Not sure how many people were around four years ago for the original drama, but @storyofrachel@hexbear.net was a banned user from early on the site's history, and I've seen quite a bit of speculation recently that a current frequent poster in c/mutualaid is an alt of hers due to having a similar MO and personal details (such as them both living in the same city)

For context, u/storyofrachel was an unhoused trans woman, who frequently solicited money from the community and had problems with substance abuse. She eventually made a post bragging about scamming money from users here (I myself was one of the users who sent her money) and blowing it on drugs (with a picture of the drugs in question) and a

bunch of homophobic slurs (TW: homophobia, self harm).

Show

She later claimed that her account had been hacked, which frankly I did and do not believe. She was unbanned but later banned for other shit which I don't recall and am unable to reconstruct from the modlog and came back on a bunch of different alts, all of which were banned.

If there's any truth to this, it is deeply fucked that this person is still here, evading her ban and scamming people four years later. As one of the people who was taken advantage of previously (and, possibly, again with this current user!), people should at least be able to make an informed decision with all available context. If we want this community to function, and I say this as someone who has sent hundreds of dollars to people over the years through this community, we should be able to guard against bad actors who are trying to take advantage of the compassion and generosity of our user base.

Edit: There's an Instagram with both usernames on it, publicly available. It's 100% the same person. Not going to post it because I don't want anyone to get doxxed but yeah.

Edit edit: I'm going to go touch grass now. Anyone who is being willfully obtuse about why I made this post can read it again or any of my other comments in this thread

  • Chronicon [they/them]
    ·
    5 months ago

    i give her money sometimes. i know its the same person. I dont feel scammed. I can see how someone not knowing the history or not having put together the clues could feel that way theoretically but ultimately I dont think there's anything actionable here besides maybe clarifying the policy on alts of banned users. (though sometimes it feels like the ambiguity gives the team latitude to deal with things on a case by case basis in a way thats positive overall)

    • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Maybe we should have some kind of official ban appeal process? I've seen some heated moments go down on this site and users get banned for it who were otherwise good posters but let emotions or drugs or whatever get to them.

      Idk, I wasn't around for this first incident so I don't have a grudge or anything or even much information about it but it does bother me that she won't even acknowledge it happened (at this moment)

      sadness

      I want to believe that that's all that was, some kind of heated moment

      • Chronicon [they/them]
        ·
        5 months ago

        In the past at least, acknowledging you were an alt of a banned user was bannable behavior. Not something I'd want to risk if I frequently relied on this place for sustenance, idk about you.

        • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]
          ·
          5 months ago

          True but accounts also get banned for people finding out they are alts of banned users (like DayOfDoom's alts)

          And it's pretty out and obvious now yea

          • Chronicon [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            yeah sometimes. I've said elsewhere in the thread I think the policy (or lack thereof) on banned users alts provides a way for admins to exercise some discretion. Maybe that's unfair, but I generally trust and agree with their decisions. Someone who comes back repeatedly and inevitably breaks the rules each time is different than someone who comes back once and doesn't break the same rules over again, for example. It's easier to leave some ambiguity than it is to spell out exactly what the policy is and risk it being exploited by rules-lawyering bad actors.