There's a set of thoughts that need to be unpacked here
No offence, but you don't get to say it's garbage because you can't post there.
I have been on record multiple times as not completely believing in every scrap of info Kim gave us, tagged
@neger psykolog in posts where I don't agree with him personally, even wrote long-ass posts nitpicking and analyzing it all, but I wasn't threadbanned because it was always clear that my questions are building on what others asked already, not constantly repeating the same 7-10 questions, which is really annoying to read. We always aim to get more info and answers out of a source, not badger them relentlessly, and what happened was badgering, not discussion.
The way I see it, the past moderation-light approach has heavily blurred the line between Kiwi and detractor, because if you read through the MysteryWoman thread again, you can immediately see who's seen and posted on a variety of cows, and who's a DSP-only poster. The culture clash is simply that stark.
Don't believe me? Take a look at two incidents where a verified leak appeared to share info on a cow and see the difference in Kiwi/Source interaction:
Nippleless Woman on Russell Greer
Dawn Dusk on Theresa Rose Christo (
read 1, then
2)
Word of advice: If you see anything on this site in terms of victory/defeat, then you are really misunderstanding it. Because the ethos of this board are just very, very different from that.
I think a lot of people who got threadbanned were clearly hoping for a silver bullet on Phil, the thing that will finally get Twitch to kick him out and begin his descent into homelessness, and got disappointed when Phil paid up and survived for another day. There is simply no other explanation for people who were cracking escort jokes suddenly flipping the switch and getting ultra-salty.
Don't get me wrong, Phil is a very A-Loggable cow, but we aren't out to get him, from my point-of-view, the Farms are only invested in seeing him organically and very gradually fade into oblivion. We are in for the ride, not the destination.
---------------------
This isn't a legally enforceable contract (for reasons already explained by now), so it all depends on your definition of disclosure, but honor amongst thieves is the watch word here IMO.
You're also forgetting that she had to cop to some details that initially weren't provided by her. My personal theory is that she intended to reveal a fraction of what was revealed and press Phil with the possibility of the rest of the details eventually leaking. But we were much better at vetting the story and finding connections to other people than she anticipated, so the only solution is to introduce lies lies and more lies into the mix, so we would end up with this exact situation: Somewhere between truth and deceit.
I went into more detail
here. It's among the many posts (some mine, most by others) that simply get ignored for the sake of asking the same repetitive questions for no rational reason.