# Arcturus



## Dragoneer (Aug 17, 2006)

I need to set some things straight.

There was a rather critical exploit on FA which was causing admin accounts to be hijacked. This was the result of the now infamous Bubble Boy (buuuuuuuuuuuuuuubbles!) and the Pool Closing. No damage was truly done to the site and there was limited options for the would-be account thieves.

*The damage was fairly limited and the accounts targeted were only administrative accounts.* The exploit has been fixed and resolved before any damage was done.

We considered the ban to be of exceptionally high priority and were having trouble tracking it down, and we knew Arcturus was aware of it. We approached him, and he asked -- politely -- if we would be willing to work with him and he would divulge the information. Arcturus could have potentially damaged the site (potentially) but did not. Given that, we decided (reluctantly) to work with him, not against him, with some limitations in agreement.

Given that, we decided to work with Arcturus. We were not blackmailed and just as easily could have said "no".

*He is not:*
An admin.
A moderator.
An official tester.
Authorized to use exploits

*He is just a user, and one we are watching.* We have informed Arcturus that if he does, in fact, find an exploit he is to notify of how to re-create it so that we can resolve the issue or the ban will go back on. Not only that, we have added quite a bit of additional security to the back end of FA (open proxy detection, blocking noted hacking utilities).

There is still more work to be done, and Yak and Crypto have been busting their asses off on improving things. We've made a ton of improvements to the site in the past few weeks, and while we've had a few rough edges, I'd hate for people to ignore the improvements and additions we've made because of one single person who will not affect your experience in any way.


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 17, 2006)

never doubted you for a second. hence i never responded to those threads that doubt you guys. i know you guys aren't gonna let anymore badstuff happen atleast not without a fight. so keep on doing what needs to be done and hope that from now on all goes well.

*pats you on the back* it was a tough decision to make, but i think you made the right one.


----------



## Xax (Aug 17, 2006)

Does this mean I have to put down the pitchfork and torch? I was having so much fun.


----------



## MaLaKa (Aug 17, 2006)

So where does arc actually stand now :S


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 17, 2006)

MaLaKa said:
			
		

> So where does arc actually stand now :S


As a user. We gave him an extension as a courtesy of helping fix a bug. Despite popular belief, we truly do NOT like banning people from the website.


----------



## Xax (Aug 17, 2006)

boop boop ba-doop



			
				Myr said:
			
		

> Xax, logical fallacies are so common though... Life is full of them and double standards and the whole works. We can't really be rid of them even after trying.


I footnoted that whole paragraph because it was tangental to the rest of my post. It was not actually making a point aside from "people use fallicies and generally you have to be very verbose and constantly disclaim yourself to avoid them" which is totally unrelated towards the first two paragraphs, where all my actual _points_ were placed.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> And you fell for his psychology dilly... You'd fall for anything, wouldn't you?
> 
> Look. You giving him freedom will doom you... What you have done is allowed someone who has REPEATEDLY fucked your site up back into the site... If it was once or, HELL! Just two times, fine. But this is multiple times and you shouldn't allow him to even be allowed to be a user. He doesn't like Furaffinity. He's exclaimed this several times. HELL! He's been proven to not like artists in general (From attitude). I know you don't like me or even want to believe my words, but FA in 2 weeks will be a living Hell and I am scared of Arc messing up the FA thing, or Hell, finding a way to steal passwords just to be malicious to people.
> 
> ...



I'm confused by this argument btw. It's not that I agree with letting him back in, but it's "You let him in the site is doomed" argument that has me scratching my head.

Err considering he was getting around the site pretty damn well when he was banned, what difference does it make that he's unbanned?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 18, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> I know you don't like me or even want to believe my words, but FA in 2 weeks will be a living Hell and I am scared of Arc messing up the FA thing, or Hell, finding a way to steal passwords just to be malicious to people.
> 
> You've made a mistake that will result in the loss of patrons.


Excuse me? I don't like you? I have nothing against you, so please do not make assumptions. When have I ever told you I don't like you? Did I not stand up for you when people were mocking you in the IRC? I fought for you, and yet I apparently hate you?

=/

Second, when I joined FA over a year ago, people told me that FA would die in less than two weeks after it came back up. And then another two weeks after than. Then another. And then another two weeks. And we're here and stronger than ever.

We would not have unbanned Arc if we did not think it would have been better for the site in the long term. Short term, a few people may get upset, but the resulting bugs that were fixed will result in a stronger website in the end.

Arc can not steal FA passwords. It's not going to happen. We do not need Nostradamus in the forums.


----------



## facek (Aug 18, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I'm confused by this argument btw. It's not that I agree with letting him back in, but it's "You let him in the site is doomed" argument that has me scratching my head.
> 
> Err considering he was getting around the site pretty damn well when he was banned, what difference does it make that he's unbanned?



That is something that has been perplexing me as well, it's not like there is anything Arc can do unbanned that he can't do whilst banned.


----------



## MaLaKa (Aug 18, 2006)

It will take more than arc to take down FA if all he is doing is exploiting. Unless he buys some long range scuds! or somthing lol. 
FIREZEMISSILES!


----------



## Goliath (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> We have informed Arcturus that if he does, in fact, find an exploit he is to notify of how to re-create it so that we can resolve the issue or the ban will go back on.


Until you need him again?


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 18, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> And you fell for his psychology dilly... You'd fall for anything, wouldn't you?
> 
> Look. You giving him freedom will doom you... What you have done is allowed someone who has REPEATEDLY fucked your site up back into the site... If it was once or, HELL! Just two times, fine. But this is multiple times and you shouldn't allow him to even be allowed to be a user. He doesn't like Furaffinity. He's exclaimed this several times. HELL! He's been proven to not like artists in general (From attitude). I know you don't like me or even want to believe my words, but FA in 2 weeks will be a living Hell and I am scared of Arc messing up the FA thing, or Hell, finding a way to steal passwords just to be malicious to people.
> 
> ...



It's like I'm hearing a broken record.  Banning people from FA does NOT stop them from accessing the site through other means.  Hypothetically, someone determined enough and smart enough to hack the side can evade any ban, easily.  Even I, someone who doesn't know hacking for beans, could do it if I wanted to prove a point. (but why would I want to do that?)  Nothing has changed except alarmists yelling in people's ears and annoying the bejeezus out of me and many other people.  Hasn't Dragoneer made his point clear through this announcement?  It makes sense to me.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 18, 2006)

Goliath said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Negative. We have other awesome people at our side.

