[begin transmission]

Alice2,

------- The Treacherous 2B -------

You might want to work on your accuracy then. I’ll address every point you made here.
I’ve ignored evidence? Likely a misunderstanding if it appears that way to you. But no, actually I’ve been convinced of a fair amount of the evidence Kermit provided. Even admitted to it myself.
Now, whether or not I am entirely convinced is a different matter. Some of the evidence you have provided are screenshots of snippets of a conversation without the broader context.
But you wouldn’t necessarily think of someone as treacherous simply because they’re not convinced, or that they value optics over substance. Come now, that’s a sophomoric claim.

I’ve refused to give an apology to Reaver’s family. Alright then, for what should I apologize for?
For not believing he was a real person? I had no good reason to believe he was, prior to the video. You’ll have to excuse me for being skeptical.
For not believing they were in mortal danger? There is no evidence that he is or ever was. Furthermore, I will not apologize to someone who fails to put themselves out of harm’s way.
Towards this last point you showed evidence of people threatening you. If anything, that suggests that perhaps the greatest threat to his family’s well-being is his continued association with you.

I’ve told Reaver this. I really do hope he thought about it. Not saying he should quit being your friend; that isn’t the suggestion by any measure.
But it might be a good idea to quit preoccupying himself with your careless antics on 4chan. Just a thought.

I’ve long-since apologized for saying you deserved to get doxed. So, did you genuinely ever forgive me or was that done in bad faith?
True, I did mention Purim’s suicide to make a point, and I don’t regret it. It was in response to your and Reaver’s faulty and pernicious conceptualization of leadership.
I won’t apologize for that, ever. If we can’t have an amicable relationship because of that, well…I don’t know what to tell you.
Just know that it wasn’t malicious in intent. I elaborated in my blog post enough, so that’s that.

Ah, I see you caught on to our eighth rule. Namely, no discussion of Alice2-related drama in the server. Ironically enough, that one was for your protection.
You seem to think that we scheme and plot against you in the server, after all. I wanted to make it clear that we don’t condone that type of activity, and that it wouldn’t be tolerated.
But, as it turns out, nobody really cares about you in my server. So the rule has been revoked.
You can be damn sure, however, should anyone try to incite a doxing or something along those lines, within my server, they’ll be banned immediately.

Though, where did you get that notion that I was actively suppressing discussion? You’re trying very hard to paint me as a tyrant here, aren’t you?
I don’t think a tyrant would explicitly state at the end of her initial statement: “If anybody would like to talk about this, I invite you to message me here on Discord.”. Reference post ID: 20180116.
I will grant you this though: you’re absolutely right when it comes to Reaver’s email on my blog: it is still showing up on Google; I’ve submitted a request to Google to correct the issue.
Should be fixed now. When searching for his email, my blog still shows up, but his email is no longer published publicly, neither on google search results or my blog. Anything else?

When I called you a martyr, I was citing your critics. No, it’s clear to me that you’d sooner sacrifice one of your own towards your pursuits before self.


------- Daggy -------

Well, no, as it turns out daggy is NOT okay with the conclusion of your little business transaction: https://imgur.com/a/25RPX0L

Daggy doesn’t believe you scammed him, but manipulated him (not too much of a difference in my opinion). The word scam got me thinking. There’s a fraudulent component to all of this.
In one of your first responses (reference post ID: 20180117) you speak as if you were offering a service, talking about pricing out your time. I ask you, what service, exactly, did you render unto him?
Talk? Therapy? Okay, did you ever make that clear to him? Moreover, are you a credentialed therapist qualified to charge clients for your time? Is daggy aware of your credentials?
Have you legally filed so that you could begin your own private practice? The therapist thing is cute and all on /b/, but as soon as you begin charging people with no proof of credentials…that’s fraud.

However, Daggy mentioned opportunistic manipulation. I think that phrase is very fitting.
Targeting someone that is in the throes of a psychotic break, dangling the place they’ve come to rely on for support in front of them, where all their friends are located and profiting off of that? Shameful.
Then, when he has the sense to try and cancel the transaction, you honeypot him by talking to him at great length, offering him reassurance. As soon as the money is secured, you leave him high and dry.
I figured there was a reason why your moral judgments against my character meant very little to me.

You could try and justify your actions all you want. The fact of the matter is that daggy, the other half of this transaction, felt cheated and manipulated. It isn’t hard to see why, given the circumstances.
Do you know why I slightly hesitated in bringing this up? Because I know that the next time daggy contacts either you or Kermit, either one of you will harshly chastise him for speaking with me.
Kermit, in his characteristic assholish fashion will demoralize him by screaming profanities at him. That isn’t how you treat a friend, let alone a friend that is a recovering alcoholic.
Meanwhile, you’ll no doubt make no short effort to remind him of his past mistakes, seeking virtue through victimhood while debasing a good, though imperfect man trying to be better.

Daggy has such a good heart, Alice2, bordering on naivety. He gave you money for server costs (despite your well-to-do status?). That money was a gift, and one I’d argue you don’t deserve.
Knowing you, and knowing Kermit, the two of you would make it immeasurably difficult for him to get his money back if he were to ask for it directly himself. So I’m asking on his behalf.
He quotes upwards of $2k being transferred to you. Not all of it was taken from him via underhanded measures; an amount of that was a gift. Like I said, a good heart.
Do the right thing and give him back his hard-earned money, all the money that was taken from him under the premise of bullshit reparations and services. At the very least a sum of $300.

Now, I do offer a qualification to this hypothesis. Maybe you aren’t as terrible and manipulative as you make others think. Maybe my entire interpretation of this is just wrong, and you only appear vile.
See, this is being open-minded, Alice2. When you try not to paint the opposition as Satan herself. When you entertain the possibility that perhaps you’re wrong, despite the evidence.
You mentioned in your response (reference post ID: 20180117) “Money is one of the only things he values during these sorts of outburst, so I used it as a tactic to make him back down.”.
Well, he’s backed down. So why haven’t you returned the money if it, indeed, was just a tactic? Maybe you forgot? We’ll invoke Hanlon’s razor and say that you forgot, then.


