Editorial standards
Held to the same standard.
A platform that demands accountability has to be accountable itself. These are the rules we hold our own reporting to — the standard we ask of the games we cover, applied to us.
Accuracy over speed
We publish when a claim is verified, not when it's loudest. If we can't stand behind a fact, it doesn't run — and we would rather be second and right than first and wrong.
Sourced and dated
Every report names what it's built on — public footage, records, on-the-record accounts, or corroborated tips. Each file carries a publication date so the record is traceable in time.
We protect sources
We never reveal a confidential source's identity without explicit permission. Anonymity offered is anonymity kept — it is the foundation everything else stands on.
Independence
Our conclusions aren't for sale. Memberships, book sales, and support fund the work; they never buy a verdict. No league, sponsor, or advertiser reviews our reporting before it runs.
Fairness and the right of reply
When a report makes a serious claim about a person or institution, we seek their response and represent it honestly. Criticism of a system is not a license to distort the people inside it.
We label opinion
Analysis and argument are marked as such and kept distinct from factual reporting, so readers always know which is which.
Corrections policy
When we get it wrong
We correct errors promptly and in the open. When a report is updated after publication, the change is noted on the file itself — we don't quietly rewrite the record. A substantive correction is labeled as one.
If you believe something we published is inaccurate, tell us. Send the specifics and any evidence you have, and we'll review it and respond. Accountability runs both ways.