Its obvious to an extent that certain people when given two optional perspectives, one positive and one negative, will choose the negative every time, I guess they just like to argue.
Mr. Bane, I don't respond to flame bait directly (nor will I resort to name calling) and you quoted two small sentences of an entire post, taken out of context. Worse in one statement you say I made the whole argument up and solved it, and in the next you say I don't understand the argument. I don't get your point.
My post was more an addenda to alot of Larme was trying to express, and really there were a lot of things he said better. Also my post was a direct response to the TOPIC about what "I" think of the Matrix rules, right or wrong. You're allowed to think whatever you want, and you can no more convince me the sky is falling than I can convince you of the foolishness of crying foul for your own misunderstandings and refusal to accept rational ways to work around YOUR perceived flaws. Its a book of rules applied to a fictional and imagined reality, everyone is going to have an opinion on how it should work. I think the flexibility of the rules is a good thing.
Ultimately my only arguement to that whole thing about who's right about the rules quality amounts to this, the one who says it can't be done shouldn't impede the one who is doing it. I'm using the RAW (matrix), playing 2-3 times a month, and we don't have any issues worth spending the amount of time and angst some people waste here. It is probable that I DON'T understand, because I don't have the same problem (nor the time to sit around with the books trying to prove how it won't work without considering the team effort running a game entails, and how circumstances often limit what the rules don't implicitly enforce).
There are no specific examples given in most of the naysaying posts. Just generalized non-constructive opinion statements.
QUOTE
Incidently, Wisemans arguement is completely ludicrous. In shadowrun, security personnel use lethal force on computer intruders - and have lethal force used on them. For this people, who literally have their life on the line:
Most of my post was focused on two points. One the fact that some nodes should use more than standard security, meaning it should be hard. Two, most everyday people couldn't (or don't) care less about security. Even the most secure corp system has leaks and uncaring or poorly trained employees who create circumstances allowing hackers entry one way or another. I don't see how this makes my opinions ludicrous. I think you just like to type insane and ludicrous.
QUOTE
So he's seriously saying they - who might actually die - would ignore a very cheap defense in favour not implementing a very expensive defense because it is to expensive. Does that sound insane to you?
The entire post is pure insanity once you consider that the security spider is risking his life. Wiseman is saying that they'd never do a cheap option because a better option they cannot afford exists. .
I never said hackers wouldn't beef up their own security, I specifically said "everyone" meaning the general population. As for a spider risking his life, in 2070 people risk their lives for all kinds of dangerous jobs for meager pay and often without the best protection cred can buy, hell people do even today. That spider needs a job and he'll use what the corp gives him, and they're not going to bankroll every spider with every program "just in case", nor are they going to always give him the top of the line hardware or agents.
By your rationale, every bank security guard should be a cyberzombie backed by an elite task force of mages, hackers, and drones. The corps don't care if he dies, or the spider, they are expendable assets. Will they arm the security guard, you bet, will they employ mages and drones, of course, but that doesn't mean they'll use the best technology in every single instance. They will employ the most cost effective measures to make it prohibitive for 95% of the population. They might skimp on the physical security and allow the bank to transfer balances via a temporary satallite link daily (at a random intervals), anything you hack before the true transfer and backup can be restored or rebalanced by the end of the day. Maybe they feel secure enough with that, maybe there are budget cuts, maybe they are holding on to liquidated financial assets to stave off a hostile corp takeover. These are just examples, and no they are not perfect, but really whats your point? You make no direct claims or suggestions at all and its easy to poke holes. Try filling them once in awhile too.
Also most hackers aren't caught, even when a trace can be performed. They use fake SINs, move often, and change the access ID for the next time. In the corp's game, it's catch them red handed or burn up way too many resources to be worth catching them at all (in most cases..). HR fires the security personnel for failure, PR glosses it over, and the corp still rakes in profits hand over fist. They have the time and resources to wait it out, and time and probability is on their side that you will eventually get caught.
I'm not sure where your getting the "ignore a cheap defense from". Honestly I think you are either reading too little or spinning my post for the sake of getting to rant about it. Have at it though if it makes you feel better.
QUOTE
The second reason that it is meaningless waffle is that Shadowrunners don't hack into some kids myspace site. They hack into facilities secure enough to warrant protection with lethal force. What institutions are protected with lethal force today? Major infrastructure facilities, military bases, a few other odds and end. These are always heavily secured and the owners generally spend large sums of money on protecting them, particularly the military.
Saying that the owners would cheap out on automated protection is very silly when you consider that the owners are paying for multiple people with guns and highly illegal programs that kill people to defend them! If not everyone has them, and just 'only people runners will encounter' have them, that is functionally the same as everyone within the context of a game.
Finally his financial institutions with alchemical keys introduces a logical impossibility that undermines his whole argument
Axiom 1 It requires alchemical keys to access financial institutions
Axiom 2 Private individuals do not have alchemical keys
Axiom 3 Private individuals use financial institutions.
Therefore
1) A = C
2) B = NOT C
3) A = B
Substituting 1, 2 into 3
C = NOT C
When I can prove absurdities using a posts logic, you need to really question the validation of the logic of that post.
If hacking a PAN or home terminal gets you the same passcodes, why go after the uber secure corp network? I'll hack myspace if it has the info I need, or gets me intel on the target's habits. I'll hack into a club to monitor a meeting when a wageslave is bitching about his job. I will always take the path of least resistance that accomplishes the job. But again, I feel you're nitpicking here. I can make 20 examples and we can go around and around filling them in and punching holes. Its still not playing the game, and the rules taken out of context of actually playing doesn't serve any real purpose, other than feeding the ego and rants of some.
Corps cheap out on whatever they can get away with. Most of the stuff is just a deterant anyway. Only on the big special projects will they bother with the "no cost is too much" spending on security. And isn't part of what is being argued are unhackable systems, and how unfair it is that corps can keep you out? In one breath its said its too much and when I give a few plausible alternatives you cry foul it's too little. What do you really want here?
Finally, banks could use alchemical passkeys for the operator transfering information to the mainframe (like a manger's key to the vault), but not every citizen that accesses the day to day banking terminals. Most of that info is tracked via the commlink. I mean do banks require me currently to do online banking using biometrics, or just an account number and a password? Do atm's currently require more than a magnetic strip and a pin code (four digit no less)? They'll spend lots of money protecting their profitability, but they spend the money on PR to convince the common man his money is safe and that an access id and passcode is all thats needed. This is why its easier to spoof a lifestyle (targeting the individual citizens) than hack the banking network, and it's hard for the citizens to raise enough complaints and evidence to get the corps to intercede on their behalf.
In any case, I can see that posting about what the topic asked for gets the fur ruffled for some of the "it don't work because I say so" anti-rules crowd. Flame me for enjoying the game, make outrageous personal attacks all you like, but I'm enjoying myself and I still don't get or can't see where your hate is coming from.
In the end i'm not perfect (nor is anyone), but just because we don't see things the same way doesn't give anyone an excuse to fill up the boards with some personal vendetta driven drivel or epeen measuring challenges. Post something constructive and chill the fuck out (read: get off my nuts already).