MHA: request for explanation

[caligula]

I don't see the problem here. Emily used another person's personal forum account, viewed information she no longer had access too, then proceeded to admit that she viewed that information to a member of MHA.

Using another person's forum account to view information you know you aren't supposed to is and will always be spying. By using tristram's own definition, it is spying. She observed the thread secretly via another person's account. Just because she admited to it later doesn't mean anything. If she would have told MHA she was going to log in to another person's forum account and view information she wasn't supposed to see, don't you think they would have a problem with that? Of course they would, so why does her admitting to the fact after, and asking them to remove a thread not count as spying? It was done secretly before she admitted to her actions and thus constitutes spying, no amount of whining, trying to un-dig the hole via spying definitions and e-lawyering prevents that.

Edit: misspelled word

She tried to blackmail MHA government and use the information she had procured when no longer being in the alliance, after leaving rather quickly because of personal problems. I havn't seen evidence where MHA government knew of her access, in fact, here, here's a log:

Session Start: Wed Jun 24 14:16:39 2009

Session Ident: emily

[14:16] Session Ident: emily (Coldfront, IYIyTh[MHA])

[14:16] <emily> ?

[14:18] <emily> well ok it's not really a favour

[14:18] <emily> but if I'm getting screenshots

[14:19] <emily> so are they.... unless that was the whole point

01[14:20] <IYIyTh[MHA]> screenshots?

[14:20] <emily> yes

[14:20] <emily> look

[14:21] <emily> i don't know what to say

[14:21] <emily> JMs an immature !@#$%*

[14:21] <emily> we know that

[14:21] <emily> you're anoying...we know that too

[14:22] <emily> but 4 pages of bile does not look good

[14:22] <emily> I spoke to JM yesterday btw

01[14:22] <IYIyTh[MHA]> link?

[14:22] <emily> to what?

01[14:23] <IYIyTh[MHA]> to that thread?

[14:24] <emily> ************************** Private MHA thread

[14:24] <emily> but ANYONE could get you the link with minimum effort

[14:24] <emily> you know that....

01[14:24] <IYIyTh[MHA]> no. not really.

01[14:24] <IYIyTh[MHA]> unless someone was spying.

[14:24] <emily> well

[14:24] <emily> I ded get sent the shots

[14:25] <emily> if they get wind of this

[14:25] <emily> they'll be in looking

[14:25] <emily> myth

I don't see any admission of having access here.

After this we made a connectio... looked and found she had a matching forum account.

Any government who is concerned may reach us on our forums or #MHA. thanks.

Edited June 28, 2009 by caligula

[Zombie Glaucon]

Would be nice if you asked my permission before posting Query logs with me. Not a smart move really is it.

You're just butthurt because this thread makes you look bad.

(snip a bunch)

Even more threats and false accusations against members of government

Enjoy these

You must be &#33;@#&#036;ting me. What are you, 12? Your "analysis" here doesn't make you look any better.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Zombie Glaucon

[Yawoo]

I don't see any admission of having access here.

After this we made a connectio... looked and found she had a matching forum account.

My mistake then, being an outside observe it looked like this:

[14:24] <emily> ************************** Private MHA thread

[14:24] <emily> but ANYONE could get you the link with minimum effort

[14:24] <emily> you know that....

was emily giving your member a link to the thread. Thereby showing she had access to that thread.

[Sylveste]

Indeed, ZI'ing someone unjustly is a sure fire way of getting them to keep your dirty secrets

And of we'd have let her get away with it, who's to say she wouldn't try something else with it, when someone else annoyed her? And as you can see she already has tried, so might as well get it over with, cauterise the wound and move along, but she didn't want to let that happen and has tried to sully the name of MHA, this I will not allow.

[caligula]

You're just butthurt because this thread makes you look bad.

You must be &#33;@#&#036;ting me. What are you, 12? Your "analysis" here doesn't make you look any better.

Calm down. Your reply could really be seen as playing along with it.

Cooler heads here really.

Once again, any concerned or involved government party may query a government member on #mha or reach a trium @ mostlyharmlessalliance.com.

Thanks.

was emily giving your member a link to the thread. Thereby showing she had access to that thread.

She was talking about a specific thread and later admitted to another government member of having access.

I immediately was concerned and we checked and indeed found a Multi.

Emily was NOT a member and had left with some private wrinkles of her own with government of the MHA, and thus her intentions were questionable.

This is a reminder to everyone.

By no means do we permit non-members to view our internal alliance interworkings.

Also, I understand many could see this as being harsh.

We would've handled this differently if we felt there was naturally good-willed intent, but there was an abscence of it.

So naturally we treated this spy no differently than any other.

She was trying to get the MHA to take down and move around private internal matters that should not be discussed on the OWF.

Contrary to her stance of not wanting such information to cause pain, in doing so she brings up the very thread she didn't want discussed.

It's ironic really.

Edited June 28, 2009 by caligula

[emily]

A number of MHA gov WERE aware I had access to their forums. It was openly discussed on IRC.

Yes, I DO have logs, but really don't want to put friends in the same predicament I am in. and it is these logs, that I promised Sorum not to release.

Plus, until admission, no there really was no reason to suggest I would get "caught", after all i had used that account a number of times before. So caligula/myth is quite wrong in assuming that was my motive.

Edited June 28, 2009 by emily

[tristram]

Calm down. Your reply could really be seen as playing along with it.

Cooler heads here really.

Once again, any concerned or involved government party may query a government member on #mha or reach a trium @ mostlyharmlessalliance.com.

Thanks.

She was talking about a specific thread and later admitted to another government member of having access.

I immediately was concerned and we checked and indeed found a Multi.

Emily was NOT a member and had left with some private wrinkles of her own with government of the MHA, and thus her intentions were questionable.

This is a reminder to everyone.

By no means do we permit non-members to view our internal alliance interworkings.

Also, I understand many could see this as being harsh.

We would've handled this differently if we felt there was naturally good-willed intent, but there was an abscence of it.

So naturally we treated this spy no differently than any other.

She was trying to get the MHA to take down and move around private internal matters that should not be discussed on the OWF.

Contrary to her stance of not wanting such information to cause pain, in doing so she brings up the very thread she didn't want discussed.

It's ironic really.

So much for the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy theme.

[enderland]

She was talking about a specific thread and later admitted to another government member of having access.

She was trying to get the MHA to take down and move around private internal matters that should not be discussed on the OWF.

Contrary to her stance of not wanting such information to cause pain, in doing so she brings up the very thread she didn't want discussed.

It's ironic really.

Hm.

It seems that the "irony" to me is that she is being ZIed for being honest. I'd be more concerned with the current member of MHA who sent screen shots of what is supposedly a "private internal matter" to the ex-member that they concerned than emily at this point.

[caligula]

Session Start: Wed Jun 24 14:16:39 2009

Session Ident: emily

[14:16] Session Ident: emily (Coldfront, IYIyTh[MHA])

[14:16] <emily> ?

[14:18] <emily> well ok it's not really a favour

[14:18] <emily> but if I'm getting screenshots

[14:19] <emily> so are they.... unless that was the whole point

01[14:20] <IYIyTh[MHA]> screenshots?

[14:20] <emily> yes

[14:20] <emily> look

[14:21] <emily> i don't know what to say

[14:21] <emily> JMs an immature !@#$%*

[14:21] <emily> we know that

[14:21] <emily> you're anoying...we know that too

[14:22] <emily> but 4 pages of bile does not look good

[14:22] <emily> I spoke to JM yesterday btw

01[14:22] <IYIyTh[MHA]> link?

[14:22] <emily> to what?

01[14:23] <IYIyTh[MHA]> to that thread?

[14:24] <emily> ************************** Private MHA thread

[14:24] <emily> but ANYONE could get you the link with minimum effort

[14:24] <emily> you know that....

01[14:24] <IYIyTh[MHA]> no. not really.

01[14:24] <IYIyTh[MHA]> unless someone was spying.

[14:24] <emily> well

[14:24] <emily> I ded get sent the shots

[14:25] <emily> if they get wind of this

[14:25] <emily> they'll be in looking

[14:25] <emily> myth

So much for the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy theme.

Was that really necessary?

Seriously.

And Emily. I'm not opposed to talking to you, but we have provided governments with logs that show otherwise.

We did not know of your access, and you did not mention it to me in the logs above. I have not yet seen evidence that government knew about it. You accessed MHA forums after leaving on not the cleanest of terms, admittably. I don't see how you could think accessing our private internal matters and horassing MHA government about changing this and that thread, and to the extent of blackmail, would be "just fine."

Hm.

It seems that the "irony" to me is that she is being ZIed for being honest. I'd be more concerned with the current member of MHA who sent screen shots of what is supposedly a "private internal matter" to the ex-member that they concerned than emily at this point.

Didn't you get it, she's the one who did. Check the logs, she says she talked to the individual and did not admit to having access. I can only wonder which member provided her access. Perhaps the members account she spied with?

Any .gov, can once again, contact us on #mha or our forums at mostlyharmlessalliance.com

Thanks.

Edited June 28, 2009 by caligula

[emily]

Was that really necessary?

Seriously.

And Emily. I'm not opposed to talking to you, but we have provided governments with logs that show otherwise.

We did not know of your access, and you did not mention it to me in the logs above. I have not yet seen evidence that government knew about it. You accessed MHA forums after leaving on not the cleanest of terms, admittably. I don't see how you could think accessing our private internal matters and horassing MHA government about changing this and that thread, and to the extent of blackmail, would be "just fine."

Well perhaps if I had a trial I could show you EXACTLY who knew about it...

As for harassing.... I mentioned it to you... Once!

Myth - could you edit your post to take out people's names?

Edited June 28, 2009 by emily

[David Merton]

Point taken. So, do you consider someone acting with no hostile intent to be worthy of ZI?

