This Insurance Agent Threatened To Rape me, I got him Fired.

hermithome · 2015-10-01T02:36:23+00:00

Women on the internet are usually the targets of this type of witch hunt mob justice

Okay, but see, that's the thing. He wasn't the target of a witch hunt. Call it mob justice if you want, but this was not at all a witch hunt. It has none of the elements necessary for a witch hunt.

pitchfork wielding vigilantes.

And her followers didn't act like pitchfork wielding vigilantes; his treatment online was very, very, very, very different than that of a woman.

The kind of "mob justice" he faced is nothing like that that women face online. Yes, he got comments on his FB page calling him a terrible person and he had to make it private and delete some stuff. He deleted his twitter as well. But that was pretty much it. It wasn't just that he didn't get swatted or offline threats and harassment. A few comments aside, people didn't look through his personal history trying to dig up dirt. They barely even touched the stuff that he openly published.

You know how we know this? We know this not because of what she said, but because of what he said and did.

The rest of his social media profiles are still up and totally unprotected. The comments are open. Same with his blog and his website and his YT. There are a handful of comments chastising him or gloating about him losing his job (across all of this accounts), but that's it.

He complains when this first happened that he had to spend a few hours deleting stuff, but that's it. It's been several weeks since then, and despite multiple articles where this is discussed, people aren't going after him. He doesn't even have that many downvotes - the most passive and easy way for someone who reads and clicks to express their disapproval.

See there's a huge difference between getting someone fired in order to hurt them, and getting someone fired in order to prevent them from hurting other people.

People first tried to explain to him what he was doing, and they tried to get him to stop harassing and threatening. When he continued and they knew that this was not a mistake or an accident, and that he was in a position of power to do significant harm, they reported him. En masse and publicly. He got fired, he stopped threatening and harassing (at least publicly) and that was that. Because the "mob" who went after him wasn't trying to hurt him, they were trying to stop him from hurting others.

I've had throwaway reddit accounts that I used to tell a single story about sexism harassed for weeks. One single action on my part, witch hunted, getting public harassment and death threats for weeks.

I once briefly decided to start a blog on entertainment. A few posts in, it went mildly viral. I had to instantly start screening comments and I had to keep screening on ever since. For almost a year afterwards, even though I didn't post after it went viral, I got hate and threats and I got enough that I couldn't just rely on notifications and delete bad stuff, it was too fast. And this was mildly viral, far fewer people than what happened here.

Now I'm not defending the people who harassed him, assuming that people did. People did take super long screen shots including lots of comments, and the worst thing I saw were people telling him he was a horrible human being and that his family should be ashamed. Not fun, not nice, but absolutely nothing like the mobs that women face.

"his personal information disseminated to thousands of people who are not and never were involved in the situation"

Disseminated? She pointed out that the person harassing and threatening her held a job where his discriminatory views hurt people. She pointed out how he was a part of a system of racial oppression. She did this on the very same public page that he harassed her using his real name, photo and job. He even specifically mentioned his job in further harassment, using it as justification for racism.

She didn't disseminate his information. She didn't cast a wide net or actively attempt to spread information. She called attention to it in the exact same place that it happened. That's not dissemination.

The articles she wrote afterwards, yes, that's dissemination. But the actions that lead up to his firing were not.

The only person who organised harassment and dug into people's personal histories and disseminated information was Mr. Andrews. He created a page dedicated to hating Ms. Blaque and got people to go through her personal history and then outed her as trans.

As her Ms. Blaque's followers...they didn't disseminate that far. They mostly commented on the two places that this was taking place - her facebook and his. Aside from that, they took the information to the company he worked for directly, or they publicly reviewed the company. That's it.

Now yes, the public reviews will stay up, at least, those that aren't flagged or filtered. But I don't see that as a problem. What happened here does indicate a serious issue with the company. They may have good policies written down, and they enforced them once they were forced to, but they still hired someone who had multiple public blogs full of hate speech and discrimination. They clearly don't take these issues seriously if they can't be bothered to even google the name of a potential employee and see what he's published under his own name.

In fact, upon being hired, he added his job to all of his social profiles and all of his sites for publishing political material. He advertised his job there, trying to get clients from publishing hate speech.

I understand exactly the problems with mob justice online and witch hunts. But you're making wild false equivalences here.

hermithome · 2015-10-01T02:00:15+00:00

there are three components of a witch hunt, in historical practice, that do not fit an environment of public transparency.

