On Swerve

Exposal By EeryTunic

Updates:

As of 03:57 CET, 8 March 2025, Swerve is banned from AREDL.

As of 20:52 CET, 8 March 2025, my informant has been banned. Not sure why they would do this unless they were scared that I would attempt to validify the screenshots.

If Swerve does not resolve this problem in a week, i.e. creating a valid counterdocument, then he will no longer be involved with Every End.

TLDR; Swerve constantly and consistently says inappropriate things to and about minors. Swerve is 19.

In recent times, Swerve, a 19 year old American Geometry Dash player from the state of New York, has been made the backup verified for “Every End” by mindcap. Swerve is not who you think he is, and has committed actions that are related to grooming and pedophilia quite frivolously in the past.

The information contained within this document is fallacious and subject to scrutiny. If you have definitive proof of the falsity of one of my statements, DM me on discord, ‘eerytunic’.

Evidence of Misconduct Towards Minors

To begin with, a not so insignificant portion of Swerve’s friends are between the ages of 13 and 17, and are therefore considered minors in every US state. Swerve has a history of saying blatantly inappropriate things to these individuals under the guise of “clipfarming”. I will extensively comb through them right now. These vary significantly in severity. Here are 26 examples of such things. The source for all of these is from the previously public “Shark Cult” discord server. I cannot imagine what Swerve says in DMs or in GCs. I have screen-recorded all of these on discord mobile to prove that they are not falsified or forged.

Swerve is pictured here saying he would tap (have sex with) Bamvie, a minor, who is under the AOC in their state, even though that is largely insignificant when discussing what messages are legal and weird and which ones are illegal and weird. As of right now, Bamvie is 16. This could be argued to be an illegal message, given that Swerve was 19 at the time and still is 19. Swerve is 19.

Mizukii, an adult geometry dash player, is pictured here calling Swerve a weirdo. Mizukii is 20. Mizukii is not a minor and therefore there is not anything inherently wrong with this. However, you don’t get somebody to call you weird unless you extensively do weird things. Swerve is 19.

Swerve is in a relationship that by his language I assume is closed. If it is not then feel free to invalidate this point. Swerve is pictured here saying that he wishes he could have sex with a man who looks like a woman, a violation of his fidelity to his partner. Swerve is 19.

Swerve is pictured here calling Ronrjkw a “leaking leaker leaky butthole”, which can be easily construed as blatantly sexual language. Ronrjkw is a minor, he is 15. Swerve is 19.

Dorito, who is 15, is an individual who has previously interacted with Swerve and is pictured here saying that sending pedophilic messages, a staple of Swerve’s humor, is wrong. Dorito is right, Swerve is 19, and shouldn’t be making these comments. Swerve was 18.

Kodiak, a 16 year old, another individual infamous for questionable actions, is pictured here asking Swerve a satirical question. Swerve, 19, then says “find the youngesty”, an obvious reference to children and an obvious reference to sexual connotation. This is weird behavior, Swerve was 18.

Swerve is pictured here saying “smash” to Kodiak, a minor. Kodiak is 16, Swerve is 19. Swerve is implying that he would like to have sex with Kodiak. This is further incriminating and weird behavior. Swerve was 18.

After sending a multitude of inappropriate gifs, Swerve is pictured here sending Timy, a minor, who is 15 years old, under the AOC in his state, a gif saying “u feel it” an inappropriate and sexual reference that is directed at a minor. Swerve was 18.

Swerve is pictured here adding the phrase “likesCOCK” on the end of dorito, a minor’s, discord username because they had a disagreement. This is also blatantly weird behavior as dorito is 15. The AOC in Australia is 16. Swerve is 19.

Pictured here is the first of many instances of Swerve making up quotes and passing them off as satirically said by minors. Netermind, when asked about these quotes, said “yea theyre satire”, Timy says “yea” when asked if they are satire. This is confirmation that Swerve is posting these words in other people’s mouths. Swerve is 19.

