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.

Yeah, but from what I've heard, this guy didn't vow to keep any secret. He bought the item in question at Target on the clearance rack because an employee there grabbed the wrong box to put out.

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

Not since I was 9 on Christmas. I have enough self-control and patience to wait for things. It is called being an adult.

Just because you learned it in grade school does not make it less applicable. By the time I was in High School I had a knife pulled on me, a gun pulled on me, I covered for classmates so they would not get expelled, and been offered a job selling drugs with the chance to make more money than a lot of adults did, which I wisely declined.

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.

Yeah, but from what I've heard, this guy didn't vow to keep any secret. He bought the item in question at Target on the clearance rack because an employee there grabbed the wrong box to put out.

Completely different situation.

If I were a play tester and I had stuff early....and then FFG asked me to try to stop the leaks, I would. That is, Target makes a mistake and FFG asks you to try to stop the discussion. I would reach out to those that were talking about it and I would ask them to stop. I would be polite. If they didn't....well, I'd stop there. I wouldn't get upset about it. I wouldn't try to be the storm trooper that had to enforce things. If I were lucky to be a play tester, I would try to do what FFG asked, but I wouldn't stress out over it. I wouldn't expect much to happen by me asking, but I'd ask.

I was under a NDA for a game once and for something else another time. I held my word and didn't mention anything about it.

First, because I agreed to not say anything.

Secondly, because I can do that.

In either situation I tried to avoid what other people were speculating about, and never added anything to the speculation.

If I knew other people were under a NDA (I Have). I wouldn't ask anything.

If I were illegally brought into confidence of a person under a NDA and he showed me NDA material, I would consider myself under the NDA (I'm that kind of a friend).

If someone was shown information from a NON NDA source, they are under no obligation to keep their mouths quiet.

The legality of something does not equate morality, as Vorpal alluded to. Leaking an item on the internet has zero moral weight, unless the individual involved gave his/her word not to. That is a violation of integrity and honor (ie: a moral issue).

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.

Sorry couldn't resist

*Spoken like a Scottish James Bond trying to be Oirish

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.

Wait, FFG is going to beat somebody up by the monkey bars at recess?

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.

Wait, FFG is going to beat somebody up by the monkey bars at recess?

They can ban them from any and all FFG sponsored events if they wish.

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.

He brings an A wing you pull a X wing, he pulls a B wing you pull a Decimator, that's the Chicago way*

Sorry couldn't resist

*Spoken like a Scottish James Bond trying to be Oirish

**** straight!

The whole thing is ridiculous, honestly.

An exercise in infantile futility that should give us some insight into how absurd corporate culture and marketing really are.

Oh no! People know about a thing we're trying to sell them a week earlier than we'd planned! That's so going to affect... nothing at all.

But, but, but, my super secret plastic toy release schedule! Yawn.

Personally, I believe that this is a moral thing because of the wishes of FFG. Not due to their profit margins, but because if I were in their position and had something cool to show people, and I had a time and date I wanted to do it in, I'd be right miffed if someone stole my thunder. It's the same reason I don't like movie spoilers. It has less to do with being spoiled before I go in the theater (though I also hate that) and more to do with the fact that I know a bunch of creative people worked hard to bring me a thing, and it wouldn't be fair to them to try and see it before it's finished.

Not everyone is going to see it this way, but I'm an artist, so it's my prerogative.

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.

The community split over Age of Sigmar has nothing at all to do with how they leaked or released it. It's because it's a completely different game from classic Warhammer.

I can see considering discussing the leak as an issue of courtesy, but "morality"? Really? That's an awfully hefty term to apply to potentially disrupting a marketing blitz.

I didn't sign any NDA regarding episode 7 merchandise so I have no problems with talking about leaked info. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Target to check the games section.

