Mount Coronet

Still remember when we got the list of names for the 2010 sets which sounded so bogus but then turned out to be totally accurate.

 

(At least it means the theme will probably be returning next year. Probably.)

 

The main factor is "what can BZPower, as a community, get away with". Lego specifically requests that anything explicitly confidential (especially images with confidential watermarks or sketchily-obtained prerelease materials) be kept off the site, and BZPower adheres to that in order to stay in their good graces. But if Amazon.com puts up the set names ahead of schedule, with no indication that they're meant to be secret? Then the blame falls on them, not on us.

I mean they took the listings down already, so that strikes me as indication that they were maybe supposed to be semi-secret.

 

The Leaked Content Policy says that we can't discuss things unless they're officially released by Lego (or "reliable sources"?).  Lego didn't officially announce this, and, no disrespect to Amazon, but I don't know if a mostly blank listing only on the German site that gets taken down once people start discussing it counts as reliable.

 

The simplest definition of "leak" I can think of is "something Lego doesn't want us to know about yet".  Since the summer 15 story hasn't even started yet (unless you speak Russian), and it's August, I'm going to go ahead and guess Lego doesn't really want us to know about this yet.  So...it's kind of a leak.

 

Heck the article itself says "someone got overeager", we don't even need Kopaka on the list because that's one beautiful (Freudian) slip right there.

 

This is a leak.  Lego doesn't want us to see the list yet.  But we're advertising it on the front page.  I really don't see it any other way.

 

And it is hilarious.

I mean they took the listings down already, so that strikes me as indication that they were maybe supposed to be semi-secret.

 

The Leaked Content Policy says that we can't discuss things unless they're officially released by Lego (or "reliable sources"?).  Lego didn't officially announce this, and, no disrespect to Amazon, but I don't know if a mostly blank listing only on the German site that gets taken down once people start discussing it counts as reliable.

 

The simplest definition of "leak" I can think of is "something Lego doesn't want us to know about yet".  Since the summer 15 story hasn't even started yet (unless you speak Russian), and it's August, I'm going to go ahead and guess Lego doesn't really want us to know about this yet.  So...it's kind of a leak.

 

Heck the article itself says "someone got overeager", we don't even need Kopaka on the list because that's one beautiful (Freudian) slip right there.

 

This is a leak.  Lego doesn't want us to see the list yet.  But we're advertising it on the front page.  I really don't see it any other way.

 

And it is hilarious.

But again, BZP's leak policy only really covers illegal leaks that BZPower could be considered culpable for spreading or promoting. Amazon is a reliable source, being a major retailer (in fact, they're probably second to Lego themselves in terms of their reliability), and while they certainly may not have been supposed to share the information they did yet, there was nothing in the listings themselves that would suggest that they were in any way inaccurate or illegal. Yes, Amazon took the listings down after they realized their error. That doesn't mean BZPower has any responsibility to plug its ears and pretend the new sets don't exist.

Ignoring leaks is pretty much the function of the Leaked Content Policy, though, isn’t it?  If there’s a leak, we don’t talk about it.  For clarity’s sake, what exactly makes a leak “illegal”?  These sorts of things just make the policy look like it’s picking and choosing what it will or won’t cover, and at that point nobody’s going to even try to follow it because “Well, it might not be illegal, we won’t know until we hear from the Mods so I’m just going to post it.”  The staff’s only causing more headaches for themselves.

Ignoring leaks is pretty much the function of the Leaked Content Policy, though, isn’t it?  If there’s a leak, we don’t talk about it.  For clarity’s sake, what exactly makes a leak “illegal”?  These sorts of things just make the policy look like it’s picking and choosing what it will or won’t cover, and at that point nobody’s going to even try to follow it because “Well, it might not be illegal, we won’t know until we hear from the Mods so I’m just going to post it.”  The staff’s only causing more headaches for themselves.

It's illegal if it's got a confidential watermark. And if there's not enough information to go on, best to play it safe (in other words, "my dad works for Lego"-type stories are sketchy as heck at best and in breach of contract at worst).

 

But this particular case was one where an exceptionally reliable source (that being a major retailer's official website) posted actual set listings. There's no reason to doubt the listings' authenticity (despite the lack of pictorial evidence), yet at the same time the lack of pictures means that there's nothing there that would be illegal to redistribute. And the fact that Lego's own, publically accessible website confirmed the set names (through the roundabout manner of inputting URLs corresponding to the set names and finding "product not available" listings rather than "page not found errors") removes any doubt of the names being inauthentic or otherwise illicit.