------- Questions -------

But let’s continue the original discussion, for completeness’s sake.
Since you’re failing to address my questions, I’ll answer them for you, from my estimation of this ordeal thus far. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

1.) In your estimation, what amount of responsibility do you bear in this doxing incident?

As far as daggy is concerned, you’ve unfairly charged him for illegitimate services on the basis that he wasn’t made aware of your credentials or even the services he was the beneficiary of.
The charges were unfair because they were made during a period of mental instability; he was sufficiently vulnerable that he would’ve agreed to anything to alleviate his anxiety. You capitalized on that.
This isn’t my interpretation of the matter either; daggy himself often states how he feels manipulated by you, and that he is unsatisfied with the transaction for at least $300.
It doesn’t take too far of a stretch of the imagination to see how someone that feels cheated and manipulated would lash out against the person that did them wrong, especially under an alcoholic fit.

Again, this doesn’t put all responsibility on your shoulders, but some of it. You did him wrong, it was sufficient enough that, when the circumstances aligned, he sought out to hurt you.
Now, if you hadn’t cheated him out of his money, would he still have carried out his part of the doxing? Who’s to say, really…Again, I’m of the belief that it’s a nuanced, multi-factored issue.
You and Kermit are much better at your record keeping than daggy. So all we can rely on for evidence is your logs. That leaves us at the mercy of your cherry picking to confirm only your assertions.
If anyone states to the contrary, merely hints that perhaps you haven’t treated him as properly as you should have, using his testimony as evidence, we get hit with asinine ‘Feels aren’t reals.’.

It’s why these discussions with you rarely go anywhere. You’re simply too closed-minded and set in your belief that you’re absolutely right, and that everyone else is wrong.
Yes, I’m sure some of it is petty crap that isn’t important. But that doesn’t invalidate ALL of their grievances. As a friend and so-called therapist, you should be open to what they’re trying to say.
You’re fairly articulate, Alice2; that’s a hell of a gift. But it doesn’t make you right. Some people might be trying to tell you something, but they’re not able to express themselves as clearly.
That’s why it’s your task to try and help them formulate their thoughts as clearly as possible, in a non-self-serving fashion. Even if they are grievances against you; you don’t merely hand-wave it all away.

As far as I can tell, you’ve failed at this task, time and time again. Yet you tout yourself as a therapist without this essential skill in your toolkit. It makes you unfit for duty, in my estimation.
That’s fine, Alice2. You can continue to be so self-unaware and tone deaf if you’d like. There’s no shortage of willfully blind and fearful people in this world. But choosing to do so carries consequences.
The reality of this outcome is evidence enough of that. Your friend was the target of a dox meant for you. I have about six people in my Discord that have felt victimized by you at one time or another.
Craziest thing about that last fact is that you used to be friends with all of them. They admired you, even, at one point. None of them are psychopaths, none of them are trolls that plague your threads.

I don’t know how many more disillusioned people it would take to convince you that maybe, just maybe, you’re doing something wrong.
“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.”. You didn’t like Nietzsche, so maybe this philosophy is more to your liking.

2.) Given how you often deal with vulnerable populations, what do you consider to be responsible, appropriate behavior?

It goes without saying that daggy is certainly someone that could be considered part of a vulnerable population. He has a history of mental illness, substance abuse, and alcoholism.
As you and I have both witnessed, he’s liable to bouts of severe anxiety, depression, mania, and alcoholic binges. Needless to say, there are instances where he is not in the right frame of mind.
I’m no expert on the matter, by any measure, so I cannot tell you exactly what could be considered responsible, appropriate behavior when it comes to dealing with vulnerable populations.
I don’t have to be; I try to treat everyone with respect, and it’s served me well, all things considered. That being said, I can tell you what isn’t responsible, appropriate behavior.

I have the screencap of a conversation you had with daggy: https://imgur.com/a/zk9wtqz
“You are a fucked up ugly person from skin to bone…” are you out of your goddamn mind?
I’m sure you weren’t intending for malice here, likely choosing those words for rhetorical impact. But Alice2, this is something you do not say to a recovering alcoholic.
Believe me, I’m all for the “tough love” approach, but there are certain instances where exercising tact is absolutely necessary. This is one of those instances.

And that’s not mere opinion either, but a fact, according to the NIH: https://consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004YouthViolencePreventionSOS023html.htm
Here’s a paper, echoing a similar sentiment: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3792617/
“There can be shame without blame.” That’s a succinct little aphorism you could stand to take to heart.
Daggy knows what he did concerning the doxing incident, was wrong. He knows that his going on alcoholic benders is wrong. He knows exactly what the right thing is to do, what he needs to do.

Though, want to know what he doesn’t need? He doesn’t need you, constantly reminding him of his failures and moral shortcomings. His task is difficult enough without your demoralization.
You are, in a very literal sense, a relentless harpy that does not allow a man harried with self-doubt and guilt come to terms with his offenses.
You DO NOT constantly remind tell a person with indications of schizoaffective disorder, liable to delusions, that they put a family at risk. Especially given that the proposition must be taken on faith.
Do you know what you do? Get your apology and shut the hell up. Just because your close friend was hurt in all this doesn’t give you license to harass the perpetrator with impunity.

I know you’re a fan of punchy rhetoric and you cherish your victimhood status, but realize you’re doing more harm than good in this scenario.

Nyan also recently wrote me about this really weak catfish accusation you and Kermit are trying to pin on her. She outlines it briefly, here: https://imgur.com/a/j8sn5eV
I ask you, Alice2, of what authority are you to be outing someone’s trans status to the public? I know you’re not too fond of jurisdictions and borders, but that wasn’t your call to make.
Particularly when someone told you a very personal fact about themselves in private. You never asked Nyan if it was okay to disclose that information to others.
Nor did you even try to mitigate the perception that she was somehow being manipulative, when in fact, she was (understandably so) embarrassed of her trans status.

