Show the play. Explain the decision.
How we source Dota articles, distinguish observations from advice, handle patch changes and credit contributors.
How we use other sources
Another article is a lead to a primary source and a question of our own. We verify the fact, write around our own purpose and add an example or test with a source link. Without an original contribution, a brief link is more useful. Translations, artwork and republication need separate clearance.
Before publication
Check facts, sources, patch context, media rights, attribution and language. A guide needs an answer, an example, limitations and a next step. AI-assisted drafting does not mean the author tested every claim in-game; editorial approval is a separate step.
Original experience first
The starting point is a real replay, an original explanation or a verified source. A video story should preserve the meaning of what happened in the match. A rewritten article should add our own reporting, testing or analysis; changing the words of someone else’s article does not make it our work.
Rodnoy’s voice
Rodnoy hosts the site with short explanations, kind self-deprecating humor and a willingness to learn alongside Ruslan. “Oops” can mean a mistake, a save or a great play. The character’s voice never replaces match evidence, sources or author review; we do not invent rank or results.
Facts, interpretation and uncertainty
State the match, patch and context where available. Separate what the replay shows from our explanation of why it happened. Never present a single game as a win-rate dataset, an item’s visible presence as an exact purchase time, or a guess as a verified mechanic. Mark a guide for review when a relevant patch changes.
A clear byline and a real source
Credit the author and link to the original source where useful. Ask permission before republishing or translating another writer’s work. Quotes and citations do not automatically grant image, video or article reuse rights. Contributors keep their identity and receive an agreed byline.
Corrections are part of the work
A substantive correction should explain what changed and update the review date. A patch update should record which recommendation changed. We do not silently relabel an old build as current. The open preview is marked noindex until ready; being accessible by link is not editorial approval.
Humor has a target: our own decisions
Self-deprecating humor fits this channel. Harassing a teammate does not. Use clean language and references that make sense internationally. Memes, music and artwork need their own rights checks, even when they are funny and easy to find online.
Partners cannot buy conclusions
If we are paid or earn a referral commission, disclose it near the recommendation. Commercial links should be marked appropriately. Editorial credit and relevant sources are welcome; exchanging links simply to manipulate rankings is not the purpose of collaborations.