This video discusses sensitive topics
including grooming, power dynamics, and
online harassment. Viewer discretion is
advised. 18 plus content warning. Do not
harass anyone discussed in this video.
Hi everyone, welcome to the video. For
those who don't know me, I'm the
YouTuber I love Kim Possible Lot, which
is a very long name, but I'm known as KP
on online spaces. I mostly do Disney and
cartoon media analysis, but we aren't
here for that today. Today we're here to
talk about another video I did recently
that didn't go over so well. The video
was intended to be a conversation about
problematic behaviors in online spaces,
community safety, especially concerning
children and my own experiences
regarding certain YouTubers and content
creators named in this video. However,
even the best of intentions could go
ary, and it's safe to say that mine
certainly did, causing unintended harm
and confusion in a situation where
clarity and resources are paramount. The
video in question went live on my
channel in May earlier this year, being
removed within hours of upload since I
understood the message did not come off
as what I intended. I haven't yet spoken
on the issue publicly, choosing to take
time and space to be able to address
legitimate concerns of the video with a
clear head and level emotions. For those
of you who still have no idea what I'm
talking about, earlier this year I
released a video about the online
actions of DA Games associates Chris
Deficionados and Will Ryan, another
YouTuber named Steven or Savior Spark
and the association between them that
creates a dangerous space for minors to
occupy. Included in the video was my own
testimony of interactions with Steven as
well as third party testimony of
additional interactions with Steven. The
third party testimony includes
accusations of essay from a person named
Emily, accusations I platformed on a
video that in hindsight wasn't suited
for testimony that heavy. Some other
notable issues that were pointed out
about my video was the tone. The general
consensus was that the tone throughout
the video was jokey and that I came
across as making light of some serious
accusations and conversations as well as
my social media postings leading up to
the release of the video. My postings
came across as bragging, clout chasing,
and once again that I was making light
of a serious situation. 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. I make dark jokes and make
light of my own situations, something I
didn't realize was not universal and
might come off as if the tone pertained
to anyone's experiences that weren't my
own. And I do want people to understand
that it was directed at my own
experiences, but I'm sorry that it
didn't translate properly. Another thing
I'd like to personally address is
Courtney Pete and her treatment of
another CSA survivor in the live chat of
the video premiere. I have 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. While I
can't control the actions of another
grown individual, I can control how and
if she's associated with my work and
channel. Now, I'd like to take some time
to go over my original intentions of the
video. The conversation I wanted to
start in the message that fell short.
Steven or Sabers Spark employs an editor
by the name of Chris, who owns a Discord
server. Chris is also employed by Will,
who owns the D8 Games Discord server.
There are a lot of names to keep track
of. I know Will has a pass of posting
pornographic, racist, incestuous, and
anti-semitic content in both his and
Chris's servers. his own server, the DA
game server, having children as young as
11, maybe younger, with access to these
posts. Not only do children as young as
11 have access to this content, but
there are also children as young as 12
given mod status. The same server also
has a man accused of and arrested of
child grooming. This is Will's own views
on how children should be interacted
with online, with some 12-year-olds are
more mature, but some 40-year-olds. I'd
like to point out that this is groomer
mentality. This is the same sort of
language used to make a child feel
special and grown up when receiving
inappropriate attention from grown
people online or off. Not to mention
that Discord's own terms of service
state that the users must be 13 to even
be on the platform. Terms Will and Chris
seem to be happy to help children break.
How and why does this pertain to Steven?
Well, frankly, I see an issue with the
content creator employing someone who
directly contributes to inappropriate
interactions with children online by
providing a space where it's normalized,
welcome, and defended. I see an even
bigger issue when that content creator
has a history of posturing himself
against child predators as being the
voice that calls them out, but is fine
to employ people who do this very thing
he himself has condemned in the past.
And it isn't as if Steven has no idea
that this was going on under his nose. 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. Meanwhile, he
was supposedly talking to someone else
about the same issue with third party.
