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

[The Red King]

Perhaps I wasnt clear. I'm not presuming guilt. I'm saying that if someone told me my friend who doesn't drink got wasted and arrested for public indecency while taking a whizz on a courthouse I would ASSUME that was incorrect until I knew it wasn't. 

 

If that same friend had been spending the last few months posting progressively more alarming photos of themselves going on wild benders then I would be much more quick to assume the worst and need to be convinced otherwise.

Let me put it in a more relatable way for us. If a leak comes our tomorrow saying the next codex is nurgle we would all find that very believable due to a number of factors and prevailing opinions. If a leak comes out saying it's grotbag scuttlers then the rumour would be met with much less acceptance and subject to much more scrutiny. The way this has been received is indicative of how more people than before are viewing the company and that's not good for the game and thus not good for the community. Now you can blame the public for its shift in opinion but I propose to blame the source.

I want GW to succeed as a company, but what I was saying is that the fact this is a plausible NDA (and I must assume it is since people were willing to defend GW's right to do things that may have been faked just to be seen as a draconian overreach of anti consumerism and I ASSUME people wouldn't defend something if it wasn't at least reasonable in their mind) instead of something that could be immediately dismissed out of hand is indicative that GW's public image has been degraded sharply over the last year or so which should be concerning to the fanbase at large. Best case scenario, every single person who thinks poorly of GW is wrong and everything GW has done is fine and the health of the game would still be threatened by this *undeserved* damage to their PR. More likely the communities generally more sour attitude towards GW (as opposed to say 2 years ago) has been brought on in part by actions taken by the company. 

 

I dont think companies are evil in the same way I dont think chaos demons are evil. They're both just doing what they exist to do. One exists to make money (and long term public goodwill doesnt show up in quarterly reports).

Edited September 24, 2021 by The Red King

[Greybeard86]

Frankly, I have lost faith in most people covering GW products in youtube and popular websites.

Even without the NDA, a lot of them just have too much of an incentive to stay in GW's good side.

I love the sculpts, I sure do not love the company, and I wish we had healthier discussions about it online.

PS - Also, it might be against the rules, but why are the MODs always trying to steer conversations? I get that you can do whatever you want, but the constant reminders to "not be too negative" seem a bit excessive.

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I will clarify that I'm not "calling out" the mods. It's just my opinion that the moderation team as a whole are quite pro-games workshop. They are entitled to that opinion, but I personally would prefer that they be a bit less hands on about it. I hope that isn't seen as an insult to anyone in particular. 

OK, I'll take that critique on the chin - it's a fair comment.  One of the reason I know I can come across as pro-GW is because most of my venting about things GW does tends to be done over zoom with my hobby group.  It means I don't need to get it out of my system on here, so you really only get the positive side of things.  Don't get me wrong, like Gaz there are a few bits GW have done that I don't agree with, but I'm very conscious that if I focus too much on those things that it'll ultimately mean I get less enjoyment out of the hobby.  As I've got older I've also become much more of a glass half full person - if I can't change something I'll do my best to not dwell on it too much.

8 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

PS - Also, it might be against the rules, but why are the MODs always trying to steer conversations? I get that you can do whatever you want, but the constant reminders to "not be too negative" seem a bit excessive.

MOD reply.  There's two parts to this.  Firstly in the past we've had instances where we've not stepped in early enough and had to tidy up a mess with members being downright unpleasant to each other (on occasions resulting warnings & bans).  Secondly quite often our intervention has been following one or multiple reports where other members have reported a post.  In truth we're behind a rock and a hard place because whatever we do won't be right for somebody - sorry.

[Noserenda]

I would just like to say i do quite like the moderation approach here, a bit of steering when we are getting into a circle of negativity is no bad thing, especially when the negativity over negativity whirlpool starts up. Other places lock down at the slightest criticism of GW and i think that lak of vent just makes things worse.

So thankyou mods, for running an excellent ship! 

Back on topic, i do think the Red King has hit the spot here, it feels like over the last 6 months-year GW have been increasingly anti consumer to the extent where such a draconian NDA seems plausible to so many. Thats probably a bigger problem than this probable fake tbh.

[HollowHills]

@Gaz Taylor@RuneBrush

I don't think there is any active censorship, I guess sometimes the desire to remain positive can sometimes come across as being kind to GW.

As mods though I get there is a certain level of responsibility in that ranting about GW might come across as a bad example when trying to maintain an overall positive community. 

I am definitely prone to believing something bad about GW if I hear it, like I never even considered this might be fake. So that's my own bias.

It isn't that I want them to fail, it's just I've been a bit let down by the changes (business wise) in the last couple of years. While still greatly enjoying the product and games themselves. 

[Higolx]

Im just glad we can maintain a certain level of respect when discussing such a heated topic tbh. Wish more places had that but I think it comes with being a smaller community.

My only problem is that I, and thats me, have yet to see any good source saying this NDA is even real. The person who posted this on reddit at first didnt even receive it themselves and they dont say who send it to them. Then we have people like goober that have been on twitter nonstop trying to prove this is real using arguments like "would I like to you? :)". Im sorry but saying that with a smiling face in the end doesnt prove to me this is real.

If anyone has anything more concrete showing this is real I'd love to see those evidences but rn it just feels like theres a lot of smoke but no actual fire.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Higolx
"would I like to you? :)" -> "would I lie to you? :)"

[yukishiro1]

I just want to say that I appreciate the mods here, even if we tend to disagree substantively on a fair number of these topics. I too sometimes feel like there is a different standard applied to "negative" posters and "positive" ones where the "positive" ones are afforded a longer leash, sometimes to the point where they are allowed to aggressively go after other posters in a way that would get a "negative" poster (rightly) shut down. But I am also super aware this doesn't come from any kind of conscious bias, it's just part of being human. 

Y'all on the mod team do a really great job in general of keeping this place pleasant and civil when compared to the rest of the internet. I really, genuinely appreciate your efforts, even if in the heat of the moment I may not show it. 😁

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:08 PM, Sarouan said:

Hmmm...looks like the source is actually contested...

Coming from NornQueenAlexis :

Also...why GW would refer themselves as litterally just the initial "GW" in a legal document, while they never say what the "GW" letters mean anywhere in it ?

Only the community talk about GW as "GW". In a legal document ? Unlikely.

Moreover...the logo on the left top of the document is actually the old GW logo. If it's a new version...why using it ?

 

And apparently, Nornqueenalexis had the DNA itself, and was argueing with Goobertown on Twitter as well.

Given that Goobertown has apparently no issue with spreading potential false information...and that's he has a clear interest into 3D prints as well...not sure if I would take this guy's words as being that trustworthy on that matter.

A new development regarding the credibility of the NDA:

Apparently Norn Queen Alexis, who is the person that previously disputed the credibility of the leak, has been contacted by the original source of the NDA with proof that it is indeed genuine (and promptly chose to dox them in a display of pure class).

[Sarouan]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

A new development regarding the credibility of the NDA:

Apparently Norn Queen Alexis, who is the person that previously disputed the credibility of the leak, has been contacted by the original source of the NDA with proof that it is indeed genuine (and promptly chose to dox them in a display of pure class).

I guess that's why her twitter account has now disappeared...

Still hadn't any answer from GW's customer service about my question. So we keep being in the fog to know if it's real or not.

I'd rather keep myself out of it before having better sure sources, at this point.

[sandlemad]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

A new development regarding the credibility of the NDA:

Apparently Norn Queen Alexis, who is the person that previously disputed the credibility of the leak, has been contacted by the original source of the NDA with proof that it is indeed genuine (and promptly chose to dox them in a display of pure class).

That is appalling behaviour. Whatever about the truth or not of the NDA, it goes way beyond “fighting misinformation” or whatever and into some bizarre vindictiveness, whether out of some severe attachment to GW being viewed positively or just being unhealthily invested in petty internet drama.

[Orbei]

I came across a video of a lawyer breaking down the NDA. He very effectively discusses the problematic parts, namely 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. This doesn't offer any further proof of legitimacy one way or the other. 

https://youtu.be/OGDw2Noh2Xk

Sad to see that behavior from NQA. It's not surprising though. Basically the internet equivalent of road rage.