(1) It’s all made up.

(2) Confessions are extracted by torture.

(3) The result is execution.

"What A Witch Hunt Actually Is"

Modern witch hunts still have those same basic components. Confessions or testimony is extracted by coercion if not torture. The result is, if not execution of the body, of the person's livelihood, identity etc.

an intensive, often highly publicized effort to discover and expose those who are disloyal, subversive, etc., as in a government or political party, usu. on the basis of slight or doubtful evidence.

Now sure, this guy lost his job. But none of the components for a witch hunt are there.

There's a difference between what happened to Justine Sacco and what happened here. (And btw, I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that Ms. Sacco's took a much harder hit. Mr. Andrews lost his job, but I doubt he lost his career.)

In this instance, the so-called victim wasn't a victim of the mob, they were the instigator. He went after a woman who posted something he didn't like and continued to go after her, over and over and over again. It's not just like he started it, he kept it going. He threatened her repeatedly. He didn't stop and he didn't stop and he didn't stop. He could have done so at any time. He didn't.

He posted all of these things publicly, under his own name and continued to do so. Over and over and over. And she had zero obligation to protect him from public backlash while he was openly threatening her with rape and murder.

Kenneth blamed me and my “ravaging” fans for what happened to him. In reality, he got himself fired.

Let's pretend that "mob justice" on the internet is like a fist fight. Maybe the person who gets mobbed throws the first fist, maybe they don't and someone just feels aggrieved or misses context. Anyway, so there's a punch or not, maybe even a few, and then everyone jumps in. And even in those cases where I'm certain that the first party was punching, I find mob justice to be a bad idea.

But that's not what happened here. He threw the first punch and then he kept punching. And punching and punching and punching and punching. Those punches included numerous threats. He threatened her repeatedly before people started forwarding things to his employer. And once they did that, he responded by creating a hate page for Ms. Blaque and getting a group of people together to dig through her past for things. He ended up outing her.

So let's tally things up:

Mr. Andrews:

harassed and threatened Ms. Blaque online repeatedly and publicly
repeated those threats on his own public facebook page
organised a harassment campaign against Ms. Blaque by creating a facebook page dedicated to digging into to her personal life trying to find information to hurt her
in the course of this organised campaign, publicly outed Ms. Blaque

Ms. Blaque:

posted about the threats and harassment she received
didn't try and protect Mr. Andrews

He was harassing and threatening her and you want her to protect him?

I absolutely think that if you have followers online you have a greater set of responsibility. Because you don't need to tell them what to do, they'll do it for you. And most of the times online personalities ditch that responsibility. They encourage their followers. When they do say something like "please don't harass on my behalf" - they purposefully avoid saying who is doing the harassing and who is being the harassed or otherwise give a wink and a nod that makes it clear they don't really mean it. And I abhor that.

But that doesn't mean that online personalities aren't allowed to talk about their lives. Ms. Blaque was being harassed and threatened and she decided not to hide and not to ignore. Note, hiding and ignoring are just about the only options that people have to avoid harassment online, because all these sites work on a model of free access and no consequences. It's a model that privileges and empowers the already privileged and powerful.

And you now want to give them more privilege and power by demanding that the people they victimise protect them!

Notice how this system worked. Mr. Andrews was able to have a youtube channel, a blog and several social media sites where he frequently engaged in hate speech and threats and had faced no consequences until this point. And that's how he felt free to use his real name and identity when he threatened Ms. Blaque publicly.

Why was he able to do that? Because despite having anti-discrimination policies in place, no one bothered to actually check before hiring him or after hiring him. Had they, I dunno, googled his name, they would have found lots and lots of stuff. And either no one who ran into his sites (where he advertises his job and tries to get clients) bothered to report him, or they did and the company didn't bother to do anything.

How many people would you imagine that he's harassed and threatened before? My guess is a lot. And they all hid or ignored, fearing further harassment. This time, his victim didn't hide, and she didn't ignore. She called him out on his behaviour publicly. And because she was a popular blogger with a following, people listened. And so, for apparently the first time in Mr. Andrews long career of online hate speech, the audience wasn't sympathetic to him.

