Goblin Squad Member
|
@Arlock Blackwind
Don't like chaotic being associated with reputation. People who want to be chaotic may take as an incentive to break contracts. For example, if I need to keep my true neutral alignment and somehow I'm shifting to lawful, I could decide to break some contracts just to move the scale to the chaotic side to balance it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider your reputation as a third axis for your compass rose.
Perhaps the active radius of compass' circle, a section of the sphere, grows smaller as reputation climbs farther and farther out on the radial pole.
The implication of this model however is rather the reverse of what seems popular: the least anti-alignment action could result in a relatively greater change were we tracking on the section surface.
It looks more like a moral astrolabe now than a moral compass.
To regain the idea that the greater the alignment the less the alignment shift we should have to consider the reputation pole stays centered in the display while the astrolab moves around it. if you can visualize my drift, as it were.
Frankly, I don't think the consequences seem big enough...and I predict a rash of really nasty behaviour in the game UNTIL the societal structures are strong and evolved enough to counter them. Hopefully they'll develop fast enough to prevent the demise of the game.
Good thing we've got Ryan, who came from CCP! If anyone was going to have to deal with such issues, he'll be my pick!
Speaking of Ryan, where's that blog post? :p
I heard they were waiting to hear your input Val (is there an echo in here?)
Ah hell nobody listens to me :p. I'm like that guy in the Stephen Brust books, the 2ed to Vlad Taltos that no one ever saw nor heard, think his name was Kraiger. Good trait in a thief tho ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Frankly, I don't think the consequences seem big enough...and I predict a rash of really nasty behaviour in the game UNTIL the societal structures are strong and evolved enough to counter them. Hopefully they'll develop fast enough to prevent the demise of the game.Good thing we've got Ryan, who came from CCP! If anyone was going to have to deal with such issues, he'll be my pick!
Err, what???
CCP = GRIEFERS.
They designed there entire game system around players griefing players.
They ENCOURAGE extremely nasty behavior in there game and CELEBRATE it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Arlock Blackwind
Don't like chaotic being associated with reputation. People who want to be chaotic may take as an incentive to break contracts. For example, if I need to keep my true neutral alignment and somehow I'm shifting to lawful, I could decide to break some contracts just to move the scale to the chaotic side to balance it.
The connection between chaotic and criminal does not go both ways.
a settlement of criminals is one form of being chaotic
but equally so is a freedom loving group of good individuals working together without the need for laws for the good of their community
Frankly, I don't think the consequences seem big enough...and I predict a rash of really nasty behaviour in the game UNTIL the societal structures are strong and evolved enough to counter them. Hopefully they'll develop fast enough to prevent the demise of the game.Good thing we've got Ryan, who came from CCP! If anyone was going to have to deal with such issues, he'll be my pick!
Err, what???
CCP = GRIEFERS.
They designed there entire game system around players griefing players.
They ENCOURAGE extremely nasty behavior in there game and CELEBRATE it.
Right, so if you want someone to combat that sort of behavior, who better then someone who learned all about it at CCP! To put it another way, "who better to rob a bank then a bank robber!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so if you want someone to combat that sort of behavior, who better then someone who learned all about it at CCP! To put it another way, "who better to rob a bank then a bank robber!"
I believe the analogy you were looking for is
Who better to design your banks security system than an ex bank robber. Very valid point, and look at the real world. Big named hackers who have since reformed, most of them afterwords work as security consultants.Though I do have to largely disagree with the statement that eve was designed at it's core as a griefing game. The community in eve swings in every direction. There are indeed celebrated griefers, there are also some very large highly co-operative groups focused on building things up, as well as groups dedicated to helping people, as well as groups just focused on setting up public events. Yes the huge named griefers make the news, if they do an action large enough it does get published in all of the gaming websites, even ones not dedicated to eve. But even in the major newsworthy events, most of them aren't what I would consider griefing.
Burn Jita, I agree vaguely qualifies, though they certainly gave plenty of warning for people to actually avoid it if they wanted.
Titan kill: I generally don't consider taking down the biggest scariest ship currently in the game as griefing. It is specifically attacking the character MOST capable of defending himself and making himself known. IMO a griefer is one who repeatedly attacks someone who should not be able to defend himself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the analogy you were looking for is
Who better to design your banks security system than an ex bank robber. Very valid point, and look at the real world. Big named hackers who have since reformed, most of them afterwords work as security consultants.
