2016-03-10 17:45:59

Yes Nibar, we all know why you are angry.  Just because you are angry does not mean Walter will be unbanned.  I think everyone involved just needs to accept what has happened, and let it go.

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up

2016-03-10 18:21:22

To the people asking for open justice, I think it's also worth pointing out for the record that Dark appointed the moderators to help him, and we are no more aware of the situation than the rest of the forum. Dark is the chief mod, he decided to act on his own intuition, and his decision is final. We are trusting Dark's judgement, by necessity. I hope more details do eventually come to light, but shouting about it won't change the situation. Dark has stated that he feels it was necessary and also that he couldn't reveal more information. Until that changes, I'm inclined to believe that Dark has most likely taken the right course of action, and suggest that people refrain from questioning the situation further without more information to hand.

Just myself, as usual.

2016-03-10 18:32:37

If Walters private message to Dark got posted here on the forum, then it'll be much worse for Walter, and the people who are involved. I don't think that's going to happen, because one of the persons Dark have got a private message from have said that he or she both needs and wants to remain unknown. So, properly mainly because of that reason, Dark is not going to post Walters private message here on the forum. An other reason: Private messages are private for a reason. They are not public, and shall not be given out to the public. When you send someone a private message, then you don't expect the message appears on a public forum.
If you don't like Darks desission or if you think he's a bad and unfair moderator, well, fair enough. But as soon as you don't know what Walter have said to Dark privately and what others have said to Dark in private messages, then you can't really mean much about Walters bann from the forum. Sometimes a moderator needs to do not so nice things on the forum, and this situration is just, really crap.
So for those who still think that Walters ban is unfair, it's sad that you can't see a situration from more than one side. What do I think? Well, I have nothing to say. Why? Because I don't know what Dark has been told privately. The only thing I know is that I'm glad that Dark do care about this forums members security, which in this situration must be a not that nice thing to do.

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

2016-03-10 20:18:10

Moderation!

To Ishen and Nibar, your quite free to be angry with my decision and question it, but your comments towards Lori and the others who have come forward,  show an incredible insensativity here and a missunderstanding of just how damaging emotional abuse is.

Feel free to be angry and to dislike the decision, but please express your anger in a less harmful way otherwise you are making  an already extremely bad situation worse.

As to the decision itself, Slj is correct. I have been told things in confidence by Lori and others, and my decision was based on those confidences, which of course I can't share for obvious reasons. It wasn't a decision I made lightly.
If people don't like that decision, well that's up to them, however as Ironcross said, a few hurt feelings aren't a reason to let a potential risk continue, anymore than a criminal would be kept out of gaol because it might upset her/his mother.

I have explained my reasons for deciding to act as I did, and there's not a lot else I can say, particularly sinse certain people seem to have already made up their minds.

In which case, I suggest just letting the matter drop and moving on rather than taking yet another round trip on the flame war wagon big_smile.

With our dreaming and singing, Ceaseless and sorrowless we! The glory about us clinging Of the glorious futures we see,
Our souls with high music ringing; O men! It must ever be
That we dwell in our dreaming and singing, A little apart from ye. (Arthur O'Shaughnessy 1873.)

Thumbs up +2

2016-03-10 23:24:10

I am neither a mod nor familiar with either of the parties involved, but I do think the right decision was made. For those people who claim Walter should have been warned first, ask yourself this question. What would you do if some person on here posted a topic claiming it was a new game release, when in fact it was a bunch of viruses which damaged a lot of computers. Would you warn them first before banning them? I sincerely hope not.
While the evidence might be questionable to the public that in no way means there wasn't enough reason to ban someone.
I also have to agree with David, the fact that people give you stuff does not automatically make them a good person, and I find some of the first posts to this topic extremely distasteful. I am quite shocked that some people don't consider for a moment before posting something. I'm not saying that all accusations of stalking etc should automatically be classified as true, but dismissing them outright like that is just very insensitive.

