All right, then let's talk. On the 23rd
of September, 2025, the YouTuber I Love
Kim Possible a Lot, also known as KP,
real name Rachel, released a video that
was meant to be a response to an action
that she had taken earlier this year.
That action was making a video detailing
allegations towards someone named
Afficians Chris and those that hired
him, DA Games and Sabers Spark. In doing
so, she platformed heinous allegations
that turned out to be false without
really factchecking them. essentially
slandering an innocent man. When the
initial controversy died down, KP went
radio silent. She removed the video,
posts about the video, and locked down
her socials. 4 months later, and now
she's back with one of the most pathetic
responses that I have ever seen. Now,
not the worst. I want to be clear about
that. We have seen a lot of trash over
the past few years, but it is pathetic.
It's only 10 minutes long. actually
might be the best thing about it because
I can assume that if it was an hour long
it would say just as much nothing.
Plenty of people have already talked
about this video and will continue to do
so. Not because it's a legendary video,
but because KP has read the book How to
Make Friends and Influence People and
made it her life mission to do literally
the opposite of that. There are a lot of
reasons to hate Rachel's latest video,
but what truly makes the video so
insulting is that it makes it painfully
clear that she has learned nothing, less
than nothing. From the smallest of
issues to the largest of problems. One
of the problems with the original video
that KP made back in May was that it
contained badly censored, not safe for
work art straight from a Google document
about DA Games, and KP did not have a
forethought to censor it further. As a
result of the bad censorship job of the
document, the Google doc has since been
removed from Google entirely. KP flashes
up those exact same images in her latest
video. Still not doing any censorship
job of her own, despite the fact that as
it stands, it is a strike risk to her
own channel, let alone the other moral
issues involved. While you could excuse
this poor bit of editing as a cold bit
of carelessness, KP had had 4 months to
correct even the most basic of things,
which she failed to do. Even with the
most minimal editing of this latest
video, as a result, KP's Let's Talk
video is super easy to nitpick. She
claims that both I and Cartoon spoke to
her. Cartoon in the comments clarifies
that he never did. Meanwhile, she says
that she didn't speak to Sai when
according to Anthony, she absolutely
did. KP also leaves out Beckett as one
of the parties who did talk to her
despite her appearing in his video, so
it's not like that could be dismissed.
and people who did speak to me in person
painted our conversations in a different
light when presenting them to our own
respective audiences.
>> I don't like being lied about and I see
this video as lying about me and my
actions over this whole controversy. So,
the video that you're currently watching
exists as a chance to give a truth of
the matter or at least the best that I
can see the truth. I get brought up
several times in the coverage from
others chapter of KP's video. Of the
three text documents that she links, two
of them are mine. What did she say
again?
>> A lot of my intent with the video and
what I chose to platform in it was
assumed.
>> Dog, what are you talking about? Like
legit question. The highlighted mark on
the screen is me calling you out for
platforming Emily's allegation, which
that wasn't an assumption. That was
something you did. Nothing here is about
intent. She may be talking about others,
granted, but considering it's my text
that's on the screen when she's saying
it, it makes an insinuation. Look at the
statement here. She made allegations,
which may be true, look like a joke due
to a failure of due diligence, and
covered it with Seinfeld and Sonic
pissing on the moon. Which part of that
statement was an assumption? That you
made allegations? No, you did that. That
you made them look like a joke? No, you
also did that. I didn't say that was
your intention. I said that was the
effect. Was it that you failed to do
your due diligence? If you want to
dispute that, be my guest, but I don't
think you'll succeed. I know a good
swath of the things that you did behind
the scenes while all this was going on.
So, three out of the four text documents
here are from me, which I don't know is
a weird thing to not mention at all, but
I digress. The way she speaks makes it
seem like this is coming from a bunch of
different people. The bare basics of the
matter is that this text never says what
Rachel is saying. concerns to me that
are so much legitimate were and continue
to be brushed off as cloud chasing or
jealous women's scorn mentality.
