New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.

[yukishiro1]

30 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

In that case, you should fact-check more before going on a rant like you did multiple times in previous topics showing GW on a bad light or something. You sure tend to be quick to attack GW first in case of doubt, which is kinda weird for someone saying they "like a company".

 

When someone can't engage with the argument, they instead go after the person. There's nothing we can discuss here, you're just attacking me personally based on some unspecified prior posts of mine you apparently didn't like. I can't even even begin to respond because you haven't even told me what in particular you're upset about. 

This is about the third time in this thread that you've responded to my posts by attacking me personally. I'm a big boy, I can take it - but it isn't pleasant for anyone else to read. One of the great things about TGA is that most people here are able to disagree, even on contentious topics, without making it personal. Please respect the forum rules and your fellow posters, even if you don't respect me. 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Orbei]

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

When someone can't engage with the argument, they instead go after the person.

Have to say I agree this seems to be the case. I've found all of your posts to be very rational and well reasoned on this topic. I'm not familiar with whatever past topics are being referenced. But the assessment being made regarding you by Sarouan seems to be way off the mark.

Being critical of things is healthy. Dialogue with fellow hobbiests about the things you like and don't like as a consumer is healthy. If someone thinks the NDA is good (or fake) and wants to explain their position that's also helpful as it offers perspective from "both sides". I disagree with that point of view but find it interesting to try to understand. There's no need to make things personal and roll around in the mud.

I also don't understand the inference that people who criticize GW on something must blindly hate the company. I think this NDA sucks, but I also just bought 2 pots of citadel paint and a thing of green stuff from my FLGS for $25 today. Please take my money and also behave ethically GW. 🙂

[Chikout]

Are we all convinced this is real now? The evidence is that a Youtuber received it. There has been a case recently of fake COVID vaccine consent forms being sent to schools. Why isn't possible that someone got hold of that Youtuber's address and sent it to them? 

The main reason I'm dubious is that there is plenty of publicly available legalese from gw; their terms and conditions on the online store for example. It all looks as professional as you'd expect with no inconsistencies. 

My suspicion is that there is a scammer out there somewhere, rubbing their hands together in glee as they read this thread. 

If I was a content creator who received this, the first thing I would do is contact gw and ask them to explain the changes to the NDA. Discussing the terms of a contract before signing is a pretty normal thing to do. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Chikout

[yukishiro1]

42 minutes ago, Chikout said:

Why isn't possible that someone got hold of that Youtuber's address and sent it to them? 

It's definitely possible. Though given the amount of furor it's generated, and the fact that NQA denounced the person to GW, you would think GW would have, at a minimum, reached out to that person by now to tell them it's fake, if it is fake. And that that would have made its way to us. Frankly, I'd expect GW to have made a public statement about it by now if it's fake - it would be free PR for GW, I mean how much more of a free win do you get than "No, that's not our real NDA. We value the people we work with and would not give them a contract like that to sign"? 

If it is fake, GW's missing the easiest shot on goal it'll ever be presented. 

 

Edited October 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Lord Veshnakar]

I'm still in the camp this isn't really an NDA someone received from GW. Of all the content creators that make GW youtube content, especially the 40k crowd and how many of them aren't a fan of these types of practices or even of GW, we would have at least have seen a handful more people come forward with more legitimate proof. 

And I have been around since the early days of WHFB 4th/5th edition, but also the beginning of AOS. This is not exactly news to most but there are a LOT of very upset people about the death of WHFB, and they are still just as upset about it.

Hell they hated GW long before WHFB was done away with, and I can easily see somebody fabricating something like this motivated by spite alone. I mean look at how much it has gotten people online talking already. Clearly it was worth their effort for what they were hoping to accomplish.

[KingBrodd]

+++MOD HAT ON+++

Can we try to stay on topic and be civil with one another. This is a friendly place, let's keep it that way guys.

[Enoby]

5 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Frankly, I'd expect GW to have made a public statement about it by now if it's fake

Just to touch on this, I really doubt GW will make a public statement on this. While it's gotten a lot of traction here and a bit on Twitter, to the general fan this is unknown - explaining it as fake will only bring attention to it, and there's a chance that it would work out disfavourably for them by giving a negative story a much greater audience (even if it's to clear that story up). 

That said, if it is fake, you'd hope they'd explain it to that YouTuber and we'd have heard it from there.

On the other hand, if it's real, you'd have expected that YouTuber to be reprimanded in some way for sharing the NDA and that doesn't seem to have happened either. 

