Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 19:47:14


Post by: BaronIveagh


Games Workshop has just had another interesting leak, the new NDA they're apparently forcing on Content Creators.

Spoiler:


It's pretty bad, to be honest. A lot of it is fairly standard boilerplate, but there are also some rather questionable details. It prohibits, for example, channels who would otherwise have reasonable 'fair use' claims to monetize their work no longer able to do so if they sign this.

Spikeybits for the Full Breakdown: https://spikeybits.com/2021/09/games-workshop-nda-leak-more-damaging-than-their-ip-policy.html

Additional, for those who decry spikybits






GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 19:47:49


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Company that likes to guard its secrets in NDA complete non-shocker.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 19:50:02


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Company that likes to guard its secrets in NDA complete non-shocker.


Company that adds nasty riders that have nothing to do with keeping secrets to an NDA is a non-shocker to you? Because there are ways of reading this that basically prohibit the creators from doing anything mini related for a minimum of three years after they drop their agreement with GW.

Also, interestingly, the governing law shall be that of England, according to the NDA. Apparently losing court cases in other countries is starting to get on GW's nerves.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:01:58


Post by: His Master's Voice


Yeah, people who don't know what Restricted Customer is, should not be doing breakdowns of legal documents.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:02:31


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


NDAs. Standard bit of kit these days. This is a non-shocker.

Don’t want to sign it? Don’t sign it. You want to leverage GW’s products? They’re the ones with the discretion.

This isn’t even a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a molehill out of a worm cast.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:04:30


Post by: Valander


Good ol Spikey Bits for the click bait.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:05:53


Post by: BaronIveagh


 His Master's Voice wrote:
Yeah, people who don't know what Restricted Customer is, should not be doing breakdowns of legal documents.


Since they're quoting the definition that GW lays out in the contract (opposed to other definitions that may exist), you want to run that by me again?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:06:42


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:09:14


Post by: Gert


Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:09:25


Post by: kodos


Not really new, that the NDA of GW has no advantage for content creators is known for some time now

most YT channels got out of it shortly after they signed it as the information or boxes they got "earlier" was not really early enough to make a video before others did who got the info from the web or boxes from regular shop pre-orders


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:09:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...



In theory, to stop youtubers from leaking gak. Or, you know, leaking that a soon to be released product IS gak, as the case may be. As written, anyone who signs this cannot, in theory, give any GW product a negative review for a period of three years after the termination of the agreement. If a GW employee were to leak something to them, it actually extends the time the agreement is in effect.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:11:41


Post by: The Phazer


That looks like a completely standard, uncontroversial NDA.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:13:09


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.


They're fairly accurate in this case. Effectively, if you were to give a GW product a negative review, they can sue you for breach of contract. You also cannot earn money on your youtube channel, regardless of what the law might say, without being in breach of contract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Phazer wrote:
That looks like a completely standard, uncontroversial NDA.


Details, genius, details. It's a noncompetitive agreement disguised as an NDA. The relevant sections are 'Definitions and Interpretation' and 'Non-competition and Non-Solicitation'.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:15:52


Post by: xttz


 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".


That's pretty much it. Looking forward to all the hilarious amateur interpretations of legal text ITT though. Great use of a hobby News & Rumour board.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:16:39


Post by: BrianDavion


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Also, interestingly, the governing law shall be that of England, according to the NDA. Apparently losing court cases in other countries is starting to get on GW's nerves.


thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:27:01


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:

thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)



So have I. Though, I grant, it was with Wargaming.net and Gaijin. Hell, I've been in charge of enforcement of them at one job. The reason I say that's interesting is that the previous GW NDA I've seen was under the laws of California.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:28:00


Post by: BrianDavion


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...



In theory, to stop youtubers from leaking gak. Or, you know, leaking that a soon to be released product IS gak, as the case may be. As written, anyone who signs this cannot, in theory, give any GW product a negative review for a period of three years after the termination of the agreement. If a GW employee were to leak something to them, it actually extends the time the agreement is in effect.



aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)



So have I. Though, I grant, it was with Wargaming.net and Gaijin. Hell, I've been in charge of enforcement of them at one job. The reason I say that's interesting is that the previous GW NDA I've seen was under the laws of California.


Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:32:04


Post by: drbored


This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:36:03


Post by: BrianDavion


drbored wrote:
This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


playing devil's advocate the only way to prove disparagement vs defamation would be to fight a costly court battle. So I could see this being a cause for worry if a review site said "sadly space marine codex tenth edition just isn't very strong" and GW was like "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT;S MASSIVLY STRONG!" yeaaah good luck winning that one in court.

I don't think that's gonna be the case and yeah most likely this is more a "ok so if you partner with us you're not to spend your entire time telling the world what an aweful buncha puppy eaters we are" (and frankly if your entire youtube schtick is "GW is literally EVIL" you proably shouldn't be accepting partnerships with them anyway) so yeah not too big a deal. that said, as with any legal agreement, people should read over this carefully, think and possiably even consult their lawyer before signing


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:37:55


Post by: drbored


BrianDavion wrote:
drbored wrote:
This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


playing devil's advocate the only way to prove disparagement vs defamation would be to fight a costly court battle. So I could see this being a cause for worry if a review site said "sadly space marine codex tenth edition just isn't very strong" and GW was like "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT;S MASSIVLY STRONG!" yeaaah good luck winning that one in court.

I don't think that's gonna be the case and yeah most likely this is more a "ok so if you partner with us you're not to spend your entire time telling the world what an aweful buncha puppy eaters we are" (and frankly if your entire youtube schtick is "GW is literally EVIL" you proably shouldn't be accepting partnerships with them anyway) so yeah not too big a deal. that said, as with any legal agreement, people should read over this carefully, think and possiably even consult their lawyer before signing


GW isn't going to waste money on a costly legal battle if someone says a codex is meh.

But yeah, like you say, if you're worried about it, just don't sign it. This is an argument between entitled babies that want to poop all over free stuff they get.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 20:38:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:

aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


While not familiar with British NDA civil procedure, in the US the argument could be made. And, this is being sent to youtube reviewers and anyone else who gets GW's early release samples.


BrianDavion wrote:

Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based


I'll admit I'm unsure of that, they seem to have plenty of lawyers in the US, from the number of suits they file. Some countries prohibit their citizens being under contracts who's governing laws are outside their legal system, and in the US, California used to have rules favoring the plaintiff in this sort of thing, though I'm unsure if this is still the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


Your looking at the wrong clause, drbored. Look at 4.1.1, which does state that they will not, in any way, reduce the amount of business GW does.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:29:30


Post by: Grot 6


Forget it Jake, It's Spikeybits.


He doesn't waste an opportunity to badmouth GW at the drop of a hat.

TLR

There's no story here.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:33:39


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


While not familiar with British NDA civil procedure, in the US the argument could be made. And, this is being sent to youtube reviewers and anyone else who gets GW's early release samples.


BrianDavion wrote:

Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based


I'll admit I'm unsure of that, they seem to have plenty of lawyers in the US, from the number of suits they file. Some countries prohibit their citizens being under contracts who's governing laws are outside their legal system, and in the US, California used to have rules favoring the plaintiff in this sort of thing, though I'm unsure if this is still the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


Your looking at the wrong clause, drbored. Look at 4.1.1, which does state that they will not, in any way, reduce the amount of business GW does.


Google the definition of a "Restricted Customer", it doesn't mean what people think it means.

And, again, you're only going to sign this if you think it's a good deal for you and your review business and you want to get free review copies of things. Being SPONSORED also means that on youtube and in online articles, you will likely have a thing in your video/article that says "THIS IS A SPONSORED ARTICLE" or somesuch, which will tell viewers what they need to know in terms of what to expect from that video/article.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:37:52


Post by: Lord Kragan


The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:48:00


Post by: Kanluwen


Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:48:56


Post by: Albertorius


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.


They're fairly accurate in this case. Effectively, if you were to give a GW product a negative review, they can sue you for breach of contract. You also cannot earn money on your youtube channel, regardless of what the law might say, without being in breach of contract.

...well, they may want that to be true, but that's not the case. Contracts don't supersede the laws, and that's what's usually called an unenforceable clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote:
The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.


It is, yeah. All of it kinda reads as "why would I want to sign this, again?" to me.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 21:53:52


Post by: LunarSol


 Kanluwen wrote:
Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...



I assumed the size change was more a result of GW's Kill Team/Warcry mats, since the new table sizes are scaled to those.

FLG certainly had advanced word the change was coming, but scaling down isn't nearly as hard for companies to adapt to than scaling up would be.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:01:23


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Albertorius wrote:

...well, they may want that to be true, but that's not the case. Contracts don't supersede the laws, and that's what's usually called an unenforceable clause.


Actually the clause is completely enforceable, as while, you may have the right under the law to do so, this enters you into a contract with GW that says you won't.

 Albertorius wrote:

It is, yeah. All of it kinda reads as "why would I want to sign this, again?" to me.


Well, the general idea is that you get advance copies of GW's products so that you can have day 1 reviews ready to go. But 4.1.1 makes that more than a bit absurd, and their track record on actually delivering from their end sucks ass.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:01:51


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


Oh goody, is this the outrage thread? They're always fun for the next 30 pages of people flinging at each other over unimportant things.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:02:15


Post by: drbored


Lord Kragan wrote:
The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.


It's part of a larger 'Sponsorship' contract.

In other words, the intended recipient is likely being offered to sign on for 3 years of reviewing or making videos/articles about GW product and this NDA is here to make sure they don't leak information. It could, for all we know, be the NDA that playtesters get in order to playtest things ahead of time and do reviews on them. In order to organize those things, GW may need to make sure they don't leak any confidential stuff well ahead of time.

Put even more obviously: we know NOTHING about the rest of the intended recipient's contract or deal they could be getting from GW. For all we know, 3 years could be a super good deal for them getting a GW sponsorship, and there could be plenty of perks that we know NOTHING about, because all we have is this confidentiality contract.

At the end of the day, the INTENDED RECIPIENT (have I said that enough?) will likely not sign this if they think it's a bad move for their business, and would likely want to discuss the terms of this contract and other things with their own lawyer.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:03:18


Post by: hotsauceman1


 Kanluwen wrote:
Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...


Um no.
It's pretty well known the reason they got scaled down is it's 4 killteam boards put together.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:08:27


Post by: Wha-Mu-077


If Spikeybits told me the sky is blue and grass is green I would double-check anyway.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:11:14


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

Google the definition of a "Restricted Customer", it doesn't mean what people think it means.


1: Definitions and Interpretations: 'Restricted Customer: a person who is, at the effective date, or has been in the previous 12 months, a client or customer, or in the habit of dealing with, GW.


It's right in the contract. What Google says matters not one damn bit.


drbored wrote:

And, again, you're only going to sign this if you think it's a good deal for you and your review business and you want to get free review copies of things. Being SPONSORED also means that on youtube and in online articles, you will likely have a thing in your video/article that says "THIS IS A SPONSORED ARTICLE" or somesuch, which will tell viewers what they need to know in terms of what to expect from that video/article.


This is being shoved on people who are not sponsored, but rather, anyone who gets an advance review copy.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:13:05


Post by: Kanluwen


Where exactly do you think people are getting advance review copies from?

Spoiler:
It isn't(or shouldn't be!) retailers.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:13:58


Post by: yukishiro1


This isn't a standard NDA. There are a number weird things in here that push the envelope and are likely legally unenforceable, particularly in sections 4 and 6. Read literally, this would allow GW to get damages from anyone who signed the agreement who then gave a bad review to a GW product and said people shouldn't buy it. It would also allow GW to decide what is or is not confusing use under 4.1.6 and then get damages for that as well, without any showing of negligence.

The basic issue is that "Restricted Customer" is defined in a ridiculously broad way here, to be any customer of GW's, regardless of that customer's relationship to the signer of the document. What that term is supposed to actually mean is someone the signer had a personal relationship with - in other words, if you work in GW sales and you build up a relationship with a vendor, and then after you leave GW you try to get that vendor to stop buying from GW and start buying from some rival instead. But that's not what this document actually says, it purports to say that you cannot do anything that would make any GW customer buy less from GW, regardless of whether you have any personal relationship with them cultivated through your GW employment. Which is absurd.

This problem extends to basically the whole document - they are overreaching almost everywhere in major ways. It's like someone took a standard NDA and then sent it to the Eye of Terror to be warped into something that still nominally resembles a NDA until you look more closely, and realize with horror that what you thought was a normal NDA is something all-together more sinister.

If that's a real legal document GW is trying to get people to sign, absolutely nobody should be signing it under any circumstances, at least not without very careful consultation with a lawyer. It's likely not legally enforceable, but bankrupting yourself fighting an unenforceable agreement is a Pyrrhic victory.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:17:00


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
If Spikeybits told me the sky is blue and grass is green I would double-check anyway.


http://natfka.blogspot.com/2021/09/want-to-know-what-gw-nda-looks-like.html

I'm sure was things go on, more and more sources will have articles on it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:41:53


Post by: JoeRugby


Moving past if it’s real or not

No one knows the source or the intended recipient of this NDA right?

I’ve seen people say and assume it’s for content creators & reviews but do we have any confirmation it’s that? And this isn’t the NDA for the printing company or the hamster that does the proof reading


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:44:24


Post by: Mentlegen324


So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:47:13


Post by: Gert


Different places all taking the same source doesn't mean anything in terms of validity. Some people who've worked with GW before have said its not the real NDA they've signed before including AoSCoach, NornQueenAlexis, and 2+Tough.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 22:48:13


Post by: drbored


Here's what we know:

This is a contract.

Here's what we don't know:

1. Who the intended recipient is
2. Even if we do know the intended recipient, is it anyone we care about
3. Even if it is someone we care about, did they sign it
4. If they signed it, does that matter
5. If it somehow matters, that was the signer's choice

If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.

We're talking about something that is a personal or business decision between GW and whoever the intended recipient is. If GW is somehow 'FORCING' this on other review channels (which they can't), then here's what happens:

Channels like GMG and a few other places no longer get free copies of GW's stuff to review. Then, they can buy their own copies and say whatever they want.

THAT'S THE ONLY RESULT THAT COMES OUT OF THIS.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:06:11


Post by: Tannhauser42


It seems a lot of people have forgotten the Chapterhouse Studios case and all of the things GW tried to pull during that one.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:13:05


Post by: yukishiro1


drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:27:01


Post by: Mentlegen324


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It seems a lot of people have forgotten the Chapterhouse Studios case and all of the things GW tried to pull during that one.


And it seems every time something happens no matter how significant, some people have already decided that GW are always in the wrong no matter what, using things like the Chapterhouse studio case (even though they were actually determined to be right on several points there) from close to a decade ago along with hyperbole and misconstruing aspects to claim "GW bad!" regardless, rather than judging things based on how they are now and what the facts of the situation here are. This is the 3rd situation where this has happened recently.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:27:14


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.


We can play the 'I know more than you' game all day.

At the end of the day here's what happens:

GW sends you this contract. You and your lawyer decide, considering everything you've been given, "Hey, this isn't very normal." You redline the contract and send it back.

GW then either decides to rewrite the contract, abide by your adjustments, or cease proceeding on the activation of the contract and whatever other contracts are involved.

If they rewrite the contract, yay! You get more favorable circumstances.
If they abide by your adjustments, yay! You get more favorable circumstances.
If they decide to stop working with you, yay! You can continue doing what you were doing.

If you decide to sign the contract as is, yay! You then get to work with GW on whatever sponsorship deal this contract is referring to, and you abide by the contract.
If that's good for your business or whatever, then, great! If it's not, you're not likely to sign it at all.

So, yes, let's just put aside the pedantic bull and focus on what matters: None of us received this contract. Nobody in this forum has any clue what this is referring to. The intended recipient leaked this likely to get a second opinion on it and it got out of hand, OR, and here's a possibility, this was COMPLETELY FABRICATED to push more of the "GW is Bad" narrative floating around. If that's the case, this is weak, due to the aforementioned results.

If you want to be mad about the language in this contract that wasn't meant for you and you don't have to sign, I guess that's your prerogative.

Considering how much we don't know, and that none of us are experts on the issue, I think we just close this topic and put it to rest.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:52:46


Post by: yukishiro1


I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/23 23:55:58


Post by: BrianDavion


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


If YOU receive this contract, it's up to you whether you sign it or not considering all the other things that may be going on. You can call it draconian, unusual, anything you want, but so far the info I've heard from actual lawyers is "this is normal" and from other people that have signed other NDAs is "this is normal"

Seems like the only people that are really complaining are people that don't work in law, contracts, or NDAs and don't understand the situation at all. In other words, none of the opinions here matter.


It's not normal, and any lawyer telling you it is normal is a lawyer you shouldn't be using as a lawyer because they either don't know what they're talking about or they didn't bother to read it carefully. That definition of "Restricted Customer" is absolutely not normal, as you yourself highlighted. Signing a document saying you agree to indemnify GW, with or without any fault on your part, for any breach of a set of vaguely defined covenants that depend on GW's own judgment, is not normal. In fact, no fault indemnity it is so far from normal that many jurisdictions will declare it per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Any lawyer who tells you either of these things is normal is not a good lawyer.

It is ironic that you are telling other people they don't know what they're talking about when you evidently are not very well informed yourself.

Honestly, this is so far from normal that I question whether it's a real legal document. If this is what GW's legal department is coming up with, they're either incompetent or treading perilously close to getting themselves into trouble in an attempt to deliver on their clients' demands.


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:00:56


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


I've signed similar contracts with video game companies, and all of them have various non-defamation clauses as you see in 4.1.7 and other verbiage that's literally copy-pasted.

Many people assumed, myself included, that this contract was being sent out to review channels like GMG or GooberTown or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is we don't know who the intended recipient is supposed to be. A journalist mentioned that many companies that send review copies don't bother with NDAs or any contracts, because they operate completely on goodwill, and as long as that relationship exists, they will continue to do business for each other.

For all we know, this could be an NDA for a totally different type of contract. A position within GW, an indie game company making a warhammer video game, or any other sort of sponsorship that has nothing to do with whether or not you say good or bad things about GW's miniatures.

My hope is that people will use their heads for about two seconds to consider that maybe the "GW BAD" narrative has gone a little too far, so much so that we're willing to take contracts that don't apply to us, that have very little information, and all pretend to be experts on the situation just so we can feel better about not buying that toy we wanted to buy.

Feel free to keep discussing it, but don't pretend like you know everything about the situation and can condemn GW based on some legalese that wasn't written for you.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:14:09


Post by: yukishiro1


If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?


What does this have to do with anything?

If I had ever signed an NDA like that, my opinion on NDAs would be per se invalid because only an idiot would sign a document purporting to agree to no fault indemnity for anything that results in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product than they otherwise would have.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. I could tell you my legal qualifications, but it shouldn't make any difference to you one way or another. What's important isn't someone's title (especially on the internet where it may not even be true), it's whether what they're saying is correct or not.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:17:39


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

I've signed similar contracts with video game companies, and all of them have various non-defamation clauses as you see in 4.1.7 and other verbiage that's literally copy-pasted.

Many people assumed, myself included, that this contract was being sent out to review channels like GMG or GooberTown or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is we don't know who the intended recipient is supposed to be. A journalist mentioned that many companies that send review copies don't bother with NDAs or any contracts, because they operate completely on goodwill, and as long as that relationship exists, they will continue to do business for each other.

For all we know, this could be an NDA for a totally different type of contract. A position within GW, an indie game company making a warhammer video game, or any other sort of sponsorship that has nothing to do with whether or not you say good or bad things about GW's miniatures.

My hope is that people will use their heads for about two seconds to consider that maybe the "GW BAD" narrative has gone a little too far, so much so that we're willing to take contracts that don't apply to us, that have very little information, and all pretend to be experts on the situation just so we can feel better about not buying that toy we wanted to buy.

Feel free to keep discussing it, but don't pretend like you know everything about the situation and can condemn GW based on some legalese that wasn't written for you.


If you know that Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies has stated that these were sent to various reviewers, then your argument is disingenuous at best. So far you've argued with two different people that this is totally normal (it's not) that the words don't mean what the contract expressly defines them as (they do) and that we can't possibly know what they actually mean because we don't know who's gotten one (we know at least a few of them) .

Frankly, De Nile should remain a river in Egypt.

 JoeRugby wrote:
Moving past if it’s real or not

No one knows the source or the intended recipient of this NDA right?

I’ve seen people say and assume it’s for content creators & reviews but do we have any confirmation it’s that? And this isn’t the NDA for the printing company or the hamster that does the proof reading


It was leaked by miscast, so I'm guessing it's either his, or someone he knows. It was confirmed by Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies that several youtube channels have received this or something similar.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:19:38


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Appropriate to who? To what position? Who does this contract apply to? What sponsorship does it reference? Is it the final form of this contract? Who is expected to sign it? What benefits could they be getting as a result of signing this contract?

Without answers to those questions, you're railing against nothing.

Quote from above because I'm not savvy with this forum:

"If you know that Brent over at Goobertown Hobbies has stated that these were sent to various reviewers, then your argument is disingenuous at best. So far you've argued with two different people that this is totally normal (it's not) that the words don't mean what the contract expressly defines them as (they do) and that we can't possibly know what they actually mean because we don't know who's gotten one (we know at least a few of them) .

Frankly, De Nile should remain a river in Egypt."

Then it's up to Goobertown and other review channels whether or not they want to sign this sort of contract. If they don't want to, that's up to them, period. What will happen? They will stop receiving free stuff? Did Brent actually receive this or is he getting this from other people that have different situations than he does?

Again, as I said before, it seems like people are, at best, upset at not being able to get free stuff and still poop on it (which, due to there not being a non-disparage clause, isn't even the case).


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:21:02


Post by: BrianDavion


yukishiro1 wrote:
If you ever signed a NDA that allows for no fault indemnity, or a non-compete that defined "Restricted Customer" as anyone who does business with the company, you did something terribly stupid and risky by signing it.

I'm not pretending to know everything. I'm looking at the document and telling you that if it is real, it is an extreme overreach that is probably not even legally enforceable because it goes so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It doesn't really matter who it's for, the no fault indemnity and the definition of Restricted Customer are not appropriate regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:


How many NDAs have you signed, and for who?


What does this have to do with anything?

If I had ever signed an NDA like that, my opinion on NDAs would be per se invalid because only an idiot would sign a document purporting to agree to no fault indemnity for anything that results in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product than they otherwise would have.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. I could tell you my legal qualifications, but it shouldn't make any difference to you one way or another. What's important isn't someone's title (especially on the internet where it may not even be true), it's whether what they're saying is correct or not.


if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?

are there any english busniess lawyers here who can give a professional opinion on thi contract? what would it be used for? is it enforceable? etc?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:23:43


Post by: Gert


And it was rebuked by several others as a hoax. One person saying X people said they got the document, doesn't mean jack. I'd also like to point out that many channels/people GW has sent review copies to in the past have been critical of GW systems and continue to do so if/when it's neccessary. So I'm going to believe that it's all nonsense and just another attempt by someone to stir the pot of anti-GW sentiment.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:23:47


Post by: Mentlegen324


yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


Just what do you think a non-compete and non-Solicitation clause is for if you believe that stopping them using the information in a negative way to affect GWs business or to gain some sort of advantage isn't standard? Someone who signs this would be given information that could potentially be used to affect GWs business in various ways such as possibly diverting customers and/or others away, even without them actually revealing that information to anyone.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:25:13


Post by: techsoldaten


yukishiro1 wrote:
This isn't a standard NDA.


There is no such thing as a standard NDA. Every company will have their own terms, and they will often be customized to an individual relationship.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There are a number weird things in here that push the envelope and are likely legally unenforceable, particularly in sections 4 and 6. Read literally, this would allow GW to get damages from anyone who signed the agreement who then gave a bad review to a GW product and said people shouldn't buy it. It would also allow GW to decide what is or is not confusing use under 4.1.6 and then get damages for that as well, without any showing of negligence.


4 deals with non-competition. 6 deals with what happens if you break confidentiality.

6 is absolutely enforceable, similar language appears in a lot of contracts.

What specifically do you claim is illegal about 4? Nothing about this section appears to be questionable.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The basic issue is that "Restricted Customer" is defined in a ridiculously broad way here, to be any customer of GW's, regardless of that customer's relationship to the signer of the document. What that term is supposed to actually mean is someone the signer had a personal relationship with - in other words, if you work in GW sales and you build up a relationship with a vendor, and then after you leave GW you try to get that vendor to stop buying from GW and start buying from some rival instead. But that's not what this document actually says, it purports to say that you cannot do anything that would make any GW customer buy less from GW, regardless of whether you have any personal relationship with them cultivated through your GW employment. Which is absurd.


Restricted Customer means anyone GW does business with. Of course that is broad.

Again, similar terms appear in a lot of contracts. The only person claiming there's a problem with this is you.

yukishiro1 wrote:
This problem extends to basically the whole document - they are overreaching almost everywhere in major ways. It's like someone took a standard NDA and then sent it to the Eye of Terror to be warped into something that still nominally resembles a NDA until you look more closely, and realize with horror that what you thought was a normal NDA is something all-together more sinister.

If that's a real legal document GW is trying to get people to sign, absolutely nobody should be signing it under any circumstances, at least not without very careful consultation with a lawyer. It's likely not legally enforceable, but bankrupting yourself fighting an unenforceable agreement is a Pyrrhic victory.


These observations are baseless and clearly come from someone with no experience dealing with businesses. You're making stuff up to complain about.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:30:50


Post by: solkan


This thread is way more hilarious than I imagined "unsolicited legal opinions concerning a legal contract" would be.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:30:51


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?


That's not what he said, but thank you for playing. When I worked for the casino, enforcement of the NDA was part of my position, and he's not wrong, this is a really weird NDA. As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA, and different from other GW NDAs I've seen, but those were more than a decade ago.

I can say that there are countries that this is unenforceable, but the UK, I'm unsure of.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Again, similar terms appear in a lot of contracts. The only person claiming there's a problem with this is you.


Achem.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:33:39


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?


That's not what he said, but thank you for playing. When I worked for the casino, enforcement of the NDA was part of my position, and he's not wrong, this is a really weird NDA. As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA, and different from other GW NDAs I've seen, but those were more than a decade ago.

I can say that there are countries that this is unenforceable, but the UK, I'm unsure of.



So, again, if you were to get this NDA for some sort of position or deal with GW, I'm sure you would send it to your lawyer to check it over and you two could figure it out.

If Brent or any of the other people have indeed gotten this same contract, I'm sure they would do the same. The thing I'd love to see squashed is this just being another swipe at GW, when it's actually a non-issue.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:39:45


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:
What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.


Because it requires reviewers to give GW positive reviews, regardless of actual quality. So, effectively, only reviewers contractually obligated to GW can get kits far enough in advance to produce reviews in time for the kits to release.

The extra bit on the end is to effectively expose channels who decide to part ways with GW out of business or face legal liability if they continue to produce videos/etc advertising any product that competes with GW, and we know how broad a pool of products GW consider 'competition', for three years.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:40:26


Post by: Mentlegen324


 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

if you've never signed a NDA, never seen one, and are not a laywer, maybe just MAYBE you should stop pretending to be an expert?

As I said, it's effectively a non-compete agreement masquerading as an NDA
.


Part of the purpose of a non-compete clause is to stop use the of confidential information to gain an advantage or affect the others business. This NDA is for something that obviously involves confidential information that could potentially be used to gain an advantage or affect the others business. So just why is this NDA including a non-compete clause strange to you?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:41:53


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:
What I'm trying to say is where is the real-world issue here? Please explain, because as everyone seems to understand, I know nothing and am not a lawyer, so I'd LOVE if someone could explain, in real-world terms, where the issue is if you do or don't sign this contract.


Because it requires reviewers to give GW positive reviews, regardless of actual quality. So, effectively, only reviewers contractually obligated to GW can get kits far enough in advance to produce reviews in time for the kits to release.


And, if I understand correctly, under a SPONSORSHIP, you're generally required, or encouraged, to tell your viewers/readers that what you're putting out is SPONSORED, to help people understand that your opinion may be pushed in a certain way.

Sooooooo... It comes down to how you feel about sponsored content.

As to the other half of that, not getting stuff in advance, well, gosh, they'll just have to be patient if they want to vomit all over the stuff that GW wants to release, won't they? Gosh what a terrible dystopia.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:43:35


Post by: Gert


Sorry can I just ask why people are believing this is real? Have you got a verified source? Has anyone come forward and said they've signed this specific document? Have you got a statement from GW saying its the document the company uses?
Or are people blindly jumping on the anti-GW bandwagon because you got bored being angry at Warhammer+?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:48:41


Post by: yukishiro1


 techsoldaten wrote:


4 deals with non-competition. 6 deals with what happens if you break confidentiality.

6 is absolutely enforceable, similar language appears in a lot of contracts.


What you've written here is simply wrong. 6 deals with breaches of the agreement generally, which would include anything in clause 4. That you haven't even read the document before throwing around accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about is pretty ironic.

Also, if you aren't aware that no fault indemnity is legally questionable when applied to non-compete agreements and violates public policy in many jurisdictions, that severely undermines the credibility of your (evidence-free) assertions that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.





GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:50:33


Post by: Mentlegen324


 Gert wrote:
Sorry can I just ask why people are believing this is real? Have you got a verified source? Has anyone come forward and said they've signed this specific document? Have you got a statement from GW saying its the document the company uses?
Or are people blindly jumping on the anti-GW bandwagon because you got bored being angry at Warhammer+?


I'd assume its the latter as so far I've yet to see anything about this that seems like its actually a problem. Seems like the usual misinterpreting or misconstruing the situation to try and make them look bad.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:50:55


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

And, if I understand correctly, under a SPONSORSHIP, you're generally required, or encouraged, to tell your viewers/readers that what you're putting out is SPONSORED, to help people understand that your opinion may be pushed in a certain way.

Sooooooo... It comes down to how you feel about sponsored content.

As to the other half of that, not getting stuff in advance, well, gosh, they'll just have to be patient if they want to vomit all over the stuff that GW wants to release, won't they? Gosh what a terrible dystopia.


Completely wrong. Do you assume that everyone who's getting one of these is sponsored by GW? Because, from what I can see, not one person who's claimed to have received these is sponsored by GW. These are being received by people who are, or used to be, recipients of prerelease review copies of GW products, and were part of that GW program.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:51:08


Post by: jojo_monkey_boy


This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:53:49


Post by: yukishiro1


 Mentlegen324 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know how that responds to what I wrote. You said it was standard according to what you had "been told." I pointed out in detail how it was not only not standard, but a serious departure from what is standard. You responded by writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff about how you can choose not to sign the contract. That doesn't address the issue of the contract language being a quite radical departure from what is standard in a NDA, to the point where portions of it are likely void for violating public policy.

If you don't want to participate in the topic further, feel free not to. There's no reason other people need to stop discussing it just because you don't think it's a useful discussion or don't like the way the discussion has gone, however.


Just what do you think a non-compete and non-Solicitation clause is for if you believe that stopping them using the information in a negative way to affect GWs business or to gain some sort of advantage isn't standard? Someone who signs this would be given information that could potentially be used to affect GWs business in various ways such as possibly diverting customers and/or others away, even without them actually revealing that information to anyone.


You don't appear to have read what I wrote. I'm not sure writing it again will be helpful, but on the off chance it is: The problem isn't with the idea of the non-compete, it's with the particulars of how it is worded re: what is covered, and with the claim of the right to no-fault indemnity. If this agreement had a more reasonable definition of Restricted Customer, and if it didn't have a no-fault indemnity clause, it would be closer to something approaching a "normal" or "standard" NDA and non-compete clause agreement. I don't practice in the UK so I don't feel confident saying for sure whether no-fault indemnity is per se against public policy there, but even if it is legal, it's unusual and I would strongly advise against anyone signing any document with such a clause in it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:53:57


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:

And, if I understand correctly, under a SPONSORSHIP, you're generally required, or encouraged, to tell your viewers/readers that what you're putting out is SPONSORED, to help people understand that your opinion may be pushed in a certain way.

Sooooooo... It comes down to how you feel about sponsored content.

As to the other half of that, not getting stuff in advance, well, gosh, they'll just have to be patient if they want to vomit all over the stuff that GW wants to release, won't they? Gosh what a terrible dystopia.


Completely wrong. Do you assume that everyone who's getting one of these is sponsored by GW? Because, from what I can see, not one person who's claimed to have received these is sponsored by GW. These are being received by people who are, or used to be, recipients of prerelease review copies of GW products, and were part of that GW program.


I don't know whether or not previous reviews have been under sponsorship contracts. Do you?

Review copies also don't count as sponsorship, they are two very different things. What I am pretty certain of is that YouTube, at least, requires you to say if the product you are reviewing is sponsored or if the video is sponsored by a company.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:55:50


Post by: yukishiro1


 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:58:57


Post by: Gert


As soon as the document is verified then we can have a conversation about its contents. Until then you're discussing nothing.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 00:59:42


Post by: drbored


 Gert wrote:
As soon as the document is verified then we can have a conversation about its contents. Until then you're discussing nothing.


This. I'm out. I'll admit I'm out of my depth and nothing I've said should be taken as legal advice. Y'all can continue banging your heads on walls.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:01:03


Post by: yukishiro1


Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this. It is certainly true that we should allow for the possibility that this isn't real; that doesn't mean we can't discuss what it would mean if it was real.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:01:16


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

I don't know whether or not previous reviews have been under sponsorship contracts. Do you?

Review copies also don't count as sponsorship, they are two very different things. What I am pretty certain of is that YouTube, at least, requires you to say if the product you are reviewing is sponsored or if the video is sponsored by a company.


You mean the ones that you-tube requires that are missing from previous videos, letting us know that no previous sponsorship was present? [/sarcasm]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.


We are talking about GW legal. 'Competent' is stretching things a bit. I used to have a copy of an older GW NDA, but I've since lost it, so hopefully someone posts one to compare this to.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:05:30


Post by: Gert


yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:07:45


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Gert wrote:

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.


Gert, given your long history of white knighting for them, you'd claim it's not real even if we had a signed and notarized copy. I'll grant that, like most leaked documents, we do not, as of yet, have solid proof of this one way or another.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:10:20


Post by: yukishiro1


 Gert wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no. We're discussing something that may or may not be real. As I've flagged repeatedly here - and I've even questioned whether it's real myself, because I find it hard to believe a competent legal department would sign off on this.

I mean your own initial post in this thread was "what's the big deal?" You only moved to "this probably isn't real" once someone explained to you what, well, the big deal was.

That, and I then checked other places for similar content, i.e. I didn't just jump on the "GW bad" bandwagon and actually formed an opinion based on more than a single unverified source.
So now my point would be after 3 pages where we're still to see any sort of verification of said document that there is literally nothing to discuss.


If you think there's nothing to discuss, why are you still discussing it? Might as well leave the discussion to people who think there is something to discuss, surely?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:13:11


Post by: BaronIveagh


yukishiro1 wrote:

If you think there's nothing to discuss, why are you still discussing it? Might as well leave the discussion to people who think there is something to discuss, surely?


Because every time GW is accused of something or screws up spectacularly, he jumps in and tries to defend them. Frankly, he does it so much I wonder if he's part of their social media team.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:15:56


Post by: jojo_monkey_boy


yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:22:00


Post by: drbored


 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.


Ah yes, because only the people that hate GW should have their opinions counted. Classic.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:26:39


Post by: diepotato47


Assuming it’s even real, looks pretty standard. Read your contracts before you sign, folks.
Spikeybits just drumming up rubbish again. Using that bloke as a reliable source is about as good as listing Wikipedia on your thesis.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 01:58:27


Post by: yukishiro1


No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:07:49


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:08:20


Post by: diepotato47


End of the day, don’t like it, don’t sign it. Heck, if all you do is look for stuff like this to whinge about online about Games Workshop, maybe choose a new hobby. I hear gardening is fun.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:21:44


Post by: BrianDavion


drbored wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
This thread is hilarious.

It's like, "my dad could beat up your dad," but with unverifiable positions on legal jurisprudence.


Nothing's unverifiable - a little google research will show you I'm right about both the assertions I made re: the definition of Restricted Customer and no-fault indemnity being at a minimum exceptionally and unusually broad, even if you aren't a lawyer yourself - but admittedly it would take effort that most people are probably not willing to go to.


I'm not fully doubting you, but all of the usual GW doormats have already moved the goal posts from trying to defend the actual document to stating they'll only believe it if it's verified, which will never happen. So it's a moot point anyways.


Ah yes, because only the people that hate GW should have their opinions counted. Classic.


I mean if we let facts reign what would there to be angry about!?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:26:14


Post by: yukishiro1


drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:40:47


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.


I'm learning alongside everyone else with this, and so far all I've learned is that people are still really angry about not a lot.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 02:47:53


Post by: yukishiro1


You asked a question, I answered it again politely in detail, you respond by saying the only thing you've learned is that people are angry about nothing. I don't think there's much useful discussion to be had with someone who asks you a question then ignores your answer.





GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:06:39


Post by: techsoldaten


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's not pretty standard. We've been over why it isn't pretty standard. It prohibits a wildly greater range of actions than the typical non-compete or NDA due to the way it defines terms, and it purports to hold the signing party responsible for any damages even if they were not at fault. Both these things go well beyond what is normal in these agreements.


Proof?

Show us what a regular NDA would look like to you and include what it applies to.


I already told you what a "normal" one of these agreements looks like - indemnity would be tied to some level of fault, typically negligence, and Restricted Customer would be defined as someone who you had some relationship with based on your role with the company, not as all the company's customers whether you had any contact with them or not. It's one thing to say you can't leverage the relationships you created while working for one employer after going to a competitor, it's something quite different to say you can't do anything of any sort that would result in lowering the amount of money any GW customer anywhere in the world spends on GW products.

You yourself literally agreed with me earlier in the thread re: the definition of "Restricted Customer" before someone pointed out to you that the agreement defined the term differently than it's normally defined. You're disagreeing with yourself now.


A competent lawyer writing an NDA would define 'Restricted Customer' as any customer, interpreted in the broadest sense possible. That lawyer would also tie indemnity to any act that breaches confidentiality. The entire purpose of the agreement is to ensure there are consequences for a breach.

What you are complaining about are not defects, they are basic measures of competence.

But sure, show us the language you would use in place of that. Would love to see what you consider normal.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:19:08


Post by: yukishiro1


What you are trying to do as a lawyer is create something that's legally enforceable, that the person will sign, and that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. NDAs and non-competes are very tricky legally because courts are reluctant to enforce them, especially when there is a big difference in bargaining power, and especially when you are reaching beyond what feels like legitimate objectives.

No-fault indemnity is a terrible thing to put into a contract like this, because all it does is risk the validity of the contract. Is GW ever going to want to actually pursue someone for violating an agreement like this based on a theory of liability that doesn't involve fault? Almost certainly not. So why include something like that, when it won't gain you anything, but it might get your contract voided entirely?

The same considerations go to the definition of a Restricted Customer. Why do you think the standard definition is more narrow, if any "competent lawyer" would define it as broadly as possible? If you don't believe me, google it and look at some examples, you'll find dozens and dozens of definitions of the term, and the vast, vast majority will define it relative to entities the employee interacted with in some capacity. There is no possible way to argue this is the standard definition of the term - it simply isn't.

It's defined the way it is because the definition is related to legitimate concerns, so a court is more likely to enforce it. Stopping someone from using business relationships they cultivated at one company against that company after leaving feels fair; it doesn't feel fair to tell someone they can't do anything that might lead to any customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. That feels unnecessarily broad, and a court is not going to be likely to look kindly on you for doing it.

Your attitude of what lawyers are there to do is common among businesspeople who don't understand how the legal system actually works. It's better to write a good, fair contract that can be enforced than an oppressive, one-sided one that nominally benefits you more yet isn't actually worth much legally. Especially when the nominal benefits aren't something that actually really even help you, like a no-fault indemnity clause.






GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:36:45


Post by: Chikout


The funny thing is that GW isn't that litigious. After a few Google searches, the only time he has ever actually sued was in the infamous Chapterhouse case 8 years ago.
I'm not covinced this is real in any case. There seem to be a few too many mistakes in the document. For example, why don't GW use the own full address in the introduction? They use their full address in the website terms and services and in their financial reports.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:37:24


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
What you are trying to do as a lawyer is create something that's legally enforceable, that the person will sign, and that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. NDAs and non-competes are very tricky legally because courts are reluctant to enforce them, especially when there is a big difference in bargaining power, and especially when you are reaching beyond what feels like legitimate objectives.

No-fault indemnity is a terrible thing to put into a contract like this, because all it does is risk the validity of the contract. Is GW ever going to want to actually pursue someone for violating an agreement like this based on a theory of liability that doesn't involve fault? Almost certainly not. So why include something like that, when it won't gain you anything, but it might get your contract voided entirely?

The same considerations go to the definition of a Restricted Customer. Why do you think the standard definition is more narrow, if any "competent lawyer" would define it as broadly as possible? If you don't believe me, google it and look at some examples, you'll find dozens and dozens of definitions of the term, and the vast, vast majority will define it relative to entities the employee interacted with in some capacity. There is no possible way to argue this is the standard definition of the term - it simply isn't.

It's defined the way it is because the definition is related to legitimate concerns, so a court is more likely to enforce it. Stopping someone from using business relationships they cultivated at one company against that company after leaving feels fair; it doesn't feel fair to tell someone they can't do anything that might lead to any customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. That feels unnecessarily broad, and a court is not going to be likely to look kindly on you for doing it.

Your attitude of what lawyers are there to do is common among businesspeople who don't understand how the legal system actually works. It's better to write a good, fair contract that can be enforced than an oppressive, one-sided one that nominally benefits you more yet isn't actually worth much legally. Especially when the nominal benefits aren't something that actually really even help you, like a no-fault indemnity clause.






Maybe you should go tell GW how to write their contracts then


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:40:46


Post by: techsoldaten


yukishiro1 wrote:
What you are trying to do as a lawyer is create something that's legally enforceable, that the person will sign, and that accomplishes what you want to accomplish. NDAs and non-competes are very tricky legally because courts are reluctant to enforce them, especially when there is a big difference in bargaining power, and especially when you are reaching beyond what feels like legitimate objectives.

No-fault indemnity is a terrible thing to put into a contract like this, because all it does is risk the validity of the contract. Is GW ever going to want to actually pursue someone for violating an agreement like this based on a theory of liability that doesn't involve fault? Almost certainly not. So why include something like that, when it won't gain you anything, but it might get your contract voided entirely?

The same considerations go to the definition of a Restricted Customer. Why do you think the standard definition is more narrow, if any "competent lawyer" would define it as broadly as possible? If you don't believe me, google it and look at some examples, you'll find dozens and dozens of definitions of the term, and the vast, vast majority will define it relative to entities the employee interacted with in some capacity. There is no possible way to argue this is the standard definition of the term - it simply isn't.

It's defined the way it is because the definition is related to legitimate concerns, so a court is more likely to enforce it. Stopping someone from using business relationships they cultivated at one company against that company after leaving feels fair; it doesn't feel fair to tell someone they can't do anything that might lead to any customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. That feels unnecessarily broad, and a court is not going to be likely to look kindly on you for doing it.

Your attitude of what lawyers are there to do is common among businesspeople who don't understand how the legal system actually works. It's better to write a good, fair contract that can be enforced than an oppressive, one-sided one that nominally benefits you more yet isn't actually worth much legally. Especially when the nominal benefits aren't something that actually really even help you, like a no-fault indemnity clause.


Stop evading. No one needs your narrative about goals as a lawyer.

You keep saying Restricted Customer is defined too broadly and indemnity clauses are problematic.

Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:46:46


Post by: BrianDavion


GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:52:51


Post by: techsoldaten


BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


I find your definition of a million dollars to be overly broad, and villainize is too loose a term. Neither would not hold up in every court and jurisdiction despite common usage.