Thumbs up +1

2016-03-11 02:45:59

Actually, Dark, if I am not mistaken, under Title XVIII, chapt. 41, sec. 873 of the United States Code, Walter could be arrested for blackmail. The section states, "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." I'm not sure if this qualifies, but it may.
Also, under Title XVIII, chapt. 47, sec. 1030 of the united states code, Walter could also be arrested for fraud and related activities connected to computers. While he didn't steel anything, he did forceably gain access to Lory's friend's computer by using threats and basically forcing her into submission, which could fall under this section. The entire section is quite long. It is posted below for your reference.

(a) Whoever—
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n)? of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;
(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
(A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer;
(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or
(C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is—
(1)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(2)
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if—
(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000; and
(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(3)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(4)
(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—
(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(II) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(III) physical injury to any person;
(IV) a threat to public health or safety;
(V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or
(VI) damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(C) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(5) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(D) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(5)(C) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both;
(F) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both; or
(G) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for—
(i) any other offense under subsection (a)(5); or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph.
(d)
(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section.
(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title.
(3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
(e) As used in this section—
(1) the term “computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer—
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
(3) the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession or territory of the United States;
(4) the term “financial institution” means—
(A) an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
(B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
(C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
(D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
(E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
(F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
(H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978); and
(I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a)?
1
of the Federal Reserve Act;
(5) the term “financial record” means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer’s relationship with the financial institution;
(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
(7) the term “department of the United States” means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive departments enumerated in section 101 of title 5;
(8) the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
(9) the term “government entity” includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
(10) the term “conviction” shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
(11) the term “loss” means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and
(12) the term “person” means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, governmental entity, or legal or other entity.
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in subclauses (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (V) of subsection (c)(4)(A)(i). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (c)(4)(A)(i)(I) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.
(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection, concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).
(i)
(1) The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, or convicted of conspiracy to violate this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person forfeit to the United States—
(A) such person’s interest in any personal property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and
(B) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.
(j) For purposes of subsection (i), the following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
(1) Any personal property used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section.
(2) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section
(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §?2102(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2190; amended Pub. L. 99–474, §?2, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1213; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §?7065, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4404; Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, §?962(a)(5), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 502; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, §?1205(e), title XXV, §?2597(j), title XXXV, §?3533, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4831, 4910, 4925; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXIX, §?290001(b)–(f), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2097–2099; Pub. L. 104–294, title II, §?201, title VI, §?604(b)(36), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3491, 3508; Pub. L. 107–56, title V, §?506(a), title VIII, §?814(a)–(e), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 366, 382–384; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §§?4002(b)(1), (12), 4005(a)(3), (d)(3), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1812, 1813; Pub. L. 107–296, title II, §?225(g), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2158; Pub. L. 110–326, title II, §§?203, 204(a), 205–208, Sept. 26, 2008, 122 Stat. 3561, 3563.)

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 04:03:20

Would that still apply for people outside the US?

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 04:47:10

Wow, I have never had an account onSTW, and after reading that log I don't plan on ever seaking one. Nothing personal towards Sam.
And its not even so much what Walter said in that log, it just seems very spammy and there's clearly no language filter. Not that I'm some goody goody, its the combonation of trash talk and spam really turns me off after a while. lol

All that off to one side. I'm seriously shocked and saddened to hear that Lori and anyone else related to this situation has been hurt, stalked and cyber bullyed. But to have it come from within our own audio games / blind community is extremely disturbing.

I know that sometimes, with blindness some mental / amotional baggage tends to manifest. I've played many RPGs and muds, been apart of beta teams for audio games, and subscribed to several game lists. So I know blind people can be just as inflamitory or snippy as anyone else. But this is a seriously extreme case!

Even though, we, the people who happened to be blind have to field our fair share of negativity and sometimes outright hostility from the sighted world, its insane to realize some of us feel the need to torcher each other going through the same challenges in life. And in a game setting, where everyone's just trying to spend some time away from the real world and relax... Its infuriating!

