Back to Topic Index
Mager123789 Banned
By Sonixpber on 26/03/2009
I never liked him anyway. He was always extremely rude to me for no apparent reason, like he was up on some pedestal. Glad this happened, actually.
By spanthrax on 26/03/2009
wow. i, like so many others im sure thought he was a pretty good guy. guess i was wrong, guess we were wrong. good riddance
By Timmy11593 on 26/03/2009
Wtf.
By Eregion2 on 26/03/2009
While we're on the topic, what happened to Zlat?
By Bobster125 on 26/03/2009
Oh my. o.O
By Nick on 26/03/2009
Dang. I liked him actually. He had an attitude at times, but he was a pretty active member that enjoyed PvP.
By Dorcha3377 on 26/03/2009
I saw the topic and went hmmmm....... good job Lordy.
By Tnuac on 26/03/2009
Zlatan83*
What happened to him anyway? Can't find a topic.
Trust that you've made a right judgement nonetheless, though.
By Karlfischer on 26/03/2009
Not a huge fan of this strictly confidential evidence thing. It is just too convenient, and in the past much of the 'evidence' for banning people for spying has been either circumstantial or speculation.
In this case it does not really matter that much since he was going to leave anyways, it is the principle of hiding things from your members that I am worried about.
By Quikdrawjoe on 26/03/2009
Bullshit, I want to see this evidence.
By Nick on 26/03/2009
QUOTE (Dorcha3377 @ March 25, 2009 08:57 pm) |
I saw the topic and went hmmmm....... good job Lordy. |
OMFG! Jenny is back!@
.... and I jizzed in my pants!
Welcome back.
By Dorcha3377 on 26/03/2009
Hai Lefty..I r back Babe....Alabama 4evar
By spanthrax on 26/03/2009
QUOTE (Dorcha3377 @ March 25, 2009 08:40 pm) |
Hai Lefty..I r back Babe....Alabama 4evar |
no just jenny 4ever

<33 wb
By Rexibit0 on 26/03/2009
Okay, I don't understand this. Flippie was consistently friendly and helpful. If he were a spy then many of the things he would have done would have be contradictory and I saw none of that.
Maybe he wanted to get something off his chest that he didn't like a decision on before he left. I wouldn't place him as a spy for saying it. Honestly, you can't write someone off as being a traitor just for leaving because they no longer find enjoyment from something. It sets a bad precedence for current and future members.
By His Lordship on 26/03/2009
QUOTE (Karlfischer @ March 26, 2009 02:26 am) |
Not a huge fan of this strictly confidential evidence thing. It is just too convenient, and in the past much of the 'evidence' for banning people for spying has been either circumstantial or speculation.
In this case it does not really matter that much since he was going to leave anyways, it is the principle of hiding things from your members that I am worried about. |
I trust you above all other members.
If you want to see the evidence Karl, come on the IRC.
By Karlfischer on 26/03/2009
QUOTE (His Lordship @ March 26, 2009 03:55 am) |
QUOTE (Karlfischer @ March 26, 2009 02:26 am) | Not a huge fan of this strictly confidential evidence thing. It is just too convenient, and in the past much of the 'evidence' for banning people for spying has been either circumstantial or speculation.
In this case it does not really matter that much since he was going to leave anyways, it is the principle of hiding things from your members that I am worried about. |
I trust you above all other members. If you want to see the evidence Karl, come on the IRC.
|
Thank you, I am grateful for your trust, and if it was a case I cared about (he was leaving anyways) or I thought was likely to be false (he probably did leak something to Zlat) I would gladly take up your offer. However, in this instance I am more concerned about the practice of keeping members so far out of the loop.
Plus I should really get back to my homework...just took a little break because I was starting to fall asleep.
By JC on 26/03/2009
This comes as a rather big surprise.
However as always I am sure that the council have firm evidence to support this decision, GJ to whoever found out about the leaking.
~Evil
By David on 26/03/2009
I personally thought he was a good member. He seemed active, and helpful. I never saw the attitude, but then again I didn't talk to him all that much. He seemed very well liked though.
I'm in agreement with Karl about the distance between the members and the Council on something as severe as a ban, but I do respect the authority of the Council when it comes to these types of decisions.
By His Lordship on 26/03/2009
There is no way we can tell you.
