Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Loborocket wrote:
Yes we can run beta programs with customers under NDA and GW could probably figure out a way to do this. I was trying to point out it is simple to say GW "needs to be open to their customers" on a stupid internet discussion board. It is a totally different thing to ACTUALLY make that happen and I might not totally be in GWs control because of these kinds of legal hurdles.

They used to be much more open, so what changed?
As far as I am aware it is simply a shift in mentality at GWHQ that not telling people about X release 2 weeks from now means your customers will buy Y in one ween, then X as well.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Yes we can run beta programs with customers under NDA and GW could probably figure out a way to do this. I was trying to point out it is simple to say GW "needs to be open to their customers" on a stupid internet discussion board. It is a totally different thing to ACTUALLY make that happen and I might not totally be in GWs control because of these kinds of legal hurdles.

They used to be much more open, so what changed?
As far as I am aware it is simply a shift in mentality at GWHQ that not telling people about X release 2 weeks from now means your customers will buy Y in one ween, then X as well.

I think it's just starting to believe the lies that people buy figures because they're cool and not based on the game. So they think announcing a weekly "Look at X cool thing!" will get people saying "oooh pretty MUST HAVE NAO" and then the same thing the next week.

When in reality people only buy Citadel miniatures because of the game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Yes we can run beta programs with customers under NDA and GW could probably figure out a way to do this. I was trying to point out it is simple to say GW "needs to be open to their customers" on a stupid internet discussion board. It is a totally different thing to ACTUALLY make that happen and I might not totally be in GWs control because of these kinds of legal hurdles.

They used to be much more open, so what changed?
As far as I am aware it is simply a shift in mentality at GWHQ that not telling people about X release 2 weeks from now means your customers will buy Y in one ween, then X as well.

I think it's just starting to believe the lies that people buy figures because they're cool and not based on the game. So they think announcing a weekly "Look at X cool thing!" will get people saying "oooh pretty MUST HAVE NAO" and then the same thing the next week.

When in reality people only buy Citadel miniatures because of the game.

Unfortunately you cannot be 100% certain of that, so your statement is totally wrong. Always avoiding absolutes in a statement is the only way to post. I would know, I'm always right.

(had to get 5 in).

WayneTheGame wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Yes we can run beta programs with customers under NDA and GW could probably figure out a way to do this. I was trying to point out it is simple to say GW "needs to be open to their customers" on a stupid internet discussion board. It is a totally different thing to ACTUALLY make that happen and I might not totally be in GWs control because of these kinds of legal hurdles.

They used to be much more open, so what changed?
As far as I am aware it is simply a shift in mentality at GWHQ that not telling people about X release 2 weeks from now means your customers will buy Y in one ween, then X as well.

I think it's just starting to believe the lies that people buy figures because they're cool and not based on the game. So they think announcing a weekly "Look at X cool thing!" will get people saying "oooh pretty MUST HAVE NAO" and then the same thing the next week.

When in reality people only buy Citadel miniatures because of the game.

I only buy the game because of the miniatures.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
I only buy the game because of the miniatures.

So you only have one model of each? You only have one squad of each?

Quite a few people definitely do buy lots of miniatures for the models alone and do not play the games, I know many people that have collected GW since the 80s and never play at all.
Maybe its different in other parts of the world.

Now I am not stupid enough to think that my friends are a good cross section of the public, but to say it does not happen is a fallacy for sure.

Plenty of people see the models in the window and wander in to buy them regardless of the game system.

 Rayvon wrote:
Plenty of people see the models in the window and wander in to buy them regardless of the game system.

That may be the situation in UK and parts of Europe, but definitely not the situation in the USA, especially since GW abandoned shopping malls years ago. Their current locations, by and large, are not areas where any significant degree of foot traffic passes by. In the USA, if you don't already know about GW, there is only an infinitesimally small chance that you'll stumble across one of their locations and decide to walk in.

Saldiven wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
Plenty of people see the models in the window and wander in to buy them regardless of the game system.

