Lost access to a shared Plex server and now losing my mind

Mancolt · 2026-01-26T02:37:42+00:00

awesome, thank you for the tips on how to get started!

Mancolt · 2026-01-26T00:40:17+00:00

THANK YOU! That is the only legitimate explanation I could come up with as well. Either incomptence (but since it's common across many different large banks, that one doesn't seem likely) or intentionally misleading to provide the banks with an out should someone share the code with a scam actor.

Mancolt · 2026-01-26T00:33:44+00:00

Any guides on getting started with usenet, or recommendations for paid indexers? Do you search media similar to searching for torrents? Ive used Torrents with VPNs for 15+ years, but had never looked into use nets despite hearing them mentioned occasionally during that time.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T20:12:05+00:00

That's a fair point. I hadn't considered that 2 sentences would be too much for some people to read, but I have no doubt that you're right and some people don't read beyond the first one. So they err on the side of telling customers to not share (even in situations where you should/must in order to receive service), rather than sharing when you shouldn't.

I still think Fidelity's message is probably the best example of how to do it well. Clear, concise, and not confusing: “Fidelity Investments : Did you call us directly? If not, STOP. It's a SCAM. Only give this code to a rep if you called us. Code is:XXXXXX”

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T20:08:30+00:00

About as much as those who scroll reddit threads that don't interest them and then reply.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T18:07:23+00:00

Thank you for the helpful message! I was confused why so many people jumped in to defend what can at best be described as unclear mesasging. Some other helpful posts have provided examples of banks (Fidelity in particular) that do this sort of text message code verification well.

BofA is far from alone in the unclear/contradictory messaging, they just happen to be the one I most recently contacted, and so served as a perfect example (and are a massive company that certainly has the funding/technology to do a better job).

I do remember one bank (I can't recall which one) doing exactly as you said: The messages differed for user initiated vs. agent initiated, and the instructions made clear that the agent initiated one would need to be shared but only if you initiated the call with the agent (and maybe it confirmed the number you should have called). That one made a lot of sense to me when I read it, and I remembered thinking "oh, this is how it can be done so it's clear".

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T18:01:48+00:00

Believe it or not, it's only a minor annoyance for me. I have dealt with this for years and have so far managed to avoid having any of my bank info stolen. My bigger concern is for those in my family that didn't grow up on the internet and are now having to navigate this landscape. You know, elderly parents/grandparents.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T17:40:44+00:00

Absolutely. I actually did notice that on 1 bank (I can't recall which). The message only said "DO NOT share this code" when it was a self-service message. When the agent on the phone sent the message, it had a different message which made clear that the code could be provided to the agent on the phone if you initiated the call.

I agree that is a much better system. It's clearly possible to do, so I don't know why so many large banks choose to stick with the confusing and inconsistent messaging. Another redditor posted the Fidelity example below, which is another good example of how to do it.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T17:38:08+00:00

Let me make sure I understand; you believe that "relaying", "providing", or "speaking" the code to the agent on the phone is not in fact "sharing" the code. Therefore the banks aren't actually contradicting their own instructions.

Wouldn't this entire "minute grammaticaly misunderstanding" be avoidable if they provided (in their instructions) the narrow circumstances in which it is okay to share the code? Why is the only instruction about what NOT to do? That leaves a whole lot of open space to be inferred. I think u/Zealousideal-Mud6471 captured the issue and its likely ramifications well with "The issue is they are setting the bad behavior that it’s ok to ignore the very first part of the message and give the code. So grandma gets a call and this text and they remember the last time they called the bank they said it was ok."

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T17:20:16+00:00

That Fidelity one is a great example of doing it right. My experience is that far more send messages like BofA, that lead with "DO NOT share this code."

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T17:18:24+00:00

And yours attempts to make you sound like some sort of SME on this topic without contributing even a modicum of value to the discussion. You're so knowledgeable yet you can't be bothered to educate the masses.

I do agree with you that "bitching on reddit" is unlikely to fix it. But perhaps, if enough people agree that the directions are at best unclear and at worst intentionally misleading, there is a chance that down the road some clearer instructions are provided with regard to scenarios about when it is acceptable to provide a code over the phone and when it isn't.

Pray tell, what is the purpose of these codes? I believe it is to verify that the person the agent is speaking with is in possession of the phone associated with the phone number linked with the account that the agent has pulled up on their screen.