Verix, fantastic example.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 18, 2006)

MaLaKa said:
			
		

> It will take more than arc to take down FA if all he is doing is exploiting. Unless he buys some long range scuds! or somthing lol.
> FIREZEMISSILES!


I'm more likely to destroy FA than Arcturus. 

 

I'm the only person on the planet who has killed a cable TV box by accidently dumping in a bottle of coke -- THE WHOLE BOTTLE -- into the only air vent the cable box happened to have. The chances of that happening are... are.... well, let's just say it's one of those 1:100,000 chances deals.


----------



## MaLaKa (Aug 18, 2006)

Hahahahaahaha good work Dragoneer. 

Im prob the only person to hit his own hand with an axe chopping wood. :


----------



## sasaki (Aug 18, 2006)

RainbowEyes said:
			
		

> [...]



It doesn't matter if they ban him or not, he can hack the site either way. Banning works when a user has intentions of being corrosive. It'll keep them away from the site where they belong. Unfortunately, it doesn't keep hackers away. You need to fix exploits to prevent that, and what better then someone who knows HOW to exploit them?

Honestly, I think FA is lucky that only Arcturus had done the hacking. How'd you like it if the GNAA[wikipedia.org] found out about this security hole? The extent of damage can be catastrophic.


----------



## Goliath (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Negative. We have other awesome people at our side.


Then... uhm... why do you need Arcturus?


----------



## Goliath (Aug 18, 2006)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> It's like I'm hearing a broken record.


Then stop listening ^_^


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 18, 2006)

and i'm probably the only person who ever got up to go to the bathroom and forgot why when i got there, that is the only person at 23 years of age, old people don't count. (curse my aspergers and how it screws my short-term memory sometimes)


----------



## cesarin (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> RainbowEyes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you hate me too, not enought buttseeks!!! ( sorry couldnt resist )


----------



## facek (Aug 18, 2006)

I can top this ALL, when I was a kid in the cub scouts, I bent over a log we were beating up with sticks and got hit in the back of the head, then cut my finger open while widdling at another stick and then burned my hands when picking up a little camp grill I thought was empty of charcoal but obviously wasn't. All in a days work of the clumsiest kid in the world....maybe I've grown out of it, or maybe I've injured myself twice while typing this, you decide.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 18, 2006)

cesarin said:
			
		

> you hate me too, not enought buttseeks!!! ( sorry couldnt resist )


I'd butt hump you so hard your belly would stretch from my lengthy... uh, ego. Yeeeeah, that's it.


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



(that's so not pg-13 but oh well)....

hey 'neer what about me? while you're um busy with that guy your backdoor might need a little attention too........LOL...just kidding. or am i?


----------



## quentinwolf (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey!  Don't be leavin me out too.  You know you hate me, not enough spooge!

You're gonna get a new title if you keep this up, 'P-Double-D', aka, Pimp-Daddy-Dragoneer!


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 18, 2006)

ZOMG! double post at midnight! the witching hour...beware what goes "hump" in the night...


edit: midnight central timezone.


----------



## quentinwolf (Aug 18, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> ZOMG! double post at midnight! the witching hour...beware what goes "hump" in the night...
> 
> 
> edit: midnight central timezone.



Double your pleasure, double your fun.... with... uhh... Dragoneer... humping... ... ...At yo bum!

XD Doesn't really rhyme  but eh, Oh well.   Good enough.


----------



## Wolfie (Aug 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> I'd butt hump you so hard your belly would stretch from my lengthy... uh, ego. Yeeeeah, that's it.


 <--- Click me


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 18, 2006)

fingerbang ftw. also this thread has been officially derailed but since dragoneer had a part in it i don't care. i wonder what he'll say when he gets back online and sees what kinda' mess he helped start...


----------



## MaLaKa (Aug 18, 2006)

arGH! Gay furs! lol. 
Run away!

Love the derailment of the topic  Arc to retardation to gangbangin Dragoneer, tehehe I love FA 

By retardation I mean spilling coke into your Cable box lol


----------



## WHPellic (Aug 18, 2006)

MaLaKa said:
			
		

> arGH! Gay furs! lol.
> Run away!



Why? You're not Diamond.


----------



## MaLaKa (Aug 18, 2006)

Diamond?!  Is that some type of gay lingo?!? You discriminating me cause im straight?!@? lol jokes 

Explain to me what Diamond means and I will answer tehe


----------



## Swampwulf (Aug 18, 2006)

I think it's a matter of trust in the end.
From the end-user POV ( mine ) it just looks like a:
'You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas' sitution.

Even the people that 'support' him wonder if he should be trusted.
I certainly don't know what'll happen, but I just went through and made sure that I have current backups of the stuff I've posted here.


----------



## wut (Aug 18, 2006)

Diamond is a person.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 18, 2006)

MaLaKa said:
			
		

> Diamond?!  Is that some type of gay lingo?!?


They're not gay, they're faaaaaaaaaaaaaabuloooooous!


----------



## Wolfie (Aug 18, 2006)

wut said:
			
		

> Diamond is a person.



Nah.  He just _thinks_ he's people. :wink:


----------



## DracosBlackwing (Aug 18, 2006)

Well, glad to see this thread stayed on topic long enough for me to see it. :-/

All I have to say is this on the matter.

Yes, it might seem like a good idea to give Arcturus access to the site in an attempt to curb his eagerness to be a complete ass about not having access. But it's not, most likely. Sure, he's just a user, and being watched. But when he WASN'T a user, and STILL being watched, he hacked the shit out of your site, and crashed it over... and over... and over again. Now he's on the inside, and having one foot in the door is still further in that being locked out. I think all you've done is given him access to more deviltry under the guise of being one of those getting wronged.

When I heard that there was trouble with FA recently, I just... avoided it. When I heard Arcturus was involved, I rolled my eyes and thought, 'What, again? I wonder why they don't try stronger measures to deal with him?' Despite how some people reacted, hacking someone's webpage IS actually a federal offense... in the paper just today two boys ages 17 and 18 were put in jail over tampering charges, one with a pretty high bail on it. They're both looking at jail time if convicted.

This person has tried and tried to force his way into someplace he doesn't belong, if only because he worked hard to get out, and feels stupid for leaving. He was like the guy who leaves your house in a huff, then keeps climbing in the window. And the rest of you were just putting him back out, instead of calling the damn police.

I don't pretend to know what the relationships between you other admins and him were before he left, but he sounds like a loose cannon. Someone said he'll be asking for more, and I agree; I've dealt with people like that before, and they never have enough. He'll be truly happy when this place becomes like WTFur, with him in control, only his friends and those who are worried about what he'll do if they don't pretend to like him as members, and everyone else permabanned. Honestly, just hearing about the guy, I wouldn't be surprised to log on and find myself banned soon, just for saying something against him, 'just a member' or not.

The person who was fired was a good person, who wanted to promote FA. Firing him would be much like booting TheCrypto for doing good code... he's only doing his best too. Kick him out; he works to hard for the good of the site. Doesn't sound right, does it? What it sounds like is that your making your own loophole for someone to work into... oh, wait, he already did work into it, when you readmitted him.

Do I believe in forgiveness? Of course. But let him do something from outside of FA, without any reward expected that's GOOD for the site, THEN consider putting him back in in some fashion. What you've done is, if he's feeling like it, set him up in a position where he can work under the guise of innocence, then go 'What? I was right here!' when someone he doesn't likes account is deleted, or all their art is removed. Something serious, that can't be fixed. Then he walks away laughing his ass off.

Don't get me wrong; I know that your coders are working hard; I know one of them well enough to hear how he hates having to rebuild this site every few weeks, and I watch them log off in the wee hours of dawn to do more code for FA. Your programmers do it with skill and a knowledge of what they're about, and I think they can really make a difference. But no one is perfect, not even those two.

Plainly put, you made a mistake, imho. And another by firing one of your better supporters. And, just as plainly, I know that what I'm saying doesn't amount to much, other than the words you've just read. I hope they at least can get you to think on what you've done.

One last thing... where's Arcturus with HIS comments on this? I would think it would be helpful, hearing from him. Or is he banned from HERE too?


----------



## KurtBatz (Aug 18, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				DracosBlackwing said:
			
		

> One last thing... where's Arcturus with HIS comments on this? I would think it would be helpful, hearing from him. Or is he banned from HERE too?



Still banned. I checked. It's probably for the best, he's about as popular as botulism at the moment.  :evil:

Some of us have fully working short term memories and are well aware he hacked an administration account and used it to ban Dark_Nekogami two days ago. If his behaviour has suddenly changed within 48 hours, then frankly, I'm the Pope.


----------



## KurtBatz (Aug 18, 2006)

By the way....

Is the fact he's apparently still able to comment and troll on my FA journal entries despite being blocked an indicator that the block function isn't working correctly or is he using an exploit after only two days? (Reported to three seperate administrators) I never found out. The block function works FINE without everyone else I've tested it with  :roll:

Having spoken to Dragoneer last night, I'm willing to bite my tongue HARD for a while and let things play out even though I don't like this at all. In fact, I doubt you'll find anyone more critical of this situation. I won't tolerate any exploits from him though.


----------



## XeNoX (Aug 18, 2006)

KurtBatz said:
			
		

> Is the fact he's apparently still able to comment and troll on my FA journal entries despite being blocked an indicator that the block function isn't working correctly or is he using an exploit after only two days? (Reported to three seperate administrators) I never found out. The block function works FINE without everyone else I've tested it with  :roll:



The block function is known to act up, or mabe you just wrote his name wrong (so many people do that apparently) 

I hardly see how rebuttaling your statements could be considered trolling, too, which is rather hard to say after the journal is gone, don't you think?


----------



## Revrant (Aug 18, 2006)

So a vicious Dog attacks your fence every day, and thus you decide, if you let the dog IN, it can attack the fence from the inside, keeping others out.

That's a fascinating theory, except it has one flaw - The dog isn't after the fence, it's after those inside the fence, and after he starts bullying all of you to get his way, we'll have to deal with another few Months of downtime when you summon the strength to say no(I Hope you still do), all the while he's collecting freely accessible information on *how* to make those months happen. = That's what a hacker does, that's just their agenda when they have that access, he might feign helping, but he's just collecting more thrust for his next blackmailing.

Why haven't you guys just filed charges against him and be Done with it? Call the damned FBI, if you had he probably would've left us alone before he wore you all down into giving up and letting him back in.


----------



## KurtBatz (Aug 18, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				XeNoX said:
			
		

> KurtBatz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's a problem with your statement.

At least two administrators looked at my account last night and verified I had written Arcturus's name correctly in the block list. Needless to say, that was the first thing I checked.


----------



## Luiswulf (Aug 18, 2006)

I'm sorry but I fail to see how removing the ban on Arcturus is going to solve anything or help FA. You want his help on looking out for bugs or exploits (which is questionable, considering the number of times he acted on them), but what does that have to do with him getting back inside a community which he tried to destroy time and time again just because of attention whoring and personal grudges?

As one of those who previously abandoned FA because of the split and the following hack attacks, I think the users should have been informed of this move on the main page or with a Fender journal. Not everybody reads the forums, as it's not compulsory for being part of the community. 
Sure, you might say that removing a ban is not something that should go to the main page, but this was not a normal ban and you know it. Removing Arc's ban is not an act of forgiveness, but rather condoning all he has done thus far.


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 18, 2006)

this thread is goin' nowhere fast just round and round in circles. 
as for me, in response to what malaka had said, i'm not gay i'm more or less bi. and dragoneer is right; it is fabulous.


----------



## Acroth (Aug 18, 2006)

Is there someone watching over Arcturus making sure he doesn't try to slip an exploit in ? Or is he just pointing out what he found?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

Acroth said:
			
		

> Is there someone watching over Arcturus making sure he doesn't try to slip an exploit in ? Or is he just pointing out what he found?



May I ask something? Is there some reason people aren't reading posts? I mean the thread started with this statement:



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> I need to set some things straight.
> 
> *He is just a user, and one we are watching.* We have informed Arcturus that if he does, in fact, find an exploit he is to notify of how to re-create it so that we can resolve the issue or the ban will go back on. Not only that, we have added quite a bit of additional security to the back end of FA (open proxy detection, blocking noted hacking utilities).


----------



## Goliath (Aug 18, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Err considering he was getting around the site pretty damn well when he was banned, what difference does it make that he's unbanned?


By that logic, what difference does it make if he stays banned? Wouldn't that be more productive towards him tightning up security issues if he has to try to work around the ban system?


----------



## facek (Aug 18, 2006)

DracosBlackwing said:
			
		

> One last thing... where's Arcturus with HIS comments on this? I would think it would be helpful, hearing from him. Or is he banned from HERE too?



Arcturus told Dragoneer to leave him banned from the forums but still unblock him, he can read everything but he just cannot post, this IS a good idea since if he decided to post it would be like a nuclear explosion, all the haters would come out of the woodworks just to flame.


----------



## Acroth (Aug 18, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Acroth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well when there is a couple hundred posts to go through.  I'm just asking the question no need to be smart.


----------



## wut (Aug 18, 2006)

Goliath said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except..getting around a ban is neither hard for somebody who knows what they're doing, nor something you can reliably stop without an invite code system. 



			
				Acroth said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> Well when there is a couple hundred posts to go through.  I'm just asking the question no need to be smart.



Uhm...It's in the first post.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

Goliath said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then let me clarify this for you. 

I said in the first sentence I don't agree with the unbanning. (Go back and read since you only HALF quoted me)

My second statement is about the fact that Latex went on a tangent saying the site would go down because he was unbanned. I'm saying the guy was able to hack the site WHILE he was banned. The banning is a placebo, at this point because the security isn't great.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

Acroth said:
			
		

> Well when there is a couple hundred posts to go through.  I'm just asking the question no need to be smart.



What couple hundred posts to go through? It's the *FIRST* post.


What is wrong with being smart? I thought that's a GOOD thing. People are telling me now I need to be the opposite? Which is stupid?


----------



## TORA (Aug 18, 2006)

In before admins lock this thread.


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 18, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				facek said:
			
		

> Arcturus told Dragoneer to leave him banned from the forum



"told"?

People "tell" someone to do something when they have power or authority over them. They "ask" when they are negotiateing or discussing.


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 18, 2006)

[size=xx-large]you one post sock puppets need to learn how to read before posting.  Pay attention.[/size]

The fence analogy, and all similar analogies are flawed for the simple fact that the so-called "fence" has holes in it big enough for just about anyone to get through.  The only difference between now and then is that instead of arc being banned, he is now unbanned, and arc's supposedly promised not to use dangerous exploits before telling the admins about it.  HE COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU PEOPLE SUSPECT HE CAN DO NOW BACK WHEN HE WAS BANNED.  THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING A DETERMINED PERSON FROM EVADING A BAN IN 2 SECONDS.

So, let's see here. If he could have done all this stuff before he was unbanned, why does he need to be unbanned?  He didn't need to be unbanned is the answer -- he just asked to be, and in return he said he'd stop being such a dickface to the FA administration.  I was there when I heard him say it in person (on IRC), that all he wanted from the FA guys all along was a little respect.  Now, if I were FA, that would come very begrudgingly, and it has.  But just the same, stupid analogies that don't apply are getting you guys nowhere.

(I could, for example, easily pull an analogy out my ass that most game developers today started out as people who hacked and pirated the games 10 years ago in the demoscene -- but since that really has nothing to do with what we're saying here, it would just be smoke and mirrors.  Just like all the other BS analogies I've been hearing)


----------



## facek (Aug 18, 2006)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> facek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, they tell people things to deliver a verbal communication, just like I am telling you that when you have power you *order* things.


----------



## Emerson (Aug 18, 2006)

*RE:     Arcturus*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Acroth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BE MORE DUMB.

On a side note: Special thanks to Dragoneer for explaining the situation in more detail. The decision makes far more sense now and I think it was for the better.


----------



## cesarin (Aug 18, 2006)

facek said:
			
		

> DracosBlackwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



considering he's already making posts randomly at FA's main site, I dont think it would be worse..


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> BE MORE DUMB.
> 
> On a side note: Special thanks to Dragoneer for explaining the situation in more detail. The decision makes far more sense now and I think it was for the better.



Sorry gotta bring out that quote again:



			
				Dark Helmet said:
			
		

> "Now you will see that evil will triumph, because good is dumb."



But yeah, whether you agree with it or not, I would at least think people would respect him enough to read it before commenting.


----------



## Emerson (Aug 18, 2006)

Dark Helmet posts here? Holy shit! He's more famous than any furry!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> Dark Helmet posts here? Holy shit! He's more famous than any furry!





			
				Samuel Jackson as Nelville Flynn said:
			
		

> I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!


----------



## Wakboth (Aug 18, 2006)

Luiswulf said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I fail to see how removing the ban on Arcturus is going to solve anything or help FA. You want his help on looking out for bugs or exploits (which is questionable, considering the number of times he acted on them), but what does that have to do with him getting back inside a community which he tried to destroy time and time again just because of attention whoring and personal grudges?



Agreed. If he wants to hack the site, he can do it whether he's banned or not, true. If he really wants, he can probably evade the banning, either by setting up sockpuppet accounts, or in some other way. But neither of those are a good reason, in my opinion, to allow him back to FA.


----------



## Goliath (Aug 18, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Then let me clarify this for you.
> 
> I said in the first sentence I don't agree with the unbanning. (Go back and read since you only HALF quoted me)
> 
> My second statement is about the fact that Latex went on a tangent saying the site would go down because he was unbanned. I'm saying the guy was able to hack the site WHILE he was banned. The banning is a placebo, at this point because the security isn't great.


Just because I half quoted you doesn't mean I didn't read everything you said  I just don't like "spamming" forums with extraneous quotes. I find it annoying to read, like when people forward joke e-mails that still contain list of previous recipiants and the multitued of greater thans symobls that have collected from the replys and forwards that proceeded it. However, there does appear to be quite a few people who only read half of a post (or miss the first post entirely) so I see how my limited quote could be taken out of context.

That being said, I never insinuated at any point that you agreed with the ban lift. It could be argued that your compliant indifference (the part I quoted) speaks that you don't disagree with it either... But honestly, that's neither here or there since the intent of my post was not to analyze your opinion but meerly to offer a hypothetical question. My second question was meerly an attempt to show some levity (hence the smily face) 

This thread feels very pointless now. Everybody appears to be more concerned with question doding and being loud than having a relevant conversation. Besides, it sounds to me like Dragoneer has pretty much made up his mind: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I just hope his faith isn't misplaced and we don't end up seeing a "I told you so" thread in a few months. Meanwhile, I'm going find something more constructive to do ^_^

Thank you very much for your insight.


----------



## Emerson (Aug 18, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Emerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've had it with these mother fucking furries on this mother fucking message board!


----------



## Wolfie (Aug 18, 2006)

Emerson said:
			
		

> I've had it with these mother fucking furries on this mother fucking message board!



I've had it with these muthafuckin' _anti_-furries on this muthafuckin' *furry* message board!:wink:

And I am joking every bit as much as Emerson was


----------



## WHPellic (Aug 18, 2006)

Honestly, I'm more concerned about FA's reputation with regards to letting Arcturus back on the site. This could cause a serious backlash.

Dragoneer, I understand the point you're coming from, but honestly, I don't like this one bit.

I REALLY hope you know what you're doing.


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 19, 2006)

I think most of yous need to GTFO it.
He can do the exact same things as when he was banned. 
All that's changed is that he could 'betray' the site again.


----------



## DracosBlackwing (Aug 19, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> I think most of yous need to GTFO it.
> He can do the exact same things as when he was banned.
> All that's changed is that he could 'betray' the site again.



*laughs* I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another is why would you put him in that position in the first place?

But I also agree with one other person who said this thread has wound down to attempts to derail the purpose of it, and spinning of wheels, getting no one anywhere. Does anyone have anything that hasn't already been said, but deals with this situation to say? If not, I would say time to lock this one down and move on...


----------



## blackdragoon (Aug 19, 2006)

i agree.


----------



## Vali (Aug 19, 2006)

To me that sounds rediculous to unban him. It's not a matter of safety by any means; it's a matter of principal. 

The admin has basically pacified Acturus. What if he wants to be made an admin in the future or something? What will they say to him then? 

You know, this is just like dealiing with a small child. Banning him served the purpose of letting him know that what he did was NOT okay. And keeping him banned sends the message that no matter how many tantrums you throw, that's not going to get you what you want. That's not how the real world works at all.

So I think it was a foolish and frankly spinless thing to do, to go back on their original decision to ban him, because he repeatedly hacks the site. 

My suggestion? I say they get his IP address or.....something (I don't know people; I admit that I'm not a computer/internet wiz.), and see about getting the authorities involved. Because I'm sure there has to be a law against hacking and e-terrorism (which is what it is, if you ask me.)  

That might sound harsh, but it will put an end to some of this BS if he gets a little jail time. Hard to prove, hard to get evidence, I know. But that's my feelings on it. I say we get the authorities involved, if we can prove that he keeps maliciously hacking the site.

  -Vali Swineson

P.S.: Don't bothering replying specifically to me, because I just wanted to voice my opinion and let people know that I think that decision makes no sense. Flame me, I don't care. :/


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 19, 2006)

Vali said:
			
		

> My suggestion? I say they get his IP address or.....something (I don't know people; I admit that I'm not a computer/internet wiz.), and see about getting the authorities involved. Because I'm sure there has to be a law against hacking and e-terrorism (which is what it is, if you ask me.)
> 
> That might sound harsh, but it will put an end to some of this BS if he gets a little jail time. Hard to prove, hard to get evidence, I know. But that's my feelings on it. I say we get the authorities involved, if we can prove that he keeps maliciously hacking the site.



Most of what you said was understandable till the above.

I *seriously* wonder how many people would like to see a furry porn archive go to court, especially when they might get scrutinized later for its content. x.x


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 19, 2006)

IP bans can be bypassed with Web Proxies or by simply unplugging your active connection for a few seconds then plugging it back in (unless it's dial-up)
MAC bans don't exist.


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 19, 2006)

even if they did, you can spoof a mac address


----------



## quentinwolf (Aug 19, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> IP bans can be bypassed with Web Proxies or by simply unplugging your active connection for a few seconds then plugging it back in (unless it's dial-up)
> MAC bans don't exist.



Not always, each provider is different...
Dialup is almost always different every time you re-connect...
A fair bit of the Residential ADSL/Cable plans are like that, unplug, and plug it back in to get a new IP, but mine (back when I had the Residential plan) Unplugging and plugging it back in, even if it were for weeks, would result in the same IP... A new IP was given every 7 - 10 days, and even then, it would usualy cycle through only 3 or 4 different IPs before going back to the original one.  It was sort of semi-static.
Business Internet plans have Static IP's such as mine, and the only way to change the IP is to login to the web based ISP Interface, null out your current mac address, let it reset to 0.0.0.0, then enter the mac address again, and it'll grab a new static ip.  (Different for each ISP I guess.)

But yeah, Web Proxies could probably be used.
The bad thing about banning IPs or even a whole range of IPs is usually a bad idea because there could be several hundred other people using the same ISP in that area, and even though the chances are low, banning single IPs wont help simply because reconnecting usually fixes that.  (Also banning a range doesn't always help, since some ISPs have several IP Ranges, and reconnecting might jump you over to another one.)


----------



## Silverdragon00 (Aug 19, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				DracosBlackwing said:
			
		

> But I also agree with one other person who said this thread has wound down to attempts to derail the purpose of it, and spinning of wheels, getting no one anywhere. Does anyone have anything that hasn't already been said, but deals with this situation to say? If not, I would say time to lock this one down and move on...



hey, I'll agree to that too. Everything that was of any value to post here has been said, and now its pretty much a bunch of arguing, fighting, and bullshit. I think this thread (and the other one) need to be locked soon, because this is not helping anything, just causing more hostile situations


----------



## nrr (Aug 20, 2006)

quentinwolf said:
			
		

> Business Internet plans have Static IP's such as mine, and the only way to change the IP is to login to the web based ISP Interface, null out your current mac address, let it reset to 0.0.0.0, then enter the mac address again, and it'll grab a new static ip.  (Different for each ISP I guess.)


I have a /29 subnet, and the only way to change that around is to phone up my ISP and request that I get my subnet reallocated.  Since I have six machines sitting on the Internet that would need to be reconfigured, the chances of having me do that are pretty slim.

Also, I think there's a service fee that goes along with that, but I can't be certain.  I've never had to get a new block of eight addresses for any reason.


----------



## cesarin (Aug 20, 2006)

quentinwolf said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



installning a prove script that detects open proxies and banning them could help too


----------



## quentinwolf (Aug 20, 2006)

nrr said:
			
		

> quentinwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hehe, Exactly, that just proves my point  Every ISP is different... Mines controlled via a web interface, doesn't cost for me to change mine, I'm allowed 2 Static IPs with my current ($80) plan, the next one up ($160) allows 5 Static IPs

[attachment=326]

I have full control over mine, its assigned via my ISP's DHCP servers, but its 100% static, my one IP i've changed ONCE due to various reasons, the other Ive had for several years now with no change.  (Obviously the fields have been nulled to save my own privacy  lol)


----------



## WolfeByte (Aug 20, 2006)

quentinwolf said:
			
		

> ...



Zomg Canadian!!11

/drunk outburst, and goodnight.


----------



## quentinwolf (Aug 20, 2006)

WolfeByte said:
			
		

> Zomg Canadian!!11
> 
> /drunk outburst, and goodnight.



XD Omg, YAY!  (No worries I posted my previous entry while... ...wasted... *shifty eyed*... too.)