That may be the situation in UK and parts of Europe, but definitely not the situation in the USA, especially since GW abandoned shopping malls years ago. Their current locations, by and large, are not areas where any significant degree of foot traffic passes by. In the USA, if you don't already know about GW, there is only an infinitesimally small chance that you'll stumble across one of their locations and decide to walk in.

That's very true. I remember long ago when I used to rate malls by the quality of their gaming store. Now I have to research them on line to find them.

You make no mention of your leadership skills, any business experience you may have or any work accomplishments you have made. Why are you qualified to run the company?

I wouldn't hire you to be one of my tech leads much less as a CEO.

We wrote:
You make no mention of your leadership skills, any business experience you may have or any work accomplishments you have made. Why are you qualified to run the company?

I wouldn't hire you to be one of my tech leads much less as a CEO.

GW proudly hires based off of attitude rather than skills.

rigeld2 wrote:

We wrote:
You make no mention of your leadership skills, any business experience you may have or any work accomplishments you have made. Why are you qualified to run the company?

I wouldn't hire you to be one of my tech leads much less as a CEO.

GW proudly hires based off of attitude rather than skills.

They want you to have the right attitude but you also have to have the skills. Just saying you love GW is not going to get your foot in the door for store manager much less CEO. Of course writing a letter saying how everything they are currently doing is messed up doesn't show the attitude or skills.

I wouldn't hire someone with a cover letter like that to flip burgers.

We wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

We wrote:
You make no mention of your leadership skills, any business experience you may have or any work accomplishments you have made. Why are you qualified to run the company?

I wouldn't hire you to be one of my tech leads much less as a CEO.

GW proudly hires based off of attitude rather than skills.

They want you to have the right attitude but you also have to have the skills. Just saying you love GW is not going to get your foot in the door for store manager much less CEO. Of course writing a letter saying how everything they are currently doing is messed up doesn't show the attitude or skills.

I wouldn't hire someone with a cover letter like that to flip burgers.

I think you're missing the entire point of why he sent the letter.

We wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

We wrote:
You make no mention of your leadership skills, any business experience you may have or any work accomplishments you have made. Why are you qualified to run the company?

I wouldn't hire you to be one of my tech leads much less as a CEO.

GW proudly hires based off of attitude rather than skills.

They want you to have the right attitude but you also have to have the skills.

Based on the statements of the current CEO, that's simply not true.

"We believe that attitudes are more important than skills; for many roles we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work. - See more at: http://careers.games-workshop.com/games-workshops-internal-culture-fit/#sthash.Sfffc6BE.dpuf"

rigeld2 wrote:
Based on the statements of the current CEO, that's simply not true.

"We believe that attitudes are more important than skills; for many roles we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work. - See more at: http://careers.games-workshop.com/games-workshops-internal-culture-fit/#sthash.Sfffc6BE.dpuf"

Boy you guys can really parse out a statement.

Do you really think a company is going to hire based on attitude alone? Of course someone has to have the right attitude but you also need some skills. That statement is simply corporate speak for the fact they have internal training programs and such. All kinds of places make statements like this. It does not mean you can show up with a good attitude and no skills and expect to get a job. For Pete's sake!

It is like having a RAW/RAI debate. Use your head just a little bit.

Loborocket wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Based on the statements of the current CEO, that's simply not true.

"We believe that attitudes are more important than skills; for many roles we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work. - See more at: http://careers.games-workshop.com/games-workshops-internal-culture-fit/#sthash.Sfffc6BE.dpuf"

Boy you guys can really parse out a statement.

Do you really think a company is going to hire based on attitude alone? Of course someone has to have the right attitude but you also need some skills. That statement is simply corporate speak for the fact they have internal training programs and such. All kinds of places make statements like this. It does not mean you can show up with a good attitude and no skills and expect to get a job. For Pete's sake!

It is like having a RAW/RAI debate. Use your head just a little bit.

