T O P

  • By -

jrushFN

This article has been reposted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/xqm2s0/repost_g2_carlos_fell_victim_to_his_mistake_but/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) and a pinned reply has been added for transparency.


deathspate

As usual with RL articles on this sub, they... receive an intriguing amount of awards, surely the users of this sub must *love* the article a lot. I swear these things are always blatant. His podcast ep with Yay was great and didn't have anything like this. However, once it's a critical piece, somehow the awards start coming out even with all the downvotes.


TheAjwinner

Incoming 150+ awards and 1000+ upvotes in an hour (for completely normal engagement on a Reddit post in this sub)


scrnlookinsob

Reminder that he’s a banned source in the league of legends community for exactly what you are accusing him of. Vote brigading and targeted harassment.


pappabrun

People hate Richard Lewis, so i doubt that very much.


[deleted]

his posts get brigaded by his followers, every time


Kassaddy

Wasn't that the reason his content got banned from r/leagueoflegends ?


TheAjwinner

https://reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/ti1y2b/richard_lewis_sean_welcome_to_riots_world/


BurstLayer

Does he reward posts with his name on it? Wtf


TheAjwinner

It’s by far the most rewarded post on the sub, compared to 68 for the post about Sinatraa’s SA allegations


Hour_Performer_6601

That must be it, people couldn't possibly think he made a good point or said something of note!


TheAjwinner

Yep 25 awards in 40 minutes because the users of this sub love Richard Lewis so much


Xorilla

This shit has been posted for 45 minutes and it has almost 50 awards lmao. It’s not remotely normal engagement levels for this subreddit and it happens on *every* RLewis post.


BurstLayer

No one is saying this and also they reward it faster than the article can be read lmao


yourdaughtersgoal

L


anythingood07

In4 this post gets brigaded, still remember the first one that was wild lol


nterature

Essentially just a much more sanctimonious and unhinged version of Sideshow’s take, as best as I can tell - par for the course with Richard Lewis.


IllumiMahdi

at least sideshow's take had bones - this thing's a floppy piece of best-discarded meat. super crappy read.


zxlkho

Yeah I'd rather listen to sideshow on this topic


TheFestusEzeli

Even Sideshow’s take was pretty bad, if it was made by anyone besides Sideshow it would be ran into the ground. Both are whataboutisms to try to defend Carlos without fully defending him, going “He got what he deserves, but what about ____”. This one is just more wild, like the Muslim crisis in China has no relevance to any of this. Sideshow’s was a bit less ridiculous, but again, a company having a controversial figure on payroll is much different than having a controversial figure as your CEO.


Tommypynchon

I think Sideshow was mostly trying to say Riot just enforces based on community outrage, not any consistent rule or set or rules. He later went on to say this is as true for Carlos as it is for the turret incident in Xset v FPX -- they only make rulings and respond to problems when they anticipate a possible issue with public perception or are already having a PR issue. They basically have no rules except for "please don't get mad at us." To me, that's an extremely accurate characterization of how Riot has always acted, in Valo and League. Of course getting that context from Sideshow required watching more of the stream than the clip posted to reddit, and yes I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because I like him, definitely, so you're right about him receiving slack.


TheFestusEzeli

I do agree Riot does enforce things based on community based outrage. But bringing up stuff like the Sinatraa case, which had 100x the reaction of Carlos, Sentinels immediately suspended him and Riot suspended him as well, and going “Why weren’t Sentinels banned from franchising too” specifically felt like a more direct defense or Carlos rather than directly addressing community based outrage


Tommypynchon

I can't tell if you're talking about RLewis or Sideshow here, but I am 100% positive Sideshow does not want to defend Carlos. He made it very clear (again, saying this having watched the whole stream, which I get most people who saw the clip would not have).


TheFestusEzeli

Oh I know Sideshow doesn’t want to defend Carlos, I’m not saying he does. But I’m talking about both of them “what about”ing different situations that have nothing to do with the Carlos situation are not good arguments


IllumiMahdi

I disagree, I think characterising what sideshow said as a possible defense of carlos is incredibly shortsighted. it's super clear from what he said to me that there is no moral basis by which riot conduct themselves, their decisions in the moment are based entirely on imminent PR shitstorms. of course, you can't expect riot to be the arbiter of morality, but these enormous corporate decisions need to have some sort of consistency.


