Oh man, not this girl again. Let's just say she is known for being at the center of drama wherever she goes. She has a very long history of libel and public feuds related to her "music project." In one of many incidents, her and her mother sent DMCA takedown requests to LiveJournal based on negative information being posted by another user (completely unrelated to copyright).
Please do not give her attention. At least, don't give kickstarter negative attention over her complaint.
[Edit: Removed comment regarding mental illness and links to other forums]
I see that she says she was kicked out of her home when she was 16 and placed in a mental health facility. But this is not the same as having a mental illness. Certainly it's been the case before that a perfectly healthful individual has ended up in such an institution. Especially people suffering from emotional trauma that they are unable to handle on their own.
 'I am on disability because I was kicked out of this "mansion" at a young age and locked up in a mental institution.'
"Mental illness" is a very broad term that can mean a lot of things, and the last thing people affected by it need is for people to perpetuate its stigmatization on the internet. That someone has suffered from some unspecified form of mental illness does not automatically make them untrustworthy.
I don't have an opinion on this case, but after reading the comments, I'm wondering if this case is possible:
1 She is a legitimate victim of cyberstalking, with a legitimate beef against Kickstarter
2 She is also an opportunist, using #1 to generate publicity for her project
3 Kickstarter could/should have handled this differently/better
For me, I get the impression from the responses here that some think that #1 and #2 above are mutually exclusive, when it's possible they may not be. If #2 is true, it doesn't in my mind invalidate #1 and #3, but it could make me less sympathetic to her cause.
I'm not sure we should draw any conclusions based on a blog post from only one side of the 'dispute' (Kickstarter hasn't stated their side), but it's interesting to me how polarizing her blog entry is in this thread.
Old drama is uninteresting. What's wrong with being mentally ill? I'm definitely not neurotypical, just like half of Silicon Valley geeks. Try raising VC money in Silicon Valley without projecting the image of irrationally exuberant hypomania. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/160/bill-nguyen-startups
Your comment is exactly the kind that threatens to make this thread a trainwreck. Be nice! Rachel is a very real person that can't raise money on Kickstarter because Kickstarter can't deal with one asshole posting 400 spam comments.
I am not trying to pick on the mentally ill or be rude. Unfortunately in this case, I've seen her behavior be highly disruptive to the detriment of others for about 6 years now. I have friends in the music industry (where I thought her drama was confined to) and have been exposed to her in person. I felt that I had to post a warning, because the internet mob is already all over kickstarter for this.
I am actually somewhat annoyed that she is causing trouble in other social circles of mine and am going to refrain from posting about it further. I'm not a fan of drama and find her antics incredibly exhausting.
Right, so, no counterargument or evidence being provided from Kickstarter is OK in criticizing them, and any evidence that this person may have a history of causing similar types of drama is 'uninteresting'?
You're persistent in asking people to be civil towards Rachel, yet are completely fine with the bashing of Kickstarter without giving them a chance to make their case.
Sounds reasonable. Guess what? Kickstarter isn't just an institution outlined by a few hundred federal documents. They're run by real people!
I expect Kickstarter to have a sober, well reasoned response to this by Monday afternoon. Hopefully faster.
It would have been nice if Rachel was nicer to Kickstarter in her post, but she wasn't so here we are. It's not like I like this being #1 on Hacker News. This is sort of an awful story. I would have liked to have gone to sleep by now, but respect Rachel enough and have fond enough memories of the time when Hacker News didn't suck that I wanted to try and make this comment thread something resembling rational and reasonable.
This is so shockingly inappropriate, I wish I could flag it twice. There is no reason to post information this personal, and completely irrelevant to the conversation here. I believe there is more to this story than the blog post indicates, but you have obviously created this account for malicious purposes.
If anyone reading this has the ability to hellban a user, this would be an appropriate time to exercise your authority. That's all I will contribute to this conversation.