>> I don't doubt the people have been
calling her those things, but I never
did. Lacy Bedhead and I have both been
very critical about KP, but never once
did we publicly say that she deserved
what Chris did, for example. And I want
to be clear and upfront, the story is
gross and it's a shameful thing that no
one should ever really be talking about,
>> presenting them to her own respective
audiences. Side note, you had four
months to make this video. You had
enough time for a second take. I've
recorded this script three times so far.
What's your excuse? But back on the main
track, I don't like this interpretation
of events. One of my goals in this video
was trying to be as charitable as
possible. I tried to give KP every mercy
that I could. Most of my talking about
her was simply describing the actions
that she took along the way. If the
actions look bad, it's because they're
bad. I do say that KP's message to Emily
was an out-and-out threat, which you
could argue is a statement towards
intention. And if KP wanted to dispute
that it wasn't a threat, she could have
at the very least brought up the threat,
but she doesn't even mention this
message in her own video. When Emily
played this for us in call, the first
time that we heard it, Emily kind of
broke down. Whether or not you believe
her tears is up to you, but the
importance of the matter is that KP
still seems to believe Emily, at least
publicly. KP still links to Emily's
response video and is still taking her
side over Sabers Spark. Also, there's
this message that was leaked out of KP's
own Discord server. I shouldn't have to
explain why this is a stupid message,
but I do. Rachel is asking for something
illegal for evidence. If this existed
and this was posted, it would be legally
revenge porn. If there was a video
recording of Saber and Emily
interacting, which there isn't, it would
not be legal to post on the consent of
both parties, and considering the
situation, you're never going to get
that. And this message here just shows
how entrenched she is in her own biases
that you can't see beyond. Not
mentioning the threat at all in Rachel's
response video is the most telling part
of the whole piece to me. Whoever you
believe, there is something that KP has
to apologize for directly. I don't
believe Emily. KP does though and she
sent this message to someone she
believes to be an assault victim. I
don't know if she apologized to Emily
privately, but I do know that she didn't
use her platform to quell the rumors
that her own actions may have caused.
KP's threat made people doubt Emily.
This threat helped people confirm that
it was Emily. As I said, I don't believe
Emily. In my view, the best case
scenario is that Emily has memory issues
that makes her side of the story very
untrustworthy. And at present, I do not
believe in the best case scenario here.
However, throughout this entire
endeavor, one thing that I was trying to
do was give people as much charity as
possible. I gave KP every mercy that I
possibly could, as her actions
systematically angered everyone on
multiple investigation teams. KP jumped
the gun and confronted Emily without
Lazy, despite, as I understand it, the
two of them having a plan of action. KP
accused Phineas of using her as some
kind of clout connection. And after he
left her mod staff due to the video that
she created, KP actively refused to have
him in any of our calls. And when Lazy
and I were questioning KP, she tried to
drag Lio Convoy into the call. I was far
more merciful than I could have been
considering what KP did and considering
what she is continuing to do. But if my
mercies aren't enough, Lazy Bed Head
conducted an interview with her that is
still up on her channel, letting KP's
own words speak for themselves. The date
is wrong, by the way, even in the
comment. I I don't know why. The video
was recorded in the middle of May, not
June as the comment seems to imply, or
July as the video itself says. Trust me,
I was in the investigation team. I know
when that happened.
>> This led to a good number of people
speaking down to me, harassing me, and
sending me death threats. I don't doubt
that you've been harassed, but putting
my video here as you say that is kind of
weird because I say like two dozen times
that I don't condone harassment to
anyone. Like I make a point of it
repeatedly. And even if you have a point
here, it makes it so much harder to take
that point seriously when you're
throwing up [\h__\h] like this. largely
based on the assumption that I was a
bitter, jealous, stupid woman targeting
an innocent, successful, intelligent man
for the sin of not dating me. To which
I'd like to respond by saying, Steven,
I'm just not that into you. This was the
line that caused me to make this video
that you're watching now. It is filth,
and it showcases the kind of worldview
that reveals the whole illusion for how
grotesque it really is. You accuse a man
of one of the worst crimes imaginable
due to an anonymous accusation that you
don't even look into. An accusation
against a man who appears to be
innocent. Then you get blowback for that
and your response is, "I'm just not that
into you." I think a low blow is
warranted. This sounds like an incel's
stereotype of a woman. KP seems to have
this weird belief that virtually any man
who has ever contacted her is interested
in some kind of romantic relationship to
the point where it is on the code of
conduct that you need to read to be on
her volunteer workforce. You can watch
Beckett's video if you want to know how
deep that rabbit hole goes. He's just as
pissed at this as I am that Lazy is. And
this is all ignoring the minor detail
that Saber Spark is getting married.
