Posted 23 September 2013 - 9:42pm by Steve Johnson
Edict #5
?You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.? - Martin Luther
Good Evening,
Thank you everyone for being patient as both myself and David Wonderly reviewed all of the facts and conferred with EGO regarding the recent investigation into the actions of Drew Z. Diamond. Furthermore thank you to EGO for taking the time to review all of the data and produce your report regarding these actions.
EGO?s report drew 3 conclusions which I will address individually.
?1) Duplicate Account Use. There is insufficient evidence to prove with any certainty that Drew is in control of either Kay?s or Ciaran?s account. With the evidence available, it is assessed as plausible, but unlikely. Drew?s case would have been further strengthened had Kay responded to requests to discuss her account use over the telephone. (The historical precedence for duplicate accounts has been to verify two independent people are operating the accounts.)?
For the charge of duplicate accounts, Drew, Kay and Ciaran are hereby cleared of all wrong doing. However Drew, Kay and Ciaran are all strongly advised to change passwords so that each individual has a unique password to protect the security of each account.
?2) Interference with an Investigation. While the likelihood of the spoofed email impacting the investigation into plagiarism is very unlikely, Drew did interfere with an investigation with deliberately falsified documents. While there is, strictly speaking, no rule against interfering with an investigation, it is certainly behavior not expected from a President, no matter the reasoning, and would have supported a Notice of Intent to Impeach.?
I have spent a lot of time debating and conferring with EGO and my advisors regarding where interfering with an investigation falls within our rules. Under GRAVITieS ?All subjects involved in a complaint must cooperate with the investigating authority to the best of their abilities, including but not limited to sending all requested evidence and being truthful at all times.” After reviewing everything we could not find a specific place where this charge is addressed. However I believe that it is Conduct Unbecoming for a Star-Fleet.com President to be impeding in an official investigation as well deliberately falsifying evidence.
On this charge Drew Z. Diamond is found guilty of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. Because of his position in the club and the publicity of this infraction Drew Z. Diamond is hereby stripped of all rank and privileges and demoted to the rank of Ensign.
It is my interpretation that K.L. Harvey was pushed by Drew into being an accomplice to falsifying the documentation they submitted in this investigation. Because of this and her spotless record prior to the plagiarism investigation, I am here by issuing an official warning to K.L. Harvey. Additionally I hereby recommend that the GM Director should ban K.L. Harvey for no less than 6 months from participating in any activities on the GMD Ship, including but not limited to submitting new races. Please be aware that future attempts to impede an official investigation will result in stiffer penalties.
?3) Brute Force Attempts. Although entirely unrelated to the original Call for Impeachment, this has been included to ensure all the facts are in the open. It should be noted that while “illegal attempts to access, or any attempts to undermine or damage club infrastructure” (from GRAVITieS, http://www.star-fleet.com/prez/edicts/wonderly/#b2) is a Tier 1 offence, there is no rule (either in the TOS or any of the bylaws) that clearly states users are not to attempt to access the site with anyone else?s username. Again, while no rule has been broken the attempt to gain access to an account, rather than referring it to the Internet Department, would have supported a Notice of Intent to Impeach in this instance.?
This charge has also been a matter of constant debate between myself and my advisors. It is not in my belief that the brute force attempts were done to undermine or damage the club INFRASTRUCTURE, infrastructure being the key word. However it has come to my attention that he knew what he was doing was wrong and against general club policy, yet he still continued to persist in these activities. I have consulted the rules and technically no official rule was broken, however it is generally considered against the law to attempt to hack into another person?s account, especially knowingly hacking into an account through a brute force tactic.
Our Terms of Service specifically lays out that violation of applicable local, national, and international laws is additionally a violation of our Terms of Service, and can result in an immediate termination, or suspension, of access to all or parts of Star-Fleet.com services. (See section ?OUR RIGHTS? sub-section ?ii) Termination?)
Because Drew has previously received a Temporary Ban under our Terms of Service for having duplicate accounts, this will constitute his second violation of the Terms of Service. Under GRAVITieS his second violation of the Terms of Service constitutes a Category 1 Offence.
The original ban can be found at:
http://www.star-fleet.com/prez/edicts/cramer/#e17
Despite the different name Drew confirmed the ban during the previous elections:
http://www.star-fleet.com/webb/node/534741
Drew Z. Diamond, on the charge of knowingly attempting to hack another users account you are found guilty. Under GRAVITieS I hereby permanently ban you from Star-Fleet.com and all of its known or future services.
Once again thank you all for your patience as I determined the appropriate actions in this case.
Sincerely,
Steve Johnson
President ? Star-Fleet.com