Jump to content

MHA: request for explanation


emily

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because if they didn't exist, the easiest way to respond would have been "that's a lie" or "You don't have anything like that" like the rest of the thread.

Instead, calling it "blackmail" means that since you are essentially admitting that something exists to which she can actually use as blackmail.

Sorry caligula said it better

Edited by Sylveste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, i could say you sexuality abused me a work, unless you pay me x amount, thats blackmail, you didn't do it, but i could say if you don't do something i want i'll tell someone you did x. You would probably say that's blackmail not a lie. Its both, but blackmail would be the 1st thing to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met.

It is important to note that if the blackmailer did the act (i.e. told the victim's wife that he had committed adultery), it would be perfectly legal. It is only by demanding money not to do the act, that the crime is committed. This is true even if the husband would rather pay the money than have the wife know of the adultery, i.e. does not object to the menace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met.

It is important to note that if the blackmailer did the act (i.e. told the victim's wife that he had committed adultery), it would be perfectly legal. It is only by demanding money not to do the act, that the crime is committed. This is true even if the husband would rather pay the money than have the wife know of the adultery, i.e. does not object to the menace.

Clearly Emily is not blackmailing anyone here. SHe is merely proving herself right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met.

It is important to note that if the blackmailer did the act (i.e. told the victim's wife that he had committed adultery), it would be perfectly legal. It is only by demanding money not to do the act, that the crime is committed. This is true even if the husband would rather pay the money than have the wife know of the adultery, i.e. does not object to the menace.

pay me £3,000,000 to be silent or i'll tell them you !@#$%*^ me (sorry for the bad example).

Is a lie, but i'm still blackmailing you with a lie. (and its one that has been used time and time again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They DO exist, and I do still have the logs. (I also have the vox spy logs too if anyones interested) however, it's getting late, I'm, upset and I am not going to dump half of MHA gov in it!

It is just a shame I was never afforded a MHA trial in which I could have shown it, and had to resort to trial by OWF instead.

The MHA I joined was a better alliance than that.

What's there to prove?

You left MHA with problems that you said you have with government.

You accesed information you were NOT supposed to, went around claiming that there was serious wrongdoings in the MHA, and that you were sent them from a spy, when IN FACT, you WERE the spy.

THEN your defense is that a few months ago you let MHA government know you were babysitting a nation.

BABYSITTING A NATION DOESN'T INCLUDE FORUM ACCOUNTS.

You betrayed that members trust and used his password to access information you were not given for your own personal gain, including threatening to release them, and becoming "determined to be a spy" via logs provided earlier.\

Thus our government issued the zi order.

You are not a MHA hitchhiker, and are not afforded a trial.

All of the evidence is clear, and no amount of word twisting and e-lawyering changes the fact that you accessed MHA forums two weeks after leaving and using that information from a members account whoms trust you have betrayed and put at serious risk for your own gain, and here we are.

She threatened to release private information to the public, and in fact, hinted that she had already done so in the logs with me.

So your concern in this thread is not the actual issue at hand but that the correct words are used?

That's a bit of semantics.

That is all I've to say.

Government can once again be reached on #MHA or at mostlyharmlessalliance.com

Thanks.

Edited by caligula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so threatening to set a house on fire but not actually having the gasoline is okay.

>.>

Private channels ftw.

A more apt example would be threatening to nuke the Martians, seeing as if she does not have the logs there is no potential of it actually occurring.

I also never said it was not blackmail so I am not sure why you are all jumping onto that bandwagon. Nor did I ever say that her post was warranted and/or appropriate, so again, not sure why you are all jumping onto that bandwagon. I simply stated a logical conclusion that could be drawn from some of the above posts.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and making them up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's there to prove?

You left MHA with problems that you said you have with government.

You accesed information you were NOT supposed to, went around claiming that there was serious wrongdoings in the MHA, and that you were sent them from a spy, when IN FACT, you WERE the spy.

THEN your defense is that a few months ago you let MHA government know you were babysitting a nation.

BABYSITTING A NATION DOESN'T INCLUDE FORUM ACCOUNTS.

You betrayed that members trust and used his password to access information you were not given for your own personal gain, including threatening to release them, and becoming "determined to be a spy" via logs provided earlier.\

Thus our government issued the zi order.

You are not a MHA hitchhiker, and are not afforded a trial.

All of the evidence is clear, and no amount of word twisting and e-lawyering changes the fact that you accessed MHA forums two weeks after leaving and using that information from a members account whoms trust you have betrayed and put at serious risk for your own gain, and here we are.

She threatened to release private information to the public, and in fact, hinted that she had already done so in the logs with me.

So what if someone used a word that might not necessarily be correct? the facts are still undisputable.

That is all I've to say.

