quote:
A sleep deprived Karnaj stammered:
Not really. I'm merely exploring the possibility that you suffer from an RL ethical defect, or rather, that your ethics system is deficient. The medium in which you choose to act is irrelevant to the ethic processes in use, because you're using the same ethical system to decide how to act in each. FFS, you're 21 years old; AFAIK, you should be a relatively well-adjusted adult by now, with a fully-formed and tested set of ethics.We are then left to wonder what ethics set permits this behavior. Perhaps you have codified that internet = do whatever you please, in which case, your ethics system is deficient, because you can, for lack of a better term, switch it off whenever you're on the internet. This, then, raises the question: if you can turn it off when on the internet, can we trust that you cannot or will not turn it off elsewhere?
quote:
A sleep deprived Karnaj stammered:
Not really. I'm merely exploring the possibility that you suffer from an RL ethical defect, or rather, that your ethics system is deficient. The medium in which you choose to act is irrelevant to the ethic processes in use, because you're using the same ethical system to decide how to act in each. FFS, you're 21 years old; AFAIK, you should be a relatively well-adjusted adult by now, with a fully-formed and tested set of ethics.We are then left to wonder what ethics set permits this behavior. Perhaps you have codified that internet = do whatever you please, in which case, your ethics system is deficient, because you can, for lack of a better term, switch it off whenever you're on the internet. This, then, raises the question: if you can turn it off when on the internet, can we trust that you cannot or will not turn it off elsewhere?
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory?
-H
quote:I'd be more concerned about what else he might do on the Internet. Considering that he has already shown a complete lack of morals with regards to hacking accounts, the only thing stopping him from hacking email, bank accounts, corporate files, etc., is not knowing how to do it.
See, your Karnaj means your hair. So technically it's true.
We are then left to wonder what ethics set permits this behavior. Perhaps you have codified that internet = do whatever you please, in which case, your ethics system is deficient, because you can, for lack of a better term, switch it off whenever you're on the internet. This, then, raises the question: if you can turn it off when on the internet, can we trust that you cannot or will not turn it off elsewhere?
quote:
`Doc obviously shouldn't have said:
I'd be more concerned about what else he might do on the Internet. Considering that he has already shown a complete lack of morals with regards to hacking accounts, the only thing stopping him from hacking email, bank accounts, corporate files, etc., is not knowing how to do it.
Incorrect.
The rest of those items bears considerably more gravity. And those things actually mean something.
I mean seriously "hey guys an EC mod account has like a lot of bearing" 
owns:
You guys have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. 7486 fucked around with this message on 03-02-2007 at 11:21 AM.
quote:
This one time, at `Doc camp:
I'd be more concerned about what else he might do on the Internet. Considering that he has already shown a complete lack of morals with regards to hacking accounts, the only thing stopping him from hacking email, bank accounts, corporate files, etc., is not knowing how to do it.
What was done was going to be done sooner or later. The version of UBB we're running on is pretty freaking old and is full of security holes. And it's not like anyone really wants to undertake the task of moving to a new system and migrating over all of the little extras we use. What Waisz is doing isn't exactly impressive or anything, he's just exploiting the state of the community.
-H
quote:
Hellbender got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
What was done was going to be done sooner or later. The version of UBB we're running on is pretty freaking old and is full of security holes. And it's not like anyone really wants to undertake the task of moving to a new system and migrating over all of the little extras we use. What Waisz is doing isn't exactly impressive or anything, he's just exploiting the state of the community.-H
Sorry about all those PMs. :shobon:
At least, that's how it seems to me. He's not trying to insinuate that just because you've learned of a forum exploit, that you're going to go off and try to hack the pentagon and sell military secrets to russia, just that you've demonstrated that you can be tempted into doing something against the rules for personal amusement, and how that might end up leading to other, more serious things (Cheating on a SO, lying, etc) later.
Then again, maybe I missed his point entirely. I dunno. I'm just trying to clarify here.
And yes, there's a huge difference between this and reading someone's emails.
And yes, Doc has no idea what the definition of "hack" is.
Just my 2 cents.
