Private vigilante groups: 50 percent.

Individual psychos who hate us: 20 percent.

Yup, we got enough of those, and would again if the administration lowered the posting age to what it used to be. To be totally fair, however, while those types do pose an obvious threat and could potentially get past the guard of some of the more naive guys here or those under the influence, etc., the majority of that category of posers would get figured out rather quickly for the following reason:

Those who harbor negative stereotypes about us would make posts blatantly appealing to the mostly imaginary type of sexual predator they imagine all MAPs to be, as opposed to how the vast majority of us, at least, actually are (i.e., non-sociopathic human beings who are capable of love and have a sense of ethics). They would also clearly come off as adults pretending to be young teen girls rather than actual teen girls, based on equally biased assumptions they have on how real girls behave, their typical level of intelligence, etc.

The most dangerous of that sort are the vigilante or hateful psycho posers who try passing themselves off as fellow MAPs, or less often, as sympathetic teleiophiles. These types are potentially able to get through more barriers than those posing as teen girls since there are less legal issues involving them. Despite that, all of those I recall visiting here invariably exposed themselves by adhering to and attempting to appeal to the same MAP stereotypes I mentioned above.

In fact, one of the things that scared Ella off, and which had many others on the board paranoid at the time, was a mistaken belief that there was at least one anti vigilante from Perverted Justice or Absolute Zero among the respected posters pretending to be a pro-choice MAP and pulling the imposture off flawlessly. She and others got so paranoid about it that they didn't believe me when I tried to explain, based on much evidence in the past, how incredibly difficult it is for even cops and seasoned vigilantes to pretend to be pro-choice MAPs to the point that they do not leave at least a few burning red flags. It is incredibly difficult to do this over any length of time if you do not truly believe in the pro-choice stance, and if you have assumptions about MAPs that are by and large untrue.

As an example, let us not forget the belief among many writers of that popular CSI spin-off show during the 2000's, which they claimed they acquired from carefully studying Newgon and other legal MAP forums, that these forums commonly had a membership requirement that all newbies had to prove they owned real illegal CP images or vids or order to be registered. Yes, they seemed to actually believe this despite how strict the actual administrations of Newgon, GC, and BC were about sharing images and vids and how scrupulously legal they kept everything. In this particular instance, the MAP forum on that episode was called Our Special Love, and it was allegedly based on the real-life Newgon forum...which I have been on the administration of, and which I can dutifully attest was always fully legal and just as strict as GC about sharing pics and vids. So, what "actual research" was this based on?

One way such posers would raise red flags was by almost instantly raising the CP topic, about what the posters thought of it from an ethical standpoint etc., and making increasingly personal inquiries from there.

Grown men who claim to identify as little girls and want to see if they can pass for a little girl online: 14.99 percent.

I remember some of those! But...let's not forget the adult female mesophiles of the type who also identified as little girls and still wanted to be attractive to the guys on here so they could recapture the attention they would get when they were still real little girls. We had that type as well, so it wasn't all male posers in these cases.

Whatever is left would be random actual girls, some of whom arrive by mistake while typing in "pro anna" or something on a search engine.

We did indeed have our share of them. But as I noted in another post in this thread, we had plenty of legit underage meso girls posting here as well, which could cause the types of drama I mentioned in that post. The real girls we had here were most certainly not all accidental arrivals, but we did have some of the latter, and it was often rather hilarious when a mod had to explain to them what this forum was really geared towards as opposed to a place for girls to chat with each other.

There was another type of poser we would get that you neglected to mention too, but related to a type you did indeed mention. This would be either an adult MAP or child/teen fetishist who pretended to either be an underage girl or a recently turned 18 female mesophile (this is before that term was coined by Dr. Michael Sato in his 2016 research paper, of course) who was here entirely for the purpose of giving and receiving sexual titillation by telling erotic stories. So they would provide fake tales of their alleged sexual exploits for the mutual entertainment of themselves and the board, while pretending they were "sharing life experiences" with kindred spirits who would "understand." Some of them would be sharing supposedly ongoing experiences, and of course, some here would fall for these tales hook, line, and sinker, until enough posters began noting red flags (these were the "spoilsports" to those enjoying and lapping up the stories) to the point that the administration would start giving warnings to these posters.

Those particular posers would then move on, presumably to a site geared to such erotica. Some of them were likely real young mesophiles who recently turned 18 and were only here to give and receive titillation, and these would often move on of their own accord after making a few such threads (often including a lurid account of their supposed "deflowering") once they grew bored after receiving the brief spurt of attention they wanted here, grew bored, and realized they had nothing else to contribute.

And of course, there will always be board members who want GC to serve purposes it is not safe to serve and was never intended to, and hence would make the mistake of embracing these trouble makers. They would not want to accept the implications of what it means that GC is a public board with numerous teleio lurkers and insist that this forum be open to "everything" that might make GLer's happy. This explains the fate of those alternative GL boards created during the 2000's by posters who became disgruntled with all the "unreasonable" restrictions here, as a result of what type of posters and content quickly predominated there after they were established. This also goes for most of the BL boards that followed in the wake of BC for similar reasons. Of them all, only VoA also survived the test of time, and only because it adopted more restrictions over the years, not less.