.jpg.7322e1f85857c0c3e3a7eae21a61ffc2.jpg){kind=tracking}
Sarouan
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sarouan
-
-
35 minutes ago, Orbei said:
Why would a customer of GW be okay with this?
Simple. If true, it actually only matters to those looking these so called "content-creators". I'll be honest : to me, it targets primarily "influencers", who were never objective and always have a subjective opinion on the products they advertise. Them having a NDA with GW or not doesn't mean to me they're "clean" or not in itself - really depends about the youtuber's personnality and principles...and nothing forbids them to warn they're in a NDA with GW to their viewers if they wish it so (at least, I didn't see anything in the "leaked" document clearly stipulating it).
It doesn't really matter to me because I see the youtubers as what they are : people with their subjective opinions, and I take their content appropriately. NDA or not...even if I'm be more willing to follow those who are honest to say they may not be "free" to say everything they want because of contracts they signed. Like youtubers making placement products ; there are those who say they do it and those who don't.
Moreover, not all GW customers are actually following youtubers to tell them if they must buy GW products or not - either they look for information like reviews of books, or they want to be entertained. And the content that could be "problematic" because of this NDA if true is quite specific and easy to spot, to be blunt.
So yeah, the truth doesn't really matter here, IMHO. Especially when drama between youtubers is involved...the real "scandal" has less to do with GW and more with the youtubers' respective behaviors, in the end.
-
*shrugs*
Still no answer from GW's customer service, anyway. Don't seem to have anything else out there as well, we're still arguing about the "leaked" document. We still don't know what is true and what is fake here.
At least, I guess it seems NQA's twitter account was simply removed by herself, she wasn't banned.
Also, if the screenshots from that Arch guy's videos aren't fake...I can understand why Goobertown quickly make that announcement, because yeah it totally looks like it was him who harassed NQA to take the "real document" just so that he could have the last word.
And really, the source is asking people "not to share it or show my name, because I don't want to ruin my relationship with GW" ? By "leaking" a NDA contract with them which is already telling "yeah I'm not trustworthy at all as a business partner"...?
This whole case really sounds like kindergarden's level.
...
Better not to pay anymore attention to it. Whatever truth there is, it's just not worth it.
-
37 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:
So what do you think? What criteria are most important when you assess the quality of a model? Is it all about the art in its "purest" form painted by professionals? Is accessibility and usability an important factor too?
Since we're talking about miniatures, I believe one of the factors being actually important is the material used to make the miniature.
Reason why I keep sticking with GW's miniatures is because of their plastic kits. Even though they changed through the years, their material is still very enjoyable to build and tinker with to make conversions. Easy to cut, easy to glue, flexible enough to bend and not break instantly (well...if it's not too thin), durable to survive a fall and also easy to cover with paints.
Sure, some 3D renders look awesome, but the main gripe with 3D printing is that it varies wildly with the resin used. And when you use something that has the same properties than GW's plastic...it's quickly becoming expensive.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
10 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
Agreed.
I don't want to attack anyone but it honestly seems like the mods on this forum only want to praise GW.
I have only ever seen defense of GW from them and the use of mod powers to end criticism.
On the other hand, who is making those threads with constant attacks on GW with - like here - few facts on the matter they're talking about in them ? You, HollowHills.
Given that well known history of you making quite strongly negative topics constantly, if you are indeed victim of some kind of 'censorship', don't you think the mods would have locked all of your threads as soon as you posted them ? Yet they didn't. This topic is still not locked at the time of now either.
And now, you're complaining you're viewed by some as a negative person ? Well, what did you expect when someone reads your posts ? Are you here for positivity, anyway ? No, you're not. Just watching your post history here is enough to see that.
So stop playing the victim here. You're not even called by name in Gaz Taylor's intervention.
And by the way, GW's own history ? Yeah, I know it as well. But this thread here is not about GW's past...it's about GW's present. And if you're using something that's more likely to be revealed as a fake like fact GW is back at doing ****** practices again...that's entirely your own responsibility here, not GW's.
-
4
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, GrogTheGrognard said:
A bit off topic but as I recall wasn't that actually a leak of the playtest rules for 6th edition 40k? It was rules that were given to play-testers for GW and some of them leaked the files so it wasn't an actual fake, but it wasn't the real 6th edition rules either? Honestly, can't remember I can only remember those rules included alternating activations for units which is one thing I'd like to see for both 40k and AoS.
If I remember well, it was actually a fan-made set of rules by a small group playing together in their club, and it was used by some people to make it pass as the next 40k edition "leak". Boy did it make a lot of noise at that time...so much it stayed in my mind.
The disappointment that was when it was revealed it was false ! Some people did actually play with it thinking it was playtest for the next edition and they were making very serious analysis of it all...just like for this NDA, in the end.