Following on from my previous post ages back, it does seem more likely this is real as at least the YouTuber who received this has come forward (and what NQA did was incredibly disrespectful and potentially dangerous). On the other hand, as people have mentioned, there's no proof this was definitely sent by GW - not that this YouTuber is a liar, but rather there could be a troll who's just loving this.  

Evidence for this being true:

- It was definitely received by someone, and you would assume by an official looking email address.

- GW has not, to our knowledge contacted the YouTuber to clear up this as false or the wrong NDA.

- It's nor evidence per se, but GW has been making more anti-consumer choices lately. 

Evidence for this being false:

- The document is poorly written and poorly formatted; while this doesn't disprove it, it doesn't seem likely that a large company would write such a shoddy legal document. 

- I will point out straight away that this is hearsay and I've seen no evidence for it, but I've heard from others that this wasn't the NDA given at Gencon, so unless it's incredibly new, then it does seem suspect.

- I have seen other YouTubers say this isn't what they received. I believe this, though it doesn't disprove anything.

- GW has not stepped in, to our knowledge, to reprimand the YouTuber for sharing this.

- It's not evidence per se, but the fandom has become more whipped up in its anger lately, so there's more opportunity/want for those who will to manipulate or just drive hate against GW for their own ends. 

---

Overall, now I'm still very much on the fence about it, though with the YouTuber coming forward I'm much more likely to believe it. 

I'm sure some people reading this are probably thinking "why are you so focussed on this being real or fake, rather than discussing the content?" The answer would be twofold for this; the first one is pretty simple, and that's just that I know very little about NDAs so I couldn't say what is and isn't normal for them. From the look of it, it doesn't seem to stop criticism of their products, just about damaging the brand name as a whole (e.g. you can say "I don't like these rules", but you can't say "GW copies the work of smaller creators without crediting them"). If someone with more knowledge can explain why this NDA is so bad, I'd appreciate it. 

The second is the more important reason, in my mind, and that I've seen disinformation and manufactured outrage ruin a few communities and I really don't want to see the Warhammer community fall into the same dump as them. GW has made some questionable decisions lately, and some of these have really upset the communuty at large; while it's very understandable to be upset by some of these things, we all have to be careful to not let that disappointment be manipulated. 

[Zappgrot]

Personally I think to manny ppl.  Live under the delusion that a company like Gw cares about this sort of thing at all.

They would not care if it was fake. And they would not care about our oppinion if it's real. As long as it does not effect sales it doesn't matter to them.

And as ppl have pointed out before. Gw does not so much have costumers as that it has fans. And also bennifits from owning the whole concept of the game, the setting, the rules and the models. Putting those fans in a rough spot if they want to stop supporting gw but keep doing their hobby.

GW knows this and will use that to it's advantage.  

[Zappgrot]

On 9/30/2021 at 10:55 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's not always so easy. As with most ethical question, the line where things go from OK to not OK is fuzzy.

You could imagine a case where you are presented with a completely legal contract, but it is so onerous that nobody who actually reads it should sign it. I think a company presenting such contracts to people in the hope that they make a mistake or make a decision that is objectively bad for them is still behaving unethically. The intent of the company in this case would not be to have a mutually beneficial relationship with that person, but to have a one-sided relationship in the company's favour. If the company was banking on people signing a bad contract due to those people's lack of legal knowledge or the power imbalance between the two, then the facts that everything in the contract is legal and that the person was not forced to sign it are not enough to ensure everything is ethically above board.

While the case is not as clear with the GW NDA, I think it pushes in this direction. The lawyers that I have seen give their opinion on it do call it out as being especially harsh to the point of being potentially unenforcable. This is definitely not a good thing: It amounts to a form of intimidation of whoever signs this NDA. The hope on the part of GW needs to be that people will self-regulate their behavour in the company's favour, even though they are not legally required, because they are afraid to risk opening themselves up to being sued. The average influencer does not have the legal knowledge and ressources to identify and fight unenforcable demands like these.

I definitely believe that just pointing out that people don't have to sign the NDA is not enough. If the deal people are asked to sign on for is so bad that the only way anybody should sign on to it is by mistake, that is an issue in itself.

Well when it comes to big buisness the only ethics involved are no ethics at all. The question are always is this legal? and is the profitiable .(and sometimes this is profitable and illegal how do we make it legal).   There are far far far worse buisness practises out there.And to be compleetly frank I think that if slavery would become legal today. Most companies would be considereing if  buying slaves was profitable tomorrow.   The world is kind of f-ed like that. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I think a lot of this discussion, depends on how you see GW. I don’t see GW as a horrible, evil mega corporation. I just see them as a company with lots of employees who are very passionate about what they do (making miniatures). It doesn’t always mean they are good at other things but I suspect it’s because I’ve worked at a few different companies like this and I’m not surprised. 

This is definitely not an accurate description of my perception of GW. I view them as a relatively normal company that is currently slipping into the kind of bad habits that companies naturally tend towards if people are not actively working against them.

Companies tend towards trying to increase their profit margins at the cost of customer satisfaction. I view that as misguided: It is well documented that not monetizing every aspect of your service or product that can possibly be monetized frequently results in higher profit overall. The NDA is a case in point: GW already had an NDA that was, as far as I know, more in line with what NDAs usually require. Putting all these new requirements of positive coverage and a three year non-compete clause in there seems like a misguided attempt to gain more control of the review scene. In reality, most GW reviews are already positive, because their products are good. They don't have to go and put these oppressive terms in their contract, as well (and I want to remind everyone that this is absolutely an ethical issue).

Warhammer+ is another example of a current development I find worrying. Someone at GW got it into their heads that they wanted a subscription-based streaming service for shows they are producing. But it quickly becomes apparent that this is not enough of a draw to get people to sign up. So the strategy seems to be to make their other products less convenient to engage with and sell the convenience features back to customers bundled in with their streaming service. And in the wake of this, it seems like their grip on their IP is tightening, too, as GW is now competing with community creators that are providing content that GW was not providing, for free.

I am on the record defending unpopular GW decisions when I see them as healthy for the game or for customers. Things like the removal of old high elf units when Cities came around, or more recently GW shutting down that one eBay auction. I'll even defend their contentious pricing policies to an extent because I see them serve a positive purpose (making all 2000 point armies cost about the same is healthy for the game).

The thing for me is, with a company like GW that sells a complete ecosystem, I don't want an adversarial customer relationship. I want to be able to enthusiastically recommend people go to GW stores, because I can trust they are just going to sell people the things they want and need to get started with the fun hobby they have created. I don't want to have to tell people, sure, the models are great, but you always have to be wary of GW trying to take advantage of you when it comes to rules/paints/tools/services...

 

8 hours ago, Chikout said:

Are we all convinced this is real now? The evidence is that a Youtuber received it. There has been a case recently of fake COVID vaccine consent forms being sent to schools. Why isn't possible that someone got hold of that Youtuber's address and sent it to them? 

It would be careless to claim that the NDA is real without the shadow of a doubt, but the problem is that we often have to make partical decisions before we have complete confirmation. I think this is one of those cases: We are unlikely to ever get 100% bullet proof evidence that this NDA is real. That comes with the territory of someone trying to protect themselves when sharing a contract that contains a clause saying that you agree not to share it. But this NDA is consistent with the direction GW has been heading into as of late. The time to voice dissatisfaction with what GW is doing as a company is before things get so bad that we don't want to deal with them anymore. So I personally find it impossible to wait for a full confirmation we are unlikely to ever get.

However, there is a fairly easy path for GW to go: Just make a public statement that the NDA is not genuine. I'll take them at face value and consider the issue put to rest if they do. The ball is really fully in their court, here.

 

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

The second is the more important reason, in my mind, and that I've seen disinformation and manufactured outrage ruin a few communities and I really don't want to see the Warhammer community fall into the same dump as them. GW has made some questionable decisions lately, and some of these have really upset the communuty at large; while it's very understandable to be upset by some of these things, we all have to be careful to not let that disappointment be manipulated. 

I think this is definitely a valid consideration. For tabletop games, and especially for GW games, the community is very valuable. That's why I, at least, try to balance my corporate criticism with a good amount of participation in painting and faction threads, as well as general getting hyped for stuff with people. There is a difference between letting yourself be exploited by a business and being positive, though.

[Enoby]

55 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

There is a difference between letting yourself be exploited by a business and being positive, though.

I agree - I certainly don't think we should let ourselves be exploited by predatory business practises either I think it's just a case of striking a balance and weighing up evidence to evaluate each case individually. 

If the squeeky cleanest company in the world that has a very positive fan relationship does something underhanded and scummy, I think that they should be criticised for it.

Same as if an underhanded and scummy company had a smear campaign against them that consisted of just lies, the lies should be fought against - even if to avoid a "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

I, personally, am just very cautious about making judgements without proper evidence in these sorts of situations (e.g. companies with big passionate followings) - it's not even because I like GW that much (they're a company at the end of the day), I'm just really cautious about misinformation because I know how damaging that can be.   

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I, personally, am just very cautious about making judgements without proper evidence in these sorts of situations - it's not even because I like GW that much (they're a company at the end of the day), I'm just really cautious about misinformation because I know how damaging that can be.   

This has been the problem with the recent multiples "buzz" reported not so long ago : a lot of dubious "proofs" stated as "truths / facts" and then debating while always assuming as base that they are indeed the truth / facts.

Which is why it's nice to debate about this, but they are pointless since you're always debating on something unsure.

It's not a hazard if people already having bad opinions of GW are tending into believing them as true and show it on this thread multiple times. That kind of buzz is clearly intended at them : "look at this ! GW did a bad thing again ! You're right to think they're bad ! Feel entitled and clever !"

The sad truth is that you tend not to check your sources too much when you have that mindset already. After all, it's going the way you're thinking already, so it looks true right ? That's the reason it's good to listen to the other side's arguments, sometimes.

 

Otherwise, I finally got an answer from GW customer service about the "leak" I have sent.

They said they are investigating about this but can't say much more.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Sarouan
Update

[stato]

For me the most eye-opening aspect of all this is some of the people I watched/followed, as supposedly or self proclaiming as neutral or honest, coming out and claiming the document as possibly true and warning people against early reviewers. Thats not neutral, thats self promotion and makes them as bad as the company they are complaining about. If an unsourced document is out there, by all means discuss the content and point out to your followers these things exist in society and to take any and all reviews with a pinch of salt. But to claim it is likely real with no evidence other than personal belief really put me off some people and made me question some of their past reviews and hit that (un)follow button.

[Orbei]

4 hours ago, Sarouan said:

This has been the problem with the recent multiples "buzz" reported not so long ago : a lot of dubious "proofs" stated as "truths / facts" and then debating while always assuming as base that they are indeed the truth / facts.

Except that isn't what most people are saying. I have seen people laying out what we know and drawing a conclusion, with the caviatt that we don't have (and may never have) definitive proof one way or the other. Of course some people believe that this is 100% true and others take it as 100% fake. Neither of those views should be taken very seriously.

4 hours ago, Sarouan said:

 The sad truth is that you tend not to check your sources too much when you have that mindset already. After all, it's going the way you're thinking already, so it looks true right ? That's the reason it's good to listen to the other side's arguments, sometimes.  

The irony. This statement holds true for those on both sides.  

7 hours ago, Enoby said:

The answer would be twofold for this; the first one is pretty simple, and that's just that I know very little about NDAs so I couldn't say what is and isn't normal for them. From the look of it, it doesn't seem to stop criticism of their products, just about damaging the brand name as a whole (e.g. you can say "I don't like these rules", but you can't say "GW copies the work of smaller creators without crediting them"). If someone with more knowledge can explain why this NDA is so bad, I'd appreciate it. 

I encourage you to watch this video if you want to see why the NDA is viewed as problematic by many. It is explained very well. 

 

I get that people may not care enough to watch the video above, so I'll do my best to summarize:

Restricted customer is a term defined in the document. This is an incredibly broad definition and includes anyone who is a client, customer, or "in the habit of dealing with" GW in the past 12 months. This is a very ambiguous definition.

4.1.1 prohibits the signor from attempting to influence a restricted customer towards reducing the amount of business they do with GW. Do you know what has a high likelihood of reducing the business a customer does with a company? A critical review. Anything said negatively can be seen as violating this clause. If a video is 99% positive and 1% negative, that negative part would violate the broad language used here.

4.1.2 prohibits the signor from having any business dealings with a restricted customer. This is absolutely not a standard non-compete, as it is not specific to the products GW sells. What might be in violation of this? Is Patreon a business dealing? I think so. This clause is so broad that it seems almost impossible to reasonably comply with. Hoeg uses plumbing services as an example. GW does not (currently) offer plumbing to customers, but by signing this the signor can't either.

4.1.7 is, again, very broad. The recipient cannot say or do anything harmful to the reputation of GW. I believe that this is the clause people defend as being reasonably standard, as it is interpreted to mean baseless slander of their reputation. Hoeg notes that this is unlikely to be enforced in such a restrictive way, although the language is unusually broad. I tend to believe this and see this as less problematic than 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Hoeg sums these up by saying "clause 4 is not great, and it is unusual." So, we have a (US) attorney's opinion that this is unusual for a NDA/non-compete contract. 

Further, consider the indemnity portion 6.1 and 6.2. If GW tries to enforce this the signee must pay all of their legal fees, regardless of if they are in the right or wrong. So GW has no incentive to err on the side of caution here and can seek to interpret the vague language as favorably to them as they wish.

