[DarkShikari]

he probably thinks that she in some way caused the stalker to spam her project.

No matter what happened here, this entire concept is horribly, horribly wrong. It's blaming the victim -- saying that it's somehow her fault for "causing" the stalker to do something... as opposed to the stalker's fault, for stalking.

[saraid216]

Except that Forrest's point is that they probably didn't know the spammer was a stalker. This is kind of relevant. If a random person walks up to you and asks if you've seen this person and shows you a picture, you'd probably help them out, completely unaware they're a serial killer. That doesn't make you a bad person.

If Kickstarter does respond to this by maintaining their stance, then there's a huge problem. Until then, it's more a case of an incompetent employee.

[DarkShikari]

I don't think that changes anything? Again, replace the word "stalk" with "spam": it's the spammer's fault for spamming, not her fault for hypothetically "causing" the spammer to make the decision to spam her.

[saraid216]

I agree there.

[Forrest7778]

I was in no way saying that it was the victim's fault. I just don't think that Kickstarter should be on the receiving end of a lot of criticism until we get the full story from them. It may very well be that they are under the impression that that it is her fault, although I am not saying it is, it is just plausible and would account for their reaction to her ban.