User:PsychoNerd054/The Blind Observers and a Snoo

Back To Theories & Essays

Back to top

The Blind Observers and a Snoo

A Snoological essay written by the creator of the Suitress Policy

What we're TRULY up against on this wiki.

“	A large group of autistic Internet users heard that another autist, named Fiona, had allegedly brought the news that Chris Chan fucked his mom, but most of them weren't aware of her intentions or history, only made worse by the censoring on the CWCki. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know her by detective work, of which we are capable". So, they sought her out, and when they found her associates they questioned about it. The first person, who noted her autism, connections to Bella, and being "doxed" by GiBi, said, "This girl must be an innocent sperg being manipulated by a sociopath". For another one who noted the many warnings she received and her desire to fuck Chris, she seemed like a sperg with serious issues. As for another person, who noted her Reddit AMA that followed soon after, said, she's doing all of this shit for clout. The forum poster who noted her posts on the CWCki server said Fiona, "is a groomed victim". Another who viewed those same posts, the CWCki's policy, and the server's ban against discussing Bella, felt everyone else was full of shit. From then on, the speculation continued, and the flame wars grew higher...until everything suddenly died and Fiona was mostly forgotten about.	”
Loosely based on a famous Indian parable.

In this somewhat autistic essay which I titled The Blind Observers and a Snoo, or Blind Observers for short, my goal is to express my thoughts on the drama that surrounded Fiona, better known by some normies as "The Suitress", during the Incest fallout. Yes, that Fiona. The autistic chick that had an entirely genuine, unironic crush on Chris and wanted to fuck him at Everfree Northwest, but put him in jail instead. In this essay, I also wish to explain my thought process behind the creation and handling of the infamous Suitress Policy that was directed towards her on this wiki, as well as the steps I think we should take in order to mend the damage that it has caused.

Though my intent is partially to try to clear some things up as best I can, please bear in mind that I have never spoken to Fiona personally, like a lot of other people apparently did, and that everything I write here is purely based on what I've experienced personally or from what others have said about her. Considering this is all coming from my perspective, you should therefore expect a lot of what I write here to be colored by my personal biases to some extent. This also makes me one of the last people you should be asking with regards to what truly went on in Fiona's mind long ago to do the crazy things she did. However, as I will explain soon, I have a little something in common with her...so I might have some idea.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you reading this essay, and listening to and/or considering what I have to say regarding both her and the shitstorm that surrounded her.

Preface

“	When I said she was [both a victim and a malicious actor], I didn't really mean it super literally, just that there's an amount of nuance to her character that most people don't appreciate.	”
Anaxis on Fiona's nuance

Upon returning from a hiatus from the CWCki, one of the main objectives I had was to rectify the issues that came about from the infamous Suitress Policy, which was implemented on this very wiki during the Incest fallout, and was eventually resigned during the time I was gone. For the first few months since my return, I hesitated from editing Fiona's page due to feeling my biases would affect its accuracy. I then had a discussion with fellow editor Anaxis about Fiona in an attempt to rectify the problems caused by the Suitress Policy. I did this order to gain new perspective on her, dropping all other assumptions I had about her prior to returning from my hiatus.

This was so that I could re-do her page from scratch. However, from taking another look into the evidence that was available, I came to the assumption she might have been a bad actor to some extent, and based my interpretation of her off of that. After going at the page a second time, whilst trying to de-emphasize facts about her that were used as a basis for protecting her, Anaxis informed me that I might have been overcorrecting, going in the opposite extreme of what the Suitress policy entailed, and painting Fiona in a much worse light than she might have deserved.

From this, I've come to the realization that rewriting her page was not a task that I could do alone, as I was strictly writing about her from my perspective, one that was ultimately very disjointed and confused. What didn't help with this is that as Anaxis pointed out, Fiona's put on a different face around everyone she's interacted with, all on different websites and Discord servers. I then figured that the best way to handle Fiona as a whole would probably be for everyone to provide their own perspectives on her, that way we can write about Fiona as a complete entity, rather than just people's interpretations of her based solely on what specific facets they observed of her.

In short, the end goal of this essay is to at least encourage slightly more civil discussion of Fiona, a controversial figure who was a subject of volatile flame wars, only made worse in the fact that discussion of her in general was discouraged by me, the policy I created, and other people during the immediate aftermath of the leaks. From what recent research I did for the page as of writing this, I've also come to the conclusion that Fiona is very much someone worth talking about (strengths, flaws, disgusting kinks and all), despite all prior claims to the contrary. I also wish for other people who follow the wild ride that is Christory to appreciate Fiona's nuances the same way that I or Anaxis had, as I feel there is a lot one can learn from her role from Christory, as well as the drama that had ensued following that. This essay is how I feel I can share that appreciation effectively.

Considering all the weird twists and turns this whole saga took, and parts of this essay involve me venting out some frustrations about the events that transpired, expect the writing in this essay to be somewhat laid back in some instances and sentimental and/or tense in others.

My Inspiration

Special mention goes to Anaxis' own work, the Lainchu Manifesto, which I deem as a major inspiration for this piece in particular. In that work, Anaxis gives his own thoughts, feelings and experiences with the Watchmen, and I saw that as something to emulate when writing about my own thoughts and experiences with the drama surrounding Fiona, as well as my implementation of the Suitress Policy. Though I won't necessarily deviate from the "melodramatic" aspect of that work, my hope is that I make this essay at least little less lengthy and easier to grasp. A common (albeit understandable) complaint surrounding Anaxis' work is how inaccessible it is to casual readers of this site due to its length and reliance of purple prose, things I especially want to avoid considering the purpose of this essay.

To do this, instead of following his format exactly, where he documented the events chronologically, I decided to save all of the history specifically for when I talk about the Suitress Policy, where I think that stuff really matters. Everywhere else, I merely want to provide my thoughts on what went on, and how I think we should proceed from there. I also feel this better fits the overall purpose of the essay, where I am trying to enact change, rather than just provide a comprehensive history as Anaxis intended in his essay to clear up any rumors spread by the Mean Girls, which I regrettably took part in. In my case, I also intend to clear things up, specifically the confusion that came from the policy, but I see this only as a requirement for that positive change to happen.

Terminology

In the same way the made-up, amateurish study of Chris Chan is "Christory", I hereby name the study of Fiona, known by some as Snoo, as "Snoology". For the fact I'm writing this essay like it's some sort of scientific study, when I probably shouldn't, I also hereby declare myself a "Christorian" and a "Snoologist". Anyone that assists in documenting Snoo also qualifies as a "Snoologist". Naturally, with anything as maddingly autistic as creating a sort of "field of study" surrounding Fiona, I will also use specific terms to refer to certain things. This section will explain them.

How I'll be referring to Fiona

One thing that has been discussed on this site is Fiona's usage of many pseudonyms and screennames, somewhat akin to Thetan or Bella herself. Here, I will specify my personal preferences when talking about her.

My Personal Preference

For the sake of clarity and consistency, I will primarily be referring to Fiona as "Snoo", both in this essay and wherever else possible. When I started writing this essay, I initially wanted to refer to Snoo as both "Fiona" and "Snoo" interchangeably. However, I've felt that "Snoo" overall felt more authentic and closer to what Fiona used to be, from what I've gathered. This is also accounting for the fact that "Snoo" WAS her authentic, pre-existing online persona before the incest drama, and especially before the creation of the "Suitress" codename.