You assume she had no hostile intent because she was caught. Hostile intent is implied, otherwise why would someone circumvent the system to gather the info? Also, this is an internal MHA matter not involving other alliances. You have no reason to be concerned, unless you were planning to using someone else's account to get on our servers and collect information. In that case, I suggest you reconsider your plans.

King Merton

MHA Minister of Destructor Fleets

Edited June 28, 2009 by David Merton

[Sorum]

It seems that the "irony" to me is that she is being ZIed for being honest. I'd be more concerned with the current member of MHA who sent screen shots of what is supposedly a "private internal matter" to the ex-member that they concerned than emily at this point.

Did you miss the part where it became evident that she wasn't sent screenies, but used that excuse to cover her source (spying)?

[tristram]

I did find this in my public #MHA logs

22:14 -!- emily[coffee] is now known as bladesrider

22:43 -!- bladesrider is now known as hemberly

So i am assuming people knew.

[enderland]

Did you miss the part where it became evident that she wasn't sent screenies, but used that excuse to cover her source (spying)?

Actually I did.

[scutterbug]

Well perhaps if I had a trial I could show you EXACTLY who knew about it...

As for harassing.... I mentioned it to you... Once!

Did you miss the part where you then kept sending queries to me with various threats, harassments and false accusations against MHA gov? Im sure that covers ur harrasment

[enderland]

Did you miss the part where you then kept sending queries to me with various threats, harassments and false accusations against MHA gov? Im sure that covers ur harrasment

What you posted is not harassment.

[Yawoo]

She was talking about a specific thread and later admitted to another government member of having access.

I immediately was concerned and we checked and indeed found a Multi.

Emily was NOT a member and had left with some private wrinkles of her own with government of the MHA, and thus her intentions were questionable.

I think you're a bit confused with my previous post. I'm not arguing that she was a member of MHA at the time, far from it, I'm saying that as a non-MHA member who logged on to a MHA member's forum account, she spied. Thanks for clearing up those logs for me

[tristram]

Did you miss the part where it became evident that she wasn't sent screenies, but used that excuse to cover her source (spying)?

Spying on what?, she was minister of towels, she was one of the smartest people in the alliance for a whilet. And since she was govt, if she were a spy she already would have backed up the MHA secret posts and we would be having a better time.

Edited June 28, 2009 by tristram

[Yawoo]

I did find this in my public #MHA logs

So i am assuming people knew.

Couldn't it have been taken as a joke? If you've ever been to #cn-nemesis you'll find we like to change our nicks from time to time to that of Bob or Hoo just to have a bit of fun with eachother as we mock them. Perhaps, it was just her having fun, is that too hard to believe?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Yawoo

[Sorum]

I did find this in my public #MHA logs

So i am assuming people knew.

I personally didn't know. Kowalski's post in our govt forums in which he discovers emily using ********s account indicates no previous knowledge.

I see noone else that knew she was using another account.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Sorum

[caligula]

Spying on WHHHHAT, she was minister of towels, she was one of the smartest people in the alliance for a while, I am sure if she was a spy she would have realized MHA public forums have nothing important. And since she was govt, if she were a spy she already would have backed up the MHA secret posts and we would be having a MUCH BETTER TIME IN THIS THREAD.

Oh, so now it went from :

Emily to not spying, being unjustly persecuted

Emily to spying, but admitting it

Emily to spying, okay maybe she didn't admit it but that's harsh.

Emily spying, okay maybe there was some bad intent

Emily to spying...but the information she spyed wasn't good enough to please OSA.

Enough.

@Yawoo.

Yeah, sorry, I was like.. "hmm. what does he mean?"

Edited June 28, 2009 by caligula

[scutterbug]

I did find this in my public #MHA logs

So i am assuming people knew.

She previously nation sat for BladesRider and we were aware. But we never issued permission to access bladesriders forum account. But the timescale on this goes back months. As she nation sat for bladesrider she was a member of the MHA. That is the only claim she has to "people knowing" and it did not factor the forum account and nor on a time scale that long is it relevant to her claim now.

[caligula]

She previously nation sat for BladesRider and we were aware. But we never issued permission to access bladesriders forum account. But the timescale on this goes back months. As she nation sat for bladesrider she was a member of the MHA. That is the only claim she has to "people knowing" and it did not factor the forum account and nor on a time scale that long is it relevant to her claim now.

This. It would seem she betrayed the confidence of the user who she nation sat a long, long time ago and used that access to her own will.

I don't believe nation sitting requires MHA forum accounts

Edited June 28, 2009 by caligula

[David Merton]

I did find this in my public #MHA logs

So i am assuming people knew.

Tristram, we let almost *everyone* on #MHA, even Squinj. Her being on #MHA in no way implies she had access to the Forums, in fact she had to use someone else's account, so she must have known she shouldn't be there.

[jer]

Enough.

I am already bored of you basically telling everyone to shut up. Either provide an adequate explanation for your alliance's actions or take your own advice.