Z3R0

TL;DR Wil is basically a serial liar. "Some examples" Contradictory to claim Wil shows an image where Wil participates in unprofessionalism. This happens a lot in the document where images of unprofessionalism usually include context which proves Wil initiated or engaged. Generally employees do not address their seniors as ":3". If there are examples of Wil being inappropriate in the image's Wil uses to accuse Zeal of being inappropriate, imagine what Wil is doing when Zeal is not being "inappropriate". Its clear that either: Nothing here was inappropriate or Everybody was being inappropriate. Also calling someone "dumb" is not inappropriate. "Ren personally confirmed to me that she did not sign an NDA." Unverifiable Terms on an NDA usually include the existence of the NDA. Thus Wil's statement here has absolutely 0 standing. "Absence of vital evidence..." Factually incorrect This screenshot is cropped to leave out the preceding context, where it would reveal this is a conversation about foreplay and not consent. It is generally not appropriate to post someones foreplay guide on the internet. "The claim that he 'flirted with other women'" Contradictory to claim Wil posted an image engaging and participating in these conversations (2nd picture of the Introduction) "Zeal began to send me pictures and titling them 'us at RTC'" Factually incorrect Attached image does not show Zeal titling the image has 'us at RTC' in any way. This one is just a straight up lie. It does show Wil sending images of his cat titled "my evil son" which in part disproves both that this was ever a professional relationship or that this wasn't centred around animals. "I know Zeal saw what I said" Unverifiable/Likely Contradictory to Claim Zeal's part is deliberately cropped out or did not fit in the image. If it did not fit in the image, then its likely that Zeal could not have seen it. "...Trying to keep the conversation relatively work related" Factually incorrect Further search shows the emoji Wil posted was a 'bleh cat' (cats known for looking silly) which was completely irrelevant. Zeal's messages were about dumb cats, after Wil initiated the silly cat emoji in the conversation. "Again in response to a video I sent him" Contradictory to claim This implies that Wil believes that sending that video was even remotely professional. It was not. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a professional response to an unprofessional video. This is another example of Wil initiating "inappropriate conduct". "He would randomly say things..." Contradictory to claim Image shows Wil using the work "FUCK" in a setting Wil is trying to pass off as professional. "Another instance" Contradictory to claim Remember when Wil said [Trying to keep the conversation relatively work related]? This image shows Wil actively engaging with the unprofessional behaviour. "The most recent instance" Contradictory to claim Initiated by Wil with an unprofessional ":3". Upon further research, ":3" is usuually a sign of endearment or edaters and furries. "General proof" Unverifiable Wil deliberately chooses not to show any context around any of the messages. And onge again, calling someone dumb is not inappropriate. "Into public voice calls"/"Like he saw me as a plaything" No provided evidence (Audio/Video) "I was afraid to confront Zeal" Factually Incorrect/Contradictory to Claim Several instances show Wil initiating the 'uncomfortable' conversations. "Friends I have had...left me/"People that know me in real life..."/Recontacted" No provided evidence (Image) "...What occurred was nonconsensual"/"He still hurt her" No provided evidence/Third party claim/Unverifiable Unless Wil intends to testify to being present during the alleged assault (which would make Wil an accomplice), this statement should generally be ignored for being a third-party claim. "Snapped at and/or screamed at me in calls" No provided evidence (Audio/Video) "I am not affiliated with Zeal" Factually incorrect Wil has just published a whole document proving his affiliation. "This screenshot occurred after..." Contradictory to claim No inappropriate conduct is shown. "brief debacle over Wenda's version of HQ" Contradictory to claim No inappropriate conduct is shown. As the lead writer, Zeal has ultimate authority over the narrative. "You may not fully believe Ren" Contradictory to claim Existing evidence (Check Himpleton's channel) shows Ren willing lied about the majority of the situation, going as far as to include outright contradictions in the first page of image evidence (This contradiction has since been removed but can be seen in the archived copy). "I have been professionally diagnosed with PTSD" No provided evidence (Signed and verifiable assessment). Wil also follows up by saying that the residence is abusive, which suggests the PTSD had absolutely nothing to do with Zeal or Ren. "Affiliation with Zerum" Out of scope "Deactivating and deleting evidence" Contradictory to claim/Third party claim/Unverifiable Whether Wil believes it or not, evidence was deleted. This section also includes unverifiable assessments of Ren's thoughts. "Conclusion" Mostly opinion

There’s so many people and it’s scary

Is there anyone who can confirm if the news that she is debuting as a virtual YouTuber is true? I saw it on YouTube, so I'm not entirely sure.