As the very first person (besides Lauda) who supported
Flag #1412 and
Flag #1413 (after I
tagged #304376 poochpocket two days ago), I object to the implication that the alt accusation was made without adequate basisespecially from one who has a history of neutrally FUDding the hell out of identity on the basis of then-undisclosed evidence that was admittedly weak, and really amounted to no more than a reasonable suspicion. For my part, I look to substance and not mere labels.
If Lauda says that she has strong objective evidence (as distinct from her uncanny intuition), I know that she is not just blowing smoke.
That doesn't matter:
Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with poochpocket is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.
poochpocket was not even mentioned in this thread at the time the flag was raised. There were no "factors mentioned in this topic" relating to poochpocket and there were no "concrete red flags". Threatening someone with doxing is also a questionable move:
2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon.