4/21 – Call from Stacey

@kasch Sounds rather… sabotagey

@kasch I fear someone out there is pretending to be you…

Shadow @kasch!?

Shadow? That seems more likely than anything else

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Kortney.

What the f*ckity f*ck is going on? This sounds like somebody submitted answers on your behalf AND signed up your wife too?!

Well hey, at least there’s two rejects now!

This… is a weird development.

You definitely have a shadow.

I would email Stacey and say “I did not send in anything. Someone is trying to impersonate me. “

What @thebuz said @kasch – I’d love to know her response. If they correct their mistake or deny any wrongdoing.

You’re goddamn right @kasch.

That all being said… I suggest everyone here make sure you have a code word with a partner. To make sure all is well if…suspicions rise.

We had to do it last year as I got a call from @kasch number and it was just clips of him talking about me on a podcast. When I called back he was very clearly in a car with his wife and kid chatting in the background.

So yeah… they know how to make it look like someone else is calling your phone.

Also be careful guys. Saying someone is impersonating you is sane to US but to the public it will sound like you’re insane.

@kortneydarling Too late for @Kasch. That’s how I got involved in this whole mess.

How to tell it is not me?

I am actually calling you…

Not really sure where this iConfidant stuff is going, but this is the second time it’s moved towards identity theft. They did start off by trying to phish security question answers off everyone in that one round of phone calls. For those moving forward with them, that may be something to keep in mind. Similar to the code words that @thebuz has set up, it might be worth setting up additional security on your normal accounts for an additional layer of comfort (it’s also just not a bad idea in general).

Needless to say, I’m now SUPER interested to hear what happens on @111error’s coffee date coming up. So many questions!

o____________________________________O

Have you considered someone is trying to help you? We don’t know what iConfidant actually is, but someone does. Maybe someone is out there watching out for you, someone who doesn’t want you getting involved. Although if the fake you was rejected and your fake wife was accepted, it’s much more sinister to think that someone is trying to drive some sort of wedge. Though what can they accomplish as your wife alone if your actual wife chooses simply to ignore it? At any rate, I shudder to think how any single word answers to the questions of your worst memory or your relationship with your mother could completely disqualify you. Someone must have been trying very hard to keep you out. I’d bet that someone will be in touch.

I am now curious @kasch, is your wife participating in Lust?

And follow up to everyone, how many are in a relationship where both partners are actively participating?

@nothenrygale, @lilmsfancpants and I are, and we’re the only actually married Lust couple I’m aware of.

@macbethinabathtub Got it. Do you think that may be a reason why @lilmsfancpants got rejected? I know @birdiesrunamok and I both got accepted, but we’re not married.

We don’t have much information to work with, but to find out why Lia was rejected, we need to figure out what she has in common with other rejectees, but that which she *doesn’t* with those who were accepted.

@nothenrygale @izryn, honestly I think part of it might be she only sent her first email to Stacey yesterday. Beta tests are limited by nature, maybe she just ran out of room. Or, if you want to get conspiracyish about it, I’m willing to bet iConfidant and the System share a bit of DNA. Perhaps her close ties to the Sinclairs thus far have disqualified her. Or, yes, it very well could be our relationship.

i love this i love this i love this

My initial thought when iC came up was that they were using the shadows to set people up with them. But if a shadow impersonated a client then that wouldn’t make sense. Also it’s interesting how she said “for obvious reasons.” What was so out of line that would make them deny a client?

Whether or not it seems like the reason, the two people who have so far been rejected outright have been married. It might be nothing, but it is indeed a connection. No one else has been rejected so far other than @kasch and @lilmsfancpants correct?

Things are getting weirder at the speed of
Light.

I think maybe someone has other plans down the line for @kasch and @lilmsfancpants…not sure who, but that could be a reason?

@nothenrygale There have been several participants who were accepted that are married. I don’t believe being married has anything to do with being rejected. I believe their path is just one that may not involved iConfidant right now or at all.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by M..

I believe their path is just one that may not involved iConfidant right now or at all.

This.

OK, a few thoughts.