The confidential stamps make sense, but that really only applies to images.  With lists, it seems like there’s no easy criteria to use.  I could be remembering wrong, but wasn’t there a list of the 2015 sets floating around a while back that we didn’t discuss because of the Policy?

 

Okay, so they’re authentic, that’s good.  But…doesn’t that just confirm them as leaks…?  It seems like we’re in agreement that Amazon wasn’t supposed to have these pages up, and that this was a mistake, but if that’s the case, would that not be comparable to someone releasing information that Lego doesn’t want released yet?  And wouldn’t BZP posting about the mistake just be spreading the information that shouldn’t be released yet?

 

I enjoy leaks as much as the next Lego fan—they get us excited about the coming year, give us some raw, vague material to stimulate our creativity with, they’re fun and serve a purpose.  Plenty of us are constantly searching for them and discussing them sooner than we probably should, and that’s not going to stop, and BZPower’s biannual reminders about the Leaked Content Policy really only let us all know that leaks are available, but that’s all beside the point.

 

Alerting its members to Amazon links that are released way too early only to be taken down, as well as various web pages found through “URL guessing”, comes across as BZP being hypocritical.  The Leaked Content Policy calls itself “strict”, but this seems more like the reporters are finding whatever excuse they can to say a leak is “legal”.  If questioned by Lego, are they just going to say “It’s not our fault because Amazon did it first?”  If they’re still calling attention to that mistake, then I don’t think that’s really going to fly.

 

The exceptions are confusing and don’t help the Policy’s reputation, I guess is what I want to say.

 

 

 If the images or information were not officially released by LEGO or a reliable source, they cannot be posted on BZPower. Discussion of new sets and other information can wait until they are officially announced by LEGO or through its partners.

 

Amazon = reliable source and "partner".

But they took it down.  Even Amazon realized it was premature to release the list.

Well I personally am in the "Dume is evil" camp. Some members claim he was being abducted in those screen shots for the new movie, but I say he was giving orders to his lackies. I for one welcome our evil Turaga overlord.

 

But did you see those sets that smile? Apparently the heads are supposed to glow in the dark too. 100% dorkish 0% impressed as far as I'm concerned. I mean what kind of name is Piraka anyway?

 

Wait, which leak are we talking about again?

For what it's worth, I was the one to bring up the list for posting as news (even if I wasn't the one to make the final call), so feel free to take this out on me.

 

Lemme see if I can explain our (or at least my) rationale, because it was something of an edge case.  These were the factors I took into account:

 

• -The list was not obtained illegally or illicitly.
• -The list was information that was intended to be public-facing.
• -The list was verifiably sourceable to LEGO.
• -The list came from a source that did have the right to release it publicly, even if LEGO (presumably) later requested they remove it and they respected that wish.
• -At the time, the order pages had not been removed from Amazon.

 

With all this in mind, this was a case of official, public-facing info being put up earlier than normal in an official, public retail channel that would ordinarily post it.  That's enough that we felt comfortable reporting on it, similarly to how we've reported on other Amazon Bionicle stuff (like the novels).  Was it a borderline case? Yeah, it was, and maybe in the long run it turns out we made the wrong call.  That happens! (It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: if LEGO were to contact us about taking down the list, we would do so immediately.)

 

All that said - I understand your frustration.  The leak policy is not as specific as it should be, and I am painfully aware how in cases like this it can seem like the staff is playing by a different set of rules.  That's not our intent, but the fact it feels like that means there's work to be done from our side.  We were working on a revised policy during the last go-around, but it stalled out - I think it's well past due to give that initiative a kick in the pants. 

In hindsight, I think I came off as way too hostile in a lot of this, and I want to apologize for that.  Any explanation I can think to give is sounding like it’ll be more of an excuse than anything else so I’ll just bypass that part and say that I was wrong.  I really don’t have a reason to be this invested in the Policy, I must need a new hobby or something.

 

Whatever had me fired up about this has passed and I have no intention of complaining any further.  Weird things happen, I shouldn’t feel a need to understand how everything operates, y’all have enough work to do and I should do a better job of respecting that effort.