Comments on: GMC account ‘Hijacking’

By: desertdweller

desertdweller — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:42:47 +0000

That’s what I had thought. I thought it was kinda weird seeing those guys saying that they all wanted him back. Come on, he’s not that nice of a guy.

By: Schwiggy

Schwiggy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:51:58 +0000

Online petitions shouldn’t be considered as it is; I mean sure, they are. But what if Games is controlling the members who have created the petition?

Note that I done zero research on the matter – it’s just a thought.

By: James Rhodes

James Rhodes — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:39:37 +0000

I honestly look back and I don’t know what I was thinking. It’s one of those events where you wake up in the morning and go “Oh god I hope that was a dream.”

While I’m at fault for giving someone access to my account (albeit temporarily), Games is still responsible for what he did with it. If he was as helpful as he and other members say he is, he wouldn’t have taken the course of action he did, nor would he impersonate a bot on the very community he supposedly aided with his presence.

It’s recently occurred to me that the only purpose of this imitation would be to get account details. There is no other reason for it. But if he had not obtained my account details and had I not dealt with it the way I did, he would have been able to scam accounts from other users, and it may have gone undetected.

What concerns me is that the petition creators (two of which I held in high regard) would rather jeopardize their own reputation by supporting Games, rather than trusting the actions of the moderators and administrators.

It would be naive to pretend that this hasn’t been a learning experience, and that I don’t see certain things with more clarity now. However, I feel that brooding over the past is not the right course of action, and I need to get on with what I do best: program.

By: Mattthew_H

Mattthew_H — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:32:25 +0000

I do think that it was stupid – but am very surprised that James went to the extent of telling them his password, but everyone makes mistakes.

I’m glad it got under control before anything majorly serious happened.

By: scoz

scoz — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:28:31 +0000

This is a somewhat misleading entry. It puts Hach-Que at fault when, whilst some blame does rest on his shoulder, the finger should be pointed at Games. I object to the quotation marks around ‘hijack’, it implies the writer doesn’t agree with the use of the term. It was a hijacking, regardless of how he came to have the account details. Just because you have someone’s details it doesn’t mean that you’re contractually obliged to frame spam them. Regardless of how long Games has been a member, or how much he had contributed to the GMC (which, in my opinion, is questionable) he was fully aware of his actions and how they broke guidelines, so he must live with it.

As for the members who started the petitions (whom it should be noted one of which has changed their tune) I believe they were just trying to stir trouble. Anyway, I hope they enjoy their indefinite mod preview statuses.

I hope we don’t see this type of thing happening on the GMC again (but I know we will)