MHA: request for explanation

[King Srqt]

It's only not OK to ZI someone for espionage if you're spying on the NPO.

Or if you found out that they were spying by spying...

Keep trying to justify it it will never work because you know as well as i that everyone accepts information.

[Teriethien]

Fixed. I really don't see where personal feelings come into play here.

It didn't. That post amused me though.

[Ogaden]

Or if you found out that they were spying by spying...

Keep trying to justify it it will never work because you know as well as i that everyone accepts information.

Sounds more like you're trying to justify a double standard to me.

[Azhrarn]

Am I the only one here who fails to see the connection between sitting a nation and logging into someone else's forum account? The former does not necessitate the latter, which is spying by any definition. Nor did she admit to this until after she was found out, as I understand the sequence of events.

I would have a little more sympathy for this emily if the story she was putting out wasn't so obviously false.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Azhrarn

[King Srqt]

Sounds more like you're trying to justify a double standard to me.

If you bothered to read the thread you would know that I am against MHA ZIing this person so I don't think I am justifying anything. I was just pointing out that your attempt to deflect from your alliances hypocrisy is lacking.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

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.

In doing so, you're assuming that Emily's being completely honest with us all about her intentions, right?

Edited June 29, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[King Srqt]

In doing so, you're assuming that Emily's being completely honest with us all about her intentions, right?

What would she have to gain by showing MHA screenshots of things they can already see other than trying to get them to stop doing it. If you can give me a reasonable motivation for that which is malicious I will be happy to listen.

[caligula]

What would she have to gain by showing MHA screenshots of things they can already see other than trying to get them to stop doing it. If you can give me a reasonable motivation for that which is malicious I will be happy to listen.

She left in bad faith, then two weeks later...compromised another member who trusted her to babysit her nation a few months back by logging into their account (Using their password). She then denied specifically to government members and brought up the threads by saying someone had given her screenshots, not "being forthcoming" about any part of the situation. Which doesn't matter in the least. By the first two points alone, there's nothing GOOD that could've come from her doing what she did.

OOC: Hopefully they don't have a paypal.

[Ogaden]

If you bothered to read the thread you would know that I am against MHA ZIing this person so I don't think I am justifying anything. I was just pointing out that your attempt to deflect from your alliances hypocrisy is lacking.

Ahh right, it's all about OUR hypocrisy.

Gotcha.

[Zombie Glaucon]

Ahh right, it's all about OUR hypocrisy.

Gotcha.

I love how you guys are allll about justice now.

[Heft]

She left in bad faith, then two weeks later...compromised another member who trusted her to babysit her nation a few months back by logging into their account (Using their password). She then denied specifically to government members and brought up the threads by saying someone had given her screenshots, not "being forthcoming" about any part of the situation. Which doesn't matter in the least. By the first two points alone, there's nothing GOOD that could've come from her doing what she did.

OOC: Hopefully they don't have a paypal.

No one has a right to a trial, and no trial will ever be truly fair anyway. I'm not sure if a ZI is necessary, but I'm not familiar enough with the case to make that decision and can't really be bothered to become that familiar with it.

OOC: Hopefully they don't use the same password for online games as they do for things that involve real world money?

This seems to be a lesson in the wisdom of proper password security more than anything.

[caligula]

No one has a right to a trial, and no trial will ever be truly fair anyway. I'm not sure if a ZI is necessary, but I'm not familiar enough with the case to make that decision and can't really be bothered to become that familiar with it.

OOC: Hopefully they don't use the same password for online games as they do for things that involve real world money?

This seems to be a lesson in the wisdom of proper password security more than anything.

OOC : /me changes his passwords to everything.

Perhaps it wasn't depending on the observer. We're Mostly Harmless here at MHA. As stated, Emily was not a member the time this infraction occurred. At no point do we condone the takeover of another members account for ones own gain. I sincerely doubt any member of any alliance would be seen as doing well if they left their alliance in relatively bad faith and two weeks later logged into an account using a password obtained through a nation they babysat months ago, and used that information for their gain. The intent could not possibly have been any good after this step. Regardless of personal feelings of the matter, the act of espionage was committed. Had Emily been forthcoming about the incident (Which was not the case, as earlier logs indicate, stating that she was receiving these threads from a mysterious person, and a tidbit about how an alliance we personally hit a rough patch with had these screenshots too..) I don't believe the punishment would've been zi. However, that wasn't the case and since then all sorts of accusations have been blown about. I dare say this is less about the MHA or Emily now in the thread and more about people arguing.

