undefined | Better HN

0 pointsantidaily14y ago0 comments

Sounds like a fucking idiot. Which doesn't mean she deserves to be harassed. But WTF @ that comment! Who would want to give someone who talks like that any of their money?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

hellerbarde14y ago· 2 in thread

Except for the fact that she should absolutely _not_ have engaged and/or acknowledged the stalker, I don't see a problem at all with the formulations/rhetoric in this response. She kept the vocabulary clean[1], and the content should not bother any grown-up at all.

I don't know the demographic of her project, but if this connects with them, the wording of this seems perfectly okay to me.

[1]: I guess that depends on opinion. YMMV

LeafStorm14y ago

> She kept the vocabulary clean

It may have been "clean" in the sense that little profanity was used, but it was also full of sexual slang and drug references, and clearly intended to shame Frank (not saying he didn't deserve it, but on the other hand I think a bit more tact is in order). So I could see Kickstarter considering it a violation of the "Don't post obscene, hateful, or objectionable content. If you do we will remove it and suspend you." guideline.

If she did think informing her backers was a good idea, she could have said something along the lines of:

"Hello, backers, you may have noticed that some guy named FrankSinatraWhatever has been posting spam on my threads. Unfortunately, Frank has been cyberstalking me for a while due to a failed relationship from college. If you see Frank posting anything on my project, please just ignore him. Sorry about this, and thank you all for funding my project!"

Still gets the point across without being vulgar, tactless, or ego-stroking.

pyre14y ago

  > So I could see Kickstarter considering it a violation
  > of the "Don't post obscene, hateful, or objectionable
  > content. If you do we will remove it and suspend you."
  > guideline.

I hate speculation like this. If Kickstarter considered it in violation of that part of their TOS, then why not explicitly state so rather than saying that she was 'encouraging spam' and that spam is in violation of the TOS? Chances are that they did not consider it a violation of those terms.

1 more reply

agent40914y ago

Not sure if it helps your perspective or not, but the quoted material was written by our stalker rather than Rachel. He has many accounts on social networking sites and manufactures credibility by replying to his own posts with links to posts on other sites (usually ones he's written). He's been doing this for a long time. Even I have a hard time sorting out the sock puppets from the non-sock puppets sometimes. He's a brilliant, evil, genius. I would be jelly if I hadn't seen how he actually lives and had a glimpse at his mental illness.

For instance, he has this really bizarre fascination with women named Vanessa and Rachel. He's been "married" twice, once to a Vanessa and once to a Rachel. He has this compulsion to have three women at once (named Vanessa or Rachel) that he describes in metaphysical terms.

He does tons of designer hallucinogens he buys from labs in Japan. He often talks about himself in psycho-spiritual terms of superiority, such as "I've gone farther out than any mage. I flew right past [Carlos] Castaneda into expanses of the abyss he'll never know".

More often than not I find myself feeling sorry for him. Until, of course, he goes on the offensive again.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse