are you a lurker or stalker and what's the diff?

[Hammster]

Just to clarify a few things. The threats were made in an underhanded way, and were not directed toward my main account - Stravinsk. They were directed to my first sock - Nekoda, in public.

There are a limited number of people who knew Nekoda was my sock (at that time). That would include senior staff at that time and a few others. Within mere minutes of it's first post - directed toward Nekoda, 3 staffers looked at it's profile, all female staffers. I know because I looked at the profile as well under the sock I was using at the time. That's either a super fast response time or foreknowledge among one or more of those staffers. The subsequent 2 threads were directed to men only -asking how they wanted to die. The question raised by the poster was how I wanted to die - which was a thread I myself started (and answered myself under Nekoda) - so it was a redundant question and the whole point of asking it and then repeating the question in 2 more threads which specified "men only" made the message crystal clear that the person behind the sock account was playing a wicked game - especially given some of the choices it listed. Even some other members saw it for what it was - a sick game.



I could not just report this and say "this person is behind this account" - because I didn't know who was - but what I do know is that only a limited number of people knew Nekoda was my sock at that time and 3 female staffers looked at the profile as soon as it made it's first post asking how Nekoda wanted to die.

All of this has been web-archived, in full context, on multiple servers and if it's "cleaned" - I'm going to point that out publicly. So please don't.

I read the threads the other day. If there are veiled threats, they are super veiled. I think it's more likely the result of an overactive imagination, or paranoia.

 

[Stravinsk]

I read the threads the other day. If there are veiled threats, they are super veiled. I think it's more likely the result of an overactive imagination, or paranoia.

The poster's first question was directed to Nekoda - my first sock and known as my sock to only to a limited number of people at that time(including senior staff) - asking how I would have answered the question in my own thread - how I wanted to die - when I had already answered it in that very thread earlier. The 2nd two threads made by that sock account were directed to *men only* - asking how they wanted to die.

That is hardly veiled. In fact, it's super specific. The sock really didn't want to know or talk about anything else.

 

[Hammster]

The poster's first question was directed to Nekoda - my first sock and known as my sock to only to a limited number of people at that time(including senior staff) - asking how I would have answered the question in my own thread - how I wanted to die - when I had already answered it in that very thread earlier. The 2nd two threads made by that sock account were directed to *men only* - asking how they wanted to die.

That is hardly veiled. In fact, it's super specific. The sock really didn't want to know or talk about anything else.

And...you made my point.

 

[Stravinsk]

And...you made my point.

Just my overactive imagination huh? I doubt the court of public opinion would say the same. Btw - the sock account was banned as a troll. Guess some staff saw it for what it was.

 

[Hammster]

Just my overactive imagination huh? I doubt the court of public opinion would say the same. Btw - the sock account was banned as a troll. Guess some staff saw it for what it was.

It was the sock account I looked into, which let me to the thread. But that doesn't change the fact that you'd really have to look hard to see a veiled threat.

I think the thread is still public. I could link to it, but I don't know if that's allowed here.

 

[Stravinsk]

It was the sock account I looked into, which let me to the thread. But that doesn't change the fact that you'd really have to look hard to see a veiled threat.

I think the thread is still public. I could link to it, but I don't know if that's allowed here.

If someone started an account on a board you frequented and asked how you wanted to die, Hammster, you wouldn't see that as a threat? The context is already given. I started the thread, and I gave my own answer to my own question in that thread. The sock would have read that and known - but still it directed it's VERY FIRST POST to me - asking how I would answer the question I already answered. Then started 2 more threads with the same theme directed toward men.

Then was banned. As a troll.

 

[Hammster]

If someone started an account on a board you frequented and asked how you wanted to die, Hammster, you wouldn't see that as a threat? The context is already given. I started the thread, and I gave my own answer to my own question in that thread. The sock would have read that and known - but still it directed it's VERY FIRST POST to me - asking how I would answer the question I already answered. Then started 2 more threads with the same theme directed toward men.

Then was banned. As a troll.

A PM would be a threat. Not a thread. And you don't know why they were banned.

 

[Stravinsk]

A PM would be a threat. Not a thread. And you don't know why they were banned.

Oh, but I do know. I also recorded my conversation with a retired admin there. They were banned as a troll. The account posted nothing else but that initial response, 2 new threads of the same theme directed toward men with responses in those. They were interested in nothing else.