Once people know how they get caught, they'll evade.
By David on 26/03/2009
I understand that there is a reason you can't tell us, I'm not against that. Nor do I think you're on some power trip where you feel that you can simply withhold information for the fun of it.
I'm just saying I'm not particularly fond of the way it is, not that I don't respect it.
By Mickey on 26/03/2009
Damn, Flippie was a good friend aswell. When I was trying to find Zlatan's leaker, I never suspected him at all
By Abmanju on 26/03/2009
I can vouch for Elias for the evidence thing, When I found out about how we caught spies, I was shocked & amazed at the same time, and now Elias probably has a better method, I'm sure he doesn't want it revealed to anyone else.
Anyway yeah, shame about Flippie.
~Abs
By chip54321 on 26/03/2009
:| never expected him to do something like that, especially since he was one of the older members.
By Toshortofnam on 26/03/2009
I liked flippo =[
By T Dwag on 27/03/2009
Flippie a spy? Rofl that's bullshit, he came to MY events when I was a raid leader. That's how long he's been here, that's how long he's been dedicated for. I don't see him being a spy but I don't care if Mugger gets unbanned or not to be honest, a ban always has been a joke, it's stupid anyways seeing as people change at different points in their lives. I'm happy to have Mugger back but it disgusts me that people would even consider one of the most loyal and most active members of our time a spy. Give him some credibility god damn.
I'm sure there must be an over-exaggeration, or there misconception of what "spying" really is. Either that or you're just being too sensitive Elias. Give Flippie a break.
Copy pasted from General Matters which is why Mugger is mentioned.
I don't see how him wanting zlatan to have some privileges makes him a spy... Or how wit's even relevant.
Brandon
By VEPHYSAURAS on 27/03/2009
He has been here a long time :\ Are you sure that evidence is that conclusive? Weird.
By His Lordship on 27/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 27, 2009 05:38 am) |
Flippie a spy? Rofl that's bullshit, he came to MY events when I was a raid leader. That's how long he's been here, that's how long he's been dedicated for. I don't see him being a spy but I don't care if Mugger gets unbanned or not to be honest, a ban always has been a joke, it's stupid anyways seeing as people change at different points in their lives. I'm happy to have Mugger back but it disgusts me that people would even consider one of the most loyal and most active members of our time a spy. Give him some credibility god damn.
I'm sure there must be an over-exaggeration, or there misconception of what "spying" really is. Either that or you're just being too sensitive Elias. Give Flippie a break.
Copy pasted from General Matters which is why Mugger is mentioned. I don't see how him wanting zlatan to have some privileges makes him a spy... Or how wit's even relevant. Brandon |
You have no concept of the proof we have mounted to suggest he is a spy.
I don't care how tight he was with you.
He is a spy without question.
By VEPHYSAURAS on 27/03/2009
What info did he leak anyway? Were all clan mates here so that isn't subject to non-disclosure is it?
By His Lordship on 27/03/2009
From what I know he leaked our war information for certain, and he probably leaked more.
I just want to add guys, I wouldn't ban him just for fun. Haven't you taken a step back and realised I actually have a good reason for this?
By RobbieThe1st on 27/03/2009
I am going to have to say that, having seen the information, and having built the system that produced it, the evidence is 100% conclusive that the leaking was done from Mager's account.
I do agree with Elias on the fact of it not needing to be public knowledge, in fact, I am of the opinion that even Council doesn't need to know all of the methods of spy-catching - I recall several council leaving and causing trouble with such knowledge.
The fact is, the fewer people knowing, the better chance of the knowledge being confined to those people.
I however will say that, if I was a regular member, I wouldn't be too happy about it, assuming that the leaders made up the evidence.
In this case however, no evidence was made by anyone, and it is all very solid. You guys are just going to have to trust us.
-RobbieThe1st
By VEPHYSAURAS on 27/03/2009
Ok, just you will problem always have people questioning that rule. He was here a long time and everything. So its upsetting.
By Ubg-Fcbruges on 27/03/2009
wow :s
By Ansatsublade on 27/03/2009
This... shocks me... Shocks me a lot.
I need some time right now.
By Karlfischer on 27/03/2009
QUOTE (RobbieThe2nd @ March 27, 2009 10:44 am) |
I am going to have to say that, having seen the information, and having built the system that produced it, the evidence is 100% conclusive that the leaking was done from Mager's account.