It's not all about you, Rachel. And if I
were you, I'd stop arguing about [\h__\h]
like this. Rachel doing things like
bringing up perfect victim mentality
when she's desperate to hold onto a
narrative is one of the biggest reasons
that people don't take advocates
seriously. It is an incredibly damaging
thing that Rachel is doing, bringing
this up again and again and again. And
if she has any respect for any victim
ever, she should stop bringing it up.
She's proven that she is not responsible
enough to talk about these subjects.
Steven, however, was given grace, room
to respond, and direct personal support
from the same people claiming to be an
objective voice of reason throughout the
situation.
>> I think that you got the wrong image
there, buddy. Cartoon made his video
like 2 days afterwards. Emily was still
anonymous and no one knew who she was at
the time. And as for me, like talk about
accountability. The biggest issue with
our investigation team is that we didn't
get in contact with Saber Spark or any
of his associates like ACE or Paleo
Steno. heard way more of Emily's side of
the story than Sabers of your side of
the story. It was Falgi and Beckett who
reached out to Saber Spark and it really
does say something that you can't
mention their names. Bonk for all of his
faults will at least mention cop and
seed.
>> Something I invite the audience to think
about is what accountability is what it
looks like and what it isn't. Someone
jumping to respond as soon as possible
or through as many avenues as possible
is not indictive of taking
accountability, especially if that
response is to victimize/murder yourself
in the face of accusations and
criticism. True accountability is
stating whether or not you did something
on its face, regardless of any
intentions or effect and without
excusing yourself or attacking the
accuser. Example, I made the original
video. It was bad and I understand that.
>> Why was the video bad, Rachel? It's a
simple question that supposedes a simple
answer. KP's Let's Talk video explains
that the tone was taken the wrong way,
but as I explained in my own video, the
tone in and of itself is not a problem.
You can make a video about a dark
subject matter with silly jokes or skits
and still take the subject matter
seriously. Becca drawing KP's avatar as
a McDonald's employee and himself as a
jester doesn't actually take away from
the clarity, intensity, or the emotion
of a piece. It also doesn't help that
KP's defense of the original tone does
not make sense. I'd like to firstly
apologize for anyone who was hurt by my
tone both throughout the video and on my
socials. My joking and memeing was
contained to my own experiences as I
deal with my own trauma that way.
>> This is a lie. Unless KP was the
17-year-old dating Jerry Seinfeld and
was the one who threw the shoe at George
W. Bush. I'll give KP a pass for Eggman
pissing on the moon because it is a joke
about her own experience. But once
again, it shows how little thought and
care that she put into her own response,
that she didn't at least decide to state
that she put in a Sonic meme and assault
allegations involving a Sonic YouTuber.
The video was not bad because of its
tone. It was bad because you were out of
your depth. You did not have the purest
of intentions. You refused to take
advice. You were secretive when you
shouldn't have been. You didn't format
the video correctly. You obsticated
things that should have been readily
apparent, like Chris's joke being
plainly stated that it was a joke and
not actually something that happened.
You had collaborators who were insane,
like Bonk or Courtney Pete. You had
digressions that had nothing to do with
anything. You stole content. You brought
people along to voice things without
giving them the full context of what
they were voicing. You didn't preview
your video to a large audience of both
trusted and expert associates. and you
tied two disperate subjects as to end
like you were trying to put a square
block in a round hole. That's just off
the top of my head the things that were
wrong with your video. Rachel, you
asking the audience to think about what
accountability is is quite frankly
offensive because at this stage in the
game, we know what accountability looks
like. Lacy Bedhead made a threehour long
video about her involvement in this
entire debacle. She took ownership of
where her mistakes were, but beyond
that, she gives a thorough breakdown to
the full context and order of events,
your involvement included. The video
also goes above and beyond the typical
response video fair, and it works well
as a standalone video that you can watch
and gain value from without having any
sort of reference or context the
controversy in question, which I believe
should be the gold standard.
