1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZExactly right.
Tinfoil hat time.
RHP doesn't do that.
For one it wouldn't work on anyone who doesn't use a browser that's full of security holes. Nothing gets onto my computer without me knowing about it.
For another if they were doing it do you really think we'd have seen only a handful of bannings?
If you reckon RHP etc are getting into your computers, imagine what all the other malware sites that are REALLY trying to do so are getting away with.
[8]
Originally posted by OmnislashYou're right about the rest, the owners of RHP are pretty relaxed about this whole thing.
P.S. calling each other dumb over understanding of comp. tech. has got to be the most rediculous thing I have ever heard of. I'm all about "geekdom", but that is absurd.
But, what you said about the apparent computer condescension is incorrect. User Arrakis was making unfounded and harmful accusations about something he knew nothing about, and he was, at the same time, claiming to be knowledgable on the subject. He needed to be proved ignorant, and that was done.
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisI think you'll find this very interesting Arrakis, from the link posted above by adramforall:
I wasn't browsing the internet when I received the message from my anti-spyware that RHP had sent a bad packet. I was BOOTING THE COMPUTER! Yup, didn't even touch the keyboard or the mouse. Soon as I turned the computer on a program on my computer tried to contact RHP!
You can't tell me that's normal.
"TCP reset attacks
The primary idea behind a TCP reset attack is to falsely terminate an established TCP connection. Lets imagine an established TCP connection from host A to host B. Now, a third host, C, spoofs a packet that matches the source port and IP address of host A, the destination port and IP address of host B, and the current sequence number of the active TCP connection between host A and host B. Host C sets the RST bit on the spoofed packet, so when received by host B, host B immediately terminates the connection. This results in a denial of service, until the connection can be reestablished. However, the severity of such an attack is different from application to application.
As described earlier in this article, TCP utilizes sequence numbers to determine whether or not a packet with valid endpoints (IP addresses and ports) applies to the current active session. This both allows TCP to both properly reassemble even out of order packets into the original data buffer, as well as to ignore potentially spoofed packets."
D
Originally posted by hopscotchI still disagree. I have no quarrel with you or anyone else taking issue with the statement. I have no problem with the opinion that it was "unfounded and harmful". What is absurd is the manner in which these were done. It is one thing to refute the statement, and that is fine and well. It went a bit like this to me.
You're right about the rest, the owners of RHP are pretty relaxed about this whole thing.
But, what you said about the apparent computer condescension is incorrect. User Arrakis was making unfounded and harmful accusations about something he knew nothing about, and he was, at the same time, claiming to be knowledgable on the subject. He needed to be proved ignorant, and that was done.
"XYZ=true. You're dumb!
No, X=false. You're dumb!
If Y and Z are true, how can X be false? You're dumb!
X is false, etc.,etc.,...Your really, really dumb!" So on and so forth...
That is the portion I find absurd, especially in regards to the subject. You might even say, I think it is......"dumb"? 😀
Originally posted by OmnislashWould you be a good hotelier if you kicked a guest out in the middle of the night for stealing booze from the bar without offering any evidence? Continuing the parrallels, would you be a good hotelier if upto 20 people at a time left due to the unfair barring of one of their fellow guests. Would you be a good hotelier if after each of the barrings, a lot of your other guests couldn't sleep for fear that they'd be next to get barred?
You know, I've been seeing threads like these ever since they started this new practice. I haven't said anything in any of them so far, but I'm going to speak my humble bit this time. In regards to this thread;
Speaking as a hotelier, we are guests in this digital house. If any client at my inn gave me guff like some of the people who have spoken on ...[text shortened]... the most rediculous thing I have ever heard of. I'm all about "geekdom", but that is absurd.
How long would you stay in business in that kind of environment?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThat would all depend on the pool of guest and if they are just Passing through. If all of your clientel were limited to a small number of people it would be devastating, but here in internet land the number of guest stumbling around and stumbling in seems to be endless. It would not be a problem unless someone wrote a particulary well read tour book mentioning it.
Would you be a good hotelier if you kicked a guest out in the middle of the night for stealing booze from the bar without offering any evidence? Continuing the parrallels, would you be a good hotelier if upto 20 people at a time left due to the unfair barring of one of their fellow guests. Would you be a good hotelier if after each of the barrings, a lot ...[text shortened]... be next to get barred?
How long would you stay in business in that kind of environment?
D
RTh
Gatecrasher issued a statement directed at myself for not contributing to the effort of identifying suspected cheaters (said I hadn't turned anyone in).
