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.