The long investigation that led to the new sponsorship rules

I updated my above post. I guess I don't know anything about the PMs, though.

You have to admit that the majority of the posts he made -- or at least all the ones I saw -- were good hockey talk. Sometimes we get angry at each-other because we hold different opinions but that's a completely different issue and it happens with pretty much all of us.

asq2 wrote:I updated my above post. I guess I don't know anything about the PMs, though.

You have to admit that the majority of the posts he made -- or at least all the ones I saw -- were good hockey talk. Sometimes we get angry at each-other because we hold different opinions but that's a completely different issue and it happens with pretty much all of us.

Who? Notch, Cloverleaf, FireOnIce, SS, or Cocke Roche?

CockRoche.

Now you might disagree with his posts, sure. But what I saw was hockey-related and IMO a welcome contribution.

I guess I'm just not entirely convinced of the legitimacy of evaluating CockRoche through the Notch lens rather than looking at that account as its own entity. Part of me thinks he should have been banned for what he did on that account, not what he did as FireOnIce. What was the risk of letting him stay, so long as he was making good posts? Was he going to turn us against you guys, have us kick you and Rooney off the site, and rule over us in his various accounts as the ideological hegemony? Or was he just going to attack you? In which case we'd cross the bridge when we arrive at it and ban him then.

Now, this is my opinion without having seen PMs or any of the attacking posts that you say happened prior to the ones I can see. And in the case of the latter, if they were ban-worthy he should have been banned then, for those. Not because of this IP thing.

asq2 wrote:I updated my above post. I guess I don't know anything about the PMs, though.

You have to admit that the majority of the posts he made -- or at least all the ones I saw -- were good hockey talk. Sometimes we get angry at each-other because we hold different opinions but that's a completely different issue and it happens with pretty much all of us.

As I said at near the top of this thread, Steve "Notch" Johnson is a respected member at Dobber's site, and I know for sure that he contributed a few articles about the Sens '09 training camp (or rookie camp?) for that site. I have no doubt that Notch follows hockey, and the Sens, closely.

Notch pissed off a lot of people, especially ownership, and when they found out it was him again, they banned him. That is a decision I not only understand, given past history, but support, given the fact that he was masquerading as someone else and stirring up Dung against me personally.

asq2 wrote:CockRoche.

Now you might disagree with his posts, sure. But what I saw was hockey-related and IMO a welcome contribution.

I guess I'm just not entirely convinced of the legitimacy of evaluating CockRoche through the Notch lens rather than looking at that account as its own entity. Part of me thinks he should have been banned for what he did on that account, not what he did as FireOnIce. What was the risk of letting him stay, so long as he was making good posts? Was he going to turn us against you guys, have us kick you and Rooney off the site, and rule over us in his various accounts as the ideological hegemony? Or was he just going to attack you? In which case we'd cross the bridge when we arrive at it and ban him then.

Now, this is my opinion without having seen PMs or any of the attacking posts that you say happened prior to the ones I can see. And in the case of the latter, if they were ban-worthy he should have been banned then, for those. Not because of this IP thing.

He lied about being a former NHL draft pick and he used that lie ot credit his posts, which in hindsight had no basis to them. He would go on about how great a goalie's form was when he actually had no idea at all. He spit out cliche's that anyone else with minimal knowledge about the position could spit out. He did it before too with one of his other alias' as well.

Point being, CR had no credibility because it was indeed Notch playing everyone for a fool.

asq2 wrote:CockRoche.

Now you might disagree with his posts, sure. But what I saw was hockey-related and IMO a welcome contribution.

I guess I'm just not entirely convinced of the legitimacy of evaluating CockRoche through the Notch lens rather than looking at that account as its own entity. Part of me thinks he should have been banned for what he did on that account, not what he did as FireOnIce. What was the risk of letting him stay, so long as he was making good posts? Was he going to turn us against you guys, have us kick you and Rooney off the site, and rule over us in his various accounts as the ideological hegemony? Or was he just going to attack you? In which case we'd cross the bridge when we arrive at it and ban him then.

Now, this is my opinion without having seen PMs or any of the attacking posts that you say happened prior to the ones I can see. And in the case of the latter, if they were ban-worthy he should have been banned then, for those. Not because of this IP thing.

Re-read the Cap'n's first post in this thread. From there, you will see that this IP stuff was only one (small) factor in their consideration. I'm not privy to anything beyond what I've already said here.

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:I updated my above post. I guess I don't know anything about the PMs, though.

You have to admit that the majority of the posts he made -- or at least all the ones I saw -- were good hockey talk. Sometimes we get angry at each-other because we hold different opinions but that's a completely different issue and it happens with pretty much all of us.

As I said at near the top of this thread, Steve "Notch" Johnson is a respected member at Dobber's site, and I know for sure that he contributed a few articles about the Sens '09 training camp (or rookie camp?) for that site. I have no doubt that Notch follows hockey, and the Sens, closely.

