DDoS attack on sites [Updated]

[conerin136]

But why? Just why?

[Vecna6667]

For those wondering, I believe the guy involved is Faks who got banned by The Vampire Dante for uploading illegal content and having seven extra accounts according to this thread:

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/368582-faks-banned

 

He later came back as message to make the threat only to be banned by Dark0ne according to this thread:

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/370694-message-banned

 

That's how have pieced the puzzle together. If I am wrong in my analysis, feel free to correct me.

[Chisst]

Why would anyone threathen an awesome site like this? D:

[Herculine]

Why would anyone threathen an awesome site like this? D:

 

Because he's 30 years old and still living in his mother's basement. She keeps yelling at him to get a job and take out the trash. For a fleeting moment, attacking the Nexus makes him feel manly.

[TheSnarkyShaman]

He's not a 'kid'. The dude is apparently 31, which makes his behaviour exponentially more embarrassing.

[Johnsen1972]

I would sue his ass. DDos attacks are illegal. That would teach him a lesson. Edited April 23, 2011 by Johnsen1972

[RealmEleven]

Why would anyone threathen an awesome site like this? D:

 

Because the only constructive social skill is empathy and empathy has to be taught. Yet empathy is given the least priority in developmental education. Now my generation is reaping what it has sowed and, I have to say that we (of my generation) really have it coming to us. It's a pity that so few of use are sufficiently intelligent to learn from our most grievous error. Feel free to marvel at my complete lack of empathy for the willing participant(s) of this sorry farce - and see the true face of my generation as a whole.

 

Empathy is easy to teach. It starts with a question something like this:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

How hard is that? But I rarely, if ever, hear this kind of question asked.

 

Maybe, if we were to examine the feelings of those involved (instead of judging them, as I just did), we might be able to understand the more immediate mechanisms that drive people to antisocial forms of behaviour - whether it is destroying things that other people cherish, or being a little too eager to serve up "justice". After all, is it not "justice" that the antagonist of this little episode (i.e. the one that got banned) is striving for? On the one hand I can pass the judgement that, in accordance with the provisions and definition of universal suffrage, one man's justice is meagrely another man's revenge. But in my experience, on the other hand, whenever people find themselves seduced by antisocial equivocations such as "justice", it is far, far more effective to ask the question:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

And yes, some people need attention. In case anyone was wondering, attention is a legitimate human need, but judging a person for not effectively going about getting that need met or, worse still, for having that need in the first place (as someone may have done a bit earlier on this thread), is simply not constructive. Moreover, judging a person for having a need we don't share is a vilification of the entire community that does share that need - and, if I understand the motivation behind anti-vilification laws, this kind of behaviour is no longer considered socially acceptable.

 

However, what makes people that have learned empathy truly "wealthy" (i.e. in the social sense), is that having empathy as a skill guarantees that you know the two most important things in life:

 

1. 
    
   
2. What your most important emotional needs are &
   
3. How to go about getting your needs met symbiotically (meaning that, for both parties, giving and receiving are both mandatory parts of any sustainable relationship - because everyone has the equally reasonable expectation to be happy)
   

 

This is not to discourage self defense. However, the reason we all wind up having to defend our interests against people who don't give a damn over and over and over again (like a cracked record) is because the children get taught how to judge the feelings of others instead of being taught to understand the feelings of others. The consequence of this judgemental corruption of the education system is that it sets people to seek "justice" (i.e. revenge) for their setbacks and far too many wind up feeling "justified" in attempting to prosper unsymbiotically (as compensation for those setbacks) - and when some can't have their unsymbiotic and "just" deserts, they then choose to seek their "justice" more directly - and go on a rampage. Whether or not people get hurt, the underlying mechanism and cause remain the same.

 

So, we can still be playing the same old cracked record in 50 years (when it will be getting really old and boring for those of us still alive) or we can try to apply some social pressure where it counts and start pressing antisocial people with the question:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

Who knows? If we can make the anti-social people as sick and tired of that question as some of us are of having to repeatedly defend our interests, maybe they'll discover what they really need and desist from their pestering for the sake of doing something more fulfilling.

 

However, the cynic in me would conclude this rant by saying that, of course, I'll get down from my soap box - but first, I think, I need to stop swinging from the rafters...

[Thoreai]

Why would anyone threathen an awesome site like this? D:

 

Because the only constructive social skill is empathy and empathy has to be taught. Yet empathy is given the least priority in developmental education. Now my generation is reaping what it has sowed and, I have to say that we (of my generation) really have it coming to us. It's a pity that so few of use are sufficiently intelligent to learn from our most grievous error. Feel free to marvel at my complete lack of empathy for the willing participant(s) of this sorry farce - and see the true face of my generation as a whole.

