Stop buying games from people who cheer for your demise.

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/feb/08/pushing-buttons-hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling

For those who are not aware, the UK site 'The Guardian' recently posted an article about bigotry in Steam groups, and curators.

While they mentioned this curator, they did not specifically say it was bigoted but its inclusion in such article, I find, is guilt by association.

In the article they interviewed the developer of the game 'Coven', who on Sept 10th, before all the facts were known, posted a meme of George Lucas saying 'it's like poetry', in regards to his (Coven Devs) own comment that Kirk was killed by an old white man (now know to be false).

This got him on the list. Yet this was not mentioned in the above article. It characterized this curator as : (their words not mine) "a curator devoted to recommending games based solely on whether their developers are perceived to have correctly mourned the assassination of rightwing activist Charlie Kirk."

At no point have I said its because I didn't like how someone 'mourned'. Its how they celebrated it or mocked it or used similar language that lead to it happening.

They also mention his cries that his game was review bombed with 'RIP Charlie' mentions. calling it harassment. They made no effort to mention any time I have said 'do not harass'. I've never told people to do that, I have merely called out their hateful posts they publicly posted on their accounts they use to promote their game.

They go on to mention how Steam support was unhelpful in removing this curator (Thank you Steam) because they said it wasn't off topic, because its based on actions of the developers. Guardian did not say if they agree or disagree, but its worth noting they were pro-Hogwarts Legacy boycott (https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/feb/08/pushing-buttons-hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling).

Why am I posting about this over a week late? Because I had emailed them a week ago, and even though they said they would get back to me, they have not. Only to say the relevant editor is on leave. Which is unacceptable. You can not slander me and the people of this group like that, and claim the editor isn't available. The Guardian doesn't cease to operate, pull another editor. The new cycle has moved on, more people have seen the slander than will ever see whatever retraction you offer at this point.

Again, I want to reiterate. DO NOT HARASS anyone involved in this story.

Also, I choose to remain anonymous and I do not monetize this for a number of reasons. One reason I feel if I do I can't remain anonymous at least not fully,

Due to this, its not legally actionable in anyway and my day to day life isn't affected. So why do I care?

Because dishonest reporting should always be called out. Make their cost benefit analysis for dishonestly force them to ere on the side of truth. Misrepresentations no matter how small should not go unchallenged.