I refuse to provide you with counter examples, and wish to offer you a needlessly complex anecdote to disguise the fact I have no alternative to offer.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 03:57:19


Post by: yukishiro1


 techsoldaten wrote:


Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


It's obviously going to depend on the particular contract. But as an example, this is from literally the first google result you get - which you would have found yourself with 5 seconds of effort:

Restricted Customer means any person, firm, company or other organisation who, at any time during the twelve months immediately preceding the Termination Date was a customer of or in the habit of dealing with the Company or any Group Company and with whom, during that period, the Employee had material dealings in the course of her employment or for whom the Employee was responsible on behalf of the Company or any Group Company;


https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/restricted-customer

You can find 255 other examples at the same site, incidentally - that was just the first. You can go through all 255 if you want to try to find one that defines the term to be all the employer's customers. But the standard definition is very much like that one - it is limited to people or entities you interacted with in the scope of your agreement. The reason for that is what I already explained - courts don't like non-competes, so you have to word them narrowly to make it clear you're not illegitimately trying to stifle competition. Saying someone can't interact with any of your customers for 3 years in any way that might result in less sales for you, even people they never met while working for you, is not a legitimate competitive restriction.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


Ah, now we're just reduced to pointless, irrelevant character attacks. Those are always very convincing and a great way to show you've won an argument.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:08:02


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


We should all be worried if GW ever gave money to a children’s hospital.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:14:56


Post by: techsoldaten


yukishiro1 wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:


Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


It's obviously going to depend on the particular contract. But as an example, this is from literally the first google result you get - which you would have found yourself with 5 seconds of effort:

Restricted Customer means any person, firm, company or other organisation who, at any time during the twelve months immediately preceding the Termination Date was a customer of or in the habit of dealing with the Company or any Group Company and with whom, during that period, the Employee had material dealings in the course of her employment or for whom the Employee was responsible on behalf of the Company or any Group Company;


https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/restricted-customer

You can find 255 other examples at the same site, incidentally - that was just the first. You can go through all 255 if you want to try to find one that defines the term to be all the employer's customers. But the standard definition is very much like that one - it is limited to people or entities you interacted with in the scope of your agreement. The reason for that is what I already explained - courts don't like non-competes, so you have to word them narrowly to make it clear you're not illegitimately trying to stifle competition. Saying someone can't interact with any of your customers for 3 years in any way that might result in less sales for you, even people they never met while working for you, is not a legitimate competitive restriction.


*eyeroll*

You found a boilerplate contract on the Internet and claim it represents "normal" business practices. And you wag your finger because other people won't do the same.

NDAs are wildly different from company to company and situation to situation. The term "Restricted Customer" can be defined to mean just about anything within the terms of a contract. Literally, that's the point of defining terms within a contract - they are not universal and can and do vary. So what you're assuming about this term is incorrect.

Feel free to point to the rest of your Google results, but the difference between search results and reality is miles wide. Most adults understand this, that's why they pay lawyers.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


Ah, now we're just reduced to pointless, irrelevant character attacks. Those are always very convincing and a great way to show you've won an argument.


You still have not provided an alternative, at least not for indemnity.

Hurry up and Google some more stuff for us!


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:20:26


Post by: ClockworkZion


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


We should all be worried if GW ever gave money to a children’s hospital.

Maybe little Timmy wanted to start a "school league" in the leukemia ward?

For GW any donation would be a tax write off and goodwill so it's not like it'd be some Lex Luthor evil nonsense.

It feels like this conversation has generated two camps. One that says that the NDA is fine and/or they've had worse NDAs (or says it's fake). The second is pointing at it and going "these bits here seem uncharacteristically strict even for an NDA" to which the first camp either tells the second they're wrong, or that they don't know what they're talking about and must present evidence that the three year no-compete and defamation clauses seem unusually unfairly balanced towards GW's side of things.

I don't know if it's a real NDA as some have pointed out that there are some problems, such as "GW" never being clearly defined, but there is also a chance this was just a draft sent out by accident and isn't the final version of a future NDA they could use. Or maybe someone is pulling everyone's leg since I've heard people say the NDAs they signed at Gencon don't match it. I don't know. What I do know is that personally my stance is "concerned, but waiting for more information". I generally hope it's a hoax because it feels like the sort of thing GW could be trying to leverage with harsher terms to ensure they maximize day one hype wave purchases, but that could be the cynical side of me speaking when it comes to GW the company.

Either way I guess I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of it or if this is all that we'll hear about this.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:23:24


Post by: drbored


I sat down and read through a little more carefully, did a handful more google searches, and have gone through a lot of the replies on Reddit and Twitter and the story is thus:

This NDA is real boring and standard. All of the 'Restricted Customer' stuff is saying stuff like 'don't poach our customers' and 'don't prevent our customers from buying our stuff'. The term is 3 years, where many video game and even movie contracts could be up to 5 years or longer, depending on the scope of the project.

And, more than anything, people that are freaking out are twisting the legalese to fit their own narrative without fully understanding the legalese. That's the idea of legalese, ironically, is to make it so that lawyers can figure it out.

I even looked back on some of my own NDAs that I've signed. A lot of the same language and clauses, like I said, copy-pasted.

At least on my end, this is a big nothing burger and I think people will get tired of pretending its not.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:26:14


Post by: yukishiro1


 techsoldaten wrote:

*eyeroll*

You found a boilerplate contract on the Internet and claim it represents "normal" business practices. And you wag your finger because other people won't do the same.

NDAs are wildly different from company to company and situation to situation. The term "Restricted Customer" can be defined to mean just about anything within the terms of a contract. Literally, that's the point of defining terms within a contract - they are not universal and can and do vary. So what you're assuming about this term is incorrect.


 techsoldaten wrote:

You still have not provided an alternative, at least not for indemnity.

Hurry up and Google some more stuff for us!


This conversation isn't worth continuing. I made an assertion, and supported it when requested with a specific example (actually, 256 examples). You have not supported your assertion with any examples whatsoever, all you've done is mocked me for actually answering your questions. How could any example possibly satisfy you? You response would be exactly the same: that's just an example. But *you* were the one who asked for an example. You can't complain when you ask for an example and someone provides you an example. Well, I mean, you can, but you just look ridiculous for it. I mean look at what you actually wrote: you can define the term any way you want. This is completely irrelevant to what you just asked, which is for me to provide a standard definition. It's the definition of moving the goalposts. The whole point of the discussion is that GW is defining the term in a different way than is normal - to point out that they have done that is totally unresponsive. Uh yes...that's what we're talking about.

You've made multiple inaccurate statements in this thread, for example that clause 6 of the agreement didn't relate to breaches of clause 4. When I pointed this out, you ignored it and continued to insult me. You can't have a conversation with someone like you who is constantly moving the goalposts and who just falls back on "you don't know anything!" when he has nothing better to say.

To sum up: I pointed out the definition of this term is not the usual one found in non-compete agreements. You asked for an example of standard language. I provided 256. You then said "lol google you don't know anything about reality." This is not a convincing or useful way to have a conversation.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:29:49


Post by: drbored


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


We should all be worried if GW ever gave money to a children’s hospital.

Maybe little Timmy wanted to start a "school league" in the leukemia ward?

For GW any donation would be a tax write off and goodwill so it's not like it'd be some Lex Luthor evil nonsense.

It feels like this conversation has generated two camps. One that says that the NDA is fine and/or they've had worse NDAs (or says it's fake). The second is pointing at it and going "these bits here seem uncharacteristically strict even for an NDA" to which the first camp either tells the second they're wrong, or that they don't know what they're talking about and must present evidence that the three year no-compete and defamation clauses seem unusually unfairly balanced towards GW's side of things.

I don't know if it's a real NDA as some have pointed out that there are some problems, such as "GW" never being clearly defined, but there is also a chance this was just a draft sent out by accident and isn't the final version of a future NDA they could use. Or maybe someone is pulling everyone's leg since I've heard people say the NDAs they signed at Gencon don't match it. I don't know. What I do know is that personally my stance is "concerned, but waiting for more information". I generally hope it's a hoax because it feels like the sort of thing GW could be trying to leverage with harsher terms to ensure they maximize day one hype wave purchases, but that could be the cynical side of me speaking when it comes to GW the company.

Either way I guess I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of it or if this is all that we'll hear about this.


We won't get anything out of this. GW has no obligation to talk about whether it's real or not. It's not even worth suing whoever leaked it, though they may cancel whatever contract they were planning on signing if they can figure out who 'leaked' this.

And here's the thing, the people saying 'these seem uncharacteristically strict' aren't showing us anything different. Of course the contract is going to favor GW, and having the no-compete and defamation clauses are pretty freakin' normal. Again, consider the reasoning for this sort of contract: They want to sponsor or somehow give someone review of a product. They need that product to be kept secret for, potentially, upwards of 3 years. They want the person that they sign onto this contract to not prevent GW customers from buying their stuff. There's no Disparagement Clause in the contract, just Defamation. If the clause was Disparagement, I would be COMPLETELY on the other side of this argument, but it's simply not.

My best guess is that this was likely going to go to a YouTube content creator (according to Brent and the other people freaking out about this) that was potentially going to become a playtester for a new game that GW are developing or a new edition of a game they're developing. They would be given lots documents that need to remain confidential for the duration of the game development, which could be upwards of 3 years. The contract doesn't prevent them from saying "this new edition is garbage", but it does prevent them from saying "this new edition was made with child labor" and other such lies.

But hey, these sorts of things get clicks, views, generate comments in chat boxes and forums and get people's engagement rates and ad revenue pumping. So I guess we should keep arguing and being mad.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:39:44


Post by: yukishiro1


drbored wrote:


And here's the thing, the people saying 'these seem uncharacteristically strict' aren't showing us anything different. Of course the contract is going to favor GW, and having the no-compete and defamation clauses are pretty freakin' normal. Again, consider the reasoning for this sort of contract: They want to sponsor or somehow give someone review of a product. They need that product to be kept secret for, potentially, upwards of 3 years. They want the person that they sign onto this contract to not prevent GW customers from buying their stuff. There's no Disparagement Clause in the contract, just Defamation. If the clause was Disparagement, I would be COMPLETELY on the other side of this argument, but it's simply not.


If you want an alternative that you can't poo-poo, look back at your own NDAs - you just stated you have signed several and looked at them. I'd be shocked if any of them contained a no-fault indemnity clause. If they did, you should be kicking yourself for having signed them, because that was a pretty crazy thing to have done. The standard indemnity clause in a non-compete either states a level of culpability - negligence, gross negligence, intentional violation, etc - or it just broadly provides indemnity without specifying a particular level of fault. A specific statement that purports to say that indemnity can be required without any level of fault is very unusual.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:49:25


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


And here's the thing, the people saying 'these seem uncharacteristically strict' aren't showing us anything different. Of course the contract is going to favor GW, and having the no-compete and defamation clauses are pretty freakin' normal. Again, consider the reasoning for this sort of contract: They want to sponsor or somehow give someone review of a product. They need that product to be kept secret for, potentially, upwards of 3 years. They want the person that they sign onto this contract to not prevent GW customers from buying their stuff. There's no Disparagement Clause in the contract, just Defamation. If the clause was Disparagement, I would be COMPLETELY on the other side of this argument, but it's simply not.


If you want an alternative that you can't poo-poo, look back at your own NDAs - you just stated you have signed several and looked at them. I'd be shocked if any of them contained a no-fault indemnity clause. If they did, you should be kicking yourself for having signed them, because that was a pretty crazy thing to have done. The standard indemnity clause in a non-compete either states a level of culpability - negligence, gross negligence, intentional violation, etc - or it just broadly provides indemnity without specifying a particular level of fault. A specific statement that purports to say that indemnity can be required without any level of fault is very unusual.



Cool, so you're really concerned about this indemnity clause. No, I haven't dealt with much in the way of indemnity clauses in my own NDA because of the kinds of contracts that I've gotten.

If I got this and I was concerned about it, I'd take it to my lawyer and we'd figure it out, just like I have done with past contracts. If it was too much, we'd send it back with alterations and ask for an adjustment of the contract.

That would be what's called in the business "my business". If you had gotten this contract, then what you do with it would commonly be called "your business". Very seldom do "my business" and "your business" need to be shared with the Internet at large, and yet here we are, fretting over something that is, what they call, "someone else's business".


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 04:53:28


Post by: yukishiro1


You said nobody's showed you anything different. I just did, using your own NDAs as an example so you couldn't possible take issue with it.

It is uncharacteristically strict. Your response to that can be "I don't care if it's uncharacteristically strict," I guess if you want, but it doesn't refute the claim that it is unusually strict.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:02:18


Post by: ClockworkZion


drbored wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


We should all be worried if GW ever gave money to a children’s hospital.

Maybe little Timmy wanted to start a "school league" in the leukemia ward?

For GW any donation would be a tax write off and goodwill so it's not like it'd be some Lex Luthor evil nonsense.

It feels like this conversation has generated two camps. One that says that the NDA is fine and/or they've had worse NDAs (or says it's fake). The second is pointing at it and going "these bits here seem uncharacteristically strict even for an NDA" to which the first camp either tells the second they're wrong, or that they don't know what they're talking about and must present evidence that the three year no-compete and defamation clauses seem unusually unfairly balanced towards GW's side of things.

I don't know if it's a real NDA as some have pointed out that there are some problems, such as "GW" never being clearly defined, but there is also a chance this was just a draft sent out by accident and isn't the final version of a future NDA they could use. Or maybe someone is pulling everyone's leg since I've heard people say the NDAs they signed at Gencon don't match it. I don't know. What I do know is that personally my stance is "concerned, but waiting for more information". I generally hope it's a hoax because it feels like the sort of thing GW could be trying to leverage with harsher terms to ensure they maximize day one hype wave purchases, but that could be the cynical side of me speaking when it comes to GW the company.

Either way I guess I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of it or if this is all that we'll hear about this.


We won't get anything out of this. GW has no obligation to talk about whether it's real or not. It's not even worth suing whoever leaked it, though they may cancel whatever contract they were planning on signing if they can figure out who 'leaked' this.

And here's the thing, the people saying 'these seem uncharacteristically strict' aren't showing us anything different. Of course the contract is going to favor GW, and having the no-compete and defamation clauses are pretty freakin' normal. Again, consider the reasoning for this sort of contract: They want to sponsor or somehow give someone review of a product. They need that product to be kept secret for, potentially, upwards of 3 years. They want the person that they sign onto this contract to not prevent GW customers from buying their stuff. There's no Disparagement Clause in the contract, just Defamation. If the clause was Disparagement, I would be COMPLETELY on the other side of this argument, but it's simply not.

My best guess is that this was likely going to go to a YouTube content creator (according to Brent and the other people freaking out about this) that was potentially going to become a playtester for a new game that GW are developing or a new edition of a game they're developing. They would be given lots documents that need to remain confidential for the duration of the game development, which could be upwards of 3 years. The contract doesn't prevent them from saying "this new edition is garbage", but it does prevent them from saying "this new edition was made with child labor" and other such lies.

But hey, these sorts of things get clicks, views, generate comments in chat boxes and forums and get people's engagement rates and ad revenue pumping. So I guess we should keep arguing and being mad.

Fair points. I've stayed off the mad train and have been on the concerned platform myself. I'm always concerned about corporate overreach in stuff like this so I've been following this but it's been amazing how fast some of the ad hominem comes out for even trying to talk about it instead of just waving it off as nothing the second you see it.

I definitely don't want to see a return to torches and pitchforks like what happened around the IP stuff, but the way some of the discussion has gone has made me very confused since there was a very fast devolution into dismissing people without giving any actual discussion on the finer points. So I appreciate the additional insight those some people have shown because it at least helps make it clearer what may be going on rather than just memeing on anyone who felt this was favoring GW more strongly than what would be normal. Especially when people who have NDAs with GW mention that they've never signed anything with them that is this strict.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:03:08


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
You said nobody's showed you anything different. I just did, using your own NDAs as an example so you couldn't possible take issue with it.

It is uncharacteristically strict. Your response to that can be "I don't care if it's uncharacteristically strict," I guess if you want, but it doesn't refute the claim that it is unusually strict.



You're right, I don't care if it's unusually strict, because again, that's the business between GW and the intended recipient, which is what I've been trying to say since the beginning.

My NDAs were similar in some cases and not similar in others. We're BOTH trying to compare apples to oranges, but at the end of the day, when dealing with contracts, the wisdom is the same: Have a lawyer look at it.

If I or you or anyone were to sign any sort of contract without consulting a lawyer, we'd be dumb.

So what's the point? Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to shake my fist and say "Curse that GW for making such a nefarious contract that takes advantage of YouTubers that will get to review things in advance! Curse them for making a contract that favors them! Curse them for wanting people to not defame them or reveal upcoming content before it's time!"

I'm just not feeling the anger. I'm more angry that people are taking this NDA way out of context and thinking that somehow this is GW putting a gun to content creators' heads, especially when the loudest opponents to this are ones that make a LIVING off of CRAPPING on GW's stuff day in and out.

Just not getting where we're supposed to go with this argument. Do you want me to agree that the NDA seems strict? I guess? I don't know the rest of the situation, who has received it, or what benefits they may be getting for signing on to whatever project this is supposed to be a part of.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:06:39


Post by: drbored


 ClockworkZion wrote:
drbored wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


We should all be worried if GW ever gave money to a children’s hospital.

Maybe little Timmy wanted to start a "school league" in the leukemia ward?

For GW any donation would be a tax write off and goodwill so it's not like it'd be some Lex Luthor evil nonsense.

It feels like this conversation has generated two camps. One that says that the NDA is fine and/or they've had worse NDAs (or says it's fake). The second is pointing at it and going "these bits here seem uncharacteristically strict even for an NDA" to which the first camp either tells the second they're wrong, or that they don't know what they're talking about and must present evidence that the three year no-compete and defamation clauses seem unusually unfairly balanced towards GW's side of things.

I don't know if it's a real NDA as some have pointed out that there are some problems, such as "GW" never being clearly defined, but there is also a chance this was just a draft sent out by accident and isn't the final version of a future NDA they could use. Or maybe someone is pulling everyone's leg since I've heard people say the NDAs they signed at Gencon don't match it. I don't know. What I do know is that personally my stance is "concerned, but waiting for more information". I generally hope it's a hoax because it feels like the sort of thing GW could be trying to leverage with harsher terms to ensure they maximize day one hype wave purchases, but that could be the cynical side of me speaking when it comes to GW the company.

Either way I guess I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of it or if this is all that we'll hear about this.


We won't get anything out of this. GW has no obligation to talk about whether it's real or not. It's not even worth suing whoever leaked it, though they may cancel whatever contract they were planning on signing if they can figure out who 'leaked' this.

And here's the thing, the people saying 'these seem uncharacteristically strict' aren't showing us anything different. Of course the contract is going to favor GW, and having the no-compete and defamation clauses are pretty freakin' normal. Again, consider the reasoning for this sort of contract: They want to sponsor or somehow give someone review of a product. They need that product to be kept secret for, potentially, upwards of 3 years. They want the person that they sign onto this contract to not prevent GW customers from buying their stuff. There's no Disparagement Clause in the contract, just Defamation. If the clause was Disparagement, I would be COMPLETELY on the other side of this argument, but it's simply not.

My best guess is that this was likely going to go to a YouTube content creator (according to Brent and the other people freaking out about this) that was potentially going to become a playtester for a new game that GW are developing or a new edition of a game they're developing. They would be given lots documents that need to remain confidential for the duration of the game development, which could be upwards of 3 years. The contract doesn't prevent them from saying "this new edition is garbage", but it does prevent them from saying "this new edition was made with child labor" and other such lies.

But hey, these sorts of things get clicks, views, generate comments in chat boxes and forums and get people's engagement rates and ad revenue pumping. So I guess we should keep arguing and being mad.

Fair points. I've stayed off the mad train and have been on the concerned platform myself. I'm always concerned about corporate overreach in stuff like this so I've been following this but it's been amazing how fast some of the ad hominem comes out for even trying to talk about it instead of just waving it off as nothing the second you see it.

I definitely don't want to see a return to torches and pitchforks like what happened around the IP stuff, but the way some of the discussion has gone has made me very confused since there was a very fast devolution into dismissing people without giving any actual discussion on the finer points. So I appreciate the additional insight those some people have shown because it at least helps make it clearer what may be going on rather than just memeing on anyone who felt this was favoring GW more strongly than what would be normal. Especially when people who have NDAs with GW mention that they've never signed anything with them that is this strict.


I totally respect that, and I do apologize to you and other readers. I'm learning more as I go, which is an important part of dissecting any piece of drama, and as a result my posts can seem disjointed as people bring up different topics or debate points.

At the end of the day, I think my original theory about this being a big pile of nothing remains true. Corporate overreach is DEFINITELY a real-world issue, but what we have here is a contract, one that allegedly is going out to YouTubers to sign on for some sort of sponsorship. It's not GW holding a gun to their heads or anything like that, and it's up to each individual content creator whether they deem it good for their business to sign on. Any wise person would consult a lawyer, but people seem to think that, somehow, these content creators are the victims, when it is fully within their prerogative to seek out legal advice.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:09:59


Post by: yukishiro1


drbored wrote:


You're right, I don't care if it's unusually strict, because again, that's the business between GW and the intended recipient, which is what I've been trying to say since the beginning.


You're welcome to feel whatever you want to feel. I'm not going to tell you how you're supposed to feel about anything - they're your feelings, not mine. That's not something we're going to have a useful argument over.

It isn't what you were saying from the beginning, though. You've gone back and forth between "I don't care!" and "it isn't true!" as it's suited you. If you'll notice, I've never told you you have to care. That would be silly. I've only addressed where people have made claims that this is a "normal" NDA and non-compete. It isn't. It's overbearing in places to the point where I'm doubtful it would stand up in court - it certainly wouldn't fly here, and I would be surprised if the UK is different.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:12:55


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


You're right, I don't care if it's unusually strict, because again, that's the business between GW and the intended recipient, which is what I've been trying to say since the beginning.


You're welcome to feel whatever you want to feel. I'm not going to tell you how you're supposed to feel about anything - they're your feelings, not mine. That's not something we're going to have a useful argument over.

It isn't what you were saying from the beginning, though. You've gone back and forth between "I don't care!" and "it isn't true!" as it's suited you. If you'll notice, I've never told you you have to care. That would be silly.


And all you've said is "this looks funny" despite people saying "it looks normal to me", and yet you keep drilling at the same "but it really looks funny!"

