Author Topic: Malware Update/Apology  (Read 22081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Streganona

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2011, 07:05:19 AM »
I believe miss Jeanne is sincere in her apology but I admit I looked askance at the line about loosing her temper with people who "probably didn't deserve it" something about that seemed a bit off bit I'm sure that's just me. I thought there was a comment in there about recent illness or death in the family which would make it understndable that this was extra upsetting but I must have been confused since I didn't see it when I reread the post

readingchick

  • Trivia Buff
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2011, 08:44:45 AM »
Thank you for addressing this issue, Dame. I'd like to think everyone can rest easy now.

DuBois

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2011, 08:47:05 AM »
Thank you for addressing this issue, Dame. I'd like to think everyone can rest easy now.

Yes, thank you. I feel assured that E-hell is a safe place, emotionally as well as practically. That trolls, potstirrers and troublemakers are not tolerated is to be lauded, not griped about.

Wonderflonium

  • DO NOT BOUNCE
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9091
  • I have a PhD in horribleness.
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2011, 09:03:02 AM »
We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

One of the persons who reported a few days ago that her work computer had been infected with the Win 7 Security virus emailed me earlier today.  She had taken her computer to the IT person who revealed that hers was the 11th employee computer in 2 days to be infected with the exact same virus via shopping online, opening an ecard, etc.     She further reported that she and the other employees were not on the VPN (Virtual Privacy Network) which the tech explained adds a layer of protection when it is used.

I never said or thought that eHell was infected; I believed (and still do) that the malware came from an ad on eHell. The fact that the ad potentially showed up on other sites and caused infection doesn't mean it didn't also appear on this site.

I obviously can't prove where it came from, and I really no longer care. I'm tired of the issue. However, I do care when it is implied that myself and others are too dim to look for actual evidence and therefore just assumed that "a happened before b, so a caused b." That was the implication of Art's post, and I was replying to that.

Also, I am extremely bothered by EduardosGirl being called a troll. She's not. She's not trying to cause trouble, she's not stirring the pot, she's not being hateful; she's trying to address actual issues and is doing so politely.
The status is not quo!

DuBois

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2011, 09:06:41 AM »
We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

One of the persons who reported a few days ago that her work computer had been infected with the Win 7 Security virus emailed me earlier today.  She had taken her computer to the IT person who revealed that hers was the 11th employee computer in 2 days to be infected with the exact same virus via shopping online, opening an ecard, etc.     She further reported that she and the other employees were not on the VPN (Virtual Privacy Network) which the tech explained adds a layer of protection when it is used.

I never said or thought that eHell was infected; I believed (and still do) that the malware came from an ad on eHell. The fact that the ad potentially showed up on other sites and caused infection doesn't mean it didn't also appear on this site.

I obviously can't prove where it came from, and I really no longer care. I'm tired of the issue. However, I do care when it is implied that myself and others are too dim to look for actual evidence and therefore just assumed that "a happened before b, so a caused b." That was the implication of Art's post, and I was replying to that.

Also, I am extremely bothered by EduardosGirl being called a troll. She's not. She's not trying to cause trouble, she's not stirring the pot, she's not being hateful; she's trying to address actual issues and is doing so politely.

EG, as did people in the original 'Ex Member' thread, seems to be very much looking for offense, picking apart posts, and generally being snarky. I can feel the hostility radiating from her posts, and it takes me vack to October, I had really hoped we were past all of this by now.

DuBois

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2011, 09:09:48 AM »
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.

Wonderflonium

  • DO NOT BOUNCE
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9091
  • I have a PhD in horribleness.
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2011, 09:14:03 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.
The status is not quo!

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9015
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2011, 09:16:27 AM »
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.

But in that case I think it's better to cast the apology net too wide, rather than cast the potstirrer net too wide. Better to apologize to a larger group of people (even if some of them later turned out to be potstirrers) than to apologize but imply that some of the people being apologized to don't really deserve it. That cheapens the apology IMO. ETA: It may just be a clumsy phrasing, of course, but that's why it's coming off the way it is. And I worry that simple disagreement is sometimes seen as "potstirring" here.

Edited for typo.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 09:20:34 AM by Yvaine »

DuBois

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2011, 09:16:47 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

Streganona

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2011, 09:20:06 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9015
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2011, 09:21:26 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

still in va

  • used to be gjcva1
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2011, 09:23:35 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

that was me, and that was part of it. 

Streganona

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2011, 09:25:30 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

that was me, and that was part of it.

I'm still confused as to who is supposed to be apologizing if what they are supposed to be apologizing for didn't actually happen but was a rumor that came out of a misunderstanding?

still in va

  • used to be gjcva1
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2011, 09:26:54 AM »
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.

But in that case I think it's better to cast the apology net too wide, rather than cast the potstirrer net too wide. Better to apologize to a larger group of people (even if some of them later turned out to be potstirrers) than to apologize but imply that some of the people being apologized to don't really deserve it. That cheapens the apology IMO. ETA: It may just be a clumsy phrasing, of course, but that's why it's coming off the way it is. And I worry that simple disagreement is sometimes seen as "potstirring" here.

Edited for typo.

i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads. 

DuBois

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Malware Update/Apology
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2011, 09:29:35 AM »
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

Yes, exactly. There are two seperate issues here, I feel: the malware problem and the 'historical' problem of the October debacle. However, my position is that the Dame feels understandably ruffled by critcism, as the business in October was so toxic, and so beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour, that it is difficult to know who to trust. Now, that is not an ideal situation. I'm not saying it is. But overall, I think that the Dame is doing what she can to ensure that e-hell is a safe space on as many fronts as possible. Sorry if that makes me sound like a brown noser (though I assure you I am not-I am a direct and forthright person who would speak out if I felt the need.) But back in October, it was more dangeorus to go against the 'super secret meangirl group' than against the mods, as we found out.