... and by all accounts do not always abandon completely their old ways.
I am aware of one case where an ex-hacker allegedly took offense when his advise was ignored (his suggested measures were very restrictive) and apparently orchestrated an external attack on the site in question just to "prove" its vulnerability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the analogy you were looking for is
Who better to design your banks security system than an ex bank robber. Very valid point, and look at the real world. Big named hackers who have since reformed, most of them afterwords work as security consultants.
... and by all accounts do not always abandon completely their old ways.
I am aware of one case where an ex-hacker allegedly took offense when his advise was ignored (his suggested measures were very restrictive) and apparently orchestrated an external attack on the site in question just to "prove" its vulnerability.
Well in IT, people go crazy when they aren't listened to, not sure of this specific story, but in general the predicimate sucks all around.
He's hired to plug all the holes in the security system. He see's one, he knows how it could be exploited, tells management, management tells him the fix is worse than the problem.
His options are
1. What he did, prove the hole is real and a serious threat, and probably get fired for doing so.
2. Do nothing, leave the hole there, then get fired when someone else see's the same thing he did, and management points the finger at him for "missing" the critical hole.
Unless in his intentional hack involved him actually using what he broke into for profit at the cost of the company, what he did was technically ethical, but illegal at the same time.
People with no inclanation or history of hacking illegally, have in the past fallen into the same trap, over and over again, it is more of a problem with companies structures.
Anyway the biggest key to point out in this scenerio, it has nothing to do with the former criminal returning to his true stripes, and everything to do with the dilema of being in the position to take the blame, but not having the power to change it.
Unless Ryan entered in a very bad deal with one of the investors (IE an investor made him sign a contract giving them override rights if they didn't like his ideas), then this is not going to be the case here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
His options are
1. What he did, prove the hole is real and a serious threat, and probably get fired for doing so.
2. Do nothing, leave the hole there, then get fired when someone else see's the same thing he did, and management points the finger at him for "missing" the critical hole.
You're missing the third (and most sensible) option, which is "Leave the hole, document everything and ensure that management is aware of the risk and agrees not to blame the consultant should anything happen." I.e, "cover your ass." There's also the corollary, "Find what else you can do to mitigate the consequences if the given hole is exploited, given that it won't be plugged."
A large part of management is RISK management, it's not the responsibility of the security consultant to dictate what risks (and costs associated with mitigating those risks) are acceptable and which are not. It's not worth spending $1000 on a safe to protect your $500 silverware collection.
Ironically, a consultant who behaves as described can make those same managers think that hiring such a shady consultant in the first place is not worth the risk if it actually *increases* the chances of a penetration.
(we're now WAY off-topic...)
Hm. I dunno: 5 million people asking for my little pony fps might lead to some reconsideration.
Shut up, that sounds great. Let's do this. I will be a red-and-black horned/winged earth pony with a rocket launcher. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're missing the third (and most sensible) option, which is "Leave the hole, document everything and ensure that management is aware of the risk and agrees not to blame the consultant should anything happen." I.e, "cover your ass." There's also the corollary, "Find what else you can do to mitigate the consequences if the given hole is exploited, given that it won't be plugged."
A large part of management is RISK management, it's not the responsibility of the security consultant to dictate what risks (and costs associated with mitigating those risks) are acceptable and which are not. It's not worth spending $1000 on a safe to protect your $500 silverware collection.
Drifting this back towards topic, the key is, he didn't "fall back into his old ways", that would be he noticed the hole, went home and used the hole to steal from the company. He attempted to make a point, and yes he technically did break the law in doing so, but arrogance/stupidity and malice are 2 different things. What he did was the equivelant of telling a manager "Hey this lock dosn't work", manager says "Sure it's good enough", then he took a paper clip, poked it in the lock and opened the door. Only in the computer industry is that put as equal to stealing everything in the locked room.
Bringing things all the way back to the topic at hand, Ryan has both the knowledge of what to avoid, and as far as I know absolute 100% authority in making it happen. So when he says his goal is to not let X happen, it is reasonable to assume he is going to use his expertise to not let X happen to the best of his ability.