That is a comment from my stalker. Any traces on his location at Hacker News? His real name is Michael Rudra Nath aka. Jason Christopher Hughes. Can provide documentation from the authorities, case files, addresses, screen shots of his death threats, emails he sent me containing child pornography, etc.
I get that you don't think this is a relevant subject for HN, but others do. I do. And I don't believe this is something petty. This is a case of an individual who has been stalking and harassing multiple people for over a decade. The police have done precious little because they, by their own admission, have no idea what to do (other than issue PPOs, which aren't enforceable over the Internet) or how to catch him. This is the state of the art. This is an /Internet/ issue because, the giant, blazing, un-asked question is:
If we want to maintain a free and open Internet, how do we then police our own egalitarian, meritocratic anarchism without relying on big brother technologies to do it or inviting governments in to intervene? If someone approaches those with the know-how to help, asking for help, and are summarily told to fuck off, who then should they turn to?
Though I'm sure they exist, I don't know any hacker types or friends of the Internet who want to just hand over ammunition to people who want to regulate the Internet more. So, please, try to take a long view on this issue, even if Rachel can be kind of a drama queen.
(I don't know if you are a sockpuppet, but I do know you clearly haven't been around very long. Don't act surprised at accusations of sockpuppetry.)
Frankly, I'm inclined to believe those other people are wrong--as I've sketched out elsewhere, there is quite obviously nothing productive here that we can discuss. We lack useful information, we lack unbiased info, and all we can do is rage for one side or the other while producing nothing other than noise.
"If someone approaches those with the know-how to help, asking for help, and are summarily told to fuck off, who then should they turn to?"
They probably should've thought of that prior to pissing off people. You know the great thing about the internet? We have the unique opportunity to deal with people on an equal (mostly) footing.
Your damsel in distress? "Rachel", or whatever his/her/its name is? They can go to the same resources we all have, they can learn about the same subjects as we have, and uniquely empower themselves with the same know-how we have.
Even better, they can clutter up HN with threads asking for that information, without ever having to mention why they need it. Isn't that great? Isn't that productive?
Or, you know, they can waste our collective cycles trying to find somebody else to pull into their drama vortex. Funny thing about meritocracies--if you lack merit, yeah, you are expected to fuck right off.
Hell, if you really want vigilante justice, go try and summon the /b/astards and goons from SA. HN is not for dumb shit like this.
"So, please, try to take a long view on this issue, even if Rachel can be kind of a drama queen."
Don't insult us by trying to conflate internet policy with what can help out your friend (?).
The long view is that every time we get others involved in petty drama, we waste their time. Every time we stoop to engage with people who clearly get off on trolling us, we encourage them.
The internet is an anarchy, yes, and that's what's so great about it. And you know what? Maybe Rachel should consider taking a breather, or not replying to trolls, or maybe just trying to get along and be a friendly person regardless of some people being dicks.
Thank you, this is actually a very finely crafted criticism. I appreciate it greatly. I haven't been around very long here (about 24 hours).
My purpose here was to lend credibility to Rachel's claims from my own experience with a mutual cyberstalker and ask for help in the form of feasible advice, recommendations on investigative techniques to help us build our case against him so we can (finally) get the law involved in a meaningful way, and possibly even find some humans who might know a thing or two about tracking douchebags on the Internet that may be willing to lend their services once we can establish credibility in their eyes.
HOWEVER, like an idiot, I lemming'd right into defending Rachel's credibility on this forum, slashdot, reddit, and didn't focus on my original objective. Productive would have been getting inspiration for new tactics and strategies, since we've hit the wall and we're out of ideas.
"And you know what? Maybe Rachel should consider taking a breather, or not replying to trolls, or maybe just trying to get along and be a friendly person regardless of some people being dicks."
Yes, this has been my main argument to her regarding her behavior. None of these posts she's made were coordinated with anyone else in our group. She's pissed some people off because of it. I've explained to her that she needs to grow up and get her shit together so she's not a walking troll magnet.