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.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Has Putin bought the company out or something? I eagerly await the hastily constructed defense of this action from the 'usual suspects' here on dakka, step forward ye shining knights of yore and spin this one into gold... I fething dare you.

I'm by no means a fan of GW, but it probably said something like "no recording equipment will be allowed into the venue" on the back of the ticket, bit like every concert ticket ever. Handily, I actually have a concert (not a GD as I don't go any more) ticket handy and it has this "restricted items, including the following are prohibited from being brought into the arena..............all forms of audio/video recording or transmitting devices"

Now, it depends on the security on the day but it is the gamble one takes when turning up to events with this sort of equipment. No big GW IS GOING TO GET YOU evil there.

Probably depends if that is on the games day ticket or not then. Anyone who went got a ticket lying about?

 motyak wrote:


Probably depends if that is on the games day ticket or not then. Anyone who went got a ticket lying about?

Yes. Says as much.

Though it wasn't enforced on any other YouTubers, who in turn may also not qualify as being "professional".

Either way, the basic "right" was with GW.

That doesn't make it the 'right' thing to do, though, and it doesn't take an Einstein to work out that it's massively counter-productive for all concerned.

In fact, working in one of the most tightly regulated/controlled industries in the world, I find all of this self importance (for a leisure activity company) so over the top as to be absolutely hilarious.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 motyak wrote:


Probably depends if that is on the games day ticket or not then. Anyone who went got a ticket lying about?

Yes. Says as much.

Though it wasn't enforced on any other YouTubers, who in turn may also not qualify as being "professional".

Either way, the basic "right" was with GW.

Spoiler:

I've had it shows where they've not let the bigger camera in, so I had to put it into a locker and go back to the venue, then seen people walking around with cameras the same size. I err on the side of caution now as its really down to the security person you get on the day.

Yeah, there is no great conspiracy theory to this, I just think its down to luck.

We waited for hours to make sure it wasn't going to be a hassle.

Unfortunately its down to the discretion of Security Guards, but that is the same at all event's I suppose.

We were just happy to film a report to try and give the vibe on what people were 'missing' out on.

 Pacific wrote:


In fact, working in one of the most tightly regulated/controlled industries in the world,.

GW staff, huh?

Don't like the contract, don't sign it. It seems really simple to me. It's like people think 3rd party sellers have some god-given right to sell GW stuff on their own terms. From what I've read here, they don't actually want to anyway and none of them can stand GW, so I don't really see what the problem is. Stop trading with them, make your money elsewhere, they'll soon learn and relax their terms anyway! It feels worryingly like an exercise in simultaneous cake ownership/consumption to me - you don't like the terms of their trade account contracts, but you're going to trade with them anyway and just bitch about it on the internet? Way to stick it to them!

 Bull0 wrote:
Don't like the contract, don't sign it. It seems really simple to me. It's like people think 3rd party sellers have some god-given right to sell GW stuff on their own terms. From what I've read here, they don't actually want to anyway and none of them can stand GW, so I don't really see what the problem is. Stop trading with them, make your money elsewhere, they'll soon learn and relax their terms anyway! It feels worryingly like an exercise in simultaneous cake ownership/consumption to me - you don't like the terms of their trade account contracts, but you're going to trade with them anyway and just bitch about it on the internet? Way to stick it to them!

That's the thing; BoW never had a contract of any kind with GW. They were partnered with Wayland and that was who GW targeted. BoW formally severed that connection to protect Wayland. If BoW hadn't separated and they then ever got a scoop and published it, GW would blame Wayland and restricted their trade account whether Wayland had anything to do with it or not. This in turn would reportedly cripple Wayland and cost many people their jobs in all likelihood. Since they have no intention of NOT reporting on GW (and I suspect GW's plan was that Wayland would push them into compliance with what GW wanted), they've broken ties and cut off their access to the financial and spacial resources Wayland provided.

So the message GW is sending is your trade account can have no visible contact or support with sites that post leaks about GW. When their current tack fails, who's to say they won't broaden the definition of affiliation to include advertising on those sites? Based on their escalating actions to date I can't say that won't be in next year's trade agreement. The question then becomes "how far is a company willing to go to ensure that customers interested in their products cannot find out anything about new products?"

