>>20462226For the first case they cited it came from X source instead of Y source, wherein X source just basically poorly edited Y source's pictures and stuff, while at the same time being affiliated more with X site and having a sort of rivalry in news with Y site. WPM and friends, Source Y, just do card stuff on their own time with their own money and scanners and stuff for everyone.
That's what those people are yelling about.
The second instance was citing a source that shouldn't have been cited. Source X didn't want to be well known for leaking information, that much is obvious because they're leaking information early, which you're mostly never supposed to do.
It's less of a case of not citing information/citing information and more a case of not giving credit where credit is due, and then accidentally ratting out another guy giving you information you aren't supposed to be revealing.
Whole thing's a mess