*Waves to a fellow Albertan*


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 20, 2006)

cesarin said:
			
		

> installning a prove script that detects open proxies and banning them could help too



that only works if you know the port.  Common ports rule out common proxies, but custom made ones and *cough* so called "onions" go right through it.


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 23, 2006)

Before I start, I wanna say I don't care either way if Arcturus is let in or not. It's not my balls that are gonna fry when and if he does something he shouldn't. 

That being said I'd like to make some points....



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Err considering he was getting around the site pretty damn well when he was banned, what difference does it make that he's unbanned?





			
				sasaki said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if they ban him or not, he can hack the site either way





			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> Banning people from FA does NOT stop them from accessing the site through other means.  Hypothetically, someone determined enough and smart enough to hack the side can evade any ban, easily.



Am I the only one that finds this argument mindbloggingly stupid?

This is like saying "hey that dude is trashing my store every now and then, so I might as well stop trying and just let him in.. he's gonna trash it anyways"

In any case I agree with



			
				WHPellic said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm more concerned about FA's reputation with regards to letting Arcturus back on the site. This could cause a serious backlash.
> 
> Dragoneer, I understand the point you're coming from, but honestly, I don't like this one bit.
> 
> I REALLY hope you know what you're doing.



Hats off to this guy.

If someone has openly came to my store, made a wreck, and made continous efforts to wreck my place again, I am not going to go and say: "Well, okay...come on in already". 

It would make me look like a pussy. It would make me look I gave in to fear.

Beyond the fact whether Arcturus should be let in as a user or not, here's one truth. The FA administration gave a step back on their word. They unbanned someone that lots of furs saw fit to have banned in the first place. That isn't pretty.

And finally...



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> *He is just a user, and one we are watching.* We have informed Arcturus that if he does, in fact, find an exploit he is to notify of how to re-create it so that we can resolve the issue or the ban will go back on.



And you have _his_ word on that? How trustable is it? I definetly wouldn't trust the word of someone who openly wanted to trash my site.

Besides when and if you have to place the ban again it would be too late. Not for FA, not for its users, but for its administration.


----------



## Bokracroc (Aug 23, 2006)

We ain't talking about a shop. If we were, that would be vaild. But this is the Intarwebs.
The way this 'disscusion' is going, we might as well take this to e-court and e-sue him.
It's been done, if they are wrong, alot of people will 'suffer' and they can only blame themself's (The Krew)


----------



## ediskrad (Aug 23, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> We ain't talking about a shop. If we were, that would be vaild. But this is the Intarwebs.



I'm beyond that. I'm critizicing the attitude. Just because "he can do it whether he's banned or not" is not a reason to un-ban him.


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 23, 2006)

I don't buy the whole shop analogy.  Do you think the DMCA is a smart rule for thinking it can prevent people from even -trying- to break an anti-circumvention measure?  Nevermind the intentions of the person trying to break in for a second here -- What I'm saying is there is essentially no bite to the so-called "deterrant" being placed on these things, and no matter what the intention, you're going to inconvinience good-intentioned individuals and piss off dangerous individuals (who won't even be hindered by this measure) alike.  

Better to remove the so-called "deterrant", if it not only fails to deter but encourages more trouble -- if you can see the big picture.  Otherwise, stick to your guns, if that's all you can see.  That's my take on the whole shop analogy.


----------



## verix (Aug 24, 2006)

Jesus fucking lord allmighty I hate this thread.






Arcturus is the Sibe of the 21st century. _Fuck._


			
				ediskrad said:
			
		

> And you have _his_ word on that? How trustable is it? I definetly wouldn't trust the word of someone who openly wanted to trash my site.
> 
> Besides when and if you have to place the ban again it would be too late. Not for FA, not for its users, but for its administration.


If the admins banned me for trying to help them with what I did a few weeks ago, I'd be trashing the fuck out of the site, too, to be honest. That's what happened a while ago with the old ways of administration with FA, yet _no one seems to remember that_. Now that they've done a 180, I've decided to help them instead of be an asshole. I assume Arc is the same way.


----------



## Hanazawa (Aug 24, 2006)

FREE HAT
FREE HAT
FREE HAT


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				verix said:
			
		

> If the admins banned me for trying to help them



I don't remember "trying to help FA" as one of the reasons for Arcturus perma-ban.

But then I am not up on such matters.


----------



## furry (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				ediskrad said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, it isn't a reason to unban him.
In fact, it wasn't presented as such.

It was directed at the "if we let him in he'll trash the site" argumenters.


----------



## verix (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> I don't remember "trying to help FA" as one of the reasons for Arcturus perma-ban.
> 
> But then I am not up on such matters.


I don't mean Arc specifically, but I'll clarify anyway:

When a hole was found-- by anyone-- and then reported to Jheryn, for example, sometimes the user would be simply "banned for hacking." No real explanation, no questions about the hole, really-- just a ban, because they were hacking. On the surface, it makes sense, because they were hacking! And hacking is bad.

But in reality, people don't just hack to be jerks-- some people hack to find holes and report them (like me and Arcturus currently). Some people _do_ hack to be jerks (habbo black-dude closin' the pool). Unfortunately, the administration in the past had a sweeping method for hackers of all kinds-- just outright ban them. Because they're hacking.

There was also the case of "dissent = trolling = ban" as well ("Be cool, don't complain"), and, as childish as it was, retaliation occurred on behalf of those who were believed to be unjustly punished. Thinly-veiled administrative tactics like this was practically taunting those who abhor idiotic administration. So the result was similar to what happens when you poke the shit out of a bee-hive or a wasp's nest-- the more you poke it and agitate it, the angrier the hive becomes. This, plus the numerous security holes posed regardless of them being reported, resulted in an attack.

Those who attacked the website, of course, are responsible for the attack, yet those who approached the problem irresponsibly and incorrectly, essentially agitating the tactical, dissenting base without the appropriate security measures in place, are responsible for the attack occurring. It was really a retarded, endless cycle of "NEW FEATURE! IT'S SECURE THIS TIME (OH MAN WE'RE SERIOUS THIS TIME)! HACK = BAN" followed by "JHERYN YOU'RE RETARDED LOL HACK HACK HACK" until it finally got stopped. I can't remember when that happened, though.

Either way, I guess what I'm saying is that now that the administration is both A) listening to the userbase when there are security problems to be fixed, and B) no longer irresponsibly administrating their website, there is thusly no agitation. And since there is no agitation, there is then safety in employing hackers.

