use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~0 users here now
funny
This is ridiculous
submitted 3 years ago by jykylsin2034 from self.funny
view the rest of the comments →
[–]LarrySwinger2 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago* (6 children)
Okay, good detective work. Here's my current impression of what happened, based on the limited data I have. It should be taken more as a possibility.
So how do you guys feel about this? Can you see how they were simply looking who'd take the bait, and how Muskrat was caught in crossfire? Of course, I only have part of the picture. But m7, please consider to what degree you're basing his ban on actual evidence that he's a shill instead of being framed. For example, when you say he posted about how great it is to have sex with 17 year olds, was it really him posting those things? I saw this screenshot, but it's obviously just as fake as the bob screenshot. I don't know in what other ways he was stirring up drama (because I miss things). But if we're left with him pushing the boundaries, then that doesn't mean he's a shill. Carswell posted in /s/tits, but that doesn't make him a shill. If Muskrat's a shill, he's an impossibly convincing one. He made witty posts and befriended established users. This is atypical for shills, they don't put in that kind of effort. I have further evidence that he was framed, which I will PM to you.
Edit: to add, I think bob's a real user as well. They were rude, but people have acted like that online forever, they're simply enjoying the anonymity that the Internet provides. I don't think so many people would find them interesting (myself included) if they were a troll.
[–]Node 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (4 children)
Thanks, that's a cogent explanation of everything that's come out.
I would like to see M7 reconsider the bans, as I think sticking to them will give the troll a huge win and hurt saidit, but it's his site to do with as he wishes.
/u/TheAmeliaMay
I know you and bob don't get along, but what do you think of this?
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
That's pretty much what happened, to my knowledge.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)
Yes - I think this is a good summary by /u/LarrySwinger2 and in your notes. I mentioned similar points to M7 and Amelia earlier, and M7's response to me in the earlier thread indicates that there are other disturning screenshots at issue (IDK), but in any event, I agree with a number of people here (and I think /u/TheAmeliaMay agrees) that another review would be helpful. Regarding /s/Tits, it was a very light-hearted approach, without anything shocking or abusive, but rather silly posts about birds, men, &c. I and Muskrat have kindly asked M7 for clemency for Muskrat, given the confusing nature of the troll attacks. But trends indicate that this will not happen.
[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (1 child)
There are four fake screenshots I know of:
Magnora telling Bob they where banned for anti-trans slurs
Musky saying he's into kids
Fschmidt recruiting for the iron left trolls
FediNetizen promoting violence
There might be more, but those are all I've seen thus far.
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago (0 children)
Yes - that seems to be the list I've seen.
Great comment, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is my perspective of the entire situation, but as a user, there may be admin info and evidence they’ve collected we’re not privy too, even though TAM seems to be on the same page.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]LarrySwinger2 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–]Node 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)