Government can once again be reached on #MHA or at mostlyharmlessalliance.com

Thanks.

This post pretty much wins the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well just post your supporting evidence, you are getting ZId anyway :D

What's there to prove?

You left MHA with problems that you said you have with government.

You accesed information you were NOT supposed to, went around claiming that there was serious wrongdoings in the MHA, and that you were sent them from a spy, when IN FACT, you WERE the spy.

THEN your defense is that a few months ago you let MHA government know you were babysitting a nation.

BABYSITTING A NATION DOESN'T INCLUDE FORUM ACCOUNTS.

You betrayed that members trust and used his password to access information you were not given for your own personal gain, including threatening to release them, and becoming "determined to be a spy" via logs provided earlier.\

Thus our government issued the zi order.

You are not a MHA hitchhiker, and are not afforded a trial.

All of the evidence is clear, and no amount of word twisting and e-lawyering changes the fact that you accessed MHA forums two weeks after leaving and using that information from a members account whoms trust you have betrayed and put at serious risk for your own gain, and here we are.

She threatened to release private information to the public, and in fact, hinted that she had already done so in the logs with me.

So your concern in this thread is not the actual issue at hand but that the correct words are used?

That's a bit of semantics.

That is all I've to say.

Government can once again be reached on #MHA or at mostlyharmlessalliance.com

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the sort of thing that really should be solved through private channels. However, I am not sure why you think you are entitled to a trial via the judicial processes of an alliance that you left some time ago. Alliance judiciaries are internal systems, part of the social contract that comes with alliance membership, and it simply doesn't make sense to have a trial for someone who is not a member of the alliance.

Having said that, I don't see that there is any argument against the 'conviction' – you have admitted that you (a non-member) logged into a member's account and viewed members-only material. That is pretty much the definition of the crime of spying. You may claim that your motives were good or that you had no malice, but you have effectively 'pleaded guilty' to the crime and can have no complaints about being convicted.

The only question is whether you deserve the sentence of ZI, as you might claim not to have used the information you gained access to to harm MHA. So let me ask you this: what sentence do you think would be appropriate for your actions?

Edit: Tris, encouraging a spy to log-dump another alliance is not very classy <_<

Edited by Bob Janova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this isn't pleasant, I can't see any individual coming out of this looking better. Public trials or inquiries never work because the correct information needed to make an informed decision is never provided. Even I know things that prove some things said here are false or misrepresented, and I'm an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good show MHA, ZIing someone for trying to get you to stop with a thread dedicated to trashing someone OOC.

Play the semantic game all you want but it is obvious that her intent was not to spy and that you are just ZIing her because you can. Looks like that Pacific influence is strong in you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good show MHA, ZIing someone for trying to get you to stop with a thread dedicated to trashing someone OOC.

Play the semantic game all you want but it is obvious that her intent was not to spy and that you are just ZIing her because you can. Looks like that Pacific influence is strong in you.

The thread wasn't an OOC bashing thread.

/me shrugs.

It was *******, but strictly in game.

I don't know how else to say it. Nothing more or less than in any other private forums of any other alliance.

She logged into another members account with the intent to spy, why else would she betray their confidence and use their password she used to babysit their nation a few months ago to access our forums?

I should be handing out jump to conclusion mats.

Edited by caligula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good show MHA, ZIing someone for trying to get you to stop with a thread dedicated to trashing someone OOC.

Play the semantic game all you want but it is obvious that her intent was not to spy and that you are just ZIing her because you can. Looks like that Pacific influence is strong in you.

What part of, caught and confessed spy did you miss? Its upto us how we deal with spies. For the record that pacifican comment was pathetic also. Said thread emily likes to bring up also contained no OOC trashing it was all IC and we are all allowed our opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there's been enough input from various sources as well as official rebuttle to form an opinion of this matter.

What appears to have happened was that a former member of the Mostly Harmless Alliance, Emily, was given a series of screenshots by an unnamed party which were insulting, derrogatory or otherwise hurtful and prove damaging to the alliance as a whole should they be circulated elsewhere. On her own initiative and (I would suspect) in an effort to see if the information being provided to here was false she accessed the relevant part of the alliance forums to discover the existence of this thread. Upon discovery, she approached a member of the alliance's government to report having received the screenshots and advising the alliance government member to make efforts to have the thread moved and/or disposed of. Mostly Harmless Alliance government checks the forum account she used and posted under, discovers that she did in fact use it, orders her to be ZIed and the following day attacks commence.

Did Emily spy on the Mostly Harmless Alliance?

Yes. E-lawyering aside, she did engage in unauthorized access of the Mostly Harmless Alliance forums.

Was there malicious intent?

