Opinions on the BZP leaked content policy.

[Nato G]

 

If all the other Lego sites don't have this kind of draconian policy, I don't see why we should keep it.

Additionally, draconian implies that severe punishments are being dealt out. I've just been editing posts and deleting the worst offenders. The hyperbole you're looking for in this instance is "tyrannic".

 

 

Draconian? That's an interesting and creative choice of words and I wish I'd thought of it. Although, Makaru may have a point. Tyrannical may be a better adage. 

 

A lot of people have been making comments that if we want to discuss the leaks we should go to the other sites that are allowed to discuss them, but I don't particularly want to do that. The community here is far friendlier than any of the other sites, and there are a lot less trolls, haters, etc. I want to discuss the future of Bionicle with a community who shared my interest ad love for the theme, not one that spends half of its time criticising the theme and the other half talking about completely irrelevant stuff. The other sites don't have nearly as much interest in Bionicle as we do.

 

The way I see it, we're a fansite that is entirely devoted to Bionicle. It's the reason we're here, and if we're not allowed to talk about it, then I don't really see the point of being here to begin with. 

 

 

For everyone's reference, our Leaked Content Policy comes from TLG's LEGO Novelties and Confidentiality policy, signed by Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, the CEO & President of The LEGO Group, as well as communications we've had with both the CEE and Legal teams at LEGO. Yes it is more strict than what is written in that PDF, and that comes from the interaction we've had with LEGO on what they would like to see.

 

 

That link only talks about images with watermarks: "If the image of a LEGO box or a LEGO model has a watermark attached, it is confidential and this means that publishing or distributing the image is NOT allowed by the LEGO Group". 

 

There's no mention of anything regarding unconfirmed leaks like we've seen (leaked images on several different sites, and set names linked elsewhere). So far as I know, none of the leaked images I've seen so far have had watermarks on them, so shouldn't that mean we're free to discuss them? Especially since Lego has neither confirmed or denied them?

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood something here, and if I have, please feel free to correct me. 

 

EDIT: It's mentioned that there is more discussion that led to the formulation of the BZ leaked image policy, so I had another read of it. The BZP leaks policy also makes mention of the "preliminary" stamp, which doesn't appear on currently leaked images, but it also says we aren't allowed to discuss information unless it is provided by a reliable source, however there is no set definition for what constitutes a "reliable source". 

 

Let's review the most recent examples. The set names and numbers were provided by a Russian online Lego store, which I would consider to be a reasonably reliable source. I don't know where a lot of the images originally came from, but I have seen them reposted on various sites including Eurobricks, Groovebricks ad Brickset, some of which I believe are endorsed by the Lego company. If Lego didn't want the images being circulated, surely it would have requested the images be removed? Therefore I consider these leaks to be from reliable sources as well. 

 

I think, therefore, before this discussion can proceed further, a set definition needs to be created for what constitutes a "reliable source", not just merely what the admin decide to approve or not. We need a set definition within the leaks policy that can be referred to and easily understood, otherwise this discussion isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.

Edited August 7, 2014 by NatoGreavesy

[V-N]

I don't see a big problem in understanding the meaning of a "reliable source.". Unless the information is released from TLG or an official representative or affiliate (and not contradicted, or released through unconventional means, such as individual retail store employees), the information shouldn't be discussed. An exception is if you, say, get a set right off the shelves of a store. A "reliable source" could also be someone who shares information they so happen to be the first to find from an official TLG source, and can give enough proof that that is where they got it. Eurobricks, for example, could be called a reliable source if they could prove that they got new information from official LEGO channels.

 

Of course, if you ever aren't sure some new information or images you have aren't leaked, I am confident the administration would be happy to privately review them and verify the legality of sharing and discussing them here.

[Nato G]

Okay, seriously, here's a perfect example of why this policy makes no sense to me: 

 

https://community.lego.com/t5/BIONICLE/Bionicle-2015-Set-Information/m-p/10767993#U10767993

 

Even the Lego Message Boards allow blatant discussion of the leaked information, and their posts are approved by moderators before being allowed onto the website! How is it that our policy is harsher than Lego's own?! 

[Gatanui]

That link only talks about images with watermarks: "If the image of a LEGO box or a LEGO model has a watermark attached, it is confidential and this means that publishing or distributing the image is NOT allowed by the LEGO Group". 

