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.
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.
Oh, well, if it's on Reddit...
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
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.
The top post in that thread:
'4.1.7 is a "Defamation Clause" - in other words, don't lie or slander. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" which would be 'don't say anything bad about us, even if true'.
I'm not a lawyer, I just used google and it took me 3 seconds.'
Now, you might be right. I'm not a lawyer either. But the person who apparently is and looked at it, said quite differently if my recollection is correct:
https://youtu.be/OGDw2Noh2Xk?t=1124
This is why we should be careful stating something is fact, until we know one way or another. I'd feel better if we had some confirmation from a legal practitioner from the UK, with experience of NDA's and similar documents, who had taken a look at it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 21:04:30
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.
Oh I understand and I thank you for taking a very securely grounded perspective, which is more than most have done including myself.
Again I reiterate that the discussion has merit, just that I personally aren't sure if it's on the right subforum, that's all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 21:03:30
It's not the "say nothing that is negative" clause that's the big issue, it's the "you can't sell anything to any GW customers or do anything that could cause any GW customer to buy less GW product than they otherwise would for 36 months after getting your review battletome without our written permission" that's problematic, especially when followed up by a "and you agree to pay us no-fault indemnity." Nobody with any sense would sign something like that. That's the clause that makes it impossible for anyone reviewing a GW product to do their job, not the "don't defame us" clause. How can you give an honest review of products, both GW and otherwise, if you've agreed you won't do anything that could cause GW customers to buy less GW product? Can't review a competitor's product because what if it's better than GW's? You're not allowed to say so, because you're in violation. Can't sell T-shirts to your youtube followers without getting GW's written permission first because some of them are GW customers.
It's the primary thing that makes me question whether it's real. I have a hard time believing even GW would try to be that draconian, or that it anyone would sign something like that unless they're a fool and don't read before signing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 21:06:42
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not the "say nothing that is negative" clause that's the big issue, it's the "you can't sell anything to any GW customers or do anything that could cause any GW customer to buy less GW product than they otherwise would for 36 months after getting your review battletome without our written permission" that's problematic, especially when followed up by a "and you agree to pay us no-fault indemnity." Nobody with any sense would sign something like that. That's the clause that makes it impossible for anyone reviewing a GW product to do their job, not the "don't defame us" clause. How can you give an honest review of products, both GW and otherwise, if you've agreed you won't do anything that could cause GW customers to buy less GW product? Can't review a competitor's product because what if it's better than GW's? You're not allowed to say so, because you're in violation. Can't sell T-shirts to your youtube followers without getting GW's written permission first because some of them are GW customers.
It's the primary thing that makes me question whether it's real. I have a hard time believing even GW would try to be that draconian, or that it anyone would sign something like that unless they're a fool and don't read before signing.
You're applying it to abstract extremes. Beyond telling people "don't buy gw products" or by doing direct comparisons to competitors that intend to sway purchases, there isn't a problem. Likewise unless you intend to start selling alternative minis to GW, no dramas.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not the "say nothing that is negative" clause that's the big issue, it's the "you can't sell anything to any GW customers or do anything that could cause any GW customer to buy less GW product than they otherwise would for 36 months after getting your review battletome without our written permission" that's problematic, especially when followed up by a "and you agree to pay us no-fault indemnity." Nobody with any sense would sign something like that. That's the clause that makes it impossible for anyone reviewing a GW product to do their job, not the "don't defame us" clause. How can you give an honest review of products, both GW and otherwise, if you've agreed you won't do anything that could cause GW customers to buy less GW product? Can't review a competitor's product because what if it's better than GW's? You're not allowed to say so, because you're in violation. Can't sell T-shirts to your youtube followers without getting GW's written permission first because some of them are GW customers.
It's the primary thing that makes me question whether it's real. I have a hard time believing even GW would try to be that draconian, or that it anyone would sign something like that unless they're a fool and don't read before signing.
I might hate myself in the morning for this...
So, I am so not a lawyer, solicitor, I'm not qualified to make tea at a law firm, so I'm not saying the following should be taken as 'gospel' or as anything but information somewhat relevant to Yuki's point, that you can make of what you will.
I was under an NDA as part of my employment contract while working at Electronic Arts. Part of that contract, did have a similar stipulation in it. If you left the company, you were not permitted to work anywhere within the industry for 'X' amount of time. I think it was 18 months, but may be wrong there.