From all that I've read, I support you Dark and the steps you've taken to protect the rest of the community, and thank you for it.
Plus, I trust Dark's grasp on the situation, and I believe him to be a man of integrity. That's good enough for me, and it'll have to be for anyone who disagrees.
big_smile

I do hope justice is served somewhere other then this forum.

Lastly, I'm really glad I read beyond the first few post on page 1 of this thread. I was beginning to despair, heh, so thanks to the rest of you for restoring my faith in the blind community in reading all of your decent responses to this mess.
smile

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 05:53:42

Hi dark sir! I will never agree with you in this topic.
well my question to ethen  sir
In JNU some students protested against the army and they want to immortalised the terrorist Afzal guru
How will you look that?
I repetedly said that only the way of love can turn a wayward person.
I am proud of my country.
Where non violence is the main principle and we love that kind of persons who hates us.
punishment is for a crime and not for a criminal.
Thanks
Ishan

life's battle do not always go to the stronger and faster man,
But sooner or later who win the one who thinks he can!

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 06:29:30

ban who made ultra power's clone.
Ban who used insensitive language.
ban who is offensive for females.
everything should be banned.
but you cannot ban love, respect, devotion and dedication.
Many tried but noone got success.
If you want to try then try it.
but I know then what will happen.

life's battle do not always go to the stronger and faster man,
But sooner or later who win the one who thinks he can!

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 07:33:00

So guys, i'm happy to say that this topic can come to well, kind of, a happy ending. Have you guys ever considered this? That maybe someone has made this topic to bring walter down? That maybe someone made this topic just... well... well just to be mean? Just to... Just to... You get the point here. Well, I decided to jump into the drama stream and investigate my self, and it's time to show how lori, someone who we thought we could trust, like and well respect, has just betrayed all of us, stw, and walter. Oh walter, lori, what have you done to him. Now before you stop reading this post and think i'm pointing fingers, i'd incurrage you to read threw the entire post, as it is pretty much prooven that lori is lying to all of us and well, what. trying to create drama? ruin walters online life? something? Well, let's get started. Let's show you what I mean. Let's just start with the least amount of proof, and build it up, all together. Also sorry if I sound really rediculis, but i'm excited because practicly everything is prooven. Given in this post will be loggs, whiped of any sensitive information, and posted so you can see what I mean. So basicly, I demote walter, he wants to know why, and I send him this message he apparently sent to lorry that lory sent to me, coppied out of her chat_history.log file. And, as we'd expect for someone who was doing something bad, walter continuassly denied it. I tried everything to make him know that I knew it was true. Yes, I lied a little bit to him, told him about how I matched the IP addresses of the PM sender and his current IP. I told him they matched. Usually this will finily make any guilty person just give up, because they think I know everything. I never checked the server, and walter never gave in. He sounded like he was panicking, trying to tell me he didn't do it. So I asked him if I could do stuff. At this point he let's me into his computer and incurrages me to do absolutly anything I want, even install a virus if need be. Of course I didn't do that, but I looked at many things. And now, we backtrack. Before I demoted walter, I talked to lorry and she said she was going to send me the logs. And instantly, things were... kind of, strange? She said she'd never gotten around to it, but she was now uploading the logs and would send me a dropbox link once uploaded. And she atempted to tell me when she started the upload. She explained it would take a while because of her bad internet and they would be getting a replacement/upgrade in a week. Finily, about 10 minutes later...