You would think in this day and age, people should know better than believe the first guy claiming they have a scoop, wouldn't you ?
-
It doesn't have to be malicious at first, in fact. Can totally be initially a joke made to a youtuber "for lolz" and others swiftly use it as facts for totally different reasons (being the first on the info, showing how evil GW is, gaining click in videos / website, and so on).
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Orbei said:
NornQueenAlexis saying it's fake without proof is equally as useful than Goobertown saying it's real. If you believe one of them at face value but not the other it's entirely due to your own preconceived bias regarding the issue.
Well, NornQueenAlexis is more likely to have received a NDA from GW than Goobertown given the nature of her youtube channel, you know. And she seems to have signed one.
-
Well, I sent a mail to GW's customer service with the document itself joined to it and plain ask them if it's a real one or not, so I'm waiting to see their official answer on this.
-
If it's a new version of the NDA, they wouldn't use the old GW logo in it.
Really sounds like a fake more and more we're digging into it.
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, HollowHills said:
Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.
Some people used to take a lot of time to make a convincing page from a new codex just to be able to post it on the internet and enjoy the rumors getting wild / click-bait / just for lolz in the past. Why not a false NDA contract.
And since people who really, REALLY hate GW are more than happy to jump on anything, it's also easy to use that as clickbait on website / youtube channels for the public out there that's thirsty for that kind of dirt on GW, no matter what it is. Like you were using unverified claims that turned out to be false in previous threads here.
49 minutes ago, HollowHills said:Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.
See, as long as it matches your narrative, you're more than eager to believe it. That's why it's dangerous to have extreme views, no matter how right you think you are. Better to check facts and sources first.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Still, the kid genuinely thought the army he bought was actually a GW Warhammer army. And the seller knew very well what he was doing by labelling his product as such. That's what really matters here.
Cracking down on purposefully mislabelled products on second-hand websites is a good thing. I despise people who try to take advantage of innocents who aren't as knowledgeable as miniature veterans.
-
4
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:
I reckon there's only one way to prove this - I need to become a YouTube influencer! Best dust off the web cam...
Make a live stream of the Tale of Two Moderators ! With a chat on twitch and people throwing money at you while you build miniatures and paint them
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
You are ignoring that there is a significant power imbalance between GW and the average youtuber reviewing their stuff.
No, I'm also pretty much aware of the even more huge power imbalance between my current employer (the state
) and me.
And even so ! In this case, the youtuber already has a job. The contract is about something more "intimate" with GW that may be indeed more profitable for the youtuber in the future in terms of view - doesn't mean his channel is worthless without that tie. He can still have his youtuber job without it. Me, on the other hand, I am 100% certain I lose my job without it.
Which is why...
8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:One of the reasons why the NDA is newsworthy is that it represents a step toward more restrictive terms than GW previously required. They previously had NDAs, but they were apparently nowhere near as harsh (according to Midwinter Minis, who has previously been public about ending an unproductive partnership with GW). This would be another piece of evidence that GW is gearing up to be come more aggressive about their IP enforcement and more customer unfriendly. It is in line with the recent behavour we have seen from GW that many of us find worrying.
...the context in which this contract is made (if real) is actually key for its importance, before trying to say "it's bad for everyone !!".
If it's actually specific like a long term contract with an outsider for, say, working on future battletomes and receiving crucial information way before its release, having very restrictive terms about leaks is not that surprising...and thus may be not the "generic NDA contract" other people working with GW for less "sensible projects" have.
-
Even if it's real...it's basically a contract. You can also point the terms you don't agree with and negociate with the contractor about them. If they agree to change them, good. If not, well it's still up to you to decide to sign or not anyway.
We also need to know in which context this contract is sent. Is it to receive free GW products in advance ? Or working on rules ? Or something else ? Because all of that matters and put some terms that may look very restrictive in another light...NDA contracts are usually specific in adequation to what it is protecting.
For example, I work for a federal administration. What I have is even harsher than this one...not only can't I disclose personnal information outside of the needs of my work, I also have to justify them. With the protection of private data being more and more important, the need to show it's strictly used for very specific purposes is growing with the years. And if I was to use them inappropriately...not only am I risk with being fired, I'm also liable to be served a lawsuit. Should I be denouncing this situation I'm in ? Well...I'm not sure I would be taken seriously if I did. Besides, I believe it's actually very understandable I'm limited that way...
If GW was to work with a reviewer and giving free products for the sake of reviews well in advance...I wouldn't be surprised if they get very restrictive about leaks, since that's a high priority for them for quite a lot of years now. And well...for a youtuber, having information before everyone else ? It's basically a goldmine.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:
Then don't. The rest of us can talk about what this would mean if it is real while also recognizing it could not be. I don't think anyone in this thread - certainly not me - is saying it has to be real. I hope it isn't real.
...but what is the point ? Showing you're right on a hypothetical case ?
Why not waiting for facts being confirmed from a serious source first ? At least, you'd be sure it's a big mountain or a molehill. I don't get the need to make a hypothetical big mountain of something that may not be real...
-
7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
I'm going off GW's own definitions in the document. It is what is being said. Look at their definition of Restricted Customer at the top. It explicitly says it's any GW customer. I agree, their definition is very different from the normal definition - that's the whole point - though the definition you're quoting there re: working for the company is a typical definition of a Restricted Person, not a Restricted Customer. Restricted Customer normally means a customer of the company that you developed a relationship with due to your job duties - i.e. the head of sales at a game shop that you got to know because you working in GW sales, or something like that. As written, 4.1.1 absolutely does prohibit you from trying to sell anything to any GW customer without GW's advance permission.
First, you have to be sure the file is actually the real one...and if that's the case, in which context it was made.
You can debate all on you want on the terms, if you don't take them in the right context or - worse - if it's not real because faked for whatever reason...well, it's pointless to debate on this, IMHO.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:
If you're not content to personally insult me on dakka but want to do it here too, I guess that's up to you. But it seems like a waste of everyone's time and effort, not to mention being contrary to both forums' rules.
I am content to let my posts speak for themselves, both here and there, I think everyone can see who's respectfully engaging on the topic and who isn't.
Feel free to take that as "personnal insult" where it's really just me saying "you shouldn't decrebilize yourself for this, it's not worth it".
I actually agree with you on some threads you made about GW practices. But here ? Come on. What you're only doing is simply giving fuel for people to just ignore your arguments in the future - because you're talking about something you don't know about and try to make it look like it's big. Worse...from a file taken out of context and with suspecting other interests trying to attract attention to gain money (youtube video, spikeybit topic...that's a too obvious click bait topic for people wanting to spit on GW and hungry for more "clear cases GW is evil" being "out in the public view").
Such a great leak it is, isn't it ? Well, not really.
-
13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
You are wrong about the timeline, the NDA did not originate on dakkadakka.
No, but that's where the usual suspects for GW bashing come from.
13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:I guess the leaves open the possibility that someone else faked this document to deliberately hoax miscast into spreading it, though.
Yes, indeed. And the usual suspects for GW bashing joyfully jump on the opportunity without trying to ask themselves that...which is really not helping their cause, IMHO.
That's why I'm saying it's better to keep your anti-GW arguments for a much stronger thread, honestly.
Hollowhills being "sad" to report this, just lol.
-
1
-
-
It's coming from here, obviously : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/801058.page
Honestly, if you don't like GW, you should really find a better base than a NDA contract.
Besides, exactly like the other "outrage threads about GW being evil", the file is taken out of context from a known click-bait website.
It's basically a GW hater troll thread. Really, keep your arguments about demonstrating how "GW is a really bad company and you shouldn't buy their products" for a much better topic.
You're really wasting your time here. Or just plainly decrebilising yourself by trying to argue it's something big. Yukishiro, seriously, be better than this. You're doing more harm to yourself than good, here.
-
1
-
-
Sounds like a campaign book, honestly.
Yeah, it was disappointing for a preview. At least we know what is the version of AoS itsy-bitsy spider nursery rhyme.
First we got the Kruleboyz with a heavy mordor inspiration and now we'll have something Shelob, it seems.
-
I honestly bet about Warcry between a new starter set for the current edition or a new edition (with a limited box like Kill Team and extensions used the same way, for both Warcry / AoS).
Given the launch date for Warcry, we're not far from a new game edition cycle, IMHO. I don't think it should be major changes like Kill Team, but still enough for justifying it.
Either way...I don't expect customization or "Necromundisation" of Warcry, far from it. Quite the opposite, actually. I expect GW will keep the trend they initiated with Warcry (and that we can see in current Kill Team) - one profile for one miniature with a specific set of weapons / equipments, and gimmicks as "customization" like relics / artifacts / limited equipment.
What I'm really hoping for is new warbands but for Cities of Sigmar - like a Hammerhall warband, and so on, but really typed with the AoS Realm flavor and not just "copied and paste from old Empire with different colors".
-
1
-
-
Wouldn't be surprised if Warcry follows the same principle than Kill Team, with a new starter set and new warbands.
With all the focus on Dawnbringer Crusades in AoS, wonder if the next story arc could be about that, with bands from Cities of Sigmar. But that's just me dreaming here.
-
5
-
New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Sarouan
Ah, well I stand corrected, my bad for not reading well
. So it all goes down to the youtuber's principles, like with placement product : there are those who do and those who don't.
And like said by others in the beginning, it's only a problem for the people signing it. Which is why this case has been going crazy with this whole drama about "doxxing", and why the truth is mostly about the involved youtubers' respective behaviors now...certainly because it's actually more interesting than the contract itself.