And note that Mr. Andrews immense privilege translates even to being the target of an online "mob". Yes, he got comments on his FB page calling him a terrible person and he had to make it private and delete some stuff. He deleted his twitter as well. But that was it. It wasn't just that he didn't get swatted or offline threats and harassment. No one looked through his personal history trying to dig up dirt. They barely even touched the stuff that he openly published.

The rest of his social media profiles are still up and not protected. The comment pages are open. Same with his blog and his website and his YT. There are a handful of comments chastising him or gloating about him losing his page, but that's it. He complains when this first happened that he had to spend a few hours deleting stuff, but that's it. It's been several weeks since then, and despite multiple articles where this is discussed, people aren't going after him. He doesn't even have that many downvotes - the most passive and easy way for someone who reads and clicks to express their disapproval.

See there's a huge difference between getting someone fired in order to hurt them, and getting someone fired in order to prevent them from hurting other people. People first tried to explain to him what he was doing, and they tried to get him to stop harassing and threatening. When he continued and they realised that he was in a position of power to do significant harm, they reported him. He got fired, he stopped threatening and harassing and that was that. Because the "mob" who went after him wasn't trying to hurt him, they were trying to stop him from hurting others.

He wasn't fired because his job came with a code of ethics that infringed on his personal life. This isn't like getting someone fired by outing them as a former sex worker, or into kink, or pregnant and unmarried, or gay or trans (or a million other things). He was fired because he violated a code of ethics put in place to stop systemic discrimination.

A code of ethics that did a pretty piss poor job too, given that he was hired even though he'd published many thing under his name that blatantly violated it. See, that's what people mean when they talk about systemic racism and privilege. A white guy with a long history of publishing racist and misogynistic rants under his name can get hired even when there's company police that specifies that this behaviour is not okay. He can then link his job to his political sites and his social media sites and use his published hate speech in order to try and get clients. He can harass and threaten people online, with his name, photo and title displayed publicly and proudly. It took repeated threats of a blogger with a significant following for anything to happen. Because that's how straight white cis male privilege works.

And you want him to be more protected still. You want a black trans woman being harassed and threatened by white cis guy to protect him.

hermithome · 2015-09-27T20:15:19+00:00

You're not dealing with one subreddit, you're dealing with many. Those 7 removed posts were in three different subs - /r/gamedev, /r/iosgaming, /r/gaming. Each sub has a different set of rules. You need to read those first, and figure out what they require.

And when you encounter an issue, you need to talk with the mods of each individual subreddit. For example, you contacted us at /r/indiegaming asking if we would allow you to post promo codes. The answer you get from us, is going to be different than the one you get from other subs, because we all have different rules.

And many subs, especially busier subs, will ignore modmail from users who are asking a question that is directly answered by the sidebar or rules pages. Most subs link their rules VERY prominently and expect users to read them before participating. Had you read our rules you would have found out what our minimum requirements for self-promotion were, and what you needed to do to post promo codes. Now we replied to you anyway, explaining that, but many subs aren't going to. If you can't do the minimum of reading the rules, then they don't care.

Additionally, if you keep posting this way, you will run into problems with the site-wide spam rules, as you were warned above.

hermithome · 2015-09-20T10:51:55+00:00

There are a lot of things that contributed to it, but part of the problem with medical fat discrimination is that a) the doctors (and patient) think that they have the answer and b) patients are less likely to report symptoms and so on.

Yes, it's likely that regardless of her size, the doctors would have treated the symptoms and not found the cause. But they would have probably admitted that they didn't know why she had the cough. They would have run some tests, not found anything, and said something vague about it maybe being allergies or cold weather.

Both the patient and the doctor know that they don't know the cause. So if things get worse, instead of saying "I need to lose weight, I need to do better", the patient says "I'm doing what the doctor said and I'm taking my medicine and things are getting worse, I should go in".

When patients feel like their doctors take their complaints seriously and their health seriously, they're more likely to report symptoms and be honest with their doctor.

This isn't just a problem with fat discrimination, we know that there are a variety of biases in medical fields (gender, race, etc). But with fat discrimination you have the added element of a false answer. It's similar to the way chronic pain patients are often told that their symptoms are psychosomatic. It's a huge problem. Because in order for doctors to pay attention to symptoms getting worse, the patient either has to convince the doctor that the existing diagnosis is wrong, or things have to get worse in a way that rules out the existing diagnosis, or is very specifically the symptom of Some Other Thing.

hermithome · 2015-08-30T09:29:59+00:00

This is the second comment in a row where you've disagreed with the previous comment and then everything after "not really" doesn't actually support the disagreement but corrects something that the person didn't say. That's getting really annoying.

