SSC and TW Coming Back Online

[Shaddowknight]

I agree with Eph. The players deserve to know who it is that fucked up the game they have put a great deal of personal investment into (time, money, emotional, whatever). If it was down for a day, sure whatever. Its been what, almost two weeks? This is important enough that greater transparency in this matter would be nice to show. Of course, as long as we have solid proof on it.

[Ephemeral]

Left,
Respectfully disagree. If someone gets banned, the community should be informed. I am fairly sure that Demonic was supporting this approach a few months ago. If this is still true, are we saying that we will be able to find out that Player X has been banned for muttering the N word but we will not do the same for a person who shut down the all the zones for weeks?

And where is Council’s position on this issue? Does their opinion matter here? Who is making the decision for publishing the name? If his ban is known by others outside of TW; why risk that they will communicate the name and leave you guys looking like the assholes who wouldn’t?

Frankly even if the value is ONLY in that it prevents the continued ‘us vs. them' attitude then it is worth it. WTF would only some of the upper staff be ‘allowed’ to have the knowledge if it is known? Are the rest of us somehow lesser people? Are we saying to the player base that “you can’t handle the truth”?

But the value is more than that. Again, it is an important learning situation for everyone. One of the most important lessons is that if you act like a dick, you will be outted.
eph

[Left_Eye]

Demonic supports transparency, as I do, but if you read her post on it, she also went at lengths to mention that the names of the moderators and individual people banned (which you are requesting) would be "blacked out" for privacy reasons. So essentially, all you would receive is a "so many people have been banned for saying the n-word so many times," etc. There would be no specifics to it besides that. I do not have any issues with staffers telling people that we caught the person behind the attacks.

To be honest, it has nothing to do with players being "lesser people" or any of the theories you proposed. This person did quite a lot of damage to SSC and this game overall. The last thing I would care for is another disgruntled player to seek this player out using some means to learn how to do the same damage. By advertising this player's name to the general public, you run that risk. As I said, the more important thing to learn from the situation is for us to learn how he made the attacks and the best way to guard against it if someone else decided to use the same or similar means. There is no "us vs. them" attitude. It is "what is the best way to preserve our way of existence" type of attitude I have.

As for the important lessons, outting a "dick" would have no real benefit to the people when weighed against the cons that person has the ability to do. Haven't you ever considered the fact that this person did what they did for their own reasons? If you provoke them in a way by outting them, they'll have more of a "reason" to attack again. This isn't real life where you can lock the person up in jail and not worry about them for a long time. Cyber crimes are hard to detect. Why would you toy with a rattlesnake instead of leaving them alone and parting ways as efficiently as possible. This person, whoever it was, obviously had the ability to take down entire SSC without blinking twice. Your proposition has far too many cons rather than benefits to the zone.

From where I'm standing, we can respectfully disagree. I can see where you're coming from, but I also do my best to try to preserve our game as much as possible in the long run. I do not know what the future holds, but I try to calculate the risks as best as possible and safeguard against the future problems that might arise.

[Ephemeral]

Left,
Indeed, we aren’t on the same page at all. IMO by NOT outing them, by saying that ‘gee they might do it again’, then you are showing weakness and rewarding them. But I guess we will just have to disagree.
eph

[Shaddowknight]

It's not uncommon for a criminal's name to be released, and I don't see why people shouldn't know who it was for something on this scale at the least.

[bkgmjo]

Actually, find out and hire him for security dev. That is if the attacks actually came from a player and were even targeted at SSC, which I still have a hard time to believe since at the same time attacks started facebook + google with tons of other sites also went down in about 30% of the world according to public data of backbones and several uptime check nodes. battle.net was having trouble staying halfway alive and a bunch of other game networks kept crashing. But ya, if you catch person X then hire her/him before someone else does.

[Wormhole Surfer]

meme time

I feel like the recent activities in ss can be best summarized with outdated memes in poor taste:

[2pac]

Demonic supports transparency, as I do, but if you read her post on it, she also went at lengths to mention that the names of the moderators and individual people banned (which you are requesting) would be "blacked out" for privacy reasons. So essentially, all you would receive is a "so many people have been banned for saying the n-word so many times," etc. There would be no specifics to it besides that. I do not have any issues with staffers telling people that we caught the person behind the attacks.

To be honest, it has nothing to do with players being "lesser people" or any of the theories you proposed. This person did quite a lot of damage to SSC and this game overall. The last thing I would care for is another disgruntled player to seek this player out using some means to learn how to do the same damage. By advertising this player's name to the general public, you run that risk. As I said, the more important thing to learn from the situation is for us to learn how he made the attacks and the best way to guard against it if someone else decided to use the same or similar means. There is no "us vs. them" attitude. It is "what is the best way to preserve our way of existence" type of attitude I have.

As for the important lessons, outting a "dick" would have no real benefit to the people when weighed against the cons that person has the ability to do. Haven't you ever considered the fact that this person did what they did for their own reasons? If you provoke them in a way by outting them, they'll have more of a "reason" to attack again. This isn't real life where you can lock the person up in jail and not worry about them for a long time. Cyber crimes are hard to detect. Why would you toy with a rattlesnake instead of leaving them alone and parting ways as efficiently as possible. This person, whoever it was, obviously had the ability to take down entire SSC without blinking twice. Your proposition has far too many cons rather than benefits to the zone.

