N4G User Poll [Closed]

Hello everyone.

It's time to bring a topic back up for discussion. We've had a long time rule regarding rumors that anonymously sourced rumors will not be allowed on N4G. We know some agree, some disagree, and some don't know.

In an attempt to gauge where people stand right now, we ask that you provide a vote on this question about the topic.

Should N4G allow anonymous sourced rumors?

1. Yes.
2. Yes, but only from major news sites.
3. No.

---

The Results are as follows:

1. 7.8% of votes
2. 19.9% of votes
3. 72.2% of votes

Thank you everyone who participated!

[DEEHULK88]

3.

[VenomUK]

In the run up to the next generation there have been so many rumours, that are really speculation, being pedalled and publicised, often contradicting each other. You just have to look at the fan boys sharing made up rubbish just because it supports there favourite console. I don’t want N4G to degenerate into that.

The major gaming news websites are no better, most don’t have trained journalists, they often hire people who are friends and they are lacking in experience, skill and credibility. So for me my answer is:

THREE.

[Nitrowolf2]

This is the current rule they have in place, which TBH I think is "fair"

It is technically Number 3, except for one bit

b) spoken or written word rumors must come from a credible source with a history of being an insider in the industry or the like and not from any random Internet user;

But i'm more so leaning towards only if they can provide evidence like images, ect and have a track history rather than some random guy on 4chan/reddit.

Rumors should have some sort of "backing" to them. To many times i see a website report on a random reddit posting. It's how the GTA 6 rumor keeps popping up cause soem random guy types what people have already stated.

I say only allow them if there is a track history that's proven more right than wrong. Not "they were right that one time"

[UltraNova]

I second this. Three.

[Knushwood Butt]

Agree with Venom.

3

[neutralgamer1992]

3

And can we get a poll about gaming bolt and their random developer comment for clicks

Forbes and gaming bolt shouldn't be allowed to submit

There should be some sort of system where if a site is taking advantage of click bait articles they should be banned

And can we bring back the bubble system and open zone on n4g

[Hold-The-Door]

Or just give users more control of their own view, like Lurkit or Gameon

[angh]

3. No

[ziggurcat]

"Should N4G allow anonymous sourced rumors?"

No.

Major news sites shouldn't be immune, either. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day, but that doesn't make it a reliable or credible source for telling the time.

[-Foxtrot]

I say 2 - Mostly because if a big site is talking about it then it might have more weight to it.

Can't you guys like have a rumour tag and when you select it highlights the title of the article in orange or something to let the article stand out. Then when it's true the colour can turn green and if proven 100% false it turns red. I don't know spit balling.

I'm kind of surprised to have a poll, it's nice to allow the community to have a say however why not ask if to allow video game film news from big sites since Filmwatch is a ghost town or why not allow big Youtube streamers like Jim Sterling or Angry Joe for example to be posted on here? Least with someone like Jim Sterling whether you like the guy he researches and tells you about shitty MT's, lootboxes or anti consumer pratices, it gets the word out.

Could we maybe have a vote on those topics please.

[ziggurcat]

"... if a big site is talking about it then it might have more weight to it."

A major news site reporting on something that was made up on 4chan doesn't give that information any more weight.

[-Foxtrot]

I said "might" and considering the amount of shit 4 chan spews it's not like everything reported.

Besides I wasn't talking about 4chan, I was talking about journalists who have contacts who give them information, like Jason Schreier at Kotaku. I hate Kotaku but Jason is the only decent person there and the guy does his research into things.

Anyway it's iwhy I said the article could be marked to show how it's a rumour and not to be taken seriously.

[ziggurcat]

"I was talking about journalists who have contacts who give them information, like Jason Schreier at Kotaku. I hate Kotaku but Jason is the only decent person there and the guy does his research into things."

You mean like the HZD thing that turned out to be nothing more than the game showing up on PSNow?

[-Foxtrot]

@ziggurcat

What about his lengthy Anthem report...huh?

Some are true

Some are not

That's just how rumours go, which the entire point of this poll

[ziggurcat]

If I am not mistaken, that time he named his sources, and those reports were approved here because of that IIRC.

[rainslacker]

Most major sites will use named sources for such articles, or at least provide enough validating information to make it so it doesnt fall under the rule of unsourced rumors. They may say that the source is from a particular place, but not give a name. In those cases, I believe the rules call.it a valid source...although such things are rare so I may be wrong.

[bluefox755]

You find the big sites more trustworthy? I don't.

[-Foxtrot]

Rather than little sites looking for clicks by posting any shit they see on reddit or 4chan...

[nucky64]

well said!

[annoyedgamer]

Bro major news is like the mafia, they are worse they take lies and re post it amongst themselves to give it credibility in ways no noob internet poster can do.

[Nacho_Z]

I'd say 2 as well, if the big sites are reporting on something they've either done their homework or it's something interesting that you would like to hear about whether it turns out to be true or not.

The reason I trust them more is that they've got more to lose if they're wrong so they're naturally motivated to research articles.

[Stanjara]

No.3

[PressPlayBros]

3. No.

I feel like on this site people would clickbait even more.

[Juusterey]

yeah, it's awful enough without rumors

[Silly gameAr]

3

Can you imagine how many rumors some random person on the internet could make up, and gaming blogs would go nuts with? It would be insane.

[Juusterey]

It'd be like youtube with that "GTA 6 gameplay revealed!!!!"

[Zeke68]

3. NO.

[MaximusPrime_]

3. No

[Jin_Sakai]

Yes, Only if N4G has a specific section for rumors. Some rumors hold weight while some are fake. Regardless It gives users something to discuss.

[Christopher]

There will be no specific section for rumors.

[Jin_Sakai]

Ok, 3 it is.

[ziggurcat]

It might be worth making a note in the guidelines, perhaps, what insider sources are considered credible.

[DaReapa]

@Jin

Even if there was a specific section for rumors, I'm sure said rumors would still find their way to the main section.

So (3), No.

[Chaosdreams]

3. No.

[ocelot07]

3

[The-Matrix-has-you]

3. No.

[darthv72]

I vote 2 because some rumors turn out to be true. And its better to get those from more credible sources.

[MaximusPrime_]

The way I see it, N4G has been a lot tidier since before this “no anon sources” rule came into effect. So keep it that way. No.3 big NO

[Sonicjp]

3

[IRetrouk]

3. No

No way, would turn into a cluster f##k of rumors v rumors, and even more clickbait lol, we dont need that on here man.

[SpeedDemon]

2.

[gold_drake]

3.
no
but im all for getting rid of the downvote button.

[Ron_Danger]

No

And you should also crack down on opinion pieces that are clearly advertisements (cheetcc, Forbes, etc...)

Blogs are not news

[Juusterey]

would love to be able to "mute" anything from cheatcc and thegamer and whatculture for sure

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Yeah they're just getting money from useless puff pieces that's been rehashed and said a million time already. Forbes especially.

[rob-GP]

Only getting money if you click the link to read their article. Otherwise, if you only comment on the article on this site, N4G are the ones getting paid via the ads that pop up.

[gangsta_red]

2

More than a lot of times when a major site reports a rumor it turns out true. And this is a site that discusses news as well as rumors. So as long as it's not from some random blogger or backwoods website, I say rumors from reputable sites should be allowed.

It beats having to wait months or year to discuss the topic when it's finally confirmed.

[StoneyYoshi]

You can go discuss it on their websites then. That stuff needs to stay off this site so the toxicity stops peaking with each rumored article.

[gangsta_red]

The point is to discuss it here amongst this community. The toxicity is already here regardless, doesn't matter if the story is opinion or rumor.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

The toxicity is really no different then flame opinion pieces here everyday. I get it 4chan made their money and had a field day that past month. I say we go with Shinobi, Thurrot and Tidux though hes 50/50 Specifically Shinobi and Thurrot though. Jason isn't a insider but he has been right on rumored reports. He had a rumor that Sony was skipping E3 and that news dropped that same day. So he's looking pretty credible so far.

[rainslacker]

Theyll get brought up either way. They still get discussed. But allowing them gives validity to them. Major sites also spurce off places that have no sourcing creditability, like 4chan, and just because the major site reports that it got that rumor, doesnt mean that it's a valid source.

Just my opinion. We arent really missing out on much by not allowing them here.

[gangsta_red]

I haven't seen to many credible sites that grab rumors from the likes of 4chan or any other low tier site. And like you said, regardless it'll get discussed. The problem is having multiple sites here shut down before a discussion can even begin only to find out later the rumors were true, making all of us late to the party.

Let us discuss them the same way sites like IGN, Kotaku and others let their users discuss it on their site.

[rainslacker]

Think I wasn't that clear on what I meant. What I mean is that some of the bigger sites still report that the rumor is going around. Not that they sourced it themselves. I'd say places like IGN or GameSpot level size don't, because they have more means to validate info, and do have some standards when it comes to such things, but more so the bigger sites like Kotaku or Polygon. Not as big as the others, but reputable for the sheer fact they've been around for a while and are known to have insiders they can contact.

As far as shutting them down before they're discussed, I personally don't feel the discussion is really that articulated, and more often than not, it's just another spring board to spread whatever console war bias that someone already has. I don't want to give examples, because I don't want to make the discussion about one side doing it over another, because realistically, this happens to all sides.

A rumor has to have some validity, and an unnamed source just isn't valid in these circumstances. Those rumors may be true, but when weighed against the number of rumors that aren't true, it seems like we are still better off not worrying about it so much.

The biggest problem I see is that even when rumors are proven to be false, there are those that still use them as arguments to counter other comments, and then we end up in this roundabout discussion about how that rumor isn't true, while the more pertinent stuff goes by the wayside.

[Palitera]

3. Not at all. Most of them are fake and, if allowed, every kind of made up trash will take over N4G as clickbaits.

[Palitera]

After Christopher’s clarification that 2’s “big sites” are only the few biggest sites (IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer etc.), I change my answer to 2.

[BlackIceJoe]

I have no problem with rumors, on N4G, so if people want to talk about them, feel free, but know that they could also be just made up.

[Tetsujin]

2 if there's some weight behind the rumor(s) and/or the site actually has some type of tangible source.

[Christopher]

It's an anonymous source. How do you determine tangible or credible from that?

@below: that does nothing to answer my question

[darthv72]

some sources have to remain anonymous though. Think of them as whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers generally remain anonymous for the legitimacy of the information they are leaking.

[darthv72]

because you already sort of do 2 anyways according to this little blurb: spoken or written word rumors must come from a credible source with a history of being an insider in the industry or the like and not from any random Internet user..

With the way things have been axed lately its as if this part of the rules dosent apply when its coming from an anonymous source through a credible site. Like i said, sometimes they have to remain anonymous and we have to take the sites word for it which should be allowed.

[Christopher]

"because you already sort of do 2 anyways"

No, we don't. We don't allow ANY anonymous sources BECAUSE we can't determine its credibility. That rule applies to whether the person being named is credible, such as Tidus. But if we don't know the source at all, there's no way to determine credibility. We just have to take the word of the journalist that it is credible. That's two layers of credibility there.

[PrinceOfAnger]

I also choose 2، especially if there's a hint from devs or something ..

[Tetsujin]

@Christopher

Let me go in a little more detail. All rumors should be treated as such, rumors, and not to be taken as 100% fact/proof. If there's some sort of source, like a leaked picture, or a former associate no longer tied to an NDA, or some sort of in house video recording that shows said rumor as fact; that's what I call a tangible source. There have been stories where people who were former employees were still tied to an NDA so they stayed anon, which is fine. Same with data mining; those are considered tangible evidence as well because there's some sort of proof/evidence.

Now, there's also those "my friends goldfish pet dog from his 4th marriage with a cow..." those I wouldn't trust. Also, depends on the rumor in general - extra characters, new game, some sort of pay/free to play version.

So my #2 still stands because in order for a rumor to be treated differently, there should be some type of source material to fall back on if something was to go into question; just word of mouth isn't enough, as there should be something to fall back on. From a fan standpoint, this can help with decision making on certain products/games; from the company standpoint this does nothing more than cause unrealistic expectations.

[Palitera]

Answer 2 is really unclear. I wouldnt call any of the generic click bait sites which post “news” here everyday “big sites” (Dualshockers, GameRant etc).

If we are talking about serious sites, like Gamespot or IGN, then it is a completely different option.

[Christopher]

It would be your IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, etc.

[Palitera]

Then I change my answer from 3 to 2, because they worry about their credibility and we can expect to only big time alleged leaks to be talked about. Only rumors already out on the wild.

[jznrpg]

Would Forbes count ? Because they are clearly not credible

[angh]

Forbes should be blocked by default.

[UltraNova]

Chris,
If we are discussing "credible" sites then if you and co do your due diligence and list some "trusted sites" that are allowed then we can talk No 2. Better yet, do another poll, listing some sites you consider are trustworthy when it comes to rumours amd let us vote on which of them get greenlight(let us help of you like). I understand that its a tall order but you gave the option here not us.

My two cents.

[Emilio_Estevez]

2 - let em fly. Everyone knows about them anyways, failing them changes nothing really. If they turn out to be true/false then we know who's sources are better and are more informed for the next round. Rumors are rumors, so they won't always be true. Everyone loves a juicy rumor, let em free and kill opinions on them. We would need a way for small/med sites to prove their rumor claims and/or go by track record or something similar to keep things in control a little while still giving a bit of freedom to people doing actual journalist work. I get tired of failing these things, but we still shouldn't allow 4chan, reddit based and similar.

Also, this poll is my fault, LOL!

[Relientk77]

Captain Blood! How could you? Lol

[Emilio_Estevez]

Everyone knows about them anyways and we should allow people to decide if they think they are credible or not on their own by reading and discussing them without effectively saying it isn't credible by failing them. This gives more power to the people!

I honestly thought people would be totally for it....

