Difference between revisions of "User:PsychoNerd054/DMs with HTL"
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Leaked Kiwi Farms DMs== | ==Leaked Kiwi Farms DMs== | ||
These are the private DMs from Kiwi Farms that I had with Hurtful which I had infamously leaked to Spooky Bones. | These are the private DMs from Kiwi Farms that I had with Hurtful which I had infamously leaked to Spooky Bones. In these, Hurtful tries to help me with implementing the "Suitress Policy", a policy that he never liked or fully approved of, by directing me to Marvin so that I can hide edits. | ||
He also assists me in helping users creating CWCki accounts, as they now have to asks mods to create their accounts for them. | |||
6 September 2021 | 6 September 2021 | ||
About 3 weeks after I set the "Suitress Policy" in place, I accidentally included Fiona's first name in an article<ref group = note>Looking through my edits, I think it might have been the Post-Incest Saga page that included people like GiBi, which got deleted.</ref> and wanted to hide it in the same way that people did with the Wallflower. | |||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Hi. Spooky Bones said you wanted to ask me about a CWCki issue.}} | {{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Hi. Spooky Bones said you wanted to ask me about a CWCki issue.}} | ||
{{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|I wanted the ability to hide edits for the "Everfree Suitress" rule to be kept in control.}} | {{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|I wanted the ability to hide edits for the "Everfree Suitress" rule to be kept in control.}} | ||
7 September 2021 | |||
Hurtful informs me that he doesn't have the ability to change user group roles, and so directs me to [[Marvin]], the current owner of the site. | |||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|To hide edits? Not sure the CWCki has an option for that.}} | {{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|To hide edits? Not sure the CWCki has an option for that.}} | ||
| Line 22: | Line 28: | ||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Sounds like something you'd need to DM @Marvin about enabling. If you do, you'd need to ask him to make the tool available to the jerkop group (which you are part of).}} | {{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Sounds like something you'd need to DM @Marvin about enabling. If you do, you'd need to ask him to make the tool available to the jerkop group (which you are part of).}} | ||
9 September 2021 | |||
Two days later, Hurtful asks me if I wanted to have the ability to create CWCki accounts for others. I then ask how to do this, asking if I give them their password after making their account. | |||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Did you want to be able to create CWCki accounts? You should have it as a jerkop. You can access it by going to Special Pages and there should be an option for "Create account".}} | |||
{{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|Found it, thanks.}} | |||
{{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|Do I give them their password once I made them their account?}} | |||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Sure. You can set a password and give it to them. Or they could request a password that you can put in. They can change the password later in Preferences if they want. | |||
Alternatively, you could use the email option. Then the CWCki itself will generate a temp password to their email.}} | |||
11 September 2021 | |||
I thank Hurtful for helping me with getting the ability to hide edits for the "Suitress Policy". | |||
{{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|I can also see I got the ability to hide edits, thanks for the help.}} | |||
{{quoteboxyellow|speaker = Hurtful Truth Level|Sure.}} | |||
==Reevaluating the Suitress Policy== | ==Reevaluating the Suitress Policy== | ||
| Line 188: | Line 216: | ||
{{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|I'd say go for it. I will admit, sometimes I think the policy probably wasn't one of my brighter ideas, or I could have handled | {{quotebox|speaker = Psycho|I'd say go for it. I will admit, sometimes I think the policy probably wasn't one of my brighter ideas, or I could have handled | ||
the entire scenario a little better, and I would like to see how everyone would handle it at this point. }} | the entire scenario a little better, and I would like to see how everyone would handle it at this point. }} | ||
{{Notes}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:13, 5 June 2025
| Back To Personal Library |
Below are a set of DMs I have had with fellow editor Hurtful Truth Level.
Leaked Kiwi Farms DMs
These are the private DMs from Kiwi Farms that I had with Hurtful which I had infamously leaked to Spooky Bones. In these, Hurtful tries to help me with implementing the "Suitress Policy", a policy that he never liked or fully approved of, by directing me to Marvin so that I can hide edits.
He also assists me in helping users creating CWCki accounts, as they now have to asks mods to create their accounts for them.
6 September 2021
About 3 weeks after I set the "Suitress Policy" in place, I accidentally included Fiona's first name in an article[note 1] and wanted to hide it in the same way that people did with the Wallflower.
| Hi. Spooky Bones said you wanted to ask me about a CWCki issue. |
| I wanted the ability to hide edits for the "Everfree Suitress" rule to be kept in control. |
7 September 2021
Hurtful informs me that he doesn't have the ability to change user group roles, and so directs me to Marvin, the current owner of the site.
| To hide edits? Not sure the CWCki has an option for that. |
| I could have sworn it did. I may be remembering it all wrong: |
| Sounds like something you'd need to DM @Marvin about enabling. If you do, you'd need to ask him to make the tool available to the jerkop group (which you are part of). |
9 September 2021
Two days later, Hurtful asks me if I wanted to have the ability to create CWCki accounts for others. I then ask how to do this, asking if I give them their password after making their account.
| Did you want to be able to create CWCki accounts? You should have it as a jerkop. You can access it by going to Special Pages and there should be an option for "Create account". |
| Found it, thanks. |
| Do I give them their password once I made them their account? |
| Sure. You can set a password and give it to them. Or they could request a password that you can put in. They can change the password later in Preferences if they want.
Alternatively, you could use the email option. Then the CWCki itself will generate a temp password to their email. |
11 September 2021
I thank Hurtful for helping me with getting the ability to hide edits for the "Suitress Policy".
| I can also see I got the ability to hide edits, thanks for the help. |
| Sure. |
Reevaluating the Suitress Policy
27 March 2022
In a Discord DM I had with Hurtful Truth Level, he expresses concerns for wanting to reevaluate the Suitress Policy in the state it was in at the time to post about it on its talk page. Though I wanted the policy removed by this point, I also expressed concerns about the consequences of removing everything in one fell swoop. After telling him about how Fiona supposedly wanted the attention from being put on the CWCki, I explain to him that I was also concerned about the stigma surrounding her being doxed, citing that as one of the main reasons for me upholding the policy. I also express concerns that people might go up to her to "misguidingly congradulate" her. Being understanding of these concerns, Hurtful willingly accomodates and then helps me out with lessening the effects of the policy.
At one point, I also express how hypocritical I thought it was that people went after The WCT and put his full name everywhere, even when he was in a very similar scenario to that of Fiona.
| I think we should reevaluate the Suitress policy. I'm thinking about writing on the talk page about this. Wanted to talk to you about it first. |
| To what extent?
I don't know, considering who she is as a person, someone who seeks attention good or bad, and constantly finds herself in all of these different Discords where people fuck with her, it's probably for the better we keep it. She's practically a ticking time bomb and a danger to herself. Do you disagree? |
| Is she still around on these various Discords? The policy says her internet got revoked. |
| Not that I know of.
That's the story from what I can recall That her internet was revoked, but that could have changed. Though some say that she left on her own. I have doubts of that considering the AMA, which was done on a throwaway account. I have doubts she left on her own, TBH. |
| Makes sense.
In my opinion, if she has the habit of attention-seeking she would be doing it regardless of if the policy's in place or not. I don't know that it's really the CWCki's role to protect people from themselves. Wasn't the policy put into place originally because of drama over Bella framing her? |
| Yeah, essentially, it was. But I would also say that I repurposed it considering the other stuff about her.
And I guess you have a point about protecting people from themselves. The CWCki is practically about a man who's a danger to himself. I guess also there's just this stigma surrounding her, too. Like, revealing stuff about her is generally frowned upon. |
| To address the original concern I think we could continue to censor her name in chats where Bella is quoted verbatim attempting to frame her. Similar to what's done for Avery and TernaryMercury. |
| I still wouldn't use her real name, again due to the stigma. |
| Stigma from where? KF? They call her Fiona there. |
| Guess so.
They do call her that. Guess that stigma died off a little. But trust me, it was pretty extreme, even on KF when all of this happened. It obviously isn't nearly as bad as it was 6 months ago. Since people actually refer to as Fiona there. |
| I remember seeing some of that. |
| I guess my concern there is that I still think that sentiment still might be around in pockets.
