Calling out the toxic playbook
So there is a Twitter thread from 2024 that perfectly captures how parts of the Voices of the Void fandom operate. I have been sitting on this for some time, but recent events made me realize it is worth bringing back into the light. No its not to rehash old drama, but to show a pattern that has not changed since the drama has first started in 2023.
Here is the thread so you can see for yourself LINK
They made a long thread trying to pick apart the document. That is fine in theory. If someone disagrees with the evidence, they should say so. But here is the thing. They did not actually show the document or any of the evidence inside it. They linked it, sure, but they never showed the actual proof and evidence from the document. Instead they just posted screenshots and quoted a few small pieces of text, the weakest points they could find, and then declared victory. No screenshots of my document's evidence. No context. No addressing the actual serious allegations like the groomer protection or the NSFW posted around minors. Just a performance for their followers to make it look like they had won an argument they never actually engaged with.
And when I tried to defend myself from the harassment in the thread, I was blocked. They blocked me so I could not reply. But the harassment did not stop. It continued in the replies and in other posts, and I had no way to respond because I was locked out of the conversation. They wanted the last word and they wanted their audience to keep attacking me without me being able to defend myself.
One of their arguments has stuck with me because it was so dishonest. They said something like, "yeah that is a lie but we do not have any evidence other than a stupid joke he made when he was sixteen." This was about the Angell dildo interaction. But here is the thing. If Angell was not meant to be a minor, why does she not know what a dildo is? Why does she think it is candy and lick it? That is the writing. That is the game itself. You do not need outside evidence. The game tells you she does not recognize a sex toy. That is the whole point. Calling it a joke from when he was sixteen does not change what the game actually contains.
Another part of their thread tried to claim some moral high ground by saying they had been mistreated by other community members too. They said something like, "based on how I have had other community members treat me, I cannot say I am too surprised, though they have a point with the no discussing nsfw stuff, no further comment." But here is what they left out. I was not the one who brought up Ariral smut. Someone else asked where it was on my iceberg post. I just asked what they meant. But the moderators attacked only me, not the person who asked the question. So pretending this was about me being inappropriate is just bullshit.
They also tried to dismiss the Erie criticism by claiming her content is only visible if you turn on The Funny Setting. That is not true. You can buy Erie items from the in game store without ever touching that setting. Her TV head, a neon sign of her in a bikini. These are all in the normal game. The statue is still there. The references are everywhere. The Funny Setting argument is just a convenient lie. I will admit I have not played any recent versions of VotV past 0.9, so maybe those items are now locked behind The Funny Setting in newer updates. But at the time of this thread (or after), that was not the case.
And then there was this gem. "No matter what is in the game that looks like it is for kids, that does not change the fact it is M rated with a warning you have to click confirm on every time you launch the game." Okay. If the game is so mature and adult, then why did MrDrNose lower the age restriction on his Discord server from sixteen plus to thirteen plus after the game became popular? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the game is only for adults while actively inviting children into a community space where MrDrNose was saying NSFW things in public channels.
Yes, the argument about memes being used to bait people for popularity sounds stupid. I will admit that. But it is also true. People, especially minors, who come across a video of Voices of the Void where Maxwell is just hanging out in the base are going to seek out that game and that community. That means more attention for Nose's game and more money for his Patreon. It is not complicated.
But the worst part of this whole situation, the part that really shows you exactly who these people are, came after the thread ended.
Someone who was on my side replied to the thread with calm and reasonable counter‑arguments. They pointed out that the game is stuffed with random assets that waste storage space and cause lag, comparing it to the same problem that plagues YandereDev's games. They argued that the game was not originally meant to be a sandbox and that MrDrNose should be focusing on the horror premise instead of gardening, easter eggs, and drug mechanics. And they pointed out that inserting a highly sexualized character like Erie is a waste of time and resources that does not belong in the game.
These were not aggressive or emotional posts. They were logical, specific, and directly relevant to the conversation. They were not attacking anyone. They were just defending the document's points with their own reasoning.
So how did the person who made the thread respond? They did not engage with a single one of the guy on my side's arguments. They did not try to refute the point about asset bloat or tonal inconsistency or wasted resources on fetish content. Instead, they made a public post about the user with their username unblurred for everyone to see.
Link
They took someone who politely disagreed with them, someone who offered actual counter‑arguments in good faith, and they threw that person to the wolves. They left the username visible so their followers knew exactly who to target.
And yes, I know what some of you are thinking. Is it hypocritical for me to call out someone for leaving a username unblurred while I am also not blurring the username of the person who made this thread? I have thought about that. I am not going to pretend there is no contradiction there.
But here is the difference. I am not leaving their username visible to send a mob after them. I am leaving it visible because I have linked the thread itself as evidence. You cannot verify that this actually happened unless you can see the thread for yourself. Blurring the name would be pointless when I have the link to the user's post right there. I need that link to show that the thread exists. Otherwise my post would become an unprovable accusation, and that is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do. I want people to go see the thread themselves so they know I am not twisting the story.
The person who made the thread did not have that justification. They were not linking evidence. They were not trying to prove something happened. They were taking a single person who disagreed with them, someone who had not harassed anyone, and putting that person's name in front of their followers with no other purpose than to invite an attack. That is the difference between documentation and incitement. If they did not like that the person was refuting their points, they could have just blocked them. But they did something more sinister. They made a whole fucking billboard out of this person for their followers to attack.
Now here is the funny thing. The person eventually made a reply in their thread telling people not to harass me. But look at the timing. Their thread where I was being dogpiled went up on November 13th at 2:56 AM. The post publicly naming Star‑Gazer, leaving their username unblurred for everyone to see, went up on November 13th at 10:41 PM. Then, nearly a full day after the original thread and hours after pointing the mob at a new target, they finally posted a reply telling people not to harass me. That reply went up on November 14th at 1:45 AM.
And that reply is buried deep in the comment sections, not a public post. They were not actually trying to speak out against the harassment. They were saying this to make it look like they were against it, even though they had already allowed me to be attacked and had deliberately targeted someone on my side. They posted that reply far later, long after both me and Star‑Gazer had been harassed and dogpiled. Which shows you the true color of this person trying to defend MrDrNose.
