FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room Retiring COD:LEAK
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

As some of you may remember, we had a forum a while back for altering COD:LEAK to be more lenient, Forum:Altering COD:LEAK. Since said forum, I have been contacting Activision to further enquire about COD:LEAK, and if we still need the policy in place given their lax attitude towards many other sites. For the past Month I have been e-mailing Activision's legal department directly about if we still need this policy, and for the exact legislation why, as if you look at the contact we received, we were never told the exact legislation. For this full month I received no reply, despite constantly reminding them of a deadline response, and given the nature of these e-mails a one month reply is far too long for any response if one was going to be given.

For the reasons above, I feel it is time we broke free of the shackles of COD:LEAK and finally be on equal footing and be able to create pages on maps, DLCs, weapons and what have you as soon as they can be confirmed as true, instead of having to wait for official announcement. I feel this could greatly benefit us, as many other sites already report on this leaked material and we would finally be able to keep up, instead of having to spend our time removing the information, we could be adding it. In the e-mails I sent, I stated multiple times that lack of response would lead to steps to remove the policy, so Activision cannot complain that we are going though with this forum. I also told Activision if they wish for us to reinstate the policy again they will need to contact us directly, and not Wikia as it was us that tried to contact them in the first place.

I understand people may be put off by the fact this was put in place over Activision bringing up legal issues, so I would like to stress I have made sure to go though the proper channels, and ensured I waited a reasonable time before putting this forum in place. Also, I have been speaking with Callofduty4 in regards to making this forum, hence why we will be sharing our signatures on this introduction.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:38, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Pictogram voting support Support — I support this partly because Wikia will be contacted about any infringing material and they will remove it on a case-by-case basis. I also support this because as we've seen, Activision don't really seem to care about whether or not we have it.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:42, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per basically everything said and it'd also help the news. GhKJh.pngP90DeathmanuceaHlB.png21:43, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — As long as "leaked" information is held to the same reference standard as everything else I see no reason not to retire the rule. 9G3sis0.pngRaven's wing Talk21:45, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per all above, it would also mean we'd be able to stay as up to date as other sites. 22:31, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — The altering of LEAK to be more lenient was an idea that if we couldn't leave the article entirely, than the amendment would do. But since Activision doesn't seem to mind, the rule can be retired. 132527029757.gifArgorrath おしゃべり%E7%95%B0%E8%AD%B0%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A.jpg23:09, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Why should other sites be granted leniency towards leaked material while we're 'punished' for it? It doesn't make sense. Per all above. Zombie Rank 8 Icon BOII Kylet357 · talk  23:55, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — I came into this forum opposing it, but since the leaks will have to be comfirmed true and not just rumors, I support it. Also, per Raven's Wing. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 02:38, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per Raven's. KUDLq.png 07:41, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — It is unfair to the wiki to be unable to display leaked material. I think the removal of this policy will be beneficial, and could help increase activity for the wiki. Per all above. Legos-Rule-15 (talk) 23:06, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question Question — didn't we decide that instead of rushing to a vote we'd actually discuss the forum first? or is there simply nothing to say? KλT 09:35, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

We did, however the way I wrote it likely led to the way the responses are. I'd sort of gotten used to writing up forums to go straight to vote. Chances are we can still hold an official vote after 2 weeks or so so if there are any neutrals or opposes they can be addressed before the final cast. 10:03, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of doing this pretty much entirely to spite Activision. Has anybody asked Wikia staff for their opinion or recommendation? Joe Copp 17:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