[gangsta_red]

"We would need a way for small/med sites to prove their rumor claims and/or go by track record or something similar to keep things in control a little while still giving a bit of freedom to people doing actual journalist work."

100% agree !

[Nineball2112]

I agree with you, Emilio.

[Wasabi]

@Emilio

**"I honestly thought people would be totally for it"**

I'm 100% behind you on this, #2 option all the way, as you quite rightly say everyone knows about them already and some articles (DF GitHub leaks for example) are failed under the current system when they clearly show multiple truthful elements to the story and are verified by DF themselves.

Bloomberg's article today is another great example - the sources may be anon but the information aligns with comments from the hardware manufacturers themselves - if nothing else it warrants discussion on the site and Bloomberg ARE a very credible website.

Having rumours labeled as such would be no worse than the multitude of opinion pieces that are published daily, as long as they are clearly marked and discussed as such they should be allowed to stand.

[Emilio_Estevez]

At the same time, 2 does put us in a weird sort of middle ground though. Deciding who is credible and who is not is tough and when we went with this rule, one of the reasons is so we didn't have to decide. I don't work in the industry or have connections to it and I'm not a journalist either. So how to we weed out crappy ones while allowing more credible ones? It's a conundrum. It's hard to come up with rules that make it so the cream rises to the top and the other stuff gets filtered out without having to decide who is credible. Having to decide which story is credible individually wouldn't be a good rule, imo. We need something people can understand and is hopefully clear. Still want 2, we'll figure it out if the people want it, sure seems they don't though.

[Wasabi]

@Emilio

I agree,

It's certainly a bit of a minefield to negotiate - The idea of sorting out who is credible or not is not an enviable task in itself, whilst I like the idea of #2 personally (if only to make for more interesting discussion and promote a wider array of articles on the site) I can fully understand the sentiment behind keeping things as they are.

#1 would be unworkable, if rumours from sources such as Tidux etc were allowed it would open the floodgates for every fake insider on Twitter to have their lies gain traction, any change would have to be clearly managed and selective in the websites reporting.

[Relientk77]

I was more so messing with you because this is all your fault apparently, not the fact you chose #2. Look at the chaos you started lol

[bluefox755]

3, enough fake news on here as it is. Need a better filter.

[RazzerRedux]

2. If someone like Jason Schreier posts a rumor from one of his sources then the entire internet will be talking about it.....except N4G. Why?

Now if its cheatcc......sorry but no way.

[Christopher]

I don't know why people rely on Schreier when he's more wrong than right even with his inside contacts. I think other sources have way better records, like the DF people.

@below: understood, but note how you accept his rumors without understanding his record due to how people discuss his rumors. You weren't basing it on facts, only on public opinion of his standing on rumors.

[RazzerRedux]

Ok.....I don't know his overall right/wrong ratio but he is well-respected. Replace "Jason Schreier" with "the DF guys" and the point is still the same.

[RazzerRedux]

"understood, but note how you accept his rumors without understanding his record due to how people discuss his rumors. You weren't basing it on facts, only on public opinion of his standing on rumors."

I said "someone like Jason Schreier" because option 2 requires "only from major news sites". It was an example of someone who is known to post information from sources and fits that requirement. I never stated Jason Schreier's rumors should always be trusted and "accepted". Like it or not, but JS rumors are news and it is talked about everywhere but here. Either way, it was just an example which is why I was quick to adopt your example instead (I don't know DF's right/wrong ratio either). And frankly, maybe if N4G allowed such rumors to be discussed then it would bring more awareness to how right/wrong these journalists are.

"You weren't basing it on facts, only on public opinion of his standing on rumors."

So you know "factually" the number of times JS has been wrong and right? I'm curious then. What is his ratio of right to wrong?

[MasterCornholio]

I would like to add my opinion to this. If a big site or a known insider has a source that he personally trusts than it should be allowed. The sources that shouldn't be allowed are those that come from random anonymous insiders from forums and Twitter accounts. If someone/site is willing to stake their reputation on a source they they trust then I shouldnt it should be allowed in my opinion.

However if this is too difficult to determine and causes a lot of problems then we should still stick with the old rules.

[Ron_Danger]

I forget... is this website called “News 4 gamers”?

If you want to have rumors allowed, have a separate rumors section that you have to click on to see them. Keep them off the main page because they aren’t news.

[RazzerRedux]

It isn't just news though. You have opinions pieces and reviews as well. I agree though that customizable filtering would be a huge benefit on this site.

[exputers]

3

[SpaceRanger]

3. No

People from all ends spout rumors constantly as fact.

[Blu3_Berry]

3

[Garethvk]

To an extent.
Like we did with our Borderlands post where I sent you the source which could not be made publuc and you decided it was valud and worth posting. Some vetting.

[tedisome]

3. No.

[Muzikguy]

Looks like a resounding "NO". I say 3 as well. Although there are times when people want to remain anonymous and those are usually credible rumors

[WickedLester]

3. No

[jznrpg]

3 .

[Duke19]

3, although just to play devil's advocate:

Still 3

[Nitrox]

3

[Ratchet75]

3

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I think articles that contain some anoymouse sourced info but also quotes from verified people should not be held to this standard such as the Bloomberg article talking Sony's challenges with price

[rainslacker]

I think that would be alright so long as the title and description dont focus on that one thing. I think if a rumor exists, and someone wants to write a article that explores that and finds factual corollary evidence, and write it as an opinion piece, that's fine too. But I'd hope that if the mods do that, they require those facts to be verifiable, and not just some random subjective hyperbole like many articles use around here to look valid

[Wasabi]

2.

I absolutely believe that rumours (as long as they originate from a credible outlet) and are clearly marked as such SHOULD be allowed.

So far N4G has not covered or discussed in any detail the excellent piece from DF that originated from two very credible sources Komachi Ensaka and Rogame, they may not be well known on N4G but for people that follow they are extremely credible.

Bloomberg (I suspect the catalyst of today's user poll) are also a credible outlet that rarely comment on video games and only ever write or comment on a subject when they have reliable sources that they believe to be factually correct , reason was given for the sources remaining anonymous in this case and the story is in line with comments made by Sony's CEO himself.

Many users here are blocking and reporting this type of news because it does not align with their own points of view, aside from the Bloomberg example today there is another prime example of this on Eurogamer's coverage of the Dreams campaign also published today, where a user made an attempt to block the article by report because it did not align with their own POV.

News and articles are not about "getting what you want", News and articles should be about reporting what is going on and what is being discussed in a wider forum regardless of whether or not that makes any one demographic happy, without this N4G is simply allowing that demographic of a fanbase to control the narrative, where the overwhelming majority essentially controls the news - only allowing stories through that they agree with - this is wrong.

To this end not only do I believe that rumours from credible outlets based on anon sources SHOULD be allowed, I also believe that in the interests of promoting a more inclusive, balanced and positive environment, users that use the reporting system falsely to limit and / or control the narrative should have restrictions placed on their ability to influence the community voted news presented on the site.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Well said ... this 1000%

[gangsta_red]

Hands down the best comment.