Yes, I know Wayland had the contract and not BoW. You can't do something because of your contract but you can form a quite formal and promoted partnership with another body who can and do it anyway? I don't really think that's cricket.

 Bull0 wrote:
Yes, I know Wayland had the contract and not BoW. You can't do something because of your contract but you can form a quite formal and promoted partnership with another body who can and do it anyway? I don't really think that's cricket.

More along the lines of "when the partnership was formed there were no such terms"; GW changed them to target such sites this past year probably because they realized they could. Now, you can side with GW that clearly Wayland was funneling leaks to BoW (which BoW says they were not, nor have I seen any retailers who are any better informed than the rumormongers on Dakka and Warseer) or you can say that GW knew they couldn't target BoW directly and changed the terms hoping to torpedo them another way. Doesn't really matter, because while it might not be entirely upright, as you say there's nothing directly illegal about it.

However, since that tactic has clearly failed as BoW is not towing the line, what is the next move in GW's war against consumers knowing what GW is doing? That's the real concern in all of this for me. There's a touch of paranoia in there, but given the lengths GW has already gone to so far I feel it's not entirely unjustified either.

I see the whole thing as motivated by stopping Wayland from using leaks to promote their own preorders and thus cannibalize Games Workshop's preorders. I don't really think it's about going to war with consumers, to be honest, although I can see how that's a side-effect. I'm not taking sides, but I can see why GW are doing what they're doing.

 Bull0 wrote:
I see the whole thing as motivated by stopping Wayland from using leaks to promote their own preorders and thus cannibalize Games Workshop's preorders. I don't really think it's about going to war with consumers, to be honest, although I can see how that's a side-effect. I'm not taking sides, but I can see why GW are doing what they're doing.

Except the leaks provided by BoW that has GW up in arms wouldn't drive sales to Wayland because they come out far too early to be of any benefit to Wayland. The Stormtalon and Dakkajet were leaked in early May (May 3rd, 2012 to be exact), while several weeks would pass before preorders could have gone up since GW didn't acknowledge the existence of them until the WD came out at the end of that month. Price lists would not have gone out, so Wayland would have had to run the risk of putting up pre-orders for something that may or may not have been shipped at a price point that they may or may not have known (and that GW could easily change since there was nothing official out).

This is entirely about message control because GW seems to think they're making something other than toy soldiers and that they need to be draconian with what people see because sales numbers say they should. It's a sign that they view the communication channels most companies embrace with fear and contempt; as something to be controlled with an iron fist instead of leveraged like every other company in most every other industry does. Why they do these things would no doubt make an interesting doctoral thesis for a business or psychology student, but that's what it boils down to at the end of the day.

It's their right to act this way, but the sooner they realize that replacing their marketing department with their legal department was not in their best interest the better it will be for the consumers and themselves.

I am not going to argue right or wrong here, but I think there are a lot of companies out there who don't like their pre-releases being leaked all over the internet. I suppose we could argue about the way in which GW is implementing it but GW have decided their current course and thats up to them to decide. A good example of what I am talking about is the leak of the Sony Ericsson Xperia Z1.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/09/sonys-mobile-teams-anti-leaks-poster-campaign-leaks/

The reason why companies don't like leaks is because its gives their competitors an idea on what direction they are taking and they could lose a market advantage from doing so. For instance the news in regards to the leaked flyers could have influenced other wargame miniature companies to start making flyers of their own. So the development advantage of releasing these models is cut down a bit as it takes less time for competitors to catch up. I am not saying here that GW came up with the first flyers for a wargame, but I am just stating that their ideas (design wise & model wise) could influence competitors.

Some people do use alternatives sometimes to represent the models in their army so it is not unthinkable that this could result in a loss of sales. I am not saying that it does, but I am just saying its not an unreasonable claim to make.

However much can be said that GW should just focus more on stopping leaks from their company to begin with. It could also be argued if this is a realistic thing for GW to accomplish considering that their stuff gets playtested in advance before release. Perhaps they should change their playtesting policy instead to insure less leaks in the future. Many things can be argued here.

