https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/comment/7744805/#Comment_7744805

speculation is different from datamined stuff. i cite an example in the quoted topic where people started protesting crown crates because a skeletal horse wasn't added, and while it's not specifically what prompted the change it is a situation they want to avoid. Kevin goes into more detail about it about the post, but doesn't add too much.

VaranisArano wrote: »

It also (and this is me reading into it) seems like ZOS has finally figured out an official response to the incidents where Rich Lambert talked about stuff on unofficial channels before the official announcement was made. And they don't want us discussing it here until it's official.

Anything Rich says about the game is official, no matter where he says it. That is the burden of the position he holds in the studio. If he says something that is not official, and does not clearly articulate that it is not official, he owns that mistake.

The problem with Rich's stream was that it required messengers to bring what Rich said to places that were more consumable, and the ... errors that happened by doing that. This is worse now because the stream sources have been removed so everyone is going on memory. I do not believe that these rules changes are intended to fix that, as misinterpretations of what ZOS says does not appear to be an immediate concern. They seem more concerned about the people who tear apart the game client looking for clues about what is coming up, announcing said clues, and then people expect that these things will be in the game. That is in addition to to thunder that is stolen from ZOS because people release accurate rumors from datamining before ZOS can announce them.

If Rich, in his stream, spoils his own thunder, that is on him, not the people who hear it and repeat it.

Elsonso wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

It also (and this is me reading into it) seems like ZOS has finally figured out an official response to the incidents where Rich Lambert talked about stuff on unofficial channels before the official announcement was made. And they don't want us discussing it here until it's official.

Anything Rich says about the game is official, no matter where he says it. That is the burden of the position he holds in the studio. If he says something that is not official, and does not clearly articulate that it is not official, he owns that mistake.

The problem with Rich's stream was that it required messengers to bring what Rich said to places that were more consumable, and the ... errors that happened by doing that. This is worse now because the stream sources have been removed so everyone is going on memory. I do not believe that these rules changes are intended to fix that, as misinterpretations of what ZOS says does not appear to be an immediate concern. They seem more concerned about the people who tear apart the game client looking for clues about what is coming up, announcing said clues, and then people expect that these things will be in the game. That is in addition to to thunder that is stolen from ZOS because people release accurate rumors from datamining before ZOS can announce them.

If Rich, in his stream, spoils his own thunder, that is on him, not the people who hear it and repeat it.

Well, here's the quote that makes me think it's partly aimed at curtailing that sort of forum commentary on unofficial comments.

K9002 wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin
Could you please also clarify the part about sourcing information from official social media channels? I assume this includes the corporate Twitter accounts such as Bethesda and TESOnline. But does it also include individual developer and community manager accounts, like GinaLBruno, mattfiror, SlashLurk and gilliamtherogue?

.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

K9002 wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin
Could you please also clarify the part about sourcing information from official social media channels? I assume this includes the corporate Twitter accounts such as Bethesda and TESOnline. But does it also include individual developer and community manager accounts, like GinaLBruno, mattfiror, SlashLurk and gilliamtherogue?

Sure, this is a fair question. When we talk about official channels in the rules change, we are talking about corporate accounts specifically. While you are fine to note developer accounts, please note that these are their personal accounts and not official channels, despite being employees. So if they are posting anything, it most likely will be on our official channels as well. But we understand there could be outliers in this. These will have to be taken case by case, but with the understanding that one of our employees shared information that they probably shouldn't have.

We'll also add the caveat that if they are expanding on something that has been released in some capacity, then that should be fine. So for example, if a dev on Twitter gives additional insight to the dev process for making Mirri, one of our companions, then that's fine. Mirri is released has been on official channels. No spoiling of content has occurred.

Unfortunately, it's not a completely black and white process, but we hope this helps to clarify. Just remember a good rule of thumb is to check official corporate channels first before posting.

So my assumption is that this rule means they don't want us discussing it on the forums when Slashlurk/Rich Lambert comments on a Discord prior to the official communication (like he did during U35) or talks about in development stuff like he used to on his stream.

Now, I might be wrong. And I do question the practicality of enforcement in some circumstances - like during U35, his discord comment about Empower not applying to medium attacks got big coverage from YouTubers for several days prior to the official announcement on the PTS. At what point is it news even if it's not official?

I guess we'll see. Glad I don't have to make that call.

Arthur_Spoonfondle wrote: »

The pint is, banning discussion of speculation and rumour here, won't stop it, it'll just happen elsewhere. If it is permitted here, it can at least be monitored and replied to, by Zenimax staff.

They aren't necessarily trying to stop outside speculation on unofficial channels. They are trying to prevent having to PR, in the forums, unofficial rumors or leaks, by not having to even come anywhere close to making a comment on them.

By not allowing any content of that kind on the forums, they remove their liability in either action or inaction, on specific rumors or leaks. If it is all removed, they aren't having to make judgment calls on when to shut down conversations that are breaching contracts or supporting leaks.