I believe Kirby stated they hired someone to the board of directors without looking at her credentials/resume/CV so unless he was lying, it might be true.

Besides which, the point of the OP is I'm pretty sure mostly satire and they don't really expect to be called in.

Loborocket wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Based on the statements of the current CEO, that's simply not true.

"We believe that attitudes are more important than skills; for many roles we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work. - See more at: http://careers.games-workshop.com/games-workshops-internal-culture-fit/#sthash.Sfffc6BE.dpuf"

Boy you guys can really parse out a statement.

Do you really think a company is going to hire based on attitude alone? Of course someone has to have the right attitude but you also need some skills. That statement is simply corporate speak for the fact they have internal training programs and such. All kinds of places make statements like this. It does not mean you can show up with a good attitude and no skills and expect to get a job. For Pete's sake!

It is like having a RAW/RAI debate. Use your head just a little bit.

From Kirby:

. We got a great (not good, great) new board member. She is still surprised that I did not read her CV (exasperated would be a more accurate word) but there was no need. Her letter told us what kind of person she was: sincere, open - minded, a learner, excited at the opportunity.

If they don't read a CV for a NXD, are you really sure they care about skills?

rigeld2 wrote:

Loborocket wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Based on the statements of the current CEO, that's simply not true.

"We believe that attitudes are more important than skills; for many roles we will happily help you learn the skills you need if you bring a great attitude to your work. - See more at: http://careers.games-workshop.com/games-workshops-internal-culture-fit/#sthash.Sfffc6BE.dpuf"

Boy you guys can really parse out a statement.

Do you really think a company is going to hire based on attitude alone? Of course someone has to have the right attitude but you also need some skills. That statement is simply corporate speak for the fact they have internal training programs and such. All kinds of places make statements like this. It does not mean you can show up with a good attitude and no skills and expect to get a job. For Pete's sake!

It is like having a RAW/RAI debate. Use your head just a little bit.

From Kirby:

. We got a great (not good, great) new board member. She is still surprised that I did not read her CV (exasperated would be a more accurate word) but there was no need. Her letter told us what kind of person she was: sincere, open - minded, a learner, excited at the opportunity.

If they don't read a CV for a NXD, are you really sure they care about skills?

Well if you believe that at face value then either the folks doing the hiring at GW are really dumb, or you are way more gullible than I would have originally thought.

There really isn't anything to parse about what Tom Kirby has said. You can happily speculate about whether it is bullgack, but the man seems to have gone out of his way to stress that the company hires based on attitude rather than skills/experience.

Part of the satire about this whole thing is that, yes, as some of the posters in this thread have mentioned, hiring a CEO on the basis of an interview letter is crazy town.

So either A) Tom Kirby is a fething moron taking a dump on his fiduciary duty, or B) he makes ridiculous statements to the company's shareholders and is a fething moron for taking a dump on his fiduciary duty.

Either way...it aint great.

weeble1000 wrote:
There really isn't anything to parse about what Tom Kirby has said. You can happily speculate about whether it is bullgack, but the man seems to have gone out of his way to stress that the company hires based on attitude rather than skills/experience.

Part of the satire about this whole thing is that, yes, as some of the posters in this thread have mentioned, hiring a CEO on the basis of an interview letter is crazy town.

So either A) Tom Kirby is a fething moron taking a dump on his fiduciary duty, or B) he makes ridiculous statements to the company's shareholders and is a fething moron for taking a dump on his fiduciary duty.

Either way...it aint great.

Bingo!
Either way, something's rotten in the state of GW.

Loborocket wrote:
Well if you believe that at face value then either the folks doing the hiring at GW are really dumb, or you are way more gullible than I would have originally thought.

If the CEO/Chairman of the Board openly stated it, why wouldn't you believe it?

WayneTheGame wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Well if you believe that at face value then either the folks doing the hiring at GW are really dumb, or you are way more gullible than I would have originally thought.