Emily, I don't think you're a bad person, just that you seriously lack judgment.

And no one here hates you, just think you really messed up.

Edited June 29, 2009 by caligula

[enderland]

Had Emily been forthcoming about the incident (Which was not the case, as earlier logs indicate, stating that she was receiving these threads from a mysterious person, and a tidbit about how an alliance we personally hit a rough patch with had these screenshots too..) I don't believe the punishment would've been zi

I was under the impression that you guys found out about this because emily actually told you in the first place?

And no one here hates you, just think you really messed up.

I would strongly contend this to be false given how strongly people were bashing her in your public channel last night including what could probably be deemed OOC attacks.

And also, James Dahl, this thread is not about the NPO, just get out of here please as not everything is about how wrongly and unjustly the NPO is being punished.

[caligula]

I was under the impression that you guys found out about this because emily actually told you in the first place?

I would strongly contend this to be false given how strongly people were bashing her in your public channel last night including what could probably be deemed OOC attacks.

And also, James Dahl, this thread is not about the NPO, just get out of here please as not everything is about how wrongly and unjustly the NPO is being punished.

Ah.

Now I see the confusion.

Scutter was not the first informed about this issue, it was I. The timestamp from Scutter's is 6 hours later. I think that's what has been throwing people off. After this intial contact, bolded parts:

Full log

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

Session Ident: emily

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

[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> **s 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 ** yesterday btw

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

[14:22] <emily> to what?

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

[14:24] <emily> ***********************

[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

[14:25] <emily> is that what you really want?

01[14:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> yes.

[14:25] <emily> ah

[14:25] <emily> well

01[14:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> i want them to show me proof they're spying on us

01[14:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> that would be just dandy

[14:26] <emily> lol

[14:26] <emily> well

[14:26] <emily> I fear that

[14:26] <emily>** would just end up being used as a pawn in that game again....

[14:27] <emily> he seems to think you said something about his girlfriend

01[14:27] <IYIyTh[MHA]> i think this discussion is over, thanks though.

[14:28] <emily> myth

[14:28] <emily> I really hope things go well for you

[14:28] <emily> you'd make a fine triumv, I was wrong before

[14:29] <emily> good luck

[14:29] <emily> and if you ever do need a someone to reason with ***

[14:29] <emily> I have their ear....

[14:30] <emily> i'll try to get them off your back

[14:33] <emily> ?

[15:12] <emily> you stull there?

01[15:13] <IYIyTh[MHA]> yeay

[15:17] <emily> ok - I've just fallen out with a good mate here

[15:18] <emily> but you allready know

[15:18] <emily> that that post was not ** on his own

[15:19] <emily> and ** is easily manipulated

06[15:20] * emily is not a SUCKER

[15:24] <emily> myth

[15:25] <emily> have you ever been diagnosed with a psychatric disorder?

[15:27] <emily> because ******* attraction/hate to you

[15:27] <emily> seems like that sort of thing

[15:27] <emily> as... does mine tbh

[15:34] <emily> erm....

[15:34] <emily> if i was a spy

[15:34] <emily> how would kicking me from #MHA stop it?

Session Close: Wed Jun 24 15:36:13 2009

For anyone concerned, the thread in question was not an OOC hate themed topic by any means, and is still open as an opinion thread currently. Were things said in there that would not be said to their faces? Perhaps. Would peoples feelings get hurt if they were? Maybe. I don't know. That's why it was private.

Concerned, I stopped talking for a bit and notified our government, who turned up a multi.

She had left two weeks ago in bad faith, and the account she turned up on she had nation sat a while ago. Not only was i concerned about our alliance's security, but also for our members whose account had been infiltrated. I personally see this as a very serious sort of action for anyone to take.

Government and alike concluded that she was in fact not being sent screenshots, but either taking them and sending them to the alliance we hit a rough patch with, or who knows what.

Thus , the espionage sentence of ZI. She was not forthcoming to me. I was the first to be contacted and the first to relay it to our government. I can't speak for anyone elses queries afterwards. Could out of fear of reprocussion she later divulged this information? I can't say.