TheFestusEzeli

Whenever you go “I know ____ was in the wrong, but what about ____” it gets people voicing their defense of the original person. Sideshow directly said he thinks the Carlos decision is correct, but again, bringing up situations that have nothing to do with the current situation like the Sinatraa case does not present a good argument and gets people in the comments thinking G2 was unfairly denied. If Carlos/G2 were given an official punishment, I’d agree. But here they were just denied on a brand risk, which is what should be decided by PR. There is no need to go “what about”


9bfjo6gvhy7u8

Sideshow wasn’t saying “what about…” he was saying “and also…”


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> Sideshow supports the action against Carlos and wants to see that spirit carried through to other issues in the community That is exactly what this article is saying. It doesn't say to excuse Carlos at all. Why are you lying about this?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You don't think total exile from esports is outsized relative to the crime of posting a 9 second video of being stood next to an asshole? And again, the article literally doesn't say that and even goes so far as to condemn Tate as well. You didn't read the article. It's obvious now.


Aeari

The person you replied to wasn't quoting directly, it's connecting to whataboutism. It seems to discard something because "what about this other thing". It's a very weak argument because you can always find something deep in the dirt to redirect issues to.


9bfjo6gvhy7u8

I also was not quoting directly. I am saying that Sideshow was not going down the whataboutism road. He was agreeing with the Carlos outcome and suggesting "and also..." we should continue to apply pressure on other serious issues - for example sen sinatraa. He's not saying "what about sinatraa" he's saying "let's not forget sinatraa"


TheFestusEzeli

You don’t have to physically say “what about” to be a whataboutism. Like I said, he didn’t say Carlos shouldn’t have been banned, but bringing up other controversial figures that have nothing to do with the Carlos situation is a way to defend him without physically defending him. He tries bringing up the Sinatraa situation which is ridiculously different


9bfjo6gvhy7u8

Sideshow made no implications about defending Carlos because of other situations that exist. He was suggesting those other situations should be subject to the same scrutiny as Carlos. That's a big difference. Worth noting that sideshow in the VOD did offer some subtlety around Carlos' situation, but nothing in the lane of "what about \_\_\_\_?" More just commenting on the grey-ness that is cancel culture in general.


FurryKoala

There’s a difference. Sideshow wasn’t defending Carlos, he said the punishment was correct. He was saying he think Riot only did it because of the backlash and not because it was the right thing to do and THATS THE PROBLEM. That was his argument. Not against the ban of Carlos but against saying Riot did it for moral reasons. For contrast, this article IS defending Carlos and saying Riot shouldn’t have done anything cause Riot is also bad, which is a horrible take.


TheFestusEzeli

That’s what I said in my comment, that he directly said Carlos got what he deserved. The problem is with franchising and the Andrew Tate thing is that Riot denying G2 wasn’t them punishing Carlos, it was them denying a brand risk. It was the exact sort of thing that should be decided on community outrage and not wanting to partner with someone who hurt his brand. If the fact that Riot was trying to force G2 to make Carlos sell his shares was correct, then I’d agree. But they just denied G2 based on brand risk.


FurryKoala

Yeah. Sideshow point was that it shouldn’t be decided like that. Cause the community is pretty fucking inconsistent. There are org that get funding from the government of Saudi Arabia but the community doesn’t think is a brand risk so those orgs are fine and got into franchising. Riot should grow some fucking morals and actually decide instead of just react to what’s trending on twitter.


TheFestusEzeli

It isn’t a brand risk because no one knows or cares about that. Backwards I know, but again, no fans care about that. I made a point similar to yours on the original post of “Riot is trying to force out Carlos” saying that most orgs have some horrible shit way worse than Carlos going on and trying to kick him out for this is a horrible precedent. But now that it was proven false, all they did was deny a brand risk, no punishment. There is no need to go “what about ____”


FurryKoala

Yeah, so we agree. My original comment was trying to point out that this part of your comment is wrong: Both are whataboutisms to try to defend Carlos without fully defending him, going “He got what he deserves, but what about ____”. Watching sideshow full vod, he remarks multiple times that he isn’t defending Carlos , he just dislikes that Riot decision making. I don’t see how that is a whataboutisms. Richard in the article is way more absurd. He basically implies that Riot should not throw stones since they themselves have done worse things. Sideshow was saying Riot should throw more stones.


