Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

So, last night, through no fault of my own, I came across what I would consider a major exploit of the game. Being a naturally honest person I immediately sent off 3 emails.

1. One to Aaron telling him of the bug
2. One to the host of one of my games. The Host has a right to know about bugs.
3. Another warning to one of my other hosts

I recieved 3 replies.

1. One from Aaron thanking me and telling me it's being fixed.
2. One from my first game host saying he trusts me not to abuse the knowledge. After all if I cheat I'm just ruining it for myself.
3......and one from my other host saying he doesn't trust me, he's kicking me from the game and looking for a replacement. This post may sound petty but I imagine he is now telling the other players I got kicked for cheating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif. I was enjoying that game.

It's a sad reflection on today's society, and quite frankly a wonderful reward for being honest http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

imho, that was pretty lousy of him kicking you out after you gave him a heads up on what you found. He should have thanked you for your honesty. Once warned, one can watch out for its use by others. He should have warned everyone in the game, of what was found and that use would not be tolerated once they were told about it.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Thats lame, who is this looser so I know not to ever play a game with him?

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

First thank you Randallw for not posting what the bug was. It is very refreshing to know that someone like you who finds an exploit does the right thing with the knowledge and doesn't share it with any who shouldn't other wise be informed. Hats of to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Secondly,

Some people are just to insecure. Chances are he will use the exploit now and won't get caught because he kicked the one and only person who discovered it and would be able to tell if it was being used by another player. I would email each player and let tell them why you were kicked. For being honest about what you found. No sense in letting some shallow Hal ruin your well earned and honorable gaming rep.

That is sad. But your better off not being in his game if that is the kind of player he is.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

I didn't even think it necessary to tell the hosts how I did it. For the same reason as I didn't go tell everyone here how it's done. I thought it enough to warn them it could happen. The only person who has a legitimate reason to know how was Aaron and as it turned out he already knew.

I'm not going to name him because I don't feel I can legitimately claim to be honest while at the same time do something vindictive like tell everyone to blacklist him.

Once I get home though I will try to find previous messages with the players emails. Since I got kicked I don't have access via PBW to their adresses, but I do feel I have the right to present my case to the others in case they do get the impression I cheated. I'm not saying he has told them such but my integrity has been insulted and I need to explain to the others. No accusations just the facts.

I'm just mildly upset as I pride myself on being honest. I virtually have a nervous breakdown if I do anything even close to lying. Maybe I could have rephrased my email to him better. To be honest I couldn't help trying to be funny by suddenly saying the password and then asking if he knew what it was, although I did explain I was telling Aaron. His explanation was he didn't know me and although I might say I won't cheat I might find the tempatation too strong in future. I can sort of understand what he means so doubly I'm not going to name names.

so, experiments show that when you know a bug it is best not to let on, and that fact makes me sad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif. There's a 50/50 chance it will bite you. well 30/70 if one of the people you tell writes the thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

The sad fact of life is that some people are insecure. Sounds like the host that burned you is one such person, however I'm pretty sure if you out him or not, it won't be hard to find out who it was. After all, he'll need a replacement player.

But that doesn't matter.
What I wonder is if the PBW admins should also know about this bug so they can see if it's being exploited or not.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

there are far easier ways to cheat than figuring out passwords too though. the whole issue is just stupid.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Well it seems that no message in the last week from the game in question had all the players addresses. My junk mail folder deletes messages after 7 days. However one stroke of luck was that one of the players in the game in question just happened to be the same person running the other game, the host who understood I was just letting him know what was what. He seems amenable enough, so I asked him if he could please pass on an explanation to the other players. I simply do not want them to think me a cheat.

It seems the host somehow got the idea I used the master password to access other empires and find their passwords. That is so obviously cheating that even as I tested to see if I had the master I avoided that route.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

pah, I'd be voting him off PBW.
ok maybe a little harsh, but comeon, strongarm tactics againsed people who stumble across exploits and report them is just stupid. there's enough of that sort of bs in the real world to have to put up with it in our games too.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Randallw - Honesty doesn't pay, but then feeling good about your own actions is priceless. Keep up the good work and don't sweet the small stuff!

FYI - There is a post on the PBW site looking for a replacement player. You might ask the admin to edit it, if you are offended by it.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

I second this. Honesty, at times, doesn't benefit you, but it almost always feels good.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Honesty means a game store owner let me pay for a memory card later - I didn't have the money with me. I payed it off the next day.

Some people appreciate honesty, some people don't. And you did get something out of it - You now know something vital about the other guy and how his mind works.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

I once was told that you will more than likely never go to jail for a dishonest act but rather for an honest one misunderstood.