From lori duncan, uploading now, it's taking a while because our internet connection sucks, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:25:08 PM

From lori duncan, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/110 … 20log.txt, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:30:52 PM

And that was the first log. Encase the db link becomes unavailable, the log text is below

Today's log, threat warning.

rm says what do you need the help of admins for? 8:56:24 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, astra says i've found a bug, i'm cooking over a fire but it's not crackling 8:56:26 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, MayanaStorm says hmm, strange. did you try logging off and back on? 8:56:39 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, amine says k stay there 8:56:43 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Agent-jonsin says it is the fire that became unuseble 8:56:44 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, astra says i'm hearing the frying sound, so the cooking is working, but no background crackle 8:56:46 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, MayanaStorm says sometimes the sounds won't play properly and you have to restart the client 8:56:52 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Shadan says log out and in 8:56:59 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Agent-jonsin says that can also happen yes 8:57:01 PM, 3/10/2016
pm from Agent-jonsin, fuck off, my terrorist friends will find you, fuck off and leave me alone or else
out of character, astra says oh, ops, lol ok 8:57:07 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, MayanaStorm says no. if the fire is unusable you can't cook on it. the fire just isn't playing sounds in this case 8:57:14 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Shadan says oh god the lag almost kills me 8:57:20 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Agent-jonsin says ok? 8:57:20 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Shadan says the lag while fighting 8:57:29 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, astra says ah it's back now 8:58:19 PM, 3/10/2016
Campero a m  o    s que  o grita     r    a  ito     8:58:25 PM, 3/10/2016
on goku say  fkds{fa dkasjflkña fakl el dani le tubo que ba  r   a confi uración d l sk, porque  ú y t   gritos,xd 8:58:28 PM, 3/10/2016
out of character, Agent-jon

And that's the contents of that TXT file. 5 minutes to upload, huh? You could upload that much in 2 minutes or less on dial up. That alone isn't that wierd but... In the PM, did you notice... anything odd? Even I didn't at first, but look closely. As a hint, heres how the stw logging system writes pm's to the log. This is just a random PM someone sent me saying hi.

pm from run-flower. hi 8:06:13 PM, 3/10/2016

And compare that to what's in the log. A bit different, right? I looked in walters chat history file my self on his computer with NVDA remote, and well... No signs of it. None, at all. Rember, walter insisted, told me many many times to do what ever I needed, what ever I wanted on his computer. He litterily insisted on it. Usually if someone was guilty, wouldn't they hesitate? A little? at least hesitate? When I demoted walter, I asked lorry permission to post the PM. She says yes, but them posts this message to me on skype, randomly, like 30 seconds after the OK to post the PM on stw.
From lori duncan, please believe me, he did do it, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:53:16 PM
So moving on, lori said she was going to send me another skype log. Another log of walter being an ass. It was uploaded like 15 minutes after the previous log.

From lori duncan, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/110 … lter..txt, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:57:11 PM

Encase of deleted file, text is below.

from Lori.duncan5 hi, i told you not to contact me ever again
from Walter Van Wyk Sam is my friend, D*****e is my friend too
from Lori.duncan5 No she isn't! you've no right to contact her.
Walter Van Wyk I'm sorry if I hurt you
from Lori.duncan5 no, you arn't Walter, and you know it, you're just playing with our emotions.
from Walter Van Wyk I know Sam, he makes viruses and will give me one to hack your computers.
skype Lori.duncan5 I don't believe you, sam is a nice guy.
skype Walter Van Wyk fuck off bitch!
Note, I blocked him after that because my epilepsy shot up.

Ok wait a minute what? If were talking about the content, viruses? uh, ok then. Thing is, if you know how to program, you know how to make viruses. No scating around that, litterily. Aprone could make a virus, I could make a virus, danny could make a virus, anyone, who makes games, is smart enough, to make, a virus. Walter sadly deleted the contact, er, understandably, so no history on his end of this, but things are wierd anyway. Look at the format of the log. Who, who thinks this is a skype log? Ok, for starters, lori, if you copy and paste the log from skype as you claim in this chat,

From Sam Tupy, another thing, how did you get those logs. they don't look like they came from skype, which is kind of wierd, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:32:05 PM
From lori duncan, they did, i coppied and pasted them into a document to send to my friend so she could read it easier, as it was the only way i knew how to save it, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:32:45 PM
From Sam Tupy, I understand it's just wierd how there written. theres from Walter Van Wyk, then theres just Walter Van Wyk, and theres skype Walter Van Wyk. and theres no dates, it just looks wierd, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:33:45 PM
From lori duncan, i know, but that's honestly how i coppied and pasted it, i made sure so it wasn't coming out wrong, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:34:19 PM
From Sam Tupy, how'd you copy them anyway. The accounts don't exist and walters skype is cap Walter van cap Wyk and the logs say cap walter cap van cap wyk. it's wierd., sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:35:55 PM
From lori duncan, i know what his normal skype name is, but i just did sellect all then control c then control v into the document, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:36:39 PM