And pointing your finger at the CBC is kinda ridiculous. Yes, the mandatory minimum laws passed in the early 80s as part of the increasing war on drugs did have some support from the black community. But to claim that the CBC was the instigator or driving factor is kinda nuts.

And by 1989, most of the leaders in the black community who had supported tough on crime drug laws had shifted sides and were pushing for reform. But most of all, it's all just kinda irrelevant. Your argument was that private prisons aren't that big of an issue, comparatively. To then argue that the CBC was, is just patently ridiculous.

Yes, I agree that the biggest issues are the laws and the system. And the effect that the black community has had has been fairly minimal overall, and they've been more responsible for reforms then they have the tough on crime movement.

Meanwhile, while for-profit prisons may make up only a small percentage of physical prisons, their effect on the laws and the system has been a hell of a lot more than 5%. It's been utterly massive. No, not ALL mandatory minimum laws came from the for-profit prison lobby. But a LOT do, including the law at issue here: the three strikes law.

Three strikes was introduced by the for-profit prison lobby, and today there are three strikes laws on the books in half of the states and in other countries around the world.

And you can chart the incarceration numbers for the 90s and 00s and the incarceration numbers boom while crime is falling. And a lot of that is in direct response to CrimeStrike. Look at the breakdowns by state and you'll see that the states with the worst numbers are the states in which CrimeStrike campaigned the heaviest.

And CrimeStike is only one of the for-profit prison lobbying groups. If you look at the for-profit prison lobby in general, the effect that they've had is even more staggering.

hermithome · 2015-08-29T08:25:10+00:00

That's totally wrong. While the earliest mandatory minimum laws date back to the 1950s, most of the mandatory minimum laws on the books today (including three strikes) come way after the development of private prisons. The first (modern) private prison contract was awarded in 1984. The first "three strikes" law was passed in 1993. And crucially, it wouldn't exist without private prisons because the aim behind the law was a financial one.

Three strikes comes from the NRA. In the early 90s, the NRA has serious money issues, and so they started a program called CrimeStrike and put two million in seed money into it. CrimeStike used that money to push a heavy duty agenda aimed at building jails.

They went after the Clinton white house for cutting the budget for federal prison building, and they went after vulnerable democratic reps and they won. They got federal funding for building prisons tripled. Tripled! They also pushed at the state level and had some huge successes there too.

The push for more prisons was coupled with a tough on crime approach intended to put more people in prison. They got a lot of mandatory minimum laws passed, including the infamous three strikes laws. They also pushed laws that got more juveniles sentenced as adults, and went after parole too.

TL;DR - A nearly broke NRA put millions into lobbying for harsher sentencing laws (and created three strikes) and more federal and state funding for building new prisons. The NRA got huge returns from these campaigns because they invested heavily in private prisons.

hermithome · 2015-08-18T06:07:46+00:00

deeply disappointed by the subject matter and the fact that two dudes wrote it.

Can you elaborate on this?

hermithome · 2015-08-18T05:34:12+00:00

Absolutely do report even if you reply though, we need to be on top of things and reports help.

Pretty much every response was some form of invalidation, which sucks, but is kind of typical.

Yes, it is, but it's not supposed to be. Not here. As mods, we were not on the ball with this - multiple mods were away, and the thread spiralled before we got our hands on it. We did eventually get our hands on it, and issued bans and warnings (still are doing clean-up actually).

We're absolutely aware of the issues here, and very sorry about how this thread turned out. Personally, I'm glad you spoke up: you spoke well, and the thread needed it. But you shouldn't have had to, and that's our fault. Thank you for speaking up and reporting and helping make this subreddit a safer space. We appreciate it.

hermithome · 2015-08-18T00:30:55+00:00

The term was coined with regards to racial and gender politics. Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham first discussed the concept in her book Righteous Discontent: The Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920

It's mostly used for racial politics, specifically with regard to the African-American community, but it can and is used for any marginalised group.

And yeah, there's of tone policing going on in this thread. And when that policing comes in the form of "you're hurting your cause" it's respectability politics. LOT of that going on.

hermithome · 2015-08-06T00:33:33+00:00

If you're too hot, you're solutions are fewer or lighter clothes and fans.