If the CEO/Chairman of the Board openly stated it, why wouldn't you believe it?

Because he is obviously lying! He is lying because of... reasons...

Lobrocket speaks the truth.

 ChazSexington wrote:
Lobrocket speaks the truth.

So Tom Kirby is a liar then. This is the same stupid argument in one of the previous threads where it was basically said not to take what Kirby says at face value, except that then he'd be lying to shareholders which I'm pretty sure would be illegal at worst or unethical at best.

So no, he doesn't speak the truth, he speaks what he thinks is the truth without citing anything to corroborate it, while there is evidence to the contrary.

WayneTheGame wrote:
If the CEO/Chairman of the Board openly stated it, why wouldn't you believe it?

Because experience and common sense tells me this is not the complete truth. I understand the spirit of the statement, but I refuse to believe skills and experience of a candidate are not even considered when making a hire. It simply can't be the case.

Loborocket wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
If the CEO/Chairman of the Board openly stated it, why wouldn't you believe it?

Because experience and common sense tells me this is not the complete truth. I understand the spirit of the statement, but I refuse to believe skills and experience of a candidate are not even considered when making a hire. It simply can't be the case.

After seeing how GW is run, I can believe it.

Loborocket wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
If the CEO/Chairman of the Board openly stated it, why wouldn't you believe it?

Because experience and common sense tells me this is not the complete truth. I understand the spirit of the statement, but I refuse to believe skills and experience of a candidate are not even considered when making a hire. It simply can't be the case.

For virtually any other company I'd agree with you. But remember this is a company that proudly claims they do no market research, doesn't ask the market what it wants and thinks that the internet is some kind of fad filled with scary people and trolls and hence virtually ignores social media in its entirety.

Doing something like that would be right up their alley.

WayneTheGame wrote:
For virtually any other company I'd agree with you. But remember this is a company that proudly claims they do no market research, doesn't ask the market what it wants and thinks that the internet is some kind of fad filled with scary people and trolls and hence virtually ignores social media in its entirety.

Doing something like that would be right up their alley.

I will go back to what I posted a few posts up; Either GW is really dumb when it comes to hiring, or the people who believe they hire based on attitude alone are really gullible. You can decide for yourself which school of thought you fall into.

Loborocket wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
For virtually any other company I'd agree with you. But remember this is a company that proudly claims they do no market research, doesn't ask the market what it wants and thinks that the internet is some kind of fad filled with scary people and trolls and hence virtually ignores social media in its entirety.

Doing something like that would be right up their alley.

I will go back to what I posted a few posts up; Either GW is really dumb when it comes to hiring, or the people who believe they hire based on attitude alone are really gullible. You can decide for yourself which school of thought you fall into.

I don't think that's the issue. I don't know if we believe it or not. That's irrelevant. The fact that that's how they say they do it is what we're making fun of.
(I may be speaking for myself though.)
I think this is satire, like an Onion article. The real joke's on GW.

Loborocket wrote:
Well if you believe that at face value then either the folks doing the hiring at GW are really dumb, or you are way more gullible than I would have originally thought.

It seems like the former surprises you and you don't believe it.
It shouldn't - they (proudly) don't do market research, say things like

We know of what we speak. One day 3-D printers will be affordable (agreed), they are now, they will be able to produce fantastic detail (the affordable ones won't) and they will do it faster than one miniature per day (no, they won't, look it up).

They won't produce fantastic detail faster than one miniature per day? Um...

There's other things that show his delusions and how they steer the company, but the "attitude over skill" isn't one I'm surprised about. Multiple times he compares himself to Steve Jobs and GW to Apple. That surprises me more than hiring for attitude.

rigeld2 wrote:
There's other things that show his delusions and how they steer the company, but the "attitude over skill" isn't one I'm surprised about. Multiple times he compares himself to Steve Jobs and GW to Apple. That surprises me more than hiring for attitude.

The irony is that GW is more like Microsoft, and virtually nothing like Apple.