 

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

5 hours ago, Orbei said:

I came across a video of a lawyer breaking down the NDA. He very effectively discusses the problematic parts, namely 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. This doesn't offer any further proof of legitimacy one way or the other. 

https://youtu.be/OGDw2Noh2Xk

Sad to see that behavior from NQA. It's not surprising though. Basically the internet equivalent of road rage.

 

Thanks for this. I've been avoiding chiming in directly without more info from those with actual legal expertise, and this goes a long way towards establishing context for the document within a practical legal perspective.

[yukishiro1]

So does that mean it is real? NQA seemed to indicate as much in saying the first one was edited (to remove names) but this one was real, even as she behaved appallingly badly in some deluded attempt to...well...who even knows, honestly. Just sad. Talk about having a meltdown. 

[Greybeard86]

Ignoring the drama side, are we surprised that warhammer “influencers” get goodies with strings attached? I have seen some competitive channels snicker when they mention some of the new hot stuff and whether it is balanced. 

Frankly, from ITC organizers to YouTube personalities, the vast majority are so in bed with GW that it is hard to trust any of their so called reviews. At this point they are just part of the hype machine.

This is a curious case, since a lot of the “pure” community is actually in the unsupported systems (e.g. whfb, mordheim), whereas the supported systems have been taken over by GW and “subsidiaries”. 

I am surprised there isn’t more backlash against this. I  like the sculpts and the background (though I like more the foundations of that background than some of the new more developments), but I d like some honest reviews and honest discussions about FOMO, clearer release schedules, more pro consumer policies (Enough with the tree wasting money grabbing rules releases). I feel that for that push not to devolve into internet bickering and trolling we need more of a true community. Sycophants ain’t community leaders.

[Public Universal Duardin]

It seems NornQueenAlexis either deleted her account or got hit by Twitter's ban hammer for doxxing. Good. I've not been an active follower or anything, but she lost a lot of respect from me for what she did. I get that we're fans, but nobody should be such a sycophant or corporate stooge for a multi million corpo to throw someone to the wolves (and a hefty  lawsuit), especially when this whistleblower seems to have done a community service. This NDA being real, which it seems rn, is important info as it'll impact this community strongly. It is a GOOD thing we now know of it's existence.

It's also really important that even if we'd have choice words about NornQueenAlexis it's real [expletive] important to not be a bigot yourself. It's not a problem here, but looking at Twitter I've seen Warhammer aficionados like us decide her conduct makes it okay to direct bigotry her way - someone doesn't lose their right to be treated as a human even if they're a piece of dung. If someone's sexuality or gender identity is only respected until they "step out of line", it was never respected in first place - and signals to other minorities that they're only accepted as long as they don't step out of line either.

Like I said, not a problem here - but more a general PSA and in case this escalates I hope this is remembered. Condemn her actions, do not attack her self.

[Kodos der Henker]

Not bein in Twitter nor do I ever heard of those, but just to some it up if I got everything right

- Someone leaked an NDA from GW with some unusual terms that should make people worry (like the 3 years period)
- than someone came up with a proof that it was fake
- the original person now send data to confirm it is real
- those that proofed it as fake than released the personal data of the whistle-blower
- parts of the community went after the whistle-blower?
- the twitter account from the person who leaked the personal data was removed
- the NDA is confirmed to be real and to be around for a while now

so content creators/reviewers working with GW under that NDA, have to follow the rules for 3 years, which is currently the edition cycle of the main games, after receiving the product for review. Making them more like an external PR department rather than an independent reviewer

[novakai]

Or playtesters, I believe many of them would know stuff that won’t come out until 2-3 years later so their NDA would be a bit longer. Big YouTube channels like say Tabletop tactics do both play testing for GW and get early access to books. 
 

there was a claim that one of the playtester where testing AoS 3.0 rule set in 2018/2019

Edited September 27, 2021 by novakai

[yukishiro1]

The only thing I'd add to that is we still have multiple other content creators saying that isn't the NDA that they personally signed. So it seems it is either a new one GW just started sending around, or they have several different ones they send to different groups. 

If it really is real, as it now seems to be...it's pretty worrying and embarrassing that GW legal is producing documents that sloppy, not even getting into the oppressively one-sided substantive provisions. I mean the people on the "this is fake" side were even pointing to the sloppiness as a reason why it couldn't be real...

