Hacking ktemkin drama

[Uwabami]

I disagree. It would be best to show the whole conversation if for nothing else than to show the context of these supposed “cherry-picked” statements.

That's the issue. They claim that publishing would cause mental harm to ktemkin. I can't tell because I haven't read it, but SciresM took the high road here by not publishing it without their consent when they didn't offer him the same courtesy.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Again, for like the 7 billionth time, where’s some proof she got rich?

Huh? What do you mean? If you submit the bug you get paid? I suppose I don't have proof the bug was submitted, but I thought that's why this started?

 

[Uwabami]

Huh? What do you mean? If you submit the bug you get paid? I suppose I don't have proof the bug was submitted, but I thought that's why this started?

According to ktemkin it wasn't submitted in a bug report, but mentioned during a consulting session with Google as an example of a bad implementation.

 

[Viri]

Qyriad and Aurora Wright were not notified because of their romantic relationship with ktemkin

Ugh, now that's a mental image I never wanted in my head.

 

[brickmii82]

And there’s my point. Most of this is assumption and conjecture still. @Uwabami you were able to show me how the mistake was made on Ktempkins part and why Scires was upset. With proof. Now we have the accusations of monetary gain and “cherry picked” facts according to your wording. But, we can’t establish either as fact with the evidence presented, and I feel it’s pretty fucked up to condemn and scrutinize either S or K based on what’s been presented.

 

[snoofly]

S should simply agree with K to publish the (context related) chat logs and put the speculation to bed.
If one party disagrees then they must have something to hide.
Until that happens, both names are tarnished.

 

[Uwabami]

And there’s my point. Most of this is assumption and conjecture still. @Uwabami you were able to show me how the mistake was made on Ktempkins part and why Scires was upset. With proof. Now we have the accusations of monetary gain and “cherry picked” facts according to your wording. But, we can’t establish either as fact with the evidence presented, and I feel it’s pretty fucked up to condemn and scrutinize either S or K based on what’s been presented.

I don't think I've taken any sides here. If anything, given my past disagreements with SciresM, you would think I was against him. I'm merely trying to correct the record here and end false claims. Fair is fair.

S should simply agree with K to publish the (context related) chat logs and put the speculation to bed.
If one party disagrees then they must have something to hide.
Until that happens, both names are tarnished.

SciresM is ready to publish the logs, he offered it. ktemkin and Qyriad don't want him to. This is the hypocrisy in their actions.

 

[krasaty]

S should simply agree with K to publish the (context related) chat logs and put the speculation to bed.
If one party disagrees then they must have something to hide.
Until that happens, both names are tarnished.

I think you mixed the names up there. SciresM wants Ktemkin to release the logs.

 

[Ericthegreat]

According to ktemkin it wasn't submitted in a bug report, but mentioned during a consulting session with Google as an example of a bad implementation.

How would anyone find out then?

 

[brickmii82]

How would anyone find out then?

If it’s over 10K it’s required to be disclosed to the govt by the payer for tax reasons. This is why you need to give your SSN in a casino if you hit it big. In some states it’s even 1000$ or over.

 

[snoofly]

I think you mixed the names up there. SciresM wants Ktemkin to release the logs.

yeah i knew that but i worded it wrong.. a few pages back i mentioned it when i saw the discussion in the discord when it happened.
s wanted to publish, as he had nothing to hide, was going to ask k to agree, then backed off due to ‘privacy’
so, again, what’s really going on?

 

[N0n@me]

How would anyone find out then?

No one really knows other than reswitced. There are a couple of rumours of how they found out but it was never confirmed by them

 

[Ericthegreat]

S should simply agree with K to publish the (context related) chat logs and put the speculation to bed.
If one party disagrees then they must have something to hide.
Until that happens, both names are tarnished.

Why would SciresM need to worry or care about doing anything?

 

[krasaty]

yeah i knew that but i worded it wrong.. a few pages back i mentioned it when i saw the discussion in the discord when it happened.
s wanted to publish, as he had nothing to hide, was going to ask k to agree, then backed off due to ‘privacy’
so, again, what’s really going on?

Wasn't it qyriad that said no due to privacy?

 

[Uwabami]

Why would SciresM need to worry or care about doing anything?

That's the point. He respects their privacy even when they didn't respect his. Yet people call that immature.

 

[brickmii82]

That's the point. He respects their privacy even when they didn't respect his. Yet people call that immature.

Sounds more like hiding something.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

“Who owns that locker?”
“Me and a friend.”
“Is there a dead hooker in it?”
“No”
“Can I look”
“No I respect their privacy”

 

[Deleted-452294]

I don't think I've taken any sides here. If anything, given my past disagreements with SciresM, you would think I was against him. I'm merely trying to correct the record here and end false claims. Fair is fair.

People here have a tendency to think that public names are inherently nice people, with no evil intentions whatsoever, that never do mistakes and hold the absolute truth.
They seem unable to think by themselves, following blindly a shepherd.
Good luck trying to educate or correct arguments in an objective manner here, I appreciate your efforts. However, this forum's demographic seems to be mostly young children and teenagers, which will make your task difficult.
Considering one of the moderator seems to be hostile against you, that proves even more difficult. It is a great thing people like you are re-establishing the facts, though, and a shame that you are getting bashed for it.

 

[krasaty]

Sounds more like hiding something.

They're asking him to respect ktemkin's privacy and he's complying.

 

[brickmii82]

It’s a shame people have created an alternate meaning for “facts”

 

[snoofly]

Wasn't it qyriad that said no due to privacy?

S was the guy who backed off asking for K’s permission to publish based on his concerns over the sensitive content also included in said chat unrelated to the bug topic, even though he stated just prior he was more than happy to have everything out in the open as he had nothing to hide and then did a 180.
Q maybe involved somewhere but i never remember seeing that intervention before the channel got locked down.
That’s all i know from the discord chat i read.

 

[brickmii82]

People here have a tendency to think that public names are inherently nice people, with no evil intentions whatsoever, that never do mistakes and hold the absolute truth.
They seem unable to think by themselves, following blindly a shepherd.
Good luck trying to educate or correct arguments in an objective manner here, I appreciate your efforts. However, this forum's demographic seems to be mostly young children and teenagers, which will make your task difficult.
Considering one of the moderator seems to be hostile against you, that proves even more difficult. It is a great thing people like you are re-establishing the facts, though, and a shame that you are getting bashed for it.

Shill more pls