Also from what I've gathered of her, "Fiona" was only secondary to her in terms of names she used during her online presence, much like how Joshua Conner Moon is usually referred to as "Null" instead of just "Josh" or his full name. I am also of the opinion that Fiona has changed rather drastically in the four years since she left the Internet (I'll elaborate on that later), so I feel that "Snoo" better articulates the young, rowdy Fiona from the time. Therefore, I only see "Snoo" as the most accurate way to refer to her in this essay. This was also the reason I titled the essay as "and a Snoo", rather than something obvious like "and a Suitress". The person we are trying to understand here is Snoo from the CWCki Discord server, not Fiona as she is now, not "Fifi Vixenhart", and certainly not "The Suitress".

Referring to Snoo as "The Suitress"

Though I was the one that created the "Suitress" codename, and some still prefer to refer to Snoo by the alias out of "respect", I've decided for myself that will not be calling her by this alias, either in this essay or anywhere else, any longer. I've decided against calling her this for one simple reason: the name was solely my creation, and she never agreed to being called this. She didn't even ask to be anonymized or protected at the level she was like the Wallflower did, so creating the codename was entirely unnecessary no matter how one slices it. For that reason, I deem "the Suitress" to be an entirely artificial and inauthentic way to refer to Snoo.

I also deem the codename to be a misnomer, being nothing more than a gay-ass way to force a rhyme with the Wallflower and deeming Snoo as the "nega" version of her. As I will explain, I think Snoo was a lot more complex and multi-layered than anyone gave her credit for. There's more to her than just having a crush on Chris and, in my opinion, calling Snoo "the Suitress" would be no different from calling her "the Autist" on the basis of her autism or "the Kid" for her age when she interacted with Chris. Those are parts of who she was, but they don't at all represent her in her entirety.

From my experiences "The Suitress", as people who use the codename present her, feels more like the phony, much more idealized version of who Snoo was, rather than who she ACTUALLY was. Someone whose flaws are hidden behind a veil and treated more like some bland caricature than a complex human being, which to me provides a very inaccurate image of her, and those she got involved with. I also firmly believe that this interpretation of her, which people to this day still perpetuate, is much more demeaning than any amount of doxing directed towards her, as doing what the policy did essentially robbed her of her agency, individuality and voice. This is an image of her that I feel should be put to rest, and I also feel portraying her as one specific, simple thing goes against the philosophy being promoted in this essay.

For all of the reasons I've provided, I will only use "The Suitress" when referring to Snoo where appropriate, rarely. This will only be when I absolutely have to use it, such as when I talk about the policy or when I quote anyone that uses the codename. Despite my choices or preferences, I think it'd also be wrong to pretend this codename never existed, or try to stop people from using it, so this is my way of going about that. If we want to improve the perception of Snoo, however, I also feel we need to give up the idea that she's only just "the Suitress".

How I'll be referring to the Suitress Policy

Now that I've established how I'll be referring to Snoo, I will now also establish how I want to refer to the infamous Suitress Policy in this essay. For the sake of reflecting what the "policy" truly was, I've decided that I'm going to put any direct reference to it in scare quotes, like I do with the "Suitress" codename. This is because, in all honesty, the "policy" was more something people agreed upon, rolled with, or otherwise begrudgingly acknowledged the "existence" of, than something that was organically established on this wiki.

In my opinion, this fact was what made it so difficult to remove until Anaxis made his argument against it years later, when things were much slower, and everyone at the time seemed to unanimously agree that Snoo needed no protection. Putting a halt on the "policy" would have been like trying to stop a colony of ants from serving their queen (in this case Snoo), only the ants were clawing at each other over how the queen should be handled. Looking back on it now, there really was no "policy", given that there was absolutely no logistics behind it. The whole thing was really just a toxic, widespread version of groupthink.

Even when I wanted the "policy removed" myself, that is removing all of the censoring from the site at the time, due to the problems it was causing, I was letting my scattered thoughts towards Snoo and the general opinion of her (more on those in a bit) get the better of me, and worried about the potential pushback that'd occur if we removed everything all at once. That was how people like Hurtful Truth Level was able to lessen the harshness of the "policy", by only changing things gradually.

I therefore believe that if we want to remedy the issues that have been caused by the "policy", we have to acknowledge it for what it really was. Not as an actual "policy" firmly established on this wiki or anywhere else with a plan or logistics like the Wallflower Policy, but instead as a sort of malignant, groupthink-like mindset that we should actively seek out to avoid at all costs from this point forward. The "Suitress Policy" is only truly gone in name only, but its effects still linger as of now.

Suitressing

Mark Twain of Tom Sawyer fame has often been attributed for famously saying that history doesn't repeat itself, but rather it "rhymes". Whether or not he actually said that exactly or if he even said anything like that is debatable. Regardless, it's a powerful message all the same. The adage basically says that while history evolves, typical human tendencies remain. This couldn't be anymore true than with Chris who, as we elaborate on this wiki, makes the same mistakes over and over.

With this in mind, I feel there is a common fallacy amongst observers and Christorians, myself included. That being that because Chris makes the same mistakes, that has to mean that all aspects of Christory have to occur on loop in the exact same ways as they did in the Classic Era. This way of thinking is how I think things like the "Suitress Policy" happen in the first place. It involves taking something nuanced and complex and overly reducing it to something that people generally understand at a very basic level without considering how it differs from that thing.

Defining Suitressing

I feel how I decided to cover Snoo all those years ago stems from what I call "suitressing", a fairly common practice in the CWCSphere that had no name until now. This is the practice of oversimplifying someone or something from Christory into an archetype they don't necessarily fit into based on surface level similarities to something else, typically from the Classic Era of Christory. Think of it as a way people might force a "rhyme" in Christory for its novelty when one doesn't need to exist, rather than simply observing it and its differences when it actually does exist.

It also involves selectively choosing and presenting bits of information on someone to fit a person's idea of who they are, rather than presenting them in their entirety. As you can guess, I named this practice after Snoo herself, who I had given a Wallflower-like policy under the alias "The Suitress", though this was based on very surface level similarities between her and the Wallflower, such as her being a gal-pal of Chris and being a victim of trolling to some degree. Snoo was also a subject of trying to pinpoint what labels she fit exactly, with it being debated if she was a hapless victim or a ween. This mindset is essentially a version of the false equivalence fallacy.

Other Examples of Suitressing

Trying to pinpoint what parts of the Unholy Quintet a Christorical Figure fits under when not enough is known about them to give them such labels. Calling everything you don't like "weening". Calling people like the Idea Guys, Jacob Sockness, or Isabella Janke the "replacement Clyde" solely for how they affected Chris, or how they're regarded amongst observers, when there's little to no similarity between them and Clyde as individuals. Assuming Praetor was a group of Idea Guy-like trolls, like the Watchmen did, simply because they're a group that befriended Chris and did edgy shit. By that same token, assuming every new friend that Chris obtains is secretly some troll or ween. Calling Lainchu a "troll persona" on the basis of enabling Chris being involved, despite Chris creating the character himself, and asking for the Watchmen to roleplay as the character. Saying the drama surrounding Imposter Lainchu is just like that of Liquid Chris, like The WCT did, on the basis of it involving an "imposter". Assuming that Flutter is a figure similar to either Megan or Snoo herself, despite what little information there is on her, just because she's a gal-pal of Chris. Trying to draw "parallels" to Chris and Bella. I'm not kidding, people actually did this. By extension, the people in that thread tried to compare Chris's relations to Megan to those between Bella and Snoo due to the former being somewhat creepy with regards to the latter, despite both pairs having very different dynamics. Assuming that Snoo is a Chris-like figure on the basis of her autism and being a subject of trolling.

Anti-Suitressing

A variation of suitressing that I think is also important to consider is what I call "anti-suitressing". This is suitressing, only now you are declaring something or someone as the "nega" counterpart of something else out of superficial differences.

Examples of Anti-suitressing

Calling oneself the "good Idea Guys" because you enable Chris without the intent of harming him, as The WCT did after abandoning Imposter Lainchu. Deeming the Watchmen the "nega" counterpart of the Miscreants, solely because it was a clique of friends with seemingly opposite intentions. In actuality, the Watchmen seemingly had nuanced intentions, being somewhat trollish and protective to Chris simultaneously.

Why Create these Terms?

As I will explain later, I believe that the act of suitressing, or reducing anyone from Christory into an archetype, only clouds the truth. Therefore, the point of both of the term and its "anti" counterpart is to avoid falling into the fallacy that Christory strictly has to repeat itself on all fronts, as I did with Snoo.

Understanding the Elephant

As it has been pointed out, the "Suitress Policy" has made the overall picture of Snoo and her role with Chris incredibly hazy. To understand why that is, I think it's important to bring a useful Indian parable to the table, the one of a group of blind men and an elephant, which I will use to compare to the drama that surrounded Snoo. To me the parable, although imperfect, provides a pretty good idea of what's going on regarding the discourse surrounding Snoo. Hopefully by discussing it here, it will assist in documenting her on this wiki by better understanding what kind of steps we might have to take moving forward.

The Analogy

The Original Parable

The original parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant illustrates the consequences of having an incomplete knowledge of a complex subject, especially when each person who experiences it sees something different and is unwilling to give other viewpoints a chance, deeming their own observations and opinions as flawless. People sometimes use the parable to justify their own beliefs, basically saying that "all viewpoints are valid", but this is actually the exact opposite of what the parable says.

The tale is about a group of men, all of whom are blind and have no idea of what an elephant is. When an elephant comes to their village, they each try to learn about it by touching a different part of it, and each of them come to a different conclusion as to what an elephant is based on things they've previously experienced. For example, one man touches one of its legs and thinks an elephant is a pillar-like creature, another touches its ear and thinks its a winged creature that's shaped like a fan, and another touches one of its tusks and thinks the elephant is a spear-shaped creature. As to be expected, there would be disagreement between each of the men, and in some versions of the tale, there is. In other versions of the tale, however, the blind men either stop and talk about their perspectives, or someone that can see properly describes the entire elephant to the men from various perspectives.

The key point of the parable is that all of the men, regardless of the version of the tale, had both correct and incorrect views about the elephant to varying degrees. What they ultimately did wrong wasn't so much that they had the "wrong idea", it was that they didn't want to form a complete image of the elephant, they all found each of their findings to be the one true and honest ones, and they deemed all opposing accounts of the elephant to be completely worthless, regardless of how reflective they are to the truth.

Applying the Parable

Let's now take this parable to our main subject, Snoo. Like with the elephant, I don't think the issue is that anyone got the right or wrong idea about Snoo entirely. The real issue is that everyone that has observed Snoo from any perspective had both right and wrong ideas about her to varying degrees, but we don't know to what degree. The fact that there was some sort of buffer on Snoo, which included obfuscating her on this wiki and on Kiwi Farms to an extent, didn't help with this. This made it significantly more difficult to collect all we know about her to form a cohesive image of her. The "Suitress Policy", which included both the censorship and the sentiments surrounding Snoo, had essentially blinded everyone that tried to make sense of Snoo by preventing anyone from seeing the whole picture. Because of this, like the men from the parable who could only guess what an elephant was from what they've experienced personally, those that observed Snoo, either up close or from afar, could only guess who she was based on what they understand about Christory. The best they could do was suitress Snoo, reducing her to a familiar archetype based solely on what they've observed of her personally.

As predicted by some versions of the original parable, this would lead to disagreements about what Snoo could have been, especially given that sites like Kiwi Farms are all about gossiping and talking shit about others. Considering this, it's not surprising that anyone would have thought they had the one perfect understanding about Snoo, and deemed all other viewpoints as inferior or not worth considering. Some people even tried to claim that "both sides" were equally bad, but this presents a whole other issue that I will elaborate on later.

Essentially, the analogy can be broken down like this:

The Elephant - Snoo The Blind Men - Those that tried to observe Snoo The Blindness - The "Suitress Policy" The Assertions - The act of suitressing

Variations of the Parable

Similar to a lot of other stories, the one of the Blind Men and the Elephant works best as a tool for certain scenarios. Like with all tools, the parable also has its own set of limitations, which I think should be considered when understanding Snoo since the observation of her might involve factors not described in some variations. Our understanding of her also shouldn't have to be restricted to just the parable itself, and I think other models should also be considered. Again, like with all other people, it'd be entirely misleading to portray Snoo solely as one simple, easy to understand thing.

Corroboration

Some versions of the parable have the men stopping what they're doing, and corroborating with each other on their findings.

The Sighted Man

Some versions of the parable implement another observer of the elephant, though this one can see the elephant in its entirety.

My Thoughts on Snoo Herself

In order to discuss the "Suitress policy", and some of the steps I am currently taking on this wiki in order to alleviate the problems caused by it at the time of writing, I feel it is necessary for me to express what I think Snoo was like, or my interpretation of what the metaphorical elephant is. Bear in mind that I have never spoken to Snoo personally, and my overall opinion on her is based on what others have said about her during a rather chaotic time, so my idea of what she was like could very well be completely off. I also attribute this as a major reason for why people have gotten such a warped view of Snoo in the first place. I was trying to describe something I had no idea about, whilst mostly keeping up the image of Snoo that people wanted to see. Because of this, I feel it's also necessary to explain how I feel other people think about her, as I do feel that has influenced some of my decisions.

How Others Describe Snoo

“	I kinda scroll through here at times and it seems like y'all are still interested in talking about me, whether it be mean spirited or not. It seems like a month after I left this server you guys seemed to really miss me.	”
Snoo herself under an alt account on the general opinion of her on the CWCki Discord server following her ban.

Perfectly illustrating what "suitressing" is, when Snoo is brought up in discussion, regardless of how favorable their opinion on her is, something I notice is that people usually describe her as one of two things:
(1) A hapless, perpetual victim of happenstance.
(2) Someone who purposefully interacted with Chris for her own gain (including for amusement, clout, her crush on Chris, etc).

Whether one views either of those two things as good or bad, or is otherwise indifferent to either, is entirely subjective. Regardless, from I've seen personally, people have based their entire idea of whatever Snoo was off of one of these two pre-conceived notions, under the belief she has to be at least one of those two things because a lot of other Christorical Figures were. I've even seen people say she's both, when in actually she merely has qualities of both. She doesn't fit either label perfectly, as she was partially at fault for what happened to her and for the fact she didn't try to troll or enable Chris. So logically she also can't be both. By saying that Snoo is both, it essentially implies that she's equal part victim and bad actor. It also implies that these are the only two ways one can view her as being, and she can't possibly be anything else. The same thing goes with trying to claim that "both sides" of the argument are inherently wrong on their own merits.

This is actually a logical fallacy known as the false balance fallacy, or more simply "bothsiderism", where one assumes that the discussion of an issue or topic can and should be reduced to two different extremes. From doing that, one could then come to the false assumption that to be "objective" about something, it involves somehow "combining" these two viewpoints, regardless of how valid they truly are, into one single opinion that makes everyone "happy". This is also done without considering any other viewpoints that could possibly contradict both of these extremes. Since people have latched onto these two very conflicting view points, it has affected their perception of whatever details they found afterwards. This inevitably led to many disagreements about who Snoo is and how she should have been handled. As a result, combined with people putting such a significant buffer on Snoo, it's led to nothing but confusion, and produced all kinds of cockamamie theories surrounding her and her associates.

I also think this explains why there's much more confusion surrounding Snoo than Bella, who everyone unanimously agrees is nothing but a tryhard and a bitch. For as many misconceptions as there are surrounding Bella, it's a lot easier to spot and disprove a lot of them due to the fact that most of the misconceptions are directed towards one very specific idea of who Bella is, an evil masterminded sociopath that boils hamsters for fun. Most misconceptions surrounding Snoo are based on a fairly incomplete version of her, compiled of several conflicting interpretations and accounts of her, many of which we don't know the full validity of. The only things that tie them all together is that she's autistic, wanted to fuck Chris, had ties with Bella, and reached out to Chris when she was young, which ultimately says nothing about her as a person.

Therefore, I believe that if we want to portray Snoo as objectively and accurately as possible, we must first get the full picture of her, and understand her as a person. This includes all of us reaching a unified idea of what Snoo could have been like personality-wise, and evaluating each others accounts to see what works and what doesn't regardless of how we personally perceive or feel about the complete image.

How I'd Describe Snoo

I will now present my true and honest opinions about Snoo. A lot of the things I might have said or done regarding her prior to writing this essay will make a lot more sense when I tell them to you.

The best way I can describe my feelings towards Snoo prior to this essay is...ambivalence. That is, I saw some very admirable traits in her (She's intelligent, well-spoken, cheeky, and a talented artist), but I also saw some really shitty traits in her too (Like her kinks, her conflicts with CWCki server staff, using Chris as a coping mechanism, and her attention seeking). Despite her flaws though, I've always found it difficult to truly hate Snoo. The worst I'd say I've ever felt towards her was...disappointed. She clearly had so much going for her, and yet was also seemingly willing to throw that all away through Chris Chan.

I've seen people call Snoo a "lolcow in the making", and to be honest, I think that's a very apt way to describe her during that time. Someone who isn't quite a lolcow due to her not being milked for content all that much, and having an otherwise stable life, but sure as hell could have become one at any given moment, especially given how she wanted to do something as controversial as screwing Chris, and being tied to someone as infamous as Bella, a massive laughing stock in her own right. When Snoo did her Reddit AMA, she was dangerously close to the border between normie and lolcow, which to me was why it was such a big deal back then. Many people regardless of their overall opinion of her, including me, REALLY didn't want Snoo to become a lolcow, but others did. The fact the whole thing ended in such an open-ended way as her leaving rather suddenly also didn't help ease these tensions. By then, it seemed to everyone that she could return to the Internet at any moment.

A screenshot from an article explaining Snoo's contribution to a "Neurodiversity Collection" at her college library

In a way, that was part of the reason I initially compared Snoo to a baby holding a gun... because at the time, she seemed like a really unstable person that wasn't aware of how dangerous the shit she's doing was, and could self-destruct at any moment. Thankfully, she hasn't been heard from since she left Reddit that day, so she very clearly DIDN'T self-destruct like I feared she would. Since then, as of writing this, Snoo apparently graduated from high school, is currently studying biology and environmental science in college, and became a preschool swim instructor at some point. Considering that Snoo went from being all hypersexual, edgy, and wanting to fuck Chris, to now working with actual children without much issue, I also view this as an indication that I can safely say she's gotten over whatever problems she's had and is NEVER returning to the CWCsphere anytime soon. To say that I am proud of Snoo, especially considering what she started as, would be a HUGE understatement.

Either way, from what I've seen, especially as of late, I know for a fact that Snoo was NOT mentally disabled, which also means she had full accountability for her actions, too. Regardless of what shitty things she's done though, I also don't think that means she deserves any ill to fall upon her. At the end of the day, autism aside, Snoo was fairly young when she did what she did, and has clearly changed quite a lot for the better since then. However, despite Snoo growing up and moving onto doing much better things, something I greatly commend and support her for, I still feel it's necessary to document her role in Christory, filling up a large hole in the story that ought to be filled. Again, please understand that I'm not promoting this because I feel she deserves anything bad to happen to her, she most certainly doesn't. I, and many others, merely want Christory to be documented as it happened.

The "Suitress Policy"

And now we come to this...where do I even begin? (BTW, there's a TL;DR version of this story)

My Intent

My reasoning behind the "Suitress Policy" is complicated, to say the least. Given the circumstances that occurred around it, whether or not it was a good idea, if it was necessary, or if it would have made a positive difference if handled better, I can not say for certain, especially considering how much of an enimga Snoo truly was. What I do know, however, was that its execution was complete utter dogshit, and ultimately did more harm than good.

Origins

Before the "policy" was officially put on the CWCki, Gungann, Snoo's friend Grant, and other associates of hers all tried to explain the going-ons about Snoo after the fallout, mentioning that Snoo was going through serious mental hardships from the fallout and the discovery of Chris fucking Barb, which made the peeps on the Farms drop any sort of scorn they might have had for Snoo at the time, and removing any and all doxes pertaining to her. It had even gotten to the point where Spooky Bones, the person who was basically leading all of the investigation of Bella and co., had this to say about Snoo:

“	Fuck off with the Fiona shit or I will dox your pets. I have nearly every sped involved in this and their socks up in my PMs plus the greatest Internet detective agency possibly ever assembled since that Canadian faggot who hurt the kittens, all spilling all the spaghetti in Italy and have seen no credible evidence that she is anything more than an extremely autistic young woman who, as the extremely autistic and the young will do, did some very stupid things. What I see no evidence for is actual malice.	”
A post from Spooky Bones that best reflects the sentiments surrounding Snoo on Kiwi Farms and other places, early into the incest drama.

When people said things like that, the message was loud and clear. Snoo had to be protected, and documentation of her of any kind was discouraged. At its core, I would say that the censorship of Snoo on the CWCki started as me trying to follow suit with what everyone else was doing at the time, and making the CWCki conform to the sentiments that I thought that the rest of the Internet had about Snoo.

The Three Big Sins

“	Just like with the Wallflower, although an open secret, the true identity of the Everfree Suitress should not be disclosed on this wiki	”
How it started

What it became!

The "Suitress Policy" caused a lot of problems, but I think everything wrong with the damn thing can be boiled down to three simple factors, or what I call the "three big sins". These three big sins are what I think created such mass confusion.

The first big sin of this "policy" was that I "established" this completely out of the blue, roughly after GiBi had "doxed" Snoo by inadvertently leaking her number twice. I essentially did this because the big story at the time was that Bella had allegedly tried to "frame" Snoo, Snoo leaked the calls instead of Bella, and GiBi was being given shit for supposedly conspiring with Bella, things I genuinely believed in at the time (except the latter, but you get my point). I was also not aware of who "Fiona" was, as I had barely ever used the CWCki Discord server around that time, so I had little to go off of. Not helping with this is that me "establishing" the "policy" was just adding a small section about Snoo on Bella's page titled "The Everfree Suitress", and adding a rather infamous protip template underneath it, something which has caused much chaos and confusion. This also happened a day BEFORE Snoo did her AMA (where Snoo even proudly called herself the "Everfree Suitress"). You can only imagine how people must have felt afterwards.

The second big sin was that I didn't ask for ANY user input on this "policy" whatsoever, not even from Snoo herself, and it was established during a high-pressure moment. From my perspective, when GiBi talked about "Fiona", she just appeared to be some random sperg that somehow stumbled across Chris, likely from being manipulated by Bella. From there, I assumed that people would just roll with whatever I wrote (which I guess people kind of did, but certainly not as I expected). Boy was I wrong to assume that. Afterwards, I and other CWCki users were winging it as we went along and going off of what others were saying about the situation, eventually culminating into the baby with a shotgun on the "policy"'s page.

The third and biggest sin was that I had absolutely no plan set in place for this new "policy" when I established it, and thought it'd just be as simple as copying what the Wallflower policy did verbatim which, as you might guess, I took a LOT of cues from while making the "Suitress Policy", most infamously the part about banning people for including names. This was because...the Wallflower policy was written verbatim like this before that policy was rewritten to be less harsh.

“	Even though it is an open secret, making any reference to the Wallflower's real identity will result in a PERMANENT ban. For more information, see here.	”
The Wallflower policy verbatim, before that was changed

Ironically, me copying the Wallflower Policy was one of the reasons for that one being toned down, as the "Suitress Policy" itself had to be toned down to make documenting Snoo easier, which meant the Wallflower Policy also had to follow suit, with the punishment now simply being to revert the edits that revealed the Wallflower's identity. In a weird way, I suppose me implementing the "policy" did some good in inadvertently making a very stringent, past policy more fair.

I didn't intend the "policy" to reach the point it did, nor did I intend to enforce the "rule" anywhere outside of the CWCki or its Discord server, where the mods that were still there eventually agreed upon it. Truthfully, I had no plan in mind while making the "policy", its most fatal flaw, and I apologize for any misunderstanding that might have been caused by the rather vague and authoritarian protip textwall that'd come afterwards. Speaking of which...

Reactions

Similar to the person the "policy" targeted, I personally would say the "policy" naturally got a very mixed response from the CWCsphere, especially given its rather rocky introduction.

Reddit AMA

As I had mentioned, the "policy" was set in place just a day before Snoo decided to do a Reddit AMA. When she eventually did the AMA, all hell broke loose.

CWCki Server Drama

On 19 September 2021, Larry the Larryhog expressed concerns about the "Suitress Policy" due to it causing suspcisions amongst users from the ILJ subforum.. I then talked to him about it, and we agreed on implementing a one year grace period onto it.

Lessening the Policy

On 27 March 2022, I talked with Hurtful Truth Level about the policy.

Aftermath

“	I sincerely hope that the editor responsible for the Suitress policy - and any other editors who feel the need to uphold it - reads this essay carefully and is receptive to my arguments. I don't wish any ill will on this young woman. I just want the standards of the CWCki to be applied equally to people like her, who went out of their way to get a place in Chris's story, either without considering or outright ignoring the consequences.	”
Anaxis concluding his argument against the "Suitress Policy".

Needless to say, the entire thing was discarded around September of 2023, when Anaxis made an argument against the policy sometime during my hiatus from the CWCki. When I returned to the CWCki on February 2025, literally the first thing I did was give my thoughts on Anaxis' argument and express what I truly felt about everything that happened. I admitted to him that nothing about this accursed "policy" did anyone, outside of those that wanted to give themselves the entirely superficial pat on the back that they were protecting an "innocent little autistic girl" from a "sociopath", any good and that it was much better off gone.

Breaking a Vicious Cycle

Despite any sort of insistence anyone at the time had made that I might be upset at the "policy's" cancellation, I'm not upset at all. On the contrary, actually. I'm very happy we've decided to get rid all of the censoring on the wiki, as I had stated in my response to Anaxis' argument.

I was sick and tired of living some sort of self-imposed delusion about Snoo that everyone else seemed to agree upon, and that included the need to censor anything regarding Snoo or perpetuating any sort of insistence that she absolutely needed to be protected. I was also sick and tired of lying to myself that any of this was at all okay for this wiki. A wiki that's all about chronicling an autistic middle-aged hippie who likes to imagine they're a CPU Goddess. In a sense, Anaxis making his argument against the "policy" was the sign of relief I've been looking for, but this underlying feeling of guilt I've always had for making the "policy" has never escaped me until writing this essay. Deep in my heart, I knew this whole thing (both the censorship on the wiki and the general attitudes that surrounded Snoo elsewhere) was entirely wrong, but I kept making excuse after excuse to myself so as to make sure I don't so much as upset anyone for including her info. As I will explain later, I think just taking down the censoring on the CWCki is only the first step in dismantling what I deem to be a much bigger problem. Combating this issue head-on is something I feel I should have done a long time ago, rather than obfuscating Snoo's information to make everyone "happy". I didn't want to face my feelings of guilt until now, when I fully realized this. That nothing is ever going to get better unless we address the bigger issue.

"Flutter Policy"

To me, the whole "policy" should be regarded as a cautionary tale for what happens when we selectively include information about people on any website purely on the basis of whether or not they "deserve it", a practice that has been done on this site even before the creation of the "policy", and arguably how people like the Watchmen were able to abuse their position (by uncovering as much as they could about Chris oribiters, even when it had nothing to do with Chris). However, it seems to me that not everyone has gotten this message, and some even continue to follow in this "policy"'s footsteps.

I even nearly had a heart attack when I discovered that another user on here tried to suitress another Christorical Figure, suggesting a similar "policy" for Flutter, someone who we know so little about, worried that I might have created an even bigger beast than I had anticipated. The editor proposed this on the basis of Flutter supposedly being "mentally handicapped", making her an "innocent bystander" like some people assumed of Snoo. They also seemed to think they were also a Wallflower-like figure similar to how I assumed Snoo was, citing the fact that Chris referred to her as "Flutter" like how the Wallflower was "Damien Antaria". That alone is very telling of what kind of attitudes the "Suitress Policy" had created, and that scares the shit out of me.

Given how the most we have regarding Flutter are just images of her with Chris (most of which are posted by Reddit accounts, some of which even get deleted after posting) and brief mentions from Chris here and there, people's theories about Flutter being tied to Praetor (an already contentious organization), and people making a fuss over Flutter's face being covered in photos, I would think a "Flutter Policy" would be even more disastrous than the "Suitress" one. Besides that, Snoo was able to get her shit together, even when the "policy" was taken down. What people should get out of that is, besides the happy ending that they desired, that anyone not worthy enough to get targeted in this circle can get themselves out, and needs no protection.

Thankfully, a group of several other editors, who likely experienced how cumbersome the "Suitress Policy" was, and not wanting to relive that whole nightmare, shot it down before it could even get past the proposal stage. When I saw the proposal myself, however, I was so horrified of people even suggesting such an idea that I felt the need to give a piece of my mind on that, more than a year after it was made, just to make sure nothing like the "Suitress Policy" ever happens again.

