Dude. You're kind of missing my point.
I apologize if I missed the point.
How do you feel about wotc telling playtesters not to share their full and honest impressions of the game with us, the potential customer? Do you think that's a good thing?
At this point I do, though I probably would not allow them to share the good side of their opinion either. I would absolutely want to hear all good and bad from them if I were the company though, I just wouldn't want it public at this point.
I suppose the previous poster who mentioned that the good things aren't likely to change and therefor aren't as damaging had a good point. But I think a better policy would just be no external comments. Playtesters aren't professionals (in most cases) in deciding what would be appropriate information to release (and WotC is having enough issues with press release info with out just opening it up to anyone).
Now, if WotC had sent review copies of the game to people and asked THEM to not share all negatives along with the positives, then I would call shenanigans. But they just aren't there yet.
(part of me wants to make a snarky comment about being patient in this age of instant results and wait for something to come out since that has been a big complaint that 4E is catering to that mindset, but that wouldn't be fair or kind of me...)
Sean Mahoney
Fine. They're not reviewers. That's clear. Bad analogy choice on my part, and I withdraw it. Maybe its just that 1st ammendment thing I'm stuck on. But in my book, Wotc has told people that they are't allowed to share their full opinion with us. And your point about changing negative stuff may or may not be true - I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However, what I can tell you, from my personal experience, is that at least one playtester I know dislikes more than one thing that Wotc has absolutely no intention of changing. But they fear saying anything public because they bleive it'll be the death of their freelancing aspirations. I on the other hand, have no such aspirations.
It's their choice to change or not change whatever they want. It's not your friend's choice whether he can say anything about it. Your friend gave up his right to "free speech" when he signed an NDA. That's the law, and that's the rules. He may not like it, but that's kinda tough. It is, afterall an Non-Disclosure Agreement. He agreed to not disclose (emphasis on agreed).
And, yeah, I can see how someone might doom their career if they can't abide by a simple NDA. It's kinda necessary. Abiding by an NDA says "I can be trusted with your corporate secrets." And as much as we might like it, until the books are released, anything that WotC doesn't tell us directly, is still a corporate secret.
Greg
And, yeah, I can see how someone might doom their career if they can't abide by a simple NDA. It's kinda necessary. Abiding by an NDA says "I can be trusted with your corporate secrets." And as much as we might like it, until the books are released, anything that WotC doesn't tell us directly, is still a corporate secret.
Not to mention that it is just an integrity thing. WotC was upfront with them about their not allowing disclosure prior to them getting into being a playtester. Greg is spot on that anyone who became a playtester agreed to that. If they knew that would bother them then they were fully free to not involve themselves in the playtesting.
I mean, I ask someone, "Hey man, can I tell you something in confidence?" and they say "yes, of course you know your secrets are safe with me!" and then they go talking about the conversation I will be pretty pissed off. This is the exact same thing on a professional level. If the playtesters want to have any integrity, they need to keep the information secret (unless they feel any of the content is likely to cause someone harm... I mean Keith Baker DID say that the new edition really DOES bring people over to satan!).
Sean Mahoney
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Fine. They're not reviewers. That's clear. Bad analogy choice on my part, and I withdraw it. Maybe its just that 1st ammendment thing I'm stuck on. But in my book, Wotc has told people that they are't allowed to share their full opinion with us. And your point about changing negative stuff may or may not be true - I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However, what I can tell you, from my personal experience, is that at least one playtester I know dislikes more than one thing that Wotc has absolutely no intention of changing. But they fear saying anything public because they bleive it'll be the death of their freelancing aspirations. I on the other hand, have no such aspirations.
First Amendment only applies to suppression of speech by the gov't, not private individuals (with some minor exceptions, none of which are applicable here). There is absolutely no First Amendment issue present with an NDA between a non-governmental entity and a person.
|
|
This is like asking a reviewer to review a product under NDA then using the NDA to pressure the reviewer to delete the "Con" section of their review. Only "Pro" comments allowed.This is not at ALL like that. Playtester and Reviewers are WORLDS apart. If you were expecting the playtesters to give you reviews of 4E then I can see why you have been so sadly disappointed.
The point of a playtester is to check out the system and give feedback to the company so they can make a better product. Once the product is released then you will start getting reviews but it won't be until then that the product is in a reviewable state. Often companies will send a few pre-release copies to reviewers just before this so they can post their review at the same time of the release, but they are NOT playtesters... they are reviewers. They aren't at this point yet, and I am shocked that you seem to expect that they are.
WotC's product, 4e, needs to stand on its merits and on the honest reporting of those who've tried it -- or not at all.I completely agree. And judging it prior to its release on a product that isn't the final version sure would not be doing this. Which is one more reason it would be unethical of playtesters to be releasing negative opinions now.
Trying to seduce me into buying it by influencing what others say about it prior to release is unnacceptable.You must get really mad at movie trailers to. Building hype about an upcoming product is a common and accepted marketing technique that helps insure you have an audience looking at your product when it is released. I can't see this as an unnacceptable practice, but just good business sense (and there is plenty in the marketing of WotC that I don't think was good... but the general idea of building hype IS a good idea).
Sean Mahoney
Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.
First Amendment only applies to suppression of speech by the gov't, not private individuals (with some minor exceptions, none of which are applicable here). There is absolutely no First Amendment issue present with an NDA between a non-governmental entity and a person.
Not to mention that with an NDA, you are signing away your right to speak about something for a given period of time or until certain conditions happen. 1st ammendment doesn't apply.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First Amendment only applies to suppression of speech by the gov't, not private individuals (with some minor exceptions, none of which are applicable here). There is absolutely no First Amendment issue present with an NDA between a non-governmental entity and a person.Not to mention that with an NDA, you are signing away your right to speak about something for a given period of time or until certain conditions happen. 1st ammendment doesn't apply.
That's not relevant to First Amendment analysis. The NDA could be for an indefinite period of time and it could prohibit you from ever speaking about anything to anyone and it still wouldn't implicate the First Amendment.
Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.
Well, in the end, it's the playtesters that decide whether they speak or not, isn't it? If WotC has conditions on an NDA that allow positive feedback to be released, well, it's up to the playtesters to decide if they want to play that game or not, eh?
Greg
Contributor
|
Dude. You're kind of missing my point.I apologize if I missed the point.
How do you feel about wotc telling playtesters not to share their full and honest impressions of the game with us, the potential customer? Do you think that's a good thing?At this point I do, though I probably would not allow them to share the good side of their opinion either. I would absolutely want to hear all good and bad from them if I were the company though, I just wouldn't want it public at this point.
I agree. That would be how an NDA is supposed to work.
That's not relevant to First Amendment analysis. The NDA could be for an indefinite period of time and it could prohibit you from ever speaking about anything to anyone and it still wouldn't implicate the First Amendment.
Would it be accurate to say that breaking an NDA would be a Civil issue and not a Criminal one then (ie you could be sued but not end up in jail)?
Sean Mahoney
That's not relevant to First Amendment analysis. The NDA could be for an indefinite period of time and it could prohibit you from ever speaking about anything to anyone and it still wouldn't implicate the First Amendment.
I'm not a legal expert (heck, I ain't even American) but isn't the operative term here "agreement"? If you agree to something and then sign a piece of paper that says you agree to it, aren't you pretty much obliged to keep that agreement, unless you can prove that doing so was under duress or that the contract itself was illegal?
Or are there more subtleties to the U.S. Constitution law that I'm not aware of? (Which wouldn't be a big surprise, quite frankly...)
Greg
Fine. They're not reviewers. That's clear. Bad analogy choice on my part, and I withdraw it. Maybe its just that 1st ammendment thing I'm stuck on. But in my book, Wotc has told people that they are't allowed to share their full opinion with us. And your point about changing negative stuff may or may not be true - I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However, what I can tell you, from my personal experience, is that at least one playtester I know dislikes more than one thing that Wotc has absolutely no intention of changing. But they fear saying anything public because they bleive it'll be the death of their freelancing aspirations. I on the other hand, have no such aspirations.It's their choice to change or not change whatever they want. It's not your friend's choice whether he can say anything about it. Your friend gave up his right to "free speech" when he signed an NDA. That's the law, and that's the rules. He may not like it, but that's kinda tough. It is, afterall an Non-Disclosure Agreement. He agreed to not disclose (emphasis on agreed).
And, yeah, I can see how someone might doom their career if they can't abide by a simple NDA. It's kinda necessary. Abiding by an NDA says "I can be trusted with your corporate secrets." And as much as we might like it, until the books are released, anything that WotC doesn't tell us directly, is still a corporate secret.
Greg
I think your missing the point. First, my friend was told he was not free to talk about his experience, provided he only said good things. So this is not about the NDA.
Second, wotc sent him a second letter -- not anything in his nda -- tell him he could only say good things. That's not an addendum to the nda, its just wotc's orders, with the an implied threat about his freelancing aspirations.
