PM vote trial Re: takburger and mister Ladle 83

[compguygene]

I just sent out this pm to the relevant parties. It is time to deal with takburger and mister.


Now that Kyle has posted definitive evidence, it's time to finish cleaning up this mess. First, takburger did not authenticate, but was op'd by mister.

First I was asked by blondie for the IP of vein. Since blondie's discovery of it being liz, that prompted me to dig a little more into the logs. I realized that liz also played unauthenticated to cover up who she was. Even though liz has admitted it, the logs also confirm that what she said is true. she was indeed vein.

Anyway since I saw she was locally opped and not logged in It prompted me to review the log for anyone else that was locally opped. Here is what i come up with.

Code: Select all

[1] Order of LeopardSh@forums: CatSh has been logged in as catsh@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
[1] Order of LeopardSh@forums: PigeonSh has been logged in as pigeonsh@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
[14] Order of [abc]_mister: [abc] vein has been logged in as [abc]_vein@L_OP at access level "Team Member".

So this violated rule #10 ("Everyone must be authenticated in order to participate during the Ladle.")

My bad. I'm sorry. I'll take the punishment the community feels right to give to me.

Did the accused player, Takburger, violate Rule #10 ("Everyone must be authenticated in order to participate during the Ladle.") commit an offense? No, Yes and they should receive (1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings)?

Also we have Mister who Kyle has shown in the log op'd liz to play as vein. I would like you all to keep in mind that Mister really should be held just as culpable as Liz. She could not have done this without his help. In doing this it appears that he violated rule #9 Substitutes may be added until the start of the semi-finals. After the semi-finals begin, a team needs the approval of the opponent to add a substitute. This incident happened during the semi-finals.

Did the accused player, mister, violate Rule #9 (Substitutes may be added until the start of the semi-finals. After the semi-finals begin, a team needs the approval of the opponent to add a substitute.) commit an offense? No, Yes and they should receive (1 warning, 2 warnings, 3 warnings)?



Where I am pm'ing 2 teamleaders for one team, only one vote per team needs to be submitted. Thank you for you quick assistance with this matter.

[Nanu Nanu]

takburger did not authenticate, but was op'd by mister.

I thought takburger was LeopardSh, who OP'd CatSh and PigeonSh, according to kyle's logs. Also just wondering if the punishment is for the OPer or the OPed?

[takburger]

takburger did not authenticate, but was op'd by mister.

I thought takburger was LeopardSh, who OP'd CatSh and PigeonSh, according to kyle's logs. Also just wondering if the punishment is for the OPer or the OPed?

I was LeopardSh with captain authority and op'd friends so they can play with aliases on.

[Hoax]

Uh oh I hope you like dogfight, tak
Surely the early plee along with getting rid of the lame smurf team as well as it highlighted the issue is enough to get him off

[kyle]

Also just wondering if the punishment is for the OPer or the OPed?

Well that is not really defined anywere, but i would clain both opped and the opper should be voted on, the one getting opped did not oppose getting opped. They could have left knowing they were in violation. But the one who opped should not have opped them in the first place

[F0RC3]

I agree with kyle in that both the person(s) who were opped and the person who opped.

I have a question though. Is it possible to limit it so that opping can only op those who are authenticated?

[takburger]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to remember who is who. And frankly, I would have op'ed anybody with a cat name with Sh at the end.

[theo]

Remember that the abc/liz drama is being discussed here because liz was impersonating vein. Not because she played unauthenticated.

The vote against liz was about rule 2 (don't play for more than 1 team). Not rule 10 ( Everyone must be authenticated in order to participate during the Ladle.).

If we intend to enforce rule 10, we might open the pandora box. I think that people being oped to Team Member might be more common than we think. If we're enforcing this rule, we might want to do it for everybody including liz (in which case I suppose all the warnings she gets adds up?).

Here is what I found on my servers (ladle 80 & 82) :

Order of woof@forums: Rudy Can't Fail has been logged in as rudy_can't_fail@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
Order of Gonzap@ct/senior: _~R~_over has been logged in as ~r~_over@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
Order of Gonzap@ct/senior: _~R~_over has been logged in as ~r~_over@L_OP@L_OP at access level "Team Member".

It's only in my servers, but I think that we could find many more (possibly including myself) if we asked all server owners to check their logs (or if we checked all playback records, unfortunately, I don't know how to read a raw aarec file).

[Hoax]

Might as well throw in non captains editing the wiki then if we're going to dig up all the ops. Good that it's come to attention but I'm sure the vote will show how serious an offense this actually is, although I see that there's no option for a rule break with zero warning

[kyle]

Really I only posted that information as a warning for in the future, sure they violated it, it's never been enforced or brought up before. This to me was mainly to give anyone currently doing this a warning for the future. Also to discuss if team leaders should have the ability to op players.

[Gonzap]

Concerning my oping, if I recall correctly and you dig a bit more you'll realize I was just joking around with over and he did authenticate after I oped him.

BTW, didn't liz also violate this rule which would lead into another trial which could lead to another 3 warnings adding up to 6?

[Overrated]

Order of woof@forums: Rudy Can't Fail has been logged in as rudy_can't_fail@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
Order of Gonzap@ct/senior: _~R~_over has been logged in as ~r~_over@L_OP at access level "Team Member".
Order of Gonzap@ct/senior: _~R~_over has been logged in as ~r~_over@L_OP@L_OP at access level "Team Member".

I imagine if you look further in the logs I probably logged out and logged back in under this forums account (Edit: Upon further review, I actually confirmed it myself, about 3900s into the recording for that ladle. ^^ ).

On occasion if I load a second computer (which I do sometimes to check connections, restart computer, etc), I might forget. I normally don't play op'd, in any server; and if it happened I never noticed it. Logging in is one of the few things I do immediately when I am playing. Also, I don't see the point of staying logged in when I'm typically the Team Leader for R, and my teammates would know if it was me or not depending on if I was on teamspeak or not.

But none-the-less, if it is that much of an issue, I'll take whatever the punishment may be.

PS: The fact I got op'd twice also guarantees I logged out at least once to try and verify myself iirc.

PSS: I don't recall auths being done on someone's server that day.

[*16]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to remember who is who. And frankly, I would have op'ed anybody with a cat name with Sh at the end.

I was CatSh and I forgot that everyone should authenticate. I asked tak to /op me (mainly because of being lazy). If anyone would have asked I would have logged in or told him tho.

[sinewav]

This is one of those areas where Team Leaders were given a permission and expected to act responsibly in the absence of admins/mods. Time and laziness have allowed it to be abused. We can simply remove this permission, and the discussion so far points to us doing just that. Problem solved.

[sinewav]

Per the rules, this trial is still open until Friday. Results will be posted soon after compguygene compiles the results.