[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by chalupa

I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now ) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.

Not necessarily - one of the problems is that a person examining the code does have to have reasonable knowledge of the game being analyzed.

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

This moderator suspended one user account in relation to this issue after repeated warnings that wild speculation would not be tolerated. The polls were suspended because they both were based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.

Hapless? LOL, don't know if I would agree with that...

But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.

My understanding is that this game was not introduced or ready to be introduced. If you mean introduced into the coding itself rather than being able to be played, that I don't have an answer for.

And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.

This I fully agree with.