But this is all a diversion from the main point. I don't care to have a discussion about my friends nda and his actions or integrity. I'm telling you he got an email from wotc saying (1) he was allowed to admit his playtester status and (2) he can comment on the game, but only his positive feelings. Not his negative.
How do you feel about that?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's not relevant to First Amendment analysis. The NDA could be for an indefinite period of time and it could prohibit you from ever speaking about anything to anyone and it still wouldn't implicate the First Amendment.Would it be accurate to say that breaking an NDA would be a Civil issue and not a Criminal one then (ie you could be sued but not end up in jail)?
Sean Mahoney
That is accurate and WotC has gone after people for breaking NDAs before. The main Magic rumor mill had a scandal a few years ago where a rumor source leaked out some playtest cards in violation of an NDA. He didn't actually violate the NDA (he wasn't one of the playtesters), but WotC went after him and were vicious. He was looking down the barrel of some significant damages and ever since then has not posted rumors and will not even accept rumors if someone gives them to him (probably because his settlement agreement prohibits him from doing those things).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's not relevant to First Amendment analysis. The NDA could be for an indefinite period of time and it could prohibit you from ever speaking about anything to anyone and it still wouldn't implicate the First Amendment.I'm not a legal expert (heck, I ain't even American) but isn't the operative term here "agreement"? If you agree to something and then sign a piece of paper that says you agree to it, aren't you pretty much obliged to keep that agreement, unless you can prove that doing so was under duress or that the contract itself was illegal?
Or are there more subtleties to the U.S. Constitution law that I'm not aware of? (Which wouldn't be a big surprise, quite frankly...)
Greg
No, the term "agreement" isn't really doing it. I can tell you to shut up or get out of my house. There's no agreement between the two of us regarding what you can do at my house and whether you agree to be silent. However, I'm not the government. The analysis is almost entirely on who is the person suppressing speach (gov't v. non-gov't) and how they are suppressing the speech (content v. time/place/manner). There's more to the analysis than that, but that's the basic outline.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think your missing the point. First, my friend was told he was not free to talk about his experience, provided he only said good things. So this is not about the NDA.
Second, wotc sent him a second letter -- not anything in his nda -- tell him he could only say good things. That's not an addendum to the nda, its just wotc's orders, with the an implied threat about his freelancing aspirations.
You don't understand how NDAs work. An email from WotC which allows him to speak would be doing so under the terms of the NDA, if at all. So, this alleged email would most likely be prior written consent to disclose as permitted by the NDA (most NDAs allow disclosure with prior written consent). However, the email is a stupid thing to do and I find it highly unlikely.
But this is all a diversion from the main point. I don't care to have a discussion about my friends nda and his actions or integrity. I'm telling you he got an email from wotc saying (1) he was allowed to admit his playtester status and (2) he can comment on the game, but only his positive feelings. Not his negative.
How do you feel about that?
Like I said, business is business and NDAs are part of doing business. I'm fine with it.
And, yeah, I can see how someone might doom their career if they can't abide by a simple NDA. It's kinda necessary. Abiding by an NDA says "I can be trusted with your corporate secrets." And as much as we might like it, until the books are released, anything that WotC doesn't tell us directly, is still a corporate secret.Not to mention that it is just an integrity thing. WotC was upfront with them about their not allowing disclosure prior to them getting into being a playtester. Greg is spot on that anyone who became a playtester agreed to that. If they knew that would bother them then they were fully free to not involve themselves in the playtesting.
I mean, I ask someone, "Hey man, can I tell you something in confidence?" and they say "yes, of course you know your secrets are safe with me!" and then they go talking about the conversation I will be pretty pissed off. This is the exact same thing on a professional level. If the playtesters want to have any integrity, they need to keep the information secret (unless they feel any of the content is likely to cause someone harm... I mean Keith Baker DID say that the new edition really DOES bring people over to satan!).
Sean Mahoney
This is NOT an integrity thing. This has nothing to do with my friend(s) NDA(s). THis is not about friends sharing secrets. I'm ditching analogies, lets all do that. They clearly obfuscate.
Here's the fact as I understand it: wotc sent an email after the fact, to at least one playtester -- and not as an addendum to their NDA -- instructing at least one playtester that they could say good things, but not share their full opinion with the public. My question is, how do you feel about this? How does that sit with you?