Now, this was never enforced, and everyone I ever worked with left and immediately got a job with Sega or whoever, without any issues at all.
It is a slightly different situation, but there's definitely a similar 'don't compete with us theme', and I have to wonder if that isn't relatively standard practice in contracts over here? Again, I am not an expert on this in any way.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not the "say nothing that is negative" clause that's the big issue, it's the "you can't sell anything to any GW customers or do anything that could cause any GW customer to buy less GW product than they otherwise would for 36 months after getting your review battletome without our written permission" that's problematic, especially when followed up by a "and you agree to pay us no-fault indemnity." Nobody with any sense would sign something like that. That's the clause that makes it impossible for anyone reviewing a GW product to do their job, not the "don't defame us" clause. How can you give an honest review of products, both GW and otherwise, if you've agreed you won't do anything that could cause GW customers to buy less GW product? Can't review a competitor's product because what if it's better than GW's? You're not allowed to say so, because you're in violation. Can't sell T-shirts to your youtube followers without getting GW's written permission first because some of them are GW customers.
It's the primary thing that makes me question whether it's real. I have a hard time believing even GW would try to be that draconian, or that it anyone would sign something like that unless they're a fool and don't read before signing.
I might hate myself in the morning for this...
So, I am so not a lawyer, solicitor, I'm not qualified to make tea at a law firm, so I'm not saying the following should be taken as 'gospel' or as anything but information somewhat relevant to Yuki's point, that you can make of what you will.
I was under an NDA as part of my employment contract while working at Electronic Arts. Part of that contract, did have a similar stipulation in it. If you left the company, you were not permitted to work anywhere within the industry for 'X' amount of time. I think it was 18 months, but may be wrong there.
Now, this was never enforced, and everyone I ever worked with left and immediately got a job with Sega or whoever, without any issues at all.
It is a slightly different situation, but there's definitely a similar 'don't compete with us theme', and I have to wonder if that isn't relatively standard practice in contracts over here? Again, I am not an expert on this in any way.
No you're right, in my time working in solicitors they had a similar no competition clause, it was for 6 months within 30 miles of a principal office but never enforced even when staff left for direct competition 0.4 miles away. My current job has one as well, it's had 1 attempted enforcement in 2 years and it was wildly unsuccessful as the ex-employee simply claimed to have been working in a different capacity upon leaving for 6 months.
As an edit: it does seem the people most worried about this have US tags, is it a freedom of speech type situation?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 21:24:56
It might also be because the USA tends to be more litigious as well. So whilst in countries like the UK a clause like this is there but unlikely to be taken to court outside of extreme situations; in the USA there might be more of a perception that companies would enforce this to the letter every time.
No you're right, in my time working in solicitors they had a similar no competition clause, it was for 6 months within 30 miles of a principal office but never enforced even when staff left for direct competition 0.4 miles away. My current job has one as well, it's had 1 attempted enforcement in 2 years and it was wildly unsuccessful as the ex-employee simply claimed to have been working in a different capacity upon leaving for 6 months.
As an edit: it does seem the people most worried about this have US tags, is it a freedom of speech type situation?
Yeah, I just dug out my old contract and it also stated 6 months, not 18 - I think you're right, and that 6 is probably the standard here (it'd partially explain why almost no-one actually cares very much in practice).
'You will not, for a period of 6 months after the termination of the Employment, be engaged in or concerned in any capacity in any business concern which is in competition with the Restricted Goods of Services.' (it does say 'of Services', not 'or', which does go to show that proofreading in legal documents, or the lack of, doesn't say much about their genuineness!)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 21:39:35
One possibility: this is the new NDA being sent out to the fan animators that opted not to join GW and work on Warhammer+ (or were never invited in the first place).
It makes a lot more sense in that context than for reviewers. But I'm not sure where "sponsorship" fits in.
His implication that people shouldn't care what Games Workshop does, while leading off with the usual 'criticism equating hatred of something'. You do understand that, as customers, we should care what the companies we give money to do, right?
To indulge in a reductio ad absurdum, 'Stop complaining about Dahmer Brand Hotdogs, you dirty communist, they taste great and I don't care if they're made from people, they're America's Best!'.
Companies depend on attitudes like this to allow them to get away with bad labor practices, illegal polluting, and a hundred other evils.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 22:34:07
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
The problem is that many of these threads rarely actually go anywhere productive. Those who hate/dislike GW or GW's business practices continue to hate them.