 

There's no mention of anything regarding unconfirmed leaks like we've seen (leaked images on several different sites, and set names linked elsewhere). So far as I know, none of the leaked images I've seen so far have had watermarks on them, so shouldn't that mean we're free to discuss them? Especially since Lego has neither confirmed or denied them?

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood something here, and if I have, please feel free to correct me. 

 

EDIT: It's mentioned that there is more discussion that led to the formulation of the BZ leaked image policy, so I had another read of it. The BZP leaks policy also makes mention of the "preliminary" stamp, which doesn't appear on currently leaked images, but it also says we aren't allowed to discuss information unless it is provided by a reliable source, however there is no set definition for what constitutes a "reliable source". 

 

Let's review the most recent examples. The set names and numbers were provided by a Russian online Lego store, which I would consider to be a reasonably reliable source. I don't know where a lot of the images originally came from, but I have seen them reposted on various sites including Eurobricks, Groovebricks ad Brickset, some of which I believe are endorsed by the Lego company. If Lego didn't want the images being circulated, surely it would have requested the images be removed? Therefore I consider these leaks to be from reliable sources as well. 

 

I think, therefore, before this discussion can proceed further, a set definition needs to be created for what constitutes a "reliable source", not just merely what the admin decide to approve or not. We need a set definition within the leaks policy that can be referred to and easily understood, otherwise this discussion isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.

Just because something doesn't have a preliminary stamp it doesn't mean LEGO wants it to circulate. The earlier information gets out, the more likely it is LEGO doesn't want it to. LEGO did in fact ask to remove the picture from Flickr, by the way. And as far as I know, none of the sites you listed is any more endorsed by The LEGO Company than we are.

 

-Gata

Edited August 7, 2014 by Gatanui

[Black Six]

EDIT: It's mentioned that there is more discussion that led to the formulation of the BZ leaked image policy, so I had another read of it. The BZP leaks policy also makes mention of the "preliminary" stamp, which doesn't appear on currently leaked images, but it also says we aren't allowed to discuss information unless it is provided by a reliable source, however there is no set definition for what constitutes a "reliable source". 

 

Let's review the most recent examples. The set names and numbers were provided by a Russian online Lego store, which I would consider to be a reasonably reliable source. I don't know where a lot of the images originally came from, but I have seen them reposted on various sites including Eurobricks, Groovebricks ad Brickset, some of which I believe are endorsed by the Lego company. If Lego didn't want the images being circulated, surely it would have requested the images be removed? Therefore I consider these leaks to be from reliable sources as well. 

 

I think, therefore, before this discussion can proceed further, a set definition needs to be created for what constitutes a "reliable source", not just merely what the admin decide to approve or not. We need a set definition within the leaks policy that can be referred to and easily understood, otherwise this discussion isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.

Considering the alleged set names and numbers were later removed, that tells me either that: a) they were rumor/speculation/made-up or b) they were leaked and LEGO had them removed. If it was the former, that doesn't make them very reliable. If it was the latter, it sounds like the definition of a leak to me.

 

LEGO does not 'endorse' any fan sites. It supports the fan community, but endorsing implies an official relationship, which is not the case for any fan site that I know of. Additionally, the fan sites in this case are a secondary source and are not what needs to be reliable. We're worried about where the information originates.

 

The current definition of a reliable source is up to the Administration to determine. If we feel something is reliable or official, such as the S@H 'Coming Soon' page, you will see it on the front page. That will let you know it's okay to discuss it. There's no hard and fast rule, unfortunately, as every source is different.

[Nato G]

Without trying to be deliberately annoying, I'd like to point out that a source from the Lego Group (GregF via his chat page on LMB) said that the "coming soon" thing was a mistake made during maintenance and that the issue has since been remedied. A weak excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Here's a link to prove I'm not just making this up to be spiteful: https://community.lego.com/t5/LEGO-General/Chat-with-Greg-Farshtey/td-p/6605180/page/387

 

Yet the story remains on BZP's front page. Lego has denied that the S@H thing is legitimate, so, if your prior argument is true, then why has that article not been removed from the front page, since it isn't a reliable source after all? Or does the admin know something we don't? 

[Airoski]

Without trying to be deliberately annoying, I'd like to point out that a source from the Lego Group (GregF via his chat page on LMB) said that the "coming soon" thing was a mistake made during maintenance and that the issue has since been remedied. A weak excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Here's a link to prove I'm not just making this up to be spiteful: https://community.lego.com/t5/LEGO-General/Chat-with-Greg-Farshtey/td-p/6605180/page/387

 

Yet the story remains on BZP's front page. Lego has denied that the S@H thing is legitimate, so, if your prior argument is true, then why has that article not been removed from the front page, since it isn't a reliable source after all? Or does the admin know something we don't? 