Ok that's not how it works. All the other stuff I cought are in the messages above, so... doesn't that look wierd? And keep in mind walter kept insisting he didn't post any of this at all. None of it. She says she was using an old version of skype, and said that walter got unblocked when she upgraded her skype. Hmmm... Kind of wierd, huh? Sence when do contacts get unblocked when you update skype? How many users of skype would there be? Wierd. And things get even wierder. I mensioned to lori that the PM's wern't showing up right, and explained how the system actually writes them, and she said that she thinks it got messed up when she cut that part out of the log. So I said, can you just send me teh hole thing? And she did. Going back to an earlier point, this 2 MB file transfer took like 10 seconds. Really, you have a slow net, huh? Yeah, I don't think you were uploading the logs for those 5 minutes. a small thing, but another one. Well, I looked in the log, and er... I saw the part of the log that was around that PM message that wasn't written right, but, no PM in the middle of it! Well lori my dear, are you sure you cut it from the log? Doesn't sceme that likely as the stuff around it was still in your log. So me and walter were at a los at that point. we didn't know quite what to do at that point, lori had gone to bed by that point. But walter kept mentioning this alondra character, from stw. The character that lori claims was from england that walter messed with. Now, mind you, it wasn't right for walter to act as he did. He freely admits this and says that that kind of thing will never happen again. However, there was a reason behind it. Walter had instincts that kept telling him it was lori. And he kept telling me, match the IP addresses or something, tell me if alondra's IP address was from scotland or england. I told him that I didn't have the IP's as logging isn't turned on on the server, but I decided I would look into this a bit, not knowing what else to do. So I logged onto the VPS, and looked at the character databass. Encase characters need to be banned, my game stores a hashed ID of the computers of the characters in order to help secure the banning system. The ID's are different from compter to computer. Maybe there is a 0.0000000001% chance they could be the same, maybe a .0001% higher, but, well, astra in stw is lori and...
alondra's ID: zfkG7eEPZJ8cT7/VaWKIWFHfPnc
astra's ID: zfkG7eEPZJ8cT7/VaWKIWFHfPnc

Hmmm... notice any difference? I sure don't. They sceme pretty much the same to me. And remember, lori made the mistake on her part of sending me the log. It scemes wierd that she never sent any chats when alondra sent chats, basicly, well, nt never scemed that both characters were ever online at the same time. Walter also tells me he never saw lori on at the same time as alondra. Almost a little wierd, you'd think lori would help alondra. So, what do you all think. One thing isn't enough, maybe not even 2, but if you add everything up, don't you think the proof at least rizes to 98%? I've been in contact with this friend of walters, and she is also denying many things that lori told me. Note that this person is also friends with lori. Walter was humiliated to the point of tears. Who the hell cares about his age. Some people are tough, wouldn't care, but people like walter, and me, would be devistated, to have no one like yoj, to have all the work you tried to make for the comunity distroyed. To be banned from a forum for things that he did not do. To be taking the blame for everything. I told this to lori and she says the following.

From lori duncan, he's crying because he's no other defense meaning he's guilty, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:28:24 PM
From lori duncan, that's what he did to us when he wanted us to believe him, but it's fake, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:28:44 PM

Also some other quite hurtful and wierd comments from her to me.