Pictured here are two more instances of Swerve making up quotes and putting them in people's mouths. Again Timy is 15. Swerve is 19.

Pictured here is another instance of Swerve making overtly sexual comments towards minors and putting them in the mouths of minors. Swerve is 19.

Pictured here is another instance of Swerve making a sexual comment and putting it in the mouth of a minor, yet this time, he is talking about minors in the quote. Timy, 15, claims this to be satirical. Again, it is weird and blatantly pedophilic to say this. Swerve is 19.

Kngstn, 15, is pictured here joking about Swerve’s habit of saying weird things to little kids. The age of consent in his state is 18. This comment would not have been made if Swerve did not have an infamous history of being a weirdo to minors. Swerve is 19.

Kngstn, 15, 3 years under the age of consent in his state, is pictured here claiming that Swerve has said sexual things to him in the past. Swerve is 19, and the age of consent in Swerve’s state is 19.

Skyy is 13. I do not have confirmation that this was said by Swerve as shark cult has a tendency and a history of making up quotes for each other. However, if this was said, it was said in a call of minors, most of whom are under the age of consent. Swerve is 19.

Swerve is pictured here being quoted to say more sexual remarks in a call filled to the brim with minors. Further, I do not have confirmation that this was said by Swerve. Timy is 15, The age of consent in Arizona is 18. Swerve is 19.

Swerve is again obviously joking here assuming that he said this. However, Swerve is saying this and it is weird, no matter how satirical. Swerve is 19.

Further, if Swerve said this, then what he said is weird and unacceptable in a call of minors. Avilarix was 13 at the time, and the age of consent in his state is 16. Swerve was 18.

Swerve is being quoted here as “yknow who bruh”. When somebody is so infamous for saying weird and inappropriate things towards minors that they are referenced as “you  know who”, they are probably pretty weird. Swerve is also saying that Popoff, a minor, is kinda bad. This is just weird and unacceptable. Popoff was not of the age of consent. Swerve was 18.

This is the end of Screenshot evidence. Video Transcripts begin here. All videos available on google drive with the links below if you wish to watch them for yourself.

In “SWERVEVID1”, Timy’s female cousin, a minor, is heard saying “why do they wanna know my age?”. Swerve then responds with “I[‘ll] rape you bitch, shut [up]”. This is blatantly unacceptable behavior and Swerve was of the age of majority at the time. According to most reports, Timy’s cousin was not of the age of consent in her state. If you believe this to not be weird, please reevaluate how you determine what is funny and what is weird. He then admits that his actions are weird, saying “I don’t even care how weird that was, that is the toughest sigma edit we’ve ever done”. Swerve is again in a call full of minors. Date of clip creation could not be found in metadata. Swerve is 19.

In “SWERVEVID2”, no pedophilic action occurs, and Swerve asks “why is Towery’s butthole so big”. However, it is done in a call full of minors. Date of clip creation could not be found in metadata. Swerve is 19.

In “SWERVEVID3”, Swerve says “Skyy”. Skyy then responds “What?”, and Swerve says “Can you bounce on the meat?”, and Skyy says “I won’t tell nobody bruh”. Skyy is a minor, Skyy was 12 when this clip was taken. This is blatantly unacceptable behavior. Swerve is again in a call full of minors. Metadata claims that the clip was created at 2023:09:10 04:11:00. Swerve was a month away from being 18 and Skyy had turned 12 a month prior. However, this is not a pedophilic action and therefore is not illegal because Swerve was still a minor.

In “SWERVEVID4”, Timy says “Swerve is turning into Skyy right now”, and Swerve says “I’m gon[na] fuck that kid”. This is further weird evidence, given that Skyy is 13 as previously mentioned. This behavior is also unacceptable. Metadata could not be found on this clip. Swerve is 19.

In “SWERVEVID5”, Dorito says “Swerve, I know that like the generally the age of consent is 18 or 16 but what's your age of consent?” and Swerve replies, “14.” This is further blatantly unacceptable behavior on Swerve’s end again, given that he was at the age of majority during the time this clip was made. This is pedophilic behavior. Metadata could not be found on this clip. Dorito confirms that she was 14.