Those who do not or who tolerate them continue to do as such.
Neither side actually tends to shift much and the result is both sides get frustrated in the lack of the opposing side showing any shift in attitude, to the point where it happens enough times that we skip most of that phase (baggage from previous threads) and we advances squarely into mostly insulting each other.
The result is most people end up having a dislikeable time in the thread, dislike several people taking part and, whilst its a train wreck no one can walk away from, in the end most people dislike it for one reason or another.
So the net result is typically in the negative personally, socially and in the end they never actually end with a way that would present any information or argument or consumer feedback to GW to even promote awareness of displeasure in the community; let alone promote any real alternative action/improvement.
So in the end they generate little, save being a continuation for some people in long running arguments and stead fast viewpoints.
What worth they have in awareness and education as well as general business practice and such is often lost in a sea of opinion and previous events.
His implication that people shouldn't care what Games Workshop does, while leading off with the usual 'criticism equating hatred of something'. You do understand that, as customers, we should care what the companies we give money to do, right?
To indulge in a reductio ad absurdum, 'Stop complaining about Dahmer Brand Hotdogs, you dirty communist, they taste great and I don't care if they're made from people, they're America's Best!'.
Companies depend on attitudes like this to allow them to get away with bad labor practices, illegal polluting, and a hundred other evils.
Conversely, the truly evil companies depend on things like this to keep people nattering about nothing, rather than meaningful evils.
If you're going to go with the absurd and bring up 'hundreds of other evils,' you've clearly got time to be doing something about them, rather than... whatever this posturing is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 22:41:03
Overread wrote: It might also be because the USA tends to be more litigious as well. So whilst in countries like the UK a clause like this is there but unlikely to be taken to court outside of extreme situations; in the USA there might be more of a perception that companies would enforce this to the letter every time.
At a previous place of employment, yes, we enforced this on a fairly regular basis, in the corporate world, and at my current place of employment, we add exciting things like potential jail time to it. In the US, you'll see the 'governing law' of a contract be in jurisdictions known for the harsher rules and tendency to rule on behalf of the company, wherever legally possible.
Conversely, the truly evil companies depend on things like this to keep people nattering about nothing, rather than meaningful evils.
If you're going to go with the absurd and bring up 'hundreds of other evils,' you've clearly got time to be doing something about them, rather than... whatever this posturing is.
I spend 8 hours a day doing exactly that, save weekends and holidays.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 22:48:42
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
His implication that people shouldn't care what Games Workshop does, while leading off with the usual 'criticism equating hatred of something'.
Eh, I haven't looked back at the comment, but I didn't pick up massive "criticism = hatred" vibes. But I haven't gone back and looked.
You do understand that, as customers, we should care what the companies we give money to do, right?
No, people can *choose* to care, if they so want to, and there are certain things they might care more about than others.
And trust me, as someone who on this very forum has been pretty vocal about things that I feel people "should" care more about and been very frequently told to shut my "SJW mouth" up about it (usually from the sorts of folks who oftentimes demonise GW), I'd *love* to tell people what they should be putting their effort and energy into - but that just doesn't fly.
For some people, an NDA (which they might not even know the full context of) which will likely never affect them or their purchasing habits is not worthy of concern. Who are any of us to use some pretty direct and targeted language against them for that?
To indulge in a reductio ad absurdum, 'Stop complaining about Dahmer Brand Hotdogs, you dirty communist, they taste great and I don't care if they're made from people, they're America's Best!'.
And in the name "absurdum", that probably suggests why I'm not taking that seriously.
Companies depend on attitudes like this to allow them to get away with bad labor practices, illegal polluting, and a hundred other evils.
When I *see it being done*, sure - but I'm no lawyer, I'll likely never be given this NDA (if it would even be offered out), and if I see the effects and know the full context, so really, it's not something I can give an answer to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to call GW out for behaviours that I've found genuinely problematic (and have done - the largest examples for me being the removal of certain BL authors, and the removal of artist credits in their republished material), but without the full context, I can't say what this situation is.