The conversation

Summary: A CWCki editor proposes a "Flutter Policy", accounting for Flutter supposedly being "mentally handicapped". After they did this, a couple of other editors shot this down, citing how this exact same thing was done to Snoo, and caused nothing but problems. Homsar It’s no secret that Christorians have bad actors amongst their ranks. It’s only a matter of time someone figures out her identity. Given that Chris met her in Lynchburg it’s highly likely she’s mentally handicapped in some capacity due to Chris living in a group home during the time he was located there. So since she’s likely to be an innocent bystander I think we should adopt a wallflower style policy for if/when her identity is revealed by either a ween or Chris himself. Given what recently happened with the suitress policy we should also be willing to revoke it if we later find out she actually has trollish intent. Panasonichu Chris mentions in his latest video that Flutter reached out to him while he was in jail. That doesn't make it sound like he just happened upon her in Lynchburg, hardly making her an "innocent bystander" to me. In addition, there is currently zero indication that Flutter is mentally disabled in any way besides conjecture. Fiona actually was, and her policy was still rescinded. I don't think these reasons are a good enough argument for yet another censorship policy. Anaxis Putting my hat in the ring here: I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to censoring any more parties that don't ask for it personally, especially on a basis of supposed morality for them being mentally disabled. Not because I want to be cruel, but because we just went through this exact thing with Fiona, which led to a thrall of misinformation and false views that she was entirely a victim of circumstance, rather than someone who actively walked into Chris's orbit despite the warnings she received. I'm all for referring to Flutter primarily by her pseudonym if that makes people more comfortable, but actively censoring other information is something I don't think we should be engaging in unless there is a very, very good reason for it. And personal moralizing about whether or not she should be "protected" isn't one, in my opinion. I also agree with Panasonichu that claims about Flutter having met Chris in a group home or being mentally disabled are entirely conjecture, meaning it should have no ground in any sort of pro-censorship argument for her. Cereally I agree with the two people above me. She took the time out to contact Chris, presumably knowing about his online infamy. If you do that, you are putting yourself at risk of being doxxed, and that fact is made abundantly clear to anyone who chooses to do so. Psycho A bit late to the party, I'll admit, but I think I'll give my take on this too, being the one that made the whole "suitress" policy: I don't think we should do anything like this for Flutter (e.g. if her real name is discovered, don't stop anyone from adding it in the infobox), even if she is arguably just an "innocent bystander", or she appears to be mentally handicapped (as unlikely as that may be), and the same goes for almost any other "innocent bystander" that Chris might just happen to meet up with in the future. If the whole fiasco with Fiona had shown anything, randomly deciding to censor information about people just because they just happen to appear "innocent" or "mental", does nothing but complicate things, since it all becomes a matter of selectively choosing what information we can or cannot share on this wiki, whose whole purpose is to document a grown man who also appears "innocent" and "mental" to the average joe, and the many happenings in his life. (Not to mention the numerous other "bystanders" in Chris's life who have nothing to do with his online presence whose info is here anyway) A lot of those happenings just so happen to include people like Flutter, who CHOSE to engage with Chris despite everything he's done up to this point. While there certainly are cases where this can go completely overboard (e.g. someone puts an ENTIRE dox on here when it's not relevant to Chris's life, bloating the page), we shouldn't treat what goes on this wiki as a matter of who does or doesn't "deserve it", and getting into the whole "morality" of it is just gets utterly wonky.

TL;DR

You probably came to this essay to know why the "Suitress policy" was set in place and later removed. If you're one of these people, but don't have the time or energy to read long-ass paragraphs, this is the section for you.

TL;DR: A bunch of autism about another autist. More comprehensive TL;DR: Basically, people wanted Fiona's head on a pike after Bella framed her, but then one of her friends, whom Naught had doxed, tried to explain her situation, which made people less sour on her, and discouraged doxing of her period. Afterwards, several people got targeted over supposedly being on Bella's conspiracy, and I implemented the Suitress policy on the CWCki as a sort of knee-jerk response to all of the drama that went on, since everyone else was basically obfuscating Fiona. This was done without user input, not even from Fiona herself, which created more confusion for everyone involved. The most you need to know after this is that the discourse surrounding her became more chaotic after she did her Reddit AMA, and people basically fell into several camps as a result. This was the main reason the policy stayed around for so long, out of concerns for the potential blowback from removing everything at once. To combat this, I and Hurtful Truth Level agreed to lessen the policy over time before Anaxis came and argued against the entire thing, which led to the policy getting discontinued.

The Cult of Snoo

A meme that was meant to take the piss out of Snoo's white-knights inadvertently illustrating the entire issue.

“	Oh shit, this is actually happening. I really didn't expect this. Well, I'm not complaining, but it's strange how quick it went from 'The Suitress Policy will be kept up forever' to changing it.	”
A CWCki editor when the "Suitress Policy" was starting to get taken down.

“	Shows the power of using your voice to enact change. Glad that we're moving forward with this.	”
Anaxis.

As I've said, the "Suitress Policy" is only truly gone in name. Though the censoring on the CWCki was a large portion of it, I think that the "Suitress Policy" is actually more than just that. There was also a general attitude towards Snoo that extended beyond my handling of her alone. To a degree, this mindset still persists today. That mindset is that Snoo is some sort of perfect, perpetual victim that you MUST be supportive of and feel bad for on some front. It doesn't matter what else you think of her, just so long as it involves that view in particular. If you stray too much from that, either at best you were flat out wrong or cruel and got downvoted, or at worst in on the conspiracy with Bella.

The core of the "policy" is an unspoken rule that's been ingrained in everyone's minds. That being that Snoo should always be protected and looked down upon, no matter the circumstances. The only true difference between anyone who has observed Snoo is how willing they are to adhere to this unspoken rule. Her so-called "supporters" just held onto this idea tightly, while her "detractors" viewed her as the inverse of this, as a "ween" that "deserves to be punished". This, to me, is the overarching issue regarding any sort of coverage surrounding Snoo, or any other Christorical Figure for that matter.

It's not so much that she's entirely (or "both") a "victim" or a "bad actor", or even that anyone is entirely wrong about her. It's that Snoo is not allowed to be anything besides those two things, or otherwise be anything beyond what we already understand about Christory. Snoo was never allowed to just be her own person amongst the CWCSphere, she had to fit some archetype. Unless we get this notion out of our heads, and accept Snoo as who she is...as nothing more than just Snoo, I don't think we're ever going to make much progress with regards to portraying or documenting her accurately. Limiting ourselves to understanding things by very specific labels (like "troll", "ween", "white-knight", etc.) does nothing but restrict our understanding, especially with people like Snoo who do not fit any such labels in a traditional sense. If we choose to continue doing that, our assumptions will only cloud the truth further, and we will wind up repeating the same mistakes in the future.

In this section, I will explain how I think such assumptions already clouded the truth outside of just the censoring on the CWCki.

Snoo and Bella

I think a large reason for a lot of the sentiments surrounding Snoo at the time was her connections to Bella.

Deification

During the drama surrounding Snoo, there was a sort of doublethink surrounding her. To some, Snoo was both a hero and a victim. She was a hero for being the one that supposedly put Chris in the slammer, but yet she was also a perpetual victim that found herself in similar scenarios as Chris. In essence, in the ILJ cult Snoo was made into a martyr. This served as the perfect inverse to balance out Bella, who was made out to be the second coming of Hitler. Before the Reddit AMA, Snoo was initially made out as a heroic figure that was wronged simply for supposedly doing the right thing and leaking the calls before Bella could blackmail Chris/Chris could continue raping Barb/whatever else the narrative was.

In simple terms, think of it as people turning Snoo into a literal Mary Sue, or a "Mary Snoo", if you will. She's the all-powerful heroine of the story that can do no wrong, but also needs to be served when she gets herself into trouble. This also makes it easy to excuse a lot of her shittier actions, as one can then chalk it up to her being autistic or "not knowing better", as the idea is that she has to be perfect in every way.

Autism

A large part of the discussion surrounding Snoo, and in my opinion one of the biggest factors for misinformation surrounding her and her associates, is the fact she's autistic. I don't believe it's particularly helpful to completely ignore this facet of Snoo, as it does somewhat explain some of her interactions with some of the people she got involved with, and possibly even some of the stuff she said in some scenarios. However, what's worse is talking about this one facet of her in every other post you make about her, and treat it like it's the one and only thing that defines Snoo in her entirety. It's not only annoying, and dare I say dehumanizing as fuck if you truly care about her well-being, but doing so also leads to a fuckton of unfounded assumptions about her and her character.

An Autist's Remorse

Remember how I said at the beginning of this essay that I have a little something in common with Snoo? I feel now's the time I elaborate on that, as before I get into my views on Snoo's autism and how its affected the perception of her, I feel I should preface them with a disclosure, as I feel this bit of context could potentially give better insight into them. It could also possibly better explain some of the regret I've felt for the censorship on the CWCki or how I've spread misinformation about Snoo.

Like Snoo, I myself am autistic. Also like with Snoo, this fact of me isn't readily apparent unless someone tells you this, like I just did. As Snoo would put it, I'd also classify as "high-functioning" like she does. At her age, I'd say I was also a bit of a boisterous edgelord, espescially on the Kiwi Farms, much like how she was on the CWCki server. You could therefore say that I find Snoo pretty relateable in many respects. Considering this, I've felt nothing but tremendous guilt for how I portrayed Snoo, feeling both stupid and irresponsible for giving into the whole assumption that Snoo has no understanding of her own mind or lacks agency or the ability to make her own decisions. The "Suitress Policy" had robbed her of that recognition amongst the public, and that utterly disheartens me.

Despite being autistic myself, I based and judged Snoo's capabilities on her condition alone and gravely underestimated her as everyone else had. Of course, me having the condition doesn't automatically mean I know what every other autistic person needs or wants, nor does that mean I can (or should) speak entirely on Snoo's behalf on how she'd like to be presented. We already did that with the "Suitress Policy", and look how that turned out. However, if not anyone else, I feel that I especially should have known better when it came to Snoo's autism, and I should have been a lot more considerate when it came to how I handled her regarding that.

Instead of correcting any misinformation that arose from that, I feel largely responsible or entirely at fault for Snoo being seen as some innocent, bumbling retard that can't take care of herself when she's anything but. I perpetuated the version of Snoo people wanted to think she is, as well as the idea that she needed protection. Deep down, I think I've always felt portraying her in this light was actually a lot more harmful to her than doxing her outright. By doing this, I feel it's undermined what strengths she had amongst the general public.

Despite her flaws, Snoo is a strong, capable person, and that part of her should be fully recognized. Therefore, not only do I feel it is only necessary to clear up any misinformation that arose from her being autistic, I feel entirely obligated to do so.

Infantilization

“	that's a good point really, in some ways, she's like a minor tbh, like Lavendar is probably closer to a functioning adult at 17 than Fiona is at 19, it's only 2 year difference anyway but Fiona is legit autistic	”
Spooky Bones on Snoo's autism.

A very general assumption about people on the spectrum is that this inherently means that you have some sort of developmental disorder, which is what I think went through a lot of people's minds when they first heard about Snoo. The fact that many people described Snoo as being "very autistic" in the immediate aftermath of the fallout is definitive proof of this.

I'm going to get this out of the way right now. Snoo is far from innocent in any sort of regard. Now, I don't mean this like I think she's a bad person like Bella clearly was, or that she deserves to be punished. I mean it more like she's not at all the sweet, pure autistic angel some like to characterize her as. And frankly, again speaking from my experience as an autist, I don't think that's at all how she'd want to be regarded. And I'm not strictly saying this for Snoo's sake either. I don't think anyone who follows Chris Chan would like to be characterized as such.

For Snoo in particular, her being infantilized or being portrayed as angelic or child-like really ticks me off because...well autistic people can be cheeky, edgy and boisterous like she was. I was literally the same way when I was her age (sans the desire to fuck Chris, of course). To treat her posting edgy things as if she was "corrupted" or "groomed", or assuming this is the case due to her autism, is a disservice to Snoo if anything. It takes away the recognition that she'd even have the capacity to be bold or edgy, and strictly assumes that she would have to be swayed in some way to behave like that. By extension, it also takes away the recognition that she has the ability to govern herself. That, to me, is just fucking disgusting.

Inspiration Porn

"Inspiration Porn" refers to when a disabled person is objectified for the benefits of abled people.

In most other contexts, Snoo sharing clips of the call with her friends wouldn't be treated like its some big achievement, as this is something that goes on quite a bit amongst those that orbit Chris.

Ethics of Doxing

"Morality"

Considering all of the above, a major point of discussion surrounding Snoo is the supposed "morality" that comes with covering, documenting or talking about her, as if talking about a person, even one that's important to talk about to understand Christory, to any degree is supposed to be some sort of punishment. In the case of this circle in particular, where people at a risk of having pizzas sent to their house, I sorta get where people may be coming from with this, but that's only IF you have things like their address or are able to hack into their bank account or some shit. Just showcasing someone's basic personal info (like their name, birthday, etc.) alone doesn't inherently put them at risk. Otherwise, that's their own mess to clean up, and only THEY can make the correct choices for themselves. No one is obligated to avenge or protect people like Snoo on the basis of them getting doxed, especially considering the fact she was able to figure shit out on her own.

Frankly, I think Snoo's involvement with Chris, and the way that people tried to cover her (both here and elsewhere) also showcases just how utterly retarded and counterproductive it is to think of getting documented on this wiki or elsewhere as a "punishment", or something that one "deserves", kind of like how Naught did when he "curbed the weens". If you involve yourself with Chris, it's not inherently a good or a bad thing, but you should also expect the ramifications that come with it. In the case of Snoo, she technically didn't do anything "morally" wrong by this community's standards, but she still left a big impact on Christory, thus we must document her regardless of whether or not we personally like her. To say that her actions are something to "excuse", as suggested by the case against the "Suitress Policy" is utterly ridiculous, when you think about it. Our goal isn't to larp as detectives that "bring people to justice", as some people like to put it. Our goal is simply to document Chris and those he gets involved with. We document the latter with the intent of understanding how they affected Chris personally, regardless of how we feel about their involvement.

Preventing people like Snoo from getting documented to collect all relevant information about her role with Chris just because she arbitrarily "doesn't deserve it" just makes it difficult to document what happened during the Twilight and Incest Sagas, as she was a crucial player in both. In addition to that, doing things like censoring certain information about people like Snoo also hampers with the collection and organizing such information, which greatly affects how people perceive the events that occurred. In its own way, it also risks the spreading of more misinformation, since the information that could provide useful context is now banned from being posted on the site. This also raises questions about whether other Christorical Figures who we already have the doxes of, like Megan; Mary Lee Walsh; or Michael Snyder; deserve a similar treatment.

Likewise, trying to include every little detail about people like GiBi, literal nobodies like e1ectricthunder, or hell even Snoo herself, on the basis of them "deserving it" helps absolutely nobody, and only clutters things up. People (I would assume, at least) come here to learn about and laugh at Chris, not go on some sort of moralfag crusade. The days of trying to take the piss out of Chris orbiters on here have been gone since the whole Incest incident, and we generally try to portray people as accurately and as close to their involvement with Chris as possible, but the same can't necessarily be said for everyone else.

I kinda feel that since the days of the Idea Guys, where people became much more conscious about random people potentially trolling Chris in a similar manner, people have forgotten the whole point of this wiki to the point that someone like Snoo, who just went up and talked to Chris, shared some calls with friends, did an AMA with the self-professed intent to "help" with the editing process, and nothing else, is seen as something more significant than just that. Hell, people are now doing this exact same thing with Flutter, who we know very little about. To our knowledge, she's just some random woman that reached out to Chris in jail and that Chris befriended afterwards. Despite this rather limited scope, people are now assuming that she's in some sort of relationship with Chris, or that she is somehow tied to Praetor and that she's somehow controlling Chris or making him not as interesting as people think he used to be, when all claims of those being the case are again based on broad assumptions about what EVERY Christorical Figure has to be.

Overall, if Snoo's role in Christory has shown us anything important, it's that it is all entirely subjective whether or not anyone on this site "deserves" to be documented, and it's completely autistic and unhelpful to think of the site in such terms. Questions about the "morality" of documenting people associated with Chris don't matter and are entirely irrelevant to our overall goal. When we concern ourselves over trivial bullshit like that, it just leads to inconsistencies and fucks up the flow of the entire narrative.

Therefore, my answer to whether or not Snoo "deserved" her dox is: Who fucking cares? Ignoring the fact that she's living her life just fine even with her coverage on here, Snoo herself doesn't seem to care that her information or anything else about her is on here, so why should anyone else? If her Reddit AMA shows us anything, It's clear she actually wants her story to be told, and that includes all the ways she was degenerate during that period of her life. Honestly, the fact she actually wanted people to note her imperfections, and came clean that yes she did want to fuck Chris, is more than I can say for a lot of other people that went out and contacted Chris for whatever reason, who either deemed themselves the next big troll or some sort of heroic force protecting Chris to be reckoned with. And yet, for some bullshit reason, we all demonized her for that.