 DarthOvious wrote:
I am not going to argue right or wrong here, but I think there are a lot of companies out there who don't like their pre-releases being leaked all over the internet. I suppose we could argue about the way in which GW is implementing it but GW have decided their current course and thats up to them to decide. A good example of what I am talking about is the leak of the Sony Ericsson Xperia Z1.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/09/sonys-mobile-teams-anti-leaks-poster-campaign-leaks/

The reason why companies don't like leaks is because its gives their competitors an idea on what direction they are taking and they could lose a market advantage from doing so. For instance the news in regards to the leaked flyers could have influenced other wargame miniature companies to start making flyers of their own. So the development advantage of releasing these models is cut down a bit as it takes less time for competitors to catch up. I am not saying here that GW came up with the first flyers for a wargame, but I am just stating that their ideas (design wise & model wise) could influence competitors.

Some people do use alternatives sometimes to represent the models in their army so it is not unthinkable that this could result in a loss of sales. I am not saying that it does, but I am just saying its not an unreasonable claim to make.

However much can be said that GW should just focus more on stopping leaks from their company to begin with. It could also be argued if this is a realistic thing for GW to accomplish considering that their stuff gets playtested in advance before release. Perhaps they should change their playtesting policy instead to insure less leaks in the future. Many things can be argued here.

Fair, point, but in GW's case regarding leaks, we're talking about a couple of weeks in most instances. It's not as though a rival is going to rush out a similar line of miniatures just to undercut GW. Quite frankly, the more I read about GW's approach to shop, traders, and fans, the more glad I am that I jumped ship for other games systems.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Has Putin bought the company out or something? I eagerly await the hastily constructed defense of this action from the 'usual suspects' here on dakka, step forward ye shining knights of yore and spin this one into gold... I fething dare you.

I'm by no means a fan of GW, but it probably said something like "no recording equipment will be allowed into the venue" on the back of the ticket, bit like every concert ticket ever. Handily, I actually have a concert (not a GD as I don't go any more) ticket handy and it has this "restricted items, including the following are prohibited from being brought into the arena..............all forms of audio/video recording or transmitting devices"

Now, it depends on the security on the day but it is the gamble one takes when turning up to events with this sort of equipment. No big GW IS GOING TO GET YOU evil there.

You have a point if it is universally enforced. Once the organization starts selectively enforcing it, any legitimacy of the policy is thrown to the wayside. Would you find it fair if the mods handed you a warning every time you started a sentence with the letter "C" but others could do so in the same thread without reprecussion? That's the level of ridiculousness we're talking about with confiscating BOW's cameras but letting other shutterbugs walk around without issues.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Fair, point, but in GW's case regarding leaks, we're talking about a couple of weeks in most instances. It's not as though a rival is going to rush out a similar line of miniatures just to undercut GW. Quite frankly, the more I read about GW's approach to shop, traders, and fans, the more glad I am that I jumped ship for other games systems.

Usually it is just a few weeks, but sometimes you do gets things earlier than that in the rumour world. Dakka for instance has an Imperial Guard rumours list just now and they are not getting released until next year. Of course its not really clear whether these rumours are acurate or not yet but from a GW point of view if some of them were acurate it would be a worry for them.

Its also not just the idea of a competitor rushing things out to undercut GW but more along the lines of the time that GW gets over their competitors when releasing things. Sure if there are leaks a few weeks earlier in regards to one of their releases then a competitor will not be able to beat them to release, but its a few weeks that GW would have had more with their advantage on the market. As soon as their competitors release counter models, thats when GW lose sales because there is now more a selection to choose from rather than just buying their model.

Of course there are more ways to lose sales than just losing an advantage on the market. Buisness practices also have an effect and some people in this thread have displayed a distaste to some of GWs buisness practices. However this up to GW to decide whats more important to them. Protecting their IP or making consumers happy.

 Krinsath wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Yes, I know Wayland had the contract and not BoW. You can't do something because of your contract but you can form a quite formal and promoted partnership with another body who can and do it anyway? I don't really think that's cricket.