1. I think that Lia and Kasch are two separate cases. I think the thing that separates Lia from the rest of us is possibly Noah & his interest in her – perhaps she was rejected because of him? Because he’s pulling the strings somehow? Someone suggested Sarah possibly was?

2. Kasch and Morgan didn’t get the congrats emails, but I did. However, I registered for the beta online (I was also one of the few initial phone calls). I wonder if there is a correlation between Kasch’s and Morgan’s unusual experiences and them not registering for the beta…if I hadn’t registered online like they didn’t, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten one either?

3. @kingkill33 – did you register for the beta? Did you get a congrats email? Was there anyone else who got that initial out of the blue phone call from Stacey, before the website was found?

4. @kasch – was there a shadow version of you yet on the forums?

@coryphella I did not register with iCompanion since I was under the assumption they were going to following me around and told me as such. I also did not receive a congratulations email from them. I did happen to reach out to them on FB Messenger though, and asked if this a mistake or not. Typical read, no reply. The way I figure it, they will get around to me when they find the time.

Well it seems that iConfidant definitely is reading the forums here. Just got a reply back from them apologizing that I did not receive the email, but that I am indeed one of the individuals picked for the beta program. They mention I was one of a few selected early on, and will be in touch with me very soon. So, are the people that were selected early on @kasch, @111error, @coryphella, and myself? Any others??

OK, well, I was kind of worried I had screwed up my _path by registering when obviously Kasch & Morgan hadn’t and had interesting results, you made me feel better. 🙂 I wonder if the purpose of calling the four of us (or more?) was just to spread the word and get the website out?

Let’s catch the imposter and then have a suspicious BBQ right after.

@kasch did you confirm with her what email address they were coming from?

…I can’t be the only one dying to see these “explicit and unethical” emails.

You know, for science.

@kasch IT! She is checking with IT! </tinfoil hat>

This is fascinating. Truly fascinating.

@kasch I’m very curious. It might not be a bad idea to change all passwords just in case. Cause that’s weird.

I’m still wondering about the motivation. The person clearly isn’t trying to get into iConfidant as you, they’re being so offensive that no version of Andrew Kasch is admitted. I don’t know how hard I would fight against this shadow just to join the same accepted list as everyone else. This is making me worried about being on that list. It feels like you have a foul-mouthed guardian angel out there. Or at least someone who wants you on a different path.

@kasch, a suggestion – when Stacey calls back, you should set up a secret passphrase with her too. Tell her to ask for it wherever she contacts you, whether by phone or email. If that doesn’t convince her there is a second person involved I don’t know what will.

Stacy could produce the mail headers and maybe ID the location

So does this mean the “shadow version is a better version of us” theory is invalid?

It does still fit with the “manipulate the real world via bots” theory.

@bruinbown oh wow.. “IT” dept. ? …could it be one in the same?? That would be interesting..

@kasch I’m glad you got a call..things were getting too quiet around here.

@macbethinabathtub this occurred to me too. It sounds more like someone is impersonating Kasch to try protect him from whatever iConfidant has planned for him more than just trolling him.

@kasch
Are there any samples of you being vulgar? Like maybe you’re a total dick on facebook and they could have pinched an idea of what it would be like to be ‘Negative Kasch’.Who knows? Maybe it is a internet vigilante trying to spare you from IConfidant? Or a person aligned Chaotic Evil. The Plot thickets.
What does explicit Kasch even look like? Is it obvious, or is it subtle?
“STACY_BIIIOTCH,
DTF, READY TO MINGLE WIT DIS DISCO_STICK. ME AND MY OLD LADY DOWN_WIT_DA_GETDOWNZ.”
Or?
“Stephanie, whatever your name is,
I dislike the oxford comma verymuch so. “

Just musing.

Someone doing it to protect you doesn’t sound right to me. It’s too elaborate. They could have just asked to be removed from the program and you would have stopped being connected non the wiser. Instead they are harassing Stacey. There must be another motive, or enjoyment.

Dang. Stay woke, @jay956

There must be another motive, or enjoyment.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Jackie.

@kasch did you ever post anything with your email address? Or- who would have access to that that people could take advantage of?

