If it talks, we can kill it.

Do you walk the walk or...



... talk... the talk?

HMMMM?! ;P

Well, why not? ¯\_(O_o)_/¯
At least we'll know who is a normal user and who instead is working for Gog.

I can do the walking, while also doing all the talking. Multitasking at its finest!

wegotabadassoverhere.jpeg

This really only makes it sound like those posts don't exist.

I should have been more precise, I meant the GOGcom Twitch channel. Sorry for that.

So it's more about your feelings? You don't FEEL that being a partner or having an NDA makes a difference and that's why you're unhappy with the situation.
I wonder whether those who were invited and didn't come see it the same way.
At this point I'd really like their input to see how they feel about that the 6 that went know the username of a few (not all) others that were invited.
as you seem to know who they are, maybe ask them to join us here?
I can see that those who visited would be interested in knowing who was invited to see if the choice of people showed a certain agenda on GOG's side.

Partners are legally and factually not just other users. You saying "it ain't so" doesn't change this simple fact. Your feelings are not the same as that fact.
Also I don't see a hint anywhere that YOUR privacy was not protected. And whether a user name is private information is at least arguable.

Again, you make it sound like it is all about you. Why? Because YOU are concerned?
I thought it was about the people who were invited and didn't come.

Now a quick insight in MY feelings:
Sadly you saying things "pseudo-partners" and "entitled" or "But hey, be a condescending asshole by claiming I'm just ranting with no point. You can stick it where the sun doesn't shine." or "Because it makes all of you so manly by pressing the downrep button" doesn't make your position seem any stronger, I'd rather say that this attitude undermines it.

I feel that your point is well worth discussing (otherwise I hadn't posted) and I'm genuinely interested why NDAs and/or partnership agreements apparently don't seem to exist for you.
For me sharing information with NDAed partners is sharing information on the inside of GOG. And considering how little leaks their generally are GOG's system seems to work.
Is my impression correct that for you it isn't on the inside but on the outside?
And maybe that is the difference that causes our different viewpoints?

I don't mean to come about as attacking you. I do try to understand but so far it seems like a lot of tangled up feelings, partial information, and rage to me.
I'm not a native speaker so if there is something in my way of asking questions and trying to discuss this issue is particularly upsetting for you, I'd be interested to know.

There is a difference between it being supposedly covered and it being right. And frankly, blanket legal statements like that are almost as worthless as the "paper" they are written on. If there was a privacy breach, and the partner who caused the breach had no legitimate reason to have been given access to said information, that user agreement is not going to protect their negligence.

Maybe as a GoG partner you should pass on the message that some people are concerned over their privacy...

I'd actually still like that. For transparency reasons.
Also because I find it awkward to say that I'm streaming for GOG and clarifying stuff like that.

I've already said I had no issue with it, and indeed fully expected my name might be mentioned in some way. Skeletonbow also explicitly stated he had no issue with it earlier.

I can't imagine any of the other's who have revealed themselves in this thread would have an issue with it either, considering they've revealed the fact they were invited to the entire GOG forum now.

There are possibly others who haven't revealed themselves (there are certainly a few others who I may have expected to be invited who I don't remember posting here that they were) who might have an issue, and if there are I'd be genuinely interested in hearing (even privately) from them too.

True, that "privately" part is very important. They might also even consider contacting GOG about their concerns if there are any. I didn't mean to say people should only have a say if they out themselves here. That was not well thought through on my part.
That was not good at all.
Sorry for that.

Edit: After re-reading that long post by me I see that especially in the beginning my attitude isn't good. I could have done better there.
I'll not edit it now because somebody might be responding to it and I don't want to make ti look like I'm trying to erase what I said there.

I didn't go and therefore didn't sign anything, and I've not been able to avail of any previous opportunities that may have led to similar situations so I'm not a partner in any way shape or form.

Of course, if there was a breach it would be investigated and if it was shown that person X revealed the information and shouldn't have had it in the first place then something would be done. The person would presumably be punished in some way (under whatever terms their contract stated) as well as the person within GOG who shared the information in the first place.
I think for the streamers it would certainly make sense as you are in a (presumably) long term relationship with GOG and may post useful and relative information on the forums relating to streaming activities, so being identified as such would be useful.

But as for every user who has signed any kind of contract with GOG... I think people might be surprised with how many users that might actually be...

Somebody just pointed out to me that there is that "Equifax" problem in the US currently and that maybe due to that there is a higher awareness and sensitivity when it comes to private data. May that play part in this?

I see making people partners more of a way of having a hold over them in case they share something they shouldn't (example: future releases). Also, and I know you might not agree with this, there is also GOG's side of having invited people, meaning GOG shared with those partners something that GOG did. There is a difference, for me, between, "We invited user A" and "User A contacted us and wanted to be part of this."

I have worked in several different fields and the purpose of NDAs has always been slightly different.
Sometimes it was even used to make it possible for people to share information ("Both of you are now under NDA, so you two may now talk about project X but not with anybody else.").
I'd say the purpose of NDAs and environment in which they are used are not always the same basically.

Watch the YouTube video linked in this thread and let me know if that's the noise you make b/c you're already dead inside.

Certainly all the recent data breaches are concerning. As to the normal purpose of NDAs, I agree it's to protect the business from leaks. In this case, I'm concerned about what types of information GoG is choosing to share with "invited users" as "partners". So and so couldn't make it, is fairly benign. But although benign, I still do question whether revealing any names was necessary and I don't think it was correct for the new "partners" to be so dismissive of HSL's concerns about it. The fact that posts in this thread lead me to a decent idea about specific other users who were invited, is far more concerning (and I caught those hints before HSL even mentioned them). Doesn't speak well of these new "partners" and their ability to keep information confidential. It also begs the question of what types of other personal user information was shared in these meetings? Were they privy to gossip like "User T E-mails constantly to get people banned"? These new "partners" sure don't seem shy in defending their right to any and all information given the User Agreement...