Talk:Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche/FAQ

Q1: Why isn't there a reception section?

A1: This is a legal case with factual information, not a product review. We are interested in the actual dispute and its impact on the industry, instead of the subjective reactions of video game commentators. The article is centered on the ruling of Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, and the facts required to understand this dispute and its implications.

Q2: Why don't we include more press releases, announcements, and forum posts to see what the parties were thinking?

A2: The parties' public comments about the lawsuit are the furthest thing from neutral and should be used sparingly. As a rule of thumb, summarize what the parties did more than what the parties said: briefly summarize the parties activities and main legal arguments in the filings, but avoid undue weight on public statements that are made with the intention of swaying their fan communities. Certain public announcements prior to the legal dispute (starting Fall 2017) are less likely to be intentionally misleading, and are useful to show how the parties understood their rights before emotions were heightened by the lawsuit.

Q3: Are references to the legal filings more reliable and neutral than references to comments from the parties?

A3: The legal arguments of the parties are essential to understanding this dispute, and a brief summary is required to give context to the reader. Keep in mind that lawyers are held accountable for false or frivolous claims, facing penalties or even disbarment. This makes summaries of the filings more reliable than other public announcements, as publicity campaigns have no such accountability.

Q4: How do you determine which secondary sources are reliable and neutral?

A4: Most journalists are not legal experts, and that includes video game journalists. Secondary sources like Ars Technica, Polygon and Rock Paper Shotgun that analyze the parties' legal filings are considered more reliable, as they are exercising more thoroughness and fact-checking, and referring to arguments that are accountable in a court of law. Other sources that refer only to press releases or web announcements are at high risk of repeating misleading, non-neutral information.