And me sharing the existence of such a letter is NOT a violation of someone else's NDA. Being partially released from one's NDA gag, in a way that enures to the economic benefit of the issuing company, to the detriment of my getting a full pre-picture of the prodcut -- well that kind of bothers me. You're ok with it?
|
Contributor
|
Fine. They're not reviewers. That's clear. Bad analogy choice on my part, and I withdraw it. Maybe its just that 1st ammendment thing I'm stuck on. But in my book, Wotc has told people that they are't allowed to share their full opinion with us. And your point about changing negative stuff may or may not be true - I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future. However, what I can tell you, from my personal experience, is that at least one playtester I know dislikes more than one thing that Wotc has absolutely no intention of changing. But they fear saying anything public because they bleive it'll be the death of their freelancing aspirations. I on the other hand, have no such aspirations.First Amendment only applies to suppression of speech by the gov't, not private individuals (with some minor exceptions, none of which are applicable here). There is absolutely no First Amendment issue present with an NDA between a non-governmental entity and a person.
Dude - are you always this literal? That was a snarky comment on my part, not an invitation to constitutional debate. Also, there's no NDA issue here, either. See above posts.
Like I said, business is business and NDAs are part of doing business. I'm fine with it.But this is all a diversion from the main point. I don't care to have a discussion about my friends nda and his actions or integrity. I'm telling you he got an email from wotc saying (1) he was allowed to admit his playtester status and (2) he can comment on the game, but only his positive feelings. Not his negative.
How do you feel about that?
Yep, I agree with Sebastian. Your friend is bound by WotC and their wisehs. It's their product and they have every right to control what is said about it, prior to it's release to the public. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
Sorry, but I happen to think that you make your own bed, you sleep in it. He may be "allowed" to say positive things, but if he wants to, he can keep his mouth shut and adhere to the original NDA and say nothing. In a sense, silence can speak volumes, sometimes.
Greg
Like I said, business is business and NDAs are part of doing business. I'm fine with it.
Agreed. WotC didn't have to show them the rules early. They made an agreement. WotC has to protect itself from competition. NDAs are one of their main protections. If they want to let certain people out of their agreement early, that's their decision.
Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.Well, in the end, it's the playtesters that decide whether they speak or not, isn't it? If WotC has conditions on an NDA that allow positive feedback to be released, well, it's up to the playtesters to decide if they want to play that game or not, eh?
Greg
Again, this is not part of the NDA. This is about an email after the fact that releases the playtester from prior NDA restrictions, but only with their hands tied. Now you may be comfortable with wotc using the playtester channel to release positive-only info, but I'd really like to hear fair assessments, not just the good stuff. Or none at all.
It's this propaganda-style imbalancing that bothers me. I dislike the infomercial taste of this move. It bothers me. Let me say this again, viscerally, this bothers me.How do you feel about it? Not "what's your legal analysis of applicable nda, first ammendment or felony murder law" not "what do you think, should I stay friends with my friends or castigate them for their obvious lack of integrity" -- none of that is the point or my question.
My question is: how do you feel about this latest wotc move?
In a sense, silence can speak volumes, sometimes.
Agreed. And while I don't know the terms of the NDA, its a pretty reasonable guess that it expires the day publication hits. He could write a full review of what he saw and what he thought of it and have it ready to be published for the day after. But until that time, he agreed to stay silent.
But the fact that only 2 playtesters that I know of have spoken up so far (one of which has written for WotC in the past), says more to me then all the previews that WotC releases.
The above posts are incorrect. It is an NDA issue. You don't understand how NDAs work.
Dude - are you always this literal? That was a snarky comment on my part, not an invitation to constitutional debate. Also, there's no NDA issue here, either. See above posts.
I disagree with you. I'll see you in court. Of course, since I've got the text of the not-alleged-its-real-its-really-real-I-promise-you-its-real, that gives me an edge, doesn't it? That said, I really don't feel like debating NDA case law and single party modifications to contracts after the fact.
But you answered: you don't mind if wotc floods us with one-sided info. Great. You and I, we're done on this topic. Thanks for the answer.
I'm anti 4e I guess.
I don't have a feeling one way or the other about it, because I can't judge the veracity of the statement.
Ask Seb; I go into the chatroom periodically to sling obscenities at 4e.
Assume its true, how would you feel?
How do you feel about it? Not "what's your legal analysis of applicable nda, first ammendment or felony murder law" not "what do you think, should I stay friends with my friends or castigate them for their obvious lack of integrity" -- none of that is the point or my question.
My question is: how do you feel about this latest wotc move?
Should you stay friends with your friends: that's your decision. If it were me, I'd urge them to live by the NDA they signed and not speak about it. But beyond that, I wouldn't repeat what they said for fear of accidental misrepresentation. And for the record, no one's saying your friends lack integrity. We all talk to our friends. Some talk more then others. But then again, I don't repeat anything anyone says. But that's just me.