Anyway, those are the reasons this document is problematic. It's still left to you if you believe the proponderence of the evidence points to this being likely real or fake. I believe it is likely real based on the whistleblower going to NQA and her subsequent doxxing of them. It is also left to you to decide if you think it is a positive or negative on GW's side, if true. I see this as overtly anti-consumer, aimed at the influencer's audience and GW's customers more than the signors themselves. It goes against something I value - critical product review to inform my purchases - and so I am very disappointed by it. It's ridiculous that I have to add this but apparently I do: I still don't believe GW is evil and should go out of business blah blah. I love Warhammer. 

Also, just to add. Even if it is true, it could very possibly have an innocent explanation. It may be an old template that was sent out by mistake, or a snafu with a new legal aid. Maybe they had to write a new NDA and copy/pasted some language from a vendor contract without realizing the issue caused. My own job involves reviewing legal documents and working with an in house attorney for documentation of customer contracts. I've seen plenty of mistakes with signed legal documents I'm the past. That wouldn't be surprising at all as GW still employs error-prone humans rather than superior aelves. It would be nice to learn this is a simple mix-up.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Orbei
Added last paragraph

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, Orbei said:

*snip*

Thanks for the summary I'll watch the video when away from work. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 minutes ago, Orbei said:

It's ridiculous that I have to add this but apparently I do: I still don't believe GW is evil and should go out of business blah blah. I love Warhammer. 

Of course nobody wants to see GW go out of business. I just want to nationalize them and make them bring back Tomb Kings

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, Orbei said:

Except that isn't what most people are saying. I have seen people laying out what we know and drawing a conclusion, with the caviatt that we don't have (and may never have) definitive proof one way or the other. Of course some people believe that this is 100% true and others take it as 100% fake. Neither of those views should be taken very seriously.

When you debate about the pertinence of point 4.1.1 or more as problematic, you de facto assume that those were indeed the points raised by GW to (ab)use their position of power on the people who received that document, don't you ?

So if the document is a fake (or even partially), that means the whole debate about this is pointless. What's the point of seeing that particular point as problematic / abusive from GW if it doesn't exist in reality in GW true legal documents ? And don't say you're debating about if GW does it in the future...that's totally not what is going on this thread or on the internet from the very beginning.

 

1 hour ago, Orbei said:

The irony. This statement holds true for those on both sides.  

That's why I keep reading them. And that's why I say it's pointless to debate about this as long as we're not sure about the source.

 

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Of course nobody wants to see GW go out of business. I just want to nationalize them and make them bring back Tomb Kings

There is a delicious irony to talk about nationalizing GW for returning Tomb Kings - Settra rules over all, all must serve Settra !

Joke aside, there are people who actually want to see GW go out of business. Some even go further than that, to say it politely.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Sarouan

[Orbei]

23 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

When you debate about the pertinence of point 4.1.1 or more as problematic, you de facto assume that those were indeed the points raised by GW to (ab)use their position of power on the people who received that document, don't you ?

It's like you didn't even read my post or your post that I was responding to. 😕

[Mattrulesok]

58 minutes ago, Orbei said:

It's like you didn't even read my post or your post that I was responding to. 😕

well you did write a lot of words, who has the time?

[Kodos der Henker]

This is a Forum, not a Chat

If you don't have the time to read the previous posts, you definitely don't have the time to write an appropriate reply/post either

So better not answering at all if one does not have time

[Sarouan]

16 hours ago, Orbei said:

It's like you didn't even read my post or your post that I was responding to. 😕

Of course I did. You do believe the leaked document is real. That's why all the points raised are seen as problematic, because they're real for you.

But if the document appears to be fake, what does that say of all of this ? If you were wrong about believing the document is indeed one used by GW while you spent all that time saying all of those problematic points are really a deal...that means you lose time about debating about things that weren't real and thus, were never a deal or problematic at all.

I mean, what if the 4.1.1 in the real legal document sent by GW to youtubers wasn't written at all like in the "leaked document" ? Or if the weird grammar errors weren't present ? Or if the clause about a non-competition agreement for 3 years wasn't there as well ? You are all debating about things from a source that is still unsure so far. That person may indeed have received something, but who can be sure that's actually coming from GW ?

That's what I'm saying from the very beginning and you seem not to understand. But I'm not saying you're not reading my posts here as argument.

 

Sure, you may ignore all I say and tell me I'm not reading your posts. That doesn't mean the points I'm raising in my own cease to exist and may not be questioning the very base on what you're trying to make it look like it's a big deal. And if the base is wrong...everything you're building your arguments on crumble as well.

 

So far, I got confirmation from GW they're investigating about this but they still didn't say anything about it being real or not (obviously). I think it may be good to debate about the problematic points once we get a confirmation that it is indeed true...and not a fabrication from another side for whatever reason.

