My local play group is currently rife with debate over whether we should be talking and posting about leaked items and the potential consequences to bothy so players and the region as a whole.

It was disclosed to a majority of the players that there is a playtesting group for our area, and that they were tasked with stopping as much of the leak as possible. Individuals outside that group then obtained unreleased materials and posted a photo album to reddit of said materials.

This has led to a lot of infighting, mostly falling along the lines of "this is bad, stop doing it" and "a giant mega corporation can't hurt me"

I can see it both ways. On one hand, FFG can't do much about a big box store breaking a street date. On the other hand, FFG can take our regional away from us, or deny our store championship applications for being a problem area.

So where do you fall? Do you stand with the moral right, and try to stop the leaks? Or do you side with the opportunists, taking advantage of a system that can't be brought back on you?

So where do you fall?

I think FFG has to do everything possible to prevent and control leaks. But I don't think it makes sense to punish an area if someone who happens to live there leaks some information.

I could see them going after anyone who signed a NDA and leaked information, they would at least be removed from any sort of playtesting group and no longer be privy to advanced information.

There's not much they can do to someone who hasn't signed any sort of NDA though. The most I could see them doing is barring them from any official events.

Myself if I somehow got a early copy of something because a store broke it's street date I'll be honest and say I'd be conflicted. On the one hand it's information I shouldn't have, because that information isn't supposed to be public yet. But on the other hand, it's not my fault some store sold stuff early, and if I haven't agreed to stay quiet I'm not sure I'd see why I shouldn't talk about it.

I guess it comes down to if leaking the information harms another party, and if I'm ok with that or not. In this case I don't think a leak will harm FFG, it's not like they'll sell less of them or anything, but it is up to them to try and stop the leaks, because I'm sure they signed a contract saying as much.

There are times which leaking information even if it harms a party is the right thing to do, such as a whistleblower.

Once the information is out there, it's pointless to pretend it isn't. I'm not talking about that stuff here because FFG has made it clear that they don't want that, but I'm still talking about it with friends IRL.

From what I understand, this wasn't just a case of a big box breaking a street date. The store in question apparently took the unreleased content for the most anticipated movie of the year and put it on clearance for less than full price. The stupidity there just boggles my mind.

While I can empathize with FFG's position, there's basically no way to put Pandora back in the box. Personally, I wish they would allowed to just post their official preview and give us the green light to discuss it.

When people don't want other people to know things they don't tell them.

FFG, Disney and any other company that wants to keep things under wraps can.

To me, the fact that there are leaks out there means that despite all of the faux outrage that is being spouted; someone, somewhere, in either of those two companies is well aware of the fact that a little tease here and there generates speculation, discussion and anticipation.

So, some people really want to get off their moral high horses and realise that they're getting played.

Cheers

Baaa

Unless you willingly signed a NDA your under no obligations to keep secrecy.

Target did this. More than once. It should not really impact anyone else. If Disney was dropping products due to broken street dates by retailers they would run out of companies to make their products in one release.

Personally, I wish they would allowed to just post their official preview and give us the green light to discuss it.

I'm sure they're under contract to not do that until Sept 4th. One of the reasons is as Baaa points out, leaked info can be a very, very effective form of advertising.

Unless you willingly signed a NDA your under no obligations to keep secrecy.

And anyone who's involved in the design, playtesting and production will have done exactly that, or FFG's lawyers are pretty toss at their jobs.

Cheers

Baaa

I think FFG needs to stop being jerks to their customers over it.
I have a friend who's being targeted by FFGJosh, keeps going in and resetting his 'mod queue' to 17 days each day because he dared to post images of the initial leak.

FFG is undoubtedly under an obligation to enforce the embargo, period.

People who aren't FFG are under no obligation to enforce the embargo, although out of courtesy they might refrain from posting leaked images, links, or obvious spoilers in order to avoid making the job of forum moderator any harder than it has to be.

Playtesters for FFG are in sort of a weird spot, though. They're not really employees, but they're also not really independent from FFG. Depending on precisely how the language in FFG's licensing contracts is written (and on how it's being interpreted by FFG's counsel), they may or may not be under additional obligations to help FFG keep the lid on.

Don't confuse legality with morality while the two are generally suppose to be synonymous they are not always. You have a legal obligation not to release copyrighted material, however I don't think a planned marketing blitz is a moral issue. I wouldn't morally seek out illegal content, but discussing content you've seen is no different then discussing. movie u saw

Personally, I wish they would allowed to just post their official preview and give us the green light to discuss it.

I'm sure they're under contract to not do that until Sept 4th. One of the reasons is as Baaa points out, leaked info can be a very, very effective form of advertising.

Or be a disaster, look at GW's handling of age of sigmar they gave no warning all the community has was inside leaks and rumours which led to the wfb community splintering into three camps oldhammer players who'll buy no new stuff, people who quit entirely which again means no sales and a small number that stayed.

FFG is undoubtedly under an obligation to enforce the embargo, period.

People who aren't FFG are under no obligation to enforce the embargo, although out of courtesy they might refrain from posting leaked images, links, or obvious spoilers in order to avoid making the job of forum moderator any harder than it has to be.

Playtesters for FFG are in sort of a weird spot, though. They're not really employees, but they're also not really independent from FFG. Depending on precisely how the language in FFG's licensing contracts is written (and on how it's being interpreted by FFG's counsel), they may or may not be under additional obligations to help FFG keep the lid on.

I would assume that playtesters have to sign an NDA with FFG in order to be one.

I would assume that playtesters have to sign an NDA with FFG in order to be one.

The way MajorJuggler talked about it once, there's more then just a NDA involved.

My opinion is that I always try to ask someone if they're ok with spoilers before I talk about spoilers with them, unless I'm talking to people who I know are already talking about the spoilers, then I dive right in or avoid the conversation depending on whether or not I want to hear the spoilers.

Seeing as the OP framed the question in terms of moral responsibility: Anyone who has not agreed to keep the leaked information secret has absolutely no moral duty to not discuss the leaked information. Anyone who has agreed to keep the leaked information secret has a moral duty to see through their agreement (unless a greater moral duty comes along of course).

Put in terms specific to the EpVII product leaks: There is nothing wrong with us players discussing what we have seen, and even pointing others towards the pictures in question. FFG are under a NDA however, which probably includes taking reasonable steps to stop/reduce leaks - this will mean that they have to at least take reasonable steps to stop us discussing it on their own website.

I would assume that playtesters have to sign an NDA with FFG in order to be one.

The way MajorJuggler talked about it once, there's more then just a NDA involved.

I think the micro bomb at the base of the spine was taking things too far but that's just me.

I would assume that playtesters have to sign an NDA with FFG in order to be one.

The way MajorJuggler talked about it once, there's more then just a NDA involved.

I also haven't seen him commenting on any forbidden subjects

So: if you know people who are directly under an NDA to not talk about it, don't. Don't even have it around them.

Also: don't bring booze to an AA meeting.

Seeing as the OP framed the question in terms of moral responsibility: Anyone who has not agreed to keep the leaked information secret has absolutely no moral duty to not discuss the leaked information. Anyone who has agreed to keep the leaked information secret has a moral duty to see through their agreement (unless a greater moral duty comes along of course).

I think you mean legal responsibility here, and the agreement would be an NDA of some sort.

The morality, whether good or bad, of spreading the information those people have leaked is a topic that is debatable and open to interpretation.

FFG is undoubtedly under an obligation to enforce the embargo, period.

People who aren't FFG are under no obligation to enforce the embargo, although out of courtesy they might refrain from posting leaked images, links, or obvious spoilers in order to avoid making the job of forum moderator any harder than it has to be.

Playtesters for FFG are in sort of a weird spot, though. They're not really employees, but they're also not really independent from FFG. Depending on precisely how the language in FFG's licensing contracts is written (and on how it's being interpreted by FFG's counsel), they may or may not be under additional obligations to help FFG keep the lid on.

I would assume that playtesters have to sign an NDA with FFG in order to be one.

Sure. But what if someone who's personally under an NDA is an administrator of a Facebook group, as the topic post seems to imply? If I'm under an NDA that says "don't talk about X", do I have an obligation to stop other people from talking about X in a semi-public space?

The morality, whether good or bad, of spreading the information those people have leaked is a topic that is debatable and open to interpretation.

I've been sort of skipping the moral question because I find it less interesting, actually. I don't see that anyone's decision whether to respect Disney's marketing decisions carries any moral weight at all, since (setting aside case law) Disney is not a person.

My concern is for the people who, as I said in another thread, have the responsibility of dealing with leaks the same way a man following a horse around with a shovel is responsible for dealing with, uh... second-hand hay. That's the only real moral dimension, to me--courtesy to the mods here.

NOT A PERSON? Welcome to 2009!

Maybe it is just me being raised in the Chicago area, but snitches get stitches. Period. If you agreed to keep something a secret you had better keep it. To do otherwise means that you are a liar and, sorry to be harsh here, a scumbag. Your word is your law. The only exception is if people are endangered by keeping a secret, which is clearly not the case here.

Leakers deserve any and all sanctions that FFG deems appropriate.

Maybe it is just me being raised in the Chicago area, but snitches get stitches. Period. If you agreed to keep something a secret you had better keep it. To do otherwise means that you are a liar and, sorry to be harsh here, a scumbag. Your word is your law.

Leakers deserve any and all sanctions that FFG deems appropriate.

And you really, really haven't sneaked a little peak at the photos which you really, really shouldn't sneak a peak at?

Snitches get stitches......

Primary school rools.

Cheers

Baaa

Seeing as the OP framed the question in terms of moral responsibility: Anyone who has not agreed to keep the leaked information secret has absolutely no moral duty to not discuss the leaked information. Anyone who has agreed to keep the leaked information secret has a moral duty to see through their agreement (unless a greater moral duty comes along of course).

I think you mean legal responsibility here, and the agreement would be an NDA of some sort.

The morality, whether good or bad, of spreading the information those people have leaked is a topic that is debatable and open to interpretation.

No, it is not open to interpretation. It is pretty clear-cut.