By that point I would think the truly "moral" thing to do is to do just portray Snoo as honestly as possible; warts and all; like she wants and to not puss out about it.

Hypocrisy

Despite people protecting Snoo on the basis of her being manipulated by Bella, almost no one accounted for this factor when it came to people like The WCT, some of Bella's chess group friends, or GiBi. All of these people were also manipulated by Bella, and she also backstabbed them all, but instead of people obfuscating them like they did with Snoo, they all got punished for even being associated with Bella. Not only that, but being associated with Bella's "henchmen" or even so much as not having a flaming hatred for them, which included these people, also put you under the radar, like what happened with Hurtful Truth Level when he supposedly "covered" for both Anaxis and The WCT. What's worse is that people used Snoo's dox as justification for attacking or harassing other people, especially The WCT and GiBi.

I also think this better illustrates why the whole "deserving it" argument falls apart.

I by no means am saying it was right to dox Snoo, it wasn't, especially in the circumstances it happened. However, if we're going to say that it was wrong on the basis of Snoo getting "thrown under the bus" by Bella, the same SHOULD also apply to almost everyone else that got doxed during that time. Instead, Snoo's dox alone is used as justification for everyone else that was harmed in this whole shitshow, which to me is actually a whole hell of a lot worse.

"Weening"

Something else that I think Snoo's involvement with Chris perfectly illustrates is how liberally the term "ween" gets used in this circle. From what I've seen, people tend to use this term as a sort of knee-jerk response to any sort of Chris-related shenanigans involving someone who isn't just an "innocent bystander" of his story. This includes so much as just going up to his house to post pictures of it on Reddit or trying to post sightings of Chris and Flutter. The term actually became so overused that Null decided to make a word filter it a few times on Kiwi Farms. In actuality, when someone "weens", they're trying to get involved in Christory with the intent of trying to piss off Chris (i.e. trying to troll him). However, when they do this, they wind up failing in rather major ways, and make themselves look like an utter jackass as a result. This is why the term is called "weening", it's a play on the term "epic win".

Considering this, and the fact that Snoo quite clearly isn't some perfect victim and instead willingly got involved in Chris's life, knowing what was going to happen, it's very easy to assume that she's actually some sort of "ween" instead. As far as we know however, Snoo wasn't contacting Chris nor doing anything related to him (including the AMA) with the intent of trolling him.

Justifications for the Cult

Something that is common amongst all cults is how difficult it is to escape the thrall of their entire belief system. I would know, I took a part in this cult-like mindset, which made it much more difficult for me to see Snoo through an objective lens. Even today, I feel this is still somewhat the case for me, worried that I still might be giving Snoo more compassion or leeway than she deserves. In any sort of cult, you are taught that only their beliefs are the correct ones, and that everyone else outside of that is either ill-informed, malicious actors trying to suppress the truth, or pawns of said malicious actors. If you deviate too much from the cult's established beliefs, you become an enemy.

Disagreements

“	Unless you're referring to the wiki, what in fuck "policy" are you even talking about? How many times do I have to tell you people that you can say whatever you want about her or anyone else here? Are you worried about stickers or something?	”
Spooky Bones on the discourse surrounding Snoo in response to another user complaining about the collective approach towards her, dubbing it a "Fiona policy".

The usual justification I saw of the groupthinkish way people approached Snoo, and I admittedly used to agree with, is that technically, anyone could say whatever they wanted about Snoo and that no one was going to stop or censor you from saying such things. While that may have been true to an extent, having a discussion about something isn't just about allowing people to express their disagreements...you also have to, you know, consider what they bring to the table and judge it on its own merits, rather than just outright reject it on sight. This also doesn't account for the fact that some people were outright telling others not to talk or complain about Snoo unless it occurred specifically in the thread about her AMA. Suppressing or favoring some viewpoints over others on the basis of if they fit a pre-conceived notion is still censorship. This includes allowing other people to do the same thing, even if saying things like her name are allowed or no posts get deleted.

Not helping with this is that whenever there was a fight of any kind surrounding Snoo, especially after people began investigating her activity in the CWCki server, rather than trying to alleviate the drama, and encouraging cooperation, the most people did was move various posts to a "Thunderdome thread" in the ILJ subforum. This was somewhat akin to the "Spergatory" subforum on the Kiwi Farms, where various threads and subforums that are deemed low-quality are moved to. In principle, this sounds like a good idea, moving disruptive posts that derail threads elsewhere. However, the discussion of Snoo wasn't that. It was a group of people that had literally no clue who the fuck Snoo was, had a myriad of different theories about her, and occasionally expressed their frustrations of how people have been handling her. In that scenario, a system like this can be abused quite easily, especially when considering the biases from those that run it. This was sort of like how I ran the censoring on this site, letting my own biases about Snoo affect my choices.

As the parable would entail, discussing anything objectively involves looking at all of the arguments people present with a critical eye, and seeing what stacks up with the available evidence. Sometimes, the "evidence" itself will also have to be tweaked if it turns out that was wrong. It's not merely just allowing people to say Snoo was or wasn't innocent, while also allowing people to be punished or berated just for saying either. Doing that is exactly how none of the blind men were able to reach a proper conclusion about the elephant, instead adhering to whatever they deemed to be the truth. Understanding something at an objective level is all about cooperation, which was essentially discouraged amongst the ILJ subforum. It didn't matter if you were entirely trustworthy or not. Either you were for or against the cause, with no in-between.

Rectification (Conclusion)

“	Seriously, thank you, Chris. You made me zap to the extreme.	”
Snoo.

Self-explanitory!

Since writing this essay, I've been meaning to rectify the issues that came about from the "Suitress Policy", something I felt obligated to do, but have come to realize isn't a task I can do by myself. As Anaxis pointed out, concealing the information that was used to infantilize Snoo is arguably just doing what that "policy" did, but in the opposite extreme. In all honesty, I think I can again attribute this course of action to my ambivalence towards Snoo, in that I never really figured out HOW I'm supposed to feel about her, given the rather vocal opinions from both her supporters and detractors, and my need to please everyone.

My end goal with the "policy" has always been to please all parties that have observed Snoo, or rather, to not upset anyone too much. To acknowledge her flaws as fairly as possible while also being considerate of people's feelings towards her dox. However, because the "policy" had little to no logistics, instead of appeasing everyone like I hoped, I'm of the opinion that the "policy" only made everyone blind and confused. As a result, everyone was, and to a lesser extent still is, fighting in the dark, a fruitless battle that never ends well.

From writing this essay, and all that I've learned about Snoo up to this point, I've come to the realization that appeasing everyone during that vitriolic time was never going to realistically happen, no matter what I or anyone else did, not with someone as complex and difficult to understand as Snoo. I've also come to terms that there was likely always going to be an outrage or some degree of censorship regardless, and that no one was truly at fault for what happened. At the end of the day, whether or not my handling of the situation made everything better or worse than it could have been, I cannot say for certain. But from this, I think I can finally take solace from creating the "policy" directed towards Snoo, try and take the proper steps forward, and encourage others to do the same.

Seriously, thank YOU, Snoo. You've made us all zap to the extreme.

-Psycho 🐧

Resources

• What Is Groupthink and How Can Leaders Avoid It? - To overcome the "Suitress Policy" entirely, we need to have open, critical discussions about Snoo, regardless of how other people might feel about her (positive or negative).
• Snoo Rumors - An opinion piece I made surrounding different controversies, rumors, and misconceptions about Snoo.