>> Another thing I'd like to personally
address is Courtney Pete and her,
>> you cannot convince me that this video
was not recorded in one take. This isn't
a nitpick either. This is a legitimately
important thing to bring up because
several times throughout the recording
it sounds like she's laughing. I can't
say that she is. And even if she is, it
might be a nervous laugh, but I can't
blame anyone for coming to the
conclusion that she is not taking this
seriously. This video was in production
theoretically for 4 months. She should
not be flubbing over words. Say what you
want about my own audio, but this was
made in a weekend. No matter why the
video sounds like it does, it comes
across as disingenuous because of the
audio quality recording. And the words
she uses don't help either.
>> I've spoken to both Courtney and the
affected individual. Apologize on
Courtney's behalf. And going forward,
since she doesn't want to apologize
herself, I'm cutting public ties with
her.
>> What does that mean? Cutting public
ties. A lot of people have pointed this
out. This sounds like something a
politician would do where they have
public friends or public positions, but
in private they have a different range
of associates and stances. Although to
be fair, the goal of politics is to not
give that game away. So, I'll ask the
question bluntly so you can answer
bluntly in your next video. Are you
actually cutting ties with Courtney Pete
in private, too? or are you just
distancing her from your brand because
she's a brand risk because she's insane,
but you're still going to play with her
when the other kids are gone. I
obviously have plenty of my own words to
say about Courtney Pete since she
believes that everyone who defends
others of impropriety accusations are
doing it for nefarious reasons. And she
said she hoped that I got assaulted 13
Reasons Why style. But that's the
future. Courtney Pete is on chopping
block today. KP is
>> the same server also has a man accused
of arrested of child grooming.
>> My memory might be a little bit bonked
right now. It's been a while since I've
seen that original video. And the whole
thing was so incoherent it's hard to
know objectively. But that accusation
wasn't in the original video, was it?
So, as I see it, there are only real two
possibilities here. Either KP had this
little tidbit in her back pocket and she
didn't use it in her 2-hour video
because Sonic pissing on the moon was
much more important. or in the
background. KP has been looking for more
ammo for a rifle that already blew up in
her face and covered her in soot Tom and
Jerry style. Rachel, you have to drop
the DA game [\h__\h] You have to drop all
of this [\h__\h] You want to talk about
accountability? Let's talk about
accountability. The DA Games Google
document was removed from Google because
of the poorly censored pornography that
you have now used in YouTube videos
twice violating to the alleged DA
victims have run off the internet. And
whether or not DA has done anything
wrong at all, the story is untouchable
because of you. Because it's stuck to
your mess. It's stuck to you. You can
say anything you want about DA games.
You can throw any accusation you got.
You can research them for 20 [\h__\h]
years. It doesn't matter. No matter what
ammo you have, no one will believe it
because your touch is as toxic as
uranium. And even if that wasn't a
factor, you're just incompetent. Can you
not put the snark tags that you believe
got you into trouble in the first place
over the evidence? The one thing that
you apologize for, the single solitary
thing, the tone. This screenshot here
shows that you have not learned. You're
still using quirky internet funny man
shtick and putting it in the way of the
evidence that you're trying to present.
>> I myself had reached out to him directly
and through at least two different
people to look into the issue and do
something about it. Despite my repeated
efforts to bring this issue to his
attention, Steven never spoke to me or
commented on the issue.
>> This was from your original [\h__\h]
video. Also, it seems the two of you had
an email exchange. The whole Sonic
pissing on the moonshit was you
commenting on Saber Spark commenting on
the issue. Just because you didn't like
how he commented on it doesn't mean that
he didn't comment on the issue.
>> Meanwhile, he was supposedly talking to
someone else about the same issue with
third party.
>> I suppose this is another small nitpick.