Edited June 29, 2009 by caligula

[Augustus Autumn]

Government and alike concluded that she was in fact not being sent screenshots, but either taking them and sending them to the alliance we hit a rough patch with, or who knows what.

Again, my uninvited input.

My response question to the bold portion of the quotation is "how did MHA government conclude this?". When I read the log it appears that a person has approached you, notified you that they are in possession of screenshots received from others and is notifying you of this. If there is something to contradict this or some piece of information available it would likely do both yourself and your alliance a good turn to share it. Not to say that there was unsound judgment but the credibility of the Mostly Harmless Alliance has been publicly challenged and, if this issue is easily closed, the sooner the better.

Edit: Wrote "logs" instead of "screenshots" - my apologies.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Tokugawa Mitsukuni

[caligula]

Your points welcome, it actually has tact.

It's been a log fest and my head hurts from it.

In comes later relevant log 6 hours later where it is pretty much admitted:

Session Start: Wed Jun 24 20:36:03 2009

Session Ident: emily

[20:36] Session Ident: emily (Coldfront, ScutterBug[MHA]) (emily)

[20:36] <emily> you know....

[20:36] <emily> I havent told anyone what I was shown....

01[20:37] <ScutterBug[MHA]> We have your current ip address logged on ******** account

01[20:37] <ScutterBug[MHA]> and that is all i shall say right now

07[20:37] <emily> SCUTTER HELP ME SORT THIS!!!!!!

[20:37] <emily> OF COURSE YOU DO!

[20:38] <emily> I'm not going to ask about &#33;@#&#036;e like that without checking

[20:40] <emily> I looked this morning

[20:40] <emily> and

[20:40] <emily> cross checked this afternoon

[20:40] <emily> and

[20:41] <emily> MHA gov were told about it....

01[20:42] <ScutterBug[MHA]> im talking forum account here

07[20:42] <emily> ScutterBug[MHA] TALK TO ME!

01[20:42] <ScutterBug[MHA]> where ur ip has made 1 post on bladesriders forum account

01[20:42] <ScutterBug[MHA]> which was earlier today

[20:42] <emily> YES

[20:42] <emily> so?

01[20:43] <ScutterBug[MHA]> so, you were still acessing potentially secure information you were no longer supposed to see

01[20:43] <ScutterBug[MHA]> without our knowledge

[20:43] <emily> ah

[20:43] <emily> well

[20:43] <emily> I had allready seen it

[20:43] <emily> but

[20:44] <emily> well

[20:44] <emily> sometimes I get the feeling I'm beign played

[20:44] <emily> so i checked

[20:45] <emily> I am not an enemy of MHA

[20:45] <emily> and we both know

[20:45] <emily> anyone of us

[20:45] <emily> can access those forums

[20:45] <emily> with very l;ittle effort

[20:46] <emily> so

[20:46] <emily> sensitive stuff

<emily> needs to be hidden

<emily> you know that

<emily> that stuff should never have sat there that long

<emily> unless it was as bait

<emily> in which case

<ScutterBug[MHA]> this does not justify your actions

<emily> it has not caught it's intended target

No one in .gov was ever told about it.

Emily in this thread referred to telling .gov once when she babysat said nations account several months ago.

The one she ultimately used to access this information, which is a serious security issue for a former member who left in bad faith two weeks ago, notwithstanding the poor member who was taken advantage of for having their nation sat long ago.

Nation sitting does not mean their forum account is also given for access nor does it legitamize it.

In the query 6 hours before, she did not admit to it, but here she does.

I'd like to reitirate. We don't hate Emily, just feel that she's shown some very poor judgment.

Private Channels are usually used in these situations.

Edited June 29, 2009 by caligula

[maxnmike]

Yes, it seems that some people don't understand that Emily sent them to herself, using the account of a now-inactive member that she had once babysat for.

Also, some people have repeatedly failed to understand the word OR.

OR means that only one of the stated conditions needs to be true. Hostile intent is not necessary, because she was secretive by using another account to access info that she no longer has access to.

(Spy: To observe SECRETIVELY or furtively with HOSTILE intent)

I believe the key word there is with, not or. As in secretively or furtively with hostile intent.

