Jump to content

Bionicle secret page


Tahu3.0

Recommended Posts

Don't say that, if they are found it may be count as leaked content and we wont be able to see them...

"A stranger will always be a stranger unless you give them a chance."

:m_p: :r: :m_o: :w: :l:    :n: :i: :g: :h: :t: :w: :m_o: :l: :f:

 |premierball.png| <- My Pokémon | BZPRPG Characters: Po-Matoran Doseki & Nui-Jaga Scorpio; Ga-Matoran Orca 
Matoran und Panzer: Doseki & Glitch | Marvel RP PC | Mata Nui Monopoly: Come... Own a piece of the legend!

Onua.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm honestly surprised it took em this long to even make a page. Some sloppy design choices...

 

Definitely.

 

LEGO's standards for web design sure have fallen.

 

Don't say that, if they are found it may be count as leaked content and we wont be able to see them...

 

There is so much misconception about what leaked content is. When something is leaked, that probably means the janitor from Lego headquarters uploaded grainy pictures of next year's sets. That's leaking, because someone stole and shared confidential info.

 

It doesn't count as leaking if they're too clueless to realize that they shouldn't be uploading YouTube videos that are set to take us all the way to summer.

Edited by TheSkeletonMan939
  • Upvote 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still see the games tab.

 

I think what was meant was that it was there earlier, then departed, and is back again.

 

(That's what happened to me anyway)

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Don't say that, if they are found it may be count as leaked content and we wont be able to see them...

 

There is so much misconception about what leaked content is. When something is leaked, that probably means the janitor from Lego headquarters uploaded grainy pictures of next year's sets. That's leaking, because someone stole and shared confidential info.

 

It doesn't count as leaking if they're too clueless to realize that they shouldn't be uploading YouTube videos that are set to take us all the way to summer.

 

I think it's still debatable in some ways. Take the discovery of the Mask of Creation image last year; some people think it's entirely fair game to post that because it's on LEGO's files, others think that the very fact that it's deliberately non-accessible is enough of a right to privacy.

 

And in terms of the videos, that's a "leak" of sorts because the makers genuinely don't want that out yet, but some poor social media shlub (or shlubs, likely) has no idea and keeps posting them as they come in. It's the same principle; somebody is trusted with information and betrays that trust, either out of malice, enthusiasm, or stupidity. It's on LEGO any which way you look at it, but that doesn't mean leaking is a guilt-free activity.

 

Anyway, this "secret page" is likely something they mean to have up (it's probably existed for a while...), but because their website organization is messy, it's not linked to anywhere. No real reason why it would be a secret =P.

Edited by Dorek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[...] some people think it's entirely fair game to post that because it's on LEGO's files, others think that the very fact that it's deliberately non-accessible is enough of a right to privacy.

 

 

Too which I would counter that some people bookmark urls that don't actually exist yet but are anticipating; so if I come across something that has been released by someone(s) inside of TLG that didn't steal or share it, then even if it was just an accident (non malicious), it seems tantamount to a retcon: "we said this" and "we take that back"; as much as one might pretend that;s how it always was it doesn't undo that it was released by someone(s) within TLG, are in essence representing TLG; TLG released it.

 

That some people think we should respectfully pretend X didn't happen because X was an accident might be polite, but I'm not sure it makes it right.

 

They have a point, but on the other hand if we go with that, should we remove documentation of anything that has later been 'overwritten'? so any quotes by Greg which are latter contradicted should be removed? It's the same line of reasoning.

 

So actually...

 

 

It's the same principle; somebody is trusted with information and betrays that trust, either out of malice, enthusiasm, or stupidity. It's on LEGO any which way you look at it, but that doesn't mean leaking is a guilt-free activity.

 

 

No I don't think it is the same principle; it's one thing to have to put some tiny bit of trust in others (any company ever), and that trust being violated by an error or by deliberate oath-breaking are two different cans; ultimately neither can ever be entirely removed, but someone that's stuffed up is usually treated differently depending on intent.