[ADDENDUM] If you have a problem with my usage and/or misuse of the word "hack", feel free to replace it with "unlawfully steal and/or break into and/or assume control of", with appropriate tenses applied. `Doc fucked around with this message on 03-02-2007 at 12:01 PM.
quote:
From the book of `Doc, chapter 3, verse 16:
(where it couldn't be hidden by people concerned about NSFW material)
Yes, in fact, it can be hidden. By ignoring it, just as I am ignoring you now, because I find your ignorance so offensive.
...kept safe...
...locked away in the vaults...
...never to be used...
...except at the uttermost end of things.
quote:
7486 still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
If anyone would like to tell me a figure for damage this caused in any measurement (even Unicorns/meters squared) I would be glad to hear it.
Well, you annoyed some people for your amusement, in a way that prevented said people from (presumably) enjoying the service this board provides. How do you justify that behavior as ethical, correct, or socially acceptable?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I find it rather amusing how people are going around pointing fingers at Waisz and saying, "You shouldn't have done this in the first place." Especially considering the history of these boards and Drysart himself. I seem to recall in the distant past, a time when Drysart made a fake news story about Brittney Spears dying in a car accident. Through clever URL manipulation based upon the fact that everything before the @ is ignored, he made it seem very real by placing the cnn.com domain in there. Through further manipulation, he also tricked cnn's site into believing the story was real. So when I ask you, "What's different about this?" go into that question realizing that what Waisz did to gain access to Parcelan's account is the same thing as what Drys' did. URL manipulation.
We all had a good laugh over what Drys did, because in the end it didn't hurt any of us, however cnn and Brittney Spears may have felt violated and offended, because they were the unwitting targets. In this case, EC itself was the target, and so everyone is hopping around screaming bloody murder; or at least a vocal few. This is not the case, however, in reality. Because beyond the specific loophole being closed and one member remaining banned, everything is back to normal. In a word, boring.
I would also like to bring up the following point: It's in human nature to use exploits, or take something that's meant to be used one way and use it another way. A very good example is MMOs. Perhaps not as pertinant to the real world, but there any many demonstratable incidents. Let's take the World of Warcraft Priest class for example. They have an ability called Mind Control. It puts a creature or player under your control for a limited time. Obviously meant to be able to take an add or such and use it as offense/defense instead of yourself. However, very quickly many Priests realized, "Hey, we can Mind Control players then have them jump off a cliff/into lava/otherwise kill themselves and put their bodies in hard to reach places!" From there on, Mind Control was twisted to something else entirely. Rocks in Everquest were another good example. People, lots of people, exploited them by standing on top of them and the mob could never path up to them. It is, simply put, in the nature of human's to use exploits or change the meanings of things.
So really, when you're critizing Waisz for doing this, you really end up criticizing part of yourself and claiming the moral high ground, which none of us have.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about John Romero:
Well, you annoyed some people for your amusement, in a way that prevented said people from (presumably) enjoying the service this board provides. How do you justify that behavior as ethical, correct, or socially acceptable?
Are you a philosophy/psychology student, out of curiosity? Most of the questions you've been asking have made me wonder what you've been reading lately.
Jokes at other people's expense, often very amusing, sometimes just annoying, and I don't ever take him seriously.
It's a lot more enjoyable that way.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Karnaj said this:
"Human Nature" doesn't justify anything. In fact, it could easily be said that Drysart's Britney Spears stunt was ethically wrong, and we (myself included, I'm sure) were ethically wrong for laughing at it, if it indeed caused objective harm, Waisz's behavior caused objective harm, in that it upset people. It doesn't matter if you think those people are dumb for being upset, they were nonetheless upset, and for no good reason. We are then left to wonder why Waisz would bother in the first place.
You are correct that it doesn't justify anything, however that doesn't change the fact that Humans are adaptive creatures who bend things to their own will and change and do things to see if they can. Just because the outcome is known doesn't mean people will stop doing things. There's that Red Bull man-powered flying machine thing. Everyone knows none of them will work and they'll plummet into the water. But does this stop people from doing it? No. Human curiosity is a powerful thing and something I think you're underrating in this instance.
On a side note, many people have been saying for months that EC is boring now. Barely anyone posts, when they do it's something not that interesting. What Waisz did caused things to be interesting for a very short time, in the end amusing quite a few people and causing no, or very little, lasting harm. Which makes me wonder why anyone has hurt feelings over it besides, say, the one person left banned. It brought amusement for more people than it brought despair and now everthing is back to normal. I personally think you're pushing the inquiry as to why Waisz did it too far. Yes, he did it. So what?