I tell her I can send her a recording of the call: From lori duncan, no thanks, just hearing his voice scares the hell out of me, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:29:16 PM
I tell her to temperarily accept walters skype request that I sent from his computer and that we would delete the contacts once we were done in an atempt to recover walters side of the chat history: From lori duncan, i can't, he'll kill me, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:33:58 PM

Oh! I almost forgot about another thing that scemes to make lori look like she's lying about all of this, and that's these fake skype accounts. I'll send you the chats in this post so you can check to, but none of them existed. I even signed out of walters skype to look in the sign in dialog, no other names. I even looked at his browsing history! No skype create account area. And again none of these accounts scemed to exist.
From lori duncan, walter.vanwike6 is the first one, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48:38 PM
From lori duncan, walter.6 is the next one, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:49:35 PM
From lori duncan, walterx.773 is the last one, sent on Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:51:01 PM
None of them scemed to exist. Maybe i'm an idiot and don't know how to use the skype search area, but i'm pretty sure they don't exist, and no IP attached to them with skype resolvers. So that's all the evidence I built up against the situation. What do you guys think? How bad has walter actually been. Another post that needs refrence is the post from jeffb. This apparently happened almost a year ago and ended over 2 months ago, and a lot of things happened there that I won't go into, I hardly understand it my self. The friend walter hurt in this situation plans to post there own remarks about it on the forum in this topic, so look out for that. Walter has told me that ever sence the situation ended he's been trying to change, to be a better person, and this story we received from lori doesn't quite sceme to be true. Now note, there might be another person walter has offended that I do not know about, but I'm honestly wondering, how rong is walter? What has he actually done? I mean... Honestly.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2016-03-11 07:51:55 (edited by The Dwarfer 2016-03-11 07:53:53)

Listen up. No one's being called wrong here, I'm not using this to shove my opinion down your throat and demanding you except it as truth, but I just hope to clarify some stuff, maybe re point some stuff that may have been skimmed over in the first read of post 1 or others. Also, I'm still in agreement as I was earlier that temporarily banning Walter until this investigation proves him innocent or indeed if it does is okay.

But, here are some quotes to mull over, and what made me personally get doubts. And again, these are my soul interpretations.
1. "he'd tell my friend she was worth nothing, then tell me he hadn't said any such thing, even though I have the evidence my friend sent me to prove he was lying."
I am personally unable to properly justify this since it was her friend, and the "proof" was sent and not necessarily experienced, and we have no way of knowing the proof was actually sent.
2. "she had Walter grilling her, thinking she was me with another account."
  Right. How convenient he picked your friend instead of the other 40 or so players. Just your friend.
3. "now my main concerne is that other girls might receive the same treatement as myself and my friends have done"
  Just girls, huh? Like all players go on games on which most communication is made through text and verbal communication is minimal though it exists, and advertise they are girls only to be hounded by big bad, Walter. Also again, out of the 40 some odd players, and that's just the max I've personally seen, just, Lori and her friends alone.
4. "I have now recieved two private accounts of Water's behaviour, both of which tally, and one of which was by someone who is too afraid to actively speak out in public, afraid of actual physical harm or blackmail or worse."
  Good move for the ban Dark, again we appreciate your concern for our safety on this forum. However, sounds more to me like the, well, you know, anti Walter fuse has been lighted and now we have more and more of them just now conveniently making that hugely bold step to tell of their Walter induced blackmail and threat filled misery to a gaming forum administrator. Nope, not the police, and not when it started, but the gaming forum administrator, and the day after someone else complained.
  Again. I sincerely apologize if I'm sounding like an insensitive snob, I'm not attempting to sound like that at all. I'm just not fully buying into all of this.

Twitter: stevo399
Website: stevend.net
Have a nice day!

2016-03-11 08:00:03

well said sam!
so astra's and the other character is the
same one.
Smartees
well what do you do dark?
because the ID number sam pasted is looking like the same one.
lori duncan's fight in skype is looking without any reason.
and Now she is afraid of banning
wow dood. nice.
first you creat the topic and then go to the bed and seeing what is going on.
at last of my point.
Walter should not use the word "fucking bitch"
it is abusive and should not be tolerated
but he did not break down the rules of the forum.
I think Mr dark will see this and perhaps he can change his decision.

life's battle do not always go to the stronger and faster man,
But sooner or later who win the one who thinks he can!