You know the about the stigma and misconceptions revolving around the transgender issue, Alice2. At least, I hope you do as someone that claims to be a therapist.
If not, I offer one study as a refresher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698807/
I don’t believe that you are blind to the facts, however you are certainly tone-deaf; it’s justified though, right? Your friend was heartbroken because they flirted with a transgirl.
The responsibility lies with you, as someone who claims to look out for the best interest of vulnerable populations, to turn to Kermit and say “Gee, maybe it wasn’t done out of malice?”

Besides, Nyan didn’t enter a romantic relationship with Kermit, never sent him false, identifying documents such as photos, never profited off of him, only lightly flirted with him.
Sure, you could object and say under the false pretense of Nyan being a biological female. But is it really too far of a stretch of the imagination that a marginalized person would lie to gain acceptance?
No, lying isn’t right. Even Nyan fully admits to that fault of hers and has taken steps to correct it. But on analysis of the motives, it’s clear that it wasn’t manipulation, much less catfishing.
Unless, of course, Kermit can prove contrary. As far as I know, he hasn’t.

This next one hardly needs any explanation: https://imgur.com/a/NSumpBF
Any good therapist knows that a certain amount of confidence and trust must be present in any effective therapeutic relationship.
I’d even argue that basic, human decency is predicated on those very two qualities. If there is a breach in them, the relationship dissolves or putrefies and becomes toxic.
Again, I ask you: is this responsible, appropriate behavior, Alice2? Poking fun at someone’s medical conditions? Please do explain and clarify this one for me.

Let’s move on to Louise. I’ll say this: I don’t envy her position, effectively being stuck between us.
I had to ask her in advance if I could use this information, because knowing you, as soon as you become privy to this you’re going to turn around and berate her for speaking with me.
“Thanks for helping 2B make me look bad.”. Don’t do crappy things like this and maybe you wouldn’t look nearly as terrible as you appear. And I wouldn’t have to be bringing them to your attention.
Anyway, here’s a log depicting a conversation between you and Louise, concerning the doxing incident and kicking Yui and dags: https://imgur.com/a/xlHbipx

From the log we can see that you clearly misled Louise into thinking that this doxing incident was a coordinated attack between Anya, Yui, and dags. That’s patently untrue.
It was only Yui and Anya that researched for info. It was dumped on daggy who nonsensically leaked information during a drunken episode. Already you were misrepresenting the facts to Louise.
Then, you continue to make emotional appeals, talking about how much you suffer, browbeating her with your self-righteousness, never once considering there might be something to her hesitation.
It was very clear that she was in an ethical dilemma (buying into your representation of the situation), but that didn’t matter to you, did it? You wanted your way, all else be damned.

Only, your way was terribly mistaken and presumptuous: https://imgur.com/a/d8csdwL
In reality, you literally had no basis to approach either Louise or myself about your drama, and ask of us to take action. Like I said, we’re not obliged to clean up after your and Reaver’s mess.
I want you to take that to heart, Alice2. That people don’t have to bend to your misconstrued sense of morality and justice. Too much time in your own chat has spoiled you, it appears.
Turns out that my ‘bullshit jurisdiction argument’ is, in fact, valid. Imagine that: there are boundaries and limitations to your influence. I’m still in awe that I had to go this far to reach you.

By the way, I distinctly remember you telling Nyan that you reached out to Discord admins concerning this issue and that they told you I had to ban Anya, Yui, and daggy.
May I see a record of this exchange? You made the claim on 06/20/2018.  Failure to provide your evidence leads me to believe that was a bold-faced lie to prop up your argument.

This isn’t responsible nor appropriate behavior. Your actions were the reason why I had to de-mod Louise; you gaslit and guilt-tripped her into pushing your agenda at our server.
And it isn’t because she is not intelligent or has a weak constitution, but because for some ungodly reason she cherishes her relationship with you to a disproportionate, unreasonable amount.
You had no right to approach Louise to ‘fix’ this for you. As your friend, she was gracious enough to hear you out, and you took advantage of that. But now, you have me to contend with.
I’ll hear you out, much like Louise. Have been for a little over half a year now; however, unlike her, I’m sure you’ve noticed I’m quite immovable when it comes to appeals to victimhood and gaslighting.

Moreover, I’m willing to remind you to know your place, if need be.

In writing this email to you, carefully reading through that log between you and Louise, I noticed something very interesting. I overlooked it before: https://imgur.com/a/M5Vo394
So you do admit to some fault in this doxing incident. You actually do acknowledge some responsibility for your actions online, as having real, appreciable, possibly negative effects on those around you.
I wonder how that woman you mention would react to something like this: https://pastebin.com/4p8BZ52z
Here we can see you actively goading Jack on; someone, who by your very own admission, has it out for you and poses such a strong existential threat to you and your friends.

You know what I’m going to ask: what part of that behavior is responsible or appropriate?
You spend an awful lot of time convincing others how much of a victim you are. You spend an awful lot of time convincing others how terrible and threatening Jack is.
Yet you tempt him in your chat room, but turn around and use it as a point to twist Louise’s arm. These two behaviors are contradictory so, which is it? Is Jack a real threat or not?
I received a lot of flak for saying you deserved this happening to you, that it isn’t PC. Should something similar happen again in the future, I won’t rescind my position. At this point there are no excuses.


------- Yui -------

I spoke with Yui about this, and I’m unable to continue the conversation. I’ll stand down on this point.
Not my battle to fight, I suppose. I still have my reservations on the matter, but that’s something for Yui to handle on her own. Whether she chooses to engage with you or not, that’s her decision.