No. If I were to engage in covert activities against an alliance for the purpose of discovering, leaking and otherwise promulgating information about them I would not go and inform a member of that alliance's government that I had personal access to their forums. What Emily did was the most foolish and inept thing were that her intent. Instead, as the logs show, she offered concerned advice on the subject.

Is a sentence of Zero-Infrastructure warrented in this case?

The Mostly Harmless Alliance feels this sentence is justified.

Is the sentence of Zero-Infrastructure in this case consistent with past behavior?

It appears to not be from various accounts and from prior incidents I'm aware of.

What is the best course of action from this point?

All things being equal, once the current round of wars are completed it would be best for both the Mostly Harmless Alliance and Emily to part ways. For the alliance, they currently have one or more persons circulating screenshots of their own boards to deal with. For Emily, she has a nation to rebuild. This seems about the most amicable solution for all parties. Apologies need not be exchanged since I suspect neither side would beleive the other.

That's my input on the situation, albeit uninvited. Good luck to both parties in sorting this matter out. Emily, if you're interested in a conversation sometime please feel free to look me up on IRC - I tend to lurk in #tsi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of, caught and confessed spy did you miss? Its upto us how we deal with spies. For the record that pacifican comment was pathetic also. Said thread emily likes to bring up also contained no OOC trashing it was all IC and we are all allowed our opinions.

I have seen her say multiple times that she does not feel that she spied, regardless intent is everything. YOu can call the pacifican comment pathetic all you want and I will call you use of ZI in a case of someone who tried to privately get MHA to stop a thread whose purpose was to trash someone (IC or OOC) pathetic.

But you're right its up to you and none of our business and if we don't like it we should do something about it... pathetic indeed.

Edited by KingSrqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While your analysis is about as third party as it'll get, I'd like to also add these logs, posted 3 pages ago.

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

She did not inform MHA government. That claim has yet to been proven.

The only reason given for how she had access to our forums is through permission to babysit another members nation, a few months ago.

That does not allow her to violate their trust and use their private information, and/or passwords, to access our boards.

All evidence points to her accessing the boards through this account, and not informing us.

Her "source" has not been revealed, and we were never privy to it. I don't know how we could act on information we don't have.

We acted on the information we had, that she was in talks with another government over files on our board when the only evidence we had was matching forum accounts :/

have seen her say multiple times that she does not feel that she spied

I don't think there's a question if she spied or not.

The thread that she had concern for was determined to not be of an excessively demeaning or hateful nature, and thus, was kept open, in our own private forum. It was a member expressing their opinion. We don't censor here.

Edited by caligula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my input on the situation, albeit uninvited. Good luck to both parties in sorting this matter out. Emily, if you're interested in a conversation sometime please feel free to look me up on IRC - I tend to lurk in #tsi.

It makes sense, unfortunately there's too much information missing for you to form a fully correct opinion. Not your fault of course.

I have seen her say multiple times that she does not feel that she spied, regardless intent is everything. YOu can call the pacifican target pathetic all you want and I will call you use of ZI in a case of someone who tried to privately get MHA to stop a thread whose purpose was to trash someone (IC or OOC) pathetic.

Emily isn't being attacked because she raised concerns about a thread, that was done via IRC under the name of emily. I fail to see how what she did was required in order for her to raise concerns about the thread, and that is the issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense, unfortunately there's too much information missing for you to form a fully correct opinion. Not your fault of course.

Emily isn't being attacked because she raised concerns about a thread, that was done via IRC under the name of emily. I fail to see how what she did was required in order for her to raise concerns about the thread, and that is the issue here.

I am not saying she handled this correctly I am saying that her intent was very clearly not malicious and that you're reaction shows that you are more concerned with administering punishment as dictated by some obscure code of unwritten rules and regulations than with reacting fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emily isn't being attacked because she raised concerns about a thread, that was done via IRC under the name of emily. I fail to see how what she did was required in order for her to raise concerns about the thread, and that is the issue here.

The question is not whether her actions were required, but whether she poses a threat to the MHA. There's no point in issuing a ZI order against a nation that does not pose a threat of some kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying she handled this correctly I am saying that her intent was very clearly not malicious and that you're reaction shows that you are more concerned with administering punishment as dictated by some obscure code of unwritten rules and regulations than with reacting fairly.

And he is saying you are not priviledged to evidence that would point otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's controversy over this? :lol1:

She knowingly logged through an account that was not her own, to view sections she could not otherwise view. Thats textbook spying and definitely merits at least ZI. Her motives and intent are meaningless; she could have found other ways of dealing with her MHA problems I think.

Edited by mythicknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he is saying you are not priviledged to evidence that would point otherwise.

Then show it because quite frankly the majority of people out here have no reason to take you at your word about this. The "you do not know everything" line is not enough to dismiss everyone's concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...