This is not out of spite. It is because the policy is a hindrance to us and we would do so better without it. Furthermore, Wikia would likely just bring up Activision's rights again, which I have not been able to get directly from Activision themselves. Asking Wikia about this would be like asking a ticket officer to get your car back from the impound lot. 22:09, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
how do you know what wikia's response will be? they might have better luck contacting official company representatives than us. KλT 23:15, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
They'll have to go though the same channels I went though. And unless they [Activision] were ignoring my emails based solely on the email address, I see no real difference getting Wikia themselves to send emails will have. 23:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)
I really, really doubt that wikia uses the generic legal email to contact them. I know for a fact wikia staff have direct lines into acti. Its worth the effort if you're this passionate about the policy don't you think? Assuming the worst won't make anything easy
Fine, then we can put this forum on hold while we wait for Wikia to contact Activision. And in response I would like to hear exact legislation why we must adhere to this policy instead of just hearing "Because legal says so". 00:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I would like to point out that I was using a direct e-mail address to contact Activision, in fact it took me about a month just to get that e-mail address. Also, I don't really see what you mean by Wikia using generic a generic email address. 00:42, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't like having to hold this forum longer than is needed (as if we leave it too long, momentum will go, and forum may die). So can we try and get a response from Activision within 2 weeks? If we still haven't heard from them in that long, we'll have to assume they're still not replying. 11:40, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
Who has talked to staff, if I may ask? Joe Copp 16:25, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm hoping Kat has, since he brought this up, as well as him knowing more staff members than I do. 17:19, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
(Reset indent) It's been 2 weeks, and I've heard nothing. I'm putting this forum back on track with the understanding that Acti don't care if we keep this policy or not. I will move the forum to a final vote soon. 02:34, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — It'd help more wikian to contribute more without any kind of legal problem. fennekin_animated_by_thunderboltelemental-d5qw861.gif Maxxis<FENNEKIN!> 05:51, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Yeah, fuck EA! -- azuris_ 01:49, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Yeah! Let's get sued again! (In all seriousness, that's a pretty old policy that came out of a one really odd event. And since it has been quite some time, let's just kill it).-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo03:25, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per All Personal AndImBatman Sig imageBats a.k.a Rarity Filly  04:36, February 21, 2014 (UTC) oh look I am back again

Pictogram voting support Support — Per erryone Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 10:22, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — On second thoughts the one good thing about COD:LEAK was that we didn't have too much speculation added to articles before release so maybe we need to make a new policy to reflect that. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 17:04, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Ya, I mentioned in the main header we should only add the content if it can also be confirmed, like if someone leaks some game files or something. 17:18, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add on right now, Drift0r has posted yet another video about leaked information, seen here. Now, if we retire the policy, we can actually use this information, just like he's been able to. 20:24, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
My problem with the stuff he talks about in that video though is that none of it is backed up, and he may even be just making some of it up. He just asks us to trust him that he has the info. Joe Copp 15:37, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
2 Notes about the video and Drift0r in general. A) He was 99% correct about Ghosts when he leaked it last year and B) IIRC, he mentions either in the video or somewhere else that this years source is less-legitimate and trustworthy than last years. KUDLq.png 15:43, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
Even with that track record though I'm not sure I'd be comfortable putting some of that information into articles, especially when most of it is pretty much verbatim "it looks around 2020" Joe Copp 15:51, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
Well another fact. Earlier today I saw a video confirming the name of the new DLC weapon But since it's not officially announced (therefore leaked) we cannot create a page on it. 02:34, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — i agree. lets just get rid of this if other sites are giving out leaked info. RisingSun2013 (talk) 02:41, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Per all. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 21:08, March 6, 2014 (UTC)