Strange…. wonder if there’s any significance of the letters RLN?

Weird.

Command+R Refreshes the page
Command+L Seems to highlight the website in the address bar
Command+N Opens a new window

I’ve tried every variation of R+L+N Command and it doesn’t do much.

I’m curious from an IT standpoint what the hell they were trying to achieve by that.

Any I.T. specialists out there that might know what this could mean?

From my experience with web sites, really it shouldn’t be able to do anything, at least from a browser standpoint. Only thing that’s possible is if they put some secret command into their website that’s triggered by those letters. Some sites do this (some times without the company even knowing) when bored programmers sneak little easter eggs in. My favorite example is from ESPN a few years ago.

http://kotaku.com/5230185/the-konami-code-makes-espncom-magical

So it’s entirely possible the iConfidant website has some secret script that is triggered by those letters.

I hope that wasn’t your shadow calling, and it was actually the IT department….

R+L=J confirmed?

*raises hand*

R+L=J has been canon for a long, long time.
And was a bumper sticker on my last car.

(she says sitting between her cats named Sansa and Asha)

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Megan.

Per my brother, computer engineer, when asked what those four keys would be used for:

“So a web page could detect you entering them. But otherwise, they have no meaning together that I know of. command + r, command + l, etc all have meaning in a browser, as you mentioned.”

*shrug* so I don’t know if there’s much in the pressing of those buttons themselves. Except for obviously stealing Kasch’s fingerprints and making a clone of him using magic.

@coryphella R+L=J? Cliffs notes for the less educated?

@ziegenbartsr Game of Thrones plot point.

Game of Thrones theory that has been around since the 90’s.

Theory is that Jon Snow is the son of Ragar Targathian and Leanna Stark. Not actually the son of Ned Stark.

@ziegenbartsr – yeah what they said. I’ve been on the R+L=J train since 2003. That’s also when we got Sansa. 🙂

Thanks guys. I don’t watch much tv and was thinking it was a reference to Tension/Lust canon. After about 30 sec googling I realized my mistake.

@kasch o___O

I haven’t heard from Kristin about tomorrow, but this certainly muddies the waters.

@kasch was there anything hidden in the email or pictures attached?

Why are they just now getting back to you after a long time?

Why am I asking so many damn questions?

Seems like they know just about as much as we do when it comes to iConfidant…

Also fuck that dude for being an IT guy who uses “your” incorrectly

I am very interested in the comments about the shots taking hold. Maybe it has to do with the same “sickness” that we assumed Noah’s Tim might have. Maybe Mark and Noah’s kids are around the same age and both come from a program. Maybe this is a program trying to develop Future Humans. Maybe there’s something connecting iConfidant and The System. Or maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree.

@kasch I’m happy to hear that you’ll finally getting your “perfect match” like the rest of us. Welcome to iConfidant buddy! ?

Ps. This Mark Campbell guy is saying things that make me think him and Stacey used to date. Just throwing that out there.

In regards to the IP thing, didn’t we notice our iConfidants emails seemed to be sent from various locations as well?

@kasch My first thought was that Mark is Stacey’s ex, since he alludes to a previous relationship (“we used to care about each other’s lives”) and to some trouble with said relationship that has since been accepted (“you promised we would be chill”).

Looks like neither Stacey not Mark knows who’s supporting the company and are pressuring her (the same Investors that funded Tension, I bet!). That, or Stacey’s just not telling him.

But! I’m glad it’s been sorted. Can’t wait to hear what your iC is like!

The “shots are taking hold” comment sounds like it’s referring to a sick kid.

Did anyone try emailing Mark? I did and it bounced back.

@coryphella yes, I emailed to ask if they were looking for a data analyst and it also bounced back.
Could be a sick kid, or perhaps the nanobots are starting to have the expected influence/results.

I also was a little unclear; Mark is presumably referring to the Noah as Kasch emails that came to iconfidant but it read to me like he’s referring to OUR Confidants, themselves. We’ve had folks track their confidant emails as coming from multiple locations beyond what is normal, too, yes?