I'd better stick to the facts, not feelings or beliefs. It's more healthy in these days and age, IMHO.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Sarouan

[Orbei]

You've said that people are assuming this is real based on preconceived notions. I'm telling you this is not whats happening. People are weighing the proof and reaching logical, evidence based conclusions based on that. The reasons why this might be real and why not have been clearly laid out. It's insulting for you to insinuate that people who reach a different conclusion than you are doing so simply because they are assuming something without proof. People are free to research, weigh the evidence, and draw a conclusion. 

There are three conversations happening in this thread. Is it real or fake? Is it a normal contract or problematic? And if it is both real and problematic, is that unethical on GW's part? As I understand you, no one can discuss the second or third question unless they have "beyond the shadow of a doubt" proven this to be true. It is impossible to interpret the NDA unless you'd bet your life on its validity. This is what I find to be absurd.

I'm sorry, that is not how this works. People are perfectly capable of examining the document with a critical eye in either case, as Hoeg Law's video and this very thread makes clear. Further, in life you often dont get "proof" like GW telling you it's real. If that's your standard... Okay! I'm not going to tell you you're wrong or should believe this to be real If this were a criminal trial in the US with the standard being "beyond a reasonable doubt" I would be a not guilty, or fake. If this were a civil trial with a lower burden of proof I'd say it's real. I believe that the proponderence of the evidence points to this being real and am making an interpretation based on that.

I have also stated that I am open to it being proven fake. At this point if it truly is it would behoove GW to clear this up with the community. That would absolutely not invalidate the discussion of the NDA, though. It would remain an interesting topic of what is okay in the relationship between GW, influencers, and the community.

If discussing the document without a satisfactory level of proof to you seems like a waste of time, I have to wonder why you are participating in this dialogue at all. 

[stratigo]

On 9/24/2021 at 2:02 PM, Gaz Taylor said:

If we really did that, do you think we would stop at that or stop you from posting anything and only allowing the type of comments you perceive we want 😉

Just for the record I agree with comments 2 and 3 you mentioned above (FOMO and Staff Pay) but I do not agree with what else you have mentioned. 
 

Also for the record, attitudes of some people posting here (again not naming anybody this is just a general comment), haven’t been great. My job is very stressful and at the end of the day, I want to enjoy my hobbies after a day at work. I imagine many people on this forum want to do the same. I imagine they don’t want to read about how bad GW are or how they have ruined things because they have charged some more money for a kit or created a new service. I can still enjoy my models without that service or I may have to change my approach on how I use my hobby funds (I’m married and have a child so the days of impulse buying have long gone).

Now if another Mod wants to tell me off for going off topic, let’s get back to whatever this topic was originally 😁

Being a mod isn't conducive to low stress. A normal poster has the option to simply disengage from a topic when it goes bad (or in a direction they dislike), a mod kind of doesn't.

 

On 9/27/2021 at 3:26 PM, Gaz Taylor said:

Whatever they want to do. It boils down to (in this case of content creators) do you want to have an “edge” and chance to show off new stuff but you may have to phrase some stuff carefully or have total control. Again with some of the stuff in there it’s how would it effect you. So if I had a YouTube channel as my main job, I would get legal advice but as a hobby I would be less likely to do that. 

Ive loss track of the saga now as the weekend has been and gone (I got to go out and see Russell Kane at a comedy show like how it used to be!!), but for me the stuff I’d be concerned about is selling stuff. Not so much about saying my thoughts on things as I think you can do that without resorting to being insulting.

 

The issue is that if GW was to get real gnarly they could start slamming anyone who doesn't sign a contract with them with copyright claims and strikes, Nintendo style (though even nintendo has eased up a little).

 

Then you gotta get into the weeds of "Is a battle report a copyright violation?" And find the answer is "Actually it doesn't matter, the tools are slanted super in favor of the corporate entity over the individual or small business"

On 9/28/2021 at 5:50 AM, Kodos der Henker said:

I know why I usually stay away from the 40k/Warhammer communities on Reddit (and FB in general) but come along such things by trying to dig out some facts (hence why I found Archs video)

But fighting people on how stupid they must be for not realising that this is the industry standard in one thread while on the other fighting people on how stupid they are for not realising that this must be fake to make GW look evil

Both defending GW with a negative attitude towards the customer/community but at the same time the more of those controversy comes up, the more legit the document looks (as those vocal group fight and cancel each other, either it is standard and there is nothing wrong with GW or fake and there is nothing wong with GW while the option that there is something wrong stays as the calm 3rd "person" in the room)

And from the past, GW is that stupid to send the wrong file out to sign and a 3rd party got the document meant for internals and not some evil GW conspiracy that this is intended to be the new NDA for reviews to shut down bad ones thru the backdoor (as no business without permission can get people into not being negative to make sure to get that permission)

 

But now you are cursed with 7 years bad youtube recommends.  My condolences.