I do agree with Elias on the fact of it not needing to be public knowledge, in fact, I am of the opinion that even Council doesn't need to know all of the methods of spy-catching - I recall several council leaving and causing trouble with such knowledge. The fact is, the fewer people knowing, the better chance of the knowledge being confined to those people.
I however will say that, if I was a regular member, I wouldn't be too happy about it, assuming that the leaders made up the evidence.
In this case however, no evidence was made by anyone, and it is all very solid. You guys are just going to have to trust us.
-RobbieThe1st |
I do not think any evidence is 100%, it only becomes so close to 100% that is ridiculous to think otherwise.
Short of having an IP match, I do not see how you could have near-100% evidence that it was from Mager's account. Even if there is an IP match, Lordy has said that the information was supplied by Mugger. In that case if Mugger somehow knew Mager's IP address (say he wrote down a few of them before he left) then he could fabricate information implicating that Mager leaked info in order to get ex-member back.
I am not saying that is the case, or even likely, but just trying to show how that even the most seemingly solid evidence can have limitations.
I understand that you need to keep your methods secret, and I am willing to trust that the evidence you have is solid, however what I do not trust is that you are going to hold that evidence up to the same amount of scrutiny that members would if it was made public. I am not saying you should make the evidence public, but if a number of members are casting doubt upon Mager being a spy, I think the proper response is to say you will look further into the evidence and not simply dismiss their worries with claims your evidence is 100%.
I suppose I could just opt to see the evidence myself like Lordy has offered, however I would rather not in case it becomes a liability for me in the future (for example if the method was leaked and there was a witch hunt to find out who did it).
By Quikdrawjoe on 27/03/2009
QUOTE (His Lordship @ March 27, 2009 09:53 am) |
From what I know he leaked our war information for certain, and he probably leaked more.
I just want to add guys, I wouldn't ban him just for fun. Haven't you taken a step back and realised I actually have a good reason for this? |
What's your good reason? I think this whole month has been full of shit reasons.
By Chimpy on 27/03/2009
I trust in the council.
By T Dwag on 28/03/2009
QUOTE (His Lordship @ March 27, 2009 07:23 am) |
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 27, 2009 05:38 am) | Flippie a spy? Rofl that's bullshit, he came to MY events when I was a raid leader. That's how long he's been here, that's how long he's been dedicated for. I don't see him being a spy but I don't care if Mugger gets unbanned or not to be honest, a ban always has been a joke, it's stupid anyways seeing as people change at different points in their lives. I'm happy to have Mugger back but it disgusts me that people would even consider one of the most loyal and most active members of our time a spy. Give him some credibility god damn.
I'm sure there must be an over-exaggeration, or there misconception of what "spying" really is. Either that or you're just being too sensitive Elias. Give Flippie a break.
Copy pasted from General Matters which is why Mugger is mentioned. I don't see how him wanting zlatan to have some privileges makes him a spy... Or how wit's even relevant. Brandon |
You have no concept of the proof we have mounted to suggest he is a spy. I don't care how tight he was with you. He is a spy without question.
|
It's not because he was "tight" with me, it's cause he was a good member and doesn't really have any motives to be a spy after being here so long. What if the government (using the American one in this case) arrested a loved, trust worthy governor for no reason without any explanations? Questions need to be answered at times like this when such a character gets banned without proof to the public. It's not fair for us, how do we know this isn't just like the Salem which trials? Technically you could say "you're it" ban someone and keep it quiet. That's not right.
Brandon
By Eregion2 on 28/03/2009
And other times the public has to trust that the people running their government actually know more about what they're doing than Joe the plumber sitting on his couch recliner, and trust that when they say they can't tell us without causing considerable harm to the country and our ability to defend ourselves against future attacks then they MIGHT actually be telling the truth.
By His Lordship on 28/03/2009
How could you POSSIBLY have such little faith in my integrity after all I have done?
I NEVER manipulate things to find an outcome that favours myself.
I have only ever been as unbiased as possible.
And here you are bitching about my credibility.
I am TELLING you he was a spy, and if you can't trust your leader, you can't trust anyone in this fucking clan.
You need to have some faith in me.
There is no room for mistakes in this evidence.
By RobbieThe1st on 28/03/2009
QUOTE (Karlfischer @ March 27, 2009 05:27 pm) |
QUOTE (RobbieThe2nd @ March 27, 2009 10:44 am) | I am going to have to say that, having seen the information, and having built the system that produced it, the evidence is 100% conclusive that the leaking was done from Mager's account.
I do agree with Elias on the fact of it not needing to be public knowledge, in fact, I am of the opinion that even Council doesn't need to know all of the methods of spy-catching - I recall several council leaving and causing trouble with such knowledge. The fact is, the fewer people knowing, the better chance of the knowledge being confined to those people.
I however will say that, if I was a regular member, I wouldn't be too happy about it, assuming that the leaders made up the evidence.
In this case however, no evidence was made by anyone, and it is all very solid. You guys are just going to have to trust us.
-RobbieThe1st |
I do not think any evidence is 100%, it only becomes so close to 100% that is ridiculous to think otherwise.
Short of having an IP match, I do not see how you could have near-100% evidence that it was from Mager's account. Even if there is an IP match, Lordy has said that the information was supplied by Mugger. In that case if Mugger somehow knew Mager's IP address (say he wrote down a few of them before he left) then he could fabricate information implicating that Mager leaked info in order to get ex-member back.
I am not saying that is the case, or even likely, but just trying to show how that even the most seemingly solid evidence can have limitations.
I understand that you need to keep your methods secret, and I am willing to trust that the evidence you have is solid, however what I do not trust is that you are going to hold that evidence up to the same amount of scrutiny that members would if it was made public. I am not saying you should make the evidence public, but if a number of members are casting doubt upon Mager being a spy, I think the proper response is to say you will look further into the evidence and not simply dismiss their worries with claims your evidence is 100%.
I suppose I could just opt to see the evidence myself like Lordy has offered, however I would rather not in case it becomes a liability for me in the future (for example if the method was leaked and there was a witch hunt to find out who did it).
|
Lordy may not like this, but I am going to say that it is not an IP match(IPs are not nearly as good as you may think), but a unique account identifier match - we -know- that mager's account was the one the leaking was done from.
Also, this information is something that I have error-correction algoritms for, and its decyphering methods are complex, such that faking it would be hard even -IF- you knew how I created the info.
I will show you exactly how and where if you need, as I too trust you.
By Kiwi011 on 28/03/2009
this sounds like the Jordon thing from way back. WE ARENT GOING TO BE TOLD WHY HE WAS BANNED AND WHAT EVIDENCE THERE WAS. JUST FUCKING TRUST THE LEADERSHIP. Thats why they are the, dare I say it, LEADERS.
By T Dwag on 28/03/2009
QUOTE (Kiwi011 @ March 28, 2009 05:07 am) |
this sounds like the Jordon thing from way back. WE ARENT GOING TO BE TOLD WHY HE WAS BANNED AND WHAT EVIDENCE THERE WAS. JUST FUCKING TRUST THE LEADERSHIP. Thats why they are the, dare I say it, LEADERS. |
Yeah I was against that too. Why is Lordy taking it so personally? I just believe that information should be disclosed to the public, it won't discredit you in any manner but whatever. The only reason you should be this sensitive is if you doubt your own decision. Fuck what I think right?
Brandon
By VEPHYSAURAS on 28/03/2009
Ya I trust your decision. It is healthy for the members to question these things though.
By His Lordship on 28/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 28, 2009 07:09 am) |
QUOTE (Kiwi011 @ March 28, 2009 05:07 am) | this sounds like the Jordon thing from way back. WE ARENT GOING TO BE TOLD WHY HE WAS BANNED AND WHAT EVIDENCE THERE WAS. JUST FUCKING TRUST THE LEADERSHIP. Thats why they are the, dare I say it, LEADERS. |
Yeah I was against that too. Why is Lordy taking it so personally? I just believe that information should be disclosed to the public, it won't discredit you in any manner but whatever. The only reason you should be this sensitive is if you doubt your own decision. Fuck what I think right?
Brandon
|
As soon as I do that, all the other spies will avoid it, and Robbie's system will collapse.
_______
Robie, disclose information as you wish.
It is your system and it has always belonged to you.
By Bambaleo on 28/03/2009
i think some people are too fkn dumb to understand that letting us see the evidence would mean the collapse of our spy-catching system. And you really think it is worth it?
By T Dwag on 28/03/2009
QUOTE (Bambaleo @ March 28, 2009 11:43 am) |
i think some people are too fkn dumb to understand that letting us see the evidence would mean the collapse of our spy-catching system. And you really think it is worth it? |
I don't give a fuck HOW he caught the spy to be honest, I have no idea how his spy catching techniques are directly relevant to the dialogue released by Flippie. Maybe you could explain it to my dumb ass please?
Brandon
By Eregion2 on 28/03/2009
If Robbie came up with it, then it's probably so far advanced it's nearly sentient.
By Karlfischer on 28/03/2009
Lordy just let me look at the evidence, and I can now completely understand everything he has been saying.
There is absolutely no way that the evidence can be shared with the WG members. You are going to have to trust the leadership on this one.
I will say this, no spy catching method, not even this one, is 100%, but they have come so damn close it is scary. I am sorry to say, but Mager did leak something, and does deserve the ban given to him.
By Quikdrawjoe on 29/03/2009
Even from you Karl I won't accept that. The leadership has made quite a few decisions without any voice from the people and this is one I can't stand idly by.
By Eregion2 on 29/03/2009
QUOTE (Karlfischer @ March 28, 2009 05:44 pm) |
Lordy just let me look at the evidence, and I can now completely understand everything he has been saying.
There is absolutely no way that the evidence can be shared with the WG members. You are going to have to trust the leadership on this one.
I will say this, no spy catching method, not even this one, is 100%, but they have come so damn close it is scary. I am sorry to say, but Mager did leak something, and does deserve the ban given to him. |
I want to work up and run for Council now just to find out how the heck this works.
By Karlfischer on 29/03/2009
QUOTE (Quikdrawjoe @ March 29, 2009 01:01 am) |
Even from you Karl I won't accept that. The leadership has made quite a few decisions without any voice from the people and this is one I can't stand idly by. |
I understand, from being in your position previous to today--that of having to trust in evidence you cannot see yourself--I do not expect you to accept my conclusion.
It may be some consolation to know that I am putting the evidence up to a good measure of scrutiny. I am not going to tell you the evidence is 100%. There is a chance, albeit very very small, that Mager is innocent. Think about it though: Mager was leaving and had little incentive not to leak, he complained about not letting Zlatan into IRC conforming his close ties with him, the council has near-100% proof that Mager leaked info, and if all that is not enough he even
ADMITTED he leaked (09:33 - Queen_III - I told an exmember some stuff 09:33 - Queen_III - Nothing serious). Not to mention that Zlatan was in the ending options of CR in the PKRI today, whereupon they subsequently piled him.
The real problem though is that the members cannot be involved in this without ruining the techniques for catching spies. Thus if you want members to have voice in this decision then you have a choice to make: either we have member participation in this process or we catch spies, I am afraid it is impossible to have both.
By Bambaleo on 29/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 28, 2009 07:29 pm) |
QUOTE (Bambaleo @ March 28, 2009 11:43 am) | i think some people are too fkn dumb to understand that letting us see the evidence would mean the collapse of our spy-catching system. And you really think it is worth it? |
I don't give a fuck HOW he caught the spy to be honest, I have no idea how his spy catching techniques are directly relevant to the dialogue released by Flippie. Maybe you could explain it to my dumb ass please?
Brandon
|
umm..if you don't giv a f about how he got cought..why are you asking me to explain it. Just have a little faith in your leadership. They wouldn't ban an elite member for no reason.
By His Lordship on 29/03/2009
Enough hostility.
I see what Powerman said now.
It's a clan of Me, not We.
Let's try and be comrades and work for each other.
T Dawg, I'm sorry for snapping at you before. I still don't understand what you want me to explain.
Bam, thank you for standing up for me. I'll take it from here.
Karl, thank you for your post. It really helps.
Joe, Karl is right. You need to choose - do you want to examine the evidence and lose the spy catching technique forever, or do you want to put faith in the leaders, and allow us to continue weeding out spies?
By Quikdrawjoe on 29/03/2009
I'd rather lose the technique and now for myself if he really did. It's the age old debate of security vs freedom. People want to be safe which means less freedoms, or more freedoms with less security. I won't ever believe he leaked unless you provide some hard evidence. Though I am willing to compromise, if you won't show me the evidence at least unban him and change him to ex-member or clan friend.
