wintermute-psych team mailing list archive

["danteashton@xxxxxxxxx" <danteashton@xxxxxxxxx>]

This email is written to clarify the SII's trustees decision, in the hopes
that you will understand why we have done what we've done.

A few days ago, hajour (the TL of SpeechControl) made a couple of
accusations;

1. That NRWlion was at UDS in Budapest, working as a Nokia 'spy' against
open-source programs.
2. That NRWlion might of been the hacker/leak in Jacky's and Undi's
computers.
3. That CensoredBiscuit hacked her Facebook account.

Hajour made it quite clear that the person at UDS had NRWlion's face, and
also told her his name, and his IRC name.

Obviously, the implications of these accusations (especially for NRWlion)
are immense. So let's break down the possible explanations for the
accusations against NRWlion;

1. NRWlion was at UDS, he was indeed spying for Nokia, (and seems to of made
the very sloppy mistake of showing his face at UDS and publicly admitting
himself.)
2. NRWlion was NOT at UDS, but an imposter with the same face, name and IRC
name was.
3. Hajour is purposefully telling a lie. (Potentional reasons will be
discussed below)
4. Hajour is accidently telling a lie (the difference between this one and
point 3. being that Hajour saw NRWlion, but it was only in her mind)

My first run through of checking these was not of fact checking, but simple
counting. There are three extrapolations of logic that go against her, and
only one that goes with her. Generally, whichever has the most reasons is
the correct approach, but this method is not fool-proof, so using it by
itself is incorrect.

I then calculate other events that have occurred here; Hajour's first
mistake was making accusations on her word alone. As I have learnt recently,
in the past she has accused others of smaller (but equally malicious, as you
see with the accusation against CensoredBiscuit) acts. For someone who has
this reputation, evidence is everything.

Her second mistake was more like a breach in etiquette; she had damaging
information about a team-member in another team. The TL should of been
directly (not indirectly) informed.

I am aware Hajour has impairments related to her mental health; common side
effects of her condition include paranoia, and in extreme cases,
delusions, hallucinations and psychotic episodes are known to occur. (And
can also occur with most medications proscribed for it)  so I feel that this
must also be calculated. I also know she only sometimes takes her
medication, and doing so with medication designed to operate with the mind
is dangerous, as it can amplify the effects of the condition being treated,
as well as the side effects of the medication.

I also feel that  bears a grudge against the SII, and this must also be
calculated. (The evidence for the grudge appeared in my last conversation
with her, before I and her split.)

Now, to follow a logical chain on one of the possibltiles;, working on the
assumption that she was lieing to us, and that she has a grudge, I can make
the following extrapolations of data:

*Hajour purposefully injected FUD into the SII, as per her grudge, in an
attempt to harm us. Providing Jacky with the information, as she knew we had
no backup head of dev, where the most damage could of occurred. This would
explain her breach in etiquette, as well as using her relationship with
Jacky to make him believe it in the absence of facts. (As this was
a potential reason, myself, Phillw and Jacky asked for a separation)*
*We did not do what was predicted (keeping an eye on NRWlion
for suspicious behavior, becoming secretive, increasing the level of
Fear/Uncertitanty/Doubt in the group and, as it grew, turning us against
each other) and instead we (the trustees) asked people to withdraw from one
of the groups, all the while explaining the situation.*
*
*
*As this attack failed, hajour had a choice; either admit what happened, or
deflect it and lie about the lie. As she (and UndiFineD) are working with
NRWlion in an attempt to locate this Imposter, it appears, from this logical
chain, that she chose to deflect it. It should also be noted that she
refused to talk to either him (in the early stages) or me, and doing so
could be seen as an admission of guilt.*
*
*
*Considering that there was a grudge, her method of attack is a good way of
taking a team down.*


I would like to personally add that making accusations without evidence, and
finding them to be incorrect, is almost always a good reason to step down
from a TL position.

Another logical chain is this;

*Hajour's condition caused her to see things, or indeed, believe things that
weren't there. She came to a correct logical conclusion, but the premises
that made up that logic were false. (Her perception of the world was
incorrect). I don't know if her medication (or lack thereof) or condition
played a part here, but I am sure one of them is responsible. This logical
chain increases in probability as you consider she made accusations against
others, which, on occasion, have also been proven to be incorrect (but so
far never proven to be correct)*
*
*
*As such she is now acting on the premise that she still saw NRWlion there,
but it must be an imposter of some sort. (Another high probabilty also
accounted for, and another reason why distancing ourselves from her would be
a good thing to do)*
*
*

I would like to add my personal opinion: As Hajour has had multiple
incidents like this, I do not find it wise for someone who may be suffering
from condition-induced paranoia to operate in a TL position.Would you let a
blind person drive a car through a busy city? Then why would you accept a
paranoid person leading a team in a community, making accusations?