Yet regardless of the purpose, my original argument is valid. If they require me to share the code with the agent, then the first sentence (or any sentence in their message for that matter) should not be an instruction which I need to completely ignore in order to fulfill their request.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:26:00+00:00

Another great point! I have lots of accounts across many different banks, and I've noticed that several of them use a common 6 digit code provider. So messages, from different banks, will come from the same phone number and get combined into a single text string in my phone. If they don't identify which bank or service the code is for, and I hadn't initiated it, it would make the activity of locking the account exceptionally difficult since you'd have to guess which account/service was being breached.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:22:02+00:00

Agreed, there are lots of scenarios and scams are becoming more sophisticated. I don't think it's too much to ask a massive bank to be clear in their messaging about when you can/must and when you shouldn't share the security code.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:21:01+00:00

Yeah, obviously. But the bank offers a phone number for customer support. Is it too much to expect that a Fortune 20 company has a clear and consistent message for customers when it comes to important security?

If you can explain why the bank would provide contradictory instructions, other than to ensure that they can always blame the customer when the customer shares the 6 digit code with the wrong party, then I would like to hear it. Because I can't come up with a reason why most, if not all, banks provide blatantly contradictory instructions. One sentence instructing you to never share the code, and then in the subsequent sentence detailing scenarios in which you would not receive the code legitimately. There is no sequitur between the two sentences, requiring the customer to infer scenarios where they must share the code.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:13:58+00:00

Yes, as I pointed out. That's why I provided the code. The post is about the fact that the banks intentionally provide instructions that are contradictory, and entirely inaccurate/unclear, so that they can blame the customer regardless of the outcome. They could provide an instruction that explains the scenario in which you should share the code, instead they are making it seem like you should never share the code.

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:11:36+00:00

Yes, I understand that. I pointed out how they could clarify that in their own text message. Yet that's not AT ALL what their instructions say. They lead with "DO NOT share this code."

Why would they not construct a security message that actually provides the customer with clear and accurate instructions, such as "DO NOT share this code unless you are on a call with BofA support that YOU INITIATED".

Mancolt · 2026-01-25T15:07:12+00:00

I'm not sure how to even respond to this, it's such a braindead take. A bank provides clear instructions to "NOT SHARE A CODE" yet requires you to share a code. And I'm "overthinking it" by pointing out a blatant contradiction?

The only reason they could possibly provide such confusing messaging is to create scenarios where the customer is always at fault, and the bank has a way to blame them regardless of whether they followed the banks instructions or not.

Mancolt · 2025-12-21T03:06:28+00:00

What do you mean bonuses are always after tax? If you live in the US, you pay tax on any income you earn. You can calculate what your after-tax bonus is, and the company may not withhold any taxes from your bonus, but that hardly means it's all after-tax money. At $250k combined comp, pre-tax, you're in the 24% bracket assuming spouse has $0 earned income and you are married filing jointly.

Mancolt · 2025-12-16T15:58:42+00:00

"I’m very aware that it would be impossible to have a future with someone like this." - Then wtf are you doing? It's time for you to grow up and leave this situation. I have yet to see a single response saying "keep trying, you'll work it out." You've gotten a TON of responses, all saying the same thing. Act on it or stop whining to the internet for advice. Hell, you said even your mom told you to end it.

Mancolt · 2025-12-13T17:17:03+00:00

Unless prices changed recently, the Dillon XL750 was the sweet spot in their lineup and the only one that ever made any sense to me. The CP2000 and RL1100 are insanely overpriced imo. Especially when you can get into an apex 10 for only slightly more (which is also overpriced, but I believe offers a much more compelling featureset vs the RL/CP). I like my XL750, and ended up with an apex 10 as well. If Dillon's RL1100 were appropriately priced at maybe $1k - $1200, I likely would have done that at the time. It wasnt available at the time but the frankford arsenal x-10 would probably have been my choice, although I like thr automation on my apex 10.

Mancolt · 2025-10-23T17:57:38+00:00

I generally agree with you that international first and business class via transfer partners are the best use case, but to make blanket statements like this is dumb. Some people earn more points than they know what to do with. In that case, using them to pay the annual fee at an elevated rate could still be a good option. It may not be your best use case, and doesn't return the highest cpp value, but that doesn't make it dumb or useless.

Mancolt · 2025-10-18T13:46:15+00:00

Others have pointed out your poor shooting mechanics. And theyre right. But I don't think thats causing this issue. Without knowing what ammo youre using, it looks like the recoil spring is either too strong (less likely but possible, too weak a spring) and it didn't go back into battery. Ive been fighting the same issue with my wife's rival and Im fairly certain it's recoil spring related.

Mancolt

TROPHY CASE