Switch Theme:

GW NDA Leak  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Isn't an unconfirmed report the definition of a rumor? As well as being the definition of news?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

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.
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 19:34:52


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

if you are not interested in that kind of News and Rumors, just don't read them

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Germany

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

"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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?

   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:01:23


 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 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.
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

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.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 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

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





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?


They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




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.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






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.
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

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.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







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.

   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

 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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:23:55


 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:25:30


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 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.
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Spoons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:25:22


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

 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.
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 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.
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

 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.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





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.
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:35:57


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:37:54


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




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.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 20:47:40


 
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







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.



   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 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.


   
Made in gb
Hard-Wired Sentinel Pilot





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.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: