity then why didnt firegoat7 ban the new user "TheOrifice" when banning Kevin and his hydras. After all it had acted as if it was a hydra of Kevin in the first place.

And as my account has nothing to do with Kevin and his hydras here then why was my account banned using the same spurious claim of a security risk.

Lastly if firegoat7 truly believed that our accounts were being hacked then why didnt he just logon to chesschat and ask if it really was us making shouts here.

LOL
As if you could not misjudge or misinterpret.

I can, but the fault is more often of the writer in such cases.

No.

To which part?

I know who which account he thought was the hacker, but he was unaware who was controlling the account.

No, you only know which account he said he thought was the hacker. Now, which one was it? Was it any of the following: one of my accounts, antisense, Bill Gletsos, or was it another account? If it was another account, why were only these posters banned on account of it and not a wider range?

Further up you referred to me as a "possible perpetrator". This does not seem even remotely consistent with the above.

I am defending his right to make decisions in the face of a percived security risk.

Why is he not defending it for himself?

As you have said before.
But, the risk was there. I saw it.
In fact he asked me a question about it via a PM.

You only have a second-hand view of the matter and are hamstrung by assuming his word for things. Even saying you communicated with him about a so-called risk (which he supposedly later perceived and implemented in this bizarre and exceedingly suss way against people he is biased against) does not establish that either of you had a clue, or that his use of the "risk" was anything but a disingeneous pretext.

First, we have to get you to the point where you concede your first guess may have been wrong.

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.

Btw I agree, the extensions are not explained atm.

They are a very important point. They can also be explained by the mental meltdown thesis but in such a case he is unfit to be a moderator (at least of me) anyway.

Pass, because I called your point irrelevant first.

Your method of doing so was invalid and I demonstrated this.

Ply[sic] the ball not the man.

If you use a card inconsistently, then ignoring it is a valid reason to disregard it. What that is playing is a matter to which I am utterly indifferent.

I am not passing judgment on fg7 future as a MOD; that is between you as a member of this bb and him.

It would surprise me if I had the slightest say on it.

*various repetition skipped*

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

....


To which part?

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

No, you only know which account he said he thought was the hacker. Now, which one was it? Was it any of the following: one of my accounts, antisense, Bill Gletsos, or was it another account?

Another account

If it was another account, why were only these posters banned on account of it and not a wider range?

I don't know.
I am presuming either
> the decision-maker thought that this would mitigate the risk,
or
>> he thought these accounts needed to be quarantined.
But, personally, I am not at all regarding any likelihood that he saw an opportunity to harass your accounts.

Further up you referred to me as a "possible perpetrator". This does not seem even remotely consistent with the above.

No.
Not when you know the nature of the perceived risk.

Why is he not defending it for himself?

Don't know; I have not asked him.
Do you want me to speculate?
Do you want me to ask him?

You only have a second-hand view of the matter and are hamstrung by assuming his word for things. Even saying you communicated with him about a so-called risk (which he supposedly later perceived and implemented in this bizarre and exceedingly suss way against people he is biased against) does not establish that either of you had a clue,

I need to correct a piece of information I gave above. I have gone back to look at the time-stamp on his question to me. It was not an hour before as I stated. From memory I had noticed the risk situation around 10pm, but I did not judge it to be a risk. Dave's question to me was after 11pm.

or that his use of the "risk" was anything but a disingeneous pretext.

This guess of yours does not match my presumptions.

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

Look; he may agree with you on this.

with paranoia

but this is unfair. He saw a risk; he acted. Get over it.

and/or hatred contributing factors to this event.

And this represents a weakness in your logic processes as I remarked in an early post.
You introduced me to the term non sequitur in recent PMs when we were discussing events in chesschat 2 years back.
I think you are extrapolating from flame-wars in the past you have had with fg7.

(To the point where we might say it was only subconsciously deliberate.)

LOL

It is not my leading hypothesis.

Re-print what is your leading guess.

His social graces also seem to be still melted down

Dunno. Your chesschat shout "what a bunch of absolute amateur morons" may have made him less than enthusiastic to discuss with you until you have calmed down.

given the lack of a subsequent apology and full explanation for his screwup if that's so.