Staff Weighing In: There are two interconnected issues here: the leaked info itself and the copyrighted material that embodies or contains the information. As far as "pure" information, as long as it isn't violating the legal rights of any third party then it doesn't generally pose an issue with Wikia's Terms of Use. However, we are bound to remove any material that infringes the copyright of a third party, as per the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Many larger companies use the DMCA as a tool to remove images, videos, or other "vessels" of information that they do not wish to make public. They are within their rights to do so. Wikia would follow it's usual copyright infringement procedures should we start getting DMCAs for this community. The material would be removed initially with a warning. Reuploads of the same material or new copyright offenses by the same user would lead to blocks or even account forfeiture if they persisted. Hope this helps, --semanticdrifter @fandom (help forum | blog) 17:06, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, given a lot of information has gotten out there, and still seems to be out there (like the video that revealed 99% of CoD: Ghosts before official release) it would be nice to be bit more autonomous with our leaked information, and simply leave it to Activision (or one of her subsidiaries) to contact you (or more desirably, us) as and when we've posted something they don't want posted. As right now, the policy is pretty much choking us by really limiting our content we can have. While we are aware of legal issues, and we don't directly plan on fully ignoring any warnings that get forwarded to us, but I think it would be better for us if the policy got moved up a level as it were. While all our polices so far were made by us, COD:LEAK was added by a higher power, so when it comes to doing anything with the policy it can be quite hard to get around given the authors of the policy just aren't around, but all of the policies we made we can deal with as we see fit as all the policy makers are here so we know how to change it and how to invoke them. By moving the policy up a level, as it were, would allow us to be on par with other sites that are posting the information, and then removing it should we be contacted by the higher ups, as they'll know when they need to invoke it. When we first got the policy all we were told was that "The copyright was in order", which when upholding a policy makes it hard to do. Similar to the fact of blocking a user, upon asking why they were blocked telling them that "the policies were in order" would not help them know what they did wrong. And for us, not knowing what legislation was actually invoked means we don't know what leaked information could actually be infringement. Recent example would be the DLC weapon the Ripper. The name was released to the public early, however with COD:LEAK in place we could not create a page for it until they gave out he official name, however, given the amount of content that was floating around, it begs the question of "would making the page be infringing the legislation?". As I've stated, we're more than happy to listen to Acti about anything that falls within their legislation, but we simply can't uphold a policy, when we don't even know the specifics of the policy itself, and when we see sites posing information that is leaked, and not having it removed within 24 hours from a CaD order, makes us question the necessity of the policy. But anyway, to keep it short. If this policy is retired, we will still adhere to any legal issues that are sent our way. 17:26, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

Final voteEdit

Now given that A. we were supposed to go back to the old forum system where we discuss than vote and B. the sheer magnitude of this forum. I'm moving the forum to a final vote to finally end this forum with a consensus. While I'm aware there is a high amount of support, I'd like to go though with the final vote just to fully nail in that we're doing this.

SupportEdit

  • Pictogram voting support Support — As one of the original authors of this forum, and every point I have noted above. 03:34, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Per reasons stated above. EDIT: It doesn't seem fair for the wiki to be penalized by forced policies like this when other websites can do the same and get no flak for it. If there ever is an issue, Wikia would be notified of it, then it would be passed back down to us, putting us in the same situation as we are in now. 4XBy83R.pngAntiScootaTwotalk  03:37, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Per above Zombie Rank 8 Icon BOII Kylet357 · talk  05:20, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Per above. Registered contributor™ 07:59, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Per above, I also think it sounds fair towards Activision.  GYKM9PK.jpg feargmtalk  11:37, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Per above. 17:31, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — Seeing semanticdrifter's input above, I'll support, so long as we are willing to cooperate with Activision should they contact us again. Joe Copp 19:31, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — I guess everything has been said. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 22:12, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — As I've previously said, it is very unfair to us to be punished while others are not. Per above reasons too. bionicle__unity_duty_destiny_by_cyberpictures-d6p3li2.pngLegos-Rule-15 Talk 01:28, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — i still agree. RisingSun2013 (talk) 01:59, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Support — per above but seriously there is no need for this to still be open Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 20:29, March 8, 2014 (UTC)
I know, but we may as well give it the old school timing and such. As much as I'd love to rush this forum though, at least if we have a massive consensus, it shows we did go though our proper channels of removing it (since I mentioned in one of my last emails if Acti didn't give me any response we would begin taking steps). Chances are though, with such a large one-sided vote, it can be closed by Monday (10/03/14). 20:35, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

CommentsEdit

If people can. Can you please try to aphend something to "per above"? I understand many points have already been said, but it looks a bit better if people can even little of their own input to their vote. Doesn't have to be massively long, nor does it have to be unique. Just something to make the votes look a bit nicer is all. Of course no one has to, I just think it would look a bit better is all. If you can't think of anything but do agree, then do feel free to just use "per above". But even the smallest addition helps. 11:24, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - 100% consensus in the vote. COD:LEAK will be retired. Joe Copp 15:08, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.