Again - I'd *love* to support the whole "we need to target these bad attitudes to save our hobby" idea - but on this site, I've had no luck with it, and folks painting anyone who isn't immediately critical as a white knight or simp or "brainwashed" just ain't gonna cut it. And especially this whole idea of "these newer players are all brainwashed" from the original post in this comment chain - that's got massive gatekeeping/exclusionary vibes written all over it, so you can forgive me if I don't buy into that kind of rhetoric.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/25 23:04:37
the problem is anytime GW does ANYTHING some people will work themselves up into a tizzy to explain why this is all a secrect evil plot that will be bad for the hobby which tends to mean it becomes just dull background noise. For those engaged in it I prevent a helpful educational video
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
During the Chapterhouse days, I was firmly on GW’s side. I spent years in ignorance about the larger hobby outside of GW. Thanks to discussions like this, my eyes were opened and my attitude changed. Change in attitude is usually gradual, not easily discerned in the span of a thread or two.
Just look at how attitudes about female space marines have changed for many—certainly not all—Dakka posters as demonstrated in the latest thread that lasted ten times as long as previous threads on the topic, featuring many posters who admitted the many “pointless” earlier threads had affected them and changed their minds. This thread alone may not change any minds, but it is a part of the larger hobby discussion, and of the role GW plays in it, that continually shapes our hobby community.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is anytime GW does ANYTHING some people will work themselves up into a tizzy to explain why this is all a secrect evil plot that will be bad for the hobby which tends to mean it becomes just dull background noise.
Or perhaps GW just does bad stuff that often.
"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado
I understand the temptation to do so, but I think thinking this way can be problematic. It's very black and white. (This isn't about you personally Wha-Mu, more common attitudes in general).
The truth is, GW do some things which we broadly disapprove of. Even some things which a majority of us would describe as unethical. But, they also do things we like, and that many of us would describe as laudable.
One type of behaviour, doesn't invalidate the other. As a company they aren't 'good' or 'evil'. They just do some stupid gak one day, and great stuff another. I think we need to comment on the merits of an individual action, rather than standing permanently on one side of a Bad/Good dividing line.
If I can be forgiven for using something of a silly, extreme example, we had a GP in the UK that was found to have, over the years, deliberately killed some of his patients - clearly this is bad, and should be condemned. But as a GP, he almost certainly helped many people and probably even saved a few lives - good things. Neither act cancels out the other, you can have benefitted from his help, and be grateful for it, while still condemning him as a murderer (and you should!)
I think in the same way, we should condemn GW when they are engaging in gakky business practice, or when they do harm to members of their customer base, while not automatically decrying them as 'evil', and forgetting that time when they made decisions we or others benefitted from in a positive way.
If we can't do this, I'd have to wonder if it isn't time for some soul-searching...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 23:34:19
I understand the temptation to do so, but I think thinking this way can be problematic. It's very black and white. (This isn't about you personally Wha-Mu, more common attitudes in general).
The truth is, GW do some things which we broadly disapprove of. Even some things which a majority of us would describe as unethical. But, they also do things we like, and that many of us would describe as laudable.
One type of behaviour, doesn't invalidate the other. As a company they aren't 'good' or 'evil'. They just do some stupid gak one day, and great stuff another. I think we need to comment on the merits of an individual action, rather than standing permanently on one side of a Bad/Good dividing line.
If I can be forgiven for using something of a silly, extreme example, we had a GP in the UK that was found to have, over the years, deliberately killed some of his patients - clearly this is bad, and should be condemned. But as a GP, he almost certainly helped many people and probably even saved a few lives - good things. Neither act cancels out the other, you can have benefitted from his help, and be grateful for it, while still condemning him as a murderer (and you should!)
I think in the same way, we should condemn GW when they are engaging in gakky business practice, or when they do harm to members of their customer base, while not automatically decrying them as 'evil', and forgetting that time when they made decisions we or others benefitted from in a positive way.
If we can't do this, I'd have to wonder if it isn't time for some soul-searching...
This is a good post and is making a point I've struggled to articulate in the past.
To build on it a little, any business or organisation is composed of many individuals. Those individuals are imperfect and fallible. Sometimes they can make mistakes due to misunderstandings or lack of ability, while other times they make poor decisions based on self-interest without regarding others. It's also expected that large, global organisations are also going to have more 'bad' events than smaller ones by the simple virtue of having a larger pool of staff to generate those events.
Hypothetically (these are rhetorical questions, not directed at Straylight) if 10 people out of 100 have made decisions you strongly disagree with, does that make the whole organisation 'bad'? Should the other 90 people working there be considered 'bad' or 'evil' when the organisation is discussed?
What if you don't know what proportion of those disagreeable decisions were actually intended, and which were genuine mistakes? Are the other employees still bad?
Trying to classify wide-ranging groups of people into either wholly good or wholly bad categories is a reductive, and dare I say, childish way to view the world. It's also damaging to the hobby as a whole when it leads to staff or fellow hobbyists being abused online because they do not share that same overly simplistic point of view.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 00:10:01
yukishiro1 wrote: It's not the "say nothing that is negative" clause that's the big issue, it's the "you can't sell anything to any GW customers or do anything that could cause any GW customer to buy less GW product than they otherwise would for 36 months after getting your review battletome without our written permission" that's problematic, especially when followed up by a "and you agree to pay us no-fault indemnity." Nobody with any sense would sign something like that. That's the clause that makes it impossible for anyone reviewing a GW product to do their job, not the "don't defame us" clause. How can you give an honest review of products, both GW and otherwise, if you've agreed you won't do anything that could cause GW customers to buy less GW product? Can't review a competitor's product because what if it's better than GW's? You're not allowed to say so, because you're in violation. Can't sell T-shirts to your youtube followers without getting GW's written permission first because some of them are GW customers.
It's the primary thing that makes me question whether it's real. I have a hard time believing even GW would try to be that draconian, or that it anyone would sign something like that unless they're a fool and don't read before signing.
You're applying it to abstract extremes. Beyond telling people "don't buy gw products" or by doing direct comparisons to competitors that intend to sway purchases, there isn't a problem. Likewise unless you intend to start selling alternative minis to GW, no dramas.
Of course I'm "applying it to abstract extremes." Because when you sign a contract, you have to be thinking about those things. Only a fool signs a contract that would put themselves out of business on the rationale that "oh well, the other side wouldn't *actually* do that to me, that's just an abstract extreme." No, they probably wouldn't...but what if they did? And why are they asking you to sign something that says that?
I certainly wouldn't take the word of some random person on the internet that "they'd never do that, don't worry about it, just sign and put your fate in their hands, trusting they won't do the things the contract says you agree they can."
I understand the temptation to do so, but I think thinking this way can be problematic. It's very black and white. (This isn't about you personally Wha-Mu, more common attitudes in general).
The truth is, GW do some things which we broadly disapprove of. Even some things which a majority of us would describe as unethical. But, they also do things we like, and that many of us would describe as laudable.
One type of behaviour, doesn't invalidate the other. As a company they aren't 'good' or 'evil'. They just do some stupid gak one day, and great stuff another. I think we need to comment on the merits of an individual action, rather than standing permanently on one side of a Bad/Good dividing line.
If I can be forgiven for using something of a silly, extreme example, we had a GP in the UK that was found to have, over the years, deliberately killed some of his patients - clearly this is bad, and should be condemned. But as a GP, he almost certainly helped many people and probably even saved a few lives - good things. Neither act cancels out the other, you can have benefitted from his help, and be grateful for it, while still condemning him as a murderer (and you should!)
I think in the same way, we should condemn GW when they are engaging in gakky business practice, or when they do harm to members of their customer base, while not automatically decrying them as 'evil', and forgetting that time when they made decisions we or others benefitted from in a positive way.
If we can't do this, I'd have to wonder if it isn't time for some soul-searching...
This is a good post and is making a point I've struggled to articulate in the past.
To build on it a little, any business or organisation is composed of many individuals. Those individuals are imperfect and fallible. Sometimes they can make mistakes due to misunderstandings or lack of ability, while other times they make poor decisions based on self-interest without regarding others. It's also expected that large, global organisations are also going to have more 'bad' events than smaller ones by the simple virtue of having a larger pool of staff to generate those events.
Hypothetically (these are rhetorical questions, not directed at Straylight) if 10 people out of 100 have made decisions you strongly disagree with, does that make the whole organisation 'bad'? Should the other 90 people working there be considered 'bad' or 'evil' when the organisation is discussed?
What if you don't know what proportion of those disagreeable decisions were actually intended, and which were genuine mistakes? Are the other employees still bad?
Trying to classify wide-ranging groups of people into either wholly good or wholly bad categories is a reductive, and dare I say, childish way to view the world. It's also damaging to the hobby as a whole when it leads to staff or fellow hobbyists being abused online because they do not share that same overly simplistic point of view.
These are some excellent points.