By His Lordship on 29/03/2009
QUOTE (Quikdrawjoe @ March 29, 2009 06:51 pm) |
I'd rather lose the technique and now for myself if he really did. It's the age old debate of security vs freedom. People want to be safe which means less freedoms, or more freedoms with less security. I won't ever believe he leaked unless you provide some hard evidence. Though I am willing to compromise, if you won't show me the evidence at least unban him and change him to ex-member or clan friend. |
As a leader, I am going to lead in the general clan's interest, and choose to keep the security over your selfish demands.
1. If you can't trust us, leave.
2. Robbie worked for hours and hours on it and for what? So you could end it with one glimpse? I don't think so.
3. More damage will be done by allowing spies in WG than by proving that you are being led honestly.
By T Dwag on 29/03/2009
I'll try and be more clear. All I want to know is the dialogue or information released by Mager, I think that can be given without unveiling our spy catching techniques. I don't care HOW as in what kind of system caught him, all I want to know is the WHY. I mean even if any spies find out which conversation was recorded by our spy catching mechanism, it's not like they can prove how it was done if only the dialogue is released. That's all I want.
Brandon
By sgtswordfish on 29/03/2009
since i'm the new guy, you can disregard my opinion.
i think the rules in the begining make it clear.
this isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship. you don't have the bill of rights, you have priviledges. in any case, if mage was proven a threat in one way or another its obvious he was banned.
By His Lordship on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 29, 2009 10:35 pm) |
I'll try and be more clear. All I want to know is the dialogue or information released by Mager, I think that can be given without unveiling our spy catching techniques. I don't care HOW as in what kind of system caught him, all I want to know is the WHY. I mean even if any spies find out which conversation was recorded by our spy catching mechanism, it's not like they can prove how it was done if only the dialogue is released. That's all I want.
Brandon |
Well, all I can say is that he gave our war information to Zlat.
We can't be sure if he simply gave Zlat the single post or the account, but either way, Zlat knew.
By Karlfischer on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 29, 2009 10:35 pm) |
I'll try and be more clear. All I want to know is the dialogue or information released by Mager, I think that can be given without unveiling our spy catching techniques. I don't care HOW as in what kind of system caught him, all I want to know is the WHY. I mean even if any spies find out which conversation was recorded by our spy catching mechanism, it's not like they can prove how it was done if only the dialogue is released. That's all I want.
Brandon |
I think that is a reasonable request, however the dialogue itself cannot be released. Here is what I know: So far there is NOT any information that confirms Mager was a spy. He was not working for any other clan, and he was not trying to reveal information in order to get our events crashed.
What he did was leak information to an ex-member. Ill repeat again what he himself admitted to:
09:33 - Queen_III - I told an exmember some stuff
09:33 - Queen_III - Nothing serious
He apparently does not consider leaking a serious offense, however I think most people here would agree leaking important war or other critical information warrants a ban--even if it is leaked to someone who does not intend to do WG harm. Leaking has to be taken as seriously as spying because we do not know what the person leaked to is going to do with the information. More importantly, leaking is a huge violation of trust that we all put in eachother. Imagine if we made the punishment for leaking a warning or a suspension; no one would take it seriously and we could seldom have a raid or war that was not crashed because of people telling their friends (who they thought they could trust).
I am sure if you talked to Mager he would admit most of this himself.
To Joe: I would be untruthful if I did not say I was a bit ambivalent about this method of catching spies myself. Think of it this way though, before catching spies depended a lot on circumstantial evidence or just evidence that could be wrong. In terms of separating those who are actually spies with those who are innocent, this is a huge step forward. Now we have near-100% proof--it is not based on guesses or probabilities. Take that away and I fear we may go back to the old fashioned method of catching spies, where paranoia leads to witch hunts, innocent members being banned, and a climate of distrust in the clan.
By T Dwag on 30/03/2009
Karl, what you are saying is Flippie's actions were not of malicious intent, therefore it should not warrant a ban. Maybe in most circumstances leaking does deserve a ban. But from a good, honest, hard-working member that has dedicated a lot of time to WG, and leaked without meaning any harm? It could merely be called an accident, that's the real reason I don't think he deserves a ban.