There also exists a clip in which Swerve says he was going to “rail” Dorito, 14 at the time, when Dorito deafened. This is further weird behavior and Dorito cites discomfort from the experience. The age of consent in Australia is 16. Skyy made the clip, but did not answer my dm asking him for it, and refused to hand it over to Dorito.

Dorito is pictured here supporting what I just said.

SWERVEVID1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qvjbjtdMHdPSrua3DL7SKVDcdFF9Kq8w/view?usp=drive_link

SWERVEVID2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wyHSjabeRg3kGfXPtvNF11qwZxJsnjzD/view?usp=drive_link

SWERVEVID3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-aXLlK39W98wzOPw1fZHDfVkrdik1cV/view?usp=drive_link

SWERVEVID4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TwmEtD70If-H7w-HuBWv__BuWCjcEz2d/view?usp=drive_link

SWERVEVID5: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vYotSMhtQL0o-WiUvFSTwdhEaCzVF_RO/view?usp=sharing

On the subject of clipfarming

Now we will get to Swerve’s defense. In defense of these actions, Swerve confessed to me that he was clipfarming. Clipfarming is not an excuse for saying weird and pedophilic things to and about minors. Swerve is 19, and regardless of how funny he is trying to be, should not under any circumstance make sexual and weird comments about minors. This is not clipfarming, it is weird behavior. There is a line between clipfarming and pedophilic remarks, and that line is the age of majority.

The validity of this document

The information contained within this document is all supported, however, it is also fallacious. I could possibly be wrong about everything I have said here.

The Appeal To Hypocrisy

Swerve is going to make the attempt to invalidate my argument by saying that I do the same things or that I also do bad things. This is true information and I will address it all here. Tu quoque (the appeal to hypocrisy) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. (Wikipedia).

Student A: Paying someone to write your essays for you is cheating.

Student B: You copied my homework all the time in high school; this is no different.

Student B may be correct, but here’s why their claim is fallacious: It doesn’t matter if they’re correct because their statement doesn’t invalidate Student A’s claim. Whether Student A is a paragon of academic integrity, or they cheat on every assignment they receive, has no bearing on the validity of their claim that buying essays is cheating.

This is why the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy is grouped with other fallacies of relevance. These are logical fallacies that introduce irrelevant claims and facts into conversations, rather than responding to the opponent’s stated position.

An appeal to hypocrisy is an attempt to turn the conversation’s focus onto an opponent’s flaws. In many cases, it’s structured as a personal attack. Whether the opponent did what the arguer claims doesn’t matter—it’s all irrelevant to the discussion.

(Grammarly)

Swerve is going to bring up negative information about me as an attempt to invalidate my argument. He claims that my bad actions question the validity of my argument, which as explained above is untrue. Swerve will likely mention 3 major things, all others fall under these umbrellas. The abuse of women, the abuse of substances, or pedophilic action.

On the abuse of women. In the past, I have had fights with ex’s of mine. I have never laid a finger on any of them but I have had verbal fights with them. Swerve will likely call me a rapist. He will do so because I made a poor choice with my ex while she was marginally intoxicated. I have since talked this over with her and both her and I believe that this was not rape nor sexual assault and it was consensual. I still have a good relationship with her. If I was her rapist, this would not be the case.

On the abuse of substances. I have had problems with substance abuse in the past and most principally alcohol. Many of you already know this. Alcohol has led me to make poor decisions and I take accountability for all of them.

On pedophilic action. Swerve claims that since I have made comments that could be construed as sexual to minors, I am also a pedophile. The worst thing I have said is obviously satirically saying I would “rape” [redacted (13 yo)]. I was drunk when I said this, and it was also in a joking manner obviously. Importantly, I am 17, Swerve is 19. Further, I have said to [redacted] that “my dick hairs are poking my dick”. This is not sexual and I personally do not see a massive issue with it.

