1. Assume all PR is bullshit until proven true. The exception is in absolutes. In the case of an absolute, the chance that its bullshit is a percentage of how many absolutes have been made plus how many absolute claims have been proven false. Ignore outlandish statements that are obvious hypebole.

2. The companies you defend are not in absolute control of everything they touch. The result that you see is not neccessarily inacted or even supported by the company you defend. Actually, think about the ramifications of the result and whether or not this will benefit the company overall. Then, you can estimate the likelyhood of the company you defend actually  supporting the result. This is of course assuming that you don't have access to the information of how this result actually came to be.

3. Realize that people have long memories, but the most recent ones are the most pungent. If the company you defend is misbehaving, it is pointless to defend their actions or the company on its merit. The only reasonable course of action is to ascertain what will be the next best move.

4. Do not ignore the issues of Companies you defend, especially if you consistently focus on the weakness of that companies competitors. It requries a full picture for true analysis and evaluative judgement.

==================================

1. Assume all PR is bullshit until proven true. This is regardless of the source. Furthermore, Policies that the Company you attack that you disagree with are mistakes. Since the Companies you defend are fallible, so to are the Companies you attack. Give them a chance to correct there mistakes. But do not assume that all corrections are positive.

2. The companies you attack are not in absolute control of everything they touch. The result that you see is not necessarily inacted or even supported by the company you are attacking. Actually, think about the amount of control a company has on an actions, and whether or not they would support this action to begin with. However, inactiveness in changing a policy has the equivalent result of support a policy.

3. Realize that people have long memores, bu the most recent ones are the most pungent. If the company you attack is behaving correctly, it is pointless to speculate disaster or recall past indescretions because these can equal be attributed to this companies competitors. Instead, do not attack that company because you don't want to congrajulate it but plotting its downfall is in even less taste.

4. Do not ignore the strengths of Companies you attack, especially if you consistently focus on the strengths of the companies you defend. It requires a full picture for true analysis and evaluative judgement.

Source

Fixed

Unless, you're referring to me, why would you think that?

I agree with Kowen

I don't defend companies. All of them obviously don't know what they're doing.

Oh, that is confusing you should've used quotation marksparenthesis. Unfortunately, I assumed the worst. Such was not you're intentions. I apologize.

Nope, everything I like is flawless and everything I dislike is inherently evil.

Who ever does know?  The bunch of us here obviously wouldn't know what to do either.  

At least we would be so kind and listen to what gamers say and then run the company into the ground because of that. Companies now only listen to half of what gamers say and only run themselves half into the ground. So we have to deal with a half broken company and half unfulfilled wishes.

EA sucks.

Yes, but its not evil, just Fallible