From where I'm standing, we can respectfully disagree. I can see where you're coming from, but I also do my best to try to preserve our game as much as possible in the long run. I do not know what the future holds, but I try to calculate the risks as best as possible and safeguard against the future problems that might arise.

This so called "disgruntled player" can be a staff member so we are not any different from staff as they are players as well so your logic is flawed Left_eye. Learn to make sense next time you post.

[Azov]

I concur with Left_Eye's statements on this matter. Security is a top priority for the well being of our community. As a result, we are limited by what we can disclose publicly. We have no issues with being transparent and open with the community on recognizing problems or threats to the game and affirming we have handled those problems. But beyond that, the nature of how we do what we do cannot be discussed publicly in any great detail because of the risks of exposing how we operate, which can make us more vulnerable.

Additionally, what has happened to our game over the past two weeks is the product of a willful and deliberate act of criminality which will be dealt with in the harshest terms. Speaking from my experience in dealing with real life investigations into similar matters, I will say that any ongoing, active investigation will not yield any substantive information to the public because it can compromise the investigation by giving those responsible an idea as to how much is known or not known as well as the methodology being used to find those who are culpable. Additionally, attacks on internet servers are a species of criminality that benefits from a name being advertised, because it risks "glorifying" that person and what he or she has done.

Azov

[2pac]

I concur with Left_Eye's statements on this matter. Security is a top priority for the well being of our community. As a result, we are limited by what we can disclose publicly. We have no issues with being transparent and open with the community on recognizing problems or threats to the game and affirming we have handled those problems. But beyond that, the nature of how we do what we do cannot be discussed publicly in any great detail because of the risks of exposing how we operate, which can make us more vulnerable.

Additionally, what has happened to our game over the past two weeks is the product of a willful and deliberate act of criminality which will be dealt with in the harshest terms. Speaking from my experience in dealing with real life investigations into similar matters, I will say that any ongoing, active investigation will not yield any substantive information to the public because it can compromise the investigation by giving those responsible an idea as to how much is known or not known as well as the methodology being used to find those who are culpable. Additionally, attacks on internet servers are a species of criminality that benefits from a name being advertised, because it risks "glorifying" that person and what he or she has done.

Azov

It's 2014 get with the times. Last time the zone was ddosed information was given and actions were set. What makes staff think this time it isn't any different. DDOS were disclosed to public before and information on the forums was given such as the alias of the player. Nothing has changed in this action and it shouldn't change now. You don't hide things from public you give the facts such as my ban the facts were not given and caused issues and will be still giving issues till ban is over.

Staff are not above players we make the game play not you. Without us players there is no Staff.

[roxxkatt]

2pac finally correct about something

a king with no subjects is no king at all

[schope]

Demonic supports transparency, as I do, but if you read her post on it, she also went at lengths to mention that the names of the moderators and individual people banned (which you are requesting) would be "blacked out" for privacy reasons. So essentially, all you would receive is a "so many people have been banned for saying the n-word so many times," etc. There would be no specifics to it besides that. I do not have any issues with staffers telling people that we caught the person behind the attacks.

To be honest, it has nothing to do with players being "lesser people" or any of the theories you proposed. This person did quite a lot of damage to SSC and this game overall. The last thing I would care for is another disgruntled player to seek this player out using some means to learn how to do the same damage. By advertising this player's name to the general public, you run that risk. As I said, the more important thing to learn from the situation is for us to learn how he made the attacks and the best way to guard against it if someone else decided to use the same or similar means. There is no "us vs. them" attitude. It is "what is the best way to preserve our way of existence" type of attitude I have.

As for the important lessons, outting a "dick" would have no real benefit to the people when weighed against the cons that person has the ability to do. Haven't you ever considered the fact that this person did what they did for their own reasons? If you provoke them in a way by outting them, they'll have more of a "reason" to attack again. This isn't real life where you can lock the person up in jail and not worry about them for a long time. Cyber crimes are hard to detect. Why would you toy with a rattlesnake instead of leaving them alone and parting ways as efficiently as possible. This person, whoever it was, obviously had the ability to take down entire SSC without blinking twice. Your proposition has far too many cons rather than benefits to the zone.

From where I'm standing, we can respectfully disagree. I can see where you're coming from, but I also do my best to try to preserve our game as much as possible in the long run. I do not know what the future holds, but I try to calculate the risks as best as possible and safeguard against the future problems that might arise.

Nevah mess with brazil again or i'll show our top notch bandwich power again!

ez. ownt!

[Wormhole Surfer]

Well...I'm curious to see how you guys play out this whole "We know who did this, but we are keeping it confidential FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF SUBSPACE!" nonsense. Too much fun.

[kthx]

Seems like something the council should decide on. Staff still doing whatever the fuck they please.

[M_M God]

I think you guys are seriously overseeing the fact that up to this point, we have no perpetrator. It's nice and all to already start discussing and complaining about the fact that his/her name should be out in the open or not, but that is not really a valid matter at this point because there is no name to give out, lol. We have our suspects, sure, but you can also see that at this point we will not reveal any of our suspects because of an ongoing investigation. Give us and the proper authorities time to figure out who did it to start with and discuss the 'let's or let's not reveal his name' matter when it's really actual shall we..