Code of Ethics

We here at SuperNerdLand un­der­stand how im­por­tant it is for us to have the trust of our au­di­ence, as well op­er­ate at the high­est stan­dards that we are ca­pa­ble of. We make a promise to you, our read­ers and view­ers, to al­ways strive for ex­cel­lence and to pro­vide con­tent you know you can trust.

You need not go to jour­nal­ism school, or take com­plex cours­es, to un­der­stand and val­ue eth­i­cal prac­tices. Good stan­dards are some­thing you can al­ways work on re­gard­less of background.

In our promise to you, we have adopt­ed this Code of Ethics. It has been adapt­ed for our use from the Association for Food Journalist Code of Ethics. We feel that if an as­so­ci­a­tion ded­i­cat­ed to cov­er­ing some­thing as sub­jec­tive as taste in food can have a set of stan­dards in place to pro­tect the con­sumer and au­di­ence, then so can we.

If you feel we are not hold­ing our­selves to these stan­dards, please ei­ther use the con­tact form here or con­tact the EiC di­rect­ly @

These are our five core principles:

1. We take pride in our work, and respect the work of others.

(1)    Our con­tent pro­duc­ers will pub­lish un­der a sin­gle pseu­do­nym or their real name, and make their con­tact in­for­ma­tion avail­able to the gen­er­al public.


(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should use their by­lines only in con­junc­tion with ma­te­r­i­al that they have pro­duced. Content pro­duc­ers should not at­tach their names to reprint­ed press re­leas­es or ar­ti­cles pro­vid­ed by publicists.


(3)    Content pro­duc­ers do not pla­gia­rize con­tent. Material from oth­er sources should be cred­it­ed, and ac­tive­ly hy­per­linked if pre­sent­ed online.


(4)    Originators of unique in­for­ma­tion or opin­ions should be ac­knowl­edged in any work in­debt­ed to them, and the source ma­te­r­i­al ac­tive­ly hy­per­linked if pre­sent­ed online.


(5)    Content pro­duc­ers should al­ways hon­or copy­right laws, in­clud­ing those per­tain­ing to videos and photographs.


(6)    To as­sure ac­cu­ra­cy, press re­leas­es and ma­te­r­i­al from oth­er sources should be sub­stan­ti­at­ed. Secondhand in­for­ma­tion, such as ru­mors pub­lished by a com­pet­ing pub­li­ca­tion, should not be pre­sent­ed as fact.


(7)    Factual er­rors should be cor­rect­ed prompt­ly and prominently.


(8)    Expression of opin­ion, ed­i­to­ri­als and ar­ti­cles de­vot­ed to the writer’s own views should be clear­ly la­beled as such and thus eas­i­ly dis­tin­guished from news reports.


(9)    This en­try used to con­tain a Golden Rule pro­vi­sion. Due to mis­un­der­stand­ings of what it means to “be treat­ed like you would your­self,” we have de­cid­ed to make a change. Being an jerk is be­ing a jerk, and peo­ple are free to make their own opin­ion from that. But be­ing a jerk on­line is not an un­eth­i­cal ac­tion upon it­self. We will hold facts stat­ed to truth­ful­ness, but opin­ions stat­ed by our con­trib­u­tors are theirs alone.

2. We do not abuse our positions.

(1)    Content pro­duc­ers should not flaunt their ti­tles in hopes of se­cur­ing fa­vors for them­selves, their friends or their rel­a­tives. Favors could in­clude pre-release items; de­sir­able con­sid­er­a­tion; par­ty in­vi­ta­tions or free games, movies, comics, books, etc.


(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should not ac­cept gifts with a com­mer­cial val­ue, whether sent to them di­rect­ly or dis­trib­uted at an event. Gifts should be re­turned to the sender or do­nat­ed to char­i­ty. Review events them­selves are viewed as gifts and will be avoided.


(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should very care­ful­ly weigh in­vi­ta­tions to par­tic­i­pate in me­dia din­ners and oth­er invitation-only events at which at­ten­dees will be fet­ed with food and drink. It is worth re­mem­ber­ing that only the most financially-fit or­ga­ni­za­tions are sit­u­at­ed to host such af­fairs, and jour­nal­ists risk cre­at­ing the per­cep­tion of bias by par­tic­i­pat­ing in them.


(4)    Content pro­duc­ers should refuse sam­ples or free copies of games, oth­er soft­ware, hard­ware, or any oth­er prod­uct which they don’t in­tend to eval­u­ate for publication.


(5)    Content pro­duc­ers should not sell or oth­er­wise prof­it from sam­ples or free copies they re­ceive in the course of their work.


(6)    Content pro­duc­ers at­tend­ing events for per­son­al plea­sure should not use their po­si­tion to gain ac­cess, dis­count­ed or free admission.

3. We avoid conflicts of interest.

(1)    We are com­mit­ted to the ab­solute sep­a­ra­tion of ed­i­to­r­i­al re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and ad­ver­tis­ing in­ter­ests. If an ar­ti­cle or pub­li­ca­tion re­ceives spon­sor­ship, it must be clear­ly noted.


