The 16kadams Trial

IntroductionThank you for responding. It is worth noting that the prosecution choose to ignore the layout proposed in the second round, again opting for a more haphazard method of presenting the charges. They also provide no sources for any of the evidence claims they make, where in many cases, they would be vital to proving the charges. This alone makes the prosecutions case insufficient.I shall proceed to defend 16K from each charge in turn.A1 & A2This charge has been treated by the prosecution as an "or" proposition; that either 16k created the user known as Angelo's account or gained access to his grandfather's account and impersonated him. Hence, the defence shall respond to the charges collectively accordingly.The prosecution first requests that we discuss the timeline. I would be very amenable to this suggestion, but unfortunately no cohesive version of the timeline is presented or sourced.The prosecution claims that they knew the whereabouts of 16K's grandfather at given times. Without evidence this claim is far too incredible to entertain.IPsAt this point it may be worth clarifying some information about IPs which the prosecution seems to be confused about. The US has approximately 20 geographically assigned IPs as of 2006. Here is a simple model of IPv4 mapping;http://xkcd.com.......Though these IPs are assigned geographically they are not assigned via state lines. It is also completely possible to have an IP address which is not geographically determined. For example; IPs beginning in 166 (subnets), the supposed alternate IP address Angelo was found to have. This IP allocation has no bearing on geographical location and people with this IP subnet can be found from the US to Japan.BehaviourThe prosecution also claim the voting misconduct of Angelo's is indictative of a multi-account. However, such behaviour, especially once familial relationships are noted, could equally be attributed to an over-enthuseastic grandfather who is blind to his grandson's faults. If no further evidence is presented on the matter, his behaviour can only be deemed as inconclusive evidence.BehaviourThe prosecutions case here is completely speculative, unsourced and some of the details false. Angelo never had a "soviet china" flag. The prosecution even admit that all the evidence is circumstancial. The voting behaviour can easily be explained by the familial ties, and age is no indicator of ones adherence to grammar and spelling.B1DjmushyThe only argument that prosecution makes here is the unsourced claim that 16K admits to "forcing" his friend to join and debate him. Presumably the prosecution is only accidently making the claim that a 15 year old child employed physical force or blackmail on one of his friends to make him open an account and debate him (badgering a reluctant friend is not "force"). Even if the prosecution were able to source this claim, the defence would remind them that this is not against the terms of service, but a personal issue. Should it be done to a certain volume; that could be considered spam - but a single debate, no matter how "trolly" is legitimate provided two different parties are engaging in the debate.To claim that purely having friends and family who own DDO accounts is a violation of the TOS is an absurdity. Whilst it is entirely possible that 16K may have gained access to these accounts, purely having the possible potential does not constitute a violation of the TOS.However, the defence would like to offer the following life advice to the defendant; that harrassing one's friends to debate is not a very good way to keep friends. B2 ChainmachineBehaviourI would remind the readers that all the behavoural observations are again unsourced.1. Debates with 16KThe defence was not aware that to debate someone else, one had to own their account. Whilst it is mildly uncommon to debate someone several times in a row, there are many obvious explanations. One, for example, could be that, being new to site, he chose to debate someone he had found an ideological nemesis in. Having debated him before, and not feeling quite comfortable debating others yet, he chose to debate him a few more times before looking for others to debate. 2. Poor debating style The prosecution claims that chainmachine's style was initially poor and developed into a style similar to 16K's. The prosecution fails to give examples of such similarities. A brief investigation by the defence found no such examples. Furthermore, would it be unreasonable to emulate a debator that you believed to be superior? No matter how misplaced this belief may be, it does seem that chainmachine has some sort of respect for 16K. We should not be so judgemental that we declare everyone who respects someone who is generally looked down upon to be a multi-account.3. Knowledge of people on DDOAgain this is unsourced and no examples are given. However, the defence will make the observation that many people lurk around DDO before making an account for a varying period of time. This could easily explain such matters.4. Suspicious postAn alternative explanation is that, as previousl stated, the user known as chainmachine has some respect for 16k and decided to read a thread with his name in the title. From his debates it is clear he is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and wrote a bizzarre defence. We do not know how long chainmachine was lurking for before making an account, so the any accusation of knowing things he ought not to know holds no water. Whether or not he sounded human has absolutely no relevence to whether the account is a multi-account of 16K's or not.5. Offering to be put on trialThis is an odd accusation. He has become aware that he was accused of being a multi-account and he offers himself to be put on trial. How does this provide further evidence he is a multiaccount?6. Having a communist flag is actually rather common in members who are communists. It doesn't just suggest a stereotypical view of communists.Counter points- If chainmachine is a multiaccount, an inordinate amount of effort has gone into it. Several debates with a variety of users, some of significant length ,public discussions with other users and bothering to change his profile picture several times. It is far more reasonable to believe he is a none too bright misguided individual than part of a insidious plot by 16k. Auxillary chargesIPI would remind the prosecution that the use of proxies is not against the terms of service, and the information provided about proxies above.VotebombsFor the supposed greatest piece of evidence, remarkably little is provided. With so little analysis or evidence, we can only consider this charge dropped. In addition votebombing is not against the terms of service. Conclusion Again the prosecution completely fail to demonstrate any of the charges made against the defendant with any conclusivity. They fail to provide sources for accusations made, wildly speculate off circumstancial evidence, and even attempt to prosecute 16Kadams for infractions which even they do not think he has commited yet, but believe he has the possibility of committing. There is no option but to acquit 16kadams of all charges.