We wish to give our side of the story following a recent expose. It is in our opinion, a few serious concerns, which have been dealt with, aided by a great deal of embellished out of context quotes which escalate the situation further than was necessary. The following post contains a great deal of sensitive content about a number of different people, including themes of a sexual nature. It comes as no pleasure to write this post, but it is felt to be necessary. Read at your own risk.
Protecting the community within RPF is the top priority of HCOM, and this is a task which often comes with a number of challenges. The decisions made are not always ones which those on the other end agree with, but with that being said, HCOM discusses matters to the best of our ability with the information available. Recently we have seen this discontent play out following the removal of a number of members of staff who were deemed to be failing to uphold the morals of the Good Fight, and were instead bullying other members of staff and troops. They were removed from their positions, but not banned from the server. Following this, a friend left behind took it upon themself to act as a vigilante on the case. This now leads us to where we are currently: said individual attempting to blackmail RPF HCOM with out of context screenshots from a friend server. We would like to set the record straight.
Due to the number of people who we wish to help remain anonymous, we have a colour-coded key.
Accuser 1 – Orange
Accuser 2 – Brown
18 Year Old 1 – Yellow
18 Year Old 2 – Green
Server Member 1- Purple
Server Member 2 – Red
Server Owner – Pink
Friend servers are something which have been allowed in RPF for a long time. People are allowed to have their own spaces to hang out and chat and we don’t take any issue with this. We do however take issue when issues from these friend servers and any drama they may have are brought into RPF. This occasionally happens and are dealt with as needed. As part of this, someone with concerns may approach us with said concerns, and with the evidence provided a judgement will be made. In the case which has brought us here today, there are a few facts for everyone.
A friend server was opened wider than a handful of people on 29 April 2025.
Two individuals under the age of 18 were invited to the server. One would be kicked within a number of hours once their age was realised, the other was days away from turning 18. By admission of those that brought the concerns forward, the server was not NSFW at this point in time.
A concern was raised on 24/25 August 2025 (dependent on your timezone) about the content of this server being NSFW. The evidence provided showed a number of NSFW jokes but nothing beyond this. There were also allegations of people being pressured to doxx themselves to one another in the server, but the evidence provided didn’t imply any pressuring. There was no evidence of anyone saying they were uncomfortable with this or didn’t want to. In the days following this, a response was sent to the person stating this, but to please get in touch if they had any other concerns to raise.
A hidden channel was made in the server on 28 August 2025 as an NSFW allowed channel. The content of this channel was largely NSFW jokes of a sexual nature, and drug related discussions. Participants were told not to leak the channel or they would be kicked from the server.
On 10 September 2025 two individuals approached HCOM regarding the server and channels. A document was provided with evidence of what was happening in the server, as well as a definition stating that grooming can happen to someone over the age of 18. One of the individuals who came forward with the document was not in the server, and to the knowledge of HCOM never was. They were however the owner of the document, and by admission of the other accuser, had taken on “an editorial role, as well as being the main person gathering evidence”.
After receiving the document, HCOM started to look over the information provided. In the early hours of 14 September 2025 (EU time), an exported chat log of the private channel and server were also provided. These channels then also had to be considered by HCOM before a decision could be reached.
With the facts out of the way and a timeline delivered, here are the opinions which were formed, as well as the general investigation.
The tone of the document was extremely vengeful. It did not come across as someone wanting to do the right thing but rather someone seeking revenge. The evidence presented felt extremely cherry picked, and it was hard to form a clear neutral opinion as a result. Whilst reading, the document was set up in a way which felt like an individual who had spent too much time watching dramatised court cases had edited it, which also took away from the ability to look at the evidence due to the flamboyance of the context the document provided.
The evidence had also been shared to a wider group of document contributers who wished to remain anonymous. These individuals, to our knowledge, were not in the server or channel. Also to our knowledge, there were no attempts to protect the identity of the individuals being marked as victims by the accuser. This presents a question surrounding the intentions of the accusers – if protecting individuals who they deem to be vulnerable to this content is their top priority, then why haven’t they protected their identities? It was felt that it was extremely reckless of this individual to share private details of individuals with people uninvolved with the server, sharing identities and personal details. If the primary concern was the safety of young adults, it would serve to reason they would come directly to HCOM. Additionally, we discovered that the accusers released this document directly against the wishes of one of the alleged victims, who they claimed to be protecting. This shows an extreme disregard for the individuals safety and privacy, emphasising the fact that this concern was not brought to us in good faith, but instead following their own revenge agenda. From DMs between the two accusers that were shared to HCOM eventually, they seemed to instead relish in the drama of potentially getting people into trouble.
The accuser who was active in the server was heavily involved in a number of these NSFW conversations, and it was noted that whilst reading the chat logs, they were one of the more active people. They were more heavily involved than one of the people they took great issue with.
There was concern with some of the messages sent in the server, in particular to one individual. This individual was not staff within RPF, and never had been. They have been banned from the server following the discovery of what was said.
It was still felt that amongst consenting adults, sexual jokes outside of RPF were not an issue. That being said, there were still a few concerns which had to be addresed. To do so, two members of the server, who had been highlighted as problems by the document, were reached out to. The first was a member of the server, who had been accused of flirting with one of the 18 year olds when they themselves were a number of years older. The chat logs do show this, but the 18 year old was the primary instigator and the messages took on a joking tone rather than actively seeking a relationship. When speaking to the older individual, they assured us they had no idea that the person was as young as 18, and would not have engaged had they known – instead they were under the impression everyone was at least 20. Whilst this is still questionable, from our own checks we were unable to find anything to go against this statement. It also stands to reason that they trusted the owner of the server, and their friend, to have only invited people to the channel if they were older than 18. This was reckless of them, but ultimately responsibility fell on the server owner. There is no belief on our end that this individual acted with bad intentions, nor do we believe in any way that they are a groomer.
The second individual we reached out to was the owner of the server. When asked about the topic, they said that they would have not invited anyone under 19/20 to the channel. When it was pointed out that two 18 year olds had been placed in the channel, they stated that they were of the belief that they were older. When verifying ages, one message had been misread as the person said they would be 19 this year. The other’s age had been told to the owner of the server as being 19. It was it was irresponsible on them to not realise the mistake they had made and an acknowledgement was made by HCOM that 19 or even 20 is still questionable when considering the age ranges in this channel – with a number of individuals being in their late 20s. That being said, there was a failure of judgement with the owner of the server for potentially opening the door to more innapropriate relationships between 18/19 year olds with people almost a decade older. They have been removed from their RPF staff rank for this. There is no belief on our end that this individual acted with bad intentions, nor do we believe in anyway that they are a groomer.
Our final opinion on the case is that there was no grooming going on. Everyone was over the age of 18, and whilst some content was extremely sexually charged, from what we saw there were no attempts to start relationships with significant age gaps. Outside of the person who has since been banned, the largest concern on our end was a severe lack of judgement from the server owner which led HCOM to question if they were still suitable for a staff role, hence being removed from our staff team.
Any harrassment of anyone involved in this situation will be dealt with accordingly. If anyone has questions or concerns which they wish to raise following this, please get in touch with a member of the HCOM team via DMs, who will do their best to help.
