Introduction
In reviewing the recent decisions made by the Hakuouki Zine staff, a troubling inconsistency emerges. A repeat harasser with a documented history of abuse was allowed to remain untouched, while another contributor was swiftly disqualified on the basis of vague accusations. At the same time, one of the most vocal attackers of the disqualified author publicly celebrated the selection of her own friends as zine contributors. Taken together, these facts reveal not just isolated misjudgments, but a systemic failure of governance, transparency, and fairness.
Onino’s Double Standards and Narrative Manipulation
The first case is that of Onino (AO3:Oninofukuchou), also known on Tumblr as vicecommanderhijikata. This individual left over ten harassing comments on my work, sent more than thirty hostile direct messages, and is even suspected of creating or running a hate blog targeting me. The record is clear: this is a repeat harasser with a long pattern of abuse.
Yet when questioned about his role in Autumn’s removal from the zine, Onino engaged in blatant doublespeak. Publicly, he denied ever contacting the zine moderators, insisting that Autumn’s exclusion “was not his doing.” Privately, however, he admitted that he “wanted to warn the mods about her past reputation.” These two statements cannot both be true. The fact that the zine staff ultimately cited “past reputation” as their reason for removing Autumn shows that his narrative, whether delivered directly or indirectly, became the very basis of their decision.
This is the essence of Onino’s double standard: he wanted the outcome (Autumn’s removal) while denying responsibility for producing it. He shaped the narrative behind the scenes, then disowned it in public. Such behavior is not only dishonest but demonstrates how a single harasser was allowed to influence the zine’s governance unchecked.
Autumn’s Removal and Staff’s Lack of Transparency
The second case concerns Autumn herself. When she was disqualified, the zine staff claimed it was the result of an “investigation” into her “past behavior.” Yet when I sent multiple written inquiries requesting the minimal, non-identifying details of this decision — dates, responsible role, and relevant policy basis — the responses were evasive.
The first reply was a dismissive “Who are you?” When I clarified that this was a non-identifying, record-keeping request, the second reply was a vague template: “the removal was at the discretion of the moderators.” This provided no verifiable details, no cited policy, and no indication of who made the decision or when.
Such answers are unacceptable in any project that claims to operate with fairness and integrity. A contributor was removed without transparent reasoning, without a documented process, and without an appeal mechanism. The only discernible justification was the very narrative pushed by Onino. In other words, Autumn was penalized not on evidence, but on rumor — and the staff refused to provide even the most basic accountability.
Ladyyomi’s Conflict of Interest
The third issue lies in the role of Ladyyomi, another vocal participant in the smear campaign against Autumn. Shortly after Autumn’s removal, she publicly celebrated the fact that her “friends” were selected as zine authors. This is not a trivial detail — it reveals a direct conflict of interest.
If those leading the charge against a disqualified author also happen to be socially tied to those who benefit from her removal, then the zine’s governance is compromised. Staff cannot claim impartiality while decisions align perfectly with the interests of a small, interconnected social circle. What should have been an evaluation based on talent and fairness instead appears to have been shaped by clique dynamics and personal bias.
Conclusion
When placed side by side, these three cases form a coherent picture:
- Onino, a repeat harasser, remained untouched despite overwhelming evidence.
- Autumn, facing only vague accusations, was swiftly expelled without transparency or due process.
- Ladyyomi, one of Autumn’s loudest critics, openly celebrated her friends’ inclusion in the zine, exposing clear conflicts of interest.
This is not fairness. This is not transparency. This is a double standard that rewards harassment and punishes the targeted.
Until the Hakuouki Zine staff can provide a full, documented explanation of their decisions — including dates, responsible parties, and policy bases — these actions stand as a case of opaque governance and systemic bias. The fandom deserves better.
Evidence:
Reblog by @vicecommanderhijikata
User oninofukuchou left over a dozen harassing comment‘s on my works, showing a sustained pattern of targeted abuse. I…ygpgsgl-public-records-only.tumblr.com
Follow-up:
The Harasser’s Umbrella: How the Hakuouki Zine Shielded Onino While Silencing Victims
No matter how long their statements are, neither Onino nor the Hakuouki Zine mods have ever addressed the most basic…ygpgsgl-public-records-only.tumblr.com