But besides being recorded in one take,
the editing on this minimalistic video
that took 4 months to make is abysmal.
This screenshot here, this is not how we
present evidence in a video like this.
Who is speaking to who? where about
what? I'm not taking your word for it.
You are a liar. This could be anyone
talking about anyone. User blob here
could be talking about Chris Pratt for
all your credibility is worth. There is
a reason that Beckett's video on this
10-minute video was half an hour long.
And who knows how long this video is
going to be. Lacy's stream is 3 hours.
And even then, I feel like we're all
just scratching the surface on how bad
this video is. His own admission of
trying to force a woman to take a
pregnancy test against her will is not
seen as a violation of consent.
>> Yeah, Rachel, it's it's super violating
to beg, not force. Beg Emily for a
pregnancy test. It is manipulative for
any man to ask any woman to do anything.
This video is so awful. Who told you to
put it up? Was it Courtney? Was it Bonk?
Tell me it was Bonk, please. I've been
trying to stay composed, believe it or
not, but there is one moment in this
video that just kind of sent me over the
edge. And by one moment, I do mean one
moment because it literally is one
[\h__\h] word.
>> So, moving forward, how can we as the
online community do better?
>> We the [\h__\h] do you mean we? The royal we
online community, you're not in any
community that I'm in, Rachel. This
isn't a societal [\h__\h] up. This is a you
problem. You screwed up repeatedly and
other people had to clean up your
[\h__\h] mess. You are screwing up and
the only thing this video tells me is
that you will continue [\h__\h] up far
into the future. How can we as the
online community do better? Rachel, I'll
say it simply. You're alone. You are not
part of a community right now. Bronies
are dead. You tried predator hunting.
You fell in your face. And that's what
you're known for in the animation
community. We over here will figure out
X, Y, and Z without you. So, we can
actually get [\h__\h] done. You can just sit
in the corner and play with your pony
dolls and Disney plushes. And you can
stay there until you [\h__\h] grow up.
I'm done. I'm done with you. I'm done
with this. Almost. But, but that's next
video. Consider it its own weird little
degression. This entire month has felt
like the weirdest, worst, greatest hits
compilation of all time. I'll leave it
at this. It's not everything that Rachel
did along the way. We're all humans. We
all [\h__\h] up. It's a part of the game. It
happens to the best of us. It happens to
the worst of us. And it happens to
everyone in between. It's the fact that
Rachel has learned virtually nothing
along the way. I wish you good luck,
Rachel, because when all said and done,
that's really all you got left. Okay, so
just as I started recording this video,
it looked like KP gave us another
message via community post. Uh, if
you're wondering, no, I am not going to
make a video about that one, too. If
it's a train wreck, I'll do a stream,
but I'd rather dip out of the back and
forth because this could and will
literally go on forever. KP is trapped
in a very infamous trap. The one more
video will fix everything trap. And when
you're in that trap, you're boiled
potatoes. You're done. You're cooked.
Even ignoring that fact, no conversation
is worth having with a liar. And KP just
cannot stop lying. Despite her posts
brevity, it also makes new lies rise to
the surface. I was afraid a longer
one-part video wouldn't hold people's
attention. How did she come to that
conclusion? How would anyone come to
that conclusion? Ignoring the fact that
Lacy's video is 3 hours and very well
holds attention, the video that sparked
all of this off was over 2 hours. And if
nothing else, it managed to capture
attention. And if that's the lesson you
learned from that video, make the video
shorter. That is very, very sad. KP's
video on Lily Orchard was over an hour
long. Also, there's the minor fact that
this statement does not make sense. Has
anyone else in history in this much hot
water lost attention by addressing more
of their controversies? Sure, they could
dig their hole deeper, but lose
attention. That's a ridiculous
statement. I also love that this post
implies that making multiple parts was
always the intention when no, obviously
not. The only criticism here that she
gives herself is that she didn't say
everything perfectly. Yeah. And the
people who were nuked in Nagasaki had a
bit of a bad day. There is no reason to
interact with this person ever again
because a brick wall is more receptive.
Goodbye, Rachel. Good luck. Maybe you'll
figure it out one day.