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Khyron with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Are you a philosophy/psychology student, out of curiosity? Most of the questions you've been asking have made me wonder what you've been reading lately.
No, it's just that the IT world leaves the other side of my brain unsatisfied, so when singular things of note occur, if possible, I like to indulge in some intellectual exercises. As it happens, this incident is well-suited to spark a discussion of ethics, because we had first-hand experience of the situation. I don't bear Waisz any personal ill will, despite being mildly annoyed at not being able to post yesterday, but I posit the question, rather, a means to arouse discussion of practical ethics in our everyday lives. We have a first-hand experience of an interesting happenstance. Rather than discuss having to save a busload of babies or the guy who will cure cancer, we have concrete acts and persons to analyze.
I take one side, rather than be open-ended about it, because it seems to get more people interested.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Batty absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
You are correct that it doesn't justify anything, however that doesn't change the fact that Humans are adaptive creatures who bend things to their own will and change and do things to see if they can. Just because the outcome is known doesn't mean people will stop doing things. There's that Red Bull man-powered flying machine thing. Everyone knows none of them will work and they'll plummet into the water. But does this stop people from doing it? No. Human curiosity is a powerful thing and something I think you're underrating in this instance.On a side note, many people have been saying for months that EC is boring now. Barely anyone posts, when they do it's something not that interesting. What Waisz did caused things to be interesting for a very short time, in the end amusing quite a few people and causing no, or very little, lasting harm. Which makes me wonder why anyone has hurt feelings over it besides, say, the one person left banned. It brought amusement for more people than it brought despair and now everthing is back to normal. I personally think you're pushing the inquiry as to why Waisz did it too far. Yes, he did it. So what?
That's a pretty stupid line to argue, frankly. You're arguing that people don't have any responsibility for their actions, which denies them humanity. Your second argument, the famous, "I'm bored; let's fuck with people," is equally illogical and utterly juevenile on top of that. If you're bored, then go somewhere else and get a life. Since when is, "I'm too stupid to think of anything better than vandalism to relieve boredom," a good excuse for anything?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
That's a pretty stupid line to argue, frankly. You're arguing that people don't have any responsibility for their actions, which denies them humanity. Your second argument, the famous, "I'm bored; let's fuck with people," is equally illogical and utterly juevenile on top of that. If you're bored, then go somewhere else and get a life. Since when is, "I'm too stupid to think of anything better than vandalism to relieve boredom," a good excuse for anything?
Oh look who came back. Mr. I'm right and you're wrong. Why don't you go play somewhere else as, tbh, discussing things with Karnaj is much preferable to someone who's always uppity?
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Batty absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Oh look who came back. Mr. I'm right and you're wrong. Why don't you go play somewhere else as, tbh, discussing things with Karnaj is much preferable to someone who's always uppity?
Oh, don't worry: I'm sure Karnaj thinks your argument is stupid, too. He's just too polite to say it.
And any time you think I'm wrong, you can feel free to demonstrate it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Oh, don't worry: I'm sure Karnaj thinks your argument is stupid, too. He's just too polite to say it.And any time you think I'm wrong, you can feel free to demonstrate it.
If he thinks I'm wrong, that's fine and dandy. That's his opinion and I have mine. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and yours is rather large. I have no need to demonstrate anything to you or anyone else, whether it's about them being wrong or anything else. And I have not once claimed that you were wrong, I'm glad to see that you're still up to inferring anything you want from what other people say. I have merely stated that you have a holier than thou attitude. Which you consistantly prove. If you want a place to have debates about silly little things, there's plenty of places to go for that sort of thing. Now please, go back to your little life and rage against anyone who has a contrary opinion to yours somewhere else.
Whining about being told you're wrong when you say something stupid hardly places you on high moral ground, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "holier-than-thou" bullshit. Making up unflattering things about others is a pretty traditional response from those unable to defend their opinions but unwilling to change them. After all, if you haven't the wit to explain your position, the only thing left is to create fantasies about what a rotten person he is who points out your errors.
Jeebus, if you're not prepared to defend them, don't post your poorly thought out opinions in public.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Opinions aren't religious beliefs; they are, in theory, based on reason and are most definitely up for discussion. If you're trying to say that your religious beliefs tell you these things, well, that's even dumber than your earlier assertion.