So go ahead, what are you trying to say? Out of sincere respect for your argument, please lay down your major concern so I can address it directly with what information I have.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:16:31


Post by: yukishiro1


I've laid it out in detail. You ignored it each time and responded with "I don't care." Have you started caring? If you still don't care, I'm not sure why it's useful for me to lay it out again. But I'm a sucker who lives in hope, so here goes.

I have two major concerns, as stated previously:

1. The definition of Restricted Customer is much too broad. The agreement purports to enjoin the signing party from doing anything that would result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. This would be hugely restrictive if enforceable, or, alternatively, it isn't enforceable at all because it contravenes public policy and represents an unreasonable restriction on competition.

2. The no-fault indemnity clause is unnecessary, oppressive, and likely unenforceable. As written, it would allow GW to get indemnity against the signing party without having to show the signing party actually bore any fault. This would be void as against public policy in my jurisdiction; I don't know whether it would be in the UK as well, but it should be, and I would be surprised if it wasn't.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:21:40


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
I've laid it out in detail. You ignored it each time and responded with "I don't care."

I have two major concerns, as stated previously:

1. The definition of Restricted Customer is much too broad. The agreement purports to enjoin the signing party from doing anything that would result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. This would be hugely restrictive if enforceable, or, alternatively, it isn't enforceable at all because it contravenes public policy and represents an unreasonable restriction on competition.

2. The no-fault indemnity clause is unnecessary, oppressive, and likely unenforceable. As written, it would allow GW to get indemnity against the signing party without having to show the signing party actually bore any fault. This would be void for public policy in my jurisdiction; I don't know whether it would be void in the UK, but it should be.


Ok here we go.

1. Restricted Customer is often defined broadly from what I've seen. The intent, as far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that they don't want you going out of your way to try to keep people from doing business with GW. In other words, saying things like "boycott GW" as we've seen pop up on Reddit and other social media places recently. If this is too restrictive, you can take it to your lawyer and discuss how to alter the legalese to better balance the NDA and whatever project GW has for you. In many states, this sort of thing isn't even enforceable, so depending on where you live, this whole section could be a moot point.

2. Because Games Workshop is a UK company, we don't have the full story on this, but from my reading of it, the idea is that GW may give you a set of instructions, and if somehow you come to hurt yourself, GW is not going to bear any blame. For example, if they tell you that you need to build and paint the box of models that they give you to review, they're not at fault if you suddenly come up with arthritis, or any other ridiculous concoction that people can try to take to court. If this feels unnecessarily oppressive, you take it to your lawyer and discuss it with them to see if the terms seem fair, and, again, it may not even apply to you depending on where you live.

So we come to the conclusion, a contract that may appear strict to some, but the answer is the same: You'd take it to your lawyer before signing anything.

Other than that, what would you propose we do?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:35:16


Post by: yukishiro1


You've seen that definition of Restricted Customer elsewhere? Where? In the context of non-competes it is typically limited to entities and people you developed a relationship with as a result of your employment. The purpose is generally to stop you using contacts and relationships you made while working for your employer to then hurt your employer when you go to work for someone else or strike out on your own.

Trying to enjoin an ex-employee from doing anything at all that might result in anyone anywhere in the world buying less GW product is not the sort of thing that's considered legitimate protection of one's business interests.

I think you are confused about the indemnity clause we're talking about. This isn't about GW having indemnify anyone, it's about the signer having to indemnify GW if they violate the non-compete or the NDA. As written, it purports to say that you're liable to GW for any violation, whether or not you were actually at fault. In most jurisdictions this would not be enforceable, precisely because it is so oppressive.

Nobody should be signing that contract, that's for sure. As to what people should do - you apparently don't care if GW is throwing its weight around trying to get people to this kind of contract. That's up to you how you feel; as stated previously, I'm not going to tell you how you should feel. Personally, if GW is really trying to get people to sign this thing, it would bother me. I don't want to think that my money is going to support people who do business that way.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:42:56


Post by: techsoldaten


drbored wrote:
I sat down and read through a little more carefully, did a handful more google searches, and have gone through a lot of the replies on Reddit and Twitter and the story is thus:

This NDA is real boring and standard. All of the 'Restricted Customer' stuff is saying stuff like 'don't poach our customers' and 'don't prevent our customers from buying our stuff'. The term is 3 years, where many video game and even movie contracts could be up to 5 years or longer, depending on the scope of the project.

And, more than anything, people that are freaking out are twisting the legalese to fit their own narrative without fully understanding the legalese. That's the idea of legalese, ironically, is to make it so that lawyers can figure it out.

I even looked back on some of my own NDAs that I've signed. A lot of the same language and clauses, like I said, copy-pasted.

At least on my end, this is a big nothing burger and I think people will get tired of pretending its not.


It's just people griping about terms they don't like, with no recognition of the fact terms can be negotiated.

The 3 year term of the NDA is long, and the bit about "seeking the custom" within the non-compete is restrictive. I'm sympathetic to complaints about them.

How much effort is it to write back and ask their lawyers to strike these bits?

If GW won't agree to changes, what's so special about working for GW? If this was any other company on Earth, would you accept these terms just to work for them?

Sometimes it's just a matter of what you're willing to accept. GW is no dream job.

yukishiro1 wrote:

This conversation isn't worth continuing. I made an assertion, and supported it when requested with a specific example (actually, 256 examples). You have not supported your assertion with any examples whatsoever, all you've done is mocked me for actually answering your questions. How could any example possibly satisfy you? You response would be exactly the same: that's just an example. But *you* were the one who asked for an example. You can't complain when you ask for an example and someone provides you an example. Well, I mean, you can, but you just look ridiculous for it. I mean look at what you actually wrote: you can define the term any way you want. This is completely irrelevant to what you just asked, which is for me to provide a standard definition. It's the definition of moving the goalposts. The whole point of the discussion is that GW is defining the term in a different way than is normal - to point out that they have done that is totally unresponsive. Uh yes...that's what we're talking about.

You've made multiple inaccurate statements in this thread, for example that clause 6 of the agreement didn't relate to breaches of clause 4. When I pointed this out, you ignored it and continued to insult me. You can't have a conversation with someone like you who is constantly moving the goalposts and who just falls back on "you don't know anything!" when he has nothing better to say.

To sum up: I pointed out the definition of this term is not the usual one found in non-compete agreements. You asked for an example of standard language. I provided 256. You then said "lol google you don't know anything about reality." This is not a convincing or useful way to have a conversation.


You're mistaking boilerplate documents that come up in Google search results for adequate examples. You don't have 256 of them, you have one and it doesn't deal with the indemnity issue you cited.

I know you really want people to believe have some kind of special insight based on professional experience. That's fine. But your claims sound goofy and you continue to *not* provide examples to back them up.

If you have some experience in this area, post some language showing what you consider an ideal indemnity clause. Post it from as document you've been a party to. If you know so much about standard definitions and the courts view on things like non-compete clauses, you must be a lawyer, a company director, a judge, etc. Should be pretty easy to pull up an example you've dealt with yourself.

For that matter, deal with the obvious defects of this document like venue, force majeure, vis major or mens rea. These are influencers we are talking about here, they're not exactly the most stable bunch. A company like GW doesn't want it's image tarnished if one of them goes on a crime spree. It's odd there's no trigger for immediate termination / return of all CI in the event of some moral breach, act of war, etc. And this would be a civil matter in England. Last I checked, there's no reciprocity on civil judgements between the US and UK. If this is an agreement being offered to creators worldwide, a judgement would be meaningless for anyone in the US.

But stop telling people to use Google search for questions related to the law. Anyone who actually deals with contracts knows Google is the worst source of advice for legal matters. Durhh.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:47:22


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
You've seen that definition of Restricted Customer elsewhere? Where? In the context of non-competes it is typically limited to entities and people you developed a relationship with as a result of your employment. The purpose is generally to stop you using contacts and relationships you made while working for your employer to then hurt your employer when you go to work for someone else or strike out on your own.

Trying to enjoin an ex-employee from doing anything at all that might result in anyone anywhere in the world buying less GW product is not the sort of thing that's considered legitimate protection of one's business interests.

I think you are confused about the indemnity clause we're talking about. This isn't about GW having indemnify anyone, it's about the signer having to indemnity GW if they violate the non-compete or the NDA. As written, it purports to say that you're liable to GW for any violation, whether or not you were actually at fault. In most jurisdictions this would not be enforceable, precisely because it is so oppressive.

Nobody should be signing that contract, that's for sure. As to what people should do - you apparently don't care if GW is throwing its weight around trying to get people to this kind of contract. That's up to you how you feel; as stated previously, I'm not going to tell you how you should feel. Personally, if GW is really trying to get people to sign this thing, it would bother me. I don't want to think that my money is going to support people who do business that way.


Again, all of what you're saying leads me to the same point: If you got this contract, I would recommend you talk to a lawyer about it.

Really, what's telling, is your last point. You're saying you wouldn't want to support a company that 'does business that way', without knowing the full context, without knowing the Intended Recipient or the rest of the terms to which this NDA may be applied to. At the end of the day, it's up to you where to spend your money.

I personally, on the other hand, will not change my spending habits or stop enjoying my hobby because of an alleged NDA which may not even be real, modern, or enforceable, especially when the solution to the parties involved is so simple: Talk to a lawyer.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:53:32


Post by: yukishiro1


drbored wrote:


Really, what's telling, is your last point. You're saying you wouldn't want to support a company that 'does business that way', without knowing the full context, without knowing the Intended Recipient or the rest of the terms to which this NDA may be applied to.


No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I specifically said the opposite, that if it turns out to be true, that's how I'd feel. Please don't misrepresent what people are saying.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:56:11


Post by: tneva82




So for those who decry spikybits you offer even worse clickbait site that fabricates rumours just to get more clicks


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 05:58:35


Post by: drbored


yukishiro1 wrote:
drbored wrote:


Really, what's telling, is your last point. You're saying you wouldn't want to support a company that 'does business that way', without knowing the full context, without knowing the Intended Recipient or the rest of the terms to which this NDA may be applied to.


No, I'm not saying that. In fact, I specifically said the opposite, that if it turns out to be true, that's how I'd feel. Please don't misrepresent what people are saying.


You and I are saying a very similar thing in fact.

"Personally, if GW is really trying to get people to sign this thing, it would bother me. I don't want to think that my money is going to support people who do business that way."

IF. That's the word, isn't it? IF IF IF. Still, telling.

At the end of the day, you've still given us no alternative action to perform, just argued for argument's sake. I've had a good time, it's nice to vent some of my frustration out on silly things like this sometimes. I rarely get the catharsis of figuring stuff out and coming to basic conclusions and determinations. Of course, feel free to continue arguing, I guess, even though the argument is pretty dead. It likely was from the getgo, but here we are, at 1am my time.

I'm sure that if you or a friend of yours gets a contract like this, you'll be well equipped to navigate handling it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:


So for those who decry spikybits you offer even worse clickbait site that fabricates rumours just to get more clicks


natfka really tried to post an image of GW explaining where the name for 'Land Speeders' comes from as a piece of IP drama. Like, wow. This is the state of the Warhammer community these days.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:09:27


Post by: tneva82


 LunarSol wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...



I assumed the size change was more a result of GW's Kill Team/Warcry mats, since the new table sizes are scaled to those.

FLG certainly had advanced word the change was coming, but scaling down isn't nearly as hard for companies to adapt to than scaling up would be.


Yep.

Playtesters were given zero consultation regarding playmats. It was fact accomplished. Playtesters were just said "this is new minimum size". Initially the ITC folks werent' even happy about it until they realized they can add more players(=more paying customers) to same venue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:
Here's what we know:

This is a contract.

Here's what we don't know:


6) is this even real or fake.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:12:16


Post by: Albertorius


 techsoldaten wrote:
Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


Wow, this thread has moved a lot while I was sleep, so I'd rather not touch it.

But here you have a couple examples of standard NDA agreements:


https://nondisclosureagreement.com/

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html

They're quite similar to most of the ones I've signed over the last twenty years (one for each book I've translated for multiple companies, maybe about two hundred of them, some others as part of projects I've been involved in as IT staff, one as part of a project on the Ministry of Defense here in Spain. This last one was the most different because it defined criminal liability for leaks, as part of the country's defense network).


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:22:04


Post by: drbored


 Albertorius wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


Wow, this thread has moved a lot while I was sleep, so I'd rather not touch it.

But here you have a couple examples of standard NDA agreements:


https://nondisclosureagreement.com/

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html

They're quite similar to most of the ones I've signed over the last twenty years (one for each book I've translated for multiple companies, maybe about two hundred of them, some others as part of projects I've been involved in as IT staff, one as part of a project on the Ministry of Defense here in Spain. This last one was the most different because it defined criminal liability for leaks, as part of the country's defense network).


it moved a lot but, as is typical, went nowhere. Thanks for posting these. They're definitely way different from the one that is allegedly from GW, so it's tough to say much else without more information about the rest of the situation.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:31:33


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:39:20


Post by: Sarouan


No, keep this thread open. It's a goldmine, really. It's really funny to see yukishiro dig his own grave faster with every reply he does on this obvious GW hater troll thread.

Honestly, even someone who doesn't like GW practices would be wise enough to find a better thread than this one for his arguments.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:42:18


Post by: yukishiro1


If the non-compete stuff was limited to stuff directly related to the confidential info, it'd be a lot more defensible. It's one thing to say "you can't learn about our plans to sell people smurfs and then start developing your own smurf line to launch to people at the same time for half the price," it's something very different to say "we sent you a copy of Codex:Orks so now you can't sell t-shirts on your youtube channel without our written permission if any GW customers could buy them, nor can you tell people not to buy any GW product, no matter how bad, or tell people about alternatives that would result in them buying less GW product." I doubt even GW would have intended that re: the T-shirts, but that's what the contract actually says.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote:
No, keep this thread open. It's a goldmine, really. It's really funny to see yukishiro dig his own grave faster with every reply he does on this obvious GW hater troll thread.

Honestly, even someone who doesn't like GW practices would be wise enough to find a better thread than this one for his arguments.


You know you're on the right track when people are reduced to violating the rules of the forum with personal attacks because they can't actually engage on the topic.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 06:50:41


Post by: Lord Kragan


BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


Wow. That is a classy move. What will be the following step? Tell them to go off themselves? Call them a b****?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 07:00:55


Post by: Sarouan


yukishiro1 wrote:
I

You know you're on the right track when people are reduced to violating the rules of the forum with personal attacks because they can't actually engage on the topic.


Yuskishiro, you never signed a NDA contract agreement. You don't know the stuff you're talking about and try to "google search" you way out of people who did and pointing that out for you. You keep trying evading these replies and keep digging yourself on this thread just to show you view on GW being evil is right.

You're just harming yourself here. Even on TGA, where you hilariously stated this :


There are a lot of people elsewhere on the internet without any knowledge of NDAs and non-competes blithely saying "this is normal."


Come on. Just stop, dude. You're really not helping yourself here.

And it's not a personnal attack, it's just a statement. I'm not insulting you, you're really digging your own grave yourself faster with every reply here. It's actually more a friendly advice to get out of this trap.


Lord Kragan wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GW could give a million dollars to a childrens hospital and Yukishiro would find something to villianize them over that (proably accuse them of doing it to cheat taxes)


Wow. That is a classy move. What will be the following step? Tell them to go off themselves? Call them a b****?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. When you decrebilize yourself about trying a make a big mountain out of a molehill because you don't know how NDA work and to who they are sent, that's the kind of view people will have on you. Why keep listening to someone who did that ? It's only giving fuel to people categorizing you in the simple "GW hater" kind.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 07:16:23


Post by: kodos


drbored wrote:
 Albertorius wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
Show us an example of what you think is "normal."


Wow, this thread has moved a lot while I was sleep, so I'd rather not touch it.

But here you have a couple examples of standard NDA agreements:


https://nondisclosureagreement.com/

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html

They're quite similar to most of the ones I've signed over the last twenty years (one for each book I've translated for multiple companies, maybe about two hundred of them, some others as part of projects I've been involved in as IT staff, one as part of a project on the Ministry of Defense here in Spain. This last one was the most different because it defined criminal liability for leaks, as part of the country's defense network).


it moved a lot but, as is typical, went nowhere. Thanks for posting these. They're definitely way different from the one that is allegedly from GW, so it's tough to say much else without more information about the rest of the situation.


Which is the only relevant point here, the NDA posted is different from standard/normal ones around in the gaming industry (those you sign to get review copies early or being a tester) and even stricter than those I had to sign for industrial R&D

But some people who never had to work under an NDA keeps telling that there is nothing special to see here and there is no difference


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 07:24:46


Post by: JohnnyHell


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Oh goody, is this the outrage thread? They're always fun for the next 30 pages of people flinging at each other over unimportant things.


Page 1 post was 100% right.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 07:50:20


Post by: Dudeface


 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Oh goody, is this the outrage thread? They're always fun for the next 30 pages of people flinging at each other over unimportant things.


Page 1 post was 100% right.


Armchair legal "experts" created more pages of content in 12 hours than an actual 40k rumour with rules content managed in a week.

Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 07:54:19


Post by: Gert


 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because every time GW is accused of something or screws up spectacularly, he jumps in and tries to defend them. Frankly, he does it so much I wonder if he's part of their social media team.

Lol, not even close to true but hey don't let me not having an unceasing hatred for GW get in the way of your rage.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ah, now we're just reduced to pointless, irrelevant character attacks. Those are always very convincing and a great way to show you've won an argument.

Where's that Palpatine GIF when I need it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 08:09:37


Post by: Albertorius


As to the non-competition clause, the only ones I've ever seen on a NDA were only pertaining to the information gotten while working on the specific project, very much linked to the non-disclosure items (sensitive information, work routines... you know, the works).

The "you can't work on the same field for X years" non-competition clauses I've seen have always been part of either a contract or training provided by the company (or paid by it), and they've actually been ruled as non-enforceable at least over here, because in most cases it would ban the worker from working in their own field (the ones I've seen myself were of the "you can't go work with another IT company for at least a year" kind, and they were rebuked by the courts).

Liability clauses tend to be par for the course, but pertaining to the contents of the actual contract, not as a blanket term.

I have no idea about any clause related to giving good/bad reviews to something, as I've never signed or read one of those.

So... yeah, limited value information, but maybe it will be useful to someone.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 08:14:25


Post by: PetitionersCity


tneva82 wrote:


So for those who decry spikybits you offer even worse clickbait site that fabricates rumours just to get more clicks


I'm sorry, can you show where natfka has ever fabricated rumours?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 08:50:43


Post by: AngryAngel80


What I find more amusing is how if someone bashes GW people say " They are sweet people ! " GW does something actually pretty crap and those same people, " They are a business they don't have to be nice ! ".

Nothing in this is a surprise but come on people. They are either an amoral company designed to fleece us of money or they are our friend, which one is it ? I take greedy wallet suckers for $500.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 09:10:18


Post by: Togusa


This week on "Why the community hates this company, but still shows up everyday to talk about it instead of just going away and finding something else to do."

At this point I don't care. I just do not care about any of this. Don't like it, don't sign it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 09:41:38


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 AngryAngel80 wrote:
What I find more amusing is how if someone bashes GW people say " They are sweet people ! " GW does something actually pretty crap and those same people, " They are a business they don't have to be nice ! ".

Nothing in this is a surprise but come on people. They are either an amoral company designed to fleece us of money or they are our friend, which one is it ? I take greedy wallet suckers for $500.


Well, they’re clearly a large, multinational and successful company doing what every other large, multinational and hopefully successful company does? It’s just GW always get singled out, like they somehow manipulate the legislature to get the laws they’re relying on in place to begin with?



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 09:51:16


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
What I find more amusing is how if someone bashes GW people say " They are sweet people ! " GW does something actually pretty crap and those same people, " They are a business they don't have to be nice ! ".

Nothing in this is a surprise but come on people. They are either an amoral company designed to fleece us of money or they are our friend, which one is it ? I take greedy wallet suckers for $500.

It’s just GW always get singled out



Looks at EA's surprise mechanics, Ubisoft's lawsuits, Cyberpunk and the whole mess that Activision-Blizzard's gotten itself

Are you sure you want to make that claim?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 09:58:54


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 AngryAngel80 wrote:
What I find more amusing is how if someone bashes GW people say " They are sweet people ! " GW does something actually pretty crap and those same people, " They are a business they don't have to be nice ! ".

Nothing in this is a surprise but come on people. They are either an amoral company designed to fleece us of money or they are our friend, which one is it ? I take greedy wallet suckers for $500.


Like any institution. Both and neither. There'll always be back and forths, shareholder meetings, legal departments or CEOs deciding on something cool one day and something a bit toxic the other, opinions shifting inside the company and conflicting between departments, people-of-influcence, etc.., etc.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 09:58:59


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Given none of those, to the best of my knowledge, involved a “leaked” NDA, or copyright claims?

Yeah.

Because harassment suits are very, very different to NDA and copyright claims, nes pas?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:01:05


Post by: Orlanth


This is bad optics for GW, but until I see what a 'normal' NDA looks like I will not comment as to whether this is unusual.

Internet folks all got law degrees I see.

However, can I believe the GW would put something dodgy in an NDA. Yes I can.
Is it wrong to have 'bad vibes' at anything legal GW does? No it isn't. GW has a reputation of being heavy handed and litigious, I would go as far as to say they wanted one. I remember a full page IP warning ad GW placed in Military Modeller in the 1990's. Do they, or at least did they want a rep of being people you don't want to feth with. Yes I think that. Has that rep soured into a general negative reputation. Arguably so, to the point that part of the 'benefit' of the chapterhouse lawsuit was bringing down GW a peg or two.

The long and the short is, I have no comment to make as to whether an NDA from GW is dodgy. However if the general public chooses not to trust GW or it's NDA policy then GW can only blame itself for those optics. Trust is not a matter of burden of proof, and as GW has arguably lost trust and its legal actions are held in open suspicion then that in itself is fair comment.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:09:48


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given none of those, to the best of my knowledge, involved a “leaked” NDA, or copyright claims?

Yeah.

Because harassment suits are very, very different to NDA and copyright claims, nes pas?


