Basically,
I want SG to remain as partial as it possibly can. That goal is reflected in it's name
Source Gaming. Obviously, I/the site has some bias in the articles we have, but I'm not going to prevent something from being published even if I disagree with it---
as long as it's well written and thought out. With some articles,
some of the writers have taken the chance to be published on SG as an attempt to
mostly persuade instead of informing about character's chances. This is something that I would avoid as much as possible, especially when there is little logic presented in those articles.
@
fuzzy pickles is working on an epic about Mother (the
outline is literally
three pages long), and his goals with the article are very sound. He's not attempting to persuade people to vote for another Mother character in Smash, but is attempting to inform the reader everything and anything about Mother representation in Smash. I feel like these kinds of articles are severely lacking in the community,
so I'd like to personally encourage their creations.
Furthermore, there is a lot of misinformation within Smash. I've made it my personal crusade to fix it, through translations and research. I feel like synergy works best within SG when the people writing articles can use stuff that has been found in an attempt to inform fans of the new information in a digestible manner. Articles that are well-written will be well-sourced,
as they encourage an active, fair debate.
Character chances as DLC are hot-button, debatable issues. Honestly speaking, if I wanted to read only the "pro" side of a characters chances in Smash, I would just subscribe to their thread here on SmashBoards.
I'm not interested in producing an echo-chamber. I'm interested in creating an actual discussion. I enjoy reading the pieces when the author takes all factors into account, even if it "hurts their cause".
Anyhow, that's just my take on the manner.