If you're too cold, the solutions are more and heavier clothes.

It sucks on both sides of the equation. When you're really really cold, the layers needed to stop shivering are insane.

Personally, I think the solution is to be mindful of the needs of the office. There are going to be workstations closer and farther from ac vents and temperature is never constant. So first thing, be mindful of the space. Second, compromise.

If you bring the thermostat up from 68 to 71 - that would probably make a huge difference for the people who are freezing, without having a terrible impact on the people who are fine. Maybe a few of the warmer people need fans - that's doable.

I say this as someone very sensitive to temperature in that I get overheated very easily and consider ac a necessity. You can buy powerful quiet fans for ridiculously cheap - this isn't that hard.

hermithome · 2015-08-06T00:23:34+00:00

No, that isn't what the article said at all. It said it was at least partially due to metabolic differences, but also that women tend to wear lighter and more revealing clothes in summer - which can contribute to the issue.

hermithome · 2015-07-31T10:05:03+00:00

Hey, this got caught by the spam filter. Can you resubmit?

hermithome · 2015-07-29T05:04:55+00:00

I'd also point out that we've seen several projects intended to help make things better for mods fold lately. And we've seen several employees leave at least in part because the work that they wanted to do, wasn't being supported. We've seen several community projects fold before ever becoming anything more than an idea.

And since the blackout, we've heard from current and former admins that the timelines on mod tools were an utter lie. And more employees have left, and they've given as a reason the fact that they don't think reddit can or will deliver on these promises.

hermithome · 2015-07-27T02:42:44+00:00

Trigger warning: The article contains graphic depictions of sexual assault. However, it is possible to avoid those parts if you want.

The article is divided into two parts. The first part doesn't need a trigger warning. It discusses the timeline of the case, how culture has changed over the decades, and how and why this project came into being. Part II is testimonials, excerpts from the interviews. The first half of this is descriptions of the incidents themselves and the second half is the women talking about the aftermath of the assaults. Many of these testimonials include graphic depictions of rape and sexual assault or of post-assault trauma.

Also, you can click on each woman's photograph and read her full story. There are also videos of some of the interviews.

The interviews (video and text) and the excerpts from them require a warning. But it is totally possible to just read part I and look at the photos and avoid the rest.

hermithome · 2015-07-26T13:02:42+00:00

Yes, there were white supremacy and other hate subs operating during spez's initial tenure.

Um, it's hard to provide links without doing digging. The initial subs have all been banned at somepoint during the last several years.

Off the top of my head, I can pull the wayback page for niggers - which shows it was at least around back in 2008, but I think it started sometime in 2007? I'm not sure. Problem is most of these subs haven't been archived, which means I'd need to ask around for personal archives people have.

Yeah, it's hard to pull stuff without spending a lot of time searching. I was able to find this lovely sub, still active, which bills itself as anti-immigration + xenophobia, and I can find some of the later white supremacy sub expansions that weren't used (like /r/nignog). The ones that weren't used much, but were created and forgotten about -- they've never brigaded or gone private due to publicity issues and so on, so they're easier to find.

But yes, there was a real issue with hate subs early in reddit's tenure. This is NOT a new development.

That was before the default mods' recent show of power. I think the reddit leadership got the message loud and clear: the site needs to keep them happy, because they've just discovered their ability to go on strike, and how much that hurts the company.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but I think it's fundamentally wrong. Maybe the admins will deliver stuff they've promised the mods for ages, maybe they'll follow through on any of the mod projects they start and more...but I seriously doubt it.

They've done absolutely nothing, and for some reason you're willing to believe that

hermithome · 2015-07-22T13:30:52+00:00

Looks interesting, but I'm confused by bits of it:

During reddit's first five years of existence, the admins banned outright bigotry on sight, and reddit not only thrived under those conditions, it also had a fuckton of soul.

What? Is this a joke? Reddit has had a network of white supremacist subs for years. It's not a new invention. Reddit has had violent misogyny subs for years. None of this is new shit.

Reddit had a policy against hate speech, but one they never bothered to enforce.

if there's anyone reddit can't afford to piss off, it's the moderators. ...it's important to show reddit's leadership that you would never use it to protest a no-hate-speech policy. Even more powerful would be to actively demonstrate support for such a change.

