Methodology · Sources and corrections
Game Defense uses a source hierarchy so readers can understand why a claim appears and how much confidence it deserves. A source list supports nearby attribution; it does not replace it.
Official statements, court documents, platform or security documentation, published disclosure policies, and accountable public records.
A primary source is authoritative for what it contains. It is not automatically neutral. A company statement establishes what the company said, not necessarily every disputed fact.
Established news organizations, technology and gaming publications, reporters with a transparent sourcing record, and recognized research organizations working within their expertise.
Several articles repeating one unnamed source remain one evidentiary chain, not independent confirmation.
Public social posts, community discussion, forum threads, and archived public pages may provide context or help locate an original statement.
They are not verified because they are popular, detailed, or widely repeated. Game Defense does not archive or link to unauthorized files or download repositories.
Evaluation model
Status language
Supported by direct authoritative evidence or sufficiently strong independent verification.
Published by a reputable source and attributed to it unless independently confirmed.
Asserted by a person or organization with an interest in the matter. Attribution is not endorsement.
Evidence is insufficient, contradictory, anonymous, or too indirect to support a reliable conclusion.
Unsolicited material
It may prompt a public-source review, but Game Defense does not ask people to enter systems, obtain private material, preserve stolen files, or expose identities.
Email contact@gamedefense.org with the exact page URL, statement, explanation, reliable supporting source, and relevant date.
If a claim cannot meet the sourcing standard, Game Defense should narrow it, attribute it, mark it unverified, or leave it out.