Really, now that Arcturus is allowed to do his thing, and there aren't any real vendettas apparent anymore, what problem is there in "hiring" Arcturus? I mean, shit, I was there right along beside him when he was defacing his own userpage for shits and giggles (see my userpage for proof-- I never really bothered to get rid of that iframe HTML), and I felt the exact same way: if the administration isn't going to listen to the hackers who are reporting bugs, if the administration is simply going to ignore dissent and outright punish it for being bad, then I will gladly attack it and reap the comedic rewards at the expense of others. Now that that's changed completely, I have no qualms helping everyone out, because my suggestions are no longer falling on deaf-ears while Chicken Little says "LORDY WE WERE NEVER WARNED, OH WOE IS US!"

In summation: no vendetta, no security issue, no problem.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 24, 2006)

Old times verix, remember when I was doing bug fixes when I was like one of the few bug squashers in FA v1? XD

Banned for saying the code sucked, and they needed better admins, even though I was criticial hell least I put time in trying to actually fix parts of the site XD


----------



## nobuyuki (Aug 24, 2006)

everyone who's gotten banned from this site for being outspoken needs some sort of special badge or something, I swear.


----------



## verix (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> everyone who's gotten banned from this site for being outspoken needs some sort of special badge or something, I swear.








 :B

I kid, I kid.


----------



## uncia2000 (Aug 24, 2006)

:roll:


Hey, you lot... quit patting yourselves on the back quite so much!

_*reads*... OK, so that's thanks to Arshes and verix. What do I have to thank you for, Nobu? _


----------



## verix (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> _*reads*... OK, so that's thanks to Arshes and verix. What do I have to thank you for, Nobu? _


for fresh 8-bit beats


----------



## furry (Aug 24, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> :roll:
> 
> 
> Hey, you lot... quit patting yourselves on the back quite so much!
> ...



Well, you seen that Larry Flint movie?
I didn't.

But I'm pretty sure there would be similarities somehow and medals should be awarded to Nobu.


----------



## uncia2000 (Aug 24, 2006)

Gee... choice of two. Difficult decision. ^^
_*ponders...*_

Seriously though, if we've made it to a "no vendetta, no security issue, no problem" situation, I'm more than happy with that and trusting things continue that way for the benefit of the whole community.

(Idealistic snow'pard or what? )


----------



## kitetsu (Aug 24, 2006)

verix said:
			
		

> Dave Hyena said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quote for the fucking truth, bro.


----------



## furryskibum (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks for clearing that up, Verix.  THAT makes much more sense.  :3


----------



## Wolfblade (Aug 25, 2006)

verix said:
			
		

> I felt the exact same way: if the administration isn't going to listen to the hackers who are reporting bugs, if the administration is simply going to ignore dissent and outright punish it for being bad, then I will gladly attack it and reap the comedic rewards *at the expense of others*.



This is the point most people who are against this move seem to have a problem with though (and admittedly, there seem to be several people who couldn't care less about putting others out so long as a giggle is obtained). All of the stuff he's done tends to try and get justified as something along the lines of 'he only did it because the staff pissed him off.' But he wasn't just screwing with the staff. His fun was at the expense of all the people who use this site. Some people (more than a few it seems) apparently have issue with thinking there's nothing wrong with screwing with thousands of people who've done nothing to you just because you find it funny or because you have a bone to pick with the handful that run the place.

Your reasoning for why he did (and you would) attack the administration does nothing to help the impression of his character. Besides that, this reasoning would only apply if he was only attacking the administration. His attacks affected a great number of people for whom he didn't even have the flimsy excuses used to justify his grudge with the staff.

The staff changing attitude is a good thing in that it will hopefully prevent more people like Arcturus from feeling this warped justification in going around screwing with the site. That's a good thing. But it doesn't in any way make sense to write off someone's past history just because they >say< they'll play nice now. The staff has obviously changed their approach long before this mess. But what has Arcturus done in the slightest to give any _reason_ to trust that he _deserves_ this chance? Especially when Nrr, who (correct me if I'm wrong of course) hasn't done anything like what Arcturus has done against this community, and has helped in the non-destructive sense, and offered to help more, and has been turned down.

All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that simple logic would say that rather than employ people where there is no doubt they would attack your site if you don't keep them pleased, a better idea would be to try and find capable people to help because they genuinely want to help, and would only _leave_ if you piss them off (as opposed to becoming a permanent distraction, irritant, and hindrance to the community you're trying to offer something nice to). Then try not to piss them off.



			
				verix said:
			
		

> In summation: no vendetta, no security issue, no problem.



Exactly what evidence is there to even _suggest_ that there isn't still a vendetta? His being allowed back in was in direct response to him once again messing with the site. Stealing an admin account, using it to post a nasty comment to a user and then banning that user does little as far as suggesting he doesn't still harbor some sort of bitterness (the fact that the supposedly now-functioning block feature seems to be selectively buggy in his favor on more than one account is an interesting coincidence too). Rather, what he did with the admin account after hijacking it fairly clearly demonstrates that he still has a desire to put his personal opinions and motives ahead of the good of the site and community overall, and wasn't that one of the core issues behind his _choice_ to leave in the first place?

His history and motives for such has been established. What has not been established is _what has changed_ to give anyone any reason to believe he has turned over a new leaf?


----------



## verix (Aug 25, 2006)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Some people (more than a few it seems) apparently have issue with thinking there's nothing wrong with screwing with thousands of people who've done nothing to you just because you find it funny or because you have a bone to pick with the handful that run the place.


And rightly so. They see it as being an asshole as ruining their days. The assholes see it as teaching the admins a lesson about fixing their code and paying attention to security issues when they're brought up.

I'd say it's worked so far. They've been burned so many times, now when a security issue springs up, they fix it _immidiately_.


			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Your reasoning for why he did (and you would) attack the administration does nothing to help the impression of his character. Besides that, this reasoning would only apply if he was only attacking the administration. His attacks affected a great number of people for whom he didn't even have the flimsy excuses used to justify his grudge with the staff.


This is assuming I'm defending his character, which I wasn't-- I was defending his actions and explaining the reasoning behind them, and why he may be more trustable now than before. 


			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> The staff changing attitude is a good thing in that it will hopefully prevent more people like Arcturus from feeling this warped justification in going around screwing with the site. That's a good thing. But it doesn't in any way make sense to write off someone's past history just because they >say< they'll play nice now. The staff has obviously changed their approach long before this mess. But what has Arcturus done in the slightest to give any _reason_ to trust that he _deserves_ this chance? Especially when Nrr, who (correct me if I'm wrong of course) hasn't done anything like what Arcturus has done against this community, and has helped in the non-destructive sense, and offered to help more, and has been turned down.


