At this point I really wonder if it is actually that hard for you to comprehend complex sentences or are you just pretending to be unable to grasp the context conveyed when things doesn't work in your favor and not aligned with the narrative you want to drive.

The point of why I asked is very clear, you even brushed upon it in your attempt to swerve the point I proposed. But let me try to do you an ELI5:

1. Providing evidence to public is not an option. Red bar of steel. No-no. Dead end. Mission Impossible. Over one's dead body. choose whichever expression fits you. DuckDice's policy [probably] prohibit this.

2. Due to point number 1, the only possible method is back to the original arrangement: providing to private eyes. Why? Refer to the extensive meaning explained on the other threads. Bottom line is: privacy policy.

3. You believe Kirito89 and me are besties, thus, there is a collosal likelihood that you'll automatically assume that I'll lie for him. Thus, even when the result, in all honesty, shows in favor of duckdice, when I conveyed this to the overseers, you'll just say "he lied. he's covering for DuckDice". The only acceptable answer [for you] that I can say, will thus a "Kirito89 lied, there is no connection between the extortion email with Op's address". Hence, useless.

4. That is why, I ask for your consent that you'll accept my findings, with me guaranteeing that I will 100% be neutral, with my long standing reputation here as collateral, as a binding ruling.

That are the points of the post. Understand now?