Protecting sources goes far beyond waiting for them to say you can post it. BGWfansite got someone fired the exact same way during Verbolten's construction. Oftentimes it's up to us to protect them even when they don't see the danger. Posting the picture in question is incredibly reckless. I've been at this for five years. I know how the park works when it comes to this stuff. Your source and everyone else onsite should be shaking in their boots right now.
Project 2015: Tempesto
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
- Status
Brian said:
I appreciate it. I hope it was done soon enough.
A similar instance to what has happened here went down on Theme Park Review during the Verbolten construction days. They posted a watermarked piece of concept art from the ride and when I explained the situation to Robb, he refused to do anything about it. It didn't go well for that source either. Thanks for doing the right thing here Brian. I know how much passing up on exclusives sucks- trust me. :-/
The difference between having ethics the following the rules: A person with ethics follows the rules when no one is looking.
I disagree with Zachary from time to time, and sometimes publicly, but he is always ethical. Reece your comments are are unsettling. I can not say what I really think as I am already in a gray zone. Lets just say you could learn from Zachary.
I disagree with Zachary from time to time, and sometimes publicly, but he is always ethical. Reece your comments are are unsettling. I can not say what I really think as I am already in a gray zone. Lets just say you could learn from Zachary.
IMO it's not that great a pic. It didn't reveal anything we didn't already know and since the other side of if is visible from the road, it's not that exclusive. So risking someone's job over posting it is really careless.
Like B.Mac said above, why didn’t you just message them about pulling it down? This is made to look like you’re the leading example to follow. To really care for whether or not someone keeps their job, it would be best to send them a message, rather than publicly calling them out... Now there are people in the same community as everyone else here feeling hated.
I did not get the impression Zachary called out a person but a site. At no point did he mention a person's name. Lets not make this yet another game of blame the admin staff..
Zimmy said:
I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I just want to know how a picture correlates into someone losing their job, along with why a public disclaimer is necessary.
It happens when the park recognises that a photo had to taken from the inside of a restricted space by a contractor or employee. They then go on a witch hunt
You say admin staff like I'm blaming all three people on the staff. I'm not.
Just because he called out a site doesn't mean he's not calling out people. Unless the site is run by robots, then you're always calling someone out. Now their site looks bad in the eyes of the people on this forum.
Just because he called out a site doesn't mean he's not calling out people. Unless the site is run by robots, then you're always calling someone out. Now their site looks bad in the eyes of the people on this forum.
Zimmy said:
I'm really not versed in BGW's code of honor when it comes to media stuff but it's a picture of the ride already built. Other forums have posted pictures in restricted areas with permission from full-time staff, so I'm curious as to why this one deserves so much attention.
How a picture correlates to someone loosing their job? They sign legal NDAs. People can be sued. People have been fired.
And I didn't contact the site owner, Reece, privatly for reasons that are likely apparent from the post he made above.
Regardless, this all seems like a red herring to me. Everything is said and done. Hopefully we saved a guy's job today and, well, if not, I tried.
And I didn't contact the site owner, Reece, privatly for reasons that are likely apparent from the post he made above.
Regardless, this all seems like a red herring to me. Everything is said and done. Hopefully we saved a guy's job today and, well, if not, I tried.
Zachary said:
I'm sure now this deserves to be split off into its own thread but I'll ask anyways. What happened in the aftermath of the Verbolten plans after the DMCA came about? How many people got in trouble for that one?
I can't say what Reece did was correct or "mature", but I'm speaking broadly here. You said you cared about employees jobs. But rather than being proactive, you publicly called the site out how they're going to get someone fired.
b.mac said:
No one did. We got a cease and desist and the source was never found. That has been true with all the plans we've ever leaked. All of our sources are still happily (and sometimes not so happily) employed and anonymous.
BGWFans's record in regards to source safety is, truly, spotless. It's quite possibly the one thing about the site I'm most proud of.
Evan said:
To be perfectly honest, once it has been published and seen, it's likely too late. I believe our members deserve to know the risks involved with the things they're looking at, especially when it's an action as reckless as what happened tonight.
If I'm to be completely honest, BGWFans may partially be to blame for people not realizing how risky this stuff is to leak. We never make a big deal about all the work that goes into protecting the people who give us stacks of documents and the like, because it comes off as arrogant. Unfortunately, an unintended side effect of that is that I don't believe people understand the danger involved and, hence, often think anyone can do it because BGWFans has. Doing the things we do while keeping the sources employed isn't easy. Not by a long shot.
Also, I'll say this: Every time a someone is fired for another site's recklessness, it makes convincing sources to talk to me far more difficult. Recklessness shoots the entire community in the foot, not just one particular site. The community deserves to know.
Zachary said:
This is the kind of stuff I'd like to hear, thanks for the clarification.
- Status