so you dont have proof? and the statement that it was "proven false" is wrong?

i could argue all day about how valid or bogus the leak's information is, but my personal belief is still that it was in character for old-school rockstar before they did that whole restructuring. but i dont want to argue, i just want to know if there was ever proof.

Why you don't wanna argue in favor of those specific notes I've brought up? My questions are valid. I'm no admin, so you gotta separate the subjects with me. I'm the one asking you about the notes. Roosevelt takes care of the wiki.

Are you going to defend this dubious leak, yes or no?

a wiki is fan-made and fan-run, you dont need an admin to admit a page has a fault. and yes, i think all the notes mentioned are possible. it all seems likely to me. none of it seems like "proof" that its a hoax. what will be achieved by me defending each and every note? even if im able to fully explain the reasoning behind my decision, it contributes nothing to this post nor my original question. if you believe the content of the leak itself is too outlandish to be true, then say that on the wiki. all i did was ask for proof. is there any? why are you talking to me?

this post is not "in defence of the evil hair leaks", its "where is the proof that its false"? i believe rockstar had a much more degenerate vision for the game beforehand but the company got restructed to deal with the toxic fratboy all-male studio culture and what we ended up getting was relatively whitewashed. you can call that theory insane and stupid, but what you cant do is say my original question is wrong. i need proof that the leak is a hoax. did rockstar confirm its a hoax? what about all the stuff it got right? who wrote this? why does the wiki simply brush it off as "proven false"? especially since a few years ago the wiki itself seemed divided on its authenticity. it feels like something happened, in some way shape or form it was proven to be a hoax. the content of the leak not pertaining to your idealised version of rockstar games is not something i want to divulge.

i'm willing to accept its fake if you can cite a source for the claim "[...] has since been proven false". what a weird statement. makes it sound like some new information was discovered which proved it false. if you dont know the answer, then just say that, instead of acting like a total idiot and hypocritically abusing the concept of "burden of proof", all while lambasting me for being gullible enough to believe something this wiki actually supported for a time. i simply want to know what proof was discovered, what employee was interviewed, how it was proven false.

the whole “leak” reads more like somebody’s perverted sexual fantasies in RDR2 or their odd ideas for how the game could’ve been, with the whole Sadie thing with the biting off of genitals ?! The details of wanting to see nipples in the bath? The murfree brood with a reference to hentai? Rockstar isn’t a schoolboy who loves that shock value when it comes to making serious games anymore. It’s evident to me that it’s just somebody’s weird ideas for what RDR2 could’ve been as compared to “an actual leak”

Can someone explain what is this "leak"?

Is it something like GTA SA's Hot Coffe?

dont i know you from the blox fruits wiki?

@HumAntTheWarriorAnt its basically an old leak that came out soon after the game did. the leak came from a self-professed alleged ex-employee who was disgruntled with how the game turned out as there was a ton of cut content. the leak goes on to describe hundreds of cut things in a bulleted list, some of which sounds cool, some of which sounds disgusting and horrible, and some just straight up weird. several years later, a lot of content from the leak was confirmed to be found in the game files and from other sources. the people in this post are attacking me for believing the leak could have been valid, as im mainly focusing on why the wiki says it was "proven to be a hoax" despite me not finding any proof.

Being from a Roblox game wiki doesn't mean I don't play peak.And thanks for explanation.