More along the lines of "when the partnership was formed there were no such terms"; GW changed them to target such sites this past year probably because they realized they could. Now, you can side with GW that clearly Wayland was funneling leaks to BoW (which BoW says they were not, nor have I seen any retailers who are any better informed than the rumormongers on Dakka and Warseer) or you can say that GW knew they couldn't target BoW directly and changed the terms hoping to torpedo them another way. Doesn't really matter, because while it might not be entirely upright, as you say there's nothing directly illegal about it.

However, since that tactic has clearly failed as BoW is not towing the line, what is the next move in GW's war against consumers knowing what GW is doing? That's the real concern in all of this for me. There's a touch of paranoia in there, but given the lengths GW has already gone to so far I feel it's not entirely unjustified either.

Just to clarify that we (Wayland) have never in anyway whatsoever leaked product information. We as a retailer of GW products are pretty much the last people on earth to hear about GW product information and their launch. The forums etc are far better informed about what is and isn't coming out.

Anyone that had looked at BOW over the last few years would be hard pushed to find any conclusion that their coverage of GW products and advanced information has done anything but diminish. They reduced this out of respect to us at Wayland. To speculate that we were benefiting from advanced product information or that they benefited from information from us is just nonsense.

There have been other terms changes that amazingly seem to target individual retailers over the last few years, and other activities which would stun the community. It is saddening to see it happening.

Rich, I appreciate that you can't really speak freely in a public forum like this, but given your somewhat broader view of things what do you feel would be the best way the community and/or the independent retailers could affect change?

I do acknowledge those who are effectively arguing "their ball, their game" but things seem to just be getting progressively further and further out of hand, I worked in independent mobile phone retail for years, and while the networks weren't above pulling a fast one to encourage sales from them directly (substantially reducing their acquisition costs per customer) they never pulled gak like this!

I feel GW not only uses her bulk and place as the biggest company within the industry improperly to enforce their capricious ways to everybody, usually giving the short end to the people that made them and make them who they are.

GW views first and foremost that everybody else is "leeching" their rightful gains, not selling their products, not distributing them where they would never be, not reporting on them and making them more visible, no they think they are using their hard work to gain money, stealing them from the gains that should be their.

So no online shops where they can enforce it, because how dare they use their artwork to sell their products, restricted zones of trade because how dare the customers pay what they think is reasonable instead of what they want them to pay a big drive of ever increasing important models at direct only because yes they should be getting all the money, not the retailers or game stores and now even more imaginative contracts to shut the press, because they do not like anybody talk about them when its not them talking.

It was out of hand before and its worse now, after the latest imaginative contracts that essentially enforce what the law prevents, freedom of press, one can only ask what next?

And no the "they could not sign the contract" does not hold ground, a contract should never be abusive and GWs contracts are about as abusive as it can get.

Interesting. Also, from BOW's own account (in the OP, I haven't read all 7 pages), GW hasn't gone after them, but this is just simply fallout from the June Trade term update.

 pretre wrote:
Interesting. Also, from BOW's own account (in the OP, I haven't read all 7 pages), GW hasn't gone after them, but this is just simply fallout from the June Trade term update.

Which, it is heavily implied, was designed to target the relationship between BoW and Wayland.

One could never prove that, of course, but the timing is suspiciously convenient at best.

 azreal13 wrote:
Rich, I appreciate that you can't really speak freely in a public forum like this, but given your somewhat broader view of things what do you feel would be the best way the community and/or the independent retailers could affect change?

I do acknowledge those who are effectively arguing "their ball, their game" but things seem to just be getting progressively further and further out of hand, I worked in independent mobile phone retail for years, and while the networks weren't above pulling a fast one to encourage sales from them directly (substantially reducing their acquisition costs per customer) they never pulled gak like this!

Please forgive my lack of frankness.


We have and continue to seek open and frank discussions with all suppliers, however you might expect our view of certain entities to be colored but as an an example, in a meeting over 4 years ago, our plans being frankly shared in a meeting.. only to find those exact plans specifically deemed against the new trade terms released shortly after. That's only one of many items that if were shared, would stun the community. However we continue to seek reasonable dialogue with everyone.