No pm necessary for something to be a threat. Not when using a sock account.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, but I do know. I also recorded my conversation with a retired admin there. They were banned as a troll. The account posted nothing else but that initial response, 2 new threads of the same theme directed toward men with responses in those. They were interested in nothing else.

No pm necessary for something to be a threat. Not when using a sock account.

The OP

"You have been given a choice on how to die. This isn't a question about at what age you die, but how you die, and under what circumstances. For past and present death row options, you are innocent but have been found guilty. Explain your answer if you choose.

There's something I forgot to add: Slow death by poison - the poison itself makes you feel good - but over time - it shuts down vital body functions and leads to a painful death."

Their first post:

"What was your answer Nekoda?"


Ooh. Yeah, that's a threat. I stand corrected.

 

[Stravinsk]

The OP

"You have been given a choice on how to die. This isn't a question about at what age you die, but how you die, and under what circumstances. For past and present death row options, you are innocent but have been found guilty. Explain your answer if you choose.

There's something I forgot to add: Slow death by poison - the poison itself makes you feel good - but over time - it shuts down vital body functions and leads to a painful death."

Their first post:

"What was your answer Nekoda?"


Ooh. Yeah, that's a threat. I stand corrected.

The complete context makes it clear. Disregard the context, and you'd have a point. But context cannot be disregarded. Who starts a web-board with such a question directed to a specific poster (that has already answered the question), a question directed to a sock of Stravinsk, known only to a few people which included senior staff at that time, then goes on to create 2 more threads with the same theme directed to men only, has no other interests or posts on any other subject, then gets banned as a troll, recognized by such as staff, and confirmed in a recorded conversation between myself and one of those senior staff...

And now you are trying to disregard this context and minimize it into the equivalent of a sound bite. Are you doing this for the sake of argument or to protect someone?

 

[Hammster]

The complete context makes it clear. Disregard the context, and you'd have a point. But context cannot be disregarded. Who starts a web-board with such a question directed to a specific poster (that has already answered the question), a question directed to a sock of Stravinsk, known only to a few people which included senior staff at that time, then goes on to create 2 more threads with the same theme directed to men only, has no other interests or posts on any other subject, then gets banned as a troll, recognized by such as staff, and confirmed in a recorded conversation between myself and one of those senior staff...

And now you are trying to disregard this context and minimize it into the equivalent of a sound bite. Are you doing this for the sake of argument or to protect someone?

I'm sure there's an argument that can be made that someone created a sock to harass you. But to somehow think it's a threat takes great imagination or paranoia.

And actually I was trying to find out who the sock belonged to. As you know, I'm not big on folks bypassing bans.

 

[TurtleHare]

If a staffer had a sock that got banned and logged in with her other account, is she bypassing a ban?

 

[Hammster]

If a staffer had a sock that got banned and logged in with her other account, is she bypassing a ban?

Prima facia, yes.

 

[psalms 91]

yup and CF was famous for people doing thta

 

[TurtleHare]

Prima facia, yes.

If Stravinsky is correct that a senior staffer used information that was obtained by being on staff and created a sock account and it is banned then is she bypassing a ban and should be banned as well?

 

[TurtleHare]

yup and CF was famous for people doing thta

Are you saying their staff is above their own laws?

 

[Hammster]

yup and CF was famous for people doing thta

Most staffers have a sock for various reasons. I created one to post in the American Politics forums because we are constantly being told we are biased against, well everyone.

This way I could still post and not be worried about someone coming up and saying, "See? I told you that you were biased against my group".

Some have socks for testing purposes. But if someone created a sock just to harass, then that is not good.

 

[Hammster]

Are you saying their staff is above their own laws?

He might be saying that. But it's not true. Keep in mind that there are folks who like to pretend that they know what's going on when they really have no way of knowing.

 

[TurtleHare]

He might be saying that. But it's not true. Keep in mind that there are folks who like to pretend that they know what's going on when they really have no way of knowing.

What if Stravinsk is right then what happens on that site to the staffer? This is some serious accusation we are learning about and I started the thread only to get some insight on a definition of stalking since the term gets tossed around more than a blanket.

 

[Hammster]

What if Stravinsk is right then what happens on that site to the staffer? This is some serious accusation we are learning about and I started the thread only to get some insight on a definition of stalking since the term gets tossed around more than a blanket.

I can't say what would happen. Plus, it would be internal anyway. However, the thread and account in question happened before the software change, and we cannot track down who started the account. I was very interested in finding out because if true, I wanted it dealt with.