 

It was true at the time. An update would be needed if anything (people in media would use the phrase: wrong but not for long!)

 

We've got the same leaked material from two different camera angles, and evidence of Lego trying to remove the content, so source reliability really isn't the issue here. Rather, the key detail is that it's not official from Lego, and the admins have decided to respect Lego's wishes and only discuss new information when it's official.

 

The important question is whether this decision is in the best interests of the community.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Airoski

[Black Six]

Without trying to be deliberately annoying, I'd like to point out that a source from the Lego Group (GregF via his chat page on LMB) said that the "coming soon" thing was a mistake made during maintenance and that the issue has since been remedied. A weak excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Here's a link to prove I'm not just making this up to be spiteful: https://community.lego.com/t5/LEGO-General/Chat-with-Greg-Farshtey/td-p/6605180/page/387

 

Yet the story remains on BZP's front page. Lego has denied that the S@H thing is legitimate, so, if your prior argument is true, then why has that article not been removed from the front page, since it isn't a reliable source after all? Or does the admin know something we don't?

We did report that the Coming Soon page had been removed. I hadn't been aware of Greg's comment until now (and I don't see it on the page you linked to) - we can't report on things we don't know about.

[Aanchir]

Without trying to be deliberately annoying, I'd like to point out that a source from the Lego Group (GregF via his chat page on LMB) said that the "coming soon" thing was a mistake made during maintenance and that the issue has since been remedied. A weak excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Here's a link to prove I'm not just making this up to be spiteful: https://community.lego.com/t5/LEGO-General/Chat-with-Greg-Farshtey/td-p/6605180/page/387

 

Yet the story remains on BZP's front page. Lego has denied that the S@H thing is legitimate, so, if your prior argument is true, then why has that article not been removed from the front page, since it isn't a reliable source after all? Or does the admin know something we don't?

Greg's post doesn't actually tell us much that we didn't already know. Most people already suspected that the coming soon page was posted by mistake. But a "maintenance error" could easily mean what most people already suspected — that the page was accidentally posted before it was supposed to be. It doesn't tell us that it was never meant to be posted at all.

[fishers64]

I thought that policy was because of two reasons: 

1) Binkmeister, an admin of BZPower, used to work for The Lego Group,

2) Greg Farshtey used to post here, and we receive incentives like free sets, etc. 

 

Mostly I think it was because of #1, honestly - if BZP allowed leaks, it could be a conflict-of-interest situation with his employer and he could be fired.

 

That's not the case now, but I don't think it means we should ditch the policy. Again, there's no reason why we can't be honorable in a world of dishonorable conduct. And frankly I find leaked information to be unreliable, easily faked, and not really worth much commentary anyway. I don't think there's much point in discussing something that could easily be a lie. 

[Toa Zaz]

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

[Black Six]

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

For everyone's reference, our Leaked Content Policy comes from TLG's LEGO Novelties and Confidentiality policy, signed by Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, the CEO & President of The LEGO Group, as well as communications we've had with both the CEE and Legal teams at LEGO. Yes it is more strict than what is written in that PDF, and that comes from the interaction we've had with LEGO on what they would like to see.

 

BZPower did not create the overall policy, nor is it our responsibility to enforce it outside of BZPower. Just because other sites don't follow it and seem to still get support doesn't mean we are willing to take that risk too. If we started to allow the posting and discussion of leaks and LEGO came in and cut off all support, including all the free sets we give away, interviews with LEGO employees we've done, invitations to Toy Fair and other events, press releases for new sets, and more, would that be worth it? To me it's certainly not.

 

As far as the argument that people will stay away from BZPower because we don't allow the discussion of leaks, here's some quick stats:

-July 2014 saw the largest number of new accounts registered on BZPower since August 2010.

-We're already over a third of the way to that number for August 2014, and we're only six days in.

-July 2014 saw the largest number of new topics created on BZPower since June 2012.

-July 2014 saw the largest number of new posts made on BZPower in over a year.

 

I'm pretty happy with the direction things are headed, and hope these trends continue apace.

Now we're two thirds of a way to our July number for new accounts registered, and we're not halfway through the month of August.

[Nato G]

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

[believe victims]

 

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

 

 

Lego doesn't need to worry about Lego cutting off Lego's benefits from Lego.