[darthv72]

Just an interesting observation. those who have voted 2 have disagrees (all of them pretty much) while those who voted 3 have agrees. So I guess they are trying to silence even those who want to have more freedom in reporting.

[Christopher]

I'm only going to address this part of your post:

"Many users here are blocking and reporting this type of news because it does not align with their own points of view"

We have a currently set policy on all anonymous sources, it applies everywhere. Blaming "sides" on that rule is silly and more indicative of your own mindset of the rumors themselves and not the rule regarding anonymous sources. People submitting valid reports on a rumor they don't like is no more wrong than someone who isn't a fan of a game submitting low scoring reviews of that game.

And a lame report suppressing an opinion piece that didn't prevent it from getting approved? Don't fling mud, we're all standing in it. This is just a petty comment towards a specific person having nothing to do with the question being asked here.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

but what about the failing of articles like the Bloomberg article that while it contains some "sources" it is also filled with information from named sources and information beyond just the pricing struggle. That article contains quite a bit of "news" and the blanket policy trying to be applied on N4G ultimately is just stifling actual news.

[Gazondaily]

"Blaming "sides" on that rule is silly and more indicative of your own mindset of the rumors themselves and not the rule regarding anonymous sources."

Well so much for constructive discussion on this then.

And for this so called blanket policy, soon after this someone made an article just quoting Yoshida's comment and it got rejected because apparently it was a duplicate of the FAILED article....even though it wasnt dealing with the rumour.

[Wasabi]

@Chris

In reply to your comment Chris and with respect mate,

Whilst I can certainly see where you're coming from with the sentiment of your reply, I absolutely do not agree with your observation that reports are raised solely due to the articles being based on anonymous sources and in line with N4G's rules.

I have personally seen multiple examples of users repeatedly report rumour based submissions from anon sources that they do not agree with, whilst approving and / or being entirely more forgiving of the exact same rumour based articles when the story more closely aligns with their own personal prejudice and feelings - I'm not saying its one side or another, I'm just stating that it happens. Having a clear, definitive rule that rumours are allowed from anonymous sources (from credible outlets - ie Bloomberg and Digital Foundry etc) would go a long way to mitigating this.

Regarding my mindset, I'm a gamer that wants to use the site to read the news and maybe have a real discussion about the story's being discussed on the wider internet - I don't have a side. If my point of view clashes with that of others it's almost never because the things I write are inflammatory, I simply refuse to vilify any point of view that doesn't align with my own, thats not taking sides, nor is it a mindset, that's being a rational human being with my own opinions based on my own individual thoughts and feelings.

As for the point about false reporting, why allow it? Users are already asking for sites to be banned based on what's being reported, reports of lame on genuine articles simply because a user does not agree with what is written is tantamount to an attempt at censorship, wastes the mod's time investigating and can often deter genuine members of the community from voting for these articles, me pointing this out isn't petty - I'm trying to engage in genuine constructive discussion whilst the community has your ear in regards to what does and doesn't get approved on the site.

After saying this and to take the convo back on topic, I would like to reiterate my stance on #2 being the preferred option in light of your poll, I'd also like to add that I find the inclusion of a poll to gauge the community's opinion refreshing and a great idea that echoes what I'd expect from a community driven news site.

[Christopher]

1. I've also seen such things. They happen by people on all sides of the spectrum. That doesn't make them invalid reports nor does it make them valid. But, when a person has a valid report, it doesn't matter where their bias stands. If it's invalid, we delete that report (why you don't see as many of those things, because we remove them).

2. We have a clear, definitive rule. That no anonymous sources are allowed. Even with that clear, definitive rule, people still report based on their bias. It happens. It will happen with any rule we have. There's no escaping that. It's not germane to the topic at hand, it's just a fact of life in the gaming community.

3. All of that above has no bearing on the rules, though. People are people. Rules are rules. People don't follow the rules all the time. It's why we restrict people and moderate the submission queue as it is.

***As for the point about false reporting, why allow it?***

Lame is a valid report that won't cause a submission to be failed. As the one you brought up, it got approved. As to why it exists? Because it's the only system that exists to give a person a way to tell people that a submission shouldn't be approved. There is only approvals, not disapprovals. Lame reports, which are completely valid, allow a person to explain why they think it shouldn't be approved.

You can 100% disagree with them. That's fine. But they are in the system for a reason and people use them to express their opinion.

***Regarding my mindset***

I think saying that your mindset isn't what it was and what you typed above that was heavily focused on certain people belies that. It's fine. It's fine to have a mindset of one thing over another. It's not a negative. It's different. And mindsets change from moment to moment as it's based on attitudes, which change.

But, it was obvious your writing was tilted to one specific subject rather than the overall subject of what type of rumors to allow on N4G. And the one call out definitely felt unnecessary, another element of your current mindset.

I'm sure you're usually less focused, but it definitely was focused on that one.

[MasterCornholio]

@Above

Those articles were failed due to the current sites policies. However what Christopher is trying to do is asking us if those policies should be changed. If enough people support the change than anonymous sources will be allowed in the future.

I know I stated my opinion above and can't edit it but maybe allowing credible anonymous sources wouldn't be a bad thing.

But the issue with that is that it can ignite system wars even more and can increase tension in the site. So in the end you could end up with something similar to the next gen speculation topic on NeoGaf. It's up to the community to decide if that's worth it or not.

It may not seem like it but I respect your opinions even though I may not agree with them.

@Christopher

"But, it was obvious your writing was tilted to one specific subject rather than the overall subject of what type of rumors to allow on N4G"

Everyone has a bias on this site. It's part of human nature. One thing that I've learned on N4G is that it's impossible to appear truly neutral. Everyone has their preferences and when something grinds against what they like then they show their bias.

Everyone knows I prefer PC gaming, PlayStation and Nintendo over Xbox but that doesn't stop me from trying to comply with the rules of this site. When we agreed to the TOS of this site well that's the rules that we have to follow. Biases aside.

[rainslacker]

If those two sources are named, and credible, then how would they fall under this rule? Or am I misunderstanding the situation.

I thought actual credible insiders, who are verified in some way, from some place that does such things and is known to be on the level for such things, would not be unnamed sources.

Named doesnt have to mean we know who they are, just that they would be in a position to know stuff based on their connections, or their own positions within the matter at hand

People who have a dodgy track record, arent verified anywhere, and just spout rumors at random which may or may not come true, and usually dont source themselves, are the people who are considered unsourced.

[Atom666]

Just scrolling through and wanted to say that Wasabi is spot on. His observations and "mindset" are shared by more than a few people.

I understand that the rules are the rules and people are people. That doesn't make it any less obvious that the rules are selectively used to the advantage of a few users (often the same people) who seem very eager to shape a narrative. That's not a critique of the mods or the rules. It's a call out to those who clearly can use the rules and procedures to aid their agendas, whether that be personal bias or something more nefarious.

Usually I laugh it off. When you consistently see it, and you mix it with the high toxicity present in most threads regardless, it creates a "lame" environment in and of itself.

I do understand, however, that it's not fair to expect mods to change people's behavior when the rules are pretty straightforward and can be applied equally. I would love for rumors to be openly discussed, but I voted for option 3 because of what I've already consistently seen.

Certain anonymous rumor-pushers are obviously slanted in their messages. I truly suspect many are paid to do so, and that is a strong conviction that has earned me a few bans from Gaf/Era. If "credible" rumors are to be allowed, I can guarantee you which ones will get bombarded with reports and which ones will quickly be approved.

It's for that reason that I believe Wasabi's comment is relevant to this discussion. Users -- through their own hands--don't consistently apply the rules right now. Adding another way to do so sounds like a recipe for more of the same nonsense.

[Gazondaily]

Very well said

[Christopher]

***It's a call out to those who clearly can use the rules and procedures to aid their agendas, whether that be personal bias or something more nefarious.***

But if reports are valid, is there nefarious work being done? And if we remove invalid reports, how do they stop things from happening?

As I said previously, people knowingly submit low-scoring game reviews that are legit solely because they know it will upset other users. Is that breaking the rules or is that just an opposition to those others who only submit high-scoring reviews of the same game? It's similar to the hypocritical dance of when people trust IGN reviews or don't, as it really boils down to when they support their bias. Only difference is, our rules don't care about your bias.

People want to assign an "intent" behind the person making the submission, reporting the submission, and so on. But that intent is so many layered on the N4G community that it pretty much becomes a zero sum game. Let alone that in the process, the rules only support valid reports/submissions, so regardless of intent, of which many people have with regards to rumors and opinion-based submissions, the rules don't care about intent.

There's no report that will cause something to fail solely because someone disagrees with it unless others are not interested in the submission. The actual submission @Wasabi mentioned alone proves that as it was a lame report based on opinion that did nothing to prevent the submission from getting approved. That lame report didn't stop it from reaching the number of submissions required to get approved, the only thing that would have prevented it was a lack of interest by others.

I think so many of you are so heavily focused on the intent of everyone around, that you're worrying that the rules will reflect that intent. That's not what is happening.

People can flip-flop over their opinion of the rules all they want, I and the moderator team will continue to moderate things based on the rules as they are and not an individuals intent or desire. This is apparent when we fail things each week that different fans want to see and try to push through.

We are completely aware of the cliques on N4G and how they operate. But the rules don't care about your cliques, just the rules themselves. But, I think some here think that the rules are supporting of one clique over another, when that's just not true.

If you don't like that someone with a bias reports something, you can let us review it. But, just because you disagree with a lame report doesn't mean it's not a valid report. And if it's a valid report, no one should take it personally or anything of the sort. The goal of contributors shouldn't be to "sneak in" stuff if it breaks the rules, but to follow the rules. Even if it's something you disagree with, we have rules for a reason and they are as they are for many reasons. Some of those reasons to prevent abuse of the submission process to spam the site with things everyone finds disruptive to the community.

[SniperControl]

3.No

[rpvenom]

2

[Vasto]

#2

If its a rumor from a major site then it should be allowed

[MadLad]

2

[Nineball2112]

2.

If it's marked as a rumor, then it is clearly up to everyone reading it on whether to give it any credence or not. A rumor is, on it's face, a supposition. It could be real. It could be fake. It's conjecture.

Let people decide if they believe it or not. If nothing else, they are interesting to read and discuss.

Edit: Just realized this was prompted by the Bloomberg story on the PS4 price. That is a prime example of something that I think should be allowed. It's of major interest, it's credible on it's face, and it's from a reputable website. It's a shame that isn't allowed to approved and discussed (CURRENTLY).

[LordoftheCritics]

3

[TheEnigma313]

3

[gamer7804]

2.). But make sure its clearly marked in the title RUMOR: before the headline.

[Asuka]

I have lurked on this website longer than most everyone here...

I would have to go with #3 simply because I have seen what misinformation or false rumors does to the community around here from time to time when an article does slip through with anonymous sourcing. Then again it also seems to bring in traffic to the website which for analytical purposes is probably good.

[SeanScythe]

2

[mkis007]

2 with the caveat that it specifically not be from anonymous websites. The person reporting it must be named and must claim to know their source. None of this cyclical era>4chan>Era>net.

[Kribwalker]

this

[Obscure_Observer]

2

[taurul]

3. No.

[Snappy]

2

[8bitRey]

3

[Dandizzle]

3.

[Fluttershy77]

2

[evil6eric99]

2 - All of you know who put 3 know that as soon as you hear about it somewhere else you will either be talking about it in the forums here under a topic not even related or you will bitch cause it's not on here. Humans love gossip and what ifs, just clearly mark the article pure rumor and speculation until otherwise backed up by facts or disproved by them.

[Terry_B]

3. NO. And btw. let us filter out specific sites we don't want to see in the news.

[Segata]

3.

[QuePasa87]

3

[TheKingKratos]

3

[NecrumOddBoy]

No! #3

Can we also stop the junk articles like sites that link to Amazon for deals? It's just spam.

[pecorre]

Rumors, no. Leaks, yes.

However, I would have to say 2.

If every major site is talking about a rumor and you can't find anything here, I think I would miss something by visiting only N4G.

[Hardiman]

3.

[Smokehouse]

Yes. Unless it’s complete and obvious trash.

[Kribwalker]

2 for sure. if they’re from a credible site they won’t be publishing it if their source isn’t credible

[nucky64]

before tha last 2 months i'd had said if it's "anonymous" - i say 3. now, after seeing all of the rumors flying around about the new consoles coming out - i'd say never have these types of stories. rumors are just that - rumors. if this is going to be 'NEWS 4 gamers" rumor stories shouldn't be allowed. honestly, i think "opinion" pieces are a waste of time too and only tend to incite people and nothing more.

[froy402]

2

[moriarty1889]

no.

[darthv72]

so i was reading that failed article about the PS5 may cost more and the reasons why it was failed were all the same. N4G does not allow anonymous sources... but they DO allow it. It says so right here:

b) spoken or written word rumors must come from a credible source with a history of being an insider in the industry or the like and not from any random Internet user;

And there are times when a credible news agency reports something where their source must remain anonymous. so you can have both, someone who is an insider that chooses to remain anonymous and reporting to a higher credible news agency for the story. bloomberg is not some random internet user and neither is DF or IGN and they report on stuff that is leaked to them so they had to do their own due diligence first to even publish a story. Then when those stories get shared here they get failed because of "anonymous sources".

The idea of this site is to bring forth the gaming news from around the world and discuss because we cant all be scouring the corners to find it ourselves. N4G is a repository not a news organization. This site does not create news, which THAT would make sense of not allowing anonymous sources. instead news comes here to be judged and to get here it should already have been vetted, especially by the bigger sites who provide such content.

[Christopher]

Just so I understand you correctly, you think an anonymous source can develop a "history of being an insider" even though we never know who they are, and, because they are anonymous, we never know which rumors they are specifically tied to?