Nice guys do finish last. Tis a fact of life and an unshakable elemental reality of our universe.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Collary #1: Everybody in jail and everybody who's ever been in jail is innocent. All you have to do is ask them.

Which makes that pure speculation and opinion.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

I just want to formally apologise. Although I felt I was the abused party and had no intention of naming and aiming vehemence at the cause of my misfortune, I realise I acted wrongly, both in my failure to report it in a sensible manner thus causing the misunderstanding and my reaction.

I did not hack the game or intend to gain an advantage. Through fortune, or misfortune, I gained knowledge I felt entitiled me to some praise for handling it fairly, and when the response was the opposite of what I felt I deserved I reacted wrongly. I fell victim to pride and self satisfaction. Let me be the one to say,

I'm sorry.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

You have a right to be angry. I certainly would be - And you expressed it rather calmly.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Not everybody - some actually admit guilt. A large portion of those blame others.

Oddly, if you assume a 99% accurate justice system (that is, 99% of the people who aren't "criminal" are never punished, and 99% of those who are "criminal" are punished) and a 1% "criminal" population, fully 50% of those punished are innocent. Seriously. Take a populateion of 10,000 with the above assumptions
1% (100) are "criminal", 9,900 (99%) are not "criminal"
Of the "criminal" population, 99 (99% of 100) are punished.
Of the non-"criminal" population, 99 (1% of 9,900) are punished.
Of 198 (99+99) punished, 99 are non-"criminal".

You can play with the numbers some to get different results, but it sure is interesting, isn't it?

How did Ephesians 4:26 go?

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

That doesn't say 'don't get angry' - Just don't be angry longer than today.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

I like to do nice things for people because I believe that sooner or later the favor will be returned.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Jack:
Your percentages are unreal and don't properly reflect any sort of valid estimate. A 99% effective system either means 99% of criminals are jailed (which says absolutely nothing about non-criminals, so isn't very interesting), or 99% of those jailed are criminals. It could also mean that 99% of innocent people accused are acquitted, but that probably isn't the intended meaning in context. It is a contortion of logic to assert that it means both that 99% of all criminals are jailed, and at the same time 99% of non-criminals are not jailed. The two are completely independent statistics that you can not validly roll into one called the overall accuracy and thus derive the rest of the assertions.

From your 99% accuracy figure, it does not follow that 1% of the non-criminal population is jailed. At best, all you get is that 1% of the jailed population is non-criminal. At worst, you have absolutely no idea how many non-criminals are jailed, so you have no idea what percentage of those in jail are wrongly imprisoned.

You further compound the problem by asserting that 1% of all non-criminals are jailed; this is not a valid metric when assessing the accuracy of a legal system. A more valid metric would be what percentage of innocent people accused of a crime are acquitted, and what percentage of people in both groups are actually brought to trial. Only then could you hope to come up with percentages of people in jail being innocent or guilty.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Never said they were real.
Never said they did.

Quit trying to imply a particular set of words to my behaf. It's annoying.
I stopped and defined my terms as I was using them. Going back and saying I used the wrong term is a void argument, as I chose the meaning to be used. Seriously, Fyron. You're assinging things to me I didn't say.

Seriously, though; if it were possible to go about ascertaining what portion of those who are found "no guilty" are *actually* guilty, or what portion fo those found "guilty" are *actually* not guilty, you could arrange to do so on an individual basis and get a 100% accuracy rating.
So you claim. I listed, quite blatantly, that what I was using were assumptions - which are pretty much by definition arbitrary. You're making claims about the real world. Can I get a source?

But then, if you actually read what I wrote, it doesn't apply to the math I used; I very clearly stated "You can play with the numbers some to get different results" - they vary; widely. There's a reason I pointed it out. Come on Fyron, if you're going to do this, do it right.

Switching from 99% on both sides (as you seem to think is silly) to a lop-sided set has a particular effect.
The way I explicitly defined it, it actually does. When the defininition used does not apply, neither do the results of the math. So?

Read, Fyron. I'm reasonably sure you know how.
I didn't assert that they are; I said with the way I defined 99% accuracy, they were. There's a difference, Fyron, that you appear to be missing. As I defined my 99% accuracy, 1% of the non-crimal population does, indeed, end up getting punished.

Oh, and I didn't use the term "jailed". Quit putting words in my mouth; it's not polite.
Again, when one declairs their definitions of assumptions and terms for a mental excersize (which I did), saying it's silly because of definitions that don't apply to a particular situation is alternately a "Well duh" or "So?" situation. It logically follows (in the actual sense, not the one most people use) that where the definitions used in a proof don't apply that neither do the results of the proof (if A -> B under C circumstances (which translates to A & C -> B under all circumstances), but C is false, the statement says nothing at all is said about B - this is basic logic, Fyron; you're nearly forcing me to spoon-feed it to you here). For example, the pythagorean theorm doesn't apply in a non-euclidean geometry (although there's patches for it, for certain ones) as you need a non-euclidean geometry to have a proper right triangle as defined for the proof.