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 08:43:04

Well, again, yet an other situration where people don't know who's telling the trooth. The chat logs should tell the trooth, but you never know if they have been modified. Does the server have a huge chat log? I think that's the only way the trooth can be told.

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

2016-03-11 08:47:18

aside from the chat logs slj, some other forms of evidence, from the server tell the trooth. for example, the ID's of alondra and astra. I don't make those, that is the same computer on both accounts seperatly. And when I was looking at the logs, I checked mod dates, etc. They don't look modified, but the thing is when you put everything together, that's when it scemes really wierd. I am telling you as the coder of survive the wild, my logging system did not write that PM. It only shows up in that short log snippet lori sent me, written in a form that my logger doesn't write in. She cut this snippet out of a lot, if she's trying to proove something to me... Why would she mod the log.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2016-03-11 08:51:58

Haven't chimed in on this topic, and I'm not going to chime in anymore after this. Now that things are apparently settled, I suggest that Sam, Walter, Laurie and whoever else may be involved take this off forum... at this point it isn't even strictly game related anymore, and personal attacks and the like are pointless to put on an internet forum where most people who respond are just sitting behind their computers. I don't know if Laurie or walter are both lying, or one of them is right... but from Sam's long post, I'd say let the evidence speak for itself... and let's drop this subject and get back to gaming discussion which is what this forum is supposed to be.

regards,
assault_freak

Thumbs up +1

2016-03-11 08:59:16

I don't know the parties involved, but I think that a discussion about harassment is in order. I could only stand to read a couple of pages of all of this, and I've come to some conclusions.

First of all, I don't care who you are or what you've been through, if you can't manage to show some basic social etiquette when it comes to how you treat people online, you can find another pool to play in.  I've been in various online communities for years and years.  We're taught to accept that if there are wandering hands, overtly sexual comments, etc, that we should just grin and bear it. After all, the person/people are just joking/teasing/showing you that you are special etc etc.  Spare me.

Secondly, there is no way on this good green Earth that I would ever play a game where the administration gleefully tossed private info from skype/email/PM on an open forum for all to see.  That says a lot about ethics.

Third, some people are so cute the way that they seem to think that these forums are some sort of democracy.  You don't have to like a moderator's decision, but that's when you write  constructively to said moderator about it. In any event, they don't have to change their mind just because you want them to.

Finally, the way that a developer of a game responds to this or other unpleasantness when it comes to their game community is going to say a whole lot more than any other response.  It's either going to make or break your community.

Once upon a time, a more passive and  less assertive me played an rp game. I was so excited to start this new character and dig in to those features.  I was new to  how the whole rp concept worked as it came to muds, but at that point, I'd been playing those play-by-email games for years.  Someone started roleplaying raping my character.  I was horrified and had no idea of how to handle the situation.  I didn't emote back, but I sent them a tell saying that I felt very uncomfortable. Uncomfortable didn't even cover it.  I was frozen there, unsure of what to do, feeling panicked and sick to my stomach and shaking uncontrollably in my chair. The person sent a tell back saying that they could do whatever they wanted to my character, regardless of my feelings, and I was a female and needed to just take it.  I then realized an invisible staff member was in the room because they lost their link.  This sent several messages to me in about two seconds. The player had zero respect for me as a person. Yes, those types of games can have some bad consequences for your character, but if a player says 'Hey I am uncomfortable with this, can we come up with an alternative/fade to black', then the other person should do just that, unless they are some sort of bottom-feeding unfeeling troglodyte. The other message was that the staff was okay with it, even when they could see that I was upset.

That is the first and last time that I have ever cried because of actions someone took in a game. I cried. I'm embarrassed to even say that, but the emotions that churned up in me were awful. Even just writing about it makes my stomach churn.