Information is information... however the folks that did the actual leaking if they did sign some kind of NDA then yeah they should be punished in what ever manner the said agreement said. as for normal folks looking at it on the net? like I said Information is information.. Its not like its a national security leak. I mean its a game!! and just because some mouse wants to control everything and create some artificial Force Friday well that's kind of lame. I mean May the 4th IS Star wars day NOT Sept 4tgh!! Its clearly a made-up day to generate hype. Fine what ever floats their boat as long as I get cool Star wars stuff I don't care. But I am not going to stop looking at the Secret squirrel pics either!! I didn't sign an NDA!!! However I haven't forwarded them to anybody either.. Just me and my computer..

The legality of something does not equate morality, as Vorpal alluded to. Leaking an item on the internet has zero moral weight, unless the individual involved gave his/her word not to. That is a violation of integrity and honor (ie: a moral issue).

For instance it's likely Immoral for you to seek out the content you know is illegal, because that means you are supporting illegal behavior.

Stealing and Sharing illegal movies is illegal and immoral. If you go and search and watch that movie it's both illegal and immoral even if you don't share it with anyone.

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.

Different people have different morals. Why are yours right and other's wrong?

The legality of it is clear-cut. Those who signed an NDA are at fault. Those who didn't aren't. The morality of it, however, is open to interpretation

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.

You really don't get it do you ? ffg has to or they risk losing the license. Until Disney gives the okay to make stuff public this is it. I wish Disney would just do it already.

I went to 3 Targets hoping to find the game on the shelf so I might have a frame of reference for understanding this thread. El Zilcho.

I was under a NDA for a game once and for something else another time. I held my word and didn't mention anything about it.

First, because I agreed to not say anything.

Secondly, because I can do that.

In either situation I tried to avoid what other people were speculating about, and never added anything to the speculation.

If I knew other people were under a NDA (I Have). I wouldn't ask anything.

If I were illegally brought into confidence of a person under a NDA and he showed me NDA material, I would consider myself under the NDA (I'm that kind of a friend).

People in my home are generally under am NDA of one kind or another. You're the only kind of friend I'm allowed to have.

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.

Different people have different morals. Why are yours right and other's wrong?

The legality of it is clear-cut. Those who signed an NDA are at fault. Those who didn't aren't. The morality of it, however, is open to interpretation

Ahhhh. The old "there is no right or wrong because everything is gray" argument. Sorry. I don't buy it. As societies have evolved throughout the world, most of them have agreed on simple core concepts like murder is wrong, taking the property of another is wrong, lying is wrong, and betraying the confidence of another is wrong. It just is.

I'm not suggesting that I am perfect. I do wrong things all the time. I lie. I envy. I speed. I gamble. I swear. I cheat. It does not make me a monster, it makes me human. I do not try to justify myself by saying it is within my "moral code" or other such nonsense. I just try to do better.

The idea that morality comes into a corporate advertising campaign on plastic figures is totally absurd.

The idea that a company must police publicly available information at the behest of another company's arbitrary embargo, because of the mistakes of a third company is just really really absurd.

So there's that, I suppose...

I feel I should reiterate: no one under an NDA did wrong.

However, the people under the NDA were tasked with helping to plug the dam. Several parties outside the NDA are doing what the rest of us would do: revel in the anarchy of a botched release.

If there are play testers that are responsible for a leak then yes, they would have a responsibility to try and stop the issue they caused.

If the leak has nothing to do with a group of play testers then they have no obligation to try and fix an issue that is outside of their control.

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, I definitely meant moral responsibility.

If Alice and Bob agree to keep a certain piece of news secret from the world, and Eve discovers said news, Eve has no moral responsibility to also keep it secret. In fact, it could be argued that if anyone is acting immoral, it is Alice if she then tries to smear Eve's reputation merely for discussing news that Alice would rather not be public.

You see something interesting without knowing what it is are you obligated to not tell anyone about it? Maybe someone then tells you you're not supposed to say anything about about, then what? Now if you're the one who is supposed to keep something secret how far do you go?

Instead of X-Wing spoilers what if we were talking about dead bodies? I'd guess the stakes are much higher but the example could hold true. Some people probably want nothing said about it even if others are looking and may go to extreme lengths if something could come out.

If you happen upon a spoiler you are under no more moral obligation to stay quiet about it than you are to scream it from the roof tops.