We have with open arms approached other retailers in the past, including the other major retailer in the UK, that is now no more, to stand together and seek discussions with a certain Dominant supplier in the industry. No one was really interested. Everyone is too paranoid about the "competition". Which is fine, we operate as a professional business, we take proper advice we were willing to share it.. Pretty much everyone is too scared of upsetting the cart and are happy to see the market manipulated whilst they point the finger at the internet for their lack of sales.

The consumer is losing out and being forced to pay higher prices than a proper market should. Their choice is being reduced. We don't think that's a good thing.

Competition isn't about manipulating a market. Competition should be about putting your products alongside others and the consumer making a choice to choose yours because they think its better and is of value, that is competition. I think bodies such as the OFT in the UK agree with us.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
And no the "they could not sign the contract" does not hold ground, a contract should never be abusive and GWs contracts are about as abusive as it can get.

Sorry, but the point still stands, nobody's forced to trade with Games Workshop.

The fact that so many companies sell their products would seem to suggest otherwise.

Any other company behaved in the same way as GW, I can guarantee you that their products would rapidly disappear off the shelves; the fact that this hasn't happened in the case of GW is indicative of their size within the market place.

 Bull0 wrote:


Sorry, but the point still stands, nobody's forced to trade with Games Workshop.

Nobody said anybody is forced to trade with Games Workshop. There is still a need to call out bad corporate practices, whether or not you trade with the... whether or not anybody trades with them.

Even if they do their business entirely and 100% on their own. Bad behaviour deserves to be criticized.

Still not sure how that translates to "Forced to". Am I missing something? Are there no other companies whose goods you can sell? Surely the way to combat GW's unfavourable trade policies is to stop trading with them until they change?

*edit* My line about not being forced into trading was against the point that the idea of not signing the contract "doesn't hold ground". Yes it does, you can absolutely not sign a contract with Games Workshop if you don't like their trade account rules. Nobody is forcing you. That's all I meant.

 Bull0 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
And no the "they could not sign the contract" does not hold ground, a contract should never be abusive and GWs contracts are about as abusive as it can get.

Sorry, but the point still stands, nobody's forced to trade with Games Workshop.

This argument is facile in the extreme.

You really suggest that any company that has built itself up over years or decades due, in part, to selling products from the largest commercial entity in the industry, can simply eliminate that element from their business because said entity has paranoid delusions and changes your relationship overnight?

Sure, a new company could base its financial projections and viability studies off information that didn't include GW, but a going concern doesn't have that freedom, certainly not in the short term, even if they could divorce themselves in the medium to long term.

GW have already precipitated the death of Maelstrom (even if mistakes were made by MG that compounded the situation) through exactly this sort of shenanigans, and will continue to pull this sort of nonsense for as long as people stand for it.

rich1231 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Rich, I appreciate that you can't really speak freely in a public forum like this, but given your somewhat broader view of things what do you feel would be the best way the community and/or the independent retailers could affect change?

I do acknowledge those who are effectively arguing "their ball, their game" but things seem to just be getting progressively further and further out of hand, I worked in independent mobile phone retail for years, and while the networks weren't above pulling a fast one to encourage sales from them directly (substantially reducing their acquisition costs per customer) they never pulled gak like this!

Please forgive my lack of frankness.


We have and continue to seek open and frank discussions with all suppliers, however you might expect our view of certain entities to be colored but as an an example, in a meeting over 4 years ago, our plans being frankly shared in a meeting.. only to find those exact plans specifically deemed against the new trade terms released shortly after. That's only one of many items that if were shared, would stun the community. However we continue to seek reasonable dialogue with everyone.

We have with open arms approached other retailers in the past, including the other major retailer in the UK, that is now no more, to stand together and seek discussions with a certain Dominant supplier in the industry. No one was really interested. Everyone is too paranoid about the "competition". Which is fine, we operate as a professional business, we take proper advice we were willing to share it.. Pretty much everyone is too scared of upsetting the cart and are happy to see the market manipulated whilst they point the finger at the internet for their lack of sales.

The consumer is losing out and being forced to pay higher prices than a proper market should. Their choice is being reduced. We don't think that's a good thing.