There is another logical chain, of course. This has been suggested to me by
a few people.

*NRWlion WAS at UDS; spying for Nokia. There is indeed a
worldwide conspiracy, perhaps forwarded by the government,
or corporations whose technology (and patents) are at risk because of us.
They are trying to stop us by any means needed. They have already breached
the Facebook and Email accounts of hajour, and the computers of Jacky and
UndiFineD.*
*
*

First, let me point out that the 'hacker' on Undi's machine actually left
documents on his system about AI technology. I'd also question why they are
attacking hajour, and not me. (I appear to be the bigger threat here).

Secondly: let me point out (again) that if NRWlion was a spy, why was he at
UDS, telling people his real name and IRC name, when he was aware hajour
would be there?

Thirdly: Let me point out that Jacky has an interest in exploits on the
Linux platform; the other day he led me to a link that activated the apt-url
DoS attack (where apt-url picks up a url with thousands of characters in it,
tries to render the characters to screen, runs out of memory
and temporarily kills Compiz/ the X server. I was not really surprised to
learn that, around the time of the attack, he had been opening and closing
ports, thus allowing an attacker (or indeed, an automated script) to get in
there.

Finally: let me introduce you Occam's Razor, a law of logic which simply
states "The simplest explanation is often the correct one."

So, I ask you, which is more probable? That we are the target of attacks
by corporations, or that Hajour either lied to us or that (consider her
condition here) she was delusional at the time?


Also,one other important item;

Some of you have said that making you choose "is not open-source". Now, you
see, this is difficult for me to deal with, because if I forced your hand,
then this would also "not be open-source."

If someone comes onto my channel, and starts abusing people and accusing
them and insulting them, should I stand by and make it impossible for you to
work in that channel? Or should I remove them? What if it was just a member
of 4chan, going for the lulz? Should I keep them there? Should I watch as
they attempt to insult your fellow team-members, damage the channel, and the
team's reputation?

Think of it like this;
*I own an office building (the team's working environment). I employ you and
others to work there. One day, a friend of yours comes to my building,
defecates in their hand, and throws it at a random employee. I, of course,
order them out of the building. This is logical. What is illogical is that
you, as their friend, is defending them. I do not care if they are a nice
person who gives their money to orphans, kitties and charities. I do not
care if they are the nicest, most lovable person in the world. They still
shat in their hand and threw it at someone. If I don't remove them, then how
do I know they won't do it again? How will others feel, having such a person
in their working environment?*

I am given the power to act for everyone's benefit because, when I was given
the chance, I have done no wrong, and I have never stopped explaining my
reasons for my actions. I lead through transparency, and you are free to
poke and prod the logic behind them to your heart's content. You will find
no illogical measures taken (though I admit in some cases you may find my
logic sometimes translucent at best because of NDA's or personal data I
cannot share without consent from the people involved.) Though, if you do, I
would ask you tell me about them and I will correct my decision.

If you feel I have done wrong because you are emotionally invested in the
other side, then you and I have a conflict of interest. But my duty is to
the team that runs under the banner of the SII, I am the SII's head trustee,
and it is my job to lead, and indeed, take the flak from decisions made by
us.

If you are comparing my actions against the Ideology of the open-source
movement, then again, you and I have a conflict of interest.

My job is to run this team through the use of logic; not emotion, nor
ideologies. I and the others have made this decision based on logic. To use
emotion instead will hurt everyone, in the end, with little understanding of
why we did what we did. I would not be a very good team leader if I did
things because I felt like them (I felt like shutting down the SII a while
ago, but logically, I could not justify it)

If the Open-Source ideology requires that I do nothing to prevent harm to my
team, then I disagree with the open-source ideology. I disagree through
logic; all the arguments I've heard against the decision to split the teams
entirely have been based in emotion, or the fuzzy world of ideologies. You
have my reasons, I ask you to challenge them with logic. Emotion and
ideologies are not logic. So attempting to win a battle against logic is
like trying to win a gunfight, when you have brought a knife. It Won't Work.







-- 

-Danté Ashton

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici


Sent from Ubuntu