I logged on to the game the next day to talk to a higher level immortal about what happened, and they brought down the ban hammer. They banned the player, fired the immortal that just watched after they did admit that they'd seen the logs of my tells asking this player to please stop, and they had a come to Jesus talk with their playerbase and expanded their policies. Because of the actions of the rest of the staff, and after a lot of thought, I stayed on that game for seven years.  So your response matters.

So, I hope that people do the right thing, and please, please be good to each other.  The community is a healthier, more vibrant place for it.

Thumbs up +2

2016-03-11 09:00:58

I think the reason it's still hear is because there are now a lot of people who dislike walter. I'm wondering if this is right? Wouldn't it suck to have everyone dislike you when you've at least not tried doing anything rong? Again, maybe walter did do something, but I doubt it. I've known him for a while and this never came up until like 2 weeks ago. And I think steve has a point as well, why would walter just target lori? Why? I'm sure there are many female players on stw and he's never targeted any of them. But that's beyond the point. I've posted all evidence I could gather and I firmly at this point believe that lori has done something for some reason to walter. All of the evidence is truely what I posted here, theres no more, and if it was modded this way... Most of this was what lori gave me, she gave her self up basicly. And if she'd mod it to make it so that I'd suspect her, well, hmmm. I doubt she'd do that anyway.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2016-03-11 09:03:58

"I'm sure there are many female players on stw and he's never targeted any of them."
You know this how?  Show me proof of that Sam.  How do you know that he's never targeted anyone but Lory?  Maybe Lory is just the only one whose spoken up?

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 09:07:57

And if people also think i'm getting to harsh/posting to much i'd be glad to know and fix that, but I just believe that justice should be handed to the right person in this situation and though it may not be true, what if walter is getting hammered because of impersonation/ fake logs etc? For me, that would suck. I've had similar experiences and it's felt horible so I only wish to help and not cause issues and if I am i'd love to know and fix it. About the data posting, I personally feel that I have posted nothing very private, I don't usually post publicly, private things on my game, however, this doesn't really look private, and the reason I posted it is because nothing looks real. And if you guys think that I have posted sensitive information, i'd be glad to delete the post no problem. But I will say and you can ask walter, the people in the call I was in while composing my post fully incurraged me to post the evidence, so I actually didn't just randomly decide to post everything. Again though if i'm going to far please let me know so I can stop, as I wish not to cause problems but instead help in any way I can.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2016-03-11 09:08:56

I never cried in the game.
the fault of diana killed me one time
but I know that it is a game not my life.
In my life I don't know that you are you or not.
I am still in the favour of sam.
well appeal to the moderators that closed this topic and make your decision.

life's battle do not always go to the stronger and faster man,
But sooner or later who win the one who thinks he can!

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 09:10:23

BTW sorry if i'm posting to much, Theres just a lot of activity. @blinddangerous, I totally understand what your saying. I have atempted to say that I can only go off of the information I know and that's exactly what i'm doing. Though I encourage it I never wish to force any reports from anyone, but i'm only trying to post fact, which I can only do with the data that is provided to me.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2016-03-11 09:12:42

"About the data posting, I personally feel that I have posted nothing very private, I don't usually post publicly, private things on my game,"...
Except when you posted peoples IP addresses in a public chat.  Maybe you've grown since then, I don't know.

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 09:13:08

I know when walter and noone are there.
but he help rather
also whenever he come online he asks about your mood.
He is a cool person.
well said sam agreed you.
Lori pasted fake logs I think.

life's battle do not always go to the stronger and faster man,
But sooner or later who win the one who thinks he can!

Thumbs up

2016-03-11 09:17:46

Hi. @blinddangerous if you look back on the stw forum which I think you may have, you will know that I very very much regret doing that. I was not experienced with adminship and I should have looked at what it would intale being an admin first, but I always have said my apologies have been out there about that situation and I wish not to force anyone to accept apologies. I my self believe I have grown sence then, but weather you believe that is true is completely your choise. I always hope people forgive me for that IP address mistake, but I also understand if that can not be forgiven by some people.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com