I'd ask you to be more gentle with the goalposts, just now they made a woeful screeching noise.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:11:20


Post by: Mentlegen324


Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:17:10


Post by: Albertorius


 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


To be specific, non-compete clauses are not standard. Not completely unheard of, but certainly not standard. And in many regions, non enforceable:

https://blog.lawgeex.com/the-sneaky-nda-clause-that-can-bite-you-in-the-butt

So there's that at least

If you’re asked to sign an NDA that includes a non-compete clause, you can:

- Sign it, and live with the consequences. You’d be gambling that the issue wouldn’t come up, or that a court wouldn’t enforce the non-compete.
- Refuse to sign it, and not get access to the confidential information. If signing the NDA is a condition of employment, that may mean you won’t get (or keep) the job.
- Ask the other party to strike the clause from the agreement.
- Ask the other party to modify the non-compete to make it less restrictive. For example, if it’s for two years, you could make it for one year. If the definition of “competitor” is broad, you could make it narrower. If the geographic area is 100 miles, you could limit it to 10 miles.

If you have questions or aren’t sure what you should do, you may want to consult a lawyer in your area.


That's all there is to it, really


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:18:40


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


The three year non-competition clause, to begin with: 3 years is defacto unemployment. At most, you could get away with a year for very sensitive things. Additionally, due to its framing, it doubles as a loyalty clause, which, for reviews, is actually illegal in both spain and france (i am unsure about england) going by the customer protection laws. And, this being something about reviews about products, it very much affects customer protection laws...


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:25:13


Post by: BrianDavion


 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
This week on "Why the community hates this company, but still shows up everyday to talk about it instead of just going away and finding something else to do."

At this point I don't care. I just do not care about any of this. Don't like it, don't sign it.


it does get annoying having every conversation on some parts of these fourms get derailed by the "I HATE GW... BUT I STILL DEDICATE MY LIFE TO OBESSSING OVER THEIR PRODUCT" crowd.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:29:18


Post by: kodos


BrianDavion wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm

up to a point, but everything more than a 12 month period is very unusual no matter the industry


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:32:59


Post by: BrianDavion


 kodos wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm

up to a point, but everything more than a 12 month period is very unusual no matter the industry


Could be connected to the 2 year product cycle to ensure that anyone who leaves can't leak about anything coming up in the future?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:36:33


Post by: Mentlegen324


BrianDavion wrote:
 kodos wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm

up to a point, but everything more than a 12 month period is very unusual no matter the industry


Could be connected to the 2 year product cycle to ensure that anyone who leaves can't leak about anything coming up in the future?


That's what I thought too, surely if they're getting information on stuff potentially several years before its ready then it needs to cover the duration for that?

Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


it doubles as a loyalty clause, which, for reviews


Which part are you referring to as this?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:55:15


Post by: kodos


BrianDavion wrote:
Could be connected to the 2 year product cycle to ensure that anyone who leaves can't leak about anything coming up in the future?

pretty sure it has to do with the 3 year Edition cycle and that plastic boxes are planned 4 years ahead
but this is not information a "normal" Influencer should get

if this is the NDA for the 3D artist, it makes sense. Perry Twins got something similar with "not working on any fantasy setting for several years"
but than it is not a standard NDA for everyone


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 10:58:18


Post by: Arschbombe


Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 11:09:03


Post by: jojo_monkey_boy


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s just GW always get singled out, like they somehow manipulate the legislature to get the laws they’re relying on in place to begin with?


It's almost like the discussion is occurring on a forum that primarily focuses on GW games...


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 11:09:07


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given none of those, to the best of my knowledge, involved a “leaked” NDA, or copyright claims?

Yeah.

Because harassment suits are very, very different to NDA and copyright claims, nes pas?


I'd ask you to be more gentle with the goalposts, just now they made a woeful screeching noise.


Copyright Claims, NDA. Not exclusive to GW, really rather common in many industries.

Harassment law suits etc? Not….not at related to Copyright Claims or NDAs. Not even gagging agreements, as those aren’t common or garden variety NDAs.

Can you please therefore clarify how GW adopting common business practices is at all related to legal woes of other companies facing really quite serious allegations, such as protecting abusers?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 11:10:53


Post by: NAVARRO


 Arschbombe wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


Its something many of us have seen online in the past and it was, to put it bluntly, MENURE.

Paranoia, snitches, forums banning and censoring all types of things, other companies concerned if they were going to get sued... an absolute avalanche of legal topics...

GW generated this. They seem to be doing the same now after a brief pause.

Not the game or players just GW.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 12:27:47


Post by: Dudeface


 Arschbombe wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


Not really, this topic has 0 impact on the game for the largest majority of people. In fact the only people this impacts are those offered NDA's which is an extreme minority.

Yet the wider playerbase is here slamming Google responses about things they're not familiar with like they're going to bring down the firm.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 12:54:41


Post by: SamusDrake




Move over Kragnos! Behold - the new addition to Age of Sigmar's Destruction alliance!


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 12:58:05


Post by: PetitionersCity


So NornQueen on twitter has posted a strong debunking of this, although not 100%.



This is going to take awhile to explain but I'm going to do my best. The NDA that was released from spikybits and reddit is fake. The Font is all wrong and misaligned with a lot added to it that does not make any sense.
So lets dive into it. This part below is made up.



There is no stop point for 2.1.1. This is also added and fake. This is also very poorly written.



2.1.2 is off center and suppose to be 2.1.1.
All of 4 - 4.1.5 is fake and is poorly written with grammatical errors within legal documents. This was something I studied in college.
All the numbers after are 1 off.
Also they are all signed when they are given out.

Conclusion, Stop fear mongering.


Also this!



It just looks bad.





GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 12:59:23


Post by: jojo_monkey_boy


So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:03:43


Post by: Albertorius


Well, it being fake would make sense, I think.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:04:27


Post by: Lord Kragan


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Copyright Claims, NDA. Not exclusive to GW, really rather common in many industries.



Right. This forum covers the defense and music industries so often /s.

Also. EA? Lootbox have become common practice in the gaming infustry. Got a gak ton of flak.

Cyberpunk? Had issues regsrding review tampering (which is something touched upon in this thread) and... it got a ton of flak.

Additionally, the fact that those practices are common, does not make them good. But that is more an issur with late stage capitalism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
though this being a possible fake is grounds for relieve. So i will tap out til something more pops out, if at all.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:24:27


Post by: kodos


 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.

if they write their legal documents like they write the gaming books, I would go with the first option


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:27:48


Post by: ClockworkZion


 kodos wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.

if they write their legal documents like they write the gaming books, I would go with the first option

GW doesn't screw their margins up at least. Anyone who isn't making documents in MS Paint shouldn't be able to do that these days.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:29:55


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:30:21


Post by: NAVARRO


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.

if they write their legal documents like they write the gaming books, I would go with the first option

GW doesn't screw their margins up at least. Anyone who isn't making documents in MS Paint shouldn't be able to do that these days.


Looking at Warhammer logo


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:32:22


Post by: ClockworkZion


 NAVARRO wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.

if they write their legal documents like they write the gaming books, I would go with the first option

GW doesn't screw their margins up at least. Anyone who isn't making documents in MS Paint shouldn't be able to do that these days.


Looking at Warhammer logo

That was intentional to make it match the old one.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:35:11


Post by: NAVARRO


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
So either GW legal has terrible copy editing or it's a fake.

if they write their legal documents like they write the gaming books, I would go with the first option

GW doesn't screw their margins up at least. Anyone who isn't making documents in MS Paint shouldn't be able to do that these days.


Looking at Warhammer logo

That was intentional to make it match the old one.


I dont pretend to know their intentions... but I think your right. Funny nevertheless.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:36:07


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.

Perhaps. But we never see GW's margins all jacked up normally. Additionally, the wrong font? As someone who spent years working in an office typing stuff up the idea that they'd use different fonts at any point is unheard of.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:37:16


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There is certainly House Style.

However, I don’t think we’ve seen what the font should look like in this thread, so treat that with a pinch of salt.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:43:07


Post by: kodos


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.

Perhaps. But we never see GW's margins all jacked up normally. Additionally, the wrong font? As someone who spent years working in an office typing stuff up the idea that they'd use different fonts at any point is unheard of.

this is a common problem if people working on the same document from different stations, like our desktop stations cannot change such setting while you can on the laptops
so that one is adding a text in Calibre while the rest of the document is Arial happens a lot but is usually checked for those errors before converted to pdf and send out

same as adding pictures with text to a document, specially from Excel as the different versions of office can mess things up

going by "normal" office problems of big companies and how GW doing books, there is more evidence that this NDA is real and not a fake (as someone making a fake usually works more professional, we have seen such things for Armybooks/Codex leaks back in the old days were the evidence for the fake was the lack of errors/typos)


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:46:29


Post by: ClockworkZion


 kodos wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.

Perhaps. But we never see GW's margins all jacked up normally. Additionally, the wrong font? As someone who spent years working in an office typing stuff up the idea that they'd use different fonts at any point is unheard of.

this is a common problem if people working on the same document from different stations, like our desktop stations cannot change such setting while you can on the laptops
so that one is adding a text in Calibre while the rest of the document is Arial happens a lot but is usually checked for those errors before converted to pdf and send out

same as adding pictures with text to a document, specially from Excel as the different versions of office can mess things up

going by "normal" office problems of big companies and how GW doing books, there is more evidence that this NDA is real and not a fake (as someone making a fake usually works more professional, we have seen such things for Armybooks/Codex leaks back in the old days were the evidence for the fake was the lack of errors/typos)

Legal dept =/= studio team.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 13:57:51


Post by: Gert


So is the consensus finally that this is a fake? Is the rage and hate posting all done? Or would anyone like to call me a shill again?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:02:58


Post by: Dudeface


 Gert wrote:
So is the consensus finally that this is a fake? Is the rage and hate posting all done? Or would anyone like to call me a shill again?


It can't possibly be fake GW can't format or write text to save their life and all of their documents screw the community, families and kill an orphan. /s


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:11:04


Post by: xttz


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.

Perhaps. But we never see GW's margins all jacked up normally. Additionally, the wrong font? As someone who spent years working in an office typing stuff up the idea that they'd use different fonts at any point is unheard of.


Formatting aside, someone pointed out that they suddenly switch from using "Games Workshop Limited" to "GW" without defining who that is. That's a pretty big mistake for a legal document.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:13:55


Post by: Sarouan


Like I said, people who really have something against GW should definitely go to a way better thread with stronger base to use their arguments.

"GW people don't know how to write ! See their rules!" is really a poor justification when the more likely explanation should be "it's just a fake, dude". Why would someone do this ? I guess for same reasons some did make convincing fakes of codex / army book's "leaked pages" on rumors in the old time, when Warhammer Community wasn't around...


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:18:19


Post by: oni


Sources are gak. No one truly cares. We're just looking for a reason to get triggered. Round and round we go.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:18:22


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 xttz wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s an artefact of converting a document to PDF.

At work, I do my letters in Word. When they go out, the system converts it to PDF. We quite often get…..interesting rejigging of layout through no fault of my own.

Perhaps. But we never see GW's margins all jacked up normally. Additionally, the wrong font? As someone who spent years working in an office typing stuff up the idea that they'd use different fonts at any point is unheard of.


Formatting aside, someone pointed out that they suddenly switch from using "Games Workshop Limited" to "GW" without defining who that is. That's a pretty big mistake for a legal document.


Depends….if the first use is Games Workshop Ltd (GW), then that’s pretty normal. Abbreviations can be used, but need that initial definition first.

So…if we were entering into a Contract, it might read. “Mad Doc Grotsnik (I) agree to give Xttz (You) a half dozen Hamsters”, allowing the parties to be deferred to as I and You from there on in, providing its capitalised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
So is the consensus finally that this is a fake? Is the rage and hate posting all done? Or would anyone like to call me a shill again?


I can’t resist a challenge.

You’re a snail.

Arses.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:22:13


Post by: Sarouan


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Depends….if the first use is Games Workshop Ltd (GW), then that’s pretty normal. Abbreviations can be used, but need that initial definition first.


Absolutely. And since this is not the case in the "leaked NDA document", we can make our own conclusions from this fact.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:24:55


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


It’s also worth noting that under British Contract Law, if a word isn’t defined in a contract, it’s taken to have its “natural meaning”.

So there’s often a glossary of specified terms for folk to more easily refer to.

How do I know this? Through my profession.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:27:58


Post by: xttz


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
“Mad Doc Grotsnik (I) agree to give Xttz (You) a half dozen Hamsters”


Agreed and signed.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:29:39


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Excellent. Shame it doesn’t specify when I need to provide them by!

You busy in 4382?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:29:49


Post by: TheGoodGerman


 PetitionersCity wrote:
So NornQueen on twitter has posted a strong debunking of this, although not 100%.



This is going to take awhile to explain but I'm going to do my best. The NDA that was released from spikybits and reddit is fake. The Font is all wrong and misaligned with a lot added to it that does not make any sense.
So lets dive into it. This part below is made up.



There is no stop point for 2.1.1. This is also added and fake. This is also very poorly written.



2.1.2 is off center and suppose to be 2.1.1.
All of 4 - 4.1.5 is fake and is poorly written with grammatical errors within legal documents. This was something I studied in college.
All the numbers after are 1 off.
Also they are all signed when they are given out.

Conclusion, Stop fear mongering.


Also this!



It just looks bad.




I know it‘s shocking, but I see stuff like that fairly often in real legal documents. Imho just shows that stuff is done too quickly.

And these types of documents develop a life of their own once the template has been released by Legal. Nobody then bothers to go through the text again and again to clean it up.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:31:57


Post by: xttz


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Excellent. Shame it doesn’t specify when I need to provide them by!

You busy in 4382?


I have a black belt in Internet Legalese, don't try and wriggle out of this deal or Spikybits will write bad things about you online!


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:32:51


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


They’ve already credited photos I took at a Warhammerfest to someone else, and then said nice things about the Loot Group….bring it!


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:35:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I don't really see what all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about, but at the same time "Ah-ha! The formatting is slightly off on this page!" doesn't seem like quite the dramatic 5th act reveal some are making it out to be.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:35:33


Post by: gorgon


 oni wrote:
Sources are gak. No one truly cares. We're just looking for a reason to get triggered. Round and round we go.


Yep.

Round and round we go.
Where's the mod? Nobody knows!


Of course, they'll swoop right in if someone calls someone a mean name. But in the meantime, gakpost away, folks! The more repetitively the better, and hopefully from the same usual suspects! Yay!





GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 14:50:00


Post by: Orlanth


Reposting, as my comment was hidden in a pastewar.

This is bad optics for GW, but until I see what a 'normal' NDA looks like I will not comment as to whether this is unusual.

Internet folks all got law degrees I see.

However, can I believe the GW would put something dodgy in an NDA. Yes I can.
Is it wrong to have 'bad vibes' at anything legal GW does? No it isn't. GW has a reputation of being heavy handed and litigious, I would go as far as to say they wanted one. I remember a full page IP warning ad GW placed in Military Modeller in the 1990's. Do they, or at least did they want a rep of being people you don't want to feth with. Yes I think that. Has that rep soured into a general negative reputation. Arguably so, to the point that part of the 'benefit' of the chapterhouse lawsuit was bringing down GW a peg or two.

The long and the short is, I have no comment to make as to whether an NDA from GW is dodgy. However if the general public chooses not to trust GW or it's NDA policy then GW can only blame itself for those optics. Trust is not a matter of burden of proof, and as GW has arguably lost trust and its legal actions are held in open suspicion then that in itself is fair comment.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:04:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 Orlanth wrote:
Trust is not a matter of burden of proof, and as GW has arguably lost trust and its legal actions are held in open suspicion then that in itself is fair comment.


A portion of GW's lost trust is due to gak posting, fearmongering, and insinuations.

I work in the automotive industry. That industry earned the reputation it got from practices in the 80s and 90s. We turned the company around from 3.0 to 4.5 average on google reviews, but you'll still get people posting how we're here to screw over women or that we're robbing people. Our shops are more expensive than they used to be, because that's what it takes to get good quality staff and give them benefits.

I see a lot of that dynamic in the history of GW with Chapterhouse and the transitions they've made with that history dogging them and people making claims that are potentially unfounded.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:16:53


Post by: deano2099


I have definitely seen sites that get sent free stuff give it less than stellar reviews. The Tabletop Minions review of the new Kill Team comes to mind as a recent example but there are plenty of others.

So either:
this is very new
this is just what GW try on but anyone with any journalistic ethics refuses it
it's not actually a contract sent to reviewers
it's totally made up.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility - I'm certain all the fashion and make-up Instagram "sponsored influencers" probably have contracts like this. Maybe it is a new road GW is going down - pay for people's hobby in exchange for them making positive videos.

I'm very doubtful it's being sent to everyone who gets even the occasional review copy though.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:17:58


Post by: kodos


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I work in the automotive industry. That industry earned the reputation it got from practices in the 80s and 90s.

looking at what the German companies are doing now and have done in the last 10 years, nothing really changed


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:21:48


Post by: caladancid


I, for one, will certainly be giving GW the benefit of the doubt here. James Workshop has earned it, and I know that his every move is good because he is my friend.



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:22:49


Post by: Dysartes


 Gert wrote:
So is the consensus finally that this is a fake? Is the rage and hate posting all done? Or would anyone like to call me a shill again?

Point of order - this being proven to be fake would not also disprove claims that you're a shill...


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:30:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 kodos wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I work in the automotive industry. That industry earned the reputation it got from practices in the 80s and 90s.

looking at what the German companies are doing now and have done in the last 10 years, nothing really changed


I should say automotive repair, but yea - that's some gak.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 15:55:27


Post by: BaronIveagh


TheGoodGerman wrote:

I know it‘s shocking, but I see stuff like that fairly often in real legal documents. Imho just shows that stuff is done too quickly.

And these types of documents develop a life of their own once the template has been released by Legal. Nobody then bothers to go through the text again and again to clean it up.


I just corrected 15 documents today at work that did similar things, caused by someone converting an autofill PDF to other formats.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 16:47:51


Post by: Gert


 Dysartes wrote:

Point of order - this being proven to be fake would not also disprove claims that you're a shill...

I like to think I balance my views quite well and if people look through my post history they will see that what I'm actually against is hyperbole and fear mongering. I never have and never will (unless I get paid a pile of cash *cough*cough*) shill for GW.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 18:51:25


Post by: caladancid


 Gert wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Point of order - this being proven to be fake would not also disprove claims that you're a shill...

I like to think I balance my views quite well and if people look through my post history they will see that what I'm actually against is hyperbole and fear mongering. I never have and never will (unless I get paid a pile of cash *cough*cough*) shill for GW.


You appear to classify anything negative towards GW as the said fear mongering and hyperbole. That suggests a bias.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 18:52:15


Post by: Polonius


Lotta thoughts in this thread. I don't know much about NDAs or non-competes, but there's a lot here that I find suspect. For starters, the formatting is just garbage. Secondly, the document repeatedly used the term "GW" without defining it, which is really odd for a contract. Finally, there are just straight up typos, like the wrong words.

Lawyers can be sloppy, and lawyers make mistakes. I've seen obvious formatting errors in writing samples, submitted by people applying for lawyer jobs. Still, for something like this, a sentence like "The indemnity is this clause 6 shall..." is pretty bad.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 18:57:19


Post by: Mentlegen324


 Polonius wrote:
Lotta thoughts in this thread. I don't know much about NDAs or non-competes, but there's a lot here that I find suspect. For starters, the formatting is just garbage. Secondly, the document repeatedly used the term "GW" without defining it, which is really odd for a contract. Finally, there are just straight up typos, like the wrong words.

Lawyers can be sloppy, and lawyers make mistakes. I've seen obvious formatting errors in writing samples, submitted by people applying for lawyer jobs. Still, for something like this, a sentence like "The indemnity is this clause 6 shall..." is pretty bad.


I thought the same thing about the use of "GW". They do own that as a trademark, but the start of the document uses "Games Workshop" and then just switches to "GW" without defining the term, which seems a little odd. Their website terms of use mentions what is meant by it before its used to refer to them in the terms themselves ("This site is operated by Games Workshop Limited (we or our or us or GW)") but an NDA doesn't?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 18:57:27


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Polonius wrote:
Lotta thoughts in this thread. I don't know much about NDAs or non-competes, but there's a lot here that I find suspect. For starters, the formatting is just garbage. Secondly, the document repeatedly used the term "GW" without defining it, which is really odd for a contract. Finally, there are just straight up typos, like the wrong words.

Lawyers can be sloppy, and lawyers make mistakes. I've seen obvious formatting errors in writing samples, submitted by people applying for lawyer jobs. Still, for something like this, a sentence like "The indemnity is this clause 6 shall..." is pretty bad.


Mate. Nevermind Lawyers being sloppy. Legislators and Judges can been sloppy.

If they weren’t, and no law had wiggle room, we wouldn’t need lawyers. And one suspects the world would be better for it!

My experience? Applying my professional skills to show that a misplaced comma did in fact constitute a legitimate insurance claim, and now two friends are living mortgage free.

Even in my own professional correspondence, what I wanted to say and what I actually said are not necessarily the same things.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:06:18


Post by: Gert


caladancid wrote:
You appear to classify anything negative towards GW as the said fear mongering and hyperbole. That suggests a bias.

Actually, you know what. I really don't care what you think so y'all keep being mad at a company that will never notice you and I'll find joy in painting toy soldiers. Peace out meatbags.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:19:17


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Gert wrote:
Peace out meatbags.

So you ARE a droid programmed to shill after all! jk I know your posting history. Don't let those unfounded accusation get to you, mate.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:24:04


Post by: Gert


I haven't been able to get onto Forge World since this weird picture game showed up. Very inconvenient.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:27:05


Post by: Albertorius


 Gert wrote:
I haven't been able to get onto Forge World since this weird picture game showed up. Very inconvenient.

I haven't been able to get onto Forge World since they implemented the asinine captcha check before entering.

And by "haven't been able" I mean "haven't managed to give enough of a feth".


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:38:03


Post by: BrianDavion


 Arschbombe wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:43:31


Post by: caladancid


BrianDavion wrote:
 Arschbombe wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


Do you look at YouTube?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 19:48:09


Post by: drbored


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Lotta thoughts in this thread. I don't know much about NDAs or non-competes, but there's a lot here that I find suspect. For starters, the formatting is just garbage. Secondly, the document repeatedly used the term "GW" without defining it, which is really odd for a contract. Finally, there are just straight up typos, like the wrong words.

