N4G Note: Embargoes, Spoilers, and Opinion Sourcing

Hello N4G people.

Just wanted to post this as a reminder of some items about N4G as recent submissions and likely future ones will be dealing with similar topics.

.: Embargoes
N4G does not have a policy against breaking embargoes for any website that chooses to do as such. We accept content from a source and it is up to them to deal with issues that arise from breaking any embargo on their end. An early review due to obtaining the game via an early retail release is perfectly fine here.

Our standpoint is that how you view a review should be skeptical no matter if it's before or after an embargo. But we won't create a rule to prevent news from being delivered when it's posted in this manner.

.: Spoilers
N4G allows submissions with spoilers to be posted. Typically it's obvious, especially when it's a video that with a title of '30 minutes of gameplay' or the like. Even then, the discussion of spoilers should be relevant to the video posted and not other elements (you don't give away the ending because someone posted the first 30m of gameplay).

If it is not apparent that a submission contains spoilers, we do require that contributors add "[Spoiler]" to the title.

Discussion of said spoilers are allowed in those submissions. BUT, discussion of recently released games (within 6 months of release) are not allowed otherwise. Anyone who posts spoilers in a submission, especially with the intent to spoil a game, will face a hefty restriction if not a permanent ban. There are no ***SPOILER*** tags that prevent this rule from being carried out. Just don't post spoilers of recently released games in the comments outside of submissions obviously discussing said spoilers.

.: Opinion Sourcing
We have what some would call restrictive rules regarding who may post opinion-based material, including reviews. These rules exist in order to protect the news from being cluttered by sites that are quickly set up and pump out opinion pieces in a manner and aim to get hits. We want opinion-based material from established sources only, of which there are thousands of already.

Early a hotly debated review was failed not because it was fake, not because it was before an embargo, but because it had become a site that is personal in nature. It has one active author who posts infrequently and had posted a review of God of War that he had, as proven to me directly, obtained legally and had actually played. This is the only reason it was failed.

Not meeting our requirements for opinion-based sourcing does not mean the content is necessarily fake. It just means it goes against our broad guidelines to prevent abuse from the gaming community. Whether you choose to call such fake or not is up to you, but N4G does not define it as fake just because it's before an embargo or from a personal blog.

.

Thank you for reading and if you have any questions, please refer to our expanded guidelines from here - http://n4g.com/user/blogpos... - or feel free to PM me directly.

Christopher
N4G Site Admin & Community Manager

[passenger77]

I don't get it. People articles get banned because of very minor things, but a Turkish well established site? publish what it seems to be clearly a fake, in any case violating and embargo just for clicks and you guys decide to keep it... for the sake of opinions, if I got that right?

[Gazondaily]

Was it fake though? Legit q

[Christopher]

It wasn't.

[Christopher]

It wasn't a fake review... Neither of the reviews posted today were fake and neither were bad reviews of the game. Even if they were, the only reason they would be removed would be for not following our guidelines.

Both sites provided proof that they owned and played the game, btw. It wasn't asked for, but it was provided nonetheless.

[lxeasy]

Seemed fake

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Well who approves the poorly sourced articles?

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Most if not all articles in the pending section of this site are open to public approval, right?
So I guess one answer is "whoever has an agenda that the article benefits, or an opinion the article reflects closely enough."
That or just "pretty much anyone that wants to approve them."

[rpvenom]

Guys, you can imagine the difficulty of having to micro manage every submission. Cut these guys a break. I'm sure they're doing the best they can and apparently it wasn't a fake so regardless, N4G has been a site I use everyday and I think we can all simply just commend them for even running a good gaming website versus others. Nothing is perfect and sometimes things slip through the crack but I'm sure they're doing the best they can. Not ass kissing, just coming from someone who tried to run their own website and business.. things happen.

[GrimDragon]

Thx for the Clarification n4g. Keep up the good work. Still one of the best gamer communities out there after all these years. Please never lose your backbone.

[Lighter9]

How about spoilers in the headline? I see so many of those, especially for recently released games. I haven't seen this, but here's an example: Far Cry 5: Guide - Where to find all of (spoiler) in Hope County. Except they spoil it.
I haven't even played it yet and I didn't know those were in the game. I come here for news, not spoilers.

[Christopher]

Spoilers in headlines aren't allowed. Though collectibles aren't spoiler material if I get your point about Far Cry 5. Spoilers are specifically pertaining to character and plot elements that are not previously known and may give away such details.

Not a spoiler: saying there are comic books you can collect or races to unlock specific vehicles.

Spoiler: saying which characters live or die.

[FullmetalRoyale]

I definitely agree with that sentiment. My issue is with someone stating “spoiler alert” without specifying what subject is about to be spoiled. An example:
“*Spoiler* Talking about Sniper Wolf’s death in Metal Gear Solid.”

See what I mean? I have to read through the spoiler to know that I should avoid the spoiler.

[Christopher]

That is why I mention the following in my post: "There are no ***SPOILER*** tags that prevent this rule from being carried out. Just don't post spoilers of recently released games in the comments outside of submissions obviously discussing said spoilers."

[FullmetalRoyale]

I appreciate structure and rules. I do hope that people who try to bend the rules are punished appropriately. Specifically submitters that get beaten to the punch on a story, and try to get the article that beat them fair and square pulled. The most egregious perpetrator is well known.

[djsilke45]

These xbots were ready to hate lmao

[Tetsujin]

My concern is involving the Spoiler tag. After what happened with Heavy Rain and with the name someone posted to spoil the name, can there be some rule set to also ban people who use names as spoilers as well? Some wanna-be troll will post spoilers as a registered user, and we don't need that kind of toxic behavior.

[Christopher]

That is the same as making a comment.

User names, profile images, bio, comments, malicious links to spoiler videos, and more all fall under that rule.

We can't prevent it. No one can. But we can at least ban it when we see it.