 

How does one know something is leaked if it comes out on their own site and doesn't look like it's been "hacked"? Where as typically something that's been leaked shows up via rumour and shoddy photos etc.

 

So if nothing else it makes the whole ordeal quicker to assume that an error of enthusiasm etc. can be counted as a leak is incredibly nonfunctional - what's the difference between all 9 episodes going up on YouTube as opposed to the Website?

 

People automatically treat their own website as a non-leak by default (at least if the page on their site has links to it [from their site]), why the double standard for YouTube? Do people think there YouTube account is easier to "hack"?

 

So yeah, it's still debatable in some ways but to get the opposing opinion in a working state requires more technicalities of review. & probably double standards. So yeah, people treating this "secret page" etc as a leak is patently absurd until someone presents a decent explanation.

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[...] some people think it's entirely fair game to post that because it's on LEGO's files, others think that the very fact that it's deliberately non-accessible is enough of a right to privacy.

 

Too which I would counter that some people bookmark urls that don't actually exist yet but are anticipating; so if I come across something that has been released by someone(s) inside of TLG that didn't steal or share it, then even if it was just an accident (non malicious), it seems tantamount to a retcon: "we said this" and "we take that back"; as much as one might pretend that;s how it always was it doesn't undo that it was released by someone(s) within TLG, are in essence representing TLG; TLG released it.

 

That some people think we should respectfully pretend X didn't happen because X was an accident might be polite, but I'm not sure it makes it right.

 

 

There's no "taking back", obviously, but in this case it boils down to whether it's a reasonable assumption by TLG that a URL not linked to in any way, and only accessible by "URL guessing" or some similar variation counts as "releasing" or not. They were obviously gearing up for a huge reveal, which was slightly spoiled ahead of time.

 

Just because they underestimated the lengths certain fans will go (which was exacerbated by actual leaks in the weeks prior) and didn't take enough precautions doesn't necessarily make it right to share information that could reasonably considered private.

 

 

It's the same principle; somebody is trusted with information and betrays that trust, either out of malice, enthusiasm, or stupidity. It's on LEGO any which way you look at it, but that doesn't mean leaking is a guilt-free activity.

 

No I don't think it is the same principle; it's one thing to have to put some tiny bit of trust in others (any company ever), and that trust being violated by an error or by deliberate oath-breaking are two different cans; ultimately neither can ever be entirely removed, but someone that's stuffed up is usually treated differently depending on intent.

 

How does one know something is leaked if it comes out on their own site and doesn't look like it's been "hacked"? Where as typically something that's been leaked shows up via rumour and shoddy photos etc.

 

So if nothing else it makes the whole ordeal quicker to assume that an error of enthusiasm etc. can be counted as a leak is incredibly nonfunctional - what's the difference between all 9 episodes going up on YouTube as opposed to the Website?

 

To me, even the accidental posting is still considered "leaking": the release of materials at a time when they were not expected or supposed to be available. This is why we say TRU is "breaking street dates" when they release sets early (although Target was the big offender this year! hah). That they have the sets and that some shelf stocker thinks it's okay to put those out doesn't mean it's okay to put them out. And they can't very well do a recall of those either, so it remains a broken street date.

 

The medium in this case doesn't particularly matter; they do obviously have greater control over the mainsite (although that might just be a byproduct of the complexities of a webpage vs a Youtube account!) but these episodes made it online without the overt approval of TLG or anybody who has any real authority. Their mistake in trusting somebody who was perhaps unqualified to handle these episodes, or even perhaps just a screwup in communication, does not make the materials any less unwanted by the people in charge. People not knowing these are leaks does not make them any less leaked.

 

So yeah, it's still debatable in some ways but to get the opposing opinion in a working state requires more technicalities of review. & probably double standards. So yeah, people treating this "secret page" etc as a leak is patently absurd until someone presents a decent explanation.

Oh, for sure, I don't think this page is a leak of any kind, nor is it really "secret", although you walk a finer line there. People were more talking about finding other "secret pages", if they exist, and what the standard is for something publicly available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...