[fishers64]

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

 

 

Lego doesn't need to worry about Lego cutting off Lego's benefits from Lego.

 

If a competitor of Lego goes to Lego's own message boards to wade through all the kiddy messages just to figure out better ways to compete with Lego, then I must admire their fortitude of spirit. 

 

If, in their search, they also decide to trawl here, of all places, they are insane. 

[Nato G]

 

 

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

 

 

Lego doesn't need to worry about Lego cutting off Lego's benefits from Lego.

 

 

That bizarre and strangely confusing statement does carry a valid point. 

 

But has Lego actually ever threatened to remove our "privileges" if we discuss leaks. If they have, let me know and I'll stop prolonging this argument. Otherwise, I still see no real definitive reason why our policy is so harsh. 

 

 

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

 

 

Lego doesn't need to worry about Lego cutting off Lego's benefits from Lego.

 

If a competitor of Lego goes to Lego's own message boards to wade through all the kiddy messages just to figure out better ways to compete with Lego, then I must admire their fortitude of spirit. 

 

If, in their search, they also decide to trawl here, of all places, they are insane. 

 

 

I don't see why rival companies would even bother going to us or the Lego forums to find out stuff about the leaks. They can just Google "Bionicle 2015" and the leaks shall all be laid out before them. I don't think us discussing the leaks will really contribute to a rival company finding anything out. 

[specsowl]

Here's my opinion. When I was younger on this site I was incredibly frustrated by not being able to see leaks. People would be discussing them, news posts would be saying "Don't do this!" and after all of that...I never got to see them when everyone else did. And I wanted to! I've always been THE GUY in the know about stuff. 

 

But these days, like a lot of people are saying...the internet is a much bigger place and contradictory to its size, so much EASIER to access information. The day the images were leaked you could find them on at least 10 different sites, namely image boards discussing toys, tumblr, reddit, et cetera. The point being, lifting the ban here would only defeat the purpose, not encourage it. 

 

Sure, people are going to see them, but I've always though of BZPower as THE PLACE to talk about Bionicle and having leaks just negates its exclusivity as a forum close to LEGO. To alienate LEGO's policies, why, you might as well just be reddit or 4chan, not that they are comparable or necessarily bad (hey /toy/ is a great board) but that they are simply all inclusive boards while this one is different. There's no containment board for ALL Bionicle because the whole place is Bionicle. I think we can all find something else to talk about here and discuss our exploding excitement about the specifics of the leaks elsewhere. 

[Makaru]

But has Lego actually ever threatened to remove our "privileges" if we discuss leaks.

I think there have been one or two instances we've been asked to remove something because it was sensitive information.

 

But here's the thing. The reason we have such a good reputation with Lego is because they've never really had to "threaten" us at all with action. 

[Art Vandelay]

 

 

 

I guess I wouldn't mind this policy if it was a necessity, but the fact that Eurobricks, YouTube, and Lego's own self-moderated message boards abound with discussion and links to leaked content puts the validity of BZPower's concern in question. It is just a matter of waiting a couple of months, but I feel that allowing discussion of leaked content would promote more activity on BZPower, which is something that this website needs.

 

This is my whole issue with our policy. Especially because Lego's boards are screened by Moderators before allowing posts through. The fact that they're moderated and still let leaks be discussed is extremely frustrating, when we have to abound by a set of rules no one else seems to have to follow, that Lego itself doesn't seem to enforce either. 

 

 

Lego doesn't need to worry about Lego cutting off Lego's benefits from Lego.

 

 

That bizarre and strangely confusing statement does carry a valid point. 

 

EDIT: Sorry, thought you said "doesn't carry a valid point".

 

What you keep repeating is "other sites and even LEGO themselves don't care about LEGO's policies so why should we?" We are not other sites, and because of that, we will continue to get great support from LEGO.

 

LEGO treats the discussion of the leaks as if it's not even there; If they didn't allow it, then that would be indirect confirmation. Instead, they choose to allow it, but not acknowledge it in any capacity (aside from Greg saying he hasn't seen them and doesn't plan to).

 

We're doing just fine without discussing the leaked content. BZPower is home to the best discussion of BIONICLE and constraction in general, so go ahead and discuss the leaks until you've run out of breath on Eurobricks and YouTube, but if you want good discussion of BIONICLE, you'll be back here in a New York minute.

Edited August 14, 2014 by XONAR