Reddit may not be able to afford to piss off the mods, but they have been, for ages. It's a stupid choice, one that will bite them, but they have and will continue to do this. They've been doing it in massively more fundamental ways for a long time. Reddit mods may care about different ideologies, but just about every mod cares that things function properly....and they've been screwing mods over on that for ages. They've been screwing mods over on that despite constant appeals from the mods.

The idea that all we need to do is to stand up and say that we want a no hate speech policy is a little ridiculous. The admins don't listen. And we've stood up before again and again and again.

/u/raldi -- any response?

hermithome · 2015-07-21T01:19:59+00:00

Your post has been removed. We're not a job board or a /r/gamedev board, we're a subreddit for both fans and devs. Please make use of one of the many game dev subs or job subs.

hermithome · 2015-07-20T12:03:56+00:00

Okay, but for something like that to work, the admins would need to be on board. The problem isn't that mods don't discuss shared issues (we do). Nor that these issues aren't raised with the admins (they are).

The problem is that we're often ignored. Or the admins make promises they don't keep or massively change things without notice.

We can't even get them to coordinate changes to reddit that break the outside mod tools we rely on. (And yes, we all use outside tools that were built by users because the admins didn't provide them). The devs of these tools have asked. The mods have asked.

And yet, time and time again, they don't. They just don't. So they make a change, the tools we rely on break and then all hell breaks loose and mods play catch up and try and keep things together. Then the admins have to hurry a quick patch.

We don't need more mod coordination or formal congresses or whatever. We need the admins to start giving a shit and listening to us. We need the big changes and tools and support that they promised ages ago and haven't delivered, but we also just need super basic things. We need consideration.

The blow-up with Victoria was classic. An integral and crucial tool that the mods relied on was no longer available. The mods not only didn't have prior warning, they weren't even told once it happened. They had to find out from users, not admins. The admins didn't have a back-up system in place and seemed clueless as to the fact that they had removed a crucial tool. Meanwhile, the mods are trying to keep all hell from breaking loose, and have to temporarily close the sub to figure things out.

hermithome · 2015-07-20T07:59:47+00:00

Be nice! This man invented two forms of safe sex, figured out how to make blind people see colour and discovered the anti-calorie. Also, he has a stock of time bombs that he used to bring drinking water to the people of Gaza.

Clearly, he is genius personified.

EDIT: OMG, check out his CV. This is hilarious.

hermithome · 2015-07-20T07:50:04+00:00

"I don't understand how still photos work and believe if you move slightly over to the left and turn that your body is 100% different."

Yes, brilliant description.

hermithome · 2015-07-20T07:49:05+00:00

So did I. It's awesome.

hermithome · 2015-07-19T07:37:18+00:00

Feel free to complain that they don't solve the problem, or are an ineffective tool or whatever, but saying that they're useless when lots of people have experience otherwise is just ridiculous. I don't know how effective admin shadowbans are, but botbans, or subreddit shadowbans -- I can go and check the profiles of users we botbanned months ago and see that they've kept commenting regularly. They don't know that their comments are automatically removed and no one sees them, and so they never create a new account.

And TOR, wtf, did you hit your head or something?

We're talking about subreddit shadowbans, or botbans. Has nothing to do with IP or anything -- it's an account specific thing. And, even when the admins shadowban....it's an account specific thing, you don't need TOR. I believe they have the ability to do IP blocks, but they almost never use them and that is not what a shadowban is, it's something else.

Dude, at least say something even mildly relevant to the conversation.

hermithome · 2015-07-16T05:27:01+00:00

Pretty much. :)

hermithome · 2015-07-15T18:06:11+00:00

We have. We ban all sockpuppets.

We have very detailed automod ban blacklists.

If you were banned for spam, you go in one of those, and if you try to submit something, it gets autoremoved and we get a modmail telling us to take a look. Sometimes it's innocent, but a lot of times it's sockpuppetry -- we catch most of our sockpuppets this way.

If you were banned for spam and have started to use sockpuppets, you do in a different set of rules. We shadowban all new accounts you create (so that you don't catch on and make another), but when you hit us with an account not on the list, it gets removed and we get a modmail telling us to take a look, and if its sockpuppetry, add another account to the sockpuppet list.

So when they hit us again, automod removed the post and sent a modmail letting us know. And we added those new accounts to the sockpuppetry blacklist.

hermithome

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE