/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

Thank you for making this, it was getting really annoying w/ the other threads filling up w/ this shit.

>>8447233
Entirely unrelated first post; Is there any interest in transparent rori raincoats that will both accommodate and let you see a full coord underneath?

>>8447257
uh try the lolita general, idk why you thought this was a good place to post this

Summary:
>Laelette banned from the Scottish comms several years ago and apparently some English ones?
>Accusations of scamming circa 2010
>CoF Mods release a post saying a statement is in the works.
>Girls banned from CoF including Fahr, have not been re-added or given an explanation, just a please hold message.

>>8447257
Oh I had an idea to do that a while ago and quite a few anons said they were interested!
Never got around to it, but so long as they look decent it should be popular.

So general question about Fahr drama in CoF: What happens now?
Obviously we've got a pretty big biased mod problem if none of them have really responded adequately to the issues yet. Isn't there a single mod who has no stake in either side of this who could oust the biased mods and elect new mods based on a form submission?

Or are all mods friends and therefore none of them want to create bad blood even if they know banning random people not associated with Fahr is wrong?

>>8447272
There's been a few people threatening to boycott CoF but obviously no one will. I'm hoping a statement will be released by them that addresses the issues but I'm not holding my breath. I would like them to open up some mod applications but again not holding my breath.

>>8447264
Let me say it again, she was not banned from any other comms. Also, I've been active since before 2010, and have never seen these accusations of any scamming anywhere, and I can guarantee you they are rubbish, if they even exist. She didn't rip anybody off or steal from anyone.

>>8447280
That's the main problem I see here, honestly. Nobody gives a shit enough about what happened to Fahr and six others to relocate to another CoF page which may or may not flop anyway. Nobody can really guarantee a mass exodus just because of one instance of mistreatment.

Those mods kind of have Fahr and company by the balls unless they don't care anymore about being banned either way, unfortunately.

>>8447289
Okay thanks anonymous person, you are clearly an authority on Laelette and have been watching her every move like a hawk. I will believe only you and listen to no naysayers.

>>8447294
Don't fucking call my friend a thief. It's easy. You can find out for yourself what comm she was banned from. I'm telling you the facts. You are helping spread some pretty nasty rumours.

>>8447289
>Apparently
>Accusations of

>>8447264
literally only reason this has gotten so big is because of Fahr, if it wasn't her that was band i can assure you none of this would happen cause i doubt anyone would care about the random girls that got banned

>>8447300
>my friend
Anon, I understand why you're getting defensive but your own bias is exacerbating what is only speculation as the wording in >>8447303 highlights. Calm.

>>8447303
I can read. I was simply nipping any more nastiness in the bud.

>>8447233
I love how you have to explain board culture to the ditzy janitors

>>8447300
>Don't fucking call my friend a thief

lol

jsyk, whiteknighting never works, it just fans the flames

>>8447311
isn't that kind of good, in a way? i mean, i actually dont know much about fahr but i would have liked to know about all this shady shit. getting banned for liking a post?

>>8447311
>literally only reason this has gotten so big is because of Fahr

Tbh, this.
And it's not that I have anything against other anons, but I just think it's pathetic how the community doesn't really jump to anyone's defense over being wronged unless it's someone popular.

>>8447300
That was literally my only post on the topic and you promptly flipped, good job showing how reasonable you are.

>>8447329
On the other hand the girl who was originally banned didn't go public with it until Fahr did.

>>8447322
i agree its good but i feel the drama has been blown way out proportion people keep going off topic and bringing up lalletes past,the main issue should only be a mod flipped out and instabanned people with no reason

I'm looking forward to secrets this week.

>>8447341
Probably because she didn't have enough whiteknights to back her so she waited for the bigger fish to state her claim. From my experience with lolita drama, people are skeptical about those who make these kinds of accusations about mods or admins unless they're known and well-liked. Can't blame her for wanting rapport before throwing her identity out there.

>>8447350
that assumes the banned girls are petty enough to resort to that which i doubt as it could damage their chances of getting back into CoF

>>8447353
Agreed. If anything it would be trolls and uninvolved anons looking to stir the pot. Or at least they should be smart enough to deny it's them posting em...

>>8447353
I doubt they will, but plenty of bystanders and shitposters probably will.

>>8447363
>>8447361
im actually kinda praying people dont post, it could ruin the chances of fahr and the other girls getting back into CoF and thats really not fair on those people

>>8447350
Do you think you'll find out anything you haven't already read here? Do you think we're going to see anything remotely helpful? The secrets are unpleasant and worthless. Good if you like seeing people put down and belittled.

>>8447373
IMO the point of a good chunk of secrets is to be petty and unpleasant, give a man a mask, etc.

>>8447341
>>8447351


I was actually planning to leave it be, I've only really said anything to set the record straight. I said in the other thread, I'm not hugely bothered. I don't want unbanned and I don't care if Laelette's a mod or not. I just think it's a bit shit to ban other people for associating with me.

>>8447395
You, I like you.

>>8447395
Welp, sucks for you Fahr.

>>8447415
Dude, she isn't Fahr. She's the other girl in the original pic who Laelette has a vendetta against.

>>8447415

I'm not Fahr. I'm actually a little stressed out by how much of a big deal this has become because I was happy to just let it be. After I messaged both the other mods and they didn't seem to care, I figured "hey that's some poor moderating" and was gonna let her have a great time imagining that her internet power has any bearing in real life whatsoever. I dunno, I just feel like an unnecessarily big deal was made, but on the other hand, it looks like the other girls who got instabanned would have been totally ignored by the mods if this hadn't happened which would have been crap.

>>8447437
Woah, stop stressing. You're right in saying this isn't a big deal, because in the grand scheme it isn't. It'll blow over.

Sorry I mistook you for Fahr.

>>8447300
As a friend you're just as biased as a vendetta,but you could always try to contact the english comms and clear her name yourself
>>8447373
The secrets are probably going to be all made by people who aren't even involved and won't help either side

I'm a bit off-put by everyone rallying around Fahr and wanting to support her, Lalette isn't perfect but neither is Fahr. I looked her up on the archives because I remembered the name and she's been caught out lying and creating drama before

>>/cgl/thread/7248919

>>8448365
FINALLY

>>8448365
>2013
Damn, time flies.

Also I'm not rallying for Fahrt, I'm on the sides of those individuals who got banned just because they were being nice. It's messed up.

>>8447300
Do you have complete proof of this? Have you spoken to the comms she was apparently banned from? Or are you just taking Lauren's word for it? It wasn't just scamming 'accusations' that she was banned for. It was causing trouble for the comms' members. Vendettas are nothing new to Lauren.

>>8448365
And again drama from the past does not give a free pass to bann a large group of different people over a photo that didn't break a SINGLE RULE.

If fahr or Laelette caused drama is not the point.

>>8448365
Nobody has to look her up. We know who fahr is. We are not rooting for HER. How has drama that she caused anything to do with a mod banning tons of random people?

>>8448365
Fun fact: the contest apologies to her and she won. Why, children? The accusations were half fabricated, while the contest runners wrote their own rules poorly. But nothing of this excuses Laelette banning seven people on sight.

>>8448450
Exactly. The issue here is that a drama-loving mod with a known history is once again back to her old tricks and causing trouble, despite bullshit claims she's turned a new leaf and grown up. Even if you ignore Lauren's past, what she's up to *now* is dodgy as fuck.

>>8448461
Let's all agree on

We don't like Fahr
We don't like Laelette

But a mod banning members while no rules were broken is NOT OKAY.

>>8447262
The dress OP posted was kinda transparent so..

>>8447311
>>8447329
I'd like to think while it may not have as big we'd still be asking why?

Regardless of Fahr people got banned for no reason and still haven't got that explained to them. It's a disgrace

>>8448510
It's Lauren holding a vendetta. It's as simple as that.

>>8448390
Fahr never actively cause drama in any lolita comm. as a German lolita I would know and we have over twenty five mutual friends. She gets shit for her man face and a lot of cosplay drama happened around her, but her worst crime as a lolita is her use of photoshop. I sold her a bag two years ago, last year a pair of socks. She always paid on time, even if it was a payment plan. I don't like photoshop abuse, but she never hides that she shoots her unfortunate face. I can't see a big deal. I do understand that she is involved in cosplay drama, but she never caused anything in the lolita screen.

>>8448522
shoop.

>>8448525
Scene

>>8448522
The whole thing isn't about fahr, if you ask me.

>>8448365
I think we'd all still "rally" if it was someone else, it doesn't really matter that it's Fahr.
I personally care rather little for Fahr herself but back her because this is just unfair, I'd back anyone in this if it happened to them.
A mod can't just go around banning people cause they hold a grudge/vendetta. Many people banned only liked her picture ffs.
How is that fair? Fahr didn't break any rules either. I don't give a shit about Fahr but I do give a shit about injustice.
Also, her old drama is irrelevant in this case.

>>8448467
THIS! Why can't some people wrap their head around this?

>>8448365
not important in this case.

>>8447415
the mods just posted on COF a statement that they will CHANGE THE RULES and update them soon. That means the possibly outlaw posting a photo with a banned member, or/and liking or commenting on that photo. They are messing with us, covering up their shit.

>>8448651
What a load of bull. This just shows their guilt even more. The secrets are going to be on fire this weekend, especially over this.

>>8448651
dont see how they can use rules that werent in place at the time as an excuse, you cant make people follow those rules till they are in place

>>8448666
it seems they secretly already added the lower paragraph. it wasn't there last week!

>>8448674
does anyone has a copy of the old rules?! this STINKS.

>>8448674
FUCK that escalated quickly!

>>8448674
Ok but what about the fact that the girl who was originally banned has said that she messaged a mod privately and didn't mention it to anyone and got straight-up ignored?
What the mods' addition actually means is "fuck off and let us do what we want LITERALLY HOW DARE YOU?!"

>>8448678
i think this is the old rules? look right to everyone?

>>8448710
That's been pretty obviously what's been going on all along, especially with Lauren being involved.

>>8448714
this is just shocking. they modify a different past. this is GOLD.

>>8448714
ok, guys, this is getting serious. can we talk on RC uncensored about it!?

>>8447372
fahr self-posts herself on secrets so there probably will be. The other banned girls wont post secrets as they've been planning doing something like this for ages there far to cunning to get caught.

>>8448822
you make it sound like the banned girls did this on purpose and i very much doubt that is the case

>>8448822
oh so FAHR did call herself a fat ugly age player? YES that makes sense now!

>>8448674
This is so fucked up. What other choice did she have if have the the mods were ignoring her? Of course she asked for help elsewhere!

>>8448829
^ This. Would they actually ban themselves? Obviously. It sounds liek you're either Lauren herself, or her little white-knight.

>>8448829
you make no sense.

>>8448841
>>8448839
> "The other banned girls wont post secrets as they've been planning doing something like this for ages there far to cunning to get caught"
i was replying to that which insinuates the banned girls have went out of their way to get banned when they obviously havent! i am not a white-knight to that bitch, im saying that the banned girls have done nothing wrong and have been banned unjustly

>>8448836
thats what self posting is its to get attention, she's not the only person on the internet that does it.

>>8448829
>>8448839
if they were bitter enough about the first girl being banned probably so, I'm not Lauren or a white knight I'm just fed up with all the underhanded bullying and crap going on in the comms I belong too

>>8448822

You're embarrassingly paranoid.

>>8448822
have you seen the secrets about her? they are all mean and disgusting. She does not need to self post secrets about herself, she is rubbing her coord into everyones face on tumblr, instagram and Facebook. CoF was a good platform to stay in the focus, she would not want to get banned from her stage. think for a fucking second!

>>8448853
pfft yeah thats why the got banned for doing nothing at all, i'll admit i think Fahr poked at something she shouldnt have but it broke no rules on the group page, and the other girls seemed to have done nothing but like or comment on the post (the post had over 60 likes before it got taken down) the issue is lauren had no right to bann people because she has a vendetta

>>8448860
did they bann all 60 likers? that would be interesting to find out. or only friends of fahr?

>>8448861
who knows, regardless she still had no right to ban people who are merely friends with Fahr

>>8448853
>>underhanded bullying
Oh you mean Lauren banning an individual who happens to be friends with the girl she bullied then banning anyone associated with her afterwards?

>>8448864
Does Fahr know Laelette? I don't think so.

>>8448860
This is what this is all about. Lauren banned people simply for them liking a photo, oblivious to the fact that one of the girls in the photo was banned, due to a vendetta that Lauren has against her. They were collateral damage. That's if you completely ignore Fahr's involvement in this, even though Fahr didn't break any rules. I still don't see any rules stating that you can't have multiple people in the shots posted.
The mention of Lauren's past history for trouble is because people keep white-knighting her, and making her look like the victim here. She's anything but.
This specific situation needs to be taken into consideration on its own, and ignore external/past history of these girls.
At the end of the day, Lauren's been caught out. She's to blame for this, and appears to have the other mods backing her.

>>8448873
that just reinforces the lauren went a little crazy with her ban binge because i dont think Fahr knows anything about the drama if shes still new to the Scotland comm?

>>8448873
Fahr only started interacting with the scots in the last 6 months or so. Lauren hasn't been relevant in the comm for 5 years until last month with the ILD fiasco which Fahr took no part in so they've never even spoke to each other

>>8448879
>>8448873
Fahr has said a few times in RC & RC:U that she has no idea who she is

>>8448854
i convinced a good portion of 4chan, including /cgl/, has some manner of paranoid personality disorder.

the general attitude of, "they did it on purpose, it was planned all along, what a conspiracy!" is annoyinf af

>>8448883
let's get that fixed. Lauren and Fahr were NEVER in the same room together? or befriended on Facebook or other social media?
How is Lauren suddenly so angry without interaction?

>>8448883
As far as I understand it, Lauren got banned from the Scots comms, went bawwing to some of the English comms about how horrible they were in Scotland, caused issues in the English comms about 4 yers ago, got banned from them, then went back to the Scots comms, and caused more issues again.

>>8448894
because fahr is friends with someone she has a vendetta with and thats all the reason she seems to need

>>8448879
Fahr knows, sin knows, Ruth lnows, everybody knows
Fahr started a new group for people who owned X amount of AP

>>8448894
Fahr posted a picture on CoF that contained a lolita that's banned because Lauren has a vendetta against her. Cue Fahr getting banned, along with a bunch of those who just liked the image. No idea of previous history between Fahr and Lauren.

>>8448894
Once again, because Fahr started being friends with the girl that Lauren was banned from the Scottish comm for bullying horrendously and her pals. That's some industrial strength salt. Salt for the ages.

>>8448901
and Laelette is sad because she doesn't own any AP and can't be a member!? boohoo.

>>8448901

Yeaaaah that group isn't a comm or anything, it's just an AP fan page afaik

>>8448901
It was for "fans of AP in Scotland", a bit pointless but just a discussion group, not a comm or anything.

>>8448906
AND STILL not a single reason to bann her. It is NOT against the CoF RULES.

>>8448916
ahh but annon Fahr went public about it and now cof have a rule that you cant go public about issues! so basically they've created rules that will allow them to get away with this

>>8448921
When?! that was never a rule at all.

>>8448925
today or yesterday they updated the rules..look up there are 2 images, one shows the old rules one shows the new rules

>>8448921
she only went public because laelette blocked her on all social media.

>>8448932
i know im just saying that they have now created rules so they can validate the bann, i disagree with it completely they shouldnt be allowed to hold her against rules that were not in place when she was banned

>>8448829
you bet they did it on purpose!

>>8448937

proof or SHUT UP!

>>8448937

Sorry, none of this is a massive conspiracy like you desperately want it to be.

Jet fuel can't melt AP.

>>8448937
please grow up, will you?

>>8448896
You've got your facts wrong.

Guys! no one cares about past Drama this issue at hand is a mod abused their power by Banning people without giving them any reason and after they followed the rules in place at the time. The other issue is now CoF are updating their rules in order to try validate this bann

>>8448946
Nope. They're right, white knight.

I've lost count now of how many times I have read about Lauren having a vendetta against this girl or that girl.
Vendetta - A prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone.
That's what that word means.
It doesn't mean disliking a person, having nothing to do with them and keeping out of their way. There has been no vendetta from Lauren's side here, but look again at the last 4 years of nasty secrets about her, most likely made by other Scottish girls, who have gone out of their way to give her grief for a very old mistake. Which one is the vendetta ? Hmmmm

>>8448957
bullshit. You're wrong. Simple

>>8448963
Hi again, Lauren's friend. What did we tell you earlier about whiteknighting? You're not helping your friend at all, you are worsening the problem.

>>8448963
does this have anything to do with banning six members for no reason?! NO.

>>8448963
How is banning someone for no reason keeping out of their way?

>>8448969
Just saying what the idea of an vendetta means, because the same thing has been repeated over and over here - Lauren has a vendetta against someone. That's Just not the case. She might hate the person but she has made no attempt to cause her trouble. The same can't be said for those holding a grudge against Lauren.

>>8448978
So banning them from one of the biggest lolita FB groups is not causing them trouble. Alright. Just verifying.

>>8448978
banning her enemies friends from CoF is NOT causing trouble?! you were dropped on the head as a baby...

>>8448978
Different anon here. I don't know or care who Lauren is, but seriously, shut the fuck up, you're making her look worse here.

>>8448967
Well I live here mate, so, no they're right.

>>8448915
What about EGL scotland

>>8448963
Using your own definitions of vendetta here, what about Lauren's history of posting lies and drama about other girls consistantly for no real reason at all, to the likes of secrets, or cgl, is that surely not enough to qualify as being a vendetta? How is that anything but a hate campaign against someone?

>>8448999

That's a separate comm, Fahr didn't create it, another girl did. It has nothing to do with any of this. Actually, none of the Scottish comms have anything to do with any of this; this shit is related to Closet of Frills so I've no idea why people are so desperate to make out it's comm drama when it isn't.

>>8448978
Lauren has done this many times. This instance is nothing new, really.

>>8449003
Exactly. The only way that the Scots comms need to be mentioned at all in this is relating to those trying to whiteknight Lauren, and say that she's never done this sort of thing, such as >>8448978 is saying.

>>8448978
are we all talking about this horribly insecure its with her own brand?

Recap time
This has nothing to do with either Scottish comma or any English comms.
This has nothing to do with Fahrs cosplay drama
This has nothing to do with Lauren's old drama.
Let's forget anything before June ever happened and everyone theoretically had a clean slate before then.
This shit is because the first girl wasn't happy with the ILD arrangements that allowed Lauren to attend.
Lauren abuses her power as a mod to remove her from COF.
Girl goes "that's a bit shit" and gets on with her life after the other two mods ignore her messages regarding the ban.
Fahr goes to a meet with the comm she recently joined and posts a cute picture of her and a friend (who happens to be the first girl) that's a simple outfit shot and breaks no rules.
No warning, no message, she's removed from COF and blocked by Lauren.
Several other girls who posted in the thread or liked the post are removed from the group too.
Lauren posts accidentally in COF instead of a private group/message "what are we going to do about this?" Implying there's an issue at hand.
Fahr asks advice on Rufflechat as like first girl, her message for clarification is ignored; she stresses that she doesn't know who Lauren is nor have any history with her, she just wants to know what rule she has broken for closure.
Secret meetings between COF happen where they issue a "statement" before the rules being amended to state that issues in the group must not be discussed anywhere else, regardless of whether or not a mod acknowledges your queries.

This could have been any mod, any random lolita, and this would have been unacceptable, history or not.
Removing several individuals from a group with no justification and covering up the fact is unacceptable, regardless of whether they have old drama or not.
If WF removed a random girl from EGL and banned her for something petty such as, say she owned WF's dream dress, there'd be just as much outrage as its unfair, petty and just uncalled for.

>>8449042
THANK YOU

another rule update!

>>8449163
So are they going to keep an updated list of which people are banned or do you have to find out the hard way if you're in the same comm as a banned lolita?

>>8449163

She didn't assist me in ban evasion though, Fahr posted the picture because she wanted to.

They're being a proper shower of bastards, instead of saying "oh hey, we're sorry, but fuck off" they're now actively trying to twist the situation.

>>8449171
Also it doesn't explain why you were banned in the first place. Or why people who just liked the photo were banned.

>>8449175
they have no case at all since these rules were not in place at the time!!!!!

Anyone have that master list of FB lolita comms handy? I'm in the NYC comm but gonna be in Wisconsin Missouri and Michigan a lot of this winter

>>8449175

Nope. I'm actually fuming at how crappy they're being. Are the other mods not ashamed to show just how deep in her pocket they are? Is it not embarrassing to look like total puppets for somebody else?

>>8449178
Yup.

>>8449171
>>8449175
They'll just whinge and say this was relating to the new clause of ban-evading. As said, they'l just twist the situation to paint them as the innocent party here.

Either way, BtB will definitely be 'interesting' this week.

>>8449201

I'm fucking dreading it because I know if anything negative is posted about the CoF mods, people are gonna pin it on me or Fahr, and whilst I can't speak for Fahr, I'm really not interested in posting secrets about people, I'd rather just say shit straight up. It's just gonna make absolutely everything worse, and anything negative about the mods is just going to invalidate Fahr's entire cause and make her look petty and spiteful.

>>8449205
^THIS

>>8449205
Exactly why I said 'interesting', and saly not in a good way. Good luck hun with getting this mess sorted out, and having the drama blwoing over. At least some of us here understand your stance.

>>8449205
They can't make all of the banned girls look bad!!!

>>8449224
but if they post secrets the people who will get the finger pointed is the banned girls even if they do nothing, the problem is the mods will automatically assume its them and use it as a way to keep the banns in place

>>8449205
>I'd rather just say shit straight up
I like you

>>8449205
who are you?

>>8449251
dif anon but the girl who got banned before Fahr/was in the picture with Fahr. I thought that was fairly obvious?

>>8449251

Biggie Smalls.

>>8449163
>you will be banned for ban evading
>if found that you are assisting a ban evader you will be banned too!

Had to double-check to make sure I wasn't on Neopets for a moment. How the fuck will they prove/enforce the second half of that rule? How can you prove someone else has assisted a banned individual in viewing the page? They should just come out with it straight and say "If we suspect you're helping someone we don't like, we'll get you too."

And that final paragraph,
>"Don't you dare try to handle this on your own. Don't make noise. You don't want problems now, right? Then you just let us do whatever we please...or else."

Pretentious fuckwads.

>>8449272
Sounds like nazi Germany and Russia having a tea party in frills!

>>8449278
You're not the only one thinking that.

>>8449288
Somebody make a secret about that!

>>8449292
Tasteless.

>>8449272
Neopets kinda turned into Mad Max last week though

So girlyhoot entered some lockshop contest with this picture and I looked closely at the wig for the first time. Am I seeing things or is it totally mangled in the back?

>>8449334
She must have like 20 pairs of those socks

>>8448674
That was already in there when Fahr was banned, I read the rules immediately when the RC post went up.

>>8449386
No it wasn't.

>>8449386
it was not the older rules don't have that paragraph
>>8448714
that paragaph appeared today or yesterday

>>8449386
If it wasn't there when Fahr was banned, it was there within minutes of the RC thread. I read the rules to make sure there wasn't anything forbidding two people in one photo and that was already there.

>>8449436
it was added AFTER the ban so they dont have a leg to stand on

>>8449441
That's common for online communities though. When you find a hole in your rules, you update your rules. Every online community I've ever been a member of has done this.

>>8449451
but they originally hand no reason to ban any of the girls, you cant expect people to follow rules that dont exist

>>8449451
Doesn't excuse banning the ones that just liked or commented the photo

>>8449458
No, you can't, but, the reality is anyone can kick anyone out of a FB group at any time for any reason they want. Rules are constructs that we use to dictate the behavior we want online in certain areas, but there is nothing holding the people who make a group to following their own rules.

>>8447257
Would love it!
I also like the sheer dress on OPs pic, anyone knows where to get something like this?

>>8449463
Doesn't make their behavior any less shitty

>>8448957
Different person,
Lauren lied to the Northern English comma saying how mean the other Scottish lolitas were even though she barely even posted on lj.
She started to harsh and bully girls in the English comms and got banned. Came back to the Scottish comm and went to one and only meet with them and began to target a member and a ban ensued after it came to light with the English lolitas throwing the secrets out.
She received a temp ban from the scots and when discussion came up about letting her back in. She went back to attacking the girl in the comm and some other girls. This lead to the perma ban.

>>8449487
its from shirleydeer, very old, you can't but it anymore
however I actually own the same dress and have only worn it once in the 3 ish years I've hand it. If you (or anyone really) is interested in buying/seeing proof photos, I'll put up my throwaway email.

>>8449163
just made a comment on the rules post, how long do you think until I get banned for asking questions? Or does that rule just apply to people who the mods hate?

>>8449531
Thanks anon! :D

>>8449205
You don't know though, you're two faced as the next girl.

>>8449462
Unless it was seen as them "liking" that someone was evading a ban, like a passive aggressive thing? I'm can see a case for both sides..

>>8449555
That sounds really fucking paranoid. CoF has over 5k members and people like each other's pictures in there all the time, why would they look at a picture and go "they are avoiding a ban, NICE"?

>>8449555
How is banning someone for a /suspected/, "passive aggressive" like AT ALL a good case to make?

I couldn't have imagined their statement being this much of a train wreck

>>8449678
What is this even about I'm so fucking confused Wtf.

>>8449678

This is absolute fucking bullshit, I had never even posted on CoF before when they banned me. Absolute fucking bullshit.

>>8449678
It doesn't even explain anything. Why can't they just say why they banned people and let us all move on from this? By replying like this all they are doing is dragging on this drama

>>8449678
Is this a fucking joke

>>8449678
I've got a comment typed on this post asking for proof of the allegations but I'm too chicken shit to push enter. Should I do it?

>>8448365
If causing drama previously is cause for a ban, half the members would be gone

>>8449703
yes

>>8449703
Do it!!!!!!!

>>8449703
Looks like someone beat you to the punch

>>8449706
>>8449705
My prediction for their response "we cannot disclose personal information, lots of people messaged us. you can trust us."
either that or I get banned for "bulling" as well

>>8449712
We must have both posted at the same time, oh well, the more the merrier!

Isn't this an exact repeat of Wonderfinch and Rosaire?
"I've received lots of complaints about you so ship everything to the complainers"
"Who complained?"
"Not telling"

What are the chances that we can convince one of the more popular CoF posters to abandon ship to another group in light of all this, so we can inspire some kind of max exodus

probably not good, but I can dream

With the new rules in place, can we get Cimone banned for shit stirring all the time?

>>8449685
Clearly you were bullying people though, because why else would the CoF mods be sent so many mysterious private complaints about you~?

>>8449725
This would be a pretty good opportunity for LACE/Kate to speak up, but someone tells me she'll stay quiet.

>>8449744
Yea there's no way she would get on the bad side of the CoF mods.

>>8449744
Who told you?!

Yeesh, Lauren is going a little too hard on Jacie right now. It's like she wants to get banned too.

>>8449755
If I do get banned then that just proves the point even more that the mods are power-crazy assholes. Besides, I'm no the only one going hard on them haha

>>8449755
at this point who cares? If the mods will ban you for liking a photo, the best possible outcome is being banned for making a fuss over an obvious problem. Like some sort of lolita martyrism.

>>8449755
whats going on on CoF am i missing anything important right now (still cant acess the group)

>>8449762
Comparing this kerfluffle to a murder/witness scenario was a little over the top, haha.

>>8449755
caps?

>>8449770
Gah, I'm on mobile, or I would. Sorry anon.

>>8449768
I never said I was a poet or the best at metaphors! I try my best though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>8449770
ive got them but its gonna take me a hot minute to compile them and blur out names

>>8449780
Awesome thanks! I'm still waiting to be approved by them
>>8449773
Thanks regardless! I know those cellphone feels

Am I crazy or did the whole thread just vanish? I clicked away for a minute and can't find it now.

>>8449770
i've got them too just in case

>>8449770
There are some on RC:U

>>8449780
thread is goin too fast to cap, abort abort

>>8449789
It's the pinned post up top. As of the time I post this it's still there.

Did Jacie really just say that Laelette wasn't the one who banned them?

I call bullshit. if it wasn't Laelette, then we would have heard about that by now. She would surely have defended herself or something

>>8449817
If Failette as the Puppet Circus puppetmaster isn't a secret tomorrow I've lost faith in this fashion.

>>8449825
Oh there'll be plenty of secrets about her. The knives are out and the other scot-bitches won't miss this opportunity

Hopefully this uploads ok. If not I'll split it into sections.

>>8449744
Except that I know she's already in on it, and is planning a post about everything.

>>8449845
I heard that too.

>>8449845
Of course she is, because she likes talking out of her ass about drama that she doesn't understand as long as it shines the spot light back on her.

>>8449836
Thanks anon.
White knight-chan can't possibly white knight harder

>>8449893
i swear to god, if she makes a statement about how the girls who were banned were terrible bullies and removing people like that from CoF is just what LACE is here for she's an even bigger shitlord than I could ever imagine.

>>8449896
Thing is, Lauren's old drama is only being mentioned simply to point out that this sort of pettiness from her is nothing new. She's done this sort of crap before, numerous times.

>>8449899
No, she wants to write the post about the CoF mods abusing their power.

>>8449893
You people are so ridiculous. If she doesn't say anything, she's useless, if she does say something, she's meddling. What the fuck is LACE for if not this exact shit??

>>8449899
How retarded are you that THAT'S the direction you think she'd take it?

>>8449900
the tired, old non-drama that has been brought up relentlessly for 5 years.Like none of you have ever said or done anything wrong. You're all perfect. You've probably done the same crap way more than she has. Since then she's kept her nose clean. Some fuckers haven't shut their mouths about it ever since. They need to get over it.

This was posted in Rufflechat.
So what comms is she banned from? I'm in Midlands and never heard of her before but had heard of Lauren who was actually banned from multiple comms.

>>8449915
none people are talking out their asses

>>8449914
Yeah she sure has cleaned up her act!

>>8449915
lol none. The only person banned from Scot loli is Laelette. If other people have been banned then it's been done really quietly and without informing any members.

>>8449924
ok miss squeaky clean, goody two shoes

>>8449915
I'm the girl that posted, I'm only banned from CoF for liking and commenting on the photo and being in a relationship with the girl originally banned. The girl who is telling people I'm banned from comms is one of the reasons I left Scottish Lolitas, which is the comm she is implying I'm banned from. I'm not by the way, I went and checked to make sure. She's just vomiting up anything she can think of to defend her Laelette who actually IS banned from the comm for nearly driving my best friend to suicide so you know, swings and roundabouts.

>>8449914
If you look in the archives of /cgl/ before this the only time she's mentioned is when other people ask about her past and they're normally directed to check the archives. There was a few secrets about her in the last year but most of the comments on them were a white knight with a bad attitude.
Any meet I've ever attended in Scotland she's never mentioned, she was a pretty much forgotten, that is, until OTHER people unaffiliated with the drama brought her up.
The girl riding her dick on CoF voted to keep her banned when it was discussed 2 years ago and had little time for her until the past month where they suddenly had a common 'enemy'

>>8449927
So how does Laelette's dick taste? I bet it's salty.

>>8449931
It's disgusting how quickly the people who were friends with the girl Lauren harassed have forgotten about that. The people that were a shoulder to cry on are taking the side of her tormentor now.

No one caressss

>>8449915
Other than CoF, she's been been banned from Lolita Fashion Mentoring for being aggressive (instead of providing concrit she would say stuff like "you look like shit", etc) and the only reason she wasn't banned from the Scottish Lolita comm was because our admin just ignored the horrendous bullying problems that were going on at the time as she just saw the role of admin as removing spam bots rather than an actual admin job of keeping the comm a safe place for Scottish Lolitas and then she left when the admin finally stepped down & we got admins who would actually do their damn jobs so wouldn't let her get away with the crap that she had been getting away with for years. But now that she's left the comm, she can continue to bully people without fear of being punished for it.

>>8449953
What the fuck kinda usage of "synonymous" is that?

>>8449955
do you even have any proof whatsoever? not to mention since she left scotloli shes had fuck all to do with the comm or its members

>>8449953
>inb4 mods delete this post for drama stirring

Honestly, if CoF bothered me that much I would just leave quietly. Even though I despise the mods, it's still the most active place where people post coords. I can't get another space like this, but I can ignore shitty mods and lay low so they won't target me.

>>8449953
I kind of wish they would have just said "this will be my last post here, if you want to know more you can PM me"

That at least would be a bit classier

>>8449955
Proof? Because I'm fairly certain someone posting shit like that on a fairly high profile group would make its way here.
Also your darling F only became head admin because L, A and T left at the same time.

>>Getting away with for years
She only joined 2 years ago and very rarely posted. I've been a member longer than she was in the comm and she rarely posted so you're talking absolutely bollocks.

>>8449955
You talk like the comm page wasn't made up of newbie questions, meet up posts and the occasional discussion about a release or something major.

>>8449955

Except none of this is true, I voluntarily left LFM. Laelette made me a mentor in like 2013, I said I didn't want to because I was still too new, she talked me into it, I agreed. I quit because I thought it was hug boxy. Don't lie. I didn't bully anybody in the Scottish comm. You're talking crap, and plenty of people can back me up. also like the only person who'd know about LFM is Laelette and her affiliates, so y'know, real subtle.

>>8449955
You mean the same Lolita Fashion Mentoring that was run by... Laelette?
Aye cool.

so is she gonna un-ban people or nah

>>8449979
Wowww, I am honestly speechless that she thinks this level of bullshit will convince anyone.

>>8449979

What she's saying is, ~ I'm a dangerous criminal ~ and they're unbanning Fahr to keep her quiet.

>>8449723
>it's the year of our lord 2k15 and people still think rosaire was innocent

>>8449993
Anon you replied to, never said she was.

But the "we've got these complaints but lol not gonna prove it" act was pulled by Wondercunt years ago

>>8449979
what a crock of shit

This is my take on what went down -
An event for ILD was planned for all Scottish lolitas. It looked like a lot of people were going, tickets sold, then when a few girls found out that Laelette was going to be there, made a fuss, made excuses and didn't want to go anymore. This is down to a petty and undeserved grudge certain girls have had against Laelette for way too long. So they hold their own ILD meet in the same city. Later that day, Sinsemellia tries to post her photo on COF, taken that day at the other ILD meet. She does so knowing full well who the creator and main mod of COF is, obviously to be antagonising, then gets blocked. She later tries to post the same photo again, gets blocked again. Soon after, her friend Fahr thinks she'll be smart and try make some drama by posting a photo of herself with Sinsemellia. Another ban ensues and then Fahr has made herself out to be a victim and managed to blow this whole non-drama up into a frenzy, the sort of thing she does so well

>>8449979
loool. Can't see this as the bitch has me blocked.
How many people are sucking her dick in the comments?

I like how you suddenly went quiet E
>>8449955

>>8450009
none yet, but give it time.

>>8450007
You realize that you sound like a paranoid jealous idiot right? Why the fuck would pictures from certain meets be banned? That makes zero fucking sense. Every time someone tries to defend Laelette they just make her look worse. Keep it up.

>>8449953
What a fucking retard. No one gives a shit if it's their last post. Byeeeeee.

>>8449975
You have bullied plenty of people within the comm, and continue to bully people who actually see you for what you are, someone who delights in hurting people. I will never believe a word you say because I used to like you until I actually spent time with you & realised what a nasty person you are. Plenty of equally nasty bullies from your little gang are not back ups & I'm not lying, I witnessed plenty of bullying from you & I stayed by the sidelines because I was new to the comm & still stupidly hoped the drama would die down.

>>8450017

Except that's a ton of lies.

>>8450010
A) that's not my name, and b, I replied. You'll see if you actually read the thread.

>>8449979
Wtf is so damn ~ serious and extreme~?

>>8450010
I didn't "suddenly go quiet", I can't insta-reply to posts as I don't sit constantly refreshing cgl threads since I have other stuff to do =P

>>8450007
Or how about how it actually went down?
Two complete randoms make an ILD event and invite a banned member (Laelette).
They're messaged by several people who explain she's banned and they disregard it.
The girl who was targeted by Laelette years ago feels uncomfortable attending an event she is sponsoring and pulls out. Her friends do so in support too. Nothing public was said; they just don't buy tickets and keep discussion to their private FB pages.
Another uninvolved party doesn't want to attend a big paid for event and decides to host her own meet up instead (because it's a bit fascist to think there can only be one ILD event per country).
Both meets are attended, each individual meet attendee enjoys their respective meets, they all have fun and take pictures.
Sin decides to share a coordinate post from that day, just like EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO ATTENDED AN ILD EVENT, and gets banned.
She contacts mods, gets no response so drops it.
A month later, Fahr posts a picture from a recent meet up that happens to contain Sin, simply because it's a fairly cute picture. Whether she had alterior motor, I don't know, but she's not been around long enough to know the history and shit.
And then everything else is well documented in this thread.

Stop trying to make this out to be some conspiracy for drama from Sin and Fahr. It's not.

>>8450017

Oh also, you clearly know me in person, I'm assuming you're Megan or some shit, so feel perfectly free to arrange to talk to me one on one. I left Scot Loli, why would I leave if I was the one ~bullying~ everybody?

Also, isn't this a bannable offence in your comm?

>>8450024
>>8450032

Lol so one of you is lying

>>8450024
Ok I'm totes going to believe random anon on the internet insisting what I witnessed with my own eyes & ears is a ton of lies

>>8450017
Alright Megan, simmer yourself. You have no idea what went on behind closed doors within the friendship group that broke down, only what you've been told by somebody who has plowed through friendships like a bulldozer because she can't help but manipulate people and self-destruct. Nobody was bullied by Sinsemellia or any of her friends. We left the comm peacefully because the girl who was bullied by Lauren was 200% not ok with seeing her again as a result of the things she did to her, and we wanted to go to a meet that we felt comfortable attending. It wasn't a slight to the comm and it wasn't malicious. The other event looked like a success, we also had fun, nobody should still be assmad. I seriously suggest you open your eyes, because I was in your shoes a year or so ago. Don't just believe what you're told, you seem a bright enough girl to understand that.

>>8450042

You wanna chat about it properly with names attached? I'm quite happy to.

I posted to CoF once, and it was a few months ago, and I had been removed from the group. I don't even really interact, I like things, or post comments every once in a while.

I had to rejoin, but I don't think I've ever done anything worthy of being kicked out. My comments are always 'I love those shoes', etc.

>>8450007
Well she shouldn't be blocked if she is following the rules.
Laelette is being a complete ass either way - modding isn't to make sure that nobody does anything to "antagonise" you, it's to make sure that nobody breaks rules. If she wants to add a rule for nobody to be allowed to post pics unless she was invited to the meet up they were taken at, then the group is going to die.

>>8450036
I'm not Megan, I've been a part of the Scot Loli comm since before the big vote off that saw the old Scot Loli comm die off & the new fb group created. You obviously left so that you could continue to shit stir without getting banned since we got admins who wouldn't tolerate cyberbullying. And no, standing up for someone who has been bullied for years isn't a bannable offence in Scot Loli as far as I'm aware

>>8450070
>I stayed by the sidelines because I was new to the comm
>I've been a part of the Scot Loli comm since before the big vote off that saw the old Scot Loli comm die off & the new fb group created

what was it?

>>8450070

How could I stir shit if I left? Legit, that makes zero sense? And in the comment I replied to, you said you were new and didn't say anything to me; I wasn't in the comm as far back as the events you're mentioning. Get your story straight.

>>8449903
And the CoF mods claim that people were being bullied and that's why they removed people.

Both sides claim that the other side is at fault. I think that no one is sharing all of the info, and both sides probably have done things wrong.

So, if LACE makes a statement, then LACE is basically saying "It doesn't matter who is or isn't bullied, all that matters is popular opinion of who is or isn't bullied", since there is no way LACE has any sort of inside proof about any of this given that Kate lives on another continent.

This is exactly why having someone who knows nothing about conflict resolution running LACE is a problem.

She's sticking her nose in petty fights between people that have been going on for years and making judgement calls based on what? /cgl/ and RC:U threads?

>>8449906
I'll be clear. I want her to GTFO because she doesn't know what she's doing and she's doing more harm than good right now, IMHO.

why would anyone sane believe that every single bully in a group as big as this one would have commented on the exact same picture? it makes absolutely zero sense... am i missing something here?

also, changing rules to justify a ban is an absolutely shitty thing to do, and i wouldn't trust anyone who does. just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean it's right.

>>8450070
You keep saying that.
Terri founded the group. She was admin and in the last 6 months, appointed Ailsa, Lisa and Tina as admin.
Lisa made the decision to leave the group so stepped down, Ailsa moved to London so stepped down, Terri drifted away from the group so stepped down. Leaving just Tina. Who recruited her friends as mods too.

The Facebook page has been around for at least 5 years, the LJ page is still up albeit it was scarcely used and hasn't been updated since 2012.
There was no vote to move "when the old comm died off", it's in the exact same Facebook page it's always been. There's no "new Facebook page" so stop lying.

Some members left and made their own branch-off group because they didn't feel comfortable with who was now running the group. That's allowed. They didn't make a big fuss by posting publicly, they just left and explained their reasons via a private Facebook post on personal profiles.

I'll repeat again since you obviously didn't understand the first time; I have been a member of Scot Loli for at least 5 years, I am still a member of Scot Loli, I was in the group when these girls joined and when they left. And in that time there was not a single occurrence of cyber bullying anywhere on the Facebook page. The closest thing would be the photographer girls post regarding one of her photographs being used for a secret after the calendar shoot.

Lauren hasn't been bullied for years. She admits on the LJ page her past actions; her "apology" is still up there. And if LS was still around, you'd see all the secrets about Lisa and a few others posted the week after due to the comm not wishing to allow her back in through a vote. Convenient timing don't you think?

Your consistent lies and lack of proof are pitiful and I'm actually embarrassed for you.

>>8450105
I'd also like to add that I'm not a fan of either Sin or Tina. Sin is too outspoken and Tina is very sly.

I just dislike people spreading lies to make their "side" look better

I'm not standing up for bullying here, but I feel like if the bullying wasn't done on CoF then the mods have no right to ban people from CoF.

>>8450130
The bullying never took place so that's a moot point.

>>8450090
This entire thread you've been stirring shit. Not that it's any of your business, but I joined in 2009 (went on hiatus for a bit to focus on studying then became active again once I graduated). I never said that you were around since the time of the vote off, just that I was, & going on hiatus for a few years & returning I had hoped the comm would be over drama but obviously it isn't.

>>8450133
According to popular opinion on the internet, yes.

Which is not how professionals handle conflict resolution, thankfully, or every time someone was raped, they would just need a group of men to say "she's not telling the truth".

That's why LACE shouldn't get involved in this kind of stuff. Because it's hard to tell when popular opinion on the internet is actually right and when it's really a gang of keyboard warriors attacking someone.

>>8450130
You know, I was actually thinking about this too. Like, lets say that all 15 people or however many that got banned were huge bitches in real life. That's not CoF jurisdiction anyway. And they shouldn't be banning people just for merely /associating/ with "bullies" by way of facebook likes and comments

I have a hard time believing Laelette was bullied, but I guess we will see if anyone wants to bring forth some proof (which no one has yet. also strange that the mods are making public statements on CoF but still haven't contacted the people they banned with explanations)

>>8450172
One of the flaws of a FB group is that you don't actually get a record of bans. Just a section in the member list for "blocked" members. There is no date stamp or any other data about who blocked them and when. So if you don't keep records of who you blocked, there is no way of determining who blocked someone, when and why.

If someone was blocked and hasn't messaged an admin of the group asking why, they should. It's possible the other admin don't know for sure who was blocked other than the obvious people.

>>8450152
not on this thread, though.
but hey, the internet is a large place, you could be right somewhere else.

also i don't know where you live, but in my country "professionals" don't throw people in jail with no proof as soon as someone says thay did something.

>>8450152
i don't know where you live, but in my country "professionals" don't let people rot in jail as soon as someone with no proof says they did something.

>>8450204
Right, but then those people would be people's lawyers. Not a random person on the internet who has declared themselves the expert on bullying for the efame.

>>8450204
Which is why anon said that it is not how professionals handle this sort of stuff & why LACE shouldn't get involved

>>8450228
they're also saying that the banned people were all bullies, and their proof is that a lot of people think they're not bullies.

>>8450240

nobody has any proof of anything, but the point still remain: even if the banned girls were bullies they had not bullied anybody on closet of frills and therefore it was not the mods business

>>8450240
"According to popular opinion on the internet". And then the rest of the post "Which is not how professionals handle conflict resolution, thankfully, or every time someone was raped, they would just need a group of men to say "she's not telling the truth".

That's why LACE shouldn't get involved in this kind of stuff. Because it's hard to tell when popular opinion on the internet is actually right and when it's really a gang of keyboard warriors attacking someone."
suggests to me that they think evidence is needed

>>8450152
>comparing this situation to rape

"nobody gave any attention to it"

maybe because

NO ONE CARES
O

O
N
E

C
A
R
E
S

>>8450265
didnt care enough that i forgot my image damn

I wish the people involved in this just fucking kept it between themselves and not try to make it a huge international problem

>>8450257
Comparing this situation to needing evidence that something has happened. Unfortunately people seem to need to sensationalize everything nowadays by picking horrible things as comparisons though

>>8450251
i don't know anon, just reading the thread without taking the accusations thrown left and right in account, i feel like the Laelette side has done some pretty shady stuff no matter what (banning people who didn't break any rule that we know of and altering those rules afterwards), while the banned girls did nothing proved as wrong.
so yeah, a bunch of screencaps aren't exactly the ultimate proof, but it's still better than empty slender, and to me that means that anon is biaised as fuck and doesn't actually cares for evidences.

>>8450274
this person just wants to gain attention by inserting themselves into something that isn't really their business.

>>8450257
In hindsight, that was a bad choice. I should have thought harder and not used the obvious example. I'm sorry, it was insensitive of me to use that example.

>>8450274
Well, he's not said anything we don't already know. I mean everyone knows about her shit past. So not sure what the point of the post is

>>8450274
Fuck off Mikey. You're talking shit,man

>>8449334
That wig is all kinds of fucked up

>>8450247
Unless they had bullied one of the mods, in which case, I think it would be the mods business.

>>8450283
you mean not recycling the same vendetta-bitch lies that he's been fed

>>8450294
No. That's a personal issue. I don't care if they bullied one of the mods senselessly via pm. They can block them from their personal account, but they should not ban them from a public comm unless they said something on the public comm that warrants a banning

>>8450302
Actually - a private fb group created by the mod hassled by the girls creating this drama

>>8450316
You're never going to get people to feel bad for Laelette, you're really wasting your time here.