Lawyers can be sloppy, and lawyers make mistakes. I've seen obvious formatting errors in writing samples, submitted by people applying for lawyer jobs. Still, for something like this, a sentence like "The indemnity is this clause 6 shall..." is pretty bad.


Mate. Nevermind Lawyers being sloppy. Legislators and Judges can been sloppy.

If they weren’t, and no law had wiggle room, we wouldn’t need lawyers. And one suspects the world would be better for it!

My experience? Applying my professional skills to show that a misplaced comma did in fact constitute a legitimate insurance claim, and now two friends are living mortgage free.

Even in my own professional correspondence, what I wanted to say and what I actually said are not necessarily the same things.


I got out of paying a penalty once because the contract writer never wrote in what the penalty would be in the first place. Never even went to court. They knew they messed up as soon as I showed them that very simple line.

Anyway, we have some people now saying that the document is fake, some saying the differences between UK and US law, some saying that parts of it aren't even enforceable in certain states...

At the end of the day, you'd take this to your lawyer and figure it out from there.

I'm glad I was able to act the village idiot for the entertainment of you all in last night's arguments.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:02:28


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:

Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


You must not be a member of many online communities, because this is pretty mild compared to some. Star Wars, for example.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:07:52


Post by: Lord Kragan


BrianDavion wrote:
 Arschbombe wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Seemingly most people in the hobby these days are here to obssess over the GW HR and legal departments rather than the game.


You mean this as an indictment of the playerbase, but maybe it's more of an indictment of the game?


Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


May I introduce to pre-lawsuit wow forums?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:16:13


Post by: Quasistellar


I've signed some non-disclosure agreements with major international manufacturers in the past. 3M, John Deere, etc.

The language used in this document is. . . broad.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:31:07


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


You must not be a member of many online communities, because this is pretty mild compared to some. Star Wars, for example.
That may be, but Dakkadakka is well known amongst many of the 40k communities as a very negative forum.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:36:02


Post by: BaronIveagh


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't really see what all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is about, but at the same time "Ah-ha! The formatting is slightly off on this page!" doesn't seem like quite the dramatic 5th act reveal some are making it out to be.


Because, let's say you write reviews of products used to make minis, or even minis themselves. You want to get your review out in a timely manner, so you ask GW for a prerelease review copy. This is perfectly normal throughout the gaming industry. They want you to sign an NDA. Again, perfectly normal. Then THIS THING shows up at your door, giving you the option of either releasing reviews late, or being contractually obligated to GW for a positive review, and, in theory, to ONLY review GW products from there on out, unless you leave the industry entirely for at least three years.

Do you see where there might be some issues with this, given the state of gaming journalism already?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

That may be, but Dakkadakka is well known amongst many of the 40k communities as a very negative forum.


My knee jerk reaction was to point you to Whineseer, but that joke is ready for a Venerable Dreadnought at this point. Instead I'll point you to the twitter 40k community.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:42:03


Post by: BrianDavion


 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

Actually I'd say it's an indictment of DakkaDakka. no other online community I've been in has seen this kinda issues.


You must not be a member of many online communities, because this is pretty mild compared to some. Star Wars, for example.
That may be, but Dakkadakka is well known amongst many of the 40k communities as a very negative forum.


Indeed, I was specificly talking about 40k online communities. I mean "Ohh hey! the star wars fandom is even more toxic then us!" isn't much of a defence.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:49:23


Post by: Da Boss


If it is fake, that is a crazy amount of effort to go through. But then again, we had an entirely fake edition of 40K on here once, long ago, so I guess anything is possible. I do think that the "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!" side of the conversation were generally more rude and obnoxious in this thread though.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 20:51:36


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:

Indeed, I was specificly talking about 40k online communities. I mean "Ohh hey! the star wars fandom is even more toxic then us!" isn't much of a defence.


Again, have you been to the other 40k forums? Or Twitter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
If it is fake, that is a crazy amount of effort to go through.


I'm inclined to believe it's real, because it's a weird thing to fake if you're looking generate outrage.


For those who want the opinions of an actual lawyer on this:




GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 21:48:08


Post by: Grimtuff


 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm inclined to believe it's real, because it's a weird thing to fake if you're looking generate outrage.


For those who want the opinions of an actual lawyer on this:




Very interesting watch, cheers!

So, the above YT guy shows the Reddit thread where it originated from. It came from Trent from Miscast. Trent is not the kind of guy that would make stuff up like this. He is an artist through and through and not the person that strikes me as someone with an axe to grind against GW. All of that points to genuine to me.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 21:54:42


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Grimtuff wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm inclined to believe it's real, because it's a weird thing to fake if you're looking generate outrage.


For those who want the opinions of an actual lawyer on this:




Very interesting watch, cheers!

So, the above YT guy shows the Reddit thread where it originated from. It came from Trent from Miscast. Trent is not the kind of guy that would make stuff up like this. He is an artist through and through and not the person that strikes me as someone with an axe to grind against GW. All of that points to genuine to me.

Maybe someone reached out to him in an attempt to scam him by pretending to be GW?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 22:02:40


Post by: Grimtuff


 ClockworkZion wrote:

Maybe someone reached out to him in an attempt to scam him by pretending to be GW?


Doubtful.

Here is the original thread he posted to Reddit. Either someone has told multiple small to medium channels and all of them have been duped, or Occam's razor says it's real.

There are multiple YouTubers in that thread like Goobertown and Midwinter Minis corroborating the info. I'm leaning towards legit.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 22:44:01


Post by: caladancid


I can't even imagine the amount of mental gymnastics we are about to witness now that evidence is clear it is real, AND even a video with clear legal analysis.

I did not anticipate this level of entertainment for the weekend.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 22:52:23


Post by: StrayIight


 Grimtuff wrote:


Doubtful.

Here is the original thread he posted to Reddit. Either someone has told multiple small to medium channels and all of them have been duped, or Occam's razor says it's real.

There are multiple YouTubers in that thread like Goobertown and Midwinter Minis corroborating the info. I'm leaning towards legit.


Hmm. I think stating MM is 'corroborating' the info is rather misleading. He states quite clearly: 'Fortunately, the document I signed was not as insidious as this.'

That seems more like the opposite of corroboration. He says the NDA he was under was not this one.

I don't have a dog in this fight whatsoever. It could be real, it could be a fake. But I don't think we're at the point quite yet (based on what I've seen), to assume, or worse, state factually, that it is one or the other.

I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed to see some people leaping to a final conclusion and arguing somewhat viciously with others from that point. We're possessed of better critical thinking ability than that aren't we?

It's a discussion worthy subject, especially the implications if true. But reaching a conclusion before we know for certain this isn't a hoax isn't very rational.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
caladancid wrote:
I can't even imagine the amount of mental gymnastics we are about to witness now that evidence is clear it is real, AND even a video with clear legal analysis.

I did not anticipate this level of entertainment for the weekend.


I'm missing where it's clear that this is real. Can you show me where this has been shown? I'm sincerely not asking as a challenge or to be a dick - I genuinely want to know if this is the case. I haven't seen as much personally.

The video with the clear legal analysis is the one mentioned above? I found it interesting, but I'd feel better if we had one by a UK based law practitioner. UK and US law aren't the same, and the guy in that video prefixed his own content with that statement.
I work in software, and fairly high level IT, but put me in front of a Mac, and much of that 'expertise' vanishes. I make mistakes and find gaps in my knowledge even in the area where I'm employed from time to time. I can't imagine law is much different - experts can be wrong. Does this guy practice much in the area of corporate law, or some other space that would be dealing with NDA's and contracts often? (That may be irrelevant - I'm not an expert, but then I suspect that's the same for most who are commenting and claiming to 'know').


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:02:29


Post by: beast_gts


From the Reddit thread:

Khullain Paints! wrote:I have a friend who works as a patent lawyer for Microsoft. Asked him his advice on this NDA (which we don’t even know is real). And he seemed to think that other than being poorly written and a tad one sided it was a very standard NDA and far more lenient than most he deals with


(Twitter link)


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:14:22


Post by: Togusa


BrianDavion wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
This week on "Why the community hates this company, but still shows up everyday to talk about it instead of just going away and finding something else to do."

At this point I don't care. I just do not care about any of this. Don't like it, don't sign it.


it does get annoying having every conversation on some parts of these fourms get derailed by the "I HATE GW... BUT I STILL DEDICATE MY LIFE TO OBESSSING OVER THEIR PRODUCT" crowd.


It does. It makes me think that some folks aren't as genuine about their dislike of the company as they try to put on. If a person truly had an issue with these things, they'd say "I can't associate with this game, the company or any of the online communities."


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:14:52


Post by: BaronIveagh


beast_gts wrote:
From the Reddit thread:

Khullain Paints! wrote:I have a friend who works as a patent lawyer for Microsoft. Asked him his advice on this NDA (which we don’t even know is real). And he seemed to think that other than being poorly written and a tad one sided it was a very standard NDA and far more lenient than most he deals with


(Twitter link)


'Is this excessive' 'It is. Our Corporate NDA at Microsoft is much lighter'. That looks an awful lot like he said the reverse, and then repeatedly said that it would be for a jury to decide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:

It does. It makes me think that some folks aren't as genuine about their dislike of the company as they try to put on. If a person truly had an issue with these things, they'd say "I can't associate with this game, the company or any of the online communities."


Because for many of us it's not as black and white as that. I can like what I helped create, but hate what Games Workshop has become. I can detest the sort of brainless white knighting that goes on, and believe me, it's not limited to Games Workshop or its products, without hating the community.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:19:49


Post by: StrayIight


 BaronIveagh wrote:
beast_gts wrote:
From the Reddit thread:

Khullain Paints! wrote:I have a friend who works as a patent lawyer for Microsoft. Asked him his advice on this NDA (which we don’t even know is real). And he seemed to think that other than being poorly written and a tad one sided it was a very standard NDA and far more lenient than most he deals with


(Twitter link)


'Is this excessive' 'It is. Our Corporate NDA at Microsoft is much lighter'. That looks an awful lot like he said the reverse, and then repeatedly said that it would be for a jury to decide.


That's pretty much what I'm getting from that too. The posters summation doesn't match the content of the linked conversation. In fact, it stated the opposite.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:22:51


Post by: Wha-Mu-077


beast_gts wrote:
From the Reddit thread:

Khullain Paints! wrote:I have a friend who works as a patent lawyer for Microsoft. Asked him his advice on this NDA (which we don’t even know is real). And he seemed to think that other than being poorly written and a tad one sided it was a very standard NDA and far more lenient than most he deals with


(Twitter link)


Poorly written and one-sided sounds very GW. They're not really known for uh, checking their spelling.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:23:01


Post by: BaronIveagh


 StrayIight wrote:

I'm missing where it's clear that this is real. Can you show me where this has been shown? I'm sincerely not asking as a challenge or to be a dick - I genuinely want to know if this is the case. I haven't seen as much personally..




It hasn't been proven or disproven. Occam's Razor suggest that it is, NDAs being an odd thing to fake, and sub optimal for generating controversy. As several people have observed, it does practically scream GW.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:31:21


Post by: yukishiro1


There have been weirder fakes in the past. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. Though yeah, I really question how boring someone's life would have to be to cook up a fake NDA...but it's the internet. I'm sure such people exist.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:40:22


Post by: caladancid


Togusa wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So yet another thing that seems to be getting taken out of context or misconstrued in order to try and make GW look bad regardless of the facts? Seems like pretty standard stuff - you enter into a deal with a company, of course you shouldn't then be trying to take away their customers or unfairly use that to your advantage.


No, it is not pretty standard stuff. I am friends with a lawyer that is specialized in labor law... and the man was utterly flabbergasted. Same goes for an acquaintance thar is a social security labor inspector.


You have a friend who says it's "not standard" (without saying why).... meanwhile over on reddit there are many, many people who have signed similar NDAs and who know about this sort of thing all saying it's a pretty standard NDA.

I see nothing about this that doesn't seem standard.


the problem is that standard will vary from industry to industry. what's normal for say.. table top gaming, is going to be differant from whats normal for working for an accounting firm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote:
This week on "Why the community hates this company, but still shows up everyday to talk about it instead of just going away and finding something else to do."

At this point I don't care. I just do not care about any of this. Don't like it, don't sign it.


it does get annoying having every conversation on some parts of these fourms get derailed by the "I HATE GW... BUT I STILL DEDICATE MY LIFE TO OBESSSING OVER THEIR PRODUCT" crowd.


It does. It makes me think that some folks aren't as genuine about their dislike of the company as they try to put on. If a person truly had an issue with these things, they'd say "I can't associate with this game, the company or any of the online communities."


You know posts like these are truly ridiculous.

Everyone posting here about the current state of affairs LOVES the game. I have been playing this game, off and on, for 25 years. I continue to post because I do love the game, and want it to be awesome.

People like you, and others who claim that their defense of the current practices is somehow the true way of supporting the game are dead wrong. You are substantively hurting the game you claim you are protecting. GW has done this before. They have taken the company to some very dark and bad places, through many of these same practices.

Pointing out bad things in the hope they get better isn't being a troll, it isn't being a black knight, it isn't anything other than attempting to stop what is a clearly bad path.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:52:35


Post by: yukishiro1


The weird thing about dakka (and fan sites generally, tbh) is that it's the "positive" posters who complain about "negativity" who are typically more likely to make personal attacks than the "negative" posters. It's always puzzled me. This thread is a prime example of it. Theres' a small smattering of "white knight" style attacks, but it's only maybe 1:4 compared to the people who revel in personally attacking those they label "negative."

It's just something you have to get used to, if you react every time all it does is play into their hands as it gets threads derailed, which is the point of what they do in the first place. This is something I often struggle with myself in the heat of the moment, it can be really demoralizing to be discussing the substance of something and then have someone just show up and make an irrelevant personal attack because they don't like your opinion and can't engage with the substance, so they instead just try to insult you. But responding almost never gets you anywhere.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/24 23:55:19


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Even those of us who don’t care what GW is selling or how the game is developing follow what GW is doing as they are so dominant in the world of Wargames. Their behavior can affect our games whether we hate GW or not.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:00:07


Post by: yukishiro1


On a fundamental level, it doesn't matter whether someone hates GW (or loves GW, for that matter); it's a pointless accusation to level. What they write is either valid, or it isn't. People who target the poster instead of the content of their posts are just flagging themselves as unable to engage in adult conversation.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:13:31


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


yukishiro1 wrote:
On a fundamental level, it doesn't matter whether someone hates GW (or loves GW, for that matter); it's a pointless accusation to level. What they write is either valid, or it isn't. People who target the poster instead of the content of their posts are just flagging themselves as unable to engage in adult conversation.


Cobblers.

There are many posters on Dakka who will readily seize on *literally anything* GW does, then piss and whine about it.

My favourite are those who at least claim to have not bought anything for X years, yet still somehow feel their opinion carries any weight.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:21:38


Post by: Wha-Mu-077


I want GW to get better, and I don't see any better way than to try to get as much boycott and hate going their way. It's way harder to ignore than polite feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which may I add has historical precedent - we got a complete Sisters of Battle reboot afterall, which we most likely wouldn't get if we were sensible and polite about it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:27:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

My favourite are those who at least claim to have not bought anything for X years, yet still somehow feel their opinion carries any weight.


Now, if they said 'I haven't had a backlog to paint for x years' I might agree with this.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:37:10


Post by: Daedalus81


Ultimately you can strike any clause from a contract before signing. If they don't accept the strikes you can rewrite it for them and see if it passes legal.

Anyone looking to seriously get in bed with any corporation should be getting legal advice.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:38:58


Post by: BrianDavion


 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Which may I add has historical precedent - we got a complete Sisters of Battle reboot afterall, which we most likely wouldn't get if we were sensible and polite about it.


.....................

err GW brought back sisters due to a fan survey that showed high demand for the product.

seriously they where pretty upfront behind their reasons there


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:40:31


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
The weird thing about dakka (and fan sites generally, tbh) is that it's the "positive" posters who complain about "negativity" who are typically more likely to make personal attacks than the "negative" posters. It's always puzzled me. This thread is a prime example of it. Theres' a small smattering of "white knight" style attacks, but it's only maybe 1:4 compared to the people who revel in personally attacking those they label "negative."

It's just something you have to get used to, if you react every time all it does is play into their hands as it gets threads derailed, which is the point of what they do in the first place. This is something I often struggle with myself in the heat of the moment, it can be really demoralizing to be discussing the substance of something and then have someone just show up and make an irrelevant personal attack because they don't like your opinion and can't engage with the substance, so they instead just try to insult you. But responding almost never gets you anywhere.


I think it's usually a little more complex than that, but I'll admit I haven't bothered to read everything in this thread.

Much of it I think comes down to how people interpret words on the internet without body language and inflection.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 00:43:33


Post by: xttz


caladancid wrote:

Pointing out bad things in the hope they get better isn't being a troll, it isn't being a black knight, it isn't anything other than attempting to stop what is a clearly bad path.


And asking for evidence of assertions isn't being a "white knight" or "shill".

What usually drives me to post in topics like this is seeing obvious exaggeration & misinformation, or stories being accepted and repeated simply because they reinforce existing biases with no effort made to fact check. Sometimes there's a grain of truth, but the story is couched in deliberately polarising language to get people to take sides. Even the opening post of this thread states "new NDA they're apparently forcing on Content Creators" - as if those creators have no option to turn down the agreement or seek legal advice.

The echo chamber effect is a big problem for online communities in particular. Anything repeated often enough becomes "true", regardless of what actually happened. I still regularly see people in various wargaming communities repeating the line that "GW shut down all those fan Youtube channels", with the implication that they sued or otherwise drove fans out of the hobby. But I'm still yet to see any case of GW doing that. What there has been in reality are a handful of people who closed their Youtube channels as a result of what other people in the community have said. Alfabusa's decision was - rightly or wrongly - heavily influenced on what the larger community thought might happen, rather than direct action from GW. Sodaz' decision was a direct result of toxicity from the community after he agreed to work with GW.

Would you agree that it's problem when fans stop being fans due to rumours or misinformed opinions?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:00:09


Post by: StrayIight


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
On a fundamental level, it doesn't matter whether someone hates GW (or loves GW, for that matter); it's a pointless accusation to level. What they write is either valid, or it isn't. People who target the poster instead of the content of their posts are just flagging themselves as unable to engage in adult conversation.


Cobblers.

There are many posters on Dakka who will readily seize on *literally anything* GW does, then piss and whine about it.

My favourite are those who at least claim to have not bought anything for X years, yet still somehow feel their opinion carries any weight.



What part of what Yuki is saying here is wrong? Are we reading two different comments, or just interpreting them very differently, because I feel I've either missed something huge in what he's saying, or you're reading something very different into this statement.

It's entirely true that a comment is valid and useful, or it isn't. And that value need not have anything to do with a persons general stance on GW.

Likewise, an argument will stand or fall on it's own merit. If you're attacking a poster based on assumption of a current, or previous bias, regardless of whether or not their comment here and now is sound, you're not engaging in adult debate.

How is that cobblers?

And what makes a persons opinion more valuable because they've made a purchase within a certain time frame? Is my opinion more valuable because the last model I bought cost £140? What if I 3D print my 40K minis so buy none, or simply play with an existing collection? What if I make no GW purchase in the last two years because I buy 3rd party proxies? Why does any of that potentially make my argument less valid?

This seems bizarre to me.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:27:13


Post by: BaronIveagh


 xttz wrote:

And asking for evidence of assertions isn't being a "white knight" or "shill".


The probelm is what happens next, when proof is offered.

An example from earlier in this thread:

Asks for proof

Proof Presented. Outside sources referenced.

'Those sources are all liars! It doesn't say what it says! The Proof is fabricated! You just hate GW!"

I know I'm being reductive, but none of these positions were actually supported, just repeated ad nausium. Tell me, what's reasonable about screaming for the mods to close the thread, because it's all lies and misinformation? Rather than, you know, actually address the issue?

The closest thing to a reasonable argument for this being faked was stolen from the Twitter feed of a youtuber who's sponsored by GW.

Let's not pretend that what went on here was something it wasn't to put a better face on it. I've already seen this routine even when solid proof of GW attacking it's own fanbase was not only on offer, but in the open.

I'm waiting for one of them to claim that Games Workshop really won the 2020 election and playing Bolt Action will alter your RNA and make you a lizardman.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:40:42


Post by: BrianDavion


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
On a fundamental level, it doesn't matter whether someone hates GW (or loves GW, for that matter); it's a pointless accusation to level. What they write is either valid, or it isn't. People who target the poster instead of the content of their posts are just flagging themselves as unable to engage in adult conversation.


Cobblers.

There are many posters on Dakka who will readily seize on *literally anything* GW does, then piss and whine about it.

My favourite are those who at least claim to have not bought anything for X years, yet still somehow feel their opinion carries any weight.


doubly so when those people openly advocate piracy.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:42:10


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 xttz wrote:

And asking for evidence of assertions isn't being a "white knight" or "shill".


The probelm is what happens next, when proof is offered.

An example from earlier in this thread:

Asks for proof

Proof Presented. Outside sources referenced.

'Those sources are all liars! It doesn't say what it says! The Proof is fabricated! You just hate GW!"

I know I'm being reductive, but none of these positions were actually supported, just repeated ad nausium. Tell me, what's reasonable about screaming for the mods to close the thread, because it's all lies and misinformation?

The closest thing to a reasonable argument for this being faked was stolen from the Twitter feed of a youtuber who's sponsored by GW.

Let's not pretend that what went on here was something it wasn't to put a better face on it. I've already seen this routine even when solid proof of GW attacking it's own fanbase was not only on offer, but in the open.

I'm waiting for one of them to claim that Games Workshop really won the 2020 election and playing Bolt Action will alter your RNA and make you a lizardman.


Alrighty, so let's continue with a couple assumptions:

A. This contract is real
B. This contract was sent to small content creators

No need to argue those points, so we can shove aside any hoo-hah about who is lying or not and we can look at a few things and reduce it down a bit from there.