In terms of how GW connects to its community, they have definitely shot themselves in the foot quite a few times. A way to measure this sort of phenomenon is called 'goodwill'. Companies with lots of goodwill, in that they tend to treat their customers well, price things fairly, and are ahead of the curve when it comes to various issues, tend to fly along rather smoothly. Companies with low goodwill tend to get harped on for any grievance, since it is another tally of badness that they've performed.
An example of this would be some celebrities. If Tom Hanks went and slapped a nun in the face, a lot of people would ask "What the heck did that nun do to Tom Hanks??" Tom Hanks slapping someone would be so out of character, and he as an actor and philanthropist has generated a lot of goodwill among his fans.
On the other hand, if someone from Games Workshop slapped a nun, it would become an outrageous grievance piled on to all of the other outrageous grievances that they've committed.
Companies tend to be pretty aware of the goodwill that they put out there. Some companies simply don't care, or are too big to care, like Wal-Mart or Amazon. Games Workshop is certainly NOT too big to care. They are small enough that as these grievances pile up, it becomes tougher and tougher for any act of POSITIVE goodwill to matter.
And so it goes. It is going to be a long game of tug-o-war between Games Workshop and the community, where every bit of negative goodwill that the company generates makes it harder for them to connect meaningfully with their community. Take their policy on YouTube videos of not allowing comments. They know full well that if they allowed comments on their YouTube videos, it would be difficult to moderate, and that many snarky or outright hostile comments would float to the top, making it more difficult for them to advertise their product. They're not in a position goodwill-wise to trust their own community to play nice on some of their ads. It's already tough enough for them to monitor Facebook and Instagram comments.
Whether or not you become inured to the negativity, eventually the group of opponents to GW will grow if they keep heading down these tracks, and even those that don't care much about it (like myself) will start to look for alternatives in our hobby life, just to get out of the drama if nothing else.
Not sure the nun slapping example is the best example because given the CHURCH'S own goodwill I know I'd not be alone in reacting to someone slapping a nun with ".. gonna guess the nun molested them as a child"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
To build on it a little, any business or organisation is composed of many individuals. Those individuals are imperfect and fallible. Sometimes they can make mistakes due to misunderstandings or lack of ability, while other times they make poor decisions based on self-interest without regarding others. It's also expected that large, global organisations are also going to have more 'bad' events than smaller ones by the simple virtue of having a larger pool of staff to generate those events.
Hypothetically (these are rhetorical questions, not directed at Straylight) if 10 people out of 100 have made decisions you strongly disagree with, does that make the whole organisation 'bad'? Should the other 90 people working there be considered 'bad' or 'evil' when the organisation is discussed?
What if you don't know what proportion of those disagreeable decisions were actually intended, and which were genuine mistakes? Are the other employees still bad?
Trying to classify wide-ranging groups of people into either wholly good or wholly bad categories is a reductive, and dare I say, childish way to view the world. It's also damaging to the hobby as a whole when it leads to staff or fellow hobbyists being abused online because they do not share that same overly simplistic point of view.
Well,the problem is that even if only 10 people made the decisions, everyone else went along with it. Using GW as an example: despite the fact that we know GW legal has had an almost complete turnover in staff since Chapterhouse, we see them still using the same sort of bad practices, so saying 'but it's a few bad apples' seems a bit disingenuous. To be honest, I'd suggest that it has more to do with the Corporate Culture in GW, which has been called into question numerous times. No one here is saying the guys that work 9-5s in the Brick and Mortar are evil, though some are, but that GW seems to make similar mistakes again and again without having apparently learned anything from them. (or worse learned the wrong lesson)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 00:43:42
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
To build on it a little, any business or organisation is composed of many individuals. Those individuals are imperfect and fallible. Sometimes they can make mistakes due to misunderstandings or lack of ability, while other times they make poor decisions based on self-interest without regarding others. It's also expected that large, global organisations are also going to have more 'bad' events than smaller ones by the simple virtue of having a larger pool of staff to generate those events.
Hypothetically (these are rhetorical questions, not directed at Straylight) if 10 people out of 100 have made decisions you strongly disagree with, does that make the whole organisation 'bad'? Should the other 90 people working there be considered 'bad' or 'evil' when the organisation is discussed?
What if you don't know what proportion of those disagreeable decisions were actually intended, and which were genuine mistakes? Are the other employees still bad?
Trying to classify wide-ranging groups of people into either wholly good or wholly bad categories is a reductive, and dare I say, childish way to view the world. It's also damaging to the hobby as a whole when it leads to staff or fellow hobbyists being abused online because they do not share that same overly simplistic point of view.