[darthv72]

a site like bloomberg and ign are the ones whos name is on the line. Just because they dont say who their source is doesnt mean we can't take them at their word. Like i said... N4G is NOT a news agency so you dont have any credibility to lose. It is a repository, a place for all news to come into and be viewed and discussed on.

you already have the approval process... let it do its job. Especialy since there is a rumor option to use. you asked (in this poll) and so far there are lots who would accept option 2 (anonymous allowed from major news site). you got nothing on the line Chris if the rumors fall through. That would be on sites like IGN, DF and bloomberg. Dont take away the fun of discussing things that may or may not end up being true.

[drunkenspy007]

3. Also, block cheatcc, thegamer, and would be nice to identify other sites based on clickbait alone. Get rid of them please!

[travestyj]

3

[Kerppamaister]

3

[SugarSoSweet]

THREE!!!!!

[Cheesewizard]

3

[Rip-Ridah]

3 Musketeers

[annoyedgamer]

3. No

[Juusterey]

3
If you are going to, maybe have a separate section, or at least a way to turn them off
while you're (hopefully) reading replies, maybe give us the option to blacklist stories from certain sites

Hopefully the fact that literally not 1 of the 114 comments are for it, you will realize it's not wanted

[StarLink]

3.

[Dario_DC]

3 no

[VerminSC]

3

[Khlydo]

3

[S2Killinit]

2 - only for rumors that have gained sufficient media attention.

[JohnCG7380]

3

[Spenok]

Definitely 3. There have been MANY big name sites to post BS under the guise of "anonymous sources" in the past only to be wrong, or proven false from the beginning.

In and out of the gaming realm. It's used far too often to push a particular idea or viewpoint.

So definitely 3.

[chrish1990]

3. It would be abused instantly.

[umair_s51]

1

[GaboonViper]

No. 3, a big no.

[kingkobra2xxx]

TWO

[Mooncake]

Look at some of the other gaming news aggregators and copy the good bits. Ethics are for losers.

[Kaedro]

3. No.

[Guyfamily999]

3. No

[TGGJustin]

2.

[RoseSapphire]

3.

[jamesclark1991]

3 - No. That should be a separate website. N4G does what it does well and that's why I've been coming back for years.

[BrainSyphoned]

3. Forbes and the like, there aren’t enough “major” or real news sites here

[crazyCoconuts]

3

[franwex]

1

[FunAndGun]

3. No

[DragonKnight]

1. Provided that the tag RUMOR is used. Don't see why any other rule should apply unless everyone is of the opinion that literally no one can think for themselves. It shouldn't be up to a 3rd party to tell you what you can think. If you look stupid by believing unsourced rumours, then we get to laugh at you.

The amount of votes for 3 is sad. Just screams "THINK FOR ME!!"

[gangsta_red]

A wild N4G LEGEND has appeared!!

[DragonKnight]

Thank you, thank you. Your reverence sustains me. 😂

[darthv72]

holy crap.... DragonKnight, where you been man?

[DragonKnight]

Just took a hiatus based on where the wind was blowing here. I'm sure many of us old guard have felt the same way once in a while. How you been?

[darthv72]

nice to see an old face. I been about the same. chastised by one side and lambasted by another. It's to be expected for being a middle grounder. Guess the right wind was blowing that brought you back.

[DragonKnight]

@darth: Yeah man, been trying to be a middle ground guy myself but with a slight preference. It's never easy. I'll probably be around more, if only to make Chris ' job harder. 😂

@Foxtrot I'm inevitable, inexorable, monstrous. Lol.

[-Foxtrot]

Oh look he's alive :')

[ThePsychoGamer]

3.

[Aclay]

I vote 2. I'm fine with rumors from anonymous sources if the rumor originated from a major site/publication like that Bloomberg PS5 story just recently.

A site like Bloomberg (or other major sites) likely arent going to publish any ol rumor from just anyone and if they decide to put it out its because they know for certain their sources are indeed plugged in to that story.

[darthv72]

thats what I feel as well. Big sites will likely have their reasons for not publishing the names of who privides the info (legal reasons and such) but that doesnt mean because we dont know their name that their info is any less important. They must go through a vetting process in order to make it to publication. so who are we to pass judgement when the big site already did in the first place?

[Parasyte]

3

[AnubisG]

I would say 2.

[Wintersun616]

3

Also while you're at it, ban Forbes blogs.

[paradigmfellow]

3

[StoneyYoshi]

3. No.

[mamotte]

3.

[Question_Mark]

2
A big problem with rumors is that a lot of people take them as fact until it’s proven to be either wrong or right, but I’ll still vote for 2, though.
A lot of rumors turn out to be true, and it’s kind of fun to be like, “Wow, that rumor turned out to be right! That’s cool.”

I don’t know, as long as it’s not 1, I’ll be fine with whatever.

[sushimama]

3.

You just can't. What's to stop someone from making an anonymous post on 4chan, and then some website claiming a crazy rumour. Think about it, some nomad writer, trying to make traction in his chosen profession writes, "Sony Is About To Purchase Rockstar... according to a leak on 4chan" .. it would generate so many clicks. Be totally untrue. But the writer can claim the source as "4chan" instead of a random post on 4chan...

All I'm saying is, if you change your policy, there are so many that will take advantage of this. Sometimes rumours are so untrue and FAKED on purpose and MANY reputible news site pick up on it simply because it has gotten a lot of traction. But the whole thing was false. If you allow this, it's a slippery slippery slope. Don't do it. That is all

[gunnerforlife]

3. No.
Also clickbait articles or articles designed to cause arguments within the website between different fanboys should also be banned whether they come from big websites or not.

[Jalapeno]

3.

Too many high hopes.

[DEAGLETURK]

No

[HICK]

3

[solidossnakos]

No

[Artemidorus]

Yes you should, you won't gain the source from people who want to be known.

Not reliable all the time but some will be correct.

[BlaqMagiq1]

Obviously no. Johnny from down the street saying random shit shouldn't be taken as a rumor but it is and it needs to stop.

[xHeavYx]

Leaning to 2, but I'm gonna go with 3.

[FlyGuyHung]

2.
Their fun to discuss and if a mojor site is reporting it with THEIR OWN sources then it might have some validity. If their just reporting while sourcing an unknown site then NO, It shouldn't be allowed.

That said, rumors are simply that... Rumors. At the point of reporting it could be valid but then plans may change and things get scrapped.

I think the best solution as done in the past is to have these articles CLEARLY identified as such. If users choose to engage thats on them, not N4G.

[Rebel_Scum]

What sites count as major?

[MasterCornholio]

3. No

My personal opinion. If the source is anonymous they can say whatever they want without any repercussions. I honestly can't trust people like that because in theory they can be spreading false information.

Now I know major sites have anonymous sources that they use but it should still be a general rule because even those sites tend to use dodgy sources. Like for example I saw a site using an anonymous source which was a user on NeoGaf that was banned because he refused verification on the site. And recently there was another ban because an infamous Twitter figure refused to go through the verification process on the site.

If someone is willing to put their name to a rumor then I really don't have an issue with that because their credibility is on the line. If they don't do that then they can just create another account without anyone knowing that it's them spreading the rumors.

What I really want to see on N4G is some sort of forum that's separate from the news articles. That way people can discuss rumors from anonymous sources without it interfering with the actual news. Also the addition of an ignore function would do wonders since there are several users that I really don't want to read the comments from.

Anyways this is just my opinion and I really don't mean to offend anyone with it.

[MasterCornholio]

Now that I've read through the comments and thought about it a little better I would like to change my vote to a 2 but only if these conditions are met.

1. These big sites have to back these anonymous sources. That means it can't be some rumor article about a random thing that some NeoGaf poster said for example.

2. There needs to be a list made of all sites that are allowed to post anonymous sources. This should avoid confusion when submitting these articles.

3. Evey rumor should be treated the same. It doesn't matter if it favours one platform or the other they should get approved. Sometimes we will get negative rumors on Xbox other times they will be positive rumors. If the policy is changed there should be no whining over this. If a rumor comes out thats negative towards your platform of choice you will just have to deal with it.

4. Contributors need to be held accountable for trying to pass rumors from obviously bad sources here. With a little reading and research it's pretty easy to determine what those are.

Just my opinion.

[Spurg]

1.
Obviously, rumors lead to discussions and speculations in the comment sections. There is absolutely no harm in having them.

[MasterCornholio]

I heard a rumour that PS5 will be 18TF with a dual GPU set up and that it will retail for 399$.

There's a reason why I disagree with the first option is because anyone can spread fake rumors. There needs to be a way to separate really credible sources from the complete BS ones. Otherwise we end up with something like 4Chan or paste bin.

[Spurg]

It's obvious that there are rumors that shouldn't be taken seriously. But there are ample amount of credible rumors that deserves discussions.

[MasterCornholio]

@Spurg

" But there are ample amount of credible rumors that deserves discussions."

I don't disagree with allowing rumors from credible sources. However option 1 would allow even the obvious BS to filter through which is why I can't agree with it.

There are sensible rumors like this Bloomberg article and comments from a developer about it. Then you have the Mister X level of BS that shouldn't be discussed.

[Skuletor]

I say 2 but introduce two Rumor tags, one for anonymous rumors and another for those that aren't anonymous. That way people will know what kind of rumor article it is before clicking through to the website

[ajax17]

2

[Yusi-D-Jordan]

1.

[ZAF]

3

[Redgehammer]

No

[Silver_Faux]

3

[jeremyj2913]

3

[Lethaltare]

3

[madpuppy]

3

[Hypo]

3.

[strayanalog]

3. No.

[hardcorehippiez]

No one deserves to be silenced . Do some sort of merit system if they turn out to be true. It wont take long to weed out the fakers and expose them. At the end of it all censorship of sorts does not work it just forces the information good or bad to go somwhere else and get put into the consciousness in other ways . Use your own bullshit filters ffs people.

[ShadowWolf712]

Gonna err on the side of caution and say...

3. No.

Leave the rumors to forums like GAF and ResetEra. I've seen way too many cases where an unsourced rumor gets taken as gospel because it shows up on the right news sites, and then persists even long after being disproven.

[Jakens]

2

[MONOLITHICIDE]

yes, why not. its discussion

[macman_ca]

2.

[william_cade]

3. No

And no IGN, Kotaku and Polygon articles. And none of those articles that make you click a million pages just to get the information.

[JayRyu]

3

[MrVux000]

Most absolutely 3.

[Tzuno]

1. yes, because 2 and 3 might be controlled.

[Magog]

Yes.

[SaveFerris]

3.

[Tekkers]

3. No.

[Eonjay]

No. It is fun to specials but more often than not these rumors are advertised as truth and that dilutes reality.

[chiefJohn117]

2

[Jrios355]

Absolutely not. Then there would be an endless wave of N4G posts about unconfirmed information and lots of false info. I'd preffer it if we stuck to official confirmation, and even leaks (Leaks have shown to carry a lot more weight than rumors).

My answer is 3.

[TheCaptainKuchiki]

Imagine getting spammed with Gamingolt articles... I mean even MORE gamingbolt articles.
EW

[TheCaptainKuchiki]

3.

[winter_hill]

3. No.

[AK91]

3. Not even from major news sites

[porkChop]

3. No.

Anonymous rumors cannot be trusted. Literally anyone can lie or make stuff up, and that's what happens more often than not. If someone refuses to put their name on a leak/rumor it should stay off N4G.

[OG_TK_Cole]

I pick 3 and say no because a rumor is just that a rumor. And if its a rule, lets stick to the rules.

[Father__Merrin]

3

[Sammyto]

3

[PlayStationBrah]

3. Too many small sites claim they have ‘sources’ trying to get hits.

[victorMaje]

3. No.

[Normann]

3

[Rambokind]

3.

[Tewi-Inaba]

3

[bovandy]

3

[rainslacker]

No.

Anyone can make up a rumor, and even so called reliable sources for rumors are wrong more often than they're right. Rumors get spread without giving them validity with an article, which more often than not leads to nothing but speculative criticism. Something we have enough of with actual news or opinions pieces of actual news already posted.

Making exceptions to the rule seems like it would fall into the realm of who gets to decide if one is valid and what isnt, which I know christopher isnt too keen on based on our past conversations.

[sampsonon]

2

[sergons]

3

[Porshapwr]

3. No

[Vanfernal]

3

[Profchaos]

2 for me but seriously outside of this I think something has to be done about other elements of this site like it constantly runs 18+ porn game articles and junk articles already.

I think there's more pressing matters outside of a major news site like IGN ran an article hinting at the ps5 price

[UnholyLight]

3

[fiveby9]

3. No.

[CDbiggen]

2. When previous rumors have been put on here, I tend to read the ones where the author mentions that the "leaker" for this story has a good track record. Even if nothing comes of it, it may be good to speculate.
Who's it hurting?

[Zool 08]

3 Need to keep it real

[bellome]

3

[feenix-5]

3. No

[Tross]

How about a big, fat no? I’m voting for 3.

[Araragifeels]

3. No.

[Abcdefeg]

2

[itsmebryan]

3

[addictedtochaos]

3, No.

[Welshy]

3.

[THE-JAGON]

2

[RAVEN81]

3

[terstomp]

3

[JagX22]

2 - allows for better content.

[modsrhypocrite]

1. Yes. Long as it's labeled as such, I see no harm in it.

[rob-GP]

no. Otherwise, everyone will start posting their own opinions and 'takes' on things as rumours, clogging up the feed with speculation and 'wants'.

If it's something like a rumour of a game being released, and there's actually a listing for the game on the rating board site then fine - that's no longer a rumour, it's pretty much factual information that hasn't yet been announced - but all these rumours based on text files, a friends uncle, and a mate down the pub, regarding the new PS5 and SX are getting a bit annoying and pointless

[Stopac]

3.