 

On 9/28/2021 at 12:02 PM, Orbei said:

I can't wrap my head around why someone wouldn't care about this, if it's true (as it seems to be). This isn't just anti small business (content creators). It's anti-consumer, as this serves to turn objective reviewers into people who are unable to give an unbiased or critical opinion. Why would a customer of GW be okay with this? 

Some people desperately don't want a hobby they like to be associated with anything bad and kneejerk against any bad news. Some people don't care as long as they get theirs and are grumpy that people are talking about things they don't care about. And some people think businesses are morally right in literally anything they do.

On 9/28/2021 at 12:38 PM, ArkanautDadmiral said:

What would you like those fans to do?

Largely not spuriously insult the people who do have a problem with GW's bad business practices. I mean if all they said was "Doesn't effect me, don't care" Sure, whatever. But they go to lengths to defend why this sort of stuff is okay actually and it's the little people that are the wrong and bad ones and really deserve it.

On 9/28/2021 at 2:08 PM, Sarouan said:

I vaguely watched it, but honestly I didn't really dig it too deep because well...as I said, it all goes down to "don't sign it if you don't agree with it".

People aren't forced to sign a NDA to post youtubes videos talking about GW products. Or post on a forum. Or post on social medias in general.

And purpose/value is indeed for content creators...but not especially the viewers, here. Because who is getting the products free / well in advance thanks to a partnership with GW ? The content creator who signed with GW...certainly not its viewers.

So yeah, I totally get why some of these content creators try to make a noise about it and try to make it look like it matters for their viewers as well...I mean, yes in a way, but not really in another...they're likely to get a video from their favorite content creator, either way.

After all, a dishonest youtuber will still be dishonest, abusive NDA signed or not.

 

This of course eventually becomes 

 

"I mean, you should just starve to death homeless in the streets if you don't like the practices of businesses" when you take your positions to the logical endpoint.

 

It's a huge advantage, enough so that it can make or break a business, to get early access to content. It is not okay for a business to use this as a tool to bludgeon criticism or, like... bizarrely tell them to not sell sandwiches to GW customers

 

On 9/28/2021 at 3:12 PM, Sarouan said:

To be honest, if the leak is true and that Arch guy's screenshots appearing in his videos are legit as well...I think the intention of the leaker isn't really to warn the community about the "abusive NDA contract", but rather have the community weigh in so that the leaker (and other content creators as well) can have a better deal benefiting him.

But it's not for the sake of "the benefit of the viewers", here...it's more simply using it to gain a better deal, because they know they can have more weigh negociating if they're not alone (especially if the community is behind them). In a few words : gaining the butter, the money and the butter seller's smile. Not the viewers, the content creator. If he has a better deal, he'll be more than happy to sign it, keep his free stuff and still do whatever he wants in his videos, including giving subjective opinion leaning more one way or the other than it should be objectively.

Would make them sense he doesn't want to "ruin his relationship with GW" and would rather stay anonymous.

But again, it's just assuming everything is true...and yeah, it's better not to think to deep into it in the end.

 

Less corporate influence on reviews is nothing but a benefit for both the reviewer and the consumer. I don't know how you could think otherwise honestly.

On 9/28/2021 at 6:44 PM, novakai said:

 
Bro you sound like you don’t trust other human being and find them all gulliable to mind bending tactics (which may be is one of those sad facts). 

But that not being con they are buying something they want and getting something they want, a con is buying something and getting nothing or  something you don’t want. 

I am not defending GW but I find their problem are tame and standard compare to Amazon and Facebook who collect and manipulate browsing data for their marketing. Amazon is like indirectly  responsible for most of these anti consumer decision other companies make because they are so big and hard to compete against. But my point then consumer are ultimately the one dictating the market.

 

There's no question that other companies do much much worse things than GW. But they are usually problems of degrees rather then kind. GW does shady things to a lesser degree than amazon, but they are still similarly shady?

And this is a forum about GW and not the monster that is amazon.

On 9/29/2021 at 11:59 AM, amysrevenge said:

Just a small tidbit about non-compete clauses in general.  This is specific to Canada, but might apply in other places.

My wife signed a contract with a 6 month non-compete clause in it.  Her lawyer said that non-compete clauses like this are basically not legally binding or enforceable, but many large employers put them in their standard contracts anyway.  Rather than raise a stink and get lawyers even more involved she decided to sign anyway, and made the ethical decision to abide by the terms she committed to by signing, even though they were not legally binding.

