Do you know who it is? If so, do you intend for readers to be able to figure it out based on what youâve said? If so, why not just name them? Can you say how you traced them?
Yes, I know who it is. There are paper trails of posts all pointing to this one person.
If so, do you intend for readers to be able to figure it out based on what youâve said?
I was not trying to communicate who âFuentesâ specifically was, more that he is an EA insider and not the fake person described in the Fuentes bio.
If so, why not just name them? Can you say how you traced them?
There will (likely) be a post out (by Ămile) that goes into this in painstaking detail. So thereâs really no reason for me to reveal their name now (given the forumâs doxing rules).
I think the moderator (JP) was acting carefully and fairly in redacting the details I shared. Itâs against the forum rules to dox, and the details I shared were enough to make a good guess who the person is.
This is a tricky situation, because âFuentesâ is not an openly anonymous account, but a fake name account started with a fake bio.
They are pretending to be someone else, and have an axe to grind based on their communications in earlier years. In that sense, the situation is more like the Holden astroturfing case (who also held a personal interest in convincing people in a particular direction, though not necessarily âan axe to grindâ).
This is a tricky situation, because âFuentesâ is not an openly anonymous account, but a fake name account started with a fake bio.
Depending on the claimed identity of âFuentes,â the strength of the evidence for that proposition, and whether Torres can show any portion of the Fuentes post was made in objective bad faith, the mods should consider allowing âFuentesâ to be named. Pseudonymity is a shield to protect the writer from blowback, not a sword to allow people to make up details of a fake identity to bolster their attacks on others. If âFuentesâ flatly lied about being an outsider, but clearly is not, then I think their true identity is likely fair game in assessing the validity of the âFuentesâ post.
The âMark Fuentesâ backstory of being a public defender who only briefly was involved with EA does not add up. Someone on the periphery like that wouldnât know enough about the community to fish up all of those quotes and talk about the people involved.
It does start to look like misuse of anonymity when even before âMark Fuentesâ other anonymised accounts like âClaressa Mealsâ were posting the exact same screenshots and variations of the same accusations. These can be traced back to one specific person.
Do you know who it is? If so, do you intend for readers to be able to figure it out based on what youâve said? If so, why not just name them? Can you say how you traced them?
Yes, I know who it is. There are paper trails of posts all pointing to this one person.
I was not trying to communicate who âFuentesâ specifically was, more that he is an EA insider and not the fake person described in the Fuentes bio.
There will (likely) be a post out (by Ămile) that goes into this in painstaking detail. So thereâs really no reason for me to reveal their name now (given the forumâs doxing rules).
I think the moderator (JP) was acting carefully and fairly in redacting the details I shared. Itâs against the forum rules to dox, and the details I shared were enough to make a good guess who the person is.
This is a tricky situation, because âFuentesâ is not an openly anonymous account, but a fake name account started with a fake bio.
They are pretending to be someone else, and have an axe to grind based on their communications in earlier years. In that sense, the situation is more like the Holden astroturfing case (who also held a personal interest in convincing people in a particular direction, though not necessarily âan axe to grindâ).
Depending on the claimed identity of âFuentes,â the strength of the evidence for that proposition, and whether Torres can show any portion of the Fuentes post was made in objective bad faith, the mods should consider allowing âFuentesâ to be named. Pseudonymity is a shield to protect the writer from blowback, not a sword to allow people to make up details of a fake identity to bolster their attacks on others. If âFuentesâ flatly lied about being an outsider, but clearly is not, then I think their true identity is likely fair game in assessing the validity of the âFuentesâ post.
Good point.
The âMark Fuentesâ backstory of being a public defender who only briefly was involved with EA does not add up. Someone on the periphery like that wouldnât know enough about the community to fish up all of those quotes and talk about the people involved.
It does start to look like misuse of anonymity when even before âMark Fuentesâ other anonymised accounts like âClaressa Mealsâ were posting the exact same screenshots and variations of the same accusations. These can be traced back to one specific person.
See Ămileâs substack: https://ââmileptorres.substack.com/ââ