https://x.com/MICHAELBECKET3/status/1813258428392853935 heads up dudes also a groomer and abused his workers without pay this products stolen work
I already said that I do not argue against that. I also said that the one case – where the supposed victim (Kabier) actively said that it did not happen to her – do not prove a general general point. I just mentioned it in case the groomer point is based on that one accusation where it’s seemed to be wrong.
As said under under multiple comments you made to my comments:
I was limited to the evidence provided by Squat, and I never denied that. As someone who is not using most social media sites, my view is limited but I always argued based on what I had at hand. Thus, with evidence that proofs that JasonAfex and Kabier lied, I would have not argued the way I did.
And also again: The link - you provided dozens of times - leads to an empty page on X formerly Twitter, but I guess it was a temporary thing, because the link includes the word status.
Looking at KIRBY1998's account, he seemed to have created the account just for those 78 comments, of which 75 included that link to the now empty page on X formerly Twitter. The time of his seemingly first comment (2025-03-11 00:03:43 UTC) and the time he registered as a member (10 March 2025 @ 23:58 UTC) are just ~8 minutes apart.
I have reported all 78 comments in the hope that itch.io will take action, though they rarely do. From what I’ve seen, they only delete a comment here and there instead of properly addressing the issue. However, these comments clearly violate their first three community rules, so let’s see if they actually enforce their own policies.
I also can’t stand when people keep bringing up claims that were debunked years ago. There’s no reason to recycle old misinformation—it only happens because some people get butthurt and want to push their opinions onto others instead of accepting the facts.
I'm unsure if KIRBY1998's 78 comments actually go against the 2nd rule, as that is about 'polarizing views about groups'.
KIRBY1998 goes against single persons and almost exclusively against JasonAfex, claiming that the empty page on X formerly Twitter had proof.
But I agree about Rules 1 and 3 were broken. I quickly checked and saw, that KIRBY1998 took ~88 minutes for the comments, making it an average of ~0.887 comments per minute.
does this work? https://youtu.be/ILNQS_GVbOk?feature=shared
how about this one as well? https://youtu.be/yj7OMXGctEI?feature=shared
Both Video-links do work, and this is now a way longer comment than intended.
But (unless my skills with the English language are way worse than I thought) neither included a proof about the thing I argued about with squat. Though I do understand that my point was hard to understand, until I clarified it at the end of the discussion in in the thread under Spyro132’s comment (https://itch.io/post/12369552).
And yes, I did not miss the part about the animation with her and her boyfriend’s voices, but (if I understood it correctly) both said that she did the commissioning and provided the voice-recording. He should have declined but doesn’t have scruple to work with it, despicable and scummy behaviour but not working to declare him as a pedophile.
The second animation after the breakup is clearly more problematic but based on what was described and said by Lanza (who provided the only information regarding this specific point I found with google) they were still on opposite sides of the planet when that happened. Lanza further concluded, that JasonAfex has groomed her into his personal artist (what she denies), what remains despicable and scummy behaviour but is still not clear enough case to declare him as a pedophile, though it proved that he is more than happy to ignore limits set by morals and laws.
What all I found proved however is that JasonAfex and Kabier are shitty and racist people, that multiple times mentally abused and scammed others.
Something I never argued against.
Now to the standpoint I held during my argument with Squat: The proof provided did not support calling JasonAfex a pedophile, and I won’t change my opinion about this point, as it specifically is about the proof Squat had provided.
Further:
The information you provided and the information I found, still don’t help and leave a strange feeling when calling JasonAfex a pedophile. There are three reasons:
First: All I saw either mentioned, that Kabier already drew or consumed porn before she commissioned JasonAfex for the first time. In context to the other misdeeds that where listed and what Lanza concluded, JasonAfex seemed to have used her as a workforce, not to have sex with a minor. (Though as they created smut together, they probably also had sex between Kabier 16 and 18 Birthday, but I let it count that she was of age of consent in both their native countries, as he was 21 [what I deem barely adult] and not some old guy himself.)
