Siege has been out for 7 years, had a competitive scene for just as long. But for as long as the game’s been out the community is still lacking in certain ways. Journalism is a good example.
SiegeGG is a great site for news, post game interviews, stats, and summaries of announcements but it doesn’t do investigative work. The broader esports news sites like Dexerto or JaxonGG(RIP) drop an R6 article infrequently but no Jacob Wolf or Richard Lewis stays long enough to make Siege their beat.
As a result, no one consistently writes articles holding orgs, players, and TO’s accountable. No one from the Siege scene reports on topics the same way TSM’s conflict of interest was followed. This lack of reporting extends to roster reports, an unfulfilling but essential part of esports journalism. Unfortunately, leak accounts fill that particular area in dangerous ways and have been overlooked by the Siege community for too long.
There’s a clear difference between leakers, people who know a person in an org or two (they might even work there), and journalists who make official reports. Journalists adhere to strict standards while putting out reports, due to the nature of reporting on sensitive topics.
The Investigative Approach
Hearing rumors that 100 Thieves is coming to R6 from John at the bar doesn’t mean it’s true. Journalists have to vet the source and back it up with other, different sources. John might be talking out of his ass because he’s drunk or he might actually know something. Either way, John’s word alone isn’t enough for a report. Does John work at 100 Thieves? That would give his claim more credence, but you would still need multiple sources.
Finding definitive evidence and multiple sources are the biggest hurdles in journalism. Punishing match fixing is so difficult due to this as Richard Lewis highlights in his series of articles scrutinizing a former ESIC (Esports Integrity Commission) employee and his brief dive into match fixing he couldn’t report. Maintaining these journalistic standards is paramount for the reputation of everyone involved. For the reporter, so that their work is to be believed, for the publisher, so their reputation as a news source remains trustworthy, and the people involved, so as to not unjustly sully their name.
Putting out unverified reports can permanently hurt reputations. Look no further than w0nderful, the Russian AWPer for Team Spirit. He’s taken a lot of heat because he was accused of match fixing. However, as Richard Lewis notes, there isn’t enough evidence to prove his guilt just as there isn’t enough to fully exonerate him. The timing was horrible. He was hit with these claims right as the CSGO Major started and was put under undeserving pressure going into the biggest event on the CS calendar. His first ever Major now tainted by harassment due to an unprovable claim.
No one, save those on the team and in the discords, will ever know the truth. Every time he doesn’t perform there will be a vocal minority that flames him, claiming he was throwing to fix the match. It doesn’t matter what w0nderful accomplishes in his future, this accusation will forever haunt him. This is why journalists are held to such a high standard, if they fuck up it doesn’t just affect them, it can alter career trajectories of rising stars and taint legacies.
Accountability
When Device strongly shut down Luis Mira’s first report that he was returning to Astralis almost a year ago, Mira was instantly in everyone’s crosshairs for getting such a report wrong, despite his incredible track record. Given the information Device provided in response, what Mira had done was make a false that caused outrage from Ninjas in Pyjamas fans, which impacted Device’s mental health, the very reason he had to stop competing in the first place.
Mira’s reputation was at risk for this report despite later being proven correct by Device’s return to the org. Had the report been false, Mira’s credibility would have been called into question for the rest of his career.
With leak accounts none of this matters. They can just throw out ‘report’ after ‘report’ without being held to any responsibility if they’re wrong. They hide behind the anonymity of the internet when an incorrect report blows up in their face, or heavens forbid, someone else’s.
The reason why journalists can be held so accountable is so they have skin in the game. You know it’s Richard Lewis and Luis Mira writing that report, a face to the name. A real person.
The reason neL isn’t respected by many other reporters is because he hides his face and doesn’t use his real name. When he falsely accused Shiro of sneaking a symbol of support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine into his sticker, there was no negative repercussions. How could there be? He’s a shadowy figure that throws out reports and disappears. The internet forgot in days and the only ones who noticed were already holding him in lesser regard for previous blunders. Even with a point by point teardown of neL’s report, the damage had been done and Shiro has a false claim haunting his career forever. That’s a respected ‘reporter’ in the CS space, not a proper leak account.
Back to Siege’s Leakers
Similar to neL, Siege leakers are in the position of being able to ‘leak’ confidential information that can put players and talent at risk. Take the this ‘report’ for Azian’s benching. This was before the new Parabellum roster was known publicly. If this account is run by a player, there is a clear conflict of interest here: the player profits off of Azian looking bad. Either the player
A) Gets Azian’s spot on the team
B) Gets Azian out of a job for a personal grudge
C) Wouldn’t word it this way to not damage Azian’s reputation
By claiming Azian didn’t try in a scrim, something that cannot be confirmed by anyone but pB, Azian looks like a problematic player with attitude issues. “Would you want someone on your team?” That’s the implied question this account raises, and were they a player looking to be picked up by pB they have a clear interest in doing this.
If this is simply an insider leaking for the purposes of clout, it’s ‘less malicious’ but certainly still problematic. An employee leaking information is unprofessional and grounds to be fired. Hence being called a ‘leak.’ Clout chasing it itself isn’t evil, but this kind of behavior can cause legal trouble and has the potential to ruin deals in the works.
A Real Example of Leaks Ruining Careers
Dardoch lost room for negotions when the president of TSM leaked he had no offers. Dardoch and his agent no longer had leverage to get a good deal because orgs knew he had no options. He was forced to go down to LCS Academy, or T2, as a result of this leak. His career was undoubtedly harmed because of this information going public.
This was just an unintentional leak, indicative of TSM’s shoddy management, not done for clout or improving one’s odds of getting on a team. The damage potential of leaks is too high. A deal cancelled because of leaks now costs five figures where it used to cost 2 tubs of GFuel and a jersey.
Leak accounts are a danger to players, organizations, and the community at a whole. They offer no benefits to the scene beyond doing a worse version of reporting with none of the accountability. These accounts are a blight to the community and present a clear reputational hazard to players and organizations. While no major harm has been caused by these accounts in the Siege scene yet, that’s no reason to give them the attention they so desperately desire. Hopefully the community grows to ignore these attention seekers soon.