[jznrpg]

The reason I say 3 is because Rumors can become truth to the uninformed . And this site will become a rumor cesspool by companies who pay for these rumors or people who want to misinform with the first option . As long as it’s out there they and they get positive publicity from it they don’t care If consumers are well informed or not . If the money is good enough even the 2nd option sites could be compromised .

[rlow1]

2

[godashram]

3
A few years back I would have said 2, but as of late, just like the real media, even major gaming sites will jump on a rumor without verifying in the race to be 1st. While some have been true, many, many, MANY other rumors are just outlandish, too unbelievable or ridiculous to be remotely true

[yomfweeee]

3

[Neo111]

3

[galmi]

no

[thorstein]

3. NO

And bring back bubbles.

[richie007bond]

NO

[cl1983]

3

[GamerRN]

2 only if big news site sourced it... But BIG sites only

[Chriscrinkle18]

2

[DOOMZ]

1

[johndoe11211]

3

[Valorforte]

3.

[Atom666]

I would say 3, but it has to be consistent. You can't approve rumors because they come from anonymous randoms on Era like Tidux or Thuway when they're only correct 50% of the time, and fairly biased. You have no idea who they really are, let alone who their sources are. But people then jump all over media members who don't name sources??

It's subjectively applying a credibility standard that has no objective measure. You don't know who told these "insiders" the info anymore than who the annonymous sources relied on by someone like Schreier when he's breaking a story.

So, if applied fairly and evenly, option 3. If it's going to be selective and unfairly applied, than open the floodgates.

[Elwenil]

3. No.

[ajax17]

For those of you who chose 1 and 2:
www.reddit.com/r/GamingLeaksA ndRumours/

[saimcheeda]

3. No.

It wouldn't be a news site if it was about rumors, that too from anonymous parties

[HaVoK308]

3

[Smokehouse]

Add thumbs up or down on articles. It doesn’t have to do anything but be another reference. Allow everything and good rumors will get high thumbs. Downvoting won’t do anything, like when everyone dislikes my comments.

[TheHateTheyGive]

3. No.

[megatron_78]

3

[Epzaos]

3

[Barneyco]

3

[stanr]

3

[alb1899]

3

[moomoo319]

2 - its news everywhere else on the internet

[lellkay]

i would say 2 personally, but I can see why people are saying 3.

[ToxicSushi]

No thank you #3

[GameStallion]

3.

[crazyboom]

3. No

[ShinRon]

3

[Canidae]

3

[CaitSith]

3. No.

[Junghova]

3

[fan_of_gaming]

3. No

[DragonWarrior19]

3

[Stevonidas]

Tres.

[KillBill]

3.

[P_Bomb]

Enough gossip and misinformation out there already without having to watch the watchmen, edit the editors. Does anyone even post retractions anymore?

[KrushBait]

1

[XxINFERNUSxX]

3. No!

[Takamura06]

Why is it that the website automatically opens another website now? Fix it like number three.

[iQuasar]

3

[overrated44]

3.

[hamburgerhill]

3

[ExplodingJuice]

No.

[saladthieves]

3

[dolfa]

3.

[Tra-D214]

3

[Climhazzzard]

Have a separate page for anonymous rumors?

[FanboysKiller]

Yes.

[UnbreakableAlex]

3

[Tapani]

3. NO!

[syrion]

No 3

[gaffyh]

1

[DiRtY]

1.

But when it is ridiculous and The obviously made up, don’t.

[Iltapalanyymi]

2.
looking at my "failed news" history most of them turned out to be true

[FluffyButtz92]

3

[sander9702]

3.

[neil363]

Number 3. Rumours are rubbish.

[CoNn3rB]

3.

[FTLmaster]

1, but ideally from only industry insiders/folks with a proven track record.

[BlackDoomAx]

3

[DigitallyAfflicted]

Yes. Nothing wrong with sharing rumours as long as you clearly stated that it's only rumour.

[Emeraldu]

3

[SoonDeadByOldAge]

3

[Andrei_Sparrow]

There's always Reddit. If you won't have it, then I'll just be here less.

#2.

[talllpine]

3. People need real solid information now, more than ever.

[AmUnRa]

3. It is only fueling the fanboywar based on rumors and absolute no facts.
And only trusted sites should be alowed, not clickbate sites like Gamingbolt and Forbes and other sites with a bad reputation.

[BeOpenMinded]

1 and put rumor tag like before

[Badhabit007]

3. No.

[gerbintosh]

3

[InMyOpinion]

3. No.

[brando008]

3

[waderae]

1

[SmoothC911]

3

[Thundercat77]

No. 3

I have spoken.

[Hugodastrevas]

3

[Kall68]

i second 2, only from known sources, enough with this false rumors..

[ScootaKuH]

Very much 100% categorically. No

[Takwin]

3 no

[fonger08]

2. Because if not, then ALL “rumors” should be denied since their sources are second hand data and are anonymous. But then what does this site consider a “trusted” site for rumors?

[Pastemaniak]

3.

[ThunderSpark]

3

[Jimboms]

3

[RookieMonsterLives]

If we are going with #3, like the majority of the voters here, then why are we still seeing these VGchartz rumor, fake number articles popping up on a weekly basis? Can we get rid of that site as well if we are going to block rumors from big outlets like DF and IGN? We don't want to create a double standard here. Just my 2 cent.

[Christopher]

Those are analytical-based rumors with VGChartz having a pretty proven track record on sales estimates. #3 would not change our current rules as we do allow credible sources, just not anonymous sources.

[EpicFruityPie]

3. no

[darklaw]

3

An anonymously sourced rumor, is just someone's opinion or idea. Its completely fictitious, and we are bombarded with enough hokey pokey on a daily basis as it is.

[Rehl]

No, never. And being reported on a "major news site" - whatever that means - does not mean it holds any more credibility. "An anonymous reddit user who claims his uncle's brother's step-father's daughter's ex works for Nintendo...says they're making a Switch 2" should never be regarded as anything other than attention-seeking on the anon's part and desperate clickbait on the outlet's. Same goes for any of these so-called "insiders" who give vague hints to then go and say: LOOK GUYS, I was SORTA right in my claims so therefore I'm a trusted """source" "". It's why the "image of a photoshopped computer/TV screen at a slight angle with motion blur applied" has become such a meme.

[DragoonUS]

3

[Chocoburger]

I vote 3. We get too many rumors as it is, cutting them down would be a fine idea.

[dubal-e]

2

[Pandamobile]

3

[coolbeans]

Panda!!! :D

[Pandamobile]

Beans :D

[Sophisticated_Chap]

2

[CWheatley]

2

[MasterCornholio]

Members of N4G have decided that Anonymous Sources will not be allowed.

Link is for my future reference to this page for reports that I make in the future.

https://n4g.com/user/blogpo...

Just wanted it in my comment history because it will help legitimize my reports on rumors from anonymous sources. Tried to PM it to myself but I couldn't do that.

Anyways I'm glad we cleared this issue up with the community.