Greedy Goblin

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Weekend minipost: isn't this NDA violation?

Sion Kumitomo said "The changes that were not discussed during the summit were the JF changes, the JB changes, lowsec doomsdays, and Sov structure HP changes. The changes that were discussed with no concrete details was everything else. This is why you likely saw various CSM members talking about looking forward to the changes - at that point, we were working off what proved to be a mistaken understanding of how intention would translate to concrete details."

This is detailed information about the CCP-CSM communication. I believe this can only be done via the Minutes which is specifically checked for information that is not to be published. I don't see how the above statement is different from the Somer logs.


Anonymous said...

If CCP Grayscale is the one heading the team that is making the 5ly power projection change(which it seems like), then it doesn't suprise me that the CSM wasn't informed about it. Grayscale has never worked closly with the CSM, The Mittani has open said he hates Grayscale because when he was in the CSM Grayscale wouldn't work with him. All that being said I don't think CCP staff has to work with the CSM, or do what the CSM thinks is best. I personally think the changes are great, but I am not a topdog sov. holding alliance. I kinda understand why alliances that hold moons across five or more regions would be freaking out, my alliance has already started making a running list of PL moons in our lowsec home region.

comrade blade said...

Because the dev blog has been released and so CSM can now talk openly openly about the changes. NDA applies to.Not yet released content.

Trego said...

" I don't see how the above statement is different from the Somer logs."

Presumably CSM members and CCP affiliates sign different NDA's; also, his details are less detailed than publishing word-for-word transcriptions or communiques. The second of these points is the real important one here, I'd say. If Sion had released a covertly made tape recording of that portion of the summit, he'd obviously be already banned right now. That would be a close analogy to the Somer logs. This situation is not.

Gevlon said...

@Comrade blade: the dev blog allows discussion of the content (for example "these changes are dumb") and not internal communications (for example "CCP didn't discuss it with us")

Orson Brawl said...

In the context of being a player "oversight board" it's likely saying if released information was or was not communicated to the CSM is allowable under the NDA. Of course that depends on the NDA. Having signed many before in the course of real life business I can say there can be variations from agreement to agreement.

Anonymous said...

Given CCP refuse to publish the NDA no one knows what is or isn't a breech apart from CCP and the CSM members.

So who knows.

He's talking about public domain stuff so it's unlikely.

As the CFC rep he much be pretty happy with these changes.

Anonymous said...

No it's not. The NDA isn't there to stop people talking about how release information was communicated to, it's to stop unreleased information beign leaked. When developers work on games, they often come up with features and ideas that will never be implemented, but they get talked about in depth when deciding if they should. If the CSM released info about those and the players went into a rage, CCP would lose business over something that may not even happen. Tat is what the NDA is there to protect.

Anonymous said...

Well, since the NDA is not published in any way, we do not know whether a breach ahs occured or not.
While CCP falsely publishes a consent of CSM members (which would be an NDA breach as well, since internal communications were published...) CSM members have always the right to put things right/straight.

That, my dear Goblin derives of personal civil rights, which even in Iceland are valid.
NDA or not, CCP does not have the right to tell lies about the view of CSM members who were installed by CCP as a form of customers representation...

So, as CCP Greyscale does not work or speak with CSM, anything he tells us about CSM views is either a blatant lie or just worthless hearsay...

Mind you, I don't whine about the changes, but let us be plain about it. It is just a giant nerf of a tool that was excessively abused. It won't change much in the long run as CCP has not found a way to give an incentive to end the Nulsec stagnation.

In the short run, we might see more battles, but as many rational players are already foretelling, this will be a war of attrition and that will leave the already bug superpowers victorious, as they will have the most wealth...
Personally I am convinced that most of the nulsec tears are just a typical reaction to an obvious hammernerf, but most of the leadership will have understood that this change solidifies their hegemony.

Anonymous said...

Most WoD changes wouldn't be approved by a CSM-wow equivalent.
The forums are full of tears. people see the expansion as "awesome garrison + many nerfs".

Anonymous said...

@ first anon:
Thats not entirely true, Greyscale is fairly prominent in these notes

where the ideas for the changes we see now are covered

Anonymous said...

Seriously, you haven't signed an NDA have you?
For my business, I have signed many.
And i can tell you with 100% confidence that "in none of the non disclosure agreements, have I ever discussed the color of unicorn shit"
Also, you do not know the terms of their NDA.
First of all, the biggest misconception of NDA's are that they last forever. This is horribly untrue. Of the ones I've signed, most are 3 years. After that, you can blab all you want.
The 2nd biggest misconception is that they are one way. Also horribly untrue.
I need to use an example to get this point across.
Company A has a new idea. They want to use company B as a contractor to build a part of the idea. So, both companies agree to an NDA. This means that neither company can discuss the idea with any outside entity without the others knowledge (not permission, but a disclosure is almost always needed. Company A wouldn't need to get permission from company b, but company B would want to know to insure a leak of information was not caused by company b)

These people play eve, so they can talk about eve.

In order for the scope of the NDA to be maintained (legally) it has to be clearly defined. "You can not release information regarding future changes to eve" is not the same as "you can not release what we haven't informed you of". And even if that was written in to contact, that would not be considered binding in any court, as it's too vague.