Brandon
By Quikdrawjoe on 30/03/2009
You throw away all Flip has done but on the other hand you revoke Mugger's ban after what he does? It seems Mugger abused his ex-council abilities yet I see he is an ex-member? How does Mugger deserve ex-member but Flip doesn't? He abused his status even worse than Flip possibly did or could and yet Flip is the one banned.
By His Lordship on 30/03/2009
A leak is a leak, and he leaked it with the intent.
He gave it to Zlat who everyone knows is a douche.
And he was also aware of the no-leaking rules.
By T Dwag on 30/03/2009
Well if your decision is final I guess I'm done fighting for Flippie here. Sometimes you can hurt someone without intending it, and that was Flippie's only crime in my eyes. Maybe one day others will see the light and he can at least get ex-member.
Brandon
By Quikdrawjoe on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (His Lordship @ March 30, 2009 01:18 am) |
A leak is a leak, and he leaked it with the intent. He gave it to Zlat who everyone knows is a douche. And he was also aware of the no-leaking rules. |
There is no proof he leaked it to Zlatan, you only said it proved his account leaked.
Yet you'll unban Mugger after what he did?
Makes sense to me also. /sarcasm
By Karlfischer on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 30, 2009 12:56 am) |
Karl, what you are saying is Flippie's actions were not of malicious intent, therefore it should not warrant a ban. Maybe in most circumstances leaking does deserve a ban. But from a good, honest, hard-working member that has dedicated a lot of time to WG, and leaked without meaning any harm? It could merely be called an accident, that's the real reason I don't think he deserves a ban.
Brandon |
I am sorry, but that was the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. Here are the clan rules:
Do Not Compromise The Clan's Privacy
* Do not publicly talk about sensitive clan information such as event times.
* Do not privately provide clan information to people outside the clan.
* If told something privately by a member, you must not state that information publicly without that member's permission.
* Do not invite people to our events without permission from the event's leader.
Notice, no where does it say anything about intent to do harm to the clan. A leak is a leak, regardless of if the intent. If this was not the case members could simply defend themselves by saying, "I did not mean for our war to get crashed, I really thought I could trust my friend with the information." When the clan posts information, it is trusted that you do not leak it to anyone outside the clan, friend or foe.
Yes, he was an elite and did a lot for WG, but that makes the offense worse because he is role model and should be familiar with all the rules. Elites do not receive special treatment, infact the reverse is true, they are held up to higher standards.
To Joe: I agree, I do not think Mugger's ban should have been traded for info on a Mager leaking. However, that is a different matter than if Mager did leak and deserves a ban based on that information.
By Planolocal on 30/03/2009
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
but Saad agreed

he is spy too!
By Quikdrawjoe on 30/03/2009
Even if you regard them as two separate cases I fail to see how what Mugger did is somehow less than what Flip did and doesn't deserve a ban.
If Mugger did provide information about Flip leaking, how would he have access to the system that proved Flip leaked in the first place?
Either the system showed his account leaked or Mugger provided the information, and I'm pretty sure that Mugger shouldn't have access to that any more since not even members can see it.
Also, I would doubt the validity of information provided to ban someone to be unbanned himself along with the fact of what he did in the first place and then after.
By T Dwag on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (Karlfischer @ March 30, 2009 01:53 am) |
QUOTE (T Dwag @ March 30, 2009 12:56 am) | Karl, what you are saying is Flippie's actions were not of malicious intent, therefore it should not warrant a ban. Maybe in most circumstances leaking does deserve a ban. But from a good, honest, hard-working member that has dedicated a lot of time to WG, and leaked without meaning any harm? It could merely be called an accident, that's the real reason I don't think he deserves a ban.
Brandon |
I am sorry, but that was the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. Here are the clan rules:
Do Not Compromise The Clan's Privacy
* Do not publicly talk about sensitive clan information such as event times. * Do not privately provide clan information to people outside the clan. * If told something privately by a member, you must not state that information publicly without that member's permission. * Do not invite people to our events without permission from the event's leader.
Notice, no where does it say anything about intent to do harm to the clan. A leak is a leak, regardless of if the intent. If this was not the case members could simply defend themselves by saying, "I did not mean for our war to get crashed, I really thought I could trust my friend with the information." When the clan posts information, it is trusted that you do not leak it to anyone outside the clan, friend or foe.