Well,the problem is that even if only 10 people made the decisions, everyone else went along with it. Using GW as an example: despite the fact that we know GW legal has had an almost complete turnover in staff since Chapterhouse, we see them still using the same sort of bad practices, so saying 'but it's a few bad apples' seems a bit disingenuous. To be honest, I'd suggest that it has more to do with the Corporate Culture in GW, which has been called into question numerous times. No one here is saying the guys that work 9-5s in the Brick and Mortar are evil, though some are, but that GW seems to make similar mistakes again and again without having apparently learned anything from them.
But would you then also categorize the miniature designers as also being evil because of the legal department's decisions? The lore writers? The factory workers? All these other departments likely have zero knowledge of much of what the legal department does unless it gets out into the wild like this NDA, and yet in terms of business, these other departments make up a greater impact of how GW operates than their legal department. They design and make and deliver the toys that people buy.
On the other hand, the CEO or CIO or other executives might absolutely be at fault, for potentially guiding or determining that the legal group should take certain actions or write stricter contracts. That said, we just don't really know the circumstances. This sort of thing could stop at the head of the legal department, or it could be a result of a group of legal aides being lazy or overzealous.
This is where we can get into ACTIONABLE sorts of things. We, as a community, could put pressure on the company to shape up their legal department. If they're making all this money, surely they can hire some competent lawyers that aren't going to work in ways that go against the community or paint them in an awful, restrictive light.
So, I am so not a lawyer, solicitor, I'm not qualified to make tea at a law firm, so I'm not saying the following should be taken as 'gospel' or as anything but information somewhat relevant to Yuki's point, that you can make of what you will.
I was under an NDA as part of my employment contract while working at Electronic Arts. Part of that contract, did have a similar stipulation in it. If you left the company, you were not permitted to work anywhere within the industry for 'X' amount of time. I think it was 18 months, but may be wrong there.
Now, this was never enforced, and everyone I ever worked with left and immediately got a job with Sega or whoever, without any issues at all.
It is a slightly different situation, but there's definitely a similar 'don't compete with us theme', and I have to wonder if that isn't relatively standard practice in contracts over here? Again, I am not an expert on this in any way.
NDAs and non-competes are rarely enforced, period, except in pretty rare circumstances. But I sure wouldn't sign something saying I had to seek advance permission from GW to sell any GW customer anything for 3 years after I got a review copy of something, on the theory that "they don't actually mean that, so whatever, it doesn't matter." Lots of people absolutely live their lives this way, but that doesn't make it any less foolish IMO. Especially when the thing they're saying "they can't mean that" is something that is far more stringent than the typical contract of its kind. That should send a pretty clear message that someone at the company is more interested in the topic than normal, or else they'd just use a more standard version.
If the document is real, it means someone at GW went out of their way to revise their NDA and non-compete to be a lot stricter than the one they had been using in the past. That doesn't just happen by accident.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 00:53:01
You can imagine whatever you want, but the document is there in the first page and clearly says something completely different than what your imagination says it says (if it's real).
But would you then also categorize the miniature designers as also being evil because of the legal department's decisions? The lore writers? The factory workers? All these other departments likely have zero knowledge of much of what the legal department does unless it gets out into the wild like this NDA, and yet in terms of business, these other departments make up a greater impact of how GW operates than their legal department. They design and make and deliver the toys that people buy.
And, to counter, have we not also seen scandals from those departments as well, of late? Some of which may have ultimately had their origins in the Legal department. And, bluntly, if you don't think that legal has effected the other departments, do we call them Imperial Guard, or Astra Miltiarum these days?
On the other hand, the CEO or CIO or other executives might absolutely be at fault, for potentially guiding or determining that the legal group should take certain actions or write stricter contracts. That said, we just don't really know the circumstances. This sort of thing could stop at the head of the legal department, or it could be a result of a group of legal aides being lazy or overzealous.
This is where we can get into ACTIONABLE sorts of things. We, as a community, could put pressure on the company to shape up their legal department. If they're making all this money, surely they can hire some competent lawyers that aren't going to work in ways that go against the community or paint them in an awful, restrictive light.
While I can't argue they're not, as they exist to be responsible, the fact is that this has been going on longer than the current board has existed, and the longest serving members were brought on board, or elevated to the board, as a response to earlier missteps in this vein. This suggests the rot is deep.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 01:06:07
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
