Recently (07-July-2014) there was an article posted in the GameDev.net Soapbox titled "Is the Game Industry a Bad Place to Work?" I found the article to be poorly researched and written and made that assessment known in the comments.

Today I received a -3 down-vote for making that comment. Not a big deal, really, but what annoyed me is that the entire article was then deleted from the GameDev site.

Now, I'm a big-boy with thick enough skin to live through being a musician and an educator (post-secondary). The author can hate the fact that I pointed out flaws in a poorly thought-out rant until the cows come home, but what I find suspect is down-voting negative comments and deleting the article. If you need to hide your tracks you probably shouldn't be making them in the first place.

The game industry is a small place. Petulant behavior doesn't bode well for longevity.

It got the final negative vote from me when the author finally came around and apparently wasn't interested in really participating in the conversation at all. The fact is he really should have been on top of responses from hour one.

So to be clear, the author did not delete the article, it was removed by peer review

So to be clear, the author did not delete the article, it was removed by peer review

This is my mistake, then. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that it was purposely deleted -- I've been around here long enough to know not to jam my foot directly into my own mouth, but it still happens.

Again, apologies to the author of the article. I got so busy screaming "Black!" at an imaginary kettle that I forgot I was a pot.

It was and understandable reaction - I wish there was a better way for people to know an article was closed by peer review when it goes away. Although authors are not allowed to delete published articles anyways, most people don't know that

There's really no need to apologize... you can just delete this thread and pretend it never happened!

PS: Don't forget to downvote Gaiiden's and my posts before you do.

Zing!

Could a 'ghost' copy be left behind, where the content has been removed and replaced with a message stating that the article was removed due to being unsuitable, as deemed through peer-review.

possibly