Why write off Arcturus's past history? I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that he may be more trustable now than he was in the past due to no-longer existing problems with things such as absolute irresponsible administration. 

You're assuming that the selection of users (note this: not admins, not moderators, _users_) who have the ability to hack the site to watch is a binary method. It must be one, or the other. Better safe than sorry: why not have both? Two heads are better than one-- _especially_ when it comes to hacking. If you've ever looked at two people's code, they could program the exact same thing, yet the style will be different, either somewhat, or vividly obvious. Just like drawing. Some people will see things in a different manner.

Why does the FBI hire hackers who infiltrate their database? Why does the FBI hire people like the basis for the character in _Catch Me If You Can_? Because they're good at what they do, and they're a good resource. And by watching them closely, they can learn to foil people who are more astute at destruction. It's doubleplus good when those folks volunteer.

The only difference between my FBI example and this situation is that *Arcturus is not being officially hired or put on staff. He is simply a user who does magical things with a computer, just like me.*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that simple logic would say that rather than employ people where there is no doubt they would attack your site if you don't keep them pleased, a better idea would be to try and find capable people to help because they genuinely want to help, and would only _leave_ if you piss them off (as opposed to becoming a permanent distraction, irritant, and hindrance to the community you're trying to offer something nice to). Then try not to piss them off.


He's not being employed.



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Exactly what evidence is there to even _suggest_ that there isn't still a vendetta? His being allowed back in was in direct response to him once again messing with the site. Stealing an admin account, using it to post a nasty comment to a user and then banning that user does little as far as suggesting he doesn't still harbor some sort of bitterness (the fact that the supposedly now-functioning block feature seems to be selectively buggy in his favor on more than one account is an interesting coincidence too). Rather, what he did with the admin account after hijacking it fairly clearly demonstrates that he still has a desire to put his personal opinions and motives ahead of the good of the site and community overall, and wasn't that one of the core issues behind his _choice_ to leave in the first place?


I use the same evidence to prove there isn't with the same evidence to prove there is: none. It's simply my analysis thanks to the actions of the current administration. I'll explain my logic:

Previous: Holes are pointed out. People are banned. People get angry, retaliate. Endless cycle occurrs. Eventually, it stops. People are finally asked, "how'd you do it?" The answer is "fuck off."
Now: Holes are pointed out. People are asked, "how'd you do it?" People answer. Holes are fixed. _Hacker volunteers to continue helping._
As far as my understanding with this whole Arcturus situation, the latter happened. Of course, some defacing occurred. Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

When I found the cookie exploit, I posted a link to my LJ saying "hay guys, check this out! I'll totally deface your page!" I then proceeded to-- you guessed it-- deface people's pages. Although I had the courtesy to tell people ahead of time that I was going to do so if they visited the link, the point still stands-- I abused my power. Crypto told me to stop. I stopped. Again, I would assume Arcturus would do the same.

Although I have no "evidence," I'm going to point this out right now: I'm not going to change your mind. No matter what I say, you will still believe that Arcturus is someone who should not be hired, rendering this entire argument moot. We'll see how this works out, though.


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 25, 2006)

*RE:   Arcturus*



			
				verix said:
			
		

> being an asshole as ruining their days.



Yes, this is exactly it. The faults are not all on the part of an "absolute irresponsible administration".

In acting like this, the so-called "dissidents", alienated a lot of their would be supporters (and who isn't in favour of a secure and stable FA?!?!?!) and allowed themselves to be set up as being "a group who were against FA", caused lots of drama, and hindered their own claimed objective of making FA more secure and the admins more responsive. 

If the admins are more responsive now, and holes patched quicker, I certainly don't think the spewing vile abuse at them, or trying to hack into FA (regardless of how this will affect the other users) to "prove that I am right", helped speed this process.

To my eyes, It was almost as though the so-called "dissidents" (and what a melodramatic term that is in this situation), went out of their way to project an exceptionally obnoxious, agressive, chestbeating and teenage "I'm in it for the lulz! LOL INTERNETS!" attitude. Observe the FA IRC debacle for that. 

I'm sure these people are all perfectly fine in real life, but oh boy did they ever screw up on making a positive impression and my lord did they suceed in pissing off the people they claimed they wanted to help and making it worse.

It seems as though there was just about one or two people who were the source of trouble and allegedly a solution to it, all in one.

As for the future, we'll see. 

O, now, let Richmond and Elizabeth,
The true succeeders of each royal house,
By God's fair ordinance conjoin together!
And let their heirs, God, if thy will be so.
Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,
With smiling plenty and fair prosperous days!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 25, 2006)

I like how one out of context sentence these days on the forum are means to write over four paragraphs of text, complete with misconstrued analogies and so forth.

The decision has been made, I don't see the point in arguing about it with someone else that can't make a decision about it and turning it into a soapboxing debate. Take it up with an admin in private I guess.


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 25, 2006)

*RE:  Arcturus*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I like how one out of context sentence these days on the forum are means to write over four paragraphs of text, complete with misconstrued analogies and so forth.
> 
> The decision has been made, I don't see the point in arguing about it with someone else that can't make a decision about it and turning it into a soapboxing debate. Take it up with an admin in private I guess.



The lady doth protest too much, methinks. :wink:


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 25, 2006)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hehe well, it's just that it's obvious no one is seeing completely eye to eye on the issue, and the topic seemed dead for a while, I just don't see the point in trying to make long essays about one sentence or out of context quote when you know they're not going to change their mind.


----------



## Silverdragon00 (Aug 25, 2006)

*RE:    Arcturus*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I just don't see the point in trying to make long essays about one sentence or out of context quote when you know they're not going to change their mind.



so does this mean this thread is dead? it's about damn time, i say!


----------



## verix (Aug 25, 2006)

Selective reading sure is fun.


			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> If the admins are more responsive now


They are. I'm glad you agree with me.


----------



## Radric (Aug 26, 2006)

*Out of Context*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> ...I certainly don't think... "...I am right"....


Eh, everyone's wrong once in a while.



> To my eyes, It was... all perfectly fine...


Perhaps, but it seems that some don't think that it was.



> ...they wanted to help....


Yeah, they did.  Kind of a shame what happened when they first tried to help, isn't it?



> It seems as though there was... one... solution....


Unban Arcturus?



> O, now, let... God... come...!


I dunno, that seems a bit drastic.



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I like... days on the forum... complete with... arguing... and... soapboxing....


Doesn't that get tiresome after a while, though?



> Take... an admin in private....


O__O  I'll pass.


----------