We have a lot of people that say the contract is overbearing and overreaching, and we have a lot of people that think this sort of NDA is typical, normal, or even less restrictive than their own. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that "Yes, this contract is restrictive and overbearing."

So we now agree on three things. It's real, it was sent to small content creators, and it's restrictive and overbearing. I'm willing to concede all of those points.

What does this tell us? What can we extrapolate?

Well, for one, as many people have expressed, GW's kinda dumb when it comes to legal stuff. They don't have a great track record when details of their legal actions meet the community. That's nothing new. Some parts, as some have pointed out, look awfully formatted with errors here and there on top of certain parts looking copy-pasted and other parts reading more like an employment contract rather than a confidentiality agreement. I think we're all generally on the same page on that. None of that inherently means its fake or anything, I'm just saying that I think we can all agree that the contract itself is messy, and it could very well be just an issue of PDF conversion and being a hodge-podge of other things.

Great, so as long as everyone is with me so far, what's the next thing we do from here?

THIS is where I hear crickets, and the issue that I have with this entire debate. If you want, feel free to go e-mail GW about their awful NDA. Send your condolences to the small content creators (which are as of yet unnamed, as far as I can see) and tell them that you feel for them having to deal with this awful, terrible contract.

Then what? Well, I'd tell them to lawyer up or don't sign it.

Cool, so... then what? Well, at this point, everything that could be done is done, and all that we're left with is a lot of petty, pedantic arguments between strangers on the Internet, further dividing an already split community.

Neat.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:49:15


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then THIS THING shows up at your door, giving you the option of either releasing reviews late, or being contractually obligated to GW for a positive review, and, in theory, to ONLY review GW products from there on out, unless you leave the industry entirely for at least three years.
Except we know that's not happening.

WintersSEO gets stuff early, hasn't given positive reviews, and has even said "Don't care, not doing it, these books are bad" to some of the stuff GW has sent him. And he still looks at products sent to him by other companies.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:54:06


Post by: drbored


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then THIS THING shows up at your door, giving you the option of either releasing reviews late, or being contractually obligated to GW for a positive review, and, in theory, to ONLY review GW products from there on out, unless you leave the industry entirely for at least three years.
Except we know that's not happening.

WintersSEO gets stuff early, hasn't given positive reviews, and has even said "Don't care, not doing it, these books are bad" to some of the stuff GW has sent him. And he still looks at products sent to him by other companies.


Many mature, reasonable people wait for games and products to be out, for more people to get their hands on and review things. Content creators that don't have review deals with GW of any kind have done this sort of thing all the time, with many simply taking information that they get from other sources, leaks, and other videos to formulate and post their own opinion. It's a hustle.

So even if the only people that get GW product early HAVE TO put it in a positive light somehow, most fans will just wait for the "real" reviews to come out anyway. This is the biz. This is how it works with video game companies giving people early reviews of their video games or other sponsorship deals.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:54:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


caladancid wrote:
Pointing out bad things in the hope they get better isn't being a troll, it isn't being a black knight, it isn't anything other than attempting to stop what is a clearly bad path.
I'm starting to believe that there really are a bunch of people here who have buried so much of their identity into GW products that the very thought of them doing something wrong chills them to the core, and thus they lash out at anyone suggesting otherwise.

This entire thread is a microcosm, where a good chunk of those arguing that this NDA was fake or whatever did so via a stream of smarmy passive-aggressive (and sometimes outright aggressive) insulting posts.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:57:16


Post by: BaronIveagh


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except we know that's not happening.



Yet. You're assuming that what we have had till now is the same thing that we will have going forward.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:58:43


Post by: drbored


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
caladancid wrote:
Pointing out bad things in the hope they get better isn't being a troll, it isn't being a black knight, it isn't anything other than attempting to stop what is a clearly bad path.
I'm starting to believe that there really are a bunch of people here who have buried so much of their identity into GW products that the very thought of them doing something wrong chills them to the core, and thus they lash out at anyone suggesting otherwise.

This entire thread is a microcosm, where a good chunk of those arguing that this NDA was fake or whatever did so via a stream of smarmy passive-aggressive (and sometimes outright aggressive) insulting posts.


Yes I did, and I don't regret a single smarmy post.

What I am starting to work on is a larger thread on the warhammer community as a whole and the perceived health of it. It's interesting to think about at the very least.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:59:16


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

So even if the only people that get GW product early HAVE TO put it in a positive light somehow, most fans will just wait for the "real" reviews to come out anyway. This is the biz. This is how it works with video game companies giving people early reviews of their video games or other sponsorship deals.


Tell me, DrBored, what companies games sell out all available copies in the first 15 min that they're available for preorder? For someone who claims to be working on a thread on the health of the Warhammer Community, you don't seem very familiar with it.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 01:59:37


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except we know that's not happening.



Yet. You're assuming that what we have had till now is the same thing that we will have going forward.


And what's your great fear out of all of this? Let's say this new NDA is standard. What is your concern going forward?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:

So even if the only people that get GW product early HAVE TO put it in a positive light somehow, most fans will just wait for the "real" reviews to come out anyway. This is the biz. This is how it works with video game companies giving people early reviews of their video games or other sponsorship deals.


Tell me, DrBored, what companies games sell out all available copies in the first 15 min that they're available for preorder?


Pokemon cards. Anime figures. Gundams sometimes.

As for the health of the community, the point of the post would be to explore that and learn from it. I'm willing to admit that I don't know a lot about a lot.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 02:07:27


Post by: StrayIight


drbored wrote:


Cool, so... then what? Well, at this point, everything that could be done is done, and all that we're left with is a lot of petty, pedantic arguments between strangers on the Internet, further dividing an already split community.

Neat.


This could sum up so many threads and discussions in this community. You're absolutely right. There is a tendency to completely forget that almost everyone here is a 40K player. People who engage in, and enjoy, the same hobby. We're all members of the same community.

When was a part of the 40K hobby, arguing about any and all aspects of that hobby, largely for the sake of it, on a forum? Has that ever achieved anything? Is there an award of ITC points in secret for thread 'winner' that I've missed (maybe I need to argue harder and 'win' a thread to find out).

The fact is, and this is a fact, GW have acted based on requests/comments/pressure from the player base before. We could probably see some of the problems in the hobby that people largely agree on, changed, if we were willing to pull in the same direction once in a while. And the energy expended likely wouldn't be a lot different to that used up in fruitless argument.

Some of the issue is (I believe) pride. It can sting when you realise you were wrong, and sometimes we'll fight in an incredibly bloody-minded manner to be perceived as right. But I think you can also learn to enjoy it, even revel in it. It's hard to learn anything by constantly being right, I learn and I grow by being wrong and realising it.

I can't say whether that NDA is real or not. I can't. But there is this: I think Baron was right when he mentioned Occams razor to me earlier. There are more assumptions involved in holding the position that this is a fake. If it's fabricated, or a mistake or whatever - none of this really matters anyway. If this really is being sent out by GW - as you say, then what?



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 02:07:58


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:

And what's your great fear out of all of this? Let's say this new NDA is standard. What is your concern going forward?


That emboldened by this, GW will revert to the bad old days, in a steady stream of ever more anti consumer practices until they strangle the hobby and switch to an all multimedia company.


drbored wrote:

Pokemon cards. Anime figures. Gundams sometimes.


Wrong. (WotC will usually have a second print run of a Pokemon set that completely sells out in the first 15 min, if such a thing happens, which I've never heard of it happening) and neither of the next two are games.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 02:11:39


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:

And what's your great fear out of all of this? Let's say this new NDA is standard. What is your concern going forward?


That emboldened by this, GW will revert to the bad old days, in a steady stream of ever more anti consumer practices until they strangle the hobby and switch to an all multimedia company.


drbored wrote:

Pokemon cards. Anime figures. Gundams sometimes.


Wrong. and neither of the next two are games.


Ok fair, the other two aren't games, but yes, Pokemon Cards absolutely sell out in hypershort periods of time, especially earlier on in the pandemic when certain sets had very rare and very popular Pokemon featured on cards. A friend is a super-fan of Umbreon and pokemon cards, so I've learned a thing or two from him and his struggles over the past year, but I can see you're more interested in rubbing my face in the dirt than engaging, so ok.

And if GW does that, well, I guess we'll have to deal with that when it happens, won't we? I'm sure many parts of the community, Dakkadakka, r/sigmarxism, and others will be up in arms the entire way through it all. As it stands, you didn't address my previous questions of "what are we supposed to do, beyond the obvious angry letters and not participating in GW's NDAs?"

For someone who apparently knows much more about the Warhammer community than I do, I figured you'd have some valuable insight on actions we could take to help steer GW back onto a track that's more community-friendly and community-first. So far, all you seem to want to do is kick people's shins and try to get people to agree that GW IS BAD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 StrayIight wrote:
drbored wrote:


Cool, so... then what? Well, at this point, everything that could be done is done, and all that we're left with is a lot of petty, pedantic arguments between strangers on the Internet, further dividing an already split community.

Neat.


This could sum up so many threads and discussions in this community. You're absolutely right. There is a tendency to completely forget that almost everyone here is a 40K player. People who engage in, and enjoy, the same hobby. We're all members of the same community.

When was a part of the 40K hobby, arguing about any and all aspects of that hobby, largely for the sake of it, on a forum? Has that ever achieved anything? Is there an award of ITC points in secret for thread 'winner' that I've missed (maybe I need to argue harder and 'win' a thread to find out).

The fact is, and this is a fact, GW have acted based on requests/comments/pressure from the player base before. We could probably see some of the problems in the hobby that people largely agree on, changed, if we were willing to pull in the same direction once in a while. And the energy expended likely wouldn't be a lot different to that used up in fruitless argument.

Some of the issue is (I believe) pride. It can sting when you realise you were wrong, and sometimes we'll fight in an incredibly bloody-minded manner to be perceived as right. But I think you can also learn to enjoy it, even revel in it. It's hard to learn anything by constantly being right, I learn and I grow by being wrong and realising it.

I can't say whether that NDA is real or not. I can't. But there is this: I think Baron was right when he mentioned Occams razor to me earlier. There are more assumptions involved in holding the position that this is a fake. If it's fabricated, or a mistake or whatever - none of this really matters anyway. If this really is being sent out by GW - as you say, then what?



Agree 100%. Which is why I was happy to relinquish the argument about it being fake and return to the basics of the debate. Admitting when you're wrong, or conceding ground in an argument, is absolutely the most refreshing thing a person can do, right up there with apologizing. Both of these things, few people see a need to do on the internet, since they can hide behind anonymity, but people remember usernames, and they remember trends.

If what we need to do is all send angry letters to GW, I'm all on board, but there's still a lot we don't know about the circumstances of the NDA contract. Is it the only contract? Who exactly did it go to and what were the circumstances? What are those people signing up to actually do for GW? Will GW be replacing older contracts with these new ones when the older ones expire? We just don't know.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 02:29:18


Post by: BaronIveagh


drbored wrote:
[
For someone who apparently knows much more about the Warhammer community than I do, I figured you'd have some valuable insight on actions we could take to help steer GW back onto a track that's more community-friendly and community-first. So far, all you seem to want to do is kick people's shins and try to get people to agree that GW IS BAD.


I actually didn't see your previous post.

Last time, to achieve this end, we simply stopped buying their products and FFG passed them in sales. However, with the current crop of GW fans, they all act so brainwashed that frankly, I'm tempted to tie them up and subject them to deprogramming. All I can do without breaking the law is force people to acknowledge that gak is fethed, and we need to do something about it, before we can ever hope to actually do something about it.

The first step to solving any problem is to admit that the problem exists. Until that happens, not only will it not get fixed, but these guys will fight to make sure that the problem remains unfixed.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 02:35:41


Post by: drbored


 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:
[
For someone who apparently knows much more about the Warhammer community than I do, I figured you'd have some valuable insight on actions we could take to help steer GW back onto a track that's more community-friendly and community-first. So far, all you seem to want to do is kick people's shins and try to get people to agree that GW IS BAD.


I actually didn't see your previous post.

Last time, to achieve this end, we simply stopped buying their products and FFG passed them in sales. However, with the current crop of GW fans, they all act so brainwashed that frankly, I'm tempted to tie them up and subject them to deprogramming. All I can do without breaking the law is force people to acknowledge that gak is fethed, and we need to do something about it, before we can ever hope to actually do something about it.


To me, this is part of the larger issue, this sort of mentality. It's no news that GW has been focused on drawing in, or even 'recruiting' new hobbyists over catering to older hobbyists, and the reason that they would as a business is obvious. If they cater to the 'old guard', they must bend to their will, whereas if they recruit new players, they can pull the wool over their eyes with greater ease.

The other side of this, however, is that a growing business or fandom is just going to be more diverse by nature. I've seen just as many new players dip their toe in and turn on GW, mimicking the ways of the 'old guard'. There's also the factor that many hobbyists, new OR old, sometimes just don't give a crap about what GW does on the business side of things. Content creators getting a raw deal? Tough, that's their business.

Saying one is necessarily right or wrong isn't really the way to go. What I can say is pretending like your way is the only way and that everyone else needs to be "un-brainwashed" (or, in other terms, brainwashed in your preferred way), is... well, not gunna get you any sort of cohesive group. People have different opinions, and the idea that a person must either be a bootlicker GW fanboy or a grognard neckbeard of the old ways is a trend that I'd love to see die off.

As said before, we're all here to enjoy the hobby, right? Why are we letting other people dictate how we're supposed to have fun with our toys?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 03:09:26


Post by: BrianDavion


I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 03:23:01


Post by: drbored


BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 03:52:17


Post by: CMLR


Can I have an actual lawyer, specialized on this area, on this forum to actually explain to explain us in common language what does this actually mean?

I'm not a legal man (wait what?) so I'll reserve myself from looking stupid on the internet.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 06:00:07


Post by: ImAGeek


 BaronIveagh wrote:
drbored wrote:

And what's your great fear out of all of this? Let's say this new NDA is standard. What is your concern going forward?


That emboldened by this, GW will revert to the bad old days, in a steady stream of ever more anti consumer practices until they strangle the hobby and switch to an all multimedia company.


drbored wrote:

Pokemon cards. Anime figures. Gundams sometimes.


Wrong. (WotC will usually have a second print run of a Pokemon set that completely sells out in the first 15 min, if such a thing happens, which I've never heard of it happening) and neither of the next two are games.


Wizards of the Coast haven’t published the Pokemon TCG since like 2003, fwiw. Pokémon card products routinely sell out. They might do another print run, but so does GW sometimes. Scalpers are as big a thing for poke cards (well probably bigger, just due to how big Pokemon is) as they are for Warhammer.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 07:09:32


Post by: endlesswaltz123


I work for a further education college in the UK. Whilst the language is not exactly the same, it is fairly similar to the NDA and non compete section of the contracts I have had to sign before.

It seems mostly standard legal lingo. Of course context is everything, and some of the wordings look a bit more restrictive than you'd expect, but many NDA's seem to be worded like that.

On another note, how big do you think the legal team at GW actually is, and how much time do they have just to survey the people who have signed NDA's for them.

I don't have my nose firmly placed within the backside of GW, but being pragmatic about it.... It doesn't seem all that bad from GW and it doesn't seem feasible that they could enforce every breach without being alerted to it.

For the GW conspiracy nuts out there, maybe actually don't speak about it as much, and talk about explicit examples of potential breaches on public forums, as you are just doing the legal teams jobs for them.

The community is so toxic at the moment, and honestly, other events and breaches of peoples rights in the world could do with your attention so much more if you must get fired up about something.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 07:43:21


Post by: kodos


As I said before, the only wired thing is the timeframe, wich is not standard and very long for content creators in general.
3 years would be ok (still not normal but with an Edition cycle of 3 years understandable) for in house designers

And from what we heard, GW legal department is larger than their proofreading department

And people waiting for "real" reviews before they buy, well with products aiming to sell out on pre-order no real chance to wait for a real review before you buy


Very likely GW just copying different stuff together to have a new Influencer NDA without checking what is needed or the standard is
(Same as they do with rules)


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 07:49:14


Post by: Grimtuff


 StrayIight wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:


Doubtful.

Here is the original thread he posted to Reddit. Either someone has told multiple small to medium channels and all of them have been duped, or Occam's razor says it's real.

There are multiple YouTubers in that thread like Goobertown and Midwinter Minis corroborating the info. I'm leaning towards legit.


Hmm. I think stating MM is 'corroborating' the info is rather misleading. He states quite clearly: 'Fortunately, the document I signed was not as insidious as this.'

That seems more like the opposite of corroboration. He says the NDA he was under was not this one.


Apologies, should have provided more context there (plus what happens when you link a thread when all other people have said context of that comment...). MWM terminated his NDA approx a year ago. So, the context of that quote is "Fortunately, the document I signed (several years ago) was not as insidious as this (presumably new copy they are asking several YouTubers to sign)."


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 07:55:54


Post by: BrianDavion


 kodos wrote:


And people waiting for "real" reviews before they buy, well with products aiming to sell out on pre-order no real chance to wait for a real review before you buy



you mention selling out but where do codices sell out? those tend to be what online reviews focus on


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 08:22:30


Post by: kodos


an army book of a popular faction selling out is not unusual, and without the possibility of buying a non-printed version this is a problem now (last edition it was different, printed book sold out, just by the digital version, but this option does not exist any more)


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 09:04:43


Post by: BrianDavion


 kodos wrote:
an army book of a popular faction selling out is not unusual, and without the possibility of buying a non-printed version this is a problem now (last edition it was different, printed book sold out, just by the digital version, but this option does not exist any more)


yeah the lack of a digtal option is annoying. I was just thinking of that myself given this months white dwarf has been delayed in north America


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 09:28:24


Post by: AngryAngel80


BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


I'd say I agree with that but then it is equally bad for someone to not support everything GW does and be called a frothy salty super hater who just wants to scream and reeeee about all GW but doesn't have the right to have an opinion unless they spent so many monies buying from them to be allowed an opinion on them...oh and that they have no life, that too. I think both trains of thought are bad and they should be covered in GWs evil NDA. Save me James Workshop !


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 09:30:08


Post by: endlesswaltz123


 kodos wrote:


And from what we heard, GW legal department is larger than their proofreading department



Big enough to survey every single video on youtube, instagram post etc etc etc by those within the community that have signed NDA's with the company as well as mercilessly hunting down every 'breach' of their IP as well? Whilst also, and importantly being financially beneficial to actually do this (i.e. the department saves them more money than it costs).


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 12:09:06


Post by: jojo_monkey_boy


drbored wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


I mean, to be fair, the negatrons are being called basement dwelling neckbeards, so I'm not sure either side is without its name calling.

I will say that I am surprised and impressed whenever anyone on either side of the argument can acknowledge their position being wrong or opening their view point up a bit, rather than just entrenching further.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 12:16:15


Post by: deano2099


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
caladancid wrote:
Pointing out bad things in the hope they get better isn't being a troll, it isn't being a black knight, it isn't anything other than attempting to stop what is a clearly bad path.
I'm starting to believe that there really are a bunch of people here who have buried so much of their identity into GW products that the very thought of them doing something wrong chills them to the core, and thus they lash out at anyone suggesting otherwise.


That's true. What's also important to realise is there are also a bunch of people here who have buried so much of their identity into hating GW that the idea that the idea of them not actually having done the worst thing possible in any scenario is unfathomable.

Is this a real NDA? Probably.
Is it too over-reaching for someone working a supplier or contractor for GW? No.
Is it too over-reaching for someone getting review copies of GW stuff? Yes.
Was it the NDA most reviewers have been under the past year? No, some have confirmed it wasn't, and then there's the fact that people who get GW product have put out negative reviews.
Could it be the NDA GW wants to use for reviewers going forwards? Possibly. That's the unknown at the moment. Thought I would have expected *more* uproar if that were the case from, y'know, actual reviewers. They might be limited in what they could say but we'd have a seen at least a few people saying "I'm leaving GW's reviewer programme as the new terms are too overreaching". But they could have not sent them all out yet.

I think anyone jumping to conclusions on either side is making their conclusion too early.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 12:18:48


Post by: Wha-Mu-077


 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
drbored wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


I mean, to be fair, the negatrons are being called basement dwelling neckbeards, so I'm not sure either side is without its name calling.


You forgot "angry entitled manchildren"


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 13:49:34


Post by: BaronIveagh


BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


The fact that your assumption that criticism equates hating something with a fiery passion is actually a good example of exactly the sort of thought pattern that people who have been heavily indoctrinated actually exhibit, as a defense mechanism when confronted by something that contradicts what they've been conditioned to believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Big enough to survey every single video on youtube, instagram post etc etc etc by those within the community that have signed NDA's with the company as well as mercilessly hunting down every 'breach' of their IP as well? Whilst also, and importantly being financially beneficial to actually do this (i.e. the department saves them more money than it costs).


Well, they are hiring more people, so if they're not now, they soon will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CMLR wrote:
Can I have an actual lawyer, specialized on this area, on this forum to actually explain to explain us in common language what does this actually mean?

I'm not a legal man (wait what?) so I'll reserve myself from looking stupid on the internet.


For exactly this, watch the Video in the original post in this thread.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 14:16:28


Post by: NAVARRO


 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
drbored wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


I mean, to be fair, the negatrons are being called basement dwelling neckbeards, so I'm not sure either side is without its name calling.

I will say that I am surprised and impressed whenever anyone on either side of the argument can acknowledge their position being wrong or opening their view point up a bit, rather than just entrenching further.


The name slinging is something we could do without, its the internet I know, lots of keyboard champs I guess.

But yes theres like a polarised mentality that I dont get! It becomes hard to discuss anything on a NORMAL level with this type of arguments( I dont even think its an argument its just internet trash talk).

I also find really bizarre a certain crowd asking for this topic to be closed, not debate this, theres nothing to talk about here... on a debate forum... Its even more ridiculous when they are the ones bumping the thread with that sort of post.

Until people realise that GW doesn't need defending crusaders and GW doesn't need the Spanish inquisition then no one will move an inch. Its tabletop game for god sake!
The real victims here are people that just want to debate a subject for what the subject actually is.

I particularly dont like legal debates but well GW opened that back door again.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 14:29:16


Post by: Dudeface


 NAVARRO wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
drbored wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


I mean, to be fair, the negatrons are being called basement dwelling neckbeards, so I'm not sure either side is without its name calling.