Competition isn't about manipulating a market. Competition should be about putting your products alongside others and the consumer making a choice to choose yours because they think its better and is of value, that is competition. I think bodies such as the OFT in the UK agree with us.

I have no idea of the costs involved in this, but have you guys thought about sending those GW legal letters and the new trade agreement to the ECJ? Having read it, I find that a few of the clauses in it are probably breaking the Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, particularly section 1(e):

(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

rich1231 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Rich, I appreciate that you can't really speak freely in a public forum like this, but given your somewhat broader view of things what do you feel would be the best way the community and/or the independent retailers could affect change?

I do acknowledge those who are effectively arguing "their ball, their game" but things seem to just be getting progressively further and further out of hand, I worked in independent mobile phone retail for years, and while the networks weren't above pulling a fast one to encourage sales from them directly (substantially reducing their acquisition costs per customer) they never pulled gak like this!

Please forgive my lack of frankness.


We have and continue to seek open and frank discussions with all suppliers, however you might expect our view of certain entities to be colored but as an an example, in a meeting over 4 years ago, our plans being frankly shared in a meeting.. only to find those exact plans specifically deemed against the new trade terms released shortly after. That's only one of many items that if were shared, would stun the community. However we continue to seek reasonable dialogue with everyone.

We have with open arms approached other retailers in the past, including the other major retailer in the UK, that is now no more, to stand together and seek discussions with a certain Dominant supplier in the industry. No one was really interested. Everyone is too paranoid about the "competition". Which is fine, we operate as a professional business, we take proper advice we were willing to share it.. Pretty much everyone is too scared of upsetting the cart and are happy to see the market manipulated whilst they point the finger at the internet for their lack of sales.

The consumer is losing out and being forced to pay higher prices than a proper market should. Their choice is being reduced. We don't think that's a good thing.

Competition isn't about manipulating a market. Competition should be about putting your products alongside others and the consumer making a choice to choose yours because they think its better and is of value, that is competition. I think bodies such as the OFT in the UK agree with us.

I think you've said what you wanted, frankness be damned!

I guess until someone is willing to be Spartacus, or the dominant supplier really goofs and does something that allows some sort of push back, we will have to try and keep consumers informed and hope enough care enough to vote with their ££££

I think GWs main problem is their overheads. They have overheads that other companies don't necessarily have. They provide brick and mortar stores and a table space to play on. They also have design costs and technology costs that other companies may not have. No offence to Wayland Games here and I am not having a dig at them, but they don't have those overheads. They don't need to invest in shops to provide gaming spaces and they don't have to invest money into technology for future products. That's why they are able to undercut GW by 20% in the first place and also why they can undercut your FLGS by 10%. This is the reason why internet stores like them have the cheapest prices.

Once again, not having a dig here, its their perogative to be competitive in order to make money. They have a business too. However its things like this that hurt GW financially and I believe its one of the reasons why they are doing what they do. I am only stating this because a lot of people here seem to be upset at GW for having overinflated prices and point to these internet sites as a true perspective of the models true cost. People however need to be aware that things are never that simple. GW could cut their costs if they became an internet selling site with no stores as well. However I guarantee you that you'll end up with a lot of unhappy people because they no longer have a local store to play at.

The independent stores might still be 10% cheaper than GW as well but they don't have any production costs to worry about and don't need to invest money in future design or technology. The point in my post is that there is no easy solution to this. I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong for what they do, all I am stating is that GW is pretty much caught between a rock and a hard place at this moment in time. Although GW might be the leading company for model production I still don't view them as the big heavyweights that some other people see them as. I wouldn't compare the money they make to any other big companies out there, I don't think they hold the financial clout that companies like O2, KFC, Marks & Spencers, etc, etc hold. In that way it means that protecting their profits is much more important because I just don't see them as a massive company and any loss in revenue hurts them quite a bit.

Please bear in mind I am not totally defending GW here. I am not defending their practices in general and saying that they are perfect. I'm sure there are lots of customers who don't support them for other reasons whether they be ethical reasons or otherwise. I just don't think that this particular issue is as clear cut as many people are portraying it to be.