The 16kadams Trial

I apologize for missing the round. I pray that you all will forgive me and the jury looks at the evidence and not the forfeit. -->Case<-- A1: Multi-accounting charge16kadams has confirmed that his grandfather has used a computer in 16k's house to access DDO whilst on one his frequent house visits. ...Against this point, discuss the timeline. He logged on a week after 16k's grandfather left the state and had the same IP at that point. The prosecution also makes an unwarranted assertion: "...an IP check was run by Innomen which revealed that 16k and Angelo had the same IP address. This means that Angelo was using the same IP address as 16k when his account closed" This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow that because Innomen's check found they had the same ip at one point, that they had the same IP when it was closed. Therefore his conclusion that it must be under the influence of 16K is unwarranted.Turn this, because this this means that the last time Angelo's account was used, a full week after Angelo moved to Texas from 16kadams' home in New Mexico, Angelo and 16kadams had the same IP address. This means that 16kadams was in possession of Angelo's account because logically, Angelo could not have used a device that was located in another state. Whilst it would be entirely possible for 16k to abuse his grandfather's account, the only evidence to suggest that he has is Angelo's voting record. ... Here in the esteemed DDO courts we most certainly do not recognize the sins of the grandfather as sins of the son.This is a strawman. The argument is that Angelo's behavior is consistent with that of a multi account, and not that 16k should be punished for his Grandfather's behavior. 11/11 votes were for 16 k, including a vote for him a full week after he had previously deactivated his account and moved to Texas. In fact, he only activated his account to vote on 16k's debate.This charge fails to illustrate where the TOS has been broken....The only thing that could be established is a potential opportunity (not even a proven one)The assertion: "...Firstly, the claim that 16K forced friends to make accounts is unproven. Secondly, it would not break TOS clause G (and subsequently R) as it would not be an act of impersonation."the claim . . . is unproven"16kadams actually admits that he forced a friend, djmooshy, who did not want to debate him, to sign up and initiate a troll debate with him. All evidence suggesting that the user known as Chaimachine is a multi-account of 16kadams is completely insubstantial...1. His first forum post is a defense of 16k, and he never posts any other time after that. That definitely indicates that he is a multiaccount. Who logs in to a forum that he has never seen and just defends a random stranger against whom he debated online? The thread was not even about 16k. Further more as 16kadams has a dynamic IP, an IP address changes every time the User Logs on.[http://whatismyipaddress.com......... ] Therefore one can assume the dynamic IP explains the supposed IP changes.He dropped the analysis about how the IP address changes across state lines.Evidence for the chargesWhen Angelo's account closed, he had the same IP address as 16k when the account closed. If 16k was exploiing Angelo's account and 16k decided to kill it from his computer, that would leave Angelo with the same IP address as 16k. Now the only way that 16k would be innocent of misrepresenting Angelo's account is if Angelo suddenly decided to visit his grandson in another state and kill his account for no reason 5 days after the DDO community noticed his voting behavior. The odds of that are small to begin with but when you take into account similar gramatical errors that 16k and Angelo made in their time on DDO despite having the age difference of about 50 years, along with the very stereotypically liberal account he had (socialist with a flag of soviet china as his profile picture who supported obama), the fact that Angelo gave no reason why he was closing his account just 5 days after the DDO community began to realize Angelo's voting pattern in favor of 16k, and the numerous past accusations of 16k multiaccounting, all this circumstancial evidence points towards the conclusion that 16k could have manipulated Angelo's account.The charge of 16k using his family and friends to get DDO violates the TOS since 16k has admitted to forcing these people to get DDO accounts to debate them. However the TOS comes into play when these accounts are left open to misrepresentation by 16k since the TOS forbids aiding in anything that could break the TOS. Making his family members and friends get DDO accounts makes it possible that 16k could later gain access to these accounts and misuse them for his own gain. 16k is aiding himself in breaking the TOS by making those close to him get DDO accounts which are more likely to be exploited by him. This may sound absurd but considering that 16k has already admitted to harassing his own sister to get on DDO to debate her, the numerous personal friends he has in real life being on DDO, and the evidence of misusing his grandfatehrs account, then this charge is very valid. The chainmachine accusation is being used because not because he has the same average intelligence as 16kadams, its because - In 4 days Chainmachine had 3 completed, yes completed, debates with 16k and he had lost all of them- Chainmachine had a remarkably similar and stereotypically leftist profile that conservatives would have of liberals (a communist with a communist Russia flag as a profile pic who supports Obama), much like Angelo's early account- Chainmachine who originally had a dreadful debating style while debating 16k now has the exact same debating style as 16k when debating others. - The deep knowledge that chainmachine already has about the people on DDO that no 4 day old account could ever have known about- The fact that barely 3 hours after 16k was suspected of being chainmachine, chainmachine, who had never had a forum post ever before, just happened to go onto the forums, just happened to find the one about 16k and Angelo (chainmachine was not in the title of that thread) and gave a defense on behalf of 16k that contains lingo that is only learned on DDO after one spends a long time on the site (not 4 days), that contans language showing a deep knowledge of DDO no 4 day account would no of, and contains language that sounds completely fake and almost not human. - The fact that chainmachine offered to put himself on trial on the thread discussing why 16kadams deactivated his account hours after all the new eveidence suggesting he was multiaccounting surfaced. Ip address is a big argument because 16k does have a dynamic IP address, but the IP address changes only between other local ISP's (internet service providers). What implies proxy use in this case though is that IP checks by innomen revealed that 16k's ip address jumps between state lines between New Mexico and Pennsylvania, something that can only be explained by the use of proxies. Dynamic IP address can be exploited to switch between other local IP addresses within a certain area without the use of proxies. This means that by exploiting his constantly changing local IP address, 16k could multiaccount through other accounts that are located close to him geographically.Perhaps the greatest evidence of 16k is the votebombed debates that 16k has participated in, almost all of which are simply against the liberal side / in favor of the conservative side, or just against liberal accounts on DDOThank you.