I will say that I am surprised and impressed whenever anyone on either side of the argument can acknowledge their position being wrong or opening their view point up a bit, rather than just entrenching further.


The name slinging is something we could do without, its the internet I know, lots of keyboard champs I guess.

But yes theres like a polarised mentality that I dont get! It becomes hard to discuss anything on a NORMAL level with this type of arguments( I dont even think its an argument its just internet trash talk).

I also find really bizarre a certain crowd asking for this topic to be closed, not debate this, theres nothing to talk about here... on a debate forum... Its even more ridiculous when they are the ones bumping the thread with that sort of post.

Until people realise that GW doesn't need defending crusaders and GW doesn't need the Spanish inquisition then no one will move an inch. Its tabletop game for god sake!
The real victims here are people that just want to debate a subject for what the subject actually is.

I particularly dont like legal debates but well GW opened that back door again.


I think the reason people maybe want this closed is that this is a forum for discussing tabletop wargames and miniatures, not legal nitpicking of NDAs. Pages of armchair lawyers and random personal agendas don't really have much content in terms of news nor rumours about wargames.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 14:56:40


Post by: NAVARRO


Dudeface wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:
 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
drbored wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I think suggesting anyone who doesn't hate GW with a firey passion....... well giving them money, is brainwashed is pretty insulting.


As is being called a bootlicker, fanboy, and all the other dismissive ways that GW haters sling just because someone isn't upset about something. This is where we are.


I mean, to be fair, the negatrons are being called basement dwelling neckbeards, so I'm not sure either side is without its name calling.

I will say that I am surprised and impressed whenever anyone on either side of the argument can acknowledge their position being wrong or opening their view point up a bit, rather than just entrenching further.


The name slinging is something we could do without, its the internet I know, lots of keyboard champs I guess.

But yes theres like a polarised mentality that I dont get! It becomes hard to discuss anything on a NORMAL level with this type of arguments( I dont even think its an argument its just internet trash talk).

I also find really bizarre a certain crowd asking for this topic to be closed, not debate this, theres nothing to talk about here... on a debate forum... Its even more ridiculous when they are the ones bumping the thread with that sort of post.

Until people realise that GW doesn't need defending crusaders and GW doesn't need the Spanish inquisition then no one will move an inch. Its tabletop game for god sake!
The real victims here are people that just want to debate a subject for what the subject actually is.

I particularly dont like legal debates but well GW opened that back door again.


I think the reason people maybe want this closed is that this is a forum for discussing tabletop wargames and miniatures, not legal nitpicking of NDAs. Pages of armchair lawyers and random personal agendas don't really have much content in terms of news nor rumours about wargames.



Maybe, but that is the salt of life the diversity, different interests.
Like many I may not like these legal topics, but plenty seem to enjoy the debate of the legal implications on to competitors, reviewers etc... its still in the scope of news IMHO. Again debatable.
I avoid, on a public forum with thousands of topics about subjects that I like, to snipe and bump the topics that I dont like and ask for them to be closed down.

Whatever Dakka admins and mods do I will be ok with that, Im not forced to read and participate on all topics and even when GW had a strong influence on the public forums censorship I managed to linger.
I think this time around the internet is very different from say 10 years ago so we are going to see an all new avalanche of these topics. Everywhere not just here.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 15:19:15


Post by: kodos


so never any discussion about the companies behind those games and miniatures?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 15:44:17


Post by: Dudeface


 kodos wrote:
so never any discussion about the companies behind those games and miniatures?


There can be, but is it news or rumours at this point? It's more of point of interest for anyone wanting to debate it rather than N/R.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 16:16:43


Post by: BaronIveagh


Dudeface wrote:

There can be, but is it news or rumours at this point? It's more of point of interest for anyone wanting to debate it rather than N/R.


Well, considering the leak was only 4 hours old when the thread started, all of two days ago, I'd say it would still qualify as 'news' even if you don't find it particularly shocking.

And was a much, much newer when the first person demanded the thread be closed.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 17:25:43


Post by: yukishiro1


Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:25:11


Post by: puree


However, with the current crop of GW fans, they all act so brainwashed that frankly


Wow - seriously?


You hate GW, and you seem incapable of comprehending that many people just are not interested in your view point, that others just see it as a product/hobby. Rather than accept that fact you have to find a way to soothe your mind and come up with some explanation as to how others don't share your view point in a way that doesn't result in you having to accept that you may be wrong or just irrelevant. Your solution is to demonise them, create a pedestal that you can stand on and anyone who doesn't agree is somehow unworthy of being included in such discussions.


Get a grip. People have hobbies, they just want to buy models and play games etc and don't give a crap about all the hysterics and politics.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:32:03


Post by: Dudeface


yukishiro1 wrote:
Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?


If their toilet roll order patterns were "leaked" would thst be news and rumours? This is an NDA for content creators, unless you're a content creator entering an NDA with GW this literally is neither news nor a rumour as it has 0 relevance.

Edit: to clarify further, what is the news here? That they send out NDAs? We knew that. What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:44:50


Post by: kodos


if you are not interested in that kind of News and Rumors, just don't read them


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:46:14


Post by: Wha-Mu-077


puree wrote:
However, with the current crop of GW fans, they all act so brainwashed that frankly


Wow - seriously?


You hate GW, and you seem incapable of comprehending that many people just are not interested in your view point, that others just see it as a product/hobby. Rather than accept that fact you have to find a way to soothe your mind and come up with some explanation as to how others don't share your view point in a way that doesn't result in you having to accept that you may be wrong or just irrelevant. Your solution is to demonise them, create a pedestal that you can stand on and anyone who doesn't agree is somehow unworthy of being included in such discussions.


Get a grip. People have hobbies, they just want to buy models and play games etc and don't give a crap about all the hysterics and politics.


You literally proved his point


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:48:23


Post by: yukishiro1


Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?


If their toilet roll order patterns were "leaked" would thst be news and rumours? This is an NDA for content creators, unless you're a content creator entering an NDA with GW this literally is neither news nor a rumour as it has 0 relevance.

Edit: to clarify further, what is the news here? That they send out NDAs? We knew that. What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


Who appointed you Czar of Relevancy? Obviously a lot of people disagree with you, given the response the thread has had. If you aren't interested in talking about NDAs, just don't join the conversation? Why do you feel the need to try to shut down anyone else talking about it because "it doesn't impact the vast majority" in your view? Even if that was true...so what? Do things that don't impact the majority not merit discussion?



GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 19:49:02


Post by: StrayIight


Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?


If their toilet roll order patterns were "leaked" would thst be news and rumours? This is an NDA for content creators, unless you're a content creator entering an NDA with GW this literally is neither news nor a rumour as it has 0 relevance.

Edit: to clarify further, what is the news here? That they send out NDAs? We knew that. What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


I think that's rather short-sighted. This has been on all the usual 40k news sites for a reason. If you're defining 'news and rumours' more narrowly than items that are related to the hobby, and will be of interest to some members of it's community, then I guess it's not news.

But look. Is this where we're going now? Rather than ignore the thread because the subject under discussion is not of interest, or otherwise irritating to us, we'll try to attack the topic and derail the thread by attempting to define it as not newsworthy?

Why not simply not engage with the subject if you don't feel it's relevant? Else what you're in danger of doing is suppressing discussion that others do find worthwhile. I don't think any of us get to be the arbiters of what is and isn't of interest to the community. Clearly, there are plenty of people here who do think this is worth talking about.

What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


Yes, I think it does. I want to know how a company I'm supporting financially is doing business. Now, that won't matter to everyone, but it does to me, and I won't be alone in that. I don't know what will come of this situation, I'm undecided as yet how I feel about the specifics of it and would like more clarity. But a social conscience has informed my purchasing decisions before, and I'd definitely like to know if it is the case that GW are dealing with individuals within the community unfairly.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:00:50


Post by: Dudeface


 StrayIight wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?


If their toilet roll order patterns were "leaked" would thst be news and rumours? This is an NDA for content creators, unless you're a content creator entering an NDA with GW this literally is neither news nor a rumour as it has 0 relevance.

Edit: to clarify further, what is the news here? That they send out NDAs? We knew that. What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


I think that's rather short-sighted. This has been on all the usual 40k news sites for a reason. If you're defining 'news and rumours' more narrowly than items that are related to the hobby, and will be of interest to some members of it's community, then I guess it's not news.

But look. Is there where we're going now? Rather than ignore the thread because the subject under discussion is not of interest, or otherwise irritating to us, we'll try attack the topic and derail the thread by attempting to define it as not newsworthy?

Why not simply not engage with the subject if you don't feel it's relevant? Else what you're in danger of doing is suppressing discussion that others do find worthwhile. I don't think any of us get to be the arbiters of what is and isn't of interest to the community. Clearly, there are plenty of people here who do think this is worth talking about.

What is the rumour? The contents of the NDA? Does this matter overly given it doesn't impact the vast majority?


Yes, I think it does. I want to know how a company I'm supporting financially is doing business. Now, that won't matter to everyone, but it does to me, and I won't be alone in that. I don't know what will come of this situation, I'm undecided as yet how I feel about the specifics of it and would like more clarity. But a social conscience has informed my purchasing decisions before, and I'd definitely like to know if it is the case that GW are dealing with individuals within the community unfairly.


I'm not a mod, I don't decide what should or should not be discussed, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in this subforum in my opinion.

I asked those questions to gleam more information on what people consider worthwhile whilst also explaining why some people consider this a none-topic.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:10:26


Post by: Azreal13


This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:11:33


Post by: BrianDavion


 Azreal13 wrote:
This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


still not sure how this NDA will impact the community TBH


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:12:16


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
puree wrote:
However, with the current crop of GW fans, they all act so brainwashed that frankly


Wow - seriously?


You hate GW, and you seem incapable of comprehending that many people just are not interested in your view point, that others just see it as a product/hobby. Rather than accept that fact you have to find a way to soothe your mind and come up with some explanation as to how others don't share your view point in a way that doesn't result in you having to accept that you may be wrong or just irrelevant. Your solution is to demonise them, create a pedestal that you can stand on and anyone who doesn't agree is somehow unworthy of being included in such discussions.


Get a grip. People have hobbies, they just want to buy models and play games etc and don't give a crap about all the hysterics and politics.


You literally proved his point
In what way?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:13:30


Post by: Dudeface


BrianDavion wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


still not sure how this NDA will impact the community TBH


Straylight mentioned a moral compass on purchases based upon GWs actions towards others, that's about it. Anything else has been broad conjecture about what big bad GW will do next.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:14:17


Post by: Albertorius


Dudeface wrote:
I'm not a mod, I don't decide what should or should not be discussed, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in this subforum in my opinion.

I asked those questions to gleam more information on what people consider worthwhile whilst also explaining why some people consider this a none-topic.

Question would be, why do you feel that you must not just ignore the thread and go on with your day, if you don't think it's relevant?

I do usually do that, and it works great for me. Plus, no need to outmod the mods.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:16:54


Post by: Azreal13


BrianDavion wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


still not sure how this NDA will impact the community TBH


If the "say nothing negative" clause is as argued, then it's going to severely impact the content creators ability to provide objective feedback to customers in a time frame where those same customers might be able to purchase items that often sell out quickly.

It's a riff on the often used day 1 embargo studios use on reviews of video games when they know they suck.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:17:52


Post by: NAVARRO


Dudeface wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


still not sure how this NDA will impact the community TBH


Straylight mentioned a moral compass on purchases based upon GWs actions towards others, that's about it. Anything else has been broad conjecture about what big bad GW will do next.


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:22:29


Post by: Kanluwen


 NAVARRO wrote:


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.

Or they can just y'know...not sign it and then buy the product themselves to review it?

If you're so concerned about "biased reviews", why was it never such a big deal that they got free stuff to begin with?


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:23:42


Post by: Azreal13


Time means money. What's the point reviewing something that's already sold out in pre order? Nobody is going to watch or read a review of something they've already bought or can't buy.

That's assuming they can buy a copy of some of the stuff released.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:24:34


Post by: Dudeface


 Albertorius wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
I'm not a mod, I don't decide what should or should not be discussed, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in this subforum in my opinion.

I asked those questions to gleam more information on what people consider worthwhile whilst also explaining why some people consider this a none-topic.

Question would be, why do you feel that you must not just ignore the thread and go on with your day, if you don't think it's relevant?

I do usually do that, and it works great for me. Plus, no need to outmod the mods.


People asked why some thought the thread required being asked to be closed, I provided an interpretation.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:24:41


Post by: Azreal13


Spoons.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:25:23


Post by: Kanluwen


 Azreal13 wrote:
Time means money. What's the point reviewing something that's already sold out in pre order? Nobody is going to watch or read a review of something they've already bought or can't buy.

By the same argument, nobody's going to watch or read a review from someone if they constantly give it a glowingly positive or absurdly negative review.

Hatewatching is a thing, certainly--but I don't think people genuinely go to channels or outlets they dislike for opinions.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:25:29


Post by: Dudeface


 Kanluwen wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.

Or they can just y'know...not sign it and then buy the product themselves to review it?

If you're so concerned about "biased reviews", why was it never such a big deal that they got free stuff to begin with?


Because now you'll never know whether they are in GWs pocket if they don't immediately slam the product.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:27:45


Post by: Azreal13


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Time means money. What's the point reviewing something that's already sold out in pre order? Nobody is going to watch or read a review of something they've already bought or can't buy.

By the same argument, nobody's going to watch or read a review from someone if they constantly give it a glowingly positive or absurdly negative review.

Hatewatching is a thing, certainly--but I don't think people genuinely go to channels or outlets they dislike for opinions.


So we end up where the only people able to give reviews before the pre order window closes are all giving positive reviews, everybody knows these are reviews are worthless, doesn't watch them, those channels close or change, and everybody is just as ill informed.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:27:59


Post by: StrayIight


Dudeface wrote:


Straylight mentioned a moral compass on purchases based upon GWs actions towards others, that's about it. Anything else has been broad conjecture about what big bad GW will do next.


For me, that's likely the most important aspect.

I think we can successfully argue a little further than that though.

Assuming this NDA is legit, and is being sent out to content creators for a moment. Also assuming that the opinions expressed in the video posted earlier by the lawyer who looked at it are sound. (I think these are probably fairly reasonable assumptions at this stage, and there's little discussion to be had should we discard them both anyway).

We find ourselves with a situation that is absolutely linked to the recent behaviour surrounding WH+, community content being removed from YouTube and similar locations (note I'm not stating an opinion on this, it's another can of worms entirely with strong feelings again on both sides - just that it's a situation that's very much tied up with this one). We've confirmation that this was not the NDA that was previously handed out to content creators (Midwinter Minis and others stated as much), which would seem to indicate a change of approach from GW.

The NDA, according to the legal practitioner that commented on it, implies that you shouldn't be negative about any content that GW send you to look at. This too, is surely of interest to us, because we're immediately made aware that any individual provided with pre-release material to review or feature, can't be impartial about it.

The content they create is for us in the community as an audience. The terms of this NDA affect how useful and/or relevant such content is to us, and it appears to do so fairly directly.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:34:01


Post by: Dudeface


 StrayIight wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


Straylight mentioned a moral compass on purchases based upon GWs actions towards others, that's about it. Anything else has been broad conjecture about what big bad GW will do next.


For me, that's likely the most important aspect.

I think we can successfully argue a little further than that though.

Assuming this NDA is legit, and is being sent out to content creators for a moment. Also assuming that the opinions expressed in the video posted earlier by the lawyer who looked at it are sound. (I think these are probably fairly reasonable assumptions at this stage, and there's little discussion to be had should we discard them both anyway).

We find ourselves with a situation that is absolutely linked to the recent behaviour surrounding WH+, community content being removed from YouTube and similar locations (note I'm not stating an opinion on this, it's another can of worms entirely with strong feelings again on both sides - just that it's a situation that's very much tied up with this one). We've confirmation that this was not the NDA that was previously handed out to content creators (Midwinter Minis and others stated as much), which would seem to indicate a change of approach from GW.

The NDA, according to the legal practitioner that commented on it, implies that you shouldn't be negative about any content that GW send you to look at. This too, is surely of interest to us, because we're immediately made aware that any individual provided with pre-release material to review or feature, can't be impartial about it.

The content they create is for us in the community as an audience. The terms of this NDA affect how useful and/or relevant such content is to us, and it appears to do so fairly directly.


Or said content creators can retain their credibility and just not sign it?

In the event people automatically discount pre-release reviews, because they're assumed to be biased, the only reviews people deem credible are those after the fact. Hence just simply don't sign them. There is no impact to the community beyond whether you buy into the opinions of someone on an NDA or not.

The NDA is vague enough you could opt to interpret it as "don't say anything bad" but in reality it would be really hard to justify litigation against someone giving a balanced opinion. If their content is "this book is crap, stupid GW, go buy bolt action", then yes the NDA is bad for them.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:35:48


Post by: BrianDavion


Dudeface wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.

Or they can just y'know...not sign it and then buy the product themselves to review it?

If you're so concerned about "biased reviews", why was it never such a big deal that they got free stuff to begin with?


Because now you'll never know whether they are in GWs pocket if they don't immediately slam the product.


I mean in fairness you're going to buy a new space marine codex if you play the army one way or another. really if we get useless reviews this'll mostly mean maybe people who chase the meta dragon won't know in advance if an army's good or not.

cause let's face it, thats what ALL these reviews amount to "ohh look at the new codex, here's some powerful units, boy it looks mighty awesome!"
I just don't see this really having much practical impact. the closest thing is we might not see the odd video of a reviewer complaining about say a new campaign book like we say with the charadon stuff which we did see, but we hardly need youtube reviewers to tell us it's kind of irriating to have to buy a campaign book for an army less then a month old


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:37:06


Post by: Dudeface


BrianDavion wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.

Or they can just y'know...not sign it and then buy the product themselves to review it?

If you're so concerned about "biased reviews", why was it never such a big deal that they got free stuff to begin with?


Because now you'll never know whether they are in GWs pocket if they don't immediately slam the product.


I mean in fairness you're going to buy a new space marine codex if you play the army one way or another. really if we get useless reviews this'll mostly mean maybe people who chase the meta dragon won't know in advance if an army's good or not.

cause let's face it, thats what ALL these reviews amount to "ohh look at the new codex, here's some powerful units, boy it looks mighty awesome!"
I just don't see this really having much practical impact.


No I agree entirely, as per usual it's a lot of fuss and stink over the mundane imo.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:46:44


Post by: Albertorius


Dudeface wrote:
 Albertorius wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
I'm not a mod, I don't decide what should or should not be discussed, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in this subforum in my opinion.

I asked those questions to gleam more information on what people consider worthwhile whilst also explaining why some people consider this a none-topic.

Question would be, why do you feel that you must not just ignore the thread and go on with your day, if you don't think it's relevant?

I do usually do that, and it works great for me. Plus, no need to outmod the mods.


People asked why some thought the thread required being asked to be closed, I provided an interpretation.

Yes, but why read it in the first place, if it doesn't interest you? And even after that, going all the way to not only posting but requesting the thread to ble closed seems... like you'd be better off just not reading it in the first place.


GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:50:01


Post by: NAVARRO


Dudeface wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 NAVARRO wrote:


It will potentially impact content creators freedom to give bad reviews and by consequence the people that follow these reviews will have mostly partial biased reviews as opposed impartial ones.
Its a bit annoying.

Or they can just y'know...not sign it and then buy the product themselves to review it?

If you're so concerned about "biased reviews", why was it never such a big deal that they got free stuff to begin with?


Because now you'll never know whether they are in GWs pocket if they don't immediately slam the product.


Kanlumen... missed context, so here it goes.
Not sure where you got it that im worried about it, in fact I have expressed on this forum several times if reviewers, content creators, YouTube channels based on GW IP etc moved away and totally dropped any kind of bridge they have with GW, as a plus to the industry.
So actually if the NDA makes creators move away by not signing in, even better.

Why was never a big deal they got free stuff? Man Im not invested at all in none of that... I dropped GW Official channels and advertisements as easy as I drop both "fanboys & haters" kind of content creators... Im here for the minis not the company or the internet celebrities agendas or dealings.

Someone missed how this would affect community... I replied the implications of restraining bad reviews for the people that follow those reviews... simples.
Theres probably more reasons... here's one. This topic and the ripple effect that this leak has also had online will just generate bad blood overall.
Both do not affect me.

But for someone bored to death about the legal topics im contributing too much already.




GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:50:14


Post by: Mentlegen324


 Azreal13 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
This is an online community formed to discuss wargames.

This is a topic about the most significant corporation in the wargaming sector and their behaviour and how it may impact that same community.

If you feel it doesn't belong, I have a feeling you'll have a hard time convincing many people, but that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, you needn't participate.

That calls were made to shut it down is a disconcerting slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good.


still not sure how this NDA will impact the community TBH


If the "say nothing negative" clause is as argued, then it's going to severely impact the content creators ability to provide objective feedback to customers in a time frame where those same customers might be able to purchase items that often sell out quickly.

It's a riff on the often used day 1 embargo studios use on reviews of video games when they know they suck.


This sort of thing keeps getting repeated, but after reading some comments on reddit about that section, no, It isn't a "say nothing negative" clause. It's a defamation clause to protect against reputational damage, not a disparagement clause which is what would stop you saying anything negative at all.




GW NDA Leak @ 2021/09/25 20:50:55


Post by: StrayIight


Dudeface wrote:

No I agree entirely, as per usual it's a lot of fuss and stink over the mundane imo.


You've made that clear, and I have no issue with that opinion, but I'm not sure what you gain by repeating it in different ways in a discussion you don't seem to feel has merit. We completely get where you are coming from.

Surely too, you can see, how a companies attitude toward one part of its community (content creators in this case), provides you with a sense of its likely attitude to the rest?

I think it's dangerous to assume - especially with other events recently taken into consideration - that this is all just happening in a vacuum. That isn't me saying GW are 'evil'. (At least no more than any other company, and far less than many.) But shouldn't we want to be informed about how a company we're spending with is doing business?

We don't owe anything to GW. But their very existence is owed to us as their customers. We should feel able to hold them to account if we don't like what we see from them.