On a side note: please check your definitions. Microaggressions are indirect, unconscious, discriminatory insults specifically geared towards a person’s membership of a marginalized group.
If you re-read my message, I specifically said that it was mistreatment and ridicule (no mention of marginalized group, or subtlety) that might have a cumulative effect, which makes sense.
Were I to call you an idiot everyday, and encourage others to join me in insulting your intelligence, I’m sure you wouldn’t like me very much. That’s straight aggression; nothing micro about it.
Even at the specific instance I was getting at, about her trans status, I was referring to your overt, purposeful mistreatment. So no, microaggressions have nothing to do with this discussion.


------- Anya -------

Who knows what Anya’s motivation was with her role in the doxing? Only she knows that. Maybe someday she’ll decide to tell you, if you ask her nicely enough.

As for the ‘evidence’ you provided (those Chen caps are sorely lacking in context; she could be apologizing for anything, really), it’s not very compelling.
First off, they’re seven years old. People’s attitudes are subject to change given such a long timespan. But I see that you’ve resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Second, in the log you posted it appears as if Anya is plotting something, but not necessarily against you. I’d venture to guess she was planning on starting threads of her own. (03/15/2011).
Third, if you truly felt that Anya was an enemy, why is it that she was a moderator in your chat for the longest time? Sorry, I’m not buying this piss-poor argument of yours.

I know the game, Alice2. It’s imperative that you prove that people betray without rhyme or reason. That you make those three out to be psychopaths, ignoring the past few years of friendship.
It serves your victimhood status, alleviating you of all responsibility in the matter. Here lies this poor girl, the target of a doxing at the hands of vicious brutes that had it out for her.
Only the reasons behind it were either invalid or non-existent at all. Often times I see you asserting that you’re not a saint; you certainly think yourself as one.
Maybe the people in your chat fully subscribe to the ‘victim is always right’ mentality, but they’re not doing you any favors. They’re only enabling your self-righteous behavior. I won’t do that for you.

And of course I recognize that people, including my own friends, can be petty and do shitty things. It isn’t my stance that I think otherwise.
You might be absolutely right. It might just be the case that her attack on you was predicated on a false notion but that is entirely different from no reason at all.
I haven’t investigated the matter with Anya any further for the longest time, and I pledged that I wouldn’t, simply because there needs to be some hard end to all of this.
I know that’s dissatisfactory for you; it’s less than ideal for me. I still have my reservations on Anya’s motivations, from both sides. I believe some of it was petty, but certainly not all.

We’ll leave it at that then. You don’t have to answer my question as it relates to Anya’s involvement in the doxing incident.


------- Reaver -------

Addressed most of your concerns in the introductory section. Please review it now for responses to your points.
As you can see, citing the email I sent to Discord administration concerning my responsibilities as server owner, I was correct in my assertions and you, Reaver, Kermit, and Fred were flat-out wrong.
It’s tough to accept, but contrary to what you’d like to believe, that is indeed “just how it works.”. Hope you can come to terms with it.
Or you can continue to make claims against my character in bad faith, it makes little difference to me.


------- Closing -------

Truthfully, I don’t care if you do put me in league with Bern or Eva. Do as you please.
I know what I am, and what I am not. If you have your critique, let’s hear it. But please be honest about it. Those ’30 instances of self-contradiction’ were anything but the sort.
It was a list of Kermit’s rebuttals to my points. Honestly, what do you get out of exaggeration and dishonesty like that, Alice2?
It’s a weak attempt to attack my character, but anybody that has a basic reading comprehension can easily see for themselves that your claim was false.

How is it a direct threat on Reaver’s life? All of the information daggy ‘leaked’ appears as nonsense to anyone not in the know. Merely saying ‘▒▒▒▒▒▒’ without any context isn’t a threat.
If you interpret ‘Imagine selling Pokemon cards for a living’ as a threat, then I’d imagine you’re much less of a hit at parties than even I.
Facetiousness aside, none of what daggy said constitutes as personally identifiable information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information)
He didn’t release any addresses, social security numbers, birth places or dates, mother’s maiden names, or biometric records.

He did release names, but that information is public access via Facebook and social media anyway, and it isn’t as if those names are exclusive to those individuals.
So no, I don’t interpret it as a threat. Not even close.

I’m not even going to bother to address your closing truism.


-2B

[end transmission]

2B,

Of what utility would it serve? That's easy: Optics.
This is something you've shown a willingness to indulge in over and over, or as you like to say, it's a long standing behavioral pattern that I cannot help but notice.
I do not ascribe to you treachery; I am a pattern matching machine, and you've taught me quite well.
When you ignore evidence, refuse to get even the most minor of apologies for a family in fear, say I deserve to get doxxed, or use my dead friends coffin as a bludgeoning tool on my birthday, I take notice.
When you do all of this while also banning the mere discussion of what is going on, when you do all of that while refusing to even send me an email about it until you are browbeat to do the right thing...it shows a willingness to put optics in front of substance.

Given what has happened over the last year, I am forced to invoke Hanlon's razor. And I don't believe you incompetent or stupid. So when you intentionally put some logs but not others, it begs the question of why. And that question has answers that aren't particularly favorable. Optics and politics never are.

If I cared about perception I wouldn't talk so much about my bathroom habits; I'm not the one with an obsession regarding control of information, nor the one actively encouraging others to not seek it. Call me a martyr all you like: I'm not dead yet, and I don't intend to die for 4chan.

I take issue with you posting Reaver's email because it's still on the front page of Google when you google it. I've never published Reaver's email, with good reason. You may wish to wipe it from the table as a non-issue, but it certainly was an issue to him. Seems to be a running theme for you to try to dismiss things that you don't feel like dealing with.

I was quite precise in my verbiage.

On the subject of Dag, I disagree fundamentally with your even basic of conceptions of the situation. Dag and I have concluded our business to the satisfaction of both of us. I have not harassed him, nor did he send that money under duress. If anyone was in duress during that time, it was me, and you can feel free to ask him about that. I do not owe Daggy any amount of money. He sent me money for server costs, which may be what he is refering to with these additional amounts. If he wishes me to pay back for that, he can feel free to ask me at any time. I appreciate his help, either way.

