Also, you only don't believe Schreier, who turns into a totally credible source when he's writing about crunch (which is absolutely true), because it doesn't fit with your narrative.
The very next tweet
The caveat here is that if this *was* a disgruntled employee, of course ND wouldn't want anyone to know that. But I've talked to a lot of ND devs over the years and many have described it as a pretty good place to work... except for the crunch
So let me ask, what exactly have I done wrong?
As has already been pointed out to you, your standard for what is and isn't a reliable source is all over the place even within the same post. One minute IGN can't be trusted, the next your using "Kotaku investigated Kotaku and found Kotaku did nothing wrong" Schreier as a credible source.
And then the arguments themselves make no sense. Does it matter if the leaker is Druckmann himself or the queen of scots? Even if we say you're right about everything, when we put back into context it doesn't make any sense. A disgruntled employee leaked the game because ...Naughty Dog is a great place to work and pays their employees loads of money? Someone outside the company got dev builds of the game ...how? Someone risked a multi million dollar lawsuit and being permanently blacklisted from the gaming industry in order to gain ...what?
For the hat-trick, answer all those question AND provide "credible sources" for all of it.