Second: For what I found and understood, Kabier was the only case where JasonAfex acted on a minor. This makes calling him a pedophile a generalization, for something that seemingly originate in him simply being a terrible and ignorant being, willing to break laws to make more money.
Third: As I already wrote in the thread mentioned before in this comment: “[…] pedophiles (when appearing in the news) tend to have done things to multiple children and/or toddlers I deem unspeakable. Something way worse than all mentioned till now.” Though this works only with the first.
And yes, each of these points is not really a strong point, but this is where I stand, based on what I read and heard.
P.s. If seeing 21 as barely adult is strange, I just hold it with the multiple countries, that use 21 as the highest limit for age-restricted things. (As one smaller example: In my country, the driver license is in a probationary period for the first two years or if you’re under 21.)
[Edit:] The text was accidentally twice copied from the word-document I use to write.
KIRBY1998, let’s break this down carefully. I completely agree that unethical behavior—such as exploitation, racism, and the mistreatment of workers—is inexcusable and must be called out. However, it’s important to distinguish between well-documented abuses and serious criminal allegations like pedophilia. When you repeatedly post a link that now leads to an empty page on X (formerly Twitter), it does nothing but serve as a placeholder for an unverified claim. Serious allegations require clear, corroborated evidence, and simply recycling a non-functional link does not meet that standard.
1. The Standard for Evidence in Serious Allegations Pedophilia is a grave charge that carries significant consequences. For an accusation of this nature to be credible, there must be concrete, verifiable proof from multiple reputable sources. The evidence on record—as analyzed by community members like AbiOrionsson—is scrutinized carefully. His assessment, along with corroborated inputs from others, shows that while there are disturbing accounts of unethical behavior by JasonAfex, none of these accounts conclusively prove that he engaged in pedophilic conduct. In other words, even if there are plenty of reasons to criticize his conduct regarding exploitation or racist behavior, that does not automatically translate into criminal pedophilia.
2. Evaluating the Available Information AbiOrionsson has clearly stated that his arguments were based solely on the evidence available from sources like Squat, and he never claimed that the existing proof substantiated a pedophilia charge. Instead, his focus has been on highlighting problematic behavior—such as abuse of power, unpaid labor, and unethical practices—that deserves criticism on its own merits. When we look at the details:
3. Constructive Discourse vs. Repeating Unverified Claims Repeatedly sharing unverified links and making inflammatory statements does not advance the discussion; it only serves to polarize the debate further. A productive conversation requires that we ground our assertions in confirmed evidence. AbiOrionsson’s approach emphasizes the need for context and reliable sources. He acknowledges that while JasonAfex’s conduct is problematic and even reprehensible in many respects, the available evidence does not justify the extreme label you’re using. It’s crucial to separate documented unethical practices from unproven criminal behavior.
- The claim about JasonAfex “admitting” to grooming and abusing workers is derived from selective interpretations of out-of-context comments and media that have not withstood thorough fact-checking.
- There is a difference between exploitative or unethical behavior and the specific criteria required to label someone a pedophile. Claims of sexual abuse, especially involving minors, demand rigorous verification beyond mere hearsay or isolated social media posts.
4. Moving Forward with Factual Integrity In summary, while it’s vital to hold individuals accountable for any form of abuse or exploitation, we must also ensure that our language remains precise. Until concrete, credible evidence is presented, it’s misleading to conflate documented unethical practices with criminal pedophilia. Let’s focus on discussing the issues supported by verifiable facts rather than resorting to unsubstantiated claims and inflammatory rhetoric. The debate should be about addressing real, demonstrable misconduct and not about recycling debunked or unverified information.
I urge you to reconsider the evidence and to engage in a dialogue that prioritizes accuracy and fairness. If there is genuine proof of the claims you’re making, it should be presented transparently and subject to critical analysis—not simply shared via a non-functional link. Let’s commit to maintaining a discussion that is both respectful and anchored in verifiable facts.
Thank you for sharing (as the format seems to indicate this is a quote rather than a direct comment).
Thank you for holding up the common rules when making allegations in this and other comments.
And last, I would like to thank you on a personal level, because I never thought that I would be used as a positive example in a discussion. Especially here, as my earlier comments in the discussion (with Squat) were at least partially emotionally charged. (As one very clear piece of evidence, in the Edit part of my third comment to Squat I begun the second paragraph with: “Heavens above and hells bellow”)
The problem is not that you commented multiple times to one person, that can happen for various valid reasons, including not recognizing that two comments are from the same account.
The problem is that you posted 78 mostly similar comments with an average frequency of ~0.887 comments per minute, which is a form of spamming going against Community Rule 1.
And with that frequency, even a fact-based accusation falls under harassment, breaking Community Rule 3. (It probably also breaks Community Rule 3, that you called me trash for something I said in one thread, while you commented in another thread, where I thanked Squat for understanding my problem with being called “bro”, as it is connected to one of the reasons, that caused me to have suicide thoughts.)
p.s. the YouTube-links worked, I’m already writing a comment to that and will answer to the comment you used to provide the YouTube-links.
K cool glad to know i was not accidentally posting blanks
that might be but this guy has 20 years of illegal crimes and many of his supporters will excuse anything and claim that “theres no proof” so u can kinda see why were doing this
Also im currently in talks with itch.io right now about having this game be investigated to confirm if its 100% stolen which it most likely is due to the fact that they claimed to “throw away” and start fresh after their crew spent YEARS making this game only for kabs to singlehandedly to APPARENTLY do what the entire team did in only around a year by herself
the same kabs who can barely draw decent art now and has mostly been relying on AI art and using her diseased ridden body to sell on onlyfans and be in a stream a,most daily gaming apparently has the time to singlehandedly make an entire game herself in the span of a year
While your passion on these issues is clear, it’s important to address both your claims and the way they’re being presented. Let’s break this down:
1. The Issue of Repeated Posting (Spamming):
Repeatedly posting nearly identical comments—78 similar posts at an average frequency of ~0.887 comments per minute—is widely recognized as spamming. Spamming means flooding a discussion with duplicate or near-duplicate messages, which not only clutters the conversation but also disrupts constructive debate. This behavior is generally against community guidelines because it overwhelms the thread, making it harder for others to follow the discussion and evaluate any evidence you might be presenting.
2. The Need for Clear, Verified Evidence:
Serious allegations, such as claiming someone has “20 years of illegal crimes” or that a game is 100% stolen work, demand solid and verifiable evidence. Relying on repeated links—even if you assert there are multiple pieces of evidence, including lengthy audio recordings and video clips—is not sufficient if those sources aren’t independently verifiable or if the links provided don’t function as intended. If you truly have documented proof, it should be compiled and presented in a coherent, transparent manner, with clear context (dates, sources, and full transcripts where necessary) rather than through a series of rapid-fire posts.
3. Impact on the Debate:
When the same claims are repeated without additional context or new evidence in each post, it weakens the overall argument. Instead of fostering a nuanced discussion, repeated posts tend to shift the focus from the substance of your claims to the manner in which they are being made. This repetitive approach not only undermines the credibility of your evidence but also detracts from the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
4. Constructive Engagement vs. Emotional Rhetoric:
If the evidence you claim exists—such as the alleged “20 years of illegal crimes” or other misconduct—is as significant as you assert, presenting it once in a well-organized, fact-based report would be far more effective. Emotional and repetitive posts may generate noise, but they do little to convince others who are looking for clear, concise, and verifiable information.
5. Final Thoughts:
The purpose of community discussions is to work toward clarity and accountability by sharing credible, contextualized evidence. Spamming, as described by AbiOrionsson, is not just a minor infraction—it’s a behavior that hampers dialogue and runs counter to the community’s guidelines for respectful and constructive debate. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, consider consolidating your evidence into a structured argument that allows everyone to review and evaluate the facts on their own merits.
In short, while the issues you raise are serious and deserve attention, the method of repeatedly posting the same claims not only violates community rules but also detracts from the potential impact of your evidence. Let’s focus on fostering a transparent, evidence-based discussion rather than relying on repetitive, unverified assertions.