Same observation.

They are a very important point. They can also be explained by the mental meltdown thesis but in such a case he is unfit to be a moderator (at least of me) anyway.

A point for later discussion when you have appreciated you have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

....

----------------------
OK. Here is an offer. Lest the jeer squad think I am prolonging these responses to your intransigent position.

I will authorise frosty to have my personal sign-on to MOZ and he can look at the content of the question from Dave and report back if it is feasible that Dave perceived a security risk.
Let us not ask frosty to assess the security risk. (Provided Dave authorises the reading of his PM)

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

MOZ,

If all this claiming of a security risk had the slightest validity

The risk was assessed due to an observation of account activity.
Now it is fruitless to evaluate if this true or not by looking at subsequent actions. It is far more fruitful to have frosty confirm the question asked by fg7 was in fact asked. Let us wait for that to transpire

then why didnt firegoat7 ban the new user "TheOrifice" when banning Kevin and his hydras. After all it had acted as if it was a hydra of Kevin in the first place.

See above

And as my account has nothing to do with Kevin and his hydras here then why was my account banned using the same spurious claim of a security risk.

These are questions on mitigation action.
It would be better for you to re-ask them when the risk has been confirmed.

Lastly if firegoat7 truly believed that our accounts were being hacked

Maybe your if is not true. Maybe he was quarantining your accounts.

then why didnt he just logon to chesschat and ask if it really was us making shouts here.

A good question for you to ask yourself.

Originally Posted by MOZ

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

Then if my accounts were not even perceived to be used in the hacking, why were my accounts banned?

This was ridiculous at the start and is only getting more so as you continue to assert facts without explanation, that in the usual fashion when you do release detail (at the rate of one or two unclear hints for dozens of pieces of uninformative water-treading) turn out not to be clearly factual after all.

I don't know.
I am presuming either
> the decision-maker thought that this would mitigate the risk,
or
>> he thought these accounts needed to be quarantined.
But, personally, I am not at all regarding any likelihood that he saw an opportunity to harass your accounts.

I suggest that you regard it. The motive is obvious. firegoat's bad temper is well known. You can't explain the reason for the choice of accounts - you are just asserting on the basis of some so-called risk he discussed with you before. You have had several opportunities to discuss the nature of that risk and have failed to do so with anything remotely resembling clarity, or any convincing excuse for lack thereof. A point has been reached where I must expect all unsubstantiated claims of fact you make to be false, in the absence of very much greater clarification of what you knew and what you and/or firegoat thought the risk to be in your very next reply.

Don't know; I have not asked him.
Do you want me to speculate?

No. I wanted you to provide the facts of the matter or admit you do not have them. On this point you have done the latter.

Do you want me to ask him?

His silence is obvious for all to see.

Dave's question to me was after 11pm.

How much after? Was it after the Orifice account was created at 11:21 pm?

This guess of yours does not match my presumptions.

It is not a guess on my part but the leading hypothesis based on the choice of targets (which you just failed to explain), the extension of the ban, and firegoat's known biases. Your failure to explain the choice of targets proves you really have a very limited idea of why he did what he did the way he did and makes it very likely that any prior discussion with him (if any) was indeed concerning a pretext.

but this is unfair. He saw a risk; he acted. Get over it.

No evidence advanced. Assumed false. Attempt to dissuade contradiction filtered to trash.

And this represents a weakness in your logic processes as I remarked in an early post.
You introduced me to the term non sequitur in recent PMs when we were discussing events in chesschat 2 years back.
I think you are extrapolating from flame-wars in the past you have had with fg7.

Despite me introducing you to non sequitur I see you are continuing to employ them. I am extrapolating from firegoat's constant bile in my direction on here and his explicit statement in April that all the chesschat mods should be banned.

Dunno. Your chesschat shout "what a bunch of absolute amateur morons" may have made him less than enthusiastic to discuss with you until you have calmed down.

If the bannings were merely incompetent and irrational (as per your line of defence) rather than intentional then my shout is still completely reasonable, in which case he should, to borrow your quaint vernacular, "get over it".