Swerve’s appeal to hypocrisy is fallacious and his defense is an appeal to hypocrisy. Therefore, his defense is not valid nor accurate from this perspective.

Swerve’s Blackmail

Swerve has attempted to blackmail me into not releasing this information. Swerve told me that he will leak private information about me (obtained from [redacted] and I’s dms), if I do not refrain from posting this document and this information. This is definitionally blackmail and is illegal. Here is proof of the two instances he attempted to blackmail me.

Swerve is pictured here stating that he has the potential to “ruin [my] public image with the stuff in [his] arsenal”. This is explicitly blackmail.

Swerve is pictured here stating that he has things “1 MILLION TIMES WORSE” on me than any of the stuff I have on him. Further, he states that “[he] WILL post everything [he] has publicly [c]iting direct [incorrections?] from things [I] have said”. This is also explicit blackmail.

Swerve is pictured here saying that his response “won’t end well for [me]”. This is not a direct threat so I won’t call it blackmail, but it is very very close to being one. He is also pictured again saying that his appeal to hypocrisy is a real defense.

Norwegian Penal Code § 268: "Any person who, by means of threats or other unlawful conduct, forces another person to provide something or to refrain from an act, shall be liable to imprisonment for up to 6 years. If the threat is made to expose someone to disgrace, this can be considered as extortion."

18 U.S. Code § 873: "Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, sends a letter or other communication containing any threat to accuse any person of a crime, or to expose a person to disgrace, or to injure the person in his or her business or profession... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

These two law codes demonstrate that Swerve’s actions are illegal on relevant sides.

This is blackmail because Swerve is attempting to force me to not post this document, and using the threat of publicization of my private dms with [redacted] to prevent me from doing so. These dms were not consensually shared and obviously meant to be private and therefore the sharing of them was a breach of privacy.

On [redacted]

[redacted] is the individual who leaked my private info to Swerve. This is confirmed as most of Swerve’s evidence on me could only have come from [redacted]’s dms, nobody elses.

Transcript of My Response To Swerve’s First Message to Me

This response is fallacious and prone to error. However, all statements within this document are backed by evidence and I am willing to address inaccuracies.

“is there something mentally wrong with you, I've interacted with you maybe once ever in shark cult and was never a fan of the way you acted so im not sure if this is how your brain works into thinking this is a way for you to get revenge but you need to seek mental help on this whole twitter thing you're going on about” Leading by asking me if I am afflicted with mental issues is either, indicative that you have no idea what your talking about, or indicative that you are trying to defend yourself from something that does not require all that much defense. How many times I have interacted with you is fairly unimportant and I do not see how this is relevant other than that I could perhaps have a personal vendetta against you. Its fine that you have never been a fan of how I acted. People have preferences and I feel similarly about you, and this is again entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, you saying weird and inappropriate things on a mass scale towards minors. Never once have I even implied that all this is for twitter attention nor have I implied that this is to get revenge. What have you ever done towards me that would warrant revenge?

“I know youre not an amazing person to have anything to relate to already but im more than aware of your drinking habits and not only is that one of the primary reasons i didn't like that when you [bad thing with [redacted] concerning substances, redacted upon [redacted]’s request].” Again you are making assumptions about my character based on secondary accounts from people who not only dislike me but are entirely culturally estranged to where I live and where I was raised. Most of this information likely comes from [redacted] who has recently decided to hate me and is therefore not an entirely sound source on what I have done in the past. I told [redacted] things that are almost exclusively confidential, I told him about my struggles, about my mistakes, and about my misfortunes, all because I trusted him. By even knowing about the questionable things that I have done in the past you are confirming that [redacted] has not only broken my right to privacy but has also proven to me that he was never who I thought he was to begin with. And on the topic of [redacted] drinking, I never explicitly encouraged him to do so, and in fact I discouraged him heavily when he began to use it as a threat (not negatively) and began to lie to me saying that he was addicted to the horrible substance. Further on the topic of alcohol, I am no longer addicted to alcohol and most people know this by now. You are likely not omitting this information and are just ignorant and misinformed on the subject. Alcohol was a substance that caused me to say and do a lot of very ignorant and bad things, things which I have apologized for and things which I have done my best to atone for. I will not claim to have not done these things and will take accountability for them all. However, most principally, this is entirely unrelated and irrelevant to the topic of your actions. Further, your wording is misleading, he used alcohol at a late stage in his overdose to attempt to confirm his death. I did not tell him to drink it nor was it a cause of the attempt. Furthermore, I attempted for an entire hour to contact the authorities in the United States and was unable to do so. By [redacted]’s own past admission, I have saved his life in the form of convincing him against suicide multiple times in the past, and would never want him to die.