How do I feel about WotC using playtesters to help their PR machine, ... normal. Personal experience of those freelancers/writers/companies that players trust carry alot of weight and is pretty much standard practice.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, I'm writing a book about ninjas. I give a copy to your friend under an NDA. He hates everything except the part about flaming throwing stars. You really really really want to read my book and find out what happens to your favorite character, the Amazing Douchebag. I want to pump up excitement about my book, so I give my prior written consent (as provided for in the NDA, which is applicable) to your friend allowing him to tell people his opinions, but I tell him that he can only say good things about the book. He immediately calls you and tells you the flaming throwing stars are great! When asked about the Amazing Douchebag, he is silent.
I'm missing the step where you have some sort of right to know what your friend thinks about my book or the Amazing Douchebag. Maybe you can point that out.
Again, this is not part of the NDA. This is about an email after the fact that releases the playtester from prior NDA restrictions, but only with their hands tied.
I agree with Sebastian (and GregH, and DMcCoy1693)...
First, if the email "releases the playtester from prior NDA restrictions, but only" with additional restrictions, then that would clearly be a modification of the NDA/permission within the NDA, not something completely unrelated to the NDA.
Second, I imagine that communicating with a friend about the contents of the NDA or subsequent communications about it would be a violation of the NDA, given that Paizo can't share with us the general outline of what restrictions the NDA puts on them. (Or so I infer from the facts that the OGL announcement didn't include the full details of the NDA, and no one has shared it since.)
So Lou, my personal impression of this is that your friend's alleged action (showing you the email NDA-related communication) would very likely be a violation, and wouldn't reflect well on his personal ethics.
(Sorry, DMcCoy1693, I guess I do question his friend's integrity - but that's just my personal inference based on what Lou has shared. It's entirely possible his friend has complete integrity, and Lou is just misrepresenting, or completely misunderstanding, what his friend shared with him. One or the other appears to be true, to me at least.)
But even if the email were exactly as you described it, I'd have no problem with it. Any company is going to restrict the sorts of things that can be said about products, prior to their release, by employees and related folks. If they sent copies out to reviewers and had a restriction like the one you claim, that would be out of line. But to apply restrictions to someone who signed the NDA and has been helping with feedback to let them develop the product - it seems entirely reasonable to me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I disagree with you.
Disagree with me all you want, it's not a matter of opinion. You're wrong. How many NDAs have you drafted? More than 0? I have.
Of course, since I've got the text of the not-alleged-its-real-its-really-real-I-promise-you-its-real, that gives me an edge, doesn't it?
If we're in court, I can subpoena your email prior to going forward with the case. I'm not sure why I'm suing you or you're suing me, but hey, you play a lawyer on the internet (like playing a doctor on tv), why don't you tell me.
That said, I really don't feel like debating NDA case law and single party modifications to contracts after the fact.
That's good because I wasn't debating case law or single party modifications to contracts after the fact. I was telling you how NDAs work, a subject which you do not understand yet somehow speak from a position of authority.
I'll see you in court.
Dude, seriously, tone it down. No need for this to get personal. Yes, WotC does some not so nice things. Yes they appear to roll a d20 with a 1 on every side on their Diplomacy checks (which has no ranks and CHA is their dump stat). But really, think of it like this, 4E will sink or swim based more on how WotC treats their customers then how good or bad the product is. A company can only tick off its customers for so long before they start looking elsewhere. I'm looking elsewhere. Vote with your dollars.
Just jumping in here after reading a bunch of the recent posts. I think the question wasn't about legality (NDAs) but whether it was ethically sound (to ask for people to talk but only about what they liked). But then again I am now going to duck and cover.
Just jumping in here after reading a bunch of the recent posts. I think the question wasn't about legality (NDAs) but whether it was ethically sound (to ask for people to talk but only about what they liked). But then again I am now going to duck and cover.
No need to duck for cover. I don't think the two are unrelated and hope that I made clear in my previous posts that I think the ethical nature of this is pretty clear. I do think the NDA and subsequent modification on WotC part are perfectly ethical. I also think that anyone who chooses not to follow an NDA they agreed to comply with is extremely unethical. (I think the law supports this as well, but that isn't what you are asking... as a side note I think the law in general supports or is at least intended to support the ethical position... it can just be twisted and manipulated which is why we have judges and legislative bodies to rule on, modify and write new laws).
Sean Mahoney
|
You know, it's like the scorpion "it's my nature" thing, that's what they do; sharks swim around biting stuff, and Corporate business types walk around blowing smoke up everyone's ass. I'm "meh." Not surprised.