Is it because raising a stink would cost her money and even if it isn't legally binding ever trying to fight it would risk her (and you by extension I suppose) suffering under legal fees even if you won?

On 9/30/2021 at 3:16 AM, RuneBrush said:

Completely this.  Regardless of if it's this NDA or a different one, you're being asked to sign a document to receive some early release models/books.  It's completely voluntary, you can choose to go "no thank you" if you don't wish to agree to the terms.

 

Which, on the thin margins of being a content creator, can make or break a channel. This is a bad thing, GW is using access as a tool to get people to sign what is a very shady contract. This ain't cool.

On 9/30/2021 at 3:19 PM, Gaz Taylor said:

I think a lot of this discussion, depends on how you see GW. I don’t see GW as a horrible, evil mega corporation. I just see them as a company with lots of employees who are very passionate about what they do (making miniatures). It doesn’t always mean they are good at other things but I suspect it’s because I’ve worked at a few different companies like this and I’m not surprised. 

Also it always comes back the question - If you want X, then you sign the NDA. If you don’t like the NDA you don’t sign it or even discuss changes with them about it. If my lively hood depended on me being aware about such stuff, common sense says you would get legal advice! 

I’m not justifying it, I’m just saying if you don’t like it, don’t sign it. That’s the case for anything like this, especially if my livelihood depended on it. 

Also I think too many people are in the Review mindset and sort of comparing this with Video Games. Advance copies of stuff aren’t for reviews, it’s about building hype. For example, GW release a new battletome. Now what are my options here? I can’t go to another company for rules to play in age of sigmar, so it just boils down to the advance copy video building hype for the release by showing off the rules, background and what models you can use. 

 

How passionate about making miniatures do you think Rountree is?

 

The people passionate about making miniatures in GW are.... largely making miniatures. They're not making business decisions on what NDAs to send to influencers, or how much miniature makers and rules writers should be paid (cause they'd certainly pay themselves more then GW does). 

Like, the people making miniatures and writing rules are mostly wonderful folks making fun products and are only very rarely the same people going "And now we raise the prices by 20 percent".

Associating the people making miniatures and the people writing and sending NDAs is a bad one cause they are very rarely the same people, and a person that crosses from miniature making to deciding who to send NDAs has ceased making miniatures in any case. And, at this point, who left in the top of the GW corporate structure has ever worked in rules writing or miniature design or done anything but be a manager or executive or investor all their life? The guys who created the company and built the rules and crafted the models and still have some ownership sold the company and left decades ago. 

That's the issue when we talk about GW. By and large the corporate executives of midsized and up companies exist in a space where they have always been executives or managers, never having done the grunt work the company specializes in. And they largely often don't understand what it is to work these jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

[Greybeard86]

I am baffled that, at this point in the conversation, we still need to explain that: 1) a company strong arming reviewers into giving positive reviews is bad for us and 2) GW can make or break channels with early access, coverage in warhammer community and similar tools.

So no, it really isn’t optional for those covering warhammer, not getting this sort of support is a big deal (at the very least they d need to think very carefully about it).  It is a phenomenon happening with video games as well, and it is a well known perversion of what reviews are meant to be.

As for being accused of negativity, that is also extremely surprising to me. Given the above, of course a lot of people are going to dislike this sort of actions. I thought this was a place to discuss the hobby, and this most definitely is part of it.

[stratigo]

17 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I am baffled that, at this point in the conversation, we still need to explain that: 1) a company strong arming reviewers into giving positive reviews is bad for us and 2) GW can make or break channels with early access, coverage in warhammer community and similar tools.

So no, it really isn’t optional for those covering warhammer, not getting this sort of support is a big deal (at the very least they d need to think very carefully about it).  It is a phenomenon happening with video games as well, and it is a well known perversion of what reviews are meant to be.

As for being accused of negativity, that is also extremely surprising to me. Given the above, of course a lot of people are going to dislike this sort of actions. I thought this was a place to discuss the hobby, and this most definitely is part of it.

The most prominent of reviewers could possibly make a career of being someone who stood against the shady tactics and use that to push themselves as the honest reviewer. An... honest wargamer if you will (  ). But this will be a minority of people who can do this. Smaller then the video game companies that managed this (And, well, giantbomb ain't looking so hot any more anyways. Least Jim's still doing his wierd wonderful thing) since the hobby is also smaller.

 

It might be why there would be two kinds of NDAs, the thumbscrews to the little people, and a less draconian one to channels with some clout.