But you've sufficiently demonstrated that you don't actual read the other side of the debate (or don't comprehend - if english is not your native language, the above doesn't apply, as it is purely a misunderstanding, and I apologize); there's no point in a debate. Have fun, I'm done.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

The point was that the math you used is incorrect and based on invalid, illogical assumptions. It is a faulty thought experiment that doesn't show anything as a result. It is not clear to me why you are asserting I put words in your mouth, since I didn't do so.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Gee I really hope this doesn’t turn into another Fyron vs someone else smack down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Jack, I see what you were trying to do with your thought experiment there. What it really demonstrates is how piss poor a 99% success rate is with things that are really important. I’ve seen similar stats regarding air travel, how if only 99% of our planes made it safely millions of people would be dead. We even had a poster up where I worked at a fast-food restaurant as a teen. “99% isn’t good enough” or something like that.

If we lived in a society where people were randomly locked up, where the cops went around and picked up 1 out of every 100 people and threw them in jail for no reason I don’t think we’d tolerate it. What we have to hope is that our justice systems are way more accurate than 99%.

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif sigh...

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

Well lets see now, to date Fyron has won at lest 11 smack downs and lost none. My money would be on Fyron to win number 12. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

No offense Jack, its just that Fyron is really good at smack downs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

No, he doesn't win so much as everyone gets bored of him continuing to say the same things over and over in the face of clear contradiction; giving all appearences of not fully reading what he responds to. Here, let me show you:

He posted this (among other stuff)
with a timestamp of 06/16/07 10:07 AM.

In response to a post of mine, timestamp 06/16/07 08:59 AM where I said (among other things)
Having very recently quoted a a portion of a post of his, timestamp 06/16/07 01:30 AM, which included (again, among other things - I'm trying to boil it down to just a single, highly specific point for ease of reading, and in the process cutting out a lot of stuff not directly relevant to the analysis of the tactic used in the specific example)
When he'd been responding to my initial post on this topic, timestamp 06/15/07 09:27 PM, where I never once used the term "jailed" - Narf did. Yet Fyron very explicitly stated that I asserted "that 1% of all non-criminals are jailed" (Emphasis added). There's plenty of other examples in the discussion above if you want to look for them; I'm not going to spoon-feed them out further, but that one is easily demonstrated, if merely picking nits in and of itself (choice of terms).

There is no point in debating against people who use such tactics - any argument will effectively fall on deaf ears - they either don't hear, ignore, or don't understand the actual arguments used. But they "win" because most people don't examine the "debate" closely enough to realize what happened, and understand why the other person stopped responding.

It took me a while to figure out why I didn't like Fyron's posts. Sometimes emotional gut reactions get there faster than reason. Now I'm there by way of reason, too.

Re: Honest debate doesn\'t pay :(
 

It seems to me that "jailed" and "punished" are interchangeable synonyms here that don't change the meaning of anything. There was no "tactic" involved, merely an innocent switching of the two words in my mind. Hence no, I was never trying to put words in your mouth.

I'm not sure why you have decided to take such a simple debate so personally... Gotta love the baseless ad hominem attacks.

Re: Honest debate doesn\'t pay :(
 

Paris Hilton may disagree with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Calling someone one it doesn\'t pay :(
 

And you give yet another example of not fully reading, understanding, or processing what you're responding to; you missed a sentence:
I already admitted that the specific example used was meaningless when I made it. There are others if you care to find them, they are just marginally more subtle. That one is simply very easy to demonstrate.

Now, to be fair, I did make that post in anger; most of your posts don't do that. When you're helping someone with the game, or discussing the game, you do an excellent job. I apologize for not putting that caveat in earlier.

I'm attacking your debate behavior and tactics, not you personally. The meat of it is not an attack against you, personally. Granted, in my anger, I did use negative-connotation words in relation to you mixed in with the actual arguements. I apologize for that aspect. The meat of the point still stands, and you demonstrate it yet again.

Re: Honest debate doesn\'t pay :(
 

The only "tactic" used was to say that the basic assumptions used in the thought experiment (mental exercise) were wrong. Anything else was either an innocent switching of synonymous terms, or imagined on your part. Isn't the meat of an argument far more important that sitting there and nit-picking every little word used? We obviously disagree on the merits of the initial assumptions; going into some point-by-point pissing match doesn't accomplish anything.