Also, there's a little shamen frohe component in there. That's how I feel about it, assuming it's true.
|
The email is a part of the NDA. It is permission from the originator of the agreement to allow for a certain class of disclosure to occur. It is in WotC's best interest to only allow positive comments at this point since we do not have the means to judge the veracity of any negative claim and they want us to hear what people genuinely liked about 4E.
Seems okay to me.
I'll see you in court.Dude, seriously, tone it down. No need for this to get personal. Yes, WotC does some not so nice things. Yes they appear to roll a d20 with a 1 on every side on their Diplomacy checks (which has no ranks and CHA is their dump stat). But really, think of it like this, 4E will sink or swim based more on how WotC treats their customers then how good or bad the product is. A company can only tick off its customers for so long before they start looking elsewhere. I'm looking elsewhere. Vote with your dollars.
Tone it down? I'm not the one being insulting. "see you in court" was a humorous attempt to not debate points of law. Ok, I get it, you all think this is a violation of an NDA agreement. Sebastian doesn't just think it, he knows it, and he's quite clear that I'm not just mistaken -- I'm categorically wrong. Because he's drafted NDAs, and I haven't.
But DMcCoy1693 - I'm with you. I will vote with my dollars. And this is just one more thing that pisses me off about WotC. They may or may not be fully within their rights to allow only "good" info and not "critical" info (though I recall someone doubting whether this distinction was even possible), but its just one more instance of a lack of full disclosure on wotc's part and as part of a history of such behaviour, it bothers me. But hey, a few people implied they don't want me "spreading rumors" and another suggested its dangerous for me to do so, that wotc may sue me.
So I get the message. They didn't want to hear about this letter. Is that how everyone feels? Just out of curiousity?
I disagree with you.Disagree with me all you want, it's not a matter of opinion. You're wrong. How many NDAs have you drafted? More than 0? I have.
Of course, since I've got the text of the not-alleged-its-real-its-really-real-I-promise-you-its-real, that gives me an edge, doesn't it?If we're in court, I can subpoena your email prior to going forward with the case. I'm not sure why I'm suing you or you're suing me, but hey, you play a lawyer on the internet (like playing a doctor on tv), why don't you tell me.
That's good because I wasn't debating case law or single party modifications to contracts after the fact. I was telling you how NDAs work, a subject which you do not understand yet somehow speak from a position of authority.That said, I really don't feel like debating NDA case law and single party modifications to contracts after the fact.
I have to confess, dude, I'm really not sure where you're coming from. You turned this into a point of law, not me. My point has always been "how does this make people feel, because it bothers me..."
To the extent that I let you drag me into discussing points of law, I regret that. I should never have let you suck me into it. I think it was your attack on my firend's integrity that did it, but I'd have to think more about it to see where I started to feel insulted.
Clearly, this conversation is dead. Congrats - the field is yours!
How do you feel about it? Not "what's your legal analysis of applicable nda, first ammendment or felony murder law" not "what do you think, should I stay friends with my friends or castigate them for their obvious lack of integrity" -- none of that is the point or my question.
My question is: how do you feel about this latest wotc move?
I don't have a big problem with it. Basically, they are saying "If you really like what you see, by all means go tell people. But please keep negative comments in-house." Playtesters are providing a service for WotC, so they should respect WotC's wishes. They will have plenty of time to complain about things they don't like after June. Nobody wants to see something they've been working on torpedoed before it even has a chance to breathe, all because of a negative opinion.
Greg
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Tone it down? I'm not the one being insulting. "see you in court" was a humorous attempt to not debate points of law. Ok, I get it, you all think this is a violation of an NDA agreement. Sebastian doesn't just think it, he knows it, and he's quite clear that I'm not just mistaken -- I'm categorically wrong. Because he's drafted NDAs, and I haven't.
You've finally got it!
But DMcCoy1693 - I'm with you. I will vote with my dollars. And this is just one more thing that pisses me off about WotC. They may or may not be fully within their rights to allow only "good" info and not "critical" info (though I recall someone doubting whether this distinction was even possible), but its just one more instance of a lack of full disclosure on wotc's part and as part of a history of such behaviour, it bothers me. But hey, a few people implied they don't want me "spreading rumors" and another suggested its dangerous for me to do so, that wotc may sue me.
So I get the message. They didn't want to hear about this letter. Is that how everyone feels? Just out of curiousity?
Well, unless there is a First Amendment issue you would like to raise, this is a free forum and you can post whatever crazy conspiracy you want whenever you want. Some posters *cough* Razz *cough* only post crazy conspiracies. I doubt there is a risk of you violating an NDA because I doubt what you've said is factually correct.
But, as long as we're into the business of demanding a response to this oh-so-horrible-won't-someone-think-of-the-children dilemma, maybe you'd like to address my post about me writing a book and giving an advance copy to your friend.
|
Just jumping in here after reading a bunch of the recent posts. I think the question wasn't about legality (NDAs) but whether it was ethically sound (to ask for people to talk but only about what they liked). But then again I am now going to duck and cover.
Technically: since the play testers did NOT see the finished product, I find it plainly ethical that they can talk about the parts they like, and not about the parts they don't. This 'email' most likly means that WOTC found that 99% of play testers liked the same things, and thus these things were not changed before the final product was sent to the printers, but the idea of playtesting is to find what your fan base doesn't like and be able to change them before the finished product, so the things that they didn't like might not be in the real game, and (Seb correct me if I'm wrong, as this is just how it looks to me) thus the NDA is protecting the play tester from committing Libel or Slander as much as it does the IP of company.
It is in WotC's best interest to only allow positive comments at this point since we do not have the means to judge the veracity of any negative claim and they want us to hear what people genuinely liked about 4E.The truth percolates.
Absolutely. And one of these days, if 4e really does stink up the joint, everyone will know about it. But until June hits, WotC has every right to protect their property. Because until it hits the store shelves, it is still their property.
Greg
Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.
I certainly wouldn't have an issue with that. However, that isn't my call and I am not offended by it going the other way.
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Technically: since the play testers did NOT see the finished product, I find it plainly ethical that they can talk about the parts they like, and not about the parts they don't. This 'email' most likly means that WOTC found that 99% of play testers liked the same things, and thus these things were not changed before the final product was sent to the printers, but the idea of playtesting is to find what your fan base doesn't like and be able to change them before the finished product, so the things that they didn't like might not be in the real game, and (Seb correct me if I'm wrong, as this is just how it looks to me) thus the NDA is protecting the play tester from committing Libel or Slander as much as it does the IP of company.
Good instincts, but probably not. Libel and slander are very very hard to prove. It's much more likely that the NDA is one-sided to protect WotC. Most NDAs have a clause which allows disclosure with prior written consent. This magical email would presumably be said prior written consent. That being said, the general practice would be for the approved speaker to either draft a statement and submit it to WotC for approval or give them a general idea of what he wants to say and then WotC would consent to the speech. The idea that WotC would hand out a carte blanche of "say whatever you want, just be positive" is ludicrous. If they had granted permission to do that, we'd have the full core rules spoiled by now.
|
|
It is in WotC's best interest to only allow positive comments at this point since we do not have the means to judge the veracity of any negative claim and they want us to hear what people genuinely liked about 4E.The truth percolates.
Seems okay to me.No surprise there. ;)
Well you see, I run a company (a wee bitty one) and my NDAs regulate comments from people but not in this particular way, but I can see why they would do it that way.
Tone it down? I'm not the one being insulting. "see you in court" was a humorous attempt to not debate points of law. Ok, I get it, you all think this is a violation of an NDA agreement. Sebastian doesn't just think it, he knows it, and he's quite clear that I'm not just mistaken -- I'm categorically wrong. Because he's drafted NDAs, and I haven't.
You've finally got it!
But DMcCoy1693 - I'm with you. I will vote with my dollars. And this is just one more thing that pisses me off about WotC. They may or may not be fully within their rights to allow only "good" info and not "critical" info (though I recall someone doubting whether this distinction was even possible), but its just one more instance of a lack of full disclosure on wotc's part and as part of a history of such behaviour, it bothers me. But hey, a few people implied they don't want me "spreading rumors" and another suggested its dangerous for me to do so, that wotc may sue me.
So I get the message. They didn't want to hear about this letter. Is that how everyone feels? Just out of curiousity?
Well, unless there is a First Amendment issue you would like to raise, this is a free forum and you can post whatever crazy conspiracy you want whenever you want. Some posters *cough* Razz *cough* only post crazy conspiracies. I doubt there is a risk of you violating an NDA because I doubt what you've said is factually correct.
But, as long as we're into the business of demanding a response to this oh-so-horrible-won't-someone-think-of-the-children dilemna, maybe you'd like to address my post about me writing a book and giving an advance copy to your friend.
I'm suprised you think asking how people feel is somehow a "demand". Did you feel pressed into a corner by the question?
Moreover, why on earth should I address that post? You clearly enjoy being insulting and childish. Why walk into it? I know I'm not in violation of an NDA, for the simple fact I never signed one.
Perhaps I'll respond if you give me a standard of proof you'll except for demonstrating that what I said is factually correct. I've asked for one, but you haven't addressed that.
But there it is, isn't it? The root of your issue with my sharing is you think that the existence of this email to a playtester(s) is not factually correct. You seem to think either I'm mistaken or the playtester(s) lied, or they're mistaken or some other possibility. And won't admit the possibility that the email I'm discussing is (a) real and (b) reads substantially as I've reported it. Even if it wasn't a smart move for wotc to issue.
Not really sure why that posture is so vital to you, but fair enough. I guess. Why don't you tell me what you'll accept as proof the email exists, and maybe I can satisfy you?
Just jumping in here after reading a bunch of the recent posts. I think the question wasn't about legality (NDAs) but whether it was ethically sound (to ask for people to talk but only about what they liked). But then again I am now going to duck and cover.Technically: since the play testers did NOT see the finished product, I find it plainly ethical that they can talk about the parts they like, and not about the parts they don't. This 'email' most likly means that WOTC found that 99% of play testers liked the same things, and thus these things were not changed before the final product was sent to the printers, but the idea of playtesting is to find what your fan base doesn't like and be able to change them before the finished product, so the things that they didn't like might not be in the real game, and (Seb correct me if I'm wrong, as this is just how it looks to me) thus the NDA is protecting the play tester from committing Libel or Slander as much as it does the IP of company.
I hear your point, but I think the timing is interesting. Aren't the advance OGL kits available to publishers now, or soon? That would imply to me that they are done updating (or soon will be done updating), so really it strikes me about garnering free publicity. I'd prefer full opinions.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Moreover, why on earth should I address that post? You clearly enjoy being insulting and childish. Why walk into it? I know I'm not in violation of an NDA, for the simple fact I never signed one.
I thought you wanted to discuss the moral implications of allowing selective disclosure under an NDA. My situation is analogous to what WotC is doing, is it not?
Perhaps I'll respond if you give me a standard of proof you'll except for demonstrating that what I said is factually correct. I've asked for one, but you haven't addressed that.
But there it is, isn't it? The root of your issue with my sharing is you think that the existence of this email to a playtester(s) is not factually correct. Either I'm mistaken or the playtester(s) lied, or they're mistaken or some other possibility.
Not really sure why that posture is so vital to you, but fair enough. I guess. Why don't you tell me what you'll accept as proof the email exists, and maybe I can satisfy you.
I posted on the other thread, but there isn't anything you can do. It's unlikely such an email was sent by WotC. I suppose if other people started popping up and claiming the same thing, that would add credibility. But otherwise, it's like asking me to tell you how you can prove that Santa Claus is real because your Dad told you he's real.
Sant Claus isn't real.
So it's really hard to give you any sort of method of proving that he is real.
You didn't read the email. You don't actually know what it says. I can't imagine how you will manage to convince me that you read it and knows what it says. Maybe if you read it, that might help too. I find it highly unlikely it said literally "You can say positive things" and the actual text of what it said is relevant.
this oh-so-horrible-won't-someone-think-of-the-children dilemma
*chuckle*
OMG!!! SANTA'S NOT REAL!!! I just read it on the internet. It must be true.
|
|
Then the playtesters should be saying nothing, instead of making commentary on the system with their hands tied.Well, in the end, it's the playtesters that decide whether they speak or not, isn't it? If WotC has conditions on an NDA that allow positive feedback to be released, well, it's up to the playtesters to decide if they want to play that game or not, eh?
Greg
Again, this is not part of the NDA. This is about an email after the fact that releases the playtester from prior NDA restrictions, but only with their hands tied. Now you may be comfortable with wotc using the playtester channel to release positive-only info, but I'd really like to hear fair assessments, not just the good stuff. Or none at all.
It's this propaganda-style imbalancing that bothers me. I dislike the infomercial taste of this move. It bothers me. Let me say this again, viscerally, this bothers me.How do you feel about it? Not "what's your legal analysis of applicable nda, first ammendment or felony murder law" not "what do you think, should I stay friends with my friends or castigate them for their obvious lack of integrity" -- none of that is the point or my question.
My question is: how do you feel about this latest wotc move?
I 'm with you on this one. It might be smart marketing (the first that we've seen form them regarding 4E), but it seems that it is designed to be deceptive and misleading. In short, with the info you have presented us, the comments they made carry zero weight with me, whereas before the seed of the idea that 4E might not be as bad as I think it will be was planted. That seed is starting to die.