[Authur]

I'm slightly curious as to why the subject of the Vox spy has gone unmentioned by MHA gov. One would think given such a serious accusation they would at least give a simple denial.

So, unless I missed it, MHA gov do you know the identity of the Vox spy and if so what punishement, if any, did they recieve?

[caligula]

I'm slightly curious as to why the subject of the Vox spy has gone unmentioned by MHA gov. One would think given such a serious accusation they would at least give a simple denial.

So, unless I missed it, MHA gov do you know the identity of the Vox spy and if so what punishement, if any, did they recieve?

They've never been found.

We believe a long-time member had been framed. Whether it was an admin or who it was, it can't be for certain.

Either way, I don't see the relevance.

[caligula]

I believe the key word there is with, not or. As in secretively or furtively with hostile intent.

Whether espionage has been committed is not a question, as stated by one party and admitted by the other.

How else would you define the intent of someone logging into the account of an unwilling member whose password was procurred when they entrusted said former member to nation sit their nation months ago?

[WorkingClassRuler]

Emily is a spy, a traitor, and a liar. Where I come from, you ZI those folk. This thread is nothing but a grab for attention and yet another attempt to spin the truth, lie even further, and whine about the bed she had made. But whatever, we know we've done the right thing, as most alliances would do. We won't by swayed by her attempts to manipulate the truth and further hurt us.

Oh and by the way, we saw your little "MHA has already had one Denzin" remark in your nation bio. Don't think I'll be forgetting that any time soon.

[Augustus Autumn]

I think I'm failing to grasp something so I'll try to clearly explain my confusion along with providing the correct examples where able. Also, I'm aware that I'm addressing the issue of motive and not of actual fact - as before I still agree that, regardless of intent, unauthorized access to your alliance's forums did take place. I just get the feeling that this incident is the product of poor judgment and not malice and, thus, the sentence of Zero-Infrastructure may be a tad harsh considering what occurred.

Again, please bear with one of my progressions. Also, as the timestamps of the various quoted logs have not been qualified as being different from each other in-so-far as timezones I presently accept them as they stand for the purposes of the chronology. If this is incorrect please let me know. Also, in places I have removed what I view to be irrelevant material but have made sure to link to the complete logs where provided.

Beginning on June 24th at 19:10:49 we have the following communication take place between Emily and caligula (aka IYIyth), Minister of Towels of the Mostly Harmless Alliance (referenced in full here and verified here):

[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

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

[14:20] <emily> yes

...

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

[14:22] <emily> to what?

[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....

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

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

What strikes me about this conversation are three things - first, Emily makes reference to "they" on two occasions as well as stating that she has been receiving screenshots from "them". Second, she has provided a direct link to the thread in question which is a dead giveaway to her having access to the Mostly Harmless Alliance forums. Third, she is in direct communication with a member of the alliance's government, namely caligula.

Continued:

[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

[19:25] <emily> myth

[19:25] <emily> is that what you really want?

[19:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> yes.

[19:25] <emily> ah

[19:25] <emily> well

[19:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> i want them to show me proof they're spying on us

[19:25] <IYIyTh[MHA]> that would be just dandy

[19:25] <emily> lol

[19:26] <emily> well

[19:26] <emily> I fear that

I include this part of the conversation since it seems to back up an expression of concern for this information being passed around to certain persons, likely the person which the thread is about, instead of some sort of malicious intent on her part.

On June 24th at 20:32:32 the following communication begins between Emily and Scutterbug (referenced in full here and verified here):

[20:37] <ScutterBug[MHA]> We have your current ip address logged on ******* account

[20:37] <ScutterBug[MHA]> and that is all i shall say right now

[20:37] <emily> SCUTTER HELP ME SORT THIS!!!!!!

[20:37] <emily> OF COURSE YOU DO!

[20:37] <emily> I'm not going to ask about *****like that without checking

[20:40] <emily> I looked this morning

[20:40] <emily> and

[20:40] <emily> cross checked this afternoon

[20:40] <emily> and

[20:40] <emily> MHA gov were told about it....

From this segment of the conversation we can see two things - Emily admits to logging onto the Mostly Harmless Alliance forums within minutes of the beginning of the conversation and that she (correctly) states that government had been notified that she was in possession as well as had been given confirmation of her access approximately one hour and twenty minutes previously.

Continued:

[20:42] <ScutterBug[MHA]> so, you were still accessing potentially secure information you were no longer supposed to see

[20:43] <ScutterBug[MHA]> without our knowledge

[20:43] <emily> ah

[20:43] <emily> well

[20:43] <emily> I had already seen it

[20:43] <emily> but

[20:44] <emily> well

[20:44] <emily> sometimes I get the feeling I'm being played

[20:44] <emily> so i checked

[20:45] <emily> I am not an enemy of MHA

[20:45] <emily> and we both know

[20:45] <emily> anyone of us

[20:45] <emily> can access those forums

[20:45] <emily> with very little effort

[20:46] <emily> so

[20:46] <emily> sensitive stuff

[20:46] <emily> needs to be hidden

[20:46] <emily> you know that

Emily demonstrates consistency in her story and her attitude in the above section, again appealing to a member of the Mostly Harmless Alliance to make efforts to conceal the information present on their forums. She also does note receiving information prior to her access from a third party and that she was making efforts to verify it before approaching the alliance's government.

Continued:

[20:46] <emily> that stuff should never have sat there that long

[20:46] <emily> unless it was as bait

[20:47] <emily> in which case

[20:47] <ScutterBug[MHA]> this does not justify your actions

[20:47] <emily> it has not caught it's intended target

[20:47] <ScutterBug[MHA]> and now im done dealing with you

Again, a demonstration of concern as well as the accidental discovery of what may well have been part of an alliance counter-intelligence operation.

The above logs have been repeatedly referenced in an effort to demonstrate that Emily has engage in the practice of spying which does not appear to have the same meaning as engaging in unauthorized access of the alliance forums. Were she attempting to extract information for the purpose of spreading it around, causing discomfort to Mostly Harmless Alliance membership and attempting to destabilize the government I think that we can agree she should have done anything but contact a government member of the alliance. That she did not immediately admit to having accessed the forums to verify the information given to her was foolish - to have accessed them at all was arguably more foolish. Still, this does not convey malice.

I guess it comes down to this - where is the alliance government getting the impression that Emily was, in fact, acting maliciously? If so, what did she do to act maliciously? The closest thing I can find to some sort of malice is her accidentally stumbling into some sort of counter-intelligence scheme and ruining it. If she is being reduced to Zero-Infrastructure because she made a mistake and accessed the forums then, certainly, I understand. Saying that she was acting with ill intent is an entirely different proposition as it paints her not in the light of a foolish ruler but rather a devious one who would best not be accepted into other alliances. Mistakes fade with time and education - accusations of evil intent tends to follow someone.

If the alliance government's thought process can be better explained I think that will assist this issue in being laid to rest one way or the other. Thank you.

[scutterbug]

When emily left us 2 weeks ago she had many a bad personal feeling against several in gov myself cinluded. In the past before that she had previously dropped her position within the department i control due to who i voted for in the trium elections. Again because of her personal feelings.

When she left she never followed procedure no leaving post nothing. So we are positive that bad blood is still there with her and this just proves it more and more. After leaving us she applied to TOP no more than 4 times constantly being declined and causing all srots of trouble for the guys over at TOP. I believe she suffers from paranoia and thinks the worllds out to get her. We at MHA were more than happy to let her go and leave it at that we hold no ill will to any former member. Until that formal member gets caught in an act of espionage against us.

She got caught punishment was simple ZI. Now that shes destroyed her infra herself the punishment is almost over.

[caligula]

TM, she forcibly used a password procured from nationsitting a member of our alliance months ago. That alone is malicious in its intent. The thought process is that she was using the documents to potentially stir up trouble between another alliance and us, when in fact the issues were private and were to remain such. We felt that given the extremes taken to get access, the rather terse verbals pointing towards who she was commuincating with, that she was passing on information specifically with those individuals.

Edited June 29, 2009 by caligula

[maxnmike]

Whether espionage has been committed is not a question, as stated by one party and admitted by the other.

How else would you define the intent of someone logging into the account of an unwilling member whose password was procurred when they entrusted said former member to nation sit their nation months ago?

Well, it was some of you folks from MHA that were arguing the point as to or hostile intent. If you are going to argue a point it helps to get it right. Other than that, do as you wish.