 

Empathy is easy to teach. It starts with a question something like this:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

How hard is that? But I rarely, if ever, hear this kind of question asked.

 

Maybe, if we were to examine the feelings of those involved (instead of judging them, as I just did), we might be able to understand the more immediate mechanisms that drive people to antisocial forms of behaviour - whether it is destroying things that other people cherish, or being a little too eager to serve up "justice". After all, is it not "justice" that the antagonist of this little episode (i.e. the one that got banned) is striving for? On the one hand I can pass the judgement that, in accordance with the provisions and definition of universal suffrage, one man's justice is meagrely another man's revenge. But in my experience, on the other hand, whenever people find themselves seduced by antisocial equivocations such as "justice", it is far, far more effective to ask the question:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

And yes, some people need attention. In case anyone was wondering, attention is a legitimate human need, but judging a person for not effectively going about getting that need met or, worse still, for having that need in the first place (as someone may have done a bit earlier on this thread), is simply not constructive. Moreover, judging a person for having a need we don't share is a vilification of the entire community that does share that need - and, if I understand the motivation behind anti-vilification laws, this kind of behaviour is no longer considered socially acceptable.

 

However, what makes people that have learned empathy truly "wealthy" (i.e. in the social sense), is that having empathy as a skill guarantees that you know the two most important things in life:

 

1. 
    
   
2. What your most important emotional needs are &
   
3. How to go about getting your needs met symbiotically (meaning that, for both parties, giving and receiving are both mandatory parts of any sustainable relationship - because everyone has the equally reasonable expectation to be happy)
   

 

This is not to discourage self defense. However, the reason we all wind up having to defend our interests against people who don't give a damn over and over and over again (like a cracked record) is because the children get taught how to judge the feelings of others instead of being taught to understand the feelings of others. The consequence of this judgemental corruption of the education system is that it sets people to seek "justice" (i.e. revenge) for their setbacks and far too many wind up feeling "justified" in attempting to prosper unsymbiotically (as compensation for those setbacks) - and when some can't have their unsymbiotic and "just" deserts, they then choose to seek their "justice" more directly - and go on a rampage. Whether or not people get hurt, the underlying mechanism and cause remain the same.

 

So, we can still be playing the same old cracked record in 50 years (when it will be getting really old and boring for those of us still alive) or we can try to apply some social pressure where it counts and start pressing antisocial people with the question:

 

How would you like it if it was done to you?

 

Who knows? If we can make the anti-social people as sick and tired of that question as some of us are of having to repeatedly defend our interests, maybe they'll discover what they really need and desist from their pestering for the sake of doing something more fulfilling.

 

However, the cynic in me would conclude this rant by saying that, of course, I'll get down from my soap box - but first, I think, I need to stop swinging from the rafters...

 

Wonderfully written and sadly true.

 

Im not on the side of such people but spoken in generall, its true that people are very quick to pass judgment upon others and empathy is something that very few know.

 

Ironicaly anti-social people are the result of social people that look for a bit of empathy, acceptance, but since most of them arent in the typical sheep social sfere they get none, thus making them lonely looking for a bit of attention and depending on their strength of dealing with such things they either do problems or hide even more from social life.

 

Now this may not be the case of this person, but there is a bit of it in there i would say.

 

Anyway im really glad nothing happened to nexus :thumbsup:

[Sync182]

Empathy should have started with Faks (assuming that's who it is/was) asking himself:

 

"How would I like it if I'd worked hard on a mod and someone else uploaded it without my permission and took credit for doing so?"

 

He did not ask himself this question (or, if he did, he clearly doesn't care if someone else rips him off). Is that a failing of others for not teaching him to think first, or is it his own failing for not being considerate?

 

It's a good question, isn't it? ;) And it's one which falls into the all-too-common realm of Blame Assignment.

 

In the end, though, it doesn't matter what his thought processes were - he broke the rules of the site, and those are clear enough for anyone with even a modicom of Common Sense to understand (if they bother to read them, which is also incumbent on all users to do).

[midtek]

Sadly, I don't feel any empathy.

 

He tried a terror or at least terrorizing the community because he didn't want to follow the proper rules. There can be arguements about the rights and banhammer, but anyway, he tried bypassing the system by multiplying +5 accounts, and after it failed, threatened the safety making a statement that claims 'revenge' against a whole society. The worst part is, he actually did.

 

Such person cannot be tolerated in any places. If a chance and a circumstance given, they will do whatever they want of their feeling, and that time there will be no empathy on you. I define him a terrorist. Glad it was in cyber and failed.