Yes, he was an elite and did a lot for WG, but that makes the offense worse because he is role model and should be familiar with all the rules. Elites do not receive special treatment, infact the reverse is true, they are held up to higher standards.
To Joe: I agree, I do not think Mugger's ban should have been traded for info on a Mager leaking. However, that is a different matter than if Mager did leak and deserves a ban based on that information.
|
Well then he is only a victim of his own innocence and trust, in no way did he believe he was compromising the safety of our clan. Like you said sometimes wars get crashed cause members thought they could trust their friends, but should man be judged by his action or his intent? I always thought it should be his intent, it all ends up being very complicated. I can see where you're coming from but Flippie is not a threat to this clan and thus should not be banned. Even if he was given ex-member he wouldn't have much knowledge to compromise the integrity of WG.
P.S. Has anyone spoken to Flippie recently? Does he even want Ex-member? I'd like to know his opinion on the matter.
Brandon
By Karlfischer on 30/03/2009
QUOTE (Quikdrawjoe @ March 30, 2009 01:58 am) |
Even if you regard them as two separate cases I fail to see how what Mugger did is somehow less than what Flip did and doesn't deserve a ban. If Mugger did provide information about Flip leaking, how would he have access to the system that proved Flip leaked in the first place? Either the system showed his account leaked or Mugger provided the information, and I'm pretty sure that Mugger shouldn't have access to that any more since not even members can see it. Also, I would doubt the validity of information provided to ban someone to be unbanned himself along with the fact of what he did in the first place and then after. |
Good points, I pretty much agree. If you put it in terms of who deserves to be banned more, Mugger or Mager, I would likewise pick Mugger because I do not think he should have been unbanned in the first place. It sends a message that bans can be traded.
However, that is not to say I do not think Mager deserves to be banned for leaking.
To Dwag:
Ussually I would agree with you, that intent is more important than action, however in this case there are three other factors to consider.
The first is preventing people from leaking. People need to take leaking seriously, and the only way to do this is to make sure that anyone who leaks critical information gets banned.
The second is that linking up leaking with malicious intent would prove very difficult to punish. How would we establish that the leak contributed to harm coming to the clan or that there was bad intentions involved? Again, no one would take leaking seriously if they could get out of it by claiming they were a 'victim' of their own innocence and trust.
The third is the issue of clan trust. We all trust eachother to keep the information here inside the clan, and leaking is a violation of that trust. Even without any harm coming out of it, the act of leaking alone shows a huge disrespect to the clan. It is the same as if your friend tells you a secret on the condition that you tell it to no one, and then you tell it to another friend who you know will not say anything. If the first friend finds out he/she will be mad not so much because the secret could have gotten out, but rather because of your complete lack of respect for his/her wishes.
By T Dwag on 30/03/2009
Joe brings up a VERY interesting point, how would Mugger have access to this spy-catching system after he has left WG to catch Flippie? Sounds a bit fishy to me.
Karl, addressing all three of your points:
Point One: I agree leaking should be taken seriously, but WG chose the wrong scapegoat. Flippie was as dedicated as they come, on forums, at events, in the IRC, it's just sad to see him go. A part of the community is actually lost, no exaggeration.
Point Two:
By reading the subtext in the dialogue between Zlat and Mager you could easily tell if he was spying or he was just sharing something with Zlat with an absent mind, and he carelessly slipped. Spying is usually more serious and matters of crashing or such usually follow.
Point Three:
Can't disagree much here, yes Mager should have known the rules, but I think the punishment was WAY too extreme. I doubt Flippie EVER had a warn level in his time here in WG and suddenly he gets banned. It was sudden and unfair, members have done worse than him and have second chances. He deserves a chance, it's not like he banned himself lol.
Brandon
By Ubg-Fcbruges on 30/03/2009
SAw mager123789 earlier today. Talked to him and seemed to be another guy. He told me he gave away his account lol

So there's no reason to chit chat about this any more
By T Dwag on 30/03/2009
Ty UBG. Poor Flippie, gave up on RS after being banned from WG probably =(. Well in that case I'm done arguing.
Brandon
By His Lordship on 30/03/2009
Thank God for that.
This was getting nowhere, except two of you unintentionally insulted me by showing such a lack of trust.
Back to Topic Index