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.

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.

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.

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****?

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.

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

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Additional, for those who decry spikybits

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

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?

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.

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.

 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?

 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?

 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.

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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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

 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...

 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.

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

 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?

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?

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

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?

 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...

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?

 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.