Who’s who in the screenshots:
• “zerocool” = Goose / Tamedbeast / Billy (same person, multiple aliases shown)
• Principal Vagina = NilName (NN) developer (different person than Goose)
• Blue_Silvi = Project Sylvanas developer
For anyone who relied on “unofficial” reviews posted by Tamedbeast (aka Goose / Billy / Zerocool), there is a serious conflict-of-interest issue that needs to be addressed.
He publicly presented himself as a neutral reviewer of WoW bots/platforms.
But private messages now being shared reportedly show him identifying himself as an admin of NilName (NN) and acknowledging the conflict while still posting public reviews/commentary about competing platforms.
Receipt A — “I’m Admin of NN… conflict of interests” (11/2/2024)
(Optional highlight crop:)
That alone is a major credibility problem.
It gets worse:
• He allegedly downplayed or helped keep quiet negative information about NilName detections in public.
• Meanwhile, private messages from the NilName developer show that detection concerns were real and discussed behind the scenes.
Receipt B — tamedbeast providing private NN group access
NN detection: minimization/denial vs later admissions (Principal Vagina = NN dev)
Screenshots from a private conversation between Principal Vagina (NN dev) and Blue_Silvi discuss bans/detection concerns over time.
In one screenshot, Blue_Silvi references being told there was no evidence of detection, and Principal Vagina replies: “we didn’t.”
Receipt C1 — “you didn’t find any evidence of detection” → “we didn’t”
In another, when asked whether “E21” caused bans, the NN dev states he had “no proof at that time.”
Receipt C2 — “I had no proof at that time…”
Later, the NN dev says he “f***ed up on E21” and that at the time he was adamant NN wasn’t being detected a very different tone than “no evidence.”
Receipt C3 — “I f***ed up on E21… I was adamant NN wasn’t being detected”
And a smaller snippet capturing the “exposure” framing:
Receipt C4 — “1 day vs 1 month exposure”
This is exactly why undisclosed affiliations matter.
It’s not “just an opinion” when the reviewer is tied to the product especially when the product’s risk/detection status is being argued about.
There are also screenshots showing later denials like “not associated with NN for almost 2 years,” which you can compare against the earlier admin/conflict messages above.
Receipt D later he lefts the core group of NN
The point of sharing this is not drama. It’s transparency.
If you’re going to present yourself as independent, be independent.
If you’re an insider, disclose it.
Review the screenshots. Compare the timeline. Decide for yourself.
*[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]*
• “zerocool” = Goose / Tamedbeast / Billy (same person, multiple aliases shown)
• Principal Vagina = NilName (NN) developer (different person than Goose)
• Blue_Silvi = Project Sylvanas developer
For anyone who relied on “unofficial” reviews posted by Tamedbeast (aka Goose / Billy / Zerocool), there is a serious conflict-of-interest issue that needs to be addressed.
He publicly presented himself as a neutral reviewer of WoW bots/platforms.
But private messages now being shared reportedly show him identifying himself as an admin of NilName (NN) and acknowledging the conflict while still posting public reviews/commentary about competing platforms.
Receipt A — “I’m Admin of NN… conflict of interests” (11/2/2024)
(Optional highlight crop:)
That alone is a major credibility problem.
It gets worse:
• He allegedly downplayed or helped keep quiet negative information about NilName detections in public.
• Meanwhile, private messages from the NilName developer show that detection concerns were real and discussed behind the scenes.
Receipt B — tamedbeast providing private NN group access
NN detection: minimization/denial vs later admissions (Principal Vagina = NN dev)
Screenshots from a private conversation between Principal Vagina (NN dev) and Blue_Silvi discuss bans/detection concerns over time.
In one screenshot, Blue_Silvi references being told there was no evidence of detection, and Principal Vagina replies: “we didn’t.”
Receipt C1 — “you didn’t find any evidence of detection” → “we didn’t”
In another, when asked whether “E21” caused bans, the NN dev states he had “no proof at that time.”
Receipt C2 — “I had no proof at that time…”
Later, the NN dev says he “f***ed up on E21” and that at the time he was adamant NN wasn’t being detected a very different tone than “no evidence.”
Receipt C3 — “I f***ed up on E21… I was adamant NN wasn’t being detected”
And a smaller snippet capturing the “exposure” framing:
Receipt C4 — “1 day vs 1 month exposure”
This is exactly why undisclosed affiliations matter.
It’s not “just an opinion” when the reviewer is tied to the product especially when the product’s risk/detection status is being argued about.
There are also screenshots showing later denials like “not associated with NN for almost 2 years,” which you can compare against the earlier admin/conflict messages above.
Receipt D later he lefts the core group of NN
The point of sharing this is not drama. It’s transparency.
If you’re going to present yourself as independent, be independent.
If you’re an insider, disclose it.
Review the screenshots. Compare the timeline. Decide for yourself.
*[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]*