“If youre going to continue this for some reason then at least use your words to me personally because im not sure what you think you're doing from spreading insane false alligations against me on this and what your motive is for any of this.” I am not planning on continuing this for no reason at all. I would rather, if I can prevent it, not have a level I like, ‘Every End’, be verified by an individual who I believe has done and continues to do weird things towards children. These allegations are also not false. I have been in shark cult, I have seen you say things and I have seen you make things up in quotes which lead me to assume that you are likely a groomer or a pedophile, by definition, regardless of your real intention.

“I'm not writing this message out of fear or anything if you think you can use that point, no matter what happens if you post any of the false information you have it shines a negative light. I'm willing to talk this out in a way that helps you get comfortable with this and not ruin any chances of close friends i have and this verification but wow you seriously need mental health if peruse this.” I truthfully have no interest into what emotion you are writing this out of, that is irrelevant to me. This information however, is not false, and I have evidence to prove that it is not false. I really do not care what light this shines you in. I will not present false information and any light that it shines you in is your own fault. Also, you later state that you are not willing to talk this out. Again the jab at the mental health is not relevant nor helpful.

‘after all im LITERALLY in a relationship and have been for the past almost 5 months now (with someone of age of course lol do i even have to say that). I'll check to see if you reply later or something but i wont be suprised if you go out and block me or write some main character thing.” The fact that you have a partner yet still make these comments is even more disturbing and honestly I would safely bet that she does not know about this and if she did she would probably think less highly of you. I do not block people because its not productive. Also I am not sure what you mean by ‘some main character thing’. If you mean a response then unfortunately I am going to have to do that.

“I am NOT what youre accusing me of and if you cant understand what a 'clipfarm' is then im not sure how you made it this far into shark cults existence.” I am not really saying you are pedophile but more so that you are showing signs of being one. Also a ‘clipfarm’ is not an excuse for saying inappropriate things to minors. Imagine if edp445 just said “oh I was just clipfarming”.

“this does derive from your hatred and i have a screenshot from the past 24 hours regarding this situation of you blatantly calling me names in it, I've been aware for months now about the hatred from you and people related to the 'Cosmic Cylone' server and I guess you see this as your best opportunity to seek attention.” Again I am not saying what I am saying out of hatred, and me calling you a pedophile and a “weird ass”, is not at all unwarranted or outlandish. Further, I am unsure as to what the “Cosmic Cyclone” server is. Also I am not seeking attention, I originally started this as a joke in Timy’s twitter replies, but I have since realized that following your Every End progress I now have immediate necessity to call you out for being weird.

“[redacted] who was just like you even realized you were more in the wrong on this and I was informed he was defending me when it came to this stuff.” Not sure how [redacted], a 14 year old boy, has an opinion that matters with this. I still have evidence of you saying things repeatedly, to the tune of hundreds of times, that are inappropriate and directed towards minors, and that action is entirely unacceptable.

“You can sit here use these screenshots and whatever other clipfarm bait you think you have but wow this really is dissapointing to see false stuff about myself like this.” This information is not false and I have screenshots and clips to back it up. “Clipfarm bait” is not my mission here, and never was.

I am not calling Swerve a pedophile or a groomer. I am stating that he has committed actions which are pedophilic in nature or groomer like. Swerve’s actions are weird at the very least. Swerve is 19.

Swerve is 19.