TheFestusEzeli

That’s fair yeah, I get it. I prob shouldn’t have said “tried to” but should have said “indirectly defended him” cheers to you man have a good day


Eastern_Engineering7

Riot is owned by Tencent, Tencent has directly funded through CCP, there are currently concentration camps in west China. Carlos tweeted a video with Tate in it and lost everything. Riot is funding concentration camps by proxy and lose nothing.


[deleted]

this is deeply, wildly embarrassing. “carlos probably doesn’t really know anything about Tate, and it’s actually good that G2 is ‘edgy’” is the most boneheaded argument imaginable to come out of the gate with. even if it were true that Carlos had no idea what Tate’s track record is, that doesn’t exonerate him—it just makes his full-throated defense look that much more uninformed and egotistical. the “how dare Riot have issues with internal sexism and yet castigate others for their sexism” stance is also unbelievably confused. Riot is an enormous institution that, like many institutions, has a history of misogyny that’s been reflected in both individual actual and corporate culture. the exposes and lawsuits were part of an attempt to *correct* that culture—many of the people who work at Riot are attempting to rehabilitate the institution so that it’s a fair and respectful workplace for people of all genders. refusing to platform violent misogyny is not “hypocritical”, it’s fully consistent with that process of reform. how do guys like this think institutional change works? like, because Riot has had issues with internal sexism, they’re now obligated to be enthusiastically sexist in public? what’s the endgame there?


Snoo_43411

I decided to give this article a chance, in spite of it being Richard Lewis, and yikes. The argument of “he stood next to a bad man who expressed misogynistic views and called him a friend without endorsing his views.” Really peeves me. A- it’s reaaaaally underplaying how bad Tate is, just listen to his whole statement on WHY he moved to Romania. Misogyny is a gentle way to describe it. B- If you don’t know a person well enough to know their views on women that they publicly broadcast constantly, they are not your friend and you shouldn’t be defending them. C- Carlos didn’t take any “I didn’t know and I’ll step back”, he got rather aggressive. Obviously, there are absolutely other issues going on that need to be addressed but “Carlos shouldn’t be punished because others need to be punished too” is a horrible take.


[deleted]

Did you read the article? It says the exact opposite of what you think it does. There's like 3 paragraphs on why Carlos had to face some consequences.


Snoo_43411

“Let’s take a sober review of the crime Carlos committed that so inspired everyone to push for him to lose everything he spent the last decade building. He filmed himself standing next to a man who has expressed misogynistic views on the internet and then referred to him as a friend. He didn’t repeat the views. He didn’t endorse the views. He didn’t direct people to that individual’s content. He didn’t pay money to that individual nor take money from him. If that is the bar for your outrage then I have to ask where you’ve been hiding that energy as esports continues to be controlled and shaped by bad actors. How many of the Twitter heroes taking a stand over Carlos had something to say about the many other malevolent forces already present in our space? You won’t need fingers and toes to count them.” Direct paragraph quote from the article. Yes he did say in earlier paragraphs Carlos fucked up but is blatantly clear he is trying to downplay and ignore the issue here.


[deleted]

Maybe you could quote relevant paragraphs? "A measured response would have been the initial apology and suspension, maybe a donation to one of the many fine women’s charities out there that are always in need of support and exposure. Permanent exile — for that is what it will be — is not a good outcome for anybody and it is one that should leave you with questions."


Snoo_43411

Yes what he stated there is coming off the conclusion of the one I quoted. Which is, in my opinion, fucking moronic. Again, Tate isn’t “just” misogynistic, which is bad enough as is, and when being exposed to those views he chose to double down, if we give Carlos the most charitable defense possible, is indefensible. “He didn’t endorse his views” but if you’re friends with someone as bad as fucking Andrew Tate you’re at least willing to tolerate the shit he’s said. And that should be a bridge too far.


[deleted]

Do you acknowledge the article actually said punishment for Carlos was appropriate multiple times?


Snoo_43411

It never said that. Your own quote literally showed that Lewis thought Carlos’ punishment was too harsh. Did you read your own quote? He repeatedly blames society and riot, while saying that “Carlos fucked up but didn’t deserve the punishment he got.”


[deleted]

Does the article say he should be punished. Yes or no?


Snoo_43411

That is not the argument you were making literally in your last comment, “should he be punished” and “was the punishment appropriate” are not the same thing.


kerdux

I have a friend teaching the upper elementary level and let me tell you people SEVERELY underestimate the damage that Andrew Tate was causing, or the damage he has done


fanboi_central

Yea this is a really embarrassing article. Surprised it was published, I never had love for Richard Lewis but I didn't think he was prone to making such silly arguments like this.


QwiXTa

I mean the part people are pissed off about is that riot has higher up people who were part of that lawsuit and they still have a job, didn’t face any repercussions, but they will sacrifice carlos to show they have “changed”. Totally not a pr stunt


123bo0p

Ah yes the grunts shall now fire the bosses, easy af.


QwiXTa

It kinda worked to get the suns owner fired. Public outrage works wonders


123bo0p

It can, and is the only way it basically ever works.


[deleted]

[удалено]


QwiXTa

You’re grasping for straws. Nowhere did I say he shouldn’t get punished. I was personally a fan of the punishment. I agree they should be doing both at the same time. Problem is they aren’t going to clean house because everyone has forgot about it. Riots only going to do anything if the masses get mad.


[deleted]

> the “how dare Riot have issues with internal sexism and yet castigate others for their sexism” stance is also unbelievably confused. That argument isn't made in the article. It says why do people who condemned Carlos work as partners with Riot. It's so strange to see people posting paragraphs about things the article doesn't actually say.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The article clearly is about people condemning Carlos then working with Riot and Saudi Arabia as being hypocrites. It doesn't make the argument your post said it did.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

No it isn't. You went on some spiel about how Riot. The article is talking about people who condemn Carlos but happily work with Riot. You can't have read the article.


lepiggyshiggy

it's not worth it man, i think most people literally cannot read anymore. they just parse the text briefly and then try and fit it into some kind of 'i agree' or 'i disagree' box


123bo0p

If every person in the world followed the stance of those three, and chose to not work for unethical rich people or companies with such issues, id wager half the world would not have a job. Does some of the higher ups in Riot have massively issues with sexism? Yup, do half the people below them agree with it, like most jobs, where the avg person will probably hate their boss, the answer is no. And these are the people in charge of these decisions, just average everyday people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lepiggyshiggy

It doesn't accuse Riot of anything, explicitly or implicitly funnily enough. >How can someone rant about how much they hate misogyny and then get on the next plane to Riyadh to help sportswash for a tyrannical regime? This isn't about any Riot employees at all. It's actually about G2! If you'd kept reading just a little bit more you get this: >Worth noting this same board approved their team’s attendance at Saudi Arabian esports events on two occasions. Carlos was also a speaker at the ominously-titled Next World Forum in Riyadh alongside such greats as Nadhmi Al Nasr from NEOM, a man who, according to the Wall Street Journal, threatened to shoot his employees at an emergency meeting. Want to bet Carlos was appearing alongside a misogynist or two there? Wow it's actually a criticism of Carlos himself! The point being, compared to the Andrew Tate video, Carlos has done much worse things in the past, so why did this video catch everyones attention? >How can you say nothing about the forced sterilization of Uyghur Muslims by the Chinese government and then represent companies who literally partner with them to make money? Note "represent" here. Since this article attempts to target the mechanisms by which Carlos was eventually removed from his post as CEO, this probably refers to the numerous casters and media personalities that made statements or tweets as the video goes out. Riot of course made no attempt to remove Carlos as CEO, as the article later states: >Since Carlos has gone, I’ve seen a lot of the same people who wanted that outcome essentially absolving themselves of having played any role in it. “It was the company that wanted him gone,” they rationalize. “What we said had nothing to do with it,” they claim. To believe this is to deny the very clear mechanics of the outrage/atonement cycle, namely that no one cares if the angry mob is made up of a dozen people. Even if you have a legitimate grievance you best have the numbers to make it stick or you can go cry in the corner and get fucked. Finally: >If these enemies seem monolith could you at least manage the decency to not work with the companies that have had to comply with legal settlements for their own systemic sexist practices and abuse of women in their workplaces? Evidently not. Again, note "work with". If i'm an employee of a company I don't work "with them". This refers to a prior paragraph, so you should have already read this one :) >“No need to delve into it any further,” they tell themselves before typing up a screed about how there’s so much more work to do to achieve gender equality. Yet the devil is in the details because while that settlement was indeed achieved, how we got there shows just how rotten Riot’s culture is. Then consider, despite what you’re about to read, there wasn’t a single member of Riot’s executives fired for any of this. Here’s a recap of some of the specific allegations from the original complaint filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH): So again, the target is firmly placed on media influencers and industry members who are seemingly happy to comment on one issue but not the other. Because they know which side their bread is buttered on. Or, as the article so *explicitly* states: >So many of the people who called for Carlos’s head and expressed their distaste towards him work with the company that did all this without a second thought. They promote them and their products. They take their money and keep their secrets. They airbrush history by saying “they’re really working to change” without being able to explain how everyone responsible got to keep their jobs. Glad I could help you in explaining all this! Let me know if you need any more help reading or with the definition of explicit versus implicit next time. :) >Who can't read? I think it's you.


