Users browsing this thread:

~~Cormac~~ · 03-14-2017, 02:48 PM

I wanted to point out two inconsistencies in the allegedly complete logs offered by Belschaft. I've already pointed these out on Discord, but for the benefit of those who may have missed that discussion, particularly anyone involved in the investigation, I wanted to point out the inconsistencies here as well.

(03-11-2017, 01:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: [10:31 PM] Griffin: Just a heads up to expect a conflict in the near future. I don't know how many times I've given you a heads up by this point.
[10:37 PM] Belschaft: nods
[10:37 PM] Belschaft: I honestly don't know why you feel the need to do so, but it's appreciated
[10:38 PM] Griffin: I don't know.
[10:38 PM] Griffin: I guess I want people to be prepared for drama.
[10:38 PM] Griffin: And part of it is venting.
[10:42 PM] Belschaft: nods
[10:42 PM] Belschaft: Venting is often required in NS
[10:47 PM] Griffin: Perhaps this is punishment from Max for all my coups.
[10:50 PM] Belschaft: Heh
[10:50 PM] Belschaft: Mayhaps

There is no prior instance in the logs provided by Belschaft of Neo Kervoskia giving him this kind of "heads up," and yet Neo Kervoskia implies that he has done so numerous times. Why, then, do we not see any prior instance of such a warning in the logs provided by Belschaft, if these logs are complete?

(03-11-2017, 01:14 PM)Belschaft Wrote: [2:08 AM] Griffin: I have but one more question for you, then I will leave you be.
[2:08 AM] Belschaft: You continue to overestimate my influence on TSP's FA, for the time being, btw
[2:09 AM] Griffin: I don't ask for your influence, just your judgement.
[2:10 AM] Belschaft: Heh
[2:10 AM] Belschaft: nods

Here, Neo Kervoskia clearly says he has one more question for Belschaft, but after saying that, the logs jump to February 7 and we never see an additional question. What is the explanation for why Neo Kervoskia was about to pose another question, but never did in these logs?

I don't believe these logs are complete.

(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 02:50 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 03-14-2017, 02:51 PM

These are the complete copies of the logs, as I have access to on my own Discord account. As I provided them within eleven minutes of Tsu posting this thread, I am not sure when I would have been able to edit them as you are alleging. As I have made clear, I am willing to provide access to said account to the CRS so they can certify that what I provided is the same as what I have.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-14-2017, 02:56 PM

(03-14-2017, 02:51 PM)Belschaft Wrote: These are the complete copies of the logs, as I have access to on my own Discord account. As I provided them within eleven minutes of Tsu posting this thread, I am not sure when I would have been able to edit them as you are alleging. As I have made clear, I am willing to provide access to said account to the CRS so they can certify that what I provided is the same as what I have.

You would have had time after being alerted by Kris' conversation with you suggesting you release logs to the CRS. That would have raised a red flag for you to compile logs that omitted anything incriminating.

You would also have had time, both during that gap and over the past couple days, to coordinate with Neo Kervoskia to delete portions of your conversations with him from Discord. You can delete what you've said, and he can delete what he's said, and that will not show up if someone takes you up on your offer and logs into your Discord account to take a look at your conversations. The offer you've made to let someone go through your Discord conversations is meaningless. There has been time for deletions to occur.

Do you have an explanation for the inconsistencies in these logs you've provided?

(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 03:01 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 03-14-2017, 03:13 PM

(03-14-2017, 02:56 PM)Cormac Wrote:
(03-14-2017, 02:51 PM)Belschaft Wrote: These are the complete copies of the logs, as I have access to on my own Discord account. As I provided them within eleven minutes of Tsu posting this thread, I am not sure when I would have been able to edit them as you are alleging. As I have made clear, I am willing to provide access to said account to the CRS so they can certify that what I provided is the same as what I have.

You would have had time after being alerted by Kris' conversation with you suggesting you release logs to the CRS. That would have raised a red flag for you to compile logs that omitted anything incriminating.

You would also have had time, both during that gap and over the past couple days, to coordinate with Neo Kervoskia to delete portions of your conversations with him from Discord. You can delete what you've said, and he can delete what he's said, and that will not show up if someone takes you up on your offer and logs into your Discord account to take a look at your conversations. The offer you've made to let someone go through your Discord conversations is meaningless. There has been time for deletions to occur.

Do you have an explanation for the inconsistencies in these logs you've provided?

If I knew that the CRS was investigating me, why would I not have provided these supposedly "edited" logs to them so as to exonerate myself? Your logic requires me to be sufficiently aware of a CRS investigation to fabricate evidence, but not sufficiently aware to seek to exonerate myself. That just doesn't make sense.

As for these supposed inconsistencies; I make no explanation for them. These are the logs I have, and the logs I provided. I could speculate - perhaps, for example, NL simply never asked his "one more question" and had to leave - but that would be all it is; speculation.

I'm sure that were there no inconsistencies or errors in the logs, that would be proof that I've tampered with them, just as the presence of such is proof that I've tampered with them. There are all sorts of embarrassing and compromising things in my Discord logs that the CRS is free to look at, though nothing that I believe could be considered illegal. I could argue that their presence is proof that I'm not editing my logs, but I'm sure you would respond that I've left such there so as to disguise the fact that I've removed other things.

If you continue to establish standards of evidence that I cannot possibly meet, I will continue to not meet them. That is why the basis of accusations is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way round. I cannot prove a negative.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-29-2017, 03:59 PM

It's been six days since the Security Powers Act passed. Having made allegations that certainly sound like the precursor to a security risk declaration in the OP of this thread, and having specifically requested legislation like the Security Powers Act alongside these accusations, I guess I'm wondering if the Council on Regional Security intends to declare Belschaft a security risk and conduct an official investigation under the Security Powers Act, or not.

The uncertainty should be resolved soon either way. It's been weeks since these allegations were made and nearly a week since the Security Powers Act passed. So even if the CRS isn't planning to declare Belschaft a security risk, that also would be good to know.

***Tsunamy*** · 03-29-2017, 04:47 PM

(03-29-2017, 03:59 PM)Cormac Wrote: It's been six days since the Security Powers Act passed. Having made allegations that certainly sound like the precursor to a security risk declaration in the OP of this thread, and having specifically requested legislation like the Security Powers Act alongside these accusations, I guess I'm wondering if the Council on Regional Security intends to declare Belschaft a security risk and conduct an official investigation under the Security Powers Act, or not.

The uncertainty should be resolved soon either way. It's been weeks since these allegations were made and nearly a week since the Security Powers Act passed. So even if the CRS isn't planning to declare Belschaft a security risk, that also would be good to know.

There have been discussions with Bel, in an effort to take care of this in a mutually amicable way.

Since such discussions seem to have hit a roadblock, the CRS is determining what other actions are appropriate.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

~~Cormac~~ · 03-29-2017, 04:49 PM

(03-29-2017, 04:47 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: There have been discussions with Bel, in an effort to take care of this in a mutually amicable way.

Since such discussions seem to have hit a roadblock, the CRS is determining what other actions are appropriate.

All righty, thanks Tsu!