I did not extort money, so again, your points fall through and fall flat. As for frustration and guilt, I had no hand in placing that on him. As well, to envy me is...well. It's pretty absurd. I categorically deny any of that without, you know, evidence to the contrary. So again, I deny your basis.

As for Yui, this one I have actual evidence for it being petty. She fully admitted in her email to doing it because of a joke related to names put on people, in which we were all labeled with amusingly derogatory middle aged based names, due to a DND plot line that Dean was driving at the time.
Here, let me link it for you: https://i.imgur.com/b04rw9E.png
I actually still have the code for this, I'd be happy to enable it for you so you can see.

It would not matter in the slightest if it "built up resentment"; by your own emails and ideology, you have dismissed the very notion of microaggressions.
This would certainly fall under that.
Can't have it both ways Toobs.

I cannot procure chat logs from 2016. Sorry. Even I can't step back in time that far.

And here lies the rub, 2B. Dag and Blu are already settled. We've already discussed the reasons for those, and Dag was even forthright enough to offer a sincere testimate that they will not do this again. I'm willing to accept Blu's statement as well. But without Enth's, exactly where does that leave us?

Dag and Blu both lashed out with the intention to harm. This is well known and understood, but I'll link the relevant screencaps as well. But neither of them took this data and released it publically until the beginning of 2018. Enth did so in 2017, well in advance of all this nastiness. Without knowing that "why", I can't answer your question.

We could speculate, but I've known Enth for years and they decided to publically start attacking me and plotting against me within two months of me being Alice.
Don't believe me? Here's logs: https://pastebin.com/ceavhvxW
What was the reason? Well, Enth and Chen both agreed: there wasn't one.
Here's Chen stating as such: ▒▒▒▒▒▒ [redacted at Chen's request]
And apologizing: ▒▒▒▒▒▒ [redacted at Chen's request]

Why would I need to put aside my bias or ego when we have hard evidence that this person has done similar things before for no reason? You say that friends don't turn on each other for no good reason, but I've got a laundry list of people who fully admit to doing so. Soki, Bernkastel, Enth, Chen, I could name as many people who have done it as you could name people who have decided to attack me. Far more than are on your list of people who have spoken out against me with remarkably similar arguments.

If you are unwilling to even question someone about their motives, yet willing to allow them to have power over others despite their noted history of harming others via doxxing, then that just sort of confirms what I've been saying about you and optics.

As for being unable to help Reaver, I disagree wholeheartedly: you can do something for them. You refuse to.
You refuse them even the courtesy of an apology for acting as if they did not exist or as if their fears are not reasonable.
Because you prattle on about accountability and responsibility while not being accountable or responsible.

When it's someone you don't know, who cares? Let's do anything we can to dismiss it or absolve responsibility!
But when it's someone you do know, you bend over backwards to justify them.
Is that not the definition of nepotism, and a clear violation of this accountability you speak of?

Let me ask you this Toobs: What if Enth did it for no reason at all? What if this was simply done out of malice with the intent to harm for no good reason? What if there is no justification? In six months, I've not seen one. Would you be so quick to defend them then? We've already seen it is possible. They admitted so themselves. So why do you act at all times like these basic facts are not true?

And if you don't believe they acted in malice, well, it's a bit telling that Dag and Blu sure act like they were malicious.
Or does "I want Alice to go down in flames" not seem malicious? https://i.imgur.com/tShV9Ww.png
How about "I'm gonna ruin that cunts life one day"? https://i.imgur.com/VkJQ9Aj.png

So that's Dag and Blu both fully admitting they didn't have any real reasons and acting maliciously. And even they weren't about to go actually releasing that information...which Enth did. Put aside your bias, put aside your ego, for the sake of growth, look at that and tell me, how much responsibility do I have if all of that is true?

Plus, we've got a pretty good explanation to back this up: Enth just plain didn't ever like me and was always looking for ways to harm me. This is backed by the pastebin between Chen and Enth and also this handy link: https://i.imgur.com/5n2OHHv.png

So I put it on you: given you already agreed Mako should have been banned, why would you posit any responsibility onto me for Enth's decision to attack? We've already been through the fact that I had absolutely no hand in doxxing Mako, so there's no justification there. Or do you just refuse to believe people you like can be petty and shitty? Sorry. That's well within their capabilities.

If this is good humor, I'd hate to see you at a party!
I do not believe you have the overt evil of Eva, nor the directly antagonism of Bernkastel. But I can say that Bernkastel, ironically, would have listened in much better humor. But none of that matters: the fact of the matter is that you have acted in bad faith much as they did. If you do not like that perception, work to change it. Or do you believe it only me who needs to change?

As for the threats, so you DID see it. Nice to know you somehow consider leaking family details and then directly threatening as...somehow not...threatening? Huh? There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room here, no interpretation you can hide behind. That's a direct threat on Reaver's family, which we had to take seriously and which had serious impact on his families life.

An open mind huh? I'll see it if you show it. Not a moment before.
And I ain't seein' it here.
Perhaps those who know you best are also the most biased?
Food for thought.

- Alice

P.S. I'll forward you the email. But let's just add right on top the very fact you acknowledge Daggy is releasing private details about Reaver's family while...refusing to acknowledge that is a threat? How about all the other times Kermit called you out on just utterly disregarding something he had already linked you as evidence? Sure doesn't look good from my side.

[begin transmission]

Alice2,

“Don’t want people to know you are trying to patch things up with me?” Honestly Alice2, of what utility would that serve?
That’s a long-standing behavioral pattern I’ve noticed with you; your quickness to ascribe treachery when you don’t understand or disagree with someone’s intentions.
It doesn’t bode well with the perception that you’re a self-aggrandizing victim or martyr. Let me put your conscience at ease.
I plan on publishing these emails (unless you’d rather not have me). I merely consolidated our first few exchanges into one post and will release the others on a nightly basis.

