1. As with any internet drama that has happened before, you have likely found yourself invested in this situation after watching a YouTube video, seeing a social media post, discussing the situation with a friend, or something similar. Needless to say, there is lots of room for drama to be created, rhetoric to be spun, truth to be warped, and rumors to be spread. When addressing this situation, one must keep this in mind and take everything with a grain of salt. The YouTubers who are covering this drama are, at least in part, doing it because they hope it will get them views and internet clout; the notable people (such as other Hermits) who are discussing this situation are also trying to protect their own reputations and lessen the damage they take due to this situation; and people who are spreading information about this are, at least in part, doing it because they have made up their minds about the situation and want others to feel the same way that they do, either trashing Iskall, supporting those who they see as victims, calling this whole situation "woke" or "cancel culture," or something similar. Please do not let the situation guide you to your biases, whether you're already biased against Iskall because of your past reactions to instances of SA or child abuse, which the coverage of this situation at least partially resemble, despite this situation being less grave; or whether you're biased against the victims because you see this as yet another example of "woke cancel culture" by crazy people (as previous commenter on another post EAGLER5 seems to view it).

2. Practically nobody is claiming that Iskall did anything good, because there is nothing that indicates that to be the case. However, there is nuance in how bad the actions are that Iskall did, and that is important to understand. The format of how this situation being covered is eerily similar to other more serious situations of child abuse, SA, large-scale scams, and other controversies. This is reflected in statements in victims' messages such as "My heart goes out to the other victims," "fans who are now grappling with the pain, betrayal, anger, and confusion that come with this revelation," "courage in sharing their stories first. Your bravery in speaking out has made it possible for me to finally do the same," "I am heartbroken by what has happened—not just to me, but to everyone else who trusted him," "To everyone who is feeling hurt or saddened by this, I want to remind you that brighter days are ahead. We don’t have to stay in the darkness forever," or other statements. To be clear, I am not saying that these statements are unjustified; there ought to be public support for those speaking out, and this promotes a positive environment for those who may have further information to share. However, I am saying that this wording, along with the way this is being covered on social media as a huge controversy, is very similar to situations that are more serious, and this likely affects people's subconscious thought processes regarding the situation. In other words, the fact that this situation is being talked about in that way is likely causing some people to view this as a much larger deal than a reasonable person would conclude it is, and we ought to not conflate this situation with other, more extreme situations.

3. Previous commenter BRIGHTSUNSHINE had a very valuable perspective on this particular issue. Iskall's position as a content creator undoubtedly affected the situation. Many of these people have been people who have supported Iskall for a long time, and continued to do so until very recently, such as fans, moderators, and more. Iskall very likely would not have had the same access to people that he did had he not had the online presence that he did. On top of this, Iskall's generally unreciprocated nature that has been reflected in statements by victims such as asking others to do things for him, thanking others for supporting him, replying very late to or ignoring people's messages, or otherwise treating others as 'less,' or other actions of the sort would likely have been treated very differently had he not had the online presence he did. For example, in the statement made by the paster for this thread along with the Google Doc by Kasszi, the victim believed that Iskall was interested in her romantically and both people had shared private and personal information with each other. If Iskall had not been famous online, his repeated periods of time leaving people without online communication or repeated examples of not replying to messages properly like would not have been tolerated, and Iskall may have taken advantage of this to lead these women on even more, allowing him to balance many such relationships at once. There seems to be an uneven power dynamic formed between Iskall and each of those who are alleging something against him now; it seems like his words, opinions, response times, etc. had more weight than the woman's during their conversations, and this is dangerous for any relationship, let alone ones that are online and that involve suggestive wording from someone like Iskall.

4. Iskall has been accused of cheating on the partner he supposedly lives with; leading various people on to make them believe he had romantic interest in them; making sexual, suggestive, or flirtacious comments that were potentially unwelcome; and more, but as all parties seem to be consenting adults, there is no ground based on the information currently present to argue that he broke a law, and thus it is unfair to call Iskall a criminal, abuser, etc., at least by their legal definitions. Because of this, the question of people wanting to associate with Iskall or not is completely separate from the legality of his actions, and better reflect people's desired perceptions by others and intuitions about his character rather than avoiding association with a criminal. I don't completely agree with the frame of reference used by previous commenter DEMIDEMIGOD, but I share the same curiosity and recognition of insufficient evidence.

5. Again, I will preface this by saying that the way Iskall dealt with each of the women who have come forward was ill-performed at best and malicious at worst. I do not contend that any of the actions done by Iskall are good or directly defensible. With this in mind, consider the following perspectives. It is entirely possible that Iskall felt some kind of gain from playing multiple women at the same time. It is entirely possible that Iskall wanted to get as much connection with women as he could by using his social standing. It is entirely possible that Iskall wanted to 'keep his options open' in the event that some of the women he was talking to didn't reflect the romantic interest he portrayed. However, it is also entirely possible that Iskall felt uncomfortable directly declaring romantic interest to the women in question. It is also entirely possible that Iskall didn't know how to express his romantic interest in any of the women in question, and this was his best, poorly orchestrated attempt. It is also entirely possible that the scope of his messages were taken out of context, and that they were not actually as suggestive as they may seem to us now based on context about things he had said previously or how he felt about his relationship with the people in question. I, for one, know a couple of people who have trouble expressing their feelings, either because they have some kind of anxiety and feel very nervous about directly declaring romantic interest out of fear of being rejected or publicly ridiculed. (Imagine if Iskall had declared to one of the initial women he had contacted in this manner that he was interested in them romantically and that he wanted to get to know them better, and then the person refused. It would make their relationship, which was probably also professional through moderation or Vault Hunters, a lot more complicated. It would put him at risk of being portrayed as a creep. It would leave him vulnerable expressing his true emotions to a potentially worldwide audience, if the woman decided to share the information with others.) I have friends who make bad jokes, including sexual ones, in an effort to be funny, or because they might not know how to express their emotions, but whose jokes aren't always received well and that often come across the wrong way. Now, there is no evidence to suggest that this is how Iskall felt, and it's very possible that the negative possibilities I mentioned of Iskall's intentions are actually true. However, I saw some glaring similarities in the messages sent by Iskall that have gone public and a friend who just doesn't know how to express themselves and gets uncomfortable with romantic interest. This is no defense of Iskall, but because there is not enough public evidence to claim Iskall was 100% in the wrong in his actions and intentions, it is worth at least considering this possibility that Iskall didn't know how to express his feelings or communicate romantic interest, which was the cause of him spiraling out to suggestively contacting multiple women and treating them this way. The actions that he is being accused of and their execution is undoubtedly bad, and I'm confident Iskall would feel the same way, assuming this evidence, as presented, is 100% accurate, but it would be unfair to exclude a more innocent or forgiving pathway for how Iskall came to do these bad things. Because I cannot prove Iskall completely at fault because we are discussing rhetoric and rumor, I might as well propose one similarity I saw with his messages that might explain it in a more innocent way. I don't completely agree with the frame of reference used by previous commenter DEMIDEMIGOD, but I share the same curiosity and recognition of insufficient evidence.