CIG obviously not happy about an employee leaking this stuff, I can't blamed them.
Just adding something. Honestly, I think Zyloh also may have made a mistake there, although definitely more of a finger slap thing. Don't air corporate dirty laundry in public. It's also a bit unprofessional. But that pales in comparison to someone releasing internal documents, discussions etc. to anyone without permission. In my industry, that can be not just job ending, it can result in the end of a career - and it doesn't matter who you are in the company.Zyloh should have left it with that IMHO. His attempt at a softer explanation about developers affected by ruined surprises led to tangential discussion about how CIG owes backers visibility into spending on new concepts vs completing previous ones. I appreciate those tangential concerns, but those are different business topics that he may have set the official board's thread up for.
Leaks are bad, info covered by NDA leaking is very bad.. the law doesn't care if it's a real spaceship or an internet spaceship, the contract is what matters.Just adding something. Honestly, I think Zyloh also may have made a mistake there, although definitely more of a finger slap thing. Don't air corporate dirty laundry in public. It's also a bit unprofessional. But that pales in comparison to someone releasing internal documents, discussions etc. to anyone without permission. In my industry, that can be not just job ending, it can result in the end of a career - and it doesn't matter who you are in the company.
Zyloh's comment was in a thread about the Cutter, which featured details (and an image) of a concepted "Exploration" variant with 2 SCU cargo, food machine, etc.I just had a comment removed from the forums citing the fact that Zyloh talks about a "leaked concept" that was not being pursued in development any more that turned out to be an actual ship and being released as the RSI Galaxy? I don't understand why (since Zyloh went on record) about it being leaked irresponsibly by a CIG employee. Can someone explain why a factual statement is considered against the TOS to me?
Haha I just came off a 24hr ban for 'wrong think' on Spectrum...irony..given that the individual who banned me was once part of TEST.I just had a comment removed from the forums citing the fact that Zyloh talks about a "leaked concept" that was not being pursued in development any more that turned out to be an actual ship and being released as the RSI Galaxy? I don't understand why (since Zyloh went on record) about it being leaked irresponsibly by a CIG employee. Can someone explain why a factual statement is considered against the TOS to me?