And I’ve long since redacted Reaver’s email. If you want to take issue with me on it, take issue with yourself first. How many times have you published it to random anons?
At least I know who visits my blog and no doxing attempts have been made. Besides, I anticipate Reaver to have some sense to expunge personal info. So let’s not get hung up on this non-issue.

Please be more precise with your language. Your question, as you posed it, has the implication that I believe what daggy, Yui, and Anya did was right. That isn’t my position.
A more appropriate question is something like this: “What did I do to precipitate these actions, according to those who did them?”
Dags is easy enough. His role in the doxing occurred while he was experiencing a psychotic break. Even Kermit agrees with this viewpoint, so we don’t have to elaborate too much, on first inspection.
However if there just had to be some kind of reason, at least even in partial, for his involvement in the doxing, you extorting money from him is a good start.

I know for a fact that you obtained $300 from him under duress during one particular incident. Around or on January 10. There’s a PayPal receipt for it.
It has recently come to my attention that you offered to pay him back this $300. He declined. Do the right thing and pay him back anyway, so that this does not become a problem in the future.
But there’s more to it. I have a separate PayPal receipt from daggy for an additional $368.53 on November 17. Comment on that for me.
Furthermore, a personal memo reveals that you owe daggy something to the tune of $872.71. That leaves $204.18 unaccounted for. Any ideas? He has PayPal receipts for these too.

If this was not a gift, not payment for a valid product or service rendered onto him, then I suggest you pay him back in full. Preferably without harassment. Just be done with it.

So, going back to your question, as it pertains to daggy, extorting money from him is partial reason enough to motivate him to partake in a doxing aimed towards you.
It isn’t the whole reason; the envy you mentioned is part of it, the frustration and guilt you placed on his shoulders is another. He’s told me himself. People can be motivated by a multitude of reasons.
That should be sufficient basis for you to answer my first question.
While you’re at it, you might want to revisit the conversations between you and daggy, with my second question in mind. You can still answer that one for me, can’t you?

Now, let’s talk Yui. Her motivation for her participation in the doxing is likely multi-faceted as well. She claims that you mistreated her, ridiculed her, etc.
A lot of it seems petty, right? I certainly think some of it is. But to dismiss it would be a mistake, as it’s not implausible that there could be a cumulative effect that would build resentment over time.
Something to keep in mind, in our analysis. But I’m not going to ask you to procure Yui’s entire chat history at aneki. We don’t have the time for that.
Instead, let’s focus on one incident which, I think you can acquire the chat logs.

Namely, the incident Kermit mentioned (reference post ID: 20180403). The one in which you presented Yui with a research paper: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that in and of itself. In fact, I think it’s admirable that you keep up-to-date with the literature and share it with your friends.
You know just as well as I do that someone’s trans status is no trivial matter. It might even be the focal point of their lives;  it certainly isn’t something to be so cavalier with.
That is, I’m operating under the assumption that we’re both sufficiently empathic enough to understand their life circumstances, and have sufficient, sincere concern in trying to help those in our chats.

If you’d so kindly, please procure the chat log of that conversation between you and Yui for our discussion.

As for Anya, I’m willing to concede that one to you. I don’t know what are the exact reasons behind why she participated in this doxing and I’m not willing to approach her about it.
But here I have before me the other side of the interaction. Alice2. Any idea why she lashed out against you like that? Do you sincerely think that you’re of zero fault here?
Not just the things that you might have done intentionally to harm someone. Perhaps there was something that had unintended consequences? We can hypothesize without knowing every single detail.
Put aside your bias, put aside your ego, for the sake of growth so that you might treat people better in the future. There must have been something; friends don’t turn on each other for no good reason.

I didn’t mean to insinuate that the two were mutually exclusive, that this entire thing is about disagreeing on fundamental matters or that this involves peoples lives.
It’s obvious that it involves both. Though, I’d argue there’s a disproportionate amount of consideration towards a subset of a few over others.
Reaver and his family? I cannot do anything for them. You, however, we can still work together to try to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again.
But to do that, we need to establish accountability, but that’s why we’re having this discussion. To sort it out, even if just a little.

If you’re willing to put me in the same league of Eva or Bern, then either they were much more decent than I had them pinned for, or you have me pinned entirely wrong.
I don’t think either one of them would have entertained yours or Kermit’s emails and demands as much as I have. Much less in good humor.

To address your final point, I just went through all my emails from January. I don’t see anything that indicates that daggy directly threatened Reaver’s family.
Closest I could find was a series of screenshots in which daggy was leaking information in a coded fashion, and a threat to you, directly.
If you still want to push the matter, please provide me with the screenshots in question and I can clarify for you.
The people that know me best know that I’m not particularly closed-minded. I hope you can come to see that.

-2B


P.S. If I wanted to talk to Nyan, I’d have emailed Nyan. You and I are the ones speaking. Please send me the list or I’ll have no choice but to dismiss it as a baseless accusation of inconsistency.

[end transmission]

Dear 2B,

You know, I opened up this email, and for a second, I was a bit surprised.
"Maybe there could be different ending here".  That first line really got to me, honest!

Then I realized you published these emails but cut out the end.
You included my best friends email in your blog dear, you probably should have figured I'd google it.
What's wrong Toobs, don't want people to know you are trying to patch things up with me?
Or that I might be confused by such a sentiment?

That's the 2B I know. I like how you dismissed that we're doing something meaningful too.
Yeah, uprooting someones life and planting them somewhere new while demanding answers sure isn't meaningful.
Pretty sure Reaver's reply to that is going to be "I'll show you my lease when you show me yours", but let's do move on.

I can't answer those questions until you answer mine: "What did I do to justify these actions, according to those who did them".
or more simply "What did Dag, Blu, Enth, and Mako decide I did that made this okay".

You said you'd speak with those involved and get me that answer....six months ago.
How exactly can I determine responsibility or accountability without knowing the full situation?
I'd say one has the right to face their accuser, but at this point, it's more like the right to know of what one is accused of in the first place!