Ludd said:
"Paris Hilton may disagree with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif"

Well, I wouldn't expect her to understand the subtleties of context. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Calling someone one it doesn\'t pay :(
 

[sarcasm]
Yes, obviously; after pointing out how you do it yet again in a later post - in the same thread, with quotes, mind, that basically anyone can check on - it must be purely imagined on my part. Right. Of course. What other explaination could there possibly be? It must be purely my fault.
[/sarcasm]
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure I'm totally missing a plank in my own eye somewhere. But your speck is getting annoying.
actually, I AM making a distinction - an important one, even - between punished and Jailed. As evidenced by the fact that I put "criminal" in quotes. It's a token of a fairly arbitrary nature. You say it can't reflect reality? Try this on for size:

Take, for example, a test for illegeal drug use. It's not unreasonable for a test for illegal drugs that is inexpensive enough to be applied to every member of an entire corporation to be 99% accurate (in both directions). The corporation may only have a 1% "criminal" population - users, in this case. Punishment consists of a summary firing. You check 10,000 employes, the expectation is for 99 true positives, 99 false positives, and one false negative. The test indicates that you've got just under a 2% user population (1.98%, to be precise); exactly 1 in 2 positive results are false. If you actually have a 2% user population, then you're expected to get 198 true positives, 98 false positives, and two false negatives; the test indicates that you've got just under a 3% user population (2.96%, to be precise). Just under 1 in 3 of the positive results should have been negative.

There's a reason I put "criminal" in quotes and used "punished" rather than jailed. But you didn't ask why, no request for clairification, nothing of that nature. Just a direct attack saying it's all stupid assumptions. Then when, silly me, I tried to correct you on the basis of logical constructs used, you started missing fairly important stuff and replying anyway. If A -> C under circumstances B, when B is false, obviously, it says nothing at all about C; the logic statement - by definition, mind - doesn't apply. Yet there are situations where B is true, and it does apply.

There's no point in debating you, Fyron. I'm just in the mood to play the fool today.

Re: Honest debate doesn\'t pay :(
 

All hail the Imperator! (Remember Thou art Mortal)

Sweet zombie jesus...
 

Can someone lock this thread before Jack flames me again? I guess I should have learned my lesson about trying to discuss things civilly with him last time. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Re: Sweet zombie jesus...
 

actually it's quite enteraining

Re: Honesty doesn\'t pay :(
 

No, not entertaining...quite tiresome in fact.

Lock, seconded.

Re: Anyone got a lock?
 

... as opposed to your use of terms like "pissing match"? Or saying that I'm imagining things when I can lay out what I'm talking about, plain as day? Or when you simply flat-out contradict me saying it's "unreal and don't properly reflect any sort of valid estimate"?

Yeah, lock the thread. Sure.

Re: Anyone got a lock?
 

I see nothing yet in this thread worth locking it over, Fyron. Although I will give you both a warning if it makes you feel better.

You really should try to find a way to make your opinions a little less caustic Fyron. If you could learn to disagree with people in a nicer way you will find that your threads won't need moderator involvment as often.

Geoschmo

Re: Fyron, I apologize.
 

Geo, you're absolutely right. I have gone beyond what is polite while arguing. Fyron, I apologize.

Re: Fyron, I apologize.
 

It would be nice if ou could avoid a full page of "picky-quotes" in reply to a quarter page post and then again to a two line post.

Pointing out that the implications of your post are extremely flawed (even though you already knew that) is hardly grounds for an argument.

You guys gotta chill out and give each other a little more credit.

Re: Fyron, I apologize.
 

SJ:
The long splits (such as my post, #529562 - 06/16/07 08:59 AM, or my post, #529829 - 06/17/07 11:34 AM) are actually for my benefit more than anything else; it lets me go through the post I'm responding to pretty much line by line, making fairly sure I'm responding to pretty much everything I want to (Fyron has, in the past, demanded that I address point X that was semi-buried in the middle of a post). It also lets me be very clear of what sentence of mine is meant to addresses what sentence of the one I'm quoting.

The scattered fragment quotes (my post, #529738 - 06/16/07 09:02 PM) was done that way because that was about all I could think of to make it clear what I was objecting to.

I don't generally think of the formatting as annoying, or the size of the web page as overly important - as I type this up, my "Show All" view of this thread is only 241,291 bytes - a trifle, at least on my network connection. It's understandable someone else might feel differently, though, now that I think about it. Hmm.

Well, it's unlikely that Fyron and I will get into another argument soon, anyway.

Re: Fyron, I apologize.
 

The cleanest way (IMO) to do multiple quotings is via Bold vs italics tags:

Hey hey hey
Come on, we don't need fat albert quotes!

Your cities will burn with our vengeful fire
Hey, you were the one who attacked me! I'm the one who should be vengeful!

etc.