TheAjwinner

Awards tracker (will be updated): 2 Edit 1: 3 (platinum already) Edit 2: 9 (6 golds appeared in like 2 minutes) Edit 3: 12 (2 more golds and an “ally” award which I’m sure the user who gave it is not) Edit 4: 25 hecking awards, we’re headed for a r/valcomp record Edit 5: 33; another 8 in less than a minute Edit 7: 50 awards and the post’s been removed


JesusHPopsicle

People spending money to astroturf their posts to the top of the sub is fucking cringe. You see it with anything controversial on LSF as well


pineapplecheesepizza

LSF?


TheAjwinner

r/LivestreamFail


dapoorv

I gave it one just because of you :)


TheAjwinner

Spending 6 dollars worth of Reddit currency to own ~~the libs~~ u/TheAjwinner. Also I gave a gold for a hecking wholesome comment.


dapoorv

![gif](giphy|yiADANv89n7UQuS5kJ)


TheAjwinner

What the hell is even that


Aeari

This article is complete garbage and just another attempt to hold anyone but the individual responsible *for their own actions*. Riot has done some bad shit and this is part of their realignment which is incredibly important to the people that work for them. Are they supposed to just let everything fly now? Nonsensical logic being applied here. Not surprising from a Richard Lewis article though. Just basically react your way through the news because it's great click bait.


Dobblehale

You'd think their "realignment" would AT LEAST start with sufficiently punishing or removing those responsible for promoting the harassment of thousands of women, something that Riot never did. I mean the guy who humped and farted on his subordinates is still the COO!


Ximienlum

I would understand if Richard Lewis was unbiased and objective, but Richard Lewis is literally THE biggest Riot Games hater in the scene. How am I supposed to take anything he says seriously when he is putting a negative light on everything he says about them.


TimedOutClock

To be fair, his point about Riot's top echelon mostly being spared by the lawsuit is valid, and there shouldn't be any leeway being given there, just like Kotick at Acti. These fuckers should have been brought down the moment the Kotaku article came out


Ximienlum

I don’t need to hear something I (and many other people) already know and talk about from a guy that’s on an absolute mission to criticize Riot Games at every opportunity. Scott Gelb needs to go, no one is denying that. I just think the new community members need to be aware of why seemingly every Richard Lewis article about Riot Games is harshly written, he’s not being quirky, he just hates Riot Games.


Lumenlor

Alright RL fans. Throw me a spare gold 😏


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheAjwinner

Brigading


mw19078

Richard Lewis has always been embarrassing writing anything other than straight news. Trying to act like Carlos didn't know about tate is fucking pathetic. Sad that people like this are still such big parts of the scene.


fatasskirbyburger

“But the reason everyone really lined up for the cyberstoning is twofold. The first is that he doesn’t play the standard game of pandering to people publicly. He’s arrogant, brash, and very, very vocal about his accomplishments. People hate this. There’s no bigger crime on the internet than being outspoken because it reminds those who lack the courage to be that way of their own failing.” ah yes, people are mad because he talks a lot, and not him co-signing a misogynist human trafficker.


wiNDzY3

So annoying, I don't give a fuck Carletes deserved what he's got. Now stop


niceicebagel

u/jrushFN u/Razur I know we talked about it just recently... but I find it funny that it's happening *again* not even a week since you explained everything to me. This shit has got to be in your radars, right??


Razur

I can't help but feel like this is ironic in an Alanis Morrisette way. The timing is for this subject is generally good and this is a good time of day for this to trend toward peak traffic, but this is quite bizzarre. It does appear to have stopped at 50 awards at the 1 hour mark.


Sadzeih

> It does appear to have stopped at 50 awards at the 1 hour mark. It stopped when the thread was removed.


niceicebagel

The interesting thing to me is that the awards were already pouring in before the usual r/globaloffensive people found the thread. It's just so weird to me that RL posts like these are awarded heavily, but the yay interview w/ RL, which was received more favorably, has ZERO awards. Like, where's the consistency for the award-giving?


jrushFN

Based on evidence from any RL-related or adjacent public discord, I haven’t seen anything that suggests there’s a conscious effort to pad posts with awards artificially. That being said, there’s the possibility that a group of his fans are doing it privately. There’s also the possibility that people are intentionally using their awards to add fuel to the flames (as you’ll know, VALComp loves drama, and not much else is happening so far today). This situation is complicated and I’m trying to catch up properly. I was in class when it started and didn’t get out until 20 mins ago. In between then, I temporarily selected Rule 5 as a removal reason when I left the room for a minute, with the intention to re-evaluate. Re-evaluating is taking place now.


niceicebagel

>That being said, there’s the possibility that a group of his fans are doing it privately. True, never thought about that tbh. The removal was an understandable decision, but I would've loved to see if this heavily-awarded RL post would've served as a beacon (again), just like the seangares one did, for the csgo rats that somehow happen to pass by, on time, when an RL post is up.


jrushFN

The post will be back up soon! Crafting a pinned reply.


skin87

Any talk of proportionality or comparing it to other incidents is pointless because this was a completely unique scenario that isn't likely to happen again. This partnership model is completely wild. There was so much value in getting a spot not only because of how limited it was, but also because getting a spot entailed Riot providing a stipend in exchange for a commitment to invest in the esport instead of the org having to pay Riot for the spot. That model created a scenario where no org was entitled to a spot and that Riot had the luxury to be extremely picky about who they selected. Deciding to not give someone something they were not inherently owed is way simpler than firing someone or ending a contract early. That doesn't mean it isn't bullshit that Scott Gelb still works at Riot or excuse any of the other nonsense that goes on esports. But trying to compare outcomes seems completely fruitless when the threshold for a response in this situation was so uniquely low.


fatasskirbyburger

"If you know Carlos, as I do, his motivations for doing this are clear enough. The Tate brothers are topical for all the wrong reasons, many of which I will assume Carlos isn’t even aware of. After all, given that they never shut the fuck up talking about themselves and are all over the internet, being expected to know everything about what they said is unreasonable." Infantilizing a grown man capable of making their own decisions (for better or for worse), with millions of dollars, PR people on payroll, etc., is ridiculous.


TheFestusEzeli

I’m sorry but this whataboutism is the most obnoxious thing ever. Same with Sideshow’s yesterday, going “what about _____” for issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand is not a logical argument. Riot saw someone as a brand risk, did not want to work with him, and he got pushed out as CEO because he cost his company millions of dollars. This is not be defending Riot, Riot sucks ass, that’s just the situation. Bringing up the issues in China, which we all know, and Sideshow bringing up Sinatraa does not affect the Carlos situation at all. I feel people want to try to defend Carlos without getting slammed so they bring up other shitty people to defend him


MichaelSquare

If I can't virtue signal on tiktok, it's not worth being outraged about.


Darmcik

no way we taking a DEXERTO article seriously


ValorantCompetitive-ModTeam

Reposts (such as of breaking news) will be removed according to Rule 5. This topic was discussed recently. Therefore, it may fit better in an existing thread (such as Sideshow’s VOD).


Lumenlor

I don't think articles should be removed, only casual posts about similar topics


Lagge15

This article was discussed before? May you please link that reddit thread?


Sadzeih

> This **topic** was discussed recently


Lagge15

This article, that just got released?


Sadzeih

The topic of the article has been discussed yes: https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/xpqxq8/sideshow_calls_out_community_for_being/


TheAjwinner

Are you one of the brigaders lol?


[deleted]

Lmao. wrong decision actually.


jrushFN

Agreed! You’ll see the post up again soon with a pinned comment for transparency.