There were several people who had previously seen the content that was released on the Skaianet website the other day. I was one of them.

This content was written some years ago in a different context. I believe at the time that I’d read it, it was not intended for anything other than a kind of lore road map to inform unrelated future content. It was presented basically as is: a very rough, outline style document that was not meant to be viewed externally. There were obvious problems with the document, which I recognized at the time.

But my reactions to an incredibly rough outline intended only for internal planning purposes were probably imbued with less urgency than they would have been had I actually reviewed the content with the understanding it was to be published as is. And to speak very candidly, I think the frequency with which I tell Andrew that his ideas are stupid and terrible in a facetious manner may honestly have obfuscated the sincerity of my objections at that time. I could have and should have been more clear that I wasn’t joking.

I believe after that point the idea was dropped pretty quickly, and these documents were left to sit unreviewed for a long time. By the time the prospect of releasing the raw outline was raised years later, I had honestly forgotten most of the details of the story and exactly how bad the objectionable parts had been. That being said, I certainly remembered enough that I should have felt motivated to review the material again when I heard he was considering posting it. While I had no part in writing it, I was not proactive in stopping it, and in that I feel I hold a burden of negligence.

Not for nothing, I think the fact that this content had technically passed the eyes of several people whose opinions he has come to trust in matters like this was a significant factor in what made him feel like it would be received as humorous. It isn’t that none of us recognized that there were problems, but none of us at any point said to him in clear terms, “do not post this”, or “you have to take out X, Y, Z specific parts, and here is why, and we aren’t just making fun of you this time”.

While the responsibility for a person’s actions obviously ultimately rests with that person, I think in the course of demanding from our privileged friends deference to and trust in our judgment it also incurs upon us some degree of responsibility in ensuring that the judgment we are instructing them to follow is also sound and thoughtful. I don’t think that he received that in this. I discussed this with one of the other people who had seen it more recently, and they related to me that at the point they'd given Andrew their feedback, they had only skimmed the document without actually finishing it. I also think that my disengagement and disinterest in reviewing it again may as well have been tacit encouragement.

As this was a free, quasiofficial easter egg dispersed obscurely within the source code of a website, it was not subject to a full formal review process as would a collaborative work passing through the company itself for wide publication (and I’d like to clarify specifically that the Friendsim/Hiveswap team was not associated with this in any way). He sought review and input from several friends in an informal capacity over an extended period of time, and received potentially misleading feedback from multiple sources.

Due to the completely unbothered atmosphere from the people who were aware of its impending release, I do not think he imagined it would have the hurtful impact it did. I think this inaction is why he believed it would be OK. I truly do not believe Andrew had any malicious intent. In saying this I do not intend to excuse Andrew’s actions, or my inaction, but I hope this explanation can help fans understand how and why this happened.

I’d also like to make this clear that I’m not writing this because I’ve been asked to. I feel that in being negligent in this matter that I’ve failed him personally as a friend, and as someone who was in a position to easily prevent him from making an ass of himself. And more importantly I was also in a position to discourage this from being released at all, but I did not take the steps to actively involve myself in the review of this content such that I could have helped prevent the damage it caused to the people who had to read it.

This event has certainly reminded me of the responsibility I hold as someone associated with a property of this reach and impact, with a marginalized perspective that I have impressed upon its creator entitles me to a greater level of understanding and foresight with regards to matters that will impact the marginalized community than he has. He trusts us to tell him when he has made a mistake and we did not do that adequately. So I would like to apologize for my part in allowing this to happen, and assure you that going forward I will be appropriately vigilant to the extent of my power in ensuring that nothing like this will happen again.

Again, I must emphasize I am speaking only as an individual. What I am saying here is entirely independent from What Pumpkin and does not represent its position as a company entity.