[ SECRET POST #6163 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6163 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Five Nights at Freddy's]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #881.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I will say I have seen occasions where commenters will randomly reply to completely unrelated secrets with like "fuck off TERF" which *are* clearly trolling and nothing to do with anything the secret said. But then most of the other commenters reply to that with like "wtf? where did that come from"

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

That's why I said "If someone is name-calling immediately out of the gate, sure, call them a troll." Like, name calling goes both ways; assuming a secret you don't like is a troll secret and assuming a comment about a secret you don't like is a troll comment. Neither of them engage with the text of what is said. Both are unproductive.

Anon I'm engaged with above flat out said that if they didn't like the comment then it was intentional and trolling. Which is just the commenter version of seeing a secret and going "fuck off terf".

[(Anonymous)]

"Anon I'm engaged with above flat out said that if they didn't like the comment then it was intentional and trolling."

Where did they say this?

[(Anonymous)]

"No but I've seen several really dumb to-the-max bad faith takes here and those were definitely intentional. And again: why is it okay for people to jump on an OP for defending their secret text against misinterpretation but apparently not okay for someone to call certain types of replies trolling?"

"Certain types of replies" = "dumb to the max bad faith takes" = "troll" IN THIS PERSON'S OPINION. It might not be "dumb to the max" or "bad faith." Could be earnest dumb to the max. Or could be really smart "bad faith" where they have a good point, but said it in a way to try to cause drama. Either way, it's all opinion on this anons part. Quite evident from the language used ("dumb" "bad" "to the max") that anon doesn't like the comment. From there they say "those were definitely intentional" with no basis or support for this statement. How are they definitely intentional? Does anon have access to the commenter's hidden villain monologue where they state outright their intention to troll? Can they read the commenter's mind?

How do they know the "dumb to the max bad faith" take is intentional?

Because anon finds them dumb. Anon doesn't like it = troll.

[(Anonymous)]

Did they actually say it, or not?