So if I owe you an answer, you owe me one first.
I'll answer as soon as I've got that information. So. Probably never, given you aren't even willing to ask the question.
And genuinely, I'm not trying to stall or whatever. I can't answer the question of culpability, responsibility, or even precipitation really without that information.
How can I establish what even my POSITION in this situation is without knowing this information?

But hey. Let's look at the current evidence.
We have answers from Dag: he admitted fully to simply being envious and that I did nothing to even precipitate this reaction.
Blu as well admitted that their reasons were vacuous and that they fully knew well they could have been wrong, that their actions were petty.
Even Enth has admitted that they trusted someone they shouldn't have, that their actions were beyond the pale.
So that's 0/3 so far. Still, without knowing what inspired Enth to share the details with Rory, we're at an impasse.
Apparently Ori and Mako were also involved, so it'd be nice to hear from them as well.

A disagreement isn't a personal attack, and I've not construed it as such.
What we have isn't a disagreement. This situation is not merely a disagreement. It's peoples lives.
You might not believe that, but I ask you at least believe I believe that.

I also have no illusion that you are the "next" Bernkastel or Eva.
Right or wrong, you are already the person I've had to contend with.
If you think it incorrect....rewrite the ending.

P.S. Ask Nyan, we went all through it. But I'll just mention how you always seem to be incredulous about things we've already sent you proof of.

YET AGAIN PRESSED ENTER TOO SOON.

God DAMN it new gmail. 

My example was the proof that Dag had threatened Reaver's family, which we sent in an email to you in January and yet you claimed no knowledge of any such information later on around May or June. It's very disingenuous to be told you don't know of any such attack after being given meticulous screenshots and evidence. Kinda makes you look like someone who ain't got an open mind.

- Alice

[begin transmission]

Alice2,

Is a girl not allowed to have a change of heart? True, before all this I didn’t want anything to do with you. But our spirited discussion changed that.

My original demand, that you leave the doxing incident itself in the past (mostly because nothing formal or meaningful is being pursued on yours or Reaver’s part) still remains.

I’m simply not interested in talking about that with you. I am, however, interested in your take on what you should be held accountable for in the incident.

You owe me an answer to two little questions I posed to you, during our exchange.

1. In your estimation, what amount of responsibility do you bear in this doxing incident?
2. Given how you often deal with vulnerable populations, what do you consider to be responsible, appropriate behavior

I’m still very interested in your thoughts on the matter. Genuinely; please don’t interpret this as some sort of attack on your character, but sincere questions.

I want an honest discussion, between just the two of us if possible. I won’t publish any of it either, if that is what you wish.

If you won’t decide the call, then I will. Let’s continue our conversation; I’m taking you up on your proclamation of being an open book for anyone to read.

And maybe, if you pay attention close enough, you’ll come to the realization that I have been open with you all this time, but you’ve been interpreting them as transgressions against you.

Here’s your chance, for us to have an actual conversation. For you to be ‘proven wrong’ when it comes to your impressions of me.

A disagreement with you isn’t a personal attack, Alice2. Whatever schema you have constructed in your mind, that I’m the next Eva or Bern or whatever to contend with…that’s incorrect.

So, how about it?

-2B

P.S. Thirty contradictions? Please forward to me the itemized list. I could use the constructive feedback, and I might be able to clarify any misunderstandings, if any.

[end transmission]

2B,

This is what you said you wanted. It's what Louise said you wanted. It's what Nyan said you wanted.
Now you don't want it? And here I thought I had heard it from the horses mouth, so to speak.

This isn't sudden; it's been a sentiment I've heard echoed since before last Christmas.
Yet until, well, this incident, I was working quite hard to see if this distance could be repaired.
So no, you were not alone in this sentiment; I thought I was.

As I said, I will always be available, if you initiate communication.
I have no problems with you beyond...what we've already discussed.
You quite clearly seem to have problems with me.
There are quite a few things you've said I could take offense to, and I'm quite sure you said them for that reason.

So perhaps you can see why I'd be perplexed; am I the frog and you the scorpion?
You may think me paranoid, or as you said that the well has been poisoned by the lines of Eva and Bernkastel, but that's not it.
Every actual conversation we've ever had, even back to when you were doxxed has had you acting like a total bitch who refuses to even acknowledge anything brought up to her. Kermit and I have counted no less than 30 times you've directly contradicted yourself.

As well, let me correct you: I did not drop this issue nor did I wish to. I was forced to.
Getting an apology from those involved is the bare minimum that should be done to resolve this situation.
There's no fucking way anyone can reasonably state that saying "I'm sorry" is too much of a burden.
That's something meaningful not done.

But both Reaver and I were willing to let this go last year, after Enth gave his details to Rory.
You may notice we did not demand any sort of apologies until Dag started spouting his damn family members names in chat.
That's what made Reaver lean on me to lean on you.
He no longer believes that it is possible to convince those who have wronged him to apologize. That all this is doing is harming me.
So he's taken me off the case.

I respect his wishes. But don't think for a second this is over.
It just won't involve me.
And will probably involve Initial D references.

Disillusioned is my word, Toobs. But no, I'm not disillusioned.
How could I be? You followed the game plan I predicted to a T.
If anything, I wish I had been wrong.
Still, I'm sure you've got some surprises left for before I go.

No problem on the spammers.
I anticipate you'll continue to be bombed.
Let me say upfront no, I am not spamming you (I'd be able to hit you every 3 seconds).
I've directed my attention in bots to providing an automated way to identify threads with people in need, and automated systems to help them.
If you see someone posting an OP that looks like mine but has pictures of Connor from Detroit Become Human, that's my beta.

Feel free to say hello.

Ah, gmail is the worst. I was still workshopping that email. 

Oh well. It's close enough. It's not as if putting hours into this is going to magically get my eloquence sufficiently high to convince you of anything.

Please read it in the tone of...someone miffed but calm. I think it should flow fine as long as you don't take it too much to heart.

Let's tl;dr it:

1. I thought not communicating with me was something you wanted. If it isn't, feel free. You set the rules.

2. I'm not wise, just listening to the person harmed. I was summoned to help and now dismissed.

3. You are predictable and power hungry but as long as you are helping people as well as satisfying your ego, I'm not disillusioned.

This isn't harsh, but blunt, you Nietzsche wannabe; read some Locke to balance yourself out, and help you not cross lines that shouldn't be crossed. 

Yeah, I took Philosophy 101 too. <4 (imagine this said semi jokingly, haha but 4reals tone it down)

4. You'll still get spammed and I won't deploy Misaka Worst for you but I'll still be working to get rid of the spammers and protect free speech on /b/.

So I may be helping you unintentionally, but I won't touch your threads.

5. I'm automating my deployment of force on /b/ to combat this threat and to assist in helping others.

Alright, that seems pretty good. 

Hopefully this comes across well and not as arrogant, condescending, elitist, grand standing, or...I don't know. Unempathetic.

As I said in my first email, and I truly do mean this, anyone who tries to help people on /b/ is someone I support.

Even if you doxxed me yourself, I'd do that. Because that's what it means to be Alice.

So take all of this with a bit of salt. 

But I'll leave it to you where to draw the lines. I reject you saying "Your call".

I'm the one who is an open book for anyone to read, and you a closed one with a lock.

Can't expect me to know where to draw the line if only you know what is going on in your head.

But as Louise said, the chances of you opening up to me are very close to zero.

So be explicit in what you want. I can't divine it from you when we haven't once had an actual conversation.

Even my empathy isn't that good.

With love,

Alice

[begin transmission]

Alice2,

Oh? What’s with this sudden goodbye? There’s no need to completely halt communication.
Prior to this discussion about the doxing incident, I thought we were getting along well enough. Am I alone in this sentiment?
I think you made a wise decision in dropping the issue. And no, I’m not just saying that because it was my primary recommendation.
I genuinely think It is for the best, for everyone involved. Everything meaningful that could be done, has been done. Damage has been sustained by both camps; it’s time to tend to the wounds.

You certainly got that right; we disagree fundamentally on a number of things, but disagreement is no good reason why we couldn’t continue to treat each other amicably.
Unless you’re sufficiently disillusioned with me, then I’d understand and we could maintain our distance. Your call, Alice2.
Even if we are to never contact each other again, I want you to know that I learned a great deal from our interaction. You have my thanks.
I only hope that you were able to extract something valuable from our exchanges as well. Else half of this enterprise was done in vain, I’m afraid.

Anyway…thank you very much for passing on this information regarding the spammers to me.
And thank you for giving me a heads-up, regarding Reaver’s response to my email.
Strongly worded you say? Not unexpected. I’ll hear him out, regardless.
I’ll be waiting patiently.

Take care,


-2B

[end transmission]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Rules do not exist to bind you, they exist so you may know your freedoms.

[begin transmission]

What is this?
Honestly, what am I even doing here?

9,900 km from your everyday life.
You've come all this way with no clear objectives in mind.
This is no point of origin. Nor are there any ties that bind; those have long since decayed.
And yet, you thought it was appropriate to come all this way, shirking duties on the home front.

For what? To be stricken with your typical melancholy and moodiness?
No, no, no. No. Don't start with that kind of talk. You know damn well what you came here for.
Articulate it, get those thoughts out as best as you possibly can. Write it out.
Worry about clarity later; get those fingers moving; off-load mental content into the environment.

There is sentimental value attached to this place, that keeps you coming back, reliably.
True, you don't have any business to tend to here. But no one said this was a business trip.
No friends nor family to visit either; that rules out traveling for leisure.
The roads are as engraved into your psyche as they are well-traveled; this isn't a tourist vacation.

Yet there is a good, compelling reason for why you are here. Else you wouldn't have made the trip.
What is it?

There is something so incredibly enduring about this place.
The sense of kinship I have to the locale, despite nothing being here for me.
Upon initial inspection it's certainly something to do with memory.
That's to be expected though. You spent the majority of your life here.

You visited the schoolyards, storefronts, backroads, cafes, cathedrals, and plazas of your adolescence.
The ones that still remain, anyway. Time's arrow neither stands still nor reverses.
Odd reference to have dance into mind, but the wisdom behind the phrase rings true.
The mausoleums, cemeteries, and gravestones visited stand in testament to that knowledge.

This is something more than mere nostalgia at play, however.
Were it so simple. Then, at the very least, the feeling could be relatively satiated
This is something else, something a little less easy to describe exactly.
My best approximation is...gratitude.

I made this journey out of a sense of gratitude. Okay, gratitude for what and to whom?
Immediately obvious are my recent achievements, which I attribute to my parents.
Not because they did it for me, of course, but because they made the possibility, possible.
Without them, I'd literally not be the person I am, today. Probably much worse. Or dead.

To them, I owe my life and all of my accomplishments. Despite everything that has happened.
All the bitterness and resentment that shouldn't exist between mother and child.
All of the regrettable, hurtful exchanges and painful rejection and denouncement.
I still love them dearly. That will never, ever change. No matter how much I might think otherwise.

But even then, that doesn't quite add up. Your parents are not here.
That gratitude is somehow inextricably tied to the very land you sit upon.
It's baked into the bleached, powdery, white sand under the impromptu picnic you've prepared.
To see how far you've made it, given the sub-optimal preconditions, graduating step-by-step...

...Stop. You need to work that thought out and develop it.
That was shameful, ▒▒▒▒▒▒. To try and brush it under the rug.
You're not being very honest. You're hiding something you don't want to admit to.
Confront that thought, ugly and wretched as it's implications might be.

You really are a silly little doll, aren't you?
So eager for strife that you'd recruit yourself as an enemy saboteur of the worst kind.
There is something that is violating your conscience and it is your duty to bring it to focus.
Then, perhaps some utility from this little escape of yours could be derived after all.

[end transmission]