Edited September 27, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

7 minutes ago, novakai said:

Or playtesters, I believe many of them would know stuff that won’t come out until 2-3 years later so their NDA would be a bit longer. Big YouTube channels like say Tabletop tactics do both play testing for GW and get early access to books. 
 

there was a claim that one of the playtester where testing AoS 3.0 rule set in 2018/2019

Makes sense. Given the extended lead time on GW products thanks to everything being tied to physical book releases it wouldn't surprise me if editions where finalized two thirds through the life cycle of their preceding edition. GW are functionally working a year+ in the future from what we as customers see so things like FAQs are literally retroactive changes made by an individual/team that hasn't touched that product in months. Makes you wonder how long they have to finalize changes in regular publications like the GHB and how much data/major meta shifts are missed in the gap between finalizing and release.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a new writeup for playtesters given the leaks for 3.0 came primarily from a playtester and the drama things like unleash hell stirred up originally.

[yukishiro1]

If it's the new NDA for playtesters, they're going to have tremendous trouble getting people to sign up. Having to forgo selling anything to any GW customers for 3 years after you receive your last playtesting info without getting GW's written permission rules out basically any content creator, and that's not even getting into why anyone would possibly sign a no-fault indemnity provision. Asking people to be free labor and at the same time give up any right to make money in any other way that touches on GW customers and to pay GW no-fault indemnity in the event of any sort of leak strikes me as truly absurd, and frankly, I wouldn't trust the playtesting judgment of anyone who was willing to take that "deal." 

It's almost as if they should be using professional playtesters who they pay a living wage, not trying to utilize free labor from the community...

[GrogTheGrognard]

I'm just going to point out that I checked out who was doxed and they're not even a major battle report content creator. It's a painter. Not a playtester or battle report maker. A painter was asked to sign the NDA and was doxxed when they decided to whistleblow.

 

EDIT: Honestly this entire situation is so terrible. NQA shouldn't have doxxed anyone and I'm still struggling to understand the reason why she did so, but I also can't stand the fact that some people on reddit are trying to get NQA Pateron banned because of this. Its become so crazy on the lengths people will go to both attack and defend things now.

Edited September 27, 2021 by GrogTheGrognard

[yukishiro1]

The internet enables the worst kind of bullying, because when you don't have to look at the face of the person you're abusing, you don't have to recognize they're a human being, and therefore you have no need to show any sort of mercy or compassion. This can be applied both to what NQA did and what is now being done to her. 

 

[Orbei]

No one will be able to publicly confirm that they signed it, since it's.. you know.. an NDA. Perhaps we'll have folks coming forward saying that they received it and refused to sign it, but that would essentially ensure they're not offered another chance to work with GW for the foreseeable future. At this point it seems much more plausibly believed to be real, at least to me. 

It's very anti-consumer, as I see it. The whole point of getting product in the hands of "reviewers" early is to let them offer their unbiased opinion on the product to consumers. Ideally, they should be releasing rules and models to reviewers who then provide feedback on how they are to build and perform in game on day 1 of the release. Similar to reviews for video games and tech products. Anyone who signs this document cannot give a review, since a review by it's very nature has the potential to cause someone not to buy the product, which this NDA prohibits. They are more or less a "promoter" at this point.

The legal ramifications pointed out on the video I linked earlier are pretty staggering. No one should ever sign an agreement like this. Unfortunately some people will, either not knowing better or simply from desperation in growing their channel. I hope that GW does not actually enforce it, and would like to believe they will allow some leeway. 

I'd also be thrilled if this was somehow proven to be fake. That just doesn't seem likely at this point. 

 

[yukishiro1]

At this point, if it is somehow some elaborate fake, GW really needs to come out with a statement that it is fake. Anything short of that and people are reasonably going to look at the situation - particularly NQA flip-flopping from claiming it's fake to admitting it's real after getting an unedited version - and conclude that yeah, on balance, it looks like it's real. 

 

 

[Kodos der Henker]

People not knowing how a regular NDA looks like, being new and trying to get into the scene, sign this without knowing what they are doing

while others might sign it to get an advantage as the influence scene is about minutes on who has things up first, and someone who only cares about money and fame is willing to advertise a product no matter their personal opinion on it

now going toxic against the whistle-blower is a no-go, but as often, people rather kill the messenger than accepting the message