Matter of Opinion

[FlaMe]

no i know what you meant y2j... i was just saying you brought up shane which makes me laugh since skaters been banned from the forums a good 7 months but this kid gets away with attacking you...

no equality, this is 2007 =P

[sk89q]

"[truth], honesty, ethics, moral"

I told the truth. I was honest. I explained my actions publicly when I could have JUST PMed a GT admin, and all would be well. Ethically and morally it was all for the greater good, yes?

But here are some numbers:
- GT runs four public servers, usually only one to two really have people on
- I crashed one server
- This said server had zero players, and given this and the above, my "test" had no impact (not that it would have mattered anyway, as someone else would have crashed it later)
- I was the first to report my logs and IPs so whoever knew what they were doing could find the problem
- Queenie admitted to crashing only after I reported my logs with his name and IP address
- The command at hand, when given an arbitrary high number, hits the upper maximum of a signed long (2147483647) and reports a non-fatal error
- An number in arbitrary range that is a small subset of the range of a signed long is very very very very very very! unlikely to cause a problem in programming when the bounds or larger number have no effect

What sets me and some other people apart from the people with malicious intent:
- Crashed several servers
- Crashed the same server more than once
- Crashed a server with people on it
- Possibly crashed a Windows server run by someone with likely no technical knowledge
- Spread the exploit so even MORE people could exploit it
- Crashed all the servers in a organization's set
- Did not report findings from "tests" to anyone -- rendering the test useless and only for selfish reasons
- Clearly maliciously did it, as seen by their chat comments in the game
- Did not honestly report what they did publicly
- Did not look through the C code to find the problem
- Did not actually perform one's own initiated tests (i.e. check if the map command was being abused, which was what ViciouZ and I thought of)

Other people tested too, yes, but I doubt they put too much thinking into as I. For example, Queenie crashed my server when it happened to have 16 people on it. As for "rules," there are no defined rules about exploits -- it's just ethics, and ethics are very opinionated.

[FlaMe]

wow, dont go bashing queenie, you both did the same thing with unjust reasons...

you both deserve a 32 day ban, idc how much thinking you had behind it, you had no reason to do what you did other than to test it out because it sounded cool. Obviously it worked or nobody would have told you about it...

gg

[sk89q]

Sounded cool? Queenie doesn't run a server. He has NO stake in the matter. I happen to. Also, it wasn't confirmed when ViciouZ told me the information. Even he wasn't sure the way he said it. It was an idea that was bounced against me -- no one "told me the exploit."

But anyway. That's the end of my commentary. Wouldn't want feed more fuel to the fire.

More or less, I think many of you just like Sonny more than me to begin with

[Eiii]

Of the two, Queenie should receive a considerably longer ban because he purposefully disrupted a server that was in use- sk89q, as he said, just wanted to test it. Why he didn't test it on his own server or even a local test server, I don't know.
I think he should've been exempt from a ban if he had, but for whatever reason he disrupted someone else's server instead of his own.

EDIT: And honestly, I don't think Sonny should be unbanned. If a tournament he was organizing suffers because he's gone, that's too bad, but you can't use it as an excuse to be unbanned.

[sk89q]

Well, since I was editing my post when Eiii posted, might as well clear what he said up. I tested it on my server when the round had JUST ended (and the test failed), so even when I did it on my own server, I had calculated the damage. I already alerted everyone to the "reconnect" command and the tests that were to follow via mm1 and cprint.

Oh, and I just didn't even think of using a local server. Bit short-sighted there on my part. However, a lot of things don't quite work the same when you do run a server locally. As for a dedicated server, I can't run both the server and the client on the same machine -- the server drops all of its clients and refuses connections after a few seconds of play time.

[FlaMe]

False

You speedhack 9 times in a day - 32 day ban
You speedhack 2 times in a day - you get a 32 day ban

You create 9 accounts - 16 day ban
You created 3 accounts - 16 day ban

You announce that youre hacking and do it multiple times spamming IM HACKING IM HACKING - 32 day ban
You do it once, get scared delete it and defend yourself - 32 day ban

YOU CRASH 9 SERVERS - 32 day ban
YOU CRASH 1 SERVER - 32 day ban

no questions asked...

[lekky]

you hide multiple accounts you get 16 days
you own you you get 8 days

you speedhack once you get 32
twice you get 64

kill 1 person 20 years
kill 2 people 40 years

you kill 10 servers with x number of players you get ?
you kill 1 server with 0 players you get ?

Even so, all the above mean zero. This is a new situation, and thus deserves to be analysed independently from anything else.

[Eiii]

False

You speedhack 9 times in a day - 32 day ban
You speedhack 2 times in a day - you get a 32 day ban

You create 9 accounts - 16 day ban
You created 3 accounts - 16 day ban

You announce that youre hacking and do it multiple times spamming IM HACKING IM HACKING - 32 day ban
You do it once, get scared delete it and defend yourself - 32 day ban

YOU CRASH 9 SERVERS - 32 day ban
YOU CRASH 1 SERVER - 32 day ban

no questions asked...

That's a silly analogy. In all of those cases, the person doing it intended to do damage. Though I do think there should be a ban in sk89q's case, I think Queenie's should be longer because he intended to do damage, while sk89q was not.

[cusoman]

Lekky, you just summed up what i wrote out in paragraphs on the page before, well done.  Also sk89q, because you did crash a server, i believe you deserve a small ban, but like I, you and lekky have clearly identified, you do not deserve a ban equivalent to that of sonny or the yet to be disclosed list of originators.  I also don't think Queenie deserves a terribly long sentence either because he did not exploit the glitch multiple times like the undisclosed list of players and sonny, the only identified multiple-timer. Remember, take everyone' posts like a grain of salt.
-Cusoman

Edit: apparently Eii, Lekky, Sk89q, and I are on the same page, as they all beat me to my post.

[FlaMe]

you hide multiple accounts you get 16 days
you own you you get 8 days

Sonny never hid it, neither did sk89, bad example

you speedhack once you get 32
twice you get 64

They both did it once, once again bad example

kill 1 person 20 years
kill 2 people 40 years

Dont know where youre getting these numbers but you should get life sentence for both, so once again bad example

you kill 10 servers with x number of players you get ?

32 Days

you kill 1 server with 0 players you get ?

32 Days =]

[FlaMe]

That's a silly analogy. In all of those cases, the person doing it intended to do damage. Though I do think there should be a ban in sk89q's case, I think Queenie's should be longer because he intended to do damage, while sk89q was not.

Oh really, youre basing this off what? sk89q's own statement...? good base for your evidence...  He coulda used my server if he told me, he couldve used his own... not sabotage a GT... k?thanks

"I swear I wasnt hacking, i was mowing the lawn while a friend installed ZGH"

[lekky]

2 life sentences if you kill 2 people*


Like I said Flame. This is a new situation, one of the reasons the Committee was created was to analyse new situations and the punishments they deserve. We can't base new situations directly on the punishments of other situations.

In fact the current punishments also depend on many things. For instance people with more than one account, but having only used one, or only used one of them months and months ago will not be banned, etc, etc.

[cusoman]

Flame, i must say you are being torn apart in the argument, no offense, and repeating yourself makes you seem out of ideas.  1server compared to 10 servers is definitely different.  I say 1 server 16-42 day ban depending on the scenario.  10 servers: 132-255 day ban depending on the scenario.
Just my thoughts..
-Cusoman

Edit: Remember I mean no personal harm.

[FlaMe]

Flame, i must say you are being torn apart in the argument, no offense, and repeating yourself makes you seem out of ideas.  1server compared to 10 servers is definitely different.  I say 1 server 16-42 day ban depending on the scenario.  10 servers: 132-255 day ban depending on the scenario.
Just my thoughts..
-Cusoman

LMFAO out of ideas?

until someone gives me a valid explanation as to how I am wrong, based of how everything has been handled in the past, i'll stick to my argument

"torn apart" is a good description if we're talking about what i did to lekkys last post and your last point...

[cusoman]

Hmmmm, how did you tear apart my last post.  I seems as though you have ignored the paragraphs I wrote earlier and the current points I have now.  If you can honestly prove that 1 = 10 i will bow down to you as you will have one the argument.  Until then, both mathematics and logic I believe make 1 seem loads less severe the 10, unless of course I am going insane.
-Cusoman

[lekky]

The first line of my last post actually ripped yours to shreds, but keep trying

EDIT: lets try keep on topic from now on, mods are tough and we'll have no excuse when it gets locked.

[DaRkNeSS]

Good thing were comparing killing people with DP.

[FlaMe]

Lekky, based off that last statement, youre contradicting everything the "committee" has said about equality and unbiased decisions.

They did the same thing... same ban time... theres nothing you can argue that will justify sonny being banned longer than sk89

Sorry next time ill get 2 life sentences, die and come back to serve out my second...

GOOD POINT... really tore me to shreds...

Added: Im not off topic at all...

[cusoman]

Well, killing is a valid argument, as death is a way to halt the payments on your student load, legally might I add.
-Cusoman

Edit:  What Lekky and I mean to get across is that, as I said earlier, the world is not Black and White, and 1 does not equal 10, so in fact, by changing the ban lengths, it is in fact upholding equality by adjusting the ban length based on severity.  I see not valid point coming from you, because there are severity levels to offenses.  If severity has never been taken into account before when issuing ban lengths then there is something wrong with the way the committee operates and should begin basing things off of severity level.

Edit2: By the way the first thing in this post was to respond to the humor added by Darkness, and is not part of the argument.