>>8450302
Facebook Groups aren't public comms, they are privately created social groups.

This of course ignores the obvious; if you block someone you can't effectively moderate the group if they are in the group because you can't see their posts.

>>8450389
Yes you can, they just don't link to the person's profile and have a black text color for the name. I think what you're describing used to be the case but because of spammers blocking mods and then spamming away fb did away with that. If you mod a comm you can see everyone in the comm's posts.

>>8450389
CoF is no more private then daily_lolita on livejournal was. Don't bullshit me, anon.

>>8450469
Which, technically is also a private social group. The people who created it determine the rules, who can or can't join and if it exists tomorrow or not. It's not really a democracy.

>>8450394
Ok, if the mod blocks someone, the mod can see their posts, but they can't see the mod's posts (just tested with my cat's account).

>>8450479
Just because a group has rules doesn't mean it's "private". A park in a city has rules like "no littering" and stuff like that, but it's still a PUBLIC park because anyone who wants to go to it can do so. There are also people who have been banned from the park for breaking the rules. That still makes the park a public park though, not private. It is still out in the open, easily accessed, and used by people from all walks of life. You know what is private? Your fucking backyard.
CoF and daily_lolita are the same as a public park. They have rules, some people are banned from them when they break the rules (or at least in theory they're banned from breaking rules, lol) and are easily accessed from all sorts of people. While parks are only really accessible to the locals surrounding it, CoF and daily_lolita are generally only accessed by, well, lolitas.
CoF doesn't have to be run by a democracy. This is the internet, after all. However it's still completely fine for others to call mods out for doing stupid bullshit like this, because it's unfair to others and it makes the group not fun anymore. Quit defending this ffs.

>>8450513
CoF is a closed group.

Public groups don't require approval to join and can be read by outsiders. Hence it technically being a private social group.

>>8450529
You are talking about the literal definition of public and private and the other anon is talking about the more colloquial definition of those words

can we get a quick recap? i'm hella confused about who is who, and all the stuff with the scottish lolita comm drama. laelette and lauren are the same person... right? (but then why did she sign off with "lea"? i'm so confused what the hell)

>>8450513
City parks are usually owned by the government. A better example is a store. If you own a store and have a personal issue with someone you legally can deny them service / access to your store.

>>8450529
But they pretty much approve anyone, and everyone links to it so frequently in public (ex. the lolita guidebook on tumblr links to it), so moot point. I've never really seen the point in making it a "closed" group for this reason.
>>8450548
Again, not the best at metaphors. That'll do!

>>8450546
see: >>8450035

>>8449953
>AATP Replica
She won't be missed.

>>8449836
Continuing caps. Sorry for some of the comments not being expanded; didn't realize that until I was close to finishing.

>>8450724
What is with people trying so hard to suck the mods dicks on this? Nobody's forcing them to read it or participate.

>>8448861
I liked the photo before it was taken down and didn't get banned, but I'm not friends with any of the mods or girls pictured, so it perhaps was only girls Lauren recognized and thought were liking it to be "rebellious" or whatever.

>>8450105
You think cyber bullying only counts if its posted on a open facebook group

Damn, I wish HLC mods gave out bans as quickly/needlessly as CoF mods do.

yessss

>>8451119
Top Kek

>>8450904
So where did it happen then?
Have you settled on a story yet? Are you knew? Have you been here since 2009? What is it?

Thread is on autosage now

>>8449975
Wait didn't you openly shat on another member of the comm on here with your gf and friends?
I pretty sure you did do that, a senior member you acted for being disabled. You are all a bunch of cunts. I've heard you say shit about people at meets and giving evil side eyes when you think people aren't looking.
Go back to watching reruns if the black hawks and learn to remember, people do have memories and do notice.

>>8451298
Deets?
It's an anonymous image board, unless they used trips there's no way to prove who posts shit so it could have been anyone.
Not defending, just saying you can't really pin one person for anonymous posts without proof

>>8451386
She admitted it was her on this board it would be still in the archives to boot. From a past comm thread and told someone to add her on Facebook so they could slag people off more in private.
They like to play the innocent card but it is funny when I've personally heard her gf saying how she doesn't actually feel anything for her and doesn't even think of her as a gf a lot of the time but could be because she was trying to fuck another girl behind her back at the time.
They really are a bad bunch.

I'm getting so sick and tired of shit like this getting posted on our comm's facebook page. Everything that's been posted lately has been either garbage like this, or newbie questions that can be answered with google or common sense.

>>8451475

That's a lie. Don't bring other people's relationships into your bullshit.

>>8451475
If they're such a bad bunch then why is it you in here consistently trying to make this situation worse and dragging people's personal relationships into the fray? I'm sorry but I don't believe words, I believe actions and so far it's your "side" that look like the bunch of salty, desperate, bitter cunts here.
Just an objective opinion.

Funny how Kyra and Aimi have been acting like LSG is an angel, probably so she can sponsor them and their shitty events, what cunts. They're acting like Sin is a bully and LSG isn't a total fucking retard.

>>8451232
Knew?

>>8451696
You know they meant new

>>8451714
And the reply.

>>8451797
New thread

>>8451543
Why don't you remind L and a few other girls who heard you say that on the train back from a meet dear. We all know you are using people for you own selfish reasons.

>>8451877
youre a fucked up person. stop.

>>8451553
Who is my side?
I'm someone who has seen every bad side to everyone in the country. Heck, they have even said shit to me about others in the groups. I know who is shit and I only joined the conversation because I know that small group samefag a together to make out they are better than the rest.

>>8451475
Nicki here, go fuck yourself??? My relationship is mad stable and I love Sin with all my heart and can't wait to spend our futures together, so please could you stop making shit up like a fucking psycho and maybe then you won't be so unhappy with your life and hate yourself enough to behave in this manner?

>>8449184
GooDOTglSLASHAcV8ci

change the capital words

>>8452636
Then you should talk to sin and find out why she feels not that connected to you. She obviously isn't telling you everything as always. She really shouldn't blurt out randomly how she doesn't feel the same as you.
Sorry my life is great and I don't hate myself you retard hating cunt. We all know you love to hate and make fun of people who won't say anything to defend themselves.

>>8453378
I'm not even involved in this or on the same continent but you sound like a vindictive, horrible person. It's one thing to talk shit but to go out your way to sabotage a relationship, that's just disgusting.

>>8453378
fucking hell im in scot loli and i really hope i dont know you because you are the most pathetic piece of shit on the planet, its one thing to shit talk and throw bully accusations its another to bring a relationship that is of no concern of yours into the mix, go fuck yourself

>>8454086
she's only talking about a pathetic piece of shit anyway, so nobody cares

>>8454096
don't care if she was talking about Satan himself its a really fucking low blow, no decent human should do that