Not to mention the fact that Chris
himself has admitted to and bragged
about a little sex crime that Steven
brushed off as a sex joke. It should
also be noted that in all of Steven's
responses to the allegations, he has
still not spoken on, condemned, or cut
ties with Chris, Will, or Dia Games. And
once again, for someone who not very
long ago had plenty to say on whether
Gabriel Brown was or wasn't a groomer,
that child predation online is terrible,
and he himself has been abused as a
child, it seems odd that he has nothing
to say about his own employees child
predation even to condemn it, let alone
him excusing masturbation onto a
stranger's clothes, a buyer hazard, and
sexual harassment as a joke. And now on
to Emily. In regards to Emily's
testimony and accusations against
Steven, she has released her own video
that will be linked in the comments. And
I encourage people to go watch and hear
her story from her own mouth. While I
don't regret believing someone, I do
understand that I wasn't the best
equipped to be the person breaking a
story like that to the public for the
first time. When it came to other
people's coverage of the situation,
whether or not they had spoken to me in
person, a lot of my intent with the
video and what I chose to platform in it
was assumed. Concerns to me that are so
much legitimate were and continue to be
brushed off as cloud chasing or jealous
women's scorn mentality. People who have
never spoken to me or heard my side of
anything spoke with absolute authority
on my intentions and desires. And people
who did speak to me in person painted
our conversations in a different light
when presenting them to her own
respective audiences. This led to a good
number of people speaking down to me,
harassing me, and sending me death
threats 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. The same brush was used
to paint over Emily's accusations and
intentions with even less people
speaking to Emily herself. More can be
learned about her experiences in the
video linked below. 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. When
given his own testimony on the
accusations leveled against him, his own
lapses in memory are not painted as
proof of malicious lie. His own
incorrect recollection of events, as
proved by the screenshots he himself
provided, are not painted as proof of a
malicious lie.
>> I mean, you say you pulled away from her
for the next few months, but I mean, cuz
I cuz I've seen your DMs with her. Um,
so you p if you pulled away from her, I
mean it wouldn't be for months. So it
would
>> not months I would say I'd say November.
No, I'm sorry. You're right. I'm I'm
getting my uh the increments wrong, but
it was I would say for the rest of
November.
>> 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, privacy, and bodily autonomy,
but instead as a horrible event he was
made a victim of by the girl he had
targeted. into the convention on a
Sunday. I remember going over to her
hotel being like I'm like we have to get
this test. Like I I I need to know the
answer before I head home just so I can
know what's going on. I got the
pregnancy test, came back, and I'm like,
"Please, can you take this?" And she
goes, "Okay." You know, cuz it was times
time's up. And she she's said, "Okay,
I'll do it." And she took it and it was
negative. And I remember after her after
afterwards, I was like almost dumbruck
with relief. At that point, I started
forming this opinion in my head where
I'm like, did she just baby scare me to
keep me in her life. That was the
emotion surging through my head along
with relief.
>> Admissions of being where he was accused
of being and when are not painted as
plausibility that what he is accused of
is true. Instead, it's painted as proof
that he's telling the truth and the
accused victim is lying for clout. For
objective coverage of what was supposed
to be a serious situation, there seems
to be a lot of sweeping for Steven.
standards that myself and Emily were and
continue to be held to are not standards
that he needs to meet. So, moving
forward, how can we as the online
community do better? What changes can we
make to improve child safety or our
fandom spaces? What kind of
conversations should we be having? How
about power dynamics and fandom spaces
and the people that abuse them? Creators
turning their fan bases into dating
pools? Grooming behaviors passed off as
normal internet interactions. These were
the kinds of conversations I was
intending to spark with my last video.
This was my intent. And with the end of
the video, I'd like to close off with a
note about accountability. Throughout
the whole ordeal, I have seen a lot of
people attributing my lack of response
to mean a lack of accountability. That I
was avoiding the controversy and that I
was trying to erase or ignore it.
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 indicative 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 jumping to dismiss
someone as cloud chasing and trying to
justify why what happened isn't the word
they are using is not accountability.
It's obuscation and defense. And you
didn't need to defend something that
didn't happen. Anyway, this was heavy.
I'd like to thank everyone who stuck it
out this far, as well as a special
thanks to my fans who allowed me the
space to respond before forming an
opinion about my intent. In the
meantime, I've tried to be positive and
I'm working on something that is not
YouTube adjacent. And maybe I can share
it with you someday. Maybe not. We'll
see. Anyway, this is my dog Toby. He's a
little man and he likes to wear outfits.
Decompress with him and thanks for
sticking around.