A valid assertation. They are always up for debate. And if you knew anything about the person you were currently talking to, you'd know how mistaken your second sentence is.
Whining about being told you're wrong when you say something stupid hardly places you on high moral ground, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "holier-than-thou" bullshit.
So, let's put it this way. Stating that because something is in human nature automatically condemns my own opinion to saying they have no responsibility for acting on it. I never claimed that there is no responsibility for it. But when it comes to something as minor as a prank that NOTHING BAD CAME FROM, how much responsibility is one supposed to lay on the pranker's head? Oh no, call the cops!
The so-called "holier than thou" bullshit is based upon every time you've ever posted. All you ever post is argumentative crap meant to stir people into responding: exactly what you're doing now. Then you yourself attempt to take the moral highground by degrading everything down to the straw man or other fundamentals of debate, ignoring the fact that most people don't care about those sorts of things. I certainly don't. Most people don't. Sure, you're great at doing this. But it's a play. You honestly don't care about any of the subjects at hand, which is evidenced by the fact you argue on anything and everything. All you want to do, in the end, is prove the other person right or wrong. If you'd like to prove that wrong, then here's a tip from someone who doesn't give a damn about debating with you or generally anyone else: Nobody cares, they just want you to go the hell away or post about things you actually care about.
Making up unflattering things about others is a pretty traditional response from those unable to defend their opinions but unwilling to change them. After all, if you haven't the wit to explain your position, the only thing left is to create fantasies about what a rotten person he is who points out your errors.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you threw the first stone here. If I remember correctly, since it's been such a short time and all, the only unflattering things I've said has been..."holier than thou", "Mr. I'm right and you're wrong", and I said you have a large opinion. Anything else you might have gotten out of it was merely by wordplay on my part and if it upset you, then congratulations. I'm glad to have made you uncomfortable.
If you haven't gotten it yet: Nobody honestly cares about you around here. You have a few people who think you're brilliant because they're sheep. The rest wish you'd go away because EVERY thread you post in turns into a debate because someone said something that you didn't like. You're not a rotten person and I'm not out to prove that. You are a pompous asshole and there's a clear difference between that and a rotten person. Yes, that is a personal attack and thus, according to your rules of debate, everything I've said is void. I don't care. It's the truth. Live with it.
Jeebus, if you're not prepared to defend them, don't post your poorly thought out opinions in public.
The same could easily be said about you. Thank you, have a nice day, I'll go back to talking to Karnaj when he posts. Enjoy the insults.
If, when you say something stupid, your best response to being called on it is a childish diatribe about how you have a right to your opinion and it's somehow not sporting to tell you you're wrong and oh-by-the-way you're a big meany for pointing it out and I'm going to whine like a kid and claim that all you ever do is belittle others despite rather obvious evidence to the contrary. . .you really need to chill.
If you can't handle being contradicted, either a) don't be wrong or b) don't post.
Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 03-02-2007 at 04:04 PM.
Edit: I also have to point out the obvious irony of someone defending Waisz, but whining and crying when he turns out to be the object of unflattering attention.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage probably says this to all the girls:
You'd do better if you weren't quite so obvious about making shit up. Not that you had any credibility to begin with, but asserting that I've never, ever, posted anything except "argumentative crap" is just as stupid as claiming that vandalism is a valid response to boredom.If, when you say something stupid, your best response to being called on it is a childish diatribe about how you have a right to your opinion and it's somehow not sporting to tell you you're wrong and oh-by-the-way you're a big meany for pointing it out and I'm going to whine like a kid and claim that all you ever do is belittle others despite rather obvious evidence to the contrary. . .you really need to chill.
If you can't handle being contradicted, either a) don't be wrong or b) don't post.
Edit: I also have to point out the obvious irony of someone defending Waisz, but whining and crying when he turns out to be the object of unflattering attention.
Please, take all of this advice and use it yourself. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
So all you've got left is, "I know you are, but what am I?" That's pretty lame, dude.
Actually, no. I do have more. But I don't consider you worth the time. I've honestly enjoyed this, because in the end, you probably think you've won over someone with inferior opinions and argumentative skills. But with every post all you really do is prove me right. You can never let things go. I could post ANYTHING at this point at you'd be forced into responding in classic fashion, attempting to prove how horribly wrong I am. And all you do is reinforce the opinion that you're a pompous asshole. When you learn to let it go, I'll calmly and rationally discuss something with you.