So I told him that I would do just that - submit some games that I felt supported, 'beyond reasonable doubt', evidence of cheating.
Then I decided to get some fresh data regarding the "cheaters" I had caught cause those analyzed games were nearly a year old... But guess what!? The "cheaters" that I have on record all got scared and STOPPED using engines in their games! 😲
Yeah! Some of them dropped 400 points in their ratings! I won't mention names of course, but these guys that were pushing me around with 2600 rated chess moves are NOW making "stupid moves" far below a 1300 level!
So here's my stance on this: I'm not going to turn in the evidence that proves they cheated. WHY? Well, I'm willing to give them another chance since they have cleaned up their act (even though they cost me rating points).
But, I WILL be watching these people... and I'm sure the game mods will be watching them too.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about what has happened since the game moderators have initiated their program, the final result shows a positive trend.
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisIt's nice when you can make stupid accusations about RHP using spyware, be proved wrong and then pretend it didn't happen isn't it?
Gatecrasher issued a statement directed at myself for not contributing to the effort of identifying suspected cheaters (said I hadn't turned anyone in).
So I told him that I would do just that - submit some games that I felt supported, 'beyond reasonable doubt', evidence of cheating.
Then I decided to get some fresh data regarding the "cheaters since the game moderators have initiated their program, the final result shows a positive trend.
How about an admission that you were wrong and acted like an ass?
Originally posted by RagnorakI used to manage a hotel. I caught someone stealing from the bar and asked him to leave. There was a heated debate and 3 or 4 of his collegues left with him in sympathy. I charged them all for their rooms. And even though they never came back the hotel was unaffected in the grand scheme of things.
Would you be a good hotelier if you kicked a guest out in the middle of the night for stealing booze from the bar without offering any evidence? Continuing the parrallels, would you be a good hotelier if upto 20 people at a time left due to the unfair barring of one of their fellow guests. Would you be a good hotelier if after each of the barrings, a lot ...[text shortened]... be next to get barred?
How long would you stay in business in that kind of environment?
D
4 edits
Originally posted by hopscotchNot sure if it was mentioned before, but at least, don’t we have the right
Or piss off.
It's that simple.
Here's the wording behind a Section 3(b) ban:
[i]The Red Hot Pawn game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated.
Section 3(b) is defined as: ...[text shortened]... Peaks Chess clan will recover from this, under new leadership, I really enjoyed our challenges.
to view this “overwhelming evidence” ?
Like why they were hanged and the list of crimes they committed drown
from their own bloody subscription..
I love this site too and so grateful for RHP maintainers and keepers. I
am certain there are no conspiracies or hidden agendas, but as a
subscriber and supporter of this site, I would appreciate a bit of feedback
with regards to such matters. Apart from the need to bitch and gossip
about people, it gives the calm sense that this site is being moderated
fairly and justly.
EDIT: why the hell this shows as Italic... there are no i's in square brackets.. I looked!
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou don't know what you are talking about. I posted the experience I had with a program that was shut out by my anti-spyware. If anyone is stupid here it's you. You are the biggest ass I've ever seen on this site... 😲
It's nice when you can make stupid accusations about RHP using spyware, be proved wrong and then pretend it didn't happen isn't it?
How about an admission that you were wrong and acted like an ass?
1 edit
Originally posted by arrakisRuss denied such a program, but I have physical proof (screen captures) of MANY such intrusions by RHP.
You don't know what you are talking about. I posted the experience I had with a program that was shut out by my anti-spyware. If anyone is stupid here it's you. You are the biggest ass I've ever seen on this site... 😲
This is an accusation that RHP is attempting to attack your computer. Later you were proved wrong (read the thread for various sources). It is also you acting like an ass.
You haven't retracted your statement in any manner, in fact once you were proved wrong you just pretended it hadn't happened.
I don't cut people slack. Some may think this makes me an ass. But you sir are most definately a hypocritical mongoloid.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Slow PawnBoris, you tool.
Another prime example of why people with your lack chess understanding shoudn't be allowed to analyse games that they don't understand in the first place ...
How about asking Russ for your money back, and start playing games such as minesweeper which are immensely easier to understand ??
You [b]4-letter word [/i]4-letter word[/i]
Boris[/b]
I never said I 'understood' chess or the analysis of games.
I understand the method used and trust that the mods are doing the job fairly and accurately. Russ wouldn't take any chances with this.
Your attemted insults are almost as lame as you.
BTW. I kick ass with minesweeper.