CoJ Case 067: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia of the Dark Brotherhood, an online Star Wars Club
No edit summary
m (Protected "CoJ Case 067": case history ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 00:23, 24 October 2021

This article is part of the series:
Chamber of Justice
Cases


DB vs Hatchi Aso-Gui Sol-Corvo, #4215-#4224-#16129 was the sixty-seventh case tried by the Chamber of Justice. The sitting Justicar was Thane Skotos, the Left Hand of Justice was Kamjin "Maverick" Lap'lamiz, and the Right Hand of Justice was Alethia Archenksova.

Basic Case Information

Defendant

Charges

  • One Count: Violation of Covenant section 7.06(e) - Cloning

Verdict

  • GUILTY

Sentence

  • Deletion of the dossiers of Hatchi Aso and Corvo;
  • Letter of Reprimand permanently applied to the member’s dossier;
  • Strict Probation for 3 months followed by 3 months General Probation.

Related News Post

Members of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood,

The Chamber of Justice has convened and issued a verdict in the pending case of DB v. Hatchi Aso-Gui Sol-Corvo. Following an investigation, Gui was charged with one count of Cloning.

The detailed Verdict and Justicar's Opinion for the case can be found in the PDF file linked below. Please note that the written opinion is generally found on the page after announcement of the verdict.

The verdict was as follows:

Case #067 - DB v. Hatchi Aso-Gui Sol-Corvo - Opinion PDF

  • One Count of Cloning: GUILTY
  • Penalties:
    • Deletion of the dossiers of Hatchi Aso and Corvo;
    • Letter of Reprimand permanently applied to the member’s dossier;
    • Strict Probation for 3 months followed by 3 months General Probation.

Comments on CoJ posts are left open for positive comments and words of encouragement to a member that has just gone through this hard process. Please be kind.

Signed and sealed in Justice,

Thane "Atra" Skotos Justicar of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood

Justicar's Opinion

Facts

The accounts for Hatchi Aso (4215) and Gui Sol (4224) were created on August 6, 2004 and August 8, 2004, respectively. On June 18, 2020, an additional dossier was created, Corvo (16129). The Chamber of Justice was alerted to a case of two accounts, Hatchi Aso and Corvo, sharing an Internet Protocol (IP) address on August 12, 2021. Normally, the Right Hand of Justice contacts the members involved in an IP conflict directly, but during preliminary research the Chamber of Justice discovered dozens of shared IP addresses and commenced an investigation to rule out a technical fault or other reason for the Brotherhood website to generate false positives, based on the age and activity of the 17-year-old Hatchi Aso and Gui Sol accounts. While the investigation was initially expected to rule out cloning, the Chamber has issued charges based on the findings below, the duration of the activity, and the roles held by the dossiers involved.

The Dark Brotherhood website’s security logs identify 482 IP addresses used to access the accounts of Hatchi Aso, Gui Sol, and Corvo between August 23, 2020 and August 12, 2020. 15 addresses were used to access both Hatchi Aso and Gui Sol, 26 were used for both Hatchi Aso and Corvo, 5 were used for both Gui Sol and Corvo, and 3 were used for all three accounts. The majority of the shared IP addresses are known to belong to a U.S.-based cellular service provider, meaning that they are likely shared by thousands of customers and do not provide evidence of a shared household.

However, one IP address shared by all three accounts, is associated with a U.S. internet service provider’s fiber optic home internet service. It has been used consistently to access all three accounts between August 23, 2020 and August 12, 2021. It was used to access the Hatchi Aso account 115 times, the Gui Sol account 372 times, and the Corvo account 44 times during this period.

Additional IP conflicts were identified dating back to at least May 20, 2015, when the Hatchi Aso account logged out of the website at 12:29 AM EST and the Gui Sol account logged in at 12:29 AM EST from the same IP address. This address is associated with a different internet service provider’s home cable internet service.

One IP in particular had been used by all three accounts to connect to the official Brotherhood Jedi Academy (JA) server used for multiplayer gaming. All three accounts used this address to connect to the server since December 2020; none of the three accounts have used any other IP address to connect to the server since December 2020.

Additionally, the JA server logs the console command used by players to change their name as displayed to others on the server. The server logs show the following:

  • From "Gui Sol" to "Fade_To_Black"; mirrors the email address listed for the Hatchi Aso dossier.
  • From "Fade_To_Black" to "Ejoni Koya"; Ejoni Koya is a former name used for the Hatchi Aso dossier.
  • From "Brother Grimm" to "g" to "Corvo"; Gorrum Grimm and Grimm Okami are former names used by the Hatchi Aso dossier.
  • From "Gui Sol" to "Brother Grimm".
  • From "Corvo" to "Gui Sol".
  • From "Gui Sol" to "Rorot"; Rorot is a former name used for the Corvo dossier.

Analysis

The Chamber of Justice takes on an important role in preventing cloning within the Brotherhood. Cloned accounts can lead to a complete destruction of the competitive structure the Brotherhood relies upon and has a direct impact on the opportunities available regarding rewards and positions. It is because of this that there is no statute of limitations regarding the investigation of cloning. Normally, this is a small matter of identified matches and reasonable explanation. A note is added to the system and life continues on as normal.

This is a particularly strange situation. Very rarely do we encounter a case of cloning that spans this long, let alone the 10 year mark. In that way, it is a somewhat unprecedented situation. Beyond catching a clone on creation, typically it is only found as a result of a cheating investigation and not an event in and of itself. Quite simply, there are certain "flags" that show themselves when clones co-exist. These can include common traits, behaviours, submissions, or even a lack of appearing in the "same room" at the "same time". Most of these flags were not immediately apparent and it took a potential tip to turn the investigative eye towards the situation. Going forward, regular spot-checks of IPs will be made to catch any future incidents.

That said, as far as the Chamber's investigation has shown, this case is one without any obvious benefit to the member. In truth, the potential for harm is on a far more personal level and not one that can be measured by the Chamber. It will be a fallout of its own, and one we cannot even conjecture towards.

As per Gui's plea, these accounts were used initially as a "social experiment" to see how his reputation might impact his opportunities within the club. While the Gui account was not created as a clone initially, it was taken over in full by Gui around November 06, 2011. The Corvo account was created as a pure clone. At this point, there is no evidence regarding the purpose of creating yet another account, but it is possible that managing multiple personas had become habitual after progressing for so long.

Conjecture, however, is not the role of the Chamber. We deal in evidence.

Sentencing

Gui's plea was expansive and honest. He shared with the Chamber his motivations and thoughts. While the Chamber sympathises with the inciting motivation, it still stands that the rules of the Covenant have been broken.

With the investigation not bringing up any instances of cheating or additional breaches, it is only to the charge of cloning that we can assess the verdict. I want to be clear, though, that this is not a victimless crime. I offer my regret to those that have forged friendships these past many years with the identities attributed to these dossiers.

The Chamber has reviewed the material and crafted a sentence that takes into account the plea and the absence of further crimes. In that absence, we have deemed that a demotion would not apply as a fair and reasonable penalty. Additionally, the probation period was reduced from the potential one year to six months due to the understanding and regret shown in Gui's guilty plea. While the dossier of Gui was initially not one that belonged to the member, due to the time transpired that no longer holds an impact over which dossier is truly "Gui's". In this regard, the member was given the option of preference towards which was their primary dossier within the Brotherhood. Please note, the merits and credits earned by the deleted dossiers will not be transferred to Gui.

/s/ Thane "Atra" Skotos