.jpg.7322e1f85857c0c3e3a7eae21a61ffc2.jpg){kind=tracking}
Sarouan
-
Posts
579 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sarouan
-
-
29 minutes ago, Orbei said:
Tabletop Tactics is a good example of why this is problematic. They recently released a video along the lines of "Has 40k become too complicated?" If they had been under this NDA they could not make such a video, since it is not entirely positive. Which is a shame because it was thoughtful, constructive, and came from a place of love for the game.
It's still arguable they may not have made that video, though. It's not because you 'think' GW wouldn't allow it than they would actually do (we saw in the previous buzz about so called censorship on content-creators that it was more nuanced than that). But they indeed feel more "free" if they didn't sign such a NDA before.
29 minutes ago, Orbei said:You don't place any value on that content and so this doesn't impact you, which is fine. This has the potential to have an adverse effect on other hobbiests though. These content creators get tens of thousands of views, sometimes more. These aren't people who are simply bored, for the most part. Many people do look to those content creators for an opinion before spending their hard earned money on a product.
Yeah. And how do you think people make their opinion ?
a) they see the product itself in the video, regardless of what the youtuber is saying
b) they only listen to the youtuber not showing much (usually work only for the books, because well...if it is to preview miniatures and how new paints work, it makes more sense to show rather than tell)
If a), they can make their own opinions from the product they can see themselves. The youtuber's opinion is just a bonus here.
If b), that means they trust the youtuber and we all go towards the principles and personnality. If it's a dishonest youtuber ready to tell you anything that sells, it will show soon and to be honest, be it for GW or another random company, the problem will still be the same with this youtuber. If it's a more honest youtuber, his own review will show it too. Signing such a NDA doesn't mean you're hands and feet tied and you can't say anything but lies to your viewers. You're still in control of what you will say in your videos and how you present it. And there are ways to present something in a less positive way than if you were totally convinced yourself on it without breaking the NDA's conditions and with it still showing in the video.
As for myself, I tend to look for youtubers following the a) pattern. And I believe most people really looking for information before (pre-)ordering would rather have that one than b). b) is more for people having a favorite youtuber they trust (or people clicking for the 1st result in the research, I guess
). Usually, informed people don't stop at just b), they'd be more fine if they can find a a) somewhere and fact-check the first video's opinion with what they can actually read. The hardcore customers wait for the release date (not the pre-order date ! 
) and having more reviews from customers, thus not people who signed a NDA, and gathering all info from what they have before deciding if they buy or not.
Limited content usually doesn't follow there rules, especially those who are sold out in 5 minutes...those who really want it just click on the button, regardless of any review, and it's usually tied to bundles of miniatures you can already see on GW's website...
Anyway, a youtuber telling lies on GW products they advertise is quickly spot on by the community...not to say the customers themselves who bought it. It's not really a winning strategy on long term in this niche market...it's not like the size of mobile video games.
-
7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
My comment was premised on "if you sign the NDA..." If your response to "you can't give honest reviews if you sign the NDA" is "don't sign it," that's making my point re: how a principled youtuber who does reviews couldn't sign that NDA.
Well yes. Because that whole case is about how this "leaked" NDA is "such a big deal"...while the answer has always been "well...don't sign it if you don't agree with it".
Because that's how contracts work.
You're trying to bring the conversation to the point assuming people MUST sign it. Thankfully, they don't. True, they may have less benefits than having a deal with GW and, like, receiving free products in advance...but in the youtuber's market, there is nothing really free.
-
Just now, yukishiro1 said:
Again, this is wrong. If you sign that NDA, you agree not to do anything that would result in lower GW sales to any customer, for a period of 36 months after you get any confidential information. You can't just go buy a copy of a specific battletome yourself then give it a bad review.
Thing is, you don't need to sign a NDA if you buy the products with your own money and at the same time than everyone else, then review once you have them in your hands and have time to make the video.
That's how you're 100% sure to make a honest review. And those who have free products in advance (and thus signed something, obviously) usually can be noticed easily : they are the ones putting the videos online on the day on the pre-order.
Even so...amongst those who sign it, there are those who are more honest than others. You also usually tell them apart with time, since it's usually tied to the youtuber's personnality and principles. Eventually you see them. Signing a NDA in itself doesn't mean you're manipulative. People who are didn't wait to sign it to be that way.
-
4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
No youtube reviewer with principles would sign and follow an agreement that they agree not to do anything that would result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less of any GW product. That makes it impossible to do an honest review, if you get a bad product your only choice is not to put out a review at all.
Don't be narrow-minded, of course you can do a honest review and say all the bad things on GW you want if you like it so.
You simply have to buy the product at the same time than every other customer.
People clicking on the pre-order button as soon as it's online don't look after review for "information before buying", anyway. And those who do...well, they are willing to wait so they can wait more for their favorite (and more honest !) youtuber to have time to do its review before buying, aren't they ?
When I look one of Ash's reviews video, I know full well he has products well in advance before us common customers - and what I'm looking for in his videos isn't his opinion : it's the book's pages he's flipping during the review.
-
9 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
Well, except that it does - 1.1 (ii) clearly states that the fact that you signed an NDA is itself confidential information that you are not allowed to reveal. Which is yet another problematic part of the agreement.
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.
-
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.
). Usually, informed people don't stop at just b), they'd be more fine if they can find a a) somewhere and fact-check the first video's opinion with what they can actually read. The hardcore customers wait for the release date (not the pre-order date ! 
) and having more reviews from customers, thus not people who signed a NDA, and gathering all info from what they have before deciding if they buy or not.
New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Sarouan
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.