And, to be quite honest, I like everyone at EC. And pretty much everyone likes me. Except you. I dislike you. Because you're a pompous asshole.
Why would I give a flying fuck if you like me?
If you think you're capable of intelligent conversation, then demonstrate it. If you don't like being told you're wrong, then don't say stupid shit. And if you think you can take my argument apart, then do so; claiming that you just can't be bothered--but you really could if you wanted--is the oldest, lamest cop-out on the intarweb.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Can we move on? We were busy postulating how Wasiz kills puppies due to his lack of ethical behavior on the internet. Specifically, I believe we're at the point where we start making up illegal, unethical things he's done in real life, such as donkey-punching hookers and stealing their blow, or dressing up as a clown and being evil.
quote:
Batty still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
You are correct that it doesn't justify anything, however that doesn't change the fact that Humans are adaptive creatures who bend things to their own will and change and do things to see if they can. Just because the outcome is known doesn't mean people will stop doing things. There's that Red Bull man-powered flying machine thing. Everyone knows none of them will work and they'll plummet into the water. But does this stop people from doing it? No. Human curiosity is a powerful thing and something I think you're underrating in this instance.On a side note, many people have been saying for months that EC is boring now. Barely anyone posts, when they do it's something not that interesting. What Waisz did caused things to be interesting for a very short time, in the end amusing quite a few people and causing no, or very little, lasting harm. Which makes me wonder why anyone has hurt feelings over it besides, say, the one person left banned. It brought amusement for more people than it brought despair and now everthing is back to normal. I personally think you're pushing the inquiry as to why Waisz did it too far. Yes, he did it. So what?
It's not a matter of underrating, but I assert that simple human curiousity cannot justify wrong behavior. As Red Bull Flying Faggots example, curiousity may make them do what they do, but they don't do it the detriment of others, to the best of my knowledge. Waisz's act, by design, had to be done to the detriment of at least one person.
What you're arguing is that the ends automatically justify the means. Let's go with the idea that people were amused. Certainly, Waisz was, I'm sure. We cannot discount, however, the harm done as well, for objective harm was done. The clearest example, of course, is Parce himself, who was tricked by someone who he thought to be his friend (perhaps) and who could have permanently lost his modship. I mean, he sounded at least a little upset to me in that chatlog that Waisz posted. Given all this, how can we judge Waisz as an ethical person? Moreover, how can we justify the benefit gained both in interest and amusement by others, if it comes at the direct expense of someone else via a betrayal of presumed trust? To preempt a possible rebuttal: a lapse in judgement which results in unethical behavior is different, because implicitly, an attempt at ethical beahavior was made; it just got fucked up somehow.
At the very least, we can to say that Waisz is deliberately inconsistent in his ethics. By his own admission, he states that he behaves ethically IRL. Taking this at face value, we can say that this situation would have never played out in real life, because he never would have tricked his friend into, say, giving him the key to a meeting hall or lounge or something so that he could fuck around for a while.
The question isn't really "Why did he do it?" We know the answer to that: he was bored and wanted to amuse himself. The question is: "What ethics system allows him to do this but not a similar real life act?"
And Bloodsage is right insofar as I'm being polite, because A) I do want to hear your responses, and B) I know you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
And despite whatever's running through Bloodsage's head, no I didn't simply say this because of what he said. I'm sorry that someone thought ahead.
quote:
Batty screamed this from the crapper:
Not to be rude to you either, Karnaj, but honestly, none of the opinions I've expressed exactly match my own. I apologize for using you in such a way, but despite Bloodsage being gone on a ski trip or some such, I wanted to bait him in. I knew he'd eventually bite.And despite whatever's running through Bloodsage's head, no I didn't simply say this because of what he said. I'm sorry that someone thought ahead.
So, does that mean you're going to stop arguing? Because I was enjoying our dialogue. Asshole. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about pies:
So, does that mean you're going to stop arguing? Because I was enjoying our dialogue. Asshole.
Unfortuantly, yes. I never talk about my own opinions. Because, as you yourself suggested, you catch flies easier with honey. Much easier to make friends and be friends when you don't let opinions get in the way. 
