I think people are debating the wrong thing here.

Most of us agree that her personal information should not have been posted.

Most of us also agree that, given her relative newness to the community and status as someone who was highly liked and admired by many here, it was important to warn the community about her multiple recent arrests for fraud-related crimes.

So it's more a matter of HOW this should have been done, rather than whether something had to be done at all.

FYI, she already "left" PFA (according to an e-mail I received) before she was outed here, because splitthis made enough cryptic references to having knowledge (as did a few others like AHoosierA) to where she knew the jig was up. (She didn't acknowledge that anything was found, but asked in one e-mail as to what splitthis was referring.)

However, that still did not alleviate the potential rolling danger, as she clearly made a number of friendships with people here which could have continued off the forum after she left.

I felt the responsible thing to do was to make sure everyone knew what they were dealing with, and then if they were still cool with it, it was their choice to proceed.

I agree that links to mugshots containing her real name (or instructions how to find her real name elsewhere online) was too much, given that she hadn't harmed anyone here. That is why I chose to remove that information posted here, and told everyone that posting such things could not continue.

However, I find it absurd to suggest any kind of banning or restricting of those who DID post the links, as they did so out of concern for the community, even if they were a bit careless and exposed too much given the circumstances.

This was not gratuitous info-posting, nor was any of it done out of revenge.

Each of these situations is different.

In general, people here should have a right to anonymity.

However, a new, high-profile poster with a recent record of multiple fraud-related arrests is enough of a danger the community (financially) to where a warning to everyone is warranted. That's not to say that personal info should also be exposed, but any information found which greatly impacts the trustworthiness of that user is relevant, especially if that user does not have a long enough history in the community to be deemed safe.

Had Kilgore been around for 10 years and quietly gotten arrested multiple times for bad checks and fraud, all without ever doing a single bad thing to anyone here, then there could be the argument that she had proven herself over time, despite her off-the-forum troubles.

However, while I still believe that Kilgore was NOT here as a long con (but rather simply liked the attention and admiration), she had only been here for 10 months (a relative noob), and it was important for everyone to know the truth before they developed very close friendships with her.

As much as I hate to say it, the fact that she's female and in the age range of most of the (male) posters here was also a factor which made it far easier for people here to like, notice, and trust her. That part isn't her fault, but it plays into why people needed to know that she wasn't quite what she appeared to be.

I do not support doxxing here, and I think I handled this one as fairly as it could have been handled.

If you disagree, I would like to know what you feel I did wrong.