(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should not make deals in ex­change for ac­cess, spe­cial treat­ment or dis­counts. They should not vet sto­ry an­gles with pub­li­cists, al­low sources to pre­view cov­er­age or make promis­es con­cern­ing sto­ry placement.


(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should not en­ter commercially-sponsored con­tests pro­mot­ing spe­cif­ic products.


(4)    Content pro­duc­ers should not write about or cov­er or­ga­ni­za­tions which em­ploy them, or with which they are po­lit­i­cal­ly or fi­nan­cial­ly involved.

4. We recognize and respect diversity.

(1)    While pure ob­jec­tiv­i­ty is im­pos­si­ble, con­tent pro­duc­ers should aim to ac­knowl­edge and ex­am­ine com­pet­ing points of view.


(2)    Content pro­duc­ers should present op­pos­ing view­points fair­ly and accurately.


(3)    Content pro­duc­ers should avoid per­pet­u­at­ing stereo­types and prejudices.


(4)    With the pre­vi­ous in mind, so­cial me­dia spaces are not the same site pub­li­ca­tion. Contributors so­cial me­dia pro­files shall be treat­ed as their own spaces, with the abil­i­ty to post their opin­ions even if they do not align with SuperNerdLand. Factualness shall be ex­pect­ed, but opin­ions ex­pressed are the con­trib­u­tors own.

5. We are committed to total transparency in our work.

(1)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers ac­cept any­thing for free, in­clud­ing a game ti­tle or prod­uct sam­ple, it must be ac­knowl­edged in cov­er­age of the item or experience.


(2)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers cov­er cur­rent or for­mer em­ploy­ers, co-workers, friends or rel­a­tives, the re­la­tion­ship must be disclosed.


(3)    If con­tent pro­duc­ers sus­pect they re­ceived spe­cial treat­ment in the course of re­port­ing a sto­ry, they should share their sus­pi­cions with their readers.

6. We aim to minimize harm and protect sources

(1)    Content pro­duc­ers will aim to min­i­mize harm when re­port­ing on events and is­sues, in our re­views and im­pres­sions, and oth­er cov­er­age. This means en­sur­ing we are as fac­tu­al as pos­si­ble when pub­lish­ing, cor­rect­ing er­rors in a time­ly fash­ion, and re­spect­ing our sources and sub­jects privacy.


(2)    Content pro­duc­ers will al­ways weigh whether the need for in­for­ma­tion to be pub­lic is more than the harm that in­for­ma­tion be­ing pub­lic may in­cur. They will also re­spect the fact that pri­vate peo­ple have a right to con­trol in­for­ma­tion about them­selves more so than pub­lic fig­ures or peo­ple who seek pow­er, in­flu­ence or at­ten­tion. They will weigh the con­se­quences of broad­cast­ing per­son­al in­for­ma­tion thusly.


(3)    Content pro­duc­ers will weigh use of anony­mous sourc­ing. We strive to al­ways ful­ly at­tribute quotes and claims, but there maybe times that use of an anony­mous source is nec­es­sary when cov­er­ing an is­sue or event. Content pro­duc­ers will ex­plain why anonymi­ty was grant­ed when the in­for­ma­tion is deemed rel­e­vant and nec­es­sary to coverage.


(4)    When us­ing anony­mous sources, con­tent pro­duc­ers will work to pro­tect the iden­ti­ty of the source. SuperNerdLand and staff will nev­er re­veal anony­mous sources used, ex­cept in cas­es of court or­der or grand jury.


(5)    All com­mu­ni­ca­tion un­der SuperNerdLand emails, so­cial net­work pri­vate mes­sages, phone or VOIP calls, and postal cor­re­spon­dence are con­fi­den­tial and will nev­er be used out­side of SuperNerdLand with out permission.

If con­tent pro­duc­ers, ed­i­to­r­i­al staff or man­age­ment are found to not be up­hold­ing these stan­dards then dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion will oc­cur, up to and in­clud­ing re­moval from the site.


(Updated 04/29/2015: Updated Section 2, Line 2 to Read: Content pro­duc­ers should not ac­cept gifts with a com­mer­cial val­ue, whether sent to them di­rect­ly or dis­trib­uted at an event. Gifts should be re­turned to the sender or do­nat­ed to charity.)

(Update 05/27/2015: Updated Section 2, Line 2 to add: Review events them­selves are viewed as gifts and will be avoided.)

(Update 05/28/2015: Added Section 6: We aim to min­i­mize harm and pro­tect sources. Added “If con­tent pro­duc­ers, ed­i­to­r­i­al staff or man­age­ment are found to not be up­hold­ing these stan­dards then dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion will oc­cur, up to and in­clud­ing re­moval from the site.”)

(Update 6/10/2015: Updated Section 1, Line 9 to clar­i­fy: Content pro­duc­ers should take the gold­en rule into con­sid­er­a­tion here. “One should treat oth­ers as one would like oth­ers to treat oneself.”)

(Update 11/04/2017: Updated Section 1, Line 9. Added Section 4, Line 4)

Scroll to top