The 16kadams Trial

Introduction Thank you prosecution. I would like to draw the readers attention to the poor conduct that the prosecution has shown in their case. They have presented as many charges as possible, many being duplicates, and some are not even charges, but rather haphazard presentation of evidence. This technique is often described as "shotgun argumentation", where one makes as many arguments as possible, regardless of validity, in the attempt to hinder the defenses ability to respond fully to each charge. I do not believe this was purposeful. Hopefully this will not be an issue in future rounds. It would also be beneficial for all involved if a more measured approach to this trial was taken. It is more than evident from the emotive way the prosecution is presenting their case (use of caps and language), that they are too emotionally involved. The defense would remind them that their duty is to present their case fairly and nothing more and their personal feelings towards any users involved should be ignored. The structure that shall be used in the defense is to look at each charge in turn with direct reference to the part of the TOS it is in violation of. I shall then proceed to formalize the charges into groups which shall make it easier for the readers and debaters to understand. Charges Charge 1 Charge of Impersonation of 16k's grandfather (TOS G) Charge 2 Charge of aiding or encouraging friends to commit acts of impersonation and consequently break the TOS. Also a charge of possesing multiple accounts. Henceforth known as 2a and 2b. (TOS R, consequently in violation of TOS G. Additional charge of TOS A) It is worth noting that charge 2a and 2b are contradictory. It is very unlikely that he both encouraged his friends to break the TOS and also created and possesses the very same accounts. Charge 3 At one point the user known as 16kadams had the same IP address as the user known as "Angelo" This is quite obviously not a charge, and rather a piece of evidence. Therefore charge 3 must be dropped on the grounds that it is not a charge. Charge 4 Possesion of mutliple accounts (TOS A) Charge 5 Exploitation of changing IP address. (TOS G) This charge can be dropped on the grounds that it too is not a charge, but rather an accusation of a means of performing an already stated violation. Charge 6 Making personal attacks against other members via votebombing (TOS T) It seems rather evident that charges be considated into; Charge A: TOS violations with relation to the user known as Angelo A1: Multi-accounting charge (TOS A) or A2: Using Angelo's account illigitemately (TOS G) Charge B: TOS violations with relation to the users know as DJmooshy,alex1018, Chainmachine and Elephaunt B1: Encouraging users to break the TOS (TOS R and TOS G) or B2: Multi-accounting charge (TOS A) Charge C: TOS violations with regard to the user known as 16kadams voting record (TOS T) Charge C is dropped instantaneously by the prosecution, rendering it meaningless at this point. A1: Multi-accounting charge 16kadams has confirmed that his grandfather has used a computer in 16k's house to access DDO whilst on one his frequent house visits. Due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution (it is far from conclusive and leaves a great amount of doubt) there is insufficient evidence to prove this charge. 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. A2: 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. This is completely inconclusive. While it is obviously a less than stellar voting record, there is no reason to believe that this is Angelo's misdeeds rather than 16K's. Here in the esteemed DDO courts we most certainly do not recognize the sins of the grandfather as sins of the son. B1: This charge fails to illustrate where the TOS has been broken. It is not substantiating what part of the TOS 16K is encouraging them to break. Furthermore, even if the prosecution had detailed what part of the TOS they had supposedly been encouraged to break this charge is impossible to prove. The only thing that could be established is a potential opportunity (not even a proven one) The assertion: "Making friends get DDO accounts leaves them more vulnerable for 16k to use them himself for his own gain, which violates Rule G and Rule R" is completely unsubstantiated and false. 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. [http://www.debate.org... ] B2: All evidence suggesting that the user known as Chaimachine is a multi-account of 16kadams is completely insubstantial. Many users of about average intelligence have very similar writing styles. 16K is no exception. The post on the forums written by Chainmachine would indicate that he knows 16K, however, it is not proof by any stretch of the imagination, by itself that Chainmachine is a multi-account. Alpha: Dynamic IP The picture sent by 16k was merely sent to demonstrate that he was not using proxies, an allegation made by the prosecution prior to the trial. The bizarre thing is that the prosecution now seem to be implying that because he has a dynamic IP he must have been abusing it. This is nonsensical. Every assertion in the last few paragraphs is totally unsupported and pure speculation. Without evidence, they can not be considered charges. In fact, even a confession of using proxies would not constitute a charge as it is not against the terms of service. [http://www.debate.org... ] Whether the website gives advice regarding how to change one's IP is immaterial. 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. So far the prosecution has not been able to provide any evidence substantial enough to reasonably or conclusively prove that 16kadams has broken any of the terms of service. There is substantial doubt proving 16kadams not guilty and therefore the prosecution does not fulfill the burden of proof. [ http://en.wikipedia.org...... ] Therefore one should vote for the defenses side.