This comment is probably a bit unexpected but I felt like like I would add my comment here too.
I've been doing my research on this and I am curious, has there been any strong evidence that any of the allegations were true? I hear multiple people accused but I don't think that's proof. I significantly just can't find any strong evidence of any of the allegations within such document being confirmed. If one document of multiple people making claims and/or having a group of people making claims, is considered enough, then I'm disturbed...
Another thing I want to mention is that there were about two of the allegations in here that didn't seem to be predatory maybe?
In the first one involving anonymous Bee, Lucky was meeting up with a minor, but the document said Lucky didn't know the age but then proceeded to argue that the person should of known better. While it's true that certain things should be known, I still can't really use this to accuse a person being a predator just because such person weren't careful enough while having an innocent mindset. There is a difference between someone meeting someone having faith that the person is an adult then leaving the moment they figured out that isn't the case, than someone that intends to meet a minor as a minor.
Finally, the other allegation I questioned and really worry about was that one k*nk (should I even censor this?) topic around minors. I looked at some of the comments, but I don't see it being overly detailed or even illegal? So many non-18 restricted TV shows (e.g. The Simpsons maybe), many YouTube videos, and many articles, has had this topic via opinion pieces, romance cartoon stories, comedy, and news, if I remembered correctly. I believe many of these creators intend to not have them be 18+ restricted so they knew minors might see it. Isn't such commentary (which looked like a general debate rant) Lucky supposedly made not much different? Should people have their careers ruined just for making such commentaries in such group? That part of the document is what got me most concerned.
If someone wants to try explaining if I'm missing something here or how this is different, please let me know.
Also less on the topic previously, there was recently a controversy involving some fursuiters purchasing items from DHC, though some furries have went so far as to harass furries publicly via Twitter. Some are standing up back about it, mentioning money rights.
This comment is probably a bit unexpected but I felt like like I would add my comment here too.
I've been doing my research on this and I am curious, has there been any strong evidence that any of the allegations were true? I hear multiple people accused but I don't think that's proof. I significantly just can't find any strong evidence of any of the allegations within such document being confirmed. If one document of multiple people making claims and/or having a group of people making claims, is considered enough, then I'm disturbed...
Another thing I want to mention is that there were about two of the allegations in here that didn't seem to be predatory maybe?
In the first one involving anonymous Bee, Lucky was meeting up with a minor, but the document said Lucky didn't know the age but then proceeded to argue that the person should of known better. While it's true that certain things should be known, I still can't really use this to accuse a person being a predator just because such person weren't careful enough while having an innocent mindset. There is a difference between someone meeting someone having faith that the person is an adult then leaving the moment they figured out that isn't the case, than someone that intends to meet a minor as a minor.
Finally, the other allegation I questioned and really worry about was that one k*nk (should I even censor this?) topic around minors. I looked at some of the comments, but I don't see it being overly detailed or even illegal? So many non-18 restricted TV shows (e.g. The Simpsons maybe), many YouTube videos, and many articles, has had this topic via opinion pieces, romance cartoon stories, comedy, and news, if I remembered correctly. I believe many of these creators intend to not have them be 18+ restricted so they knew minors might see it. Isn't such commentary (which looked like a general debate rant) Lucky supposedly made not much different? Should people have their careers ruined just for making such commentaries in such group? That part of the document is what got me most concerned.
If someone wants to try explaining if I'm missing something here or how this is different, please let me know.
Also less on the topic previously, there was recently a controversy involving some fursuiters purchasing items from DHC, though some furries have went so far as to harass furries publicly via Twitter. Some are standing up back about it, mentioning money rights.