Notch pissed off a lot of people, especially ownership, and when they found out it was him again, they banned him. That is a decision I not only understand, given past history, but support, given the fact that he was masquerading as someone else and stirring up Dung against me personally.

(This is also in response to your post below the one I'm quoting.)

If he's stirring up dung against you that's what he should be banned for.

I get that if you discover that a Kindergarten teacher is actually a convicted pedophile in disguise, you make him GTFO regardless of what he's done in his new persona. But on a website the stakes are much lower: there's only so much a poster can actually do. I'm not sure what it means for a poster to "ruin the integrity" of a site. Are we worried that people at Dobberhockey or other communities are laughing at us for allowing him to post here?

I don't see the point in getting rid of him now vs. waiting for him potentially to do something worth banning him for. If he has already done that, then he should have been banned for that. Not because of the IP thing or because he's Notch.

asq2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:I updated my above post. I guess I don't know anything about the PMs, though.

You have to admit that the majority of the posts he made -- or at least all the ones I saw -- were good hockey talk. Sometimes we get angry at each-other because we hold different opinions but that's a completely different issue and it happens with pretty much all of us.

As I said at near the top of this thread, Steve "Notch" Johnson is a respected member at Dobber's site, and I know for sure that he contributed a few articles about the Sens '09 training camp (or rookie camp?) for that site. I have no doubt that Notch follows hockey, and the Sens, closely.

Notch pissed off a lot of people, especially ownership, and when they found out it was him again, they banned him. That is a decision I not only understand, given past history, but support, given the fact that he was masquerading as someone else and stirring up Dung against me personally.

(This is also in response to your post below the one I'm quoting.)

If he's stirring up dung against you that's what he should be banned for.

I get that if you discover that a Kindergarten teacher is actually a convicted pedophile in disguise, you make him GTFO regardless of what he's done in his new persona. But on a website the stakes are much lower: there's only so much a poster can actually do. I'm not sure what it means for a poster to "ruin the integrity" of a site. Are we worried that people at Dobberhockey or other communities are laughing at us for allowing him to post here?

I don't see the point in getting rid of him now vs. waiting for him potentially to do something worth banning him for. If he has already done that, then he should have been banned for that. Not because of the IP thing or because he's Notch.

I did not ban him, and I'm not sure I would have, to be honest. But that's because, after months of taking Dung from that guy, I would have loved to see him try and defend himself from the info that Hem sent me. I was looking forward to seeing him getting publicly ousted first, at any rate.

Anyway, I didn't do any banning, and nor did I bring any new info up that led to that banning. If you want more, you have to talk to the mods. Everything I know is now here on this board. And from what I read here, the IP stuff was a minor factor in the whole thing, & there were other factors.

I'm not blaming you. Or anyone in particular, really. But my impression of this is that we were pretty rigid/dispassionate in holding Roche accountable so it doesn't seem fair to suddenly start overlooking things again and sweeping this under the rug. I mean, let's be honest, there's a lot of fighting that goes on at this site that doesn't result in infractions/banning.

It's a delicate balance, obviously. I don't want to suggest that Notch should be allowed to create accounts over and over again every week that just attack people non-stop, or that every time he makes a new account we should just ignore his previous history. But, Roche had established himself as a hockey poster on this site so it's a different situation than, say, Madillio. And I'm definitely not convinced that the IP thing was treated as a minor factor.

Anyway, what's done is done. If Roche is Notch it'd be much too awkward to allow him back on the site unless you three (you, Notch, Neely) can clear the air/get back to talking hockey, or agree to use the ignore feature and completely disregard the others' posts. And it doesn't seem like either of those is going to happen, which is partly Notch's fault.

But, as a somewhat outside observer, I think it's a sad situation.

shabbs wrote:

Dash wrote:I can't tell if you are trying to argue for or against the notion that Notch and Roche are or are not one in the same?

Heh. I'm just pointing out that IP addresses can be manipulated...

Yes, they can.

Now see if you can manipulate it to be the same as mine.

ETA: This is the IP address for this post:
99.224.124.213 [ CPE001b11251e39-CM0012c9daeb78.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ]

You see, there is a difference. You can certainly have one user posting from multiple IP addresses even in the same timeframe. Someone with a mobile device would do that without even trying anything special, by just moving around.

What is more difficult is for two members to post from the same IP address. SD and SG11 do it all the time, since they share a modem. But for Notch and CR to post from the same IP address is something else. What, I'm not sure, but it certainly is quite uncommon.

Now, if two members work at the same location, then it's very likely that they will use the same IP address (since they are most likely sitting behind a router, and all you see is the router's external IP address. Same thing if two members are both sitting at the same Starbucks, or at the same airport, or any other public wifi hotspot. Similarly for shared computers like you'd have at a university or public library. I'm not sure about mobile devices, but it may also apply to two mobile members in the same cell.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Dash wrote:I can't tell if you are trying to argue for or against the notion that Notch and Roche are or are not one in the same?

