Re: Can We Just All Agree

(Anonymous) 2016-08-12 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
When did she ever bring attention to innocent people, though?

Re: Can We Just All Agree

(Anonymous) 2016-08-12 02:26 am (UTC)(link)
Didn't she during the whole Celestial Senate thing?

Re: Can We Just All Agree

(Anonymous) 2016-08-12 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
Dear sweet summerchild.

Re: Can We Just All Agree

(Anonymous) 2016-08-12 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
ALL the time.

DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 04:03 am (UTC)(link)
wow I'd really love to see some actual concrete deets? not that I don't believe you but you're not answering the question in a helpful way.

+1

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 05:44 am (UTC)(link)
.

+1

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 11:13 am (UTC)(link)
Seriously.

I followed Rhea drama. I've never seen any evidence of her dragging innocent people through the mud.

Re: +1

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 12:05 pm (UTC)(link)
She refused to take down that list of people "involved" in the CS even though a ton of them weren't actually participants in fhe spying or shady behavior.

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 04:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm on my phone so I woht be giving links but the MAJOR offences include

The 'inked' drama involving tec. She started a harassment campaign on monarques behalf when Tecs greatest offence was being a little possessive over a common aesthetic

Literally half the stuff she posts about monarque/Gucci is made up. This includes claims the monarque was sending her death threats (and this to a tumblr comm) and then offering proof by way of IPs that she couldn't actually link back to monarque and wouldn't have held up under scrutiny anyways

There's the stupid celestial senate list she published which was basically anyone loosely affiliated with arcane don. Virtually everyone on it was innocent but she made people pm her with proof of innocence to be removed at her discretion. I can only assume she was enjoying playing judge, jury, and executioner to them.

And these are only the cases that occurred to high-profile people/situations. Rhea isn't particularly good about checking her facts and will happily reblig anything that hits her drama itch. I mean, how many times does she need to fuck up before people stop giving her predatory behaviour a pass?

*if our comm is searchable all of the listed drama events were recorded her (inked went on for MONTHS)

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 04:23 pm (UTC)(link)
"I'm on my phone so I woht be giving links"

k

good proof

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)
feel free to actually search the comm you've insisted on being an asshole in~

NAYRT

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 06:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Rhea has literally 2750 tumblr posts tagged as "flight whining" that either post or reblog FR drama. There are probably others not tagged that are lost in the sheer volume of the thousands of more innocent posts that she makes. At this point it's not even about the specific cases but a pattern of encouraging wrong-doers to be blacklisted on thin evidence and/or events from months previous. Plus all of the times that she's thrown petty tantrums at the admins for updating the rules when she's found a loophole, and not really cared who gets caught in the crossfire.

Have fun:
http://cassowarhea.tumblr.com/tagged/flight+whining
http://cassowarhea.tumblr.com/tagged/celestial+senate
http://cassowarhea.tumblr.com/tagged/names

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)
bruh are you for real

Steps to find deet links:

1) Click on the word "anonrising" to get back to the main blog
2) Scroll down
3) Pick a Wanker Thread link !!important!! any of them !!important!!
3) Ctrl+F, type "Rhea", enter
4) congrats you found the deets

you're welcome

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Or even easier: Go to Rhea's fucking blog. She will do the work for them...

Something tells me it is just another Rhea sheep, who believes she can do no wrong with evidence staring them right in the face.

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, it must be Rhea sheep asking for specific deets... or it could be people who might be new to the community...

How dare people want specifics instead of being told to weed through literally thousands of posts.

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-13 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Lol I think there's a difference between not wanting to search through thousands of posts (instructions above to cut the search down btw) and just going "nobody will link me so therefore it doesn't exist!!"

Re: DA; reply to the three comments above me

(Anonymous) 2016-08-14 04:44 am (UTC)(link)
nayrt

idk, i mean i remember a little while ago when there were people criticizing the harshness of this comm, one of the things given as a rebuttal was that deets were given, that we didn't just randomly talk shit about people but that we gave proof. so i think that is part of what is good about this comm, is that we do focus on giving links and such, and generally don't tell people to find it for themselves

NTAYRT

(Anonymous) 2016-08-14 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
But I think part of the problem is that going over Rhea wank again is like beating a dead horse.

It's there, it's on our blogs, we've provided information on how to find them, please stop asking us to bring it up. Again.

Re: NTAYRT

(Anonymous) 2016-08-14 08:48 am (UTC)(link)
ayrt
that makes sense - thanks.