Just not so much on KF. Like, GiBi is till getting shit on for leaking her phone number, even when that happened months ago. |
| I will admit though, it does feel kind of weird how WCT's full name and photo is still up, when he was sort of in a similar scenario as Fiona, where he gets accused of heinous shit.
But the stigma around him is significantly different, too. |
| Fair point. I think the GiBi situation stemmed from when tensions were still high and people blew his actions out of proportion.
Whereas currently with the CWCki, the dust has already settled. The policy was a good idea because there was a lot of misinfo and gossip being thrown around at the time and the CWCki needed time to properly evaluate things. I think at this stage it's not as needed. |
| Yeah, that's a good point. |
| Plus, believe it or not, Fiona's form of weening was likely to get a page with her name on it in the first place. According to CWCki server mods, one of the first things she posted on the server was how much she wanted a KF thread.
I really don't think we should provide an outlet for that kind of type of thing. Where just because you actively claim that you're weird or some shit, you warrant a page for shits and giggles. |
| But Fiona has had several interactions with Chris. And the policy does make it difficult to properly document those. Take the Blowing Kisses video. It has her face censored. To someone who hasn't seen the uncut version, it might raise the question of why is Chris continuing to blow kisses? is The Suitress showing a neutral look, an approving look, a disapproving look? |
| I will agree, it does make things pretty inconvenient.
I even decided to tone it down with the Incest Call. Because I felt that further censoring that would cause even more problems. I do feel we should revert the videos, but keep the transcripts as is if possible. Again, because she's more or less safe at this point. |
| Which transcripts? |
| On those pages.
The "Suitress videos" page. I mean, I do feel we could go a little looser with this policy than the Wallflower one, since unlike with the Wallflower, she didn't agree to it. And the drama isn't nearly as prevalent. But not too much. Because: 1) I feel people would still try and contact her and misguidedly congradulate her on her leaks 2) I think having her name on there is exactly what she wants, which again, we really shouldn't give similar people that opportunity |
| Yeah. As one compromise is her last name can continue to be suppressed. It's not relevant to Chris anyway. I think this would address those points, making it difficult to be able to contact and not giving her full name. |
| I mean, I guess "Fiona" would just be a name we toss on the side.
Keep "The Suitress", though, since everyone pretty much calls her that now, sans KF. And I suppose we can add the "Fifi Vixenhart" name too. Since that was the main screen name she used to contact Chris with. |
| Plus Fifi seems like a throwaway name. |
| Not so sure about using her real face on her page though.
The Suitress Videos I think are at least harder to get to. Maybe treat it like how Clyde is treated. Where you can find his face if you dig around long enough. But where his page doesn't have his real face. How do we revise the protip on her page with all of these points? |
| Hmm. I think if we go that route we could be clearer on the justifications. Because like you pointed out there's the oddity with her name/photo being suppressed while people in similar situations don't.
That was one of the complaints over the Wallflower policy, that people like Megan arguably deserved it more and it gets weird to justify things. |
| Yeah, I think when the Wallflower policy was added, people began giving Megan a treatment like that, which only screwed things up because so much was revealed about her.
Plus, I feel what makes Fiona different was that she kind of did all of this on her own volition, unlike Megan, Heather, or Doopie, which makes it even more weird. People also believe the Wallflower policy should be relaxed to a certain extent, because of this and the fact that people already know what her real name is. |
| Yeah. |
| Not sure. Don't think we should enact changes immediately, maybe give it a few days to consider. |
| I'd say we should still take time to consider it, and maybe slowly change things.
I think it'd be just as weird to just suddenly revert everything when this was already an established rule. |
| I agree. I also think I'll post about my thoughts on the Suitress policy talk page, so there's transparency in what we decide to do and so other editors can weigh in. |
| I'd say go for it. I will admit, sometimes I think the policy probably wasn't one of my brighter ideas, or I could have handled
the entire scenario a little better, and I would like to see how everyone would handle it at this point. |
Notes
- ↑ Looking through my edits, I think it might have been the Post-Incest Saga page that included people like GiBi, which got deleted.