Heh. I'm just pointing out that IP addresses can be manipulated...

I'm aware of that. But I've also seen the results of a search on one post that shows the IP in question was used by all of Notch's old accounts, by CR, and by SS. We're talking about a colossal coincidence, if that's what it is.

What's more likely -- that CR works in the same building with or shares an apartment with him, which would explain that kind of result? or that they're one and the same?

I have no doubt that Notch / CR / SS uses something like you are talking about, which allows him to manipulate IP info. What happened is that he re-used one of those IPs, which in turn left a trail connecting each alias to the other.

Or so I gather. I really don't pretend to understand any of this techno stuff.

Are you sure about that? That's not what I saw. First of all, it could *not* be *all* of Notch's old accounts, because for a while the mods were deleting them instead of banning them. So the user shows up as "Guest" and it could be anyone who had his account deleted -- including Dawg's Wife and Neely and N4L and others.

Look, other instances of an IP being used by more than one member have been seen and not explained. None of those members have been ever tied (tried?) to Notch. This "evidence", while obviously alarming, is not incontrovertible. If this was a court of law -- specifically a criminal court -- then this evidence would have been thrown out a long time ago. Yeah, we all know O.J. "did it" but he still was not convicted in a criminal case; only the civil one. And, yeah, this is more of a civil matter than a criminal one, so different rules apply. But let me just make it perfectly clear -- and I am speaking directly to you, Rooney and NEELY: the evidence was not a "smoking gun" and people who know far more about this than you have said so (and, no, I'm not talking about myself).

Hey, you guys made the decision based on the info you had in front of you, not me.

And did you just delete my last post? WTF?

I have an explanation. Here'S Cockroche:



and here's Notch:

Maybe, but even so we don't have the fate of Middle Earth on a chain around our neck.

I just re-checked the original email Hemlock sent me, Wprager:

Under one IP, there is 1 Guest, 5 Notch aliases, CR, and SS.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Dash wrote:I can't tell if you are trying to argue for or against the notion that Notch and Roche are or are not one in the same?

Heh. I'm just pointing out that IP addresses can be manipulated...

I'm aware of that. But I've also seen the results of a search on one post that shows the IP in question was used by all of Notch's old accounts, by CR, and by SS. We're talking about a colossal coincidence, if that's what it is.

What's more likely -- that CR works in the same building with or shares an apartment with him, which would explain that kind of result? or that they're one and the same?

I have no doubt that Notch / CR / SS uses something like you are talking about, which allows him to manipulate IP info. What happened is that he re-used one of those IPs, which in turn left a trail connecting each alias to the other.

Or so I gather. I really don't pretend to understand any of this techno stuff.

I haven't seen the evidence so I can't really comment... the owners of the site have indicated that there is other evidence beyond the IP address info that they used to base their decision on and I defer to them in that regard. Madillio pointing to two posts made within a minute of each other by two of the mentioned accounts using different IP addresses is not clear evidence that they are different people, nor is it clear evidence that they are the same person, as demonstrated by me. The exact same IP address showing up across all three accounts certainly is suspicious.

More than 3 accounts, Shabbs -- about 7-8 in total -- 5-6 known Notch accounts, plus CR's account, plus SS's account. You will remember that immediately after Notch was banned, he came back in quick succession with 4-5 other Notch variations. Well, all those Notch aliases, plus CR and SS, posted using the same IP address.

The odds on this being a coincidence, I'm told, are astronomical.

Again, please don't misstate facts. Right now there are *4* old Notch accounts:
notch_4077
notch77
notch
notch4077

Many other ones were deleted, resulting in a lost trail.

NEELY wrote:

Dash wrote:I guess I am one to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. One, I had no issue with the member known as CockRoche. Second, the only problem I can see was not how this member behaved, but how other members went out of their way to have him banned.

You realize giving him the benefit of the doubt is just ignoring all the evidence, right? Like Rooney said, the odds are that of the chance of winning the lotto. The guy played a lot of you for fools and you are still buying it. He literally lied about being someone (who again, was an instructor on ice when I was a kid, in Lindsey, ON and knew it was BS from the very begining) just so he could earn an instant rep that was all BS.

Rooney himself admitted (wisely) that he was not an expert in such matters. So why would you use his "testimony" to prove your point? One of the admins pointed out a member whose list of used IP addesses went much further than anyone else's. He thought it was suspicious, but it could very simply be that he posts using his mobile device, and he happens to be on the move a lot. Or he's using an anonymizing service -- lots of people do that to bypass various restrictions (such as streaming content from NBC.com, for example).

Rooney himself was quite surprised when I showed him the number of IP addresses he has used, as he expected that number to be quite low.

The IP "evidence", in and of itself, proves absolutely nothing because it is circumstantial.