Nintendo Fires Employee For Speaking About Job On a Podcast 152
An anonymous reader writes: You may not have heard of Chris Pranger before, but he's one of the localizers that works to bring Nintendo games over to the west. He recently talked about the localization process for a small podcast, providing Nintendo fans some details about how games make it from Japan to the western world. Nintendo's response to the fan interest in the game localizing process? They fired him, of course. It's unclear what statements in specific Nintendo objected to and Nintendo, so far, hasn't explained its decision.
This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Informative)
Most places I've been at have a VERY strict policy of not talking to the media or representing the company in any way without permission (usually only PR or execs can do it). If you want people to follow the policy, you have to enforce it, even for the little things.
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the worst examples was the kids school that Disney sued. Disney falsely claimed that by giving away or by charging minimal values, it opened them up to law suits from other locations demanding the same treatment. After it happened, Universal gave that school - for free - the use of their characters - Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo, Flintstones, etc. That happened in 1989.
Funny how Universal never ran into any lawsuits demanding the same treatment. Not a single one in all of 26 years.
Zero tolerance parties never make any sense. You do NOT need to enforce a policy for the little things in order to be able to enforce it for the big things. A mere warning is most often more than enough than actual punishment. A letter written to the Day school - offering a $10,000 donation in kind of a license to use the Disney characters would have been more than enough to maintain their copyright. Similarly, a strict warning and perhaps a one day suspension (no pay) would have let this employee off without endangering the "no press" rule's sanctity.
Other examples are very very common. Cops routinely ignore people traveling at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone. Some businesses routinely let people leave early on the day before a three day weekend.
In most cases where someone/some group enforces a rule strictly it's because some shmuck has an agenda to push, not because it enforcing it loosely wouldn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a company disciplinary issue. You damn well better apply it consistently or you open yourself up to all sorts of grief.
Your examples are stupid. Disney's policy is that they only license under certain condtions, and that is their right. And they are 100% correct that if they relax those conditions for one group, other groups are going to demand the same thing, something which they do not want to provide. Universal did give the school permission to use their characters for free, but do you have a
Re: (Score:2)
Only in equal situations. If buddy is talking about his job and how interesting it is, it's different from talking about stuff that may be a business secret or slamming your employer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I talk about old jobs here on Slashdot all the time in the comments under Anonymous Coward.
Reason? Exactly the reason in the OP. If I was still working for said companies (eg if they were still operating, and not being terrible American companies.) I would never do such a thing working for a company that through a process of elimination could determine I'm the one "leaking sensitive information"
A lot of American company policies are asinine to a point where you can't even get an employment reference anymore
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a company disciplinary issue. You damn well better apply it consistently or you open yourself up to all sorts of grief.
I get sick and tired of hearing about all the grief someone will face whenever a human actually uses their fucking brain for once and makes a logical judgement call instead of sitting there like a mindless idiot making decisions only because of the unending threat of litigation that has paralyzed entire nations.
Where legal cases should have been laughed out of court we now have precedent. Fuck you very much for that shit, legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
disney or universal can give use of the characters or not based on solely on their wishes. there's no need for them to license them to everyone or nobody like you fucking claimed.
disney's own licensing deals around the world are a direct counter example to what you're claiming, showing that you're just full of bullshit. any group can demand the right to use uncle scrooge today as well and they can deny it to any group they want just as they can grant it.
furthermore the business world is full of cases where
Re: (Score:2)
disney or universal can give use of the characters or not based on solely on their wishes.
Unless the character is public domain or the usage is fair use / free speech.
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are assuming that the summary is correct, and he was fired for explaining the localization process. Far more likely, is that his manager has wanted to get rid of him for a long time, and this was just an excuse. Companies don't just ax an otherwise good employee for one mistake. There is almost certainly far more to it than that.
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:4, Insightful)
Japanese and Japanese controlled companies are all about the hierarchy, in ways almost no Westerner can imagine. They are little feudal empires, and this peasant dared usurp the rights and privileges of his betters. So he's fired, of course. He should be happy they didn't transfer him to India or Iraq before firing him.
I don't know why this would seem surprising to anyone. Did everyone miss the Konami revelations about how the managers treat their employees?
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Funny)
Zero tolerance policies cause more problems than they are worth - ALL the time.
I'm sensing that you have a policy of zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Maybe it's time for a little leeway in this area.
Re:The reason Google Hangouts is vacant. (Score:2)
This is the very reason I don't have a Google Hangouts account or post anything on a company internal or external site. Any objections to the content can be a career limiting move. I've seen this way too often. I don't give my employer my nicks or post from work.
Don't want any real life people thinking they can lay a world of hurt in a real way for something posted in the virtual world. Too many micro-managers with power trips out there that have nothing better to do but scrub the company image.
It's not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sensing that you have a policy of zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Maybe it's time for a little leeway in this area.
The tolerance is strong in this one
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sensing that you have a policy of zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. Maybe it's time for a little leeway in this area.
Maybe he's just waiting for someone with a zero tolerance policy for people who have a zero tolerance policy toward people who have a zero tolerance policy toward zero tolerance policies?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. :-) Maybe it's time for me to give him a little more leeway in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero tolerance parties never make any sense.
To whom?
You're assuming one side of the argument, which is why you don't get it. The policies make total sense.
The people charged with metering out discipline follow the policies without waiver, and then they cannot be fired for exercising poor judgment.
They protect their phoney-baloney jobs and they protect their phoney-baloney pensions. By rigorously not thinking.
Now the consequences of such a system may be disastrous for a given culture, but that does not mea
The other side of the story. (Score:5, Informative)
One of the worst examples was the kids school that Disney sued. Disney falsely claimed that by giving away or by charging minimal values, it opened them up to law suits from other locations demanding the same treatment. After it happened, Universal gave that school - for free - the use of their characters - Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo, Flintstones, etc. That happened in 1989.
Disney demanded that the unauthorized 5-foot-high painted figures of Disney characters on the walls of Very Important Babies Daycare, Good Godmother Daycare, and Temple Messianique (all in Hallandale, Florida) be removed for valid business reasons: infringements must be fought in order to keep trademarks intact; other Disney character licensees would have grounds to object if Disney provided inexpensive (or free) licenses to the centers (which are, after all, profit-making enterprises); and the use of Disney characters falsely suggested Disney's affiliation with the day care facilities.
Universal, still smarting from the early opening of Disney's studio-themed park... saw in the day care controversy a way to seize some publicity for themselves and give Disney a bad name in Florida as part of the bargain. Accordingly, Universal Studios Florida and Hanna-Barbera Productions offered the centers the use of characters from their own cartoons, such as Scooby-Doo, the Flintstones, the Jetsons, and Yogi Bear.
Daycare Center Murals [snopes.com]
This was a clever publicity stunt for Universal, but I don't think it has ever shown that Universal really allowed their characters to be used without a license.
The day care centers in question all appear to be defunct. Hallandale, FL Child Care Centers [childcarecenter.us]
This is what happens when you aren't paying attention to the licensing of your product: Flintstones Bedrock City in Arizona on Sale for $2 Million, Brontosaurus Included [go.com]
Because I love quirky roadside attractions, I hope someone does make this place nice again. If not, $5 is a fair price for some rabbit hunting.
I dunno, a lot of us natives love the creepy charm. I've only been once, but would love to go again were there less risk of tetanus.
Re: (Score:2)
: infringements must be fought in order to keep trademarks intact;
Nope. That's a misconception furthered by the markholders who are idiots, as being an idiot is easier than not.
Re: (Score:3)
https://encrypted.google.com/s... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say "takedowns for anything and everything". However, given the case law, I can see why that is the default position. Losing your trademark is a real possibility.
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not unusual at all. I've worked in the videogame industry for many years. You simply don't talk to the public or media about projects you're working on - ever. We all sign NDA agreements which prohibit us from talking about *anything*. I can't even *name* the current project I'm working on, let alone discuss details. I've written official company blogs about the games I've worked on, but they were reviewed by editors, legal, community managers, PR, and so on before being published. When you're sinking ten to a hundred million dollars into a AAA title, a company wants to be incredibly careful about the message being sent out. This developer was part of that world, and unfortunately didn't understand that.
There's a great temptation to talk to media, because people are interested in what happens behind the scenes of some of their favorite videogames. It's a bit of an ego boost to think that people want to listen to what you have to say. It's unfortunate that Nintendo felt the need to fire him instead of giving him a reprimand, but I suppose that's their policy.
Just recently we saw how an ill-conceive blog from an Oracle manager made the entire company look really bad. You can understand why people who aren't trained to talk to the public or the media shouldn't be attempting it on their own. Things are bound to slip our that you didn't really want to say.
Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they didn't, it just wouldn't be Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
I once interviewed with a company like that. Years later, I figured out that they were working on nuclear warheads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems Chris' heart was in the right place, but unfortunately he didn't seek approval before discussing company policy. Perhaps working for an open source company would suit his personality better. Best of luck, Chris, and don't let this get you down too badly. Sometimes what seems bad can actually be the best thing to happen to you.
Re: (Score:1)
And this is why there should be a law that explicitly permits employees to talk about their work, workplace or company, regardless of what bullshit legal documents they had to sign to get the job. For a triviality, this guy's life got smashed to bits. To put things in perspective, most rapists get more lenient sentences.
And then there is the benefit to society. The current climate and way of doing things actively harms our entire society. Companies' decisions often affect us much more profoundly than the go
Re: (Score:2)
Picard says :
"There can be no justice, so long as laws are absolute. [youtube.com]"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most places I've been at have a VERY strict policy of not talking to the media or representing the company in any way without permission
Companies can have a policy against talking to media ON BEHALF of the company. It wasn't clear from the summary if the person involved purported to be speaking on behalf of Nintendo or not. If not, then it is possible that Nintendo could be in legal trouble for their actions in that case.
A policy of not communicating at all with the media or in public such as on F
Re: (Score:2)
Truth. Interestingly enough, this makes it very easy to tell the official story from the unofficial, when there has been an incident of some sort. All you have to do to filter (or filter out) the official story is grep for a pattern like /tak(ing|es) .* seriously/. Try it! It works surprisingly well.
Sigh. (Score:2, Funny)
freedom of speech (a constitutional right just about everywhere except North Korea)
Show me on the doll what government censored his speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever government's courts don't tell Nintendo to f-off for firing him.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying that we need better protections for employees?
Considering how things get voted around here, I didn't think I'd ever see that day.
That being said, Pranger is one of the few people in the industry that I can put a face, name, and voice to. He'd be great in public relations for some corporation that needs to show it has some heart. I may not like the action Nintendo took, but I can understand it from several angles.
Hope things work out well for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You also are under no obligation to fund or assist your detractors. The corporation, or more accurately, the owners of it, reserve to themselves the right to speak for their company and product. They hire advertising and legal departments to groom these statements and speakers in some cases.
You, an employee, do not have a right to go out and speak on behalf of the company if they don't want you to. It isn't your company.
Presumably he was aware of this. If not, it's an exercise left to lawyers. And any
Unexpected? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the summary/submission feels like it was written by someone who maybe hasn't worked for a large company before. I know I'd need to get permission before doing something like this. It could be argued that Nintendo could have been lenient here so that they appear to have some compassion. But I am not surprised at all by this response.
In a way, Nintendo was lenient (Score:2)
In a way, Nintendo was lenient by not both firing and suing. Yet.
Typical corporate move (Score:2)
Typical corporate move- fire anyone who says anything about anything without written permission from God himself.
Re: (Score:1)
It's more than just blabbing about the company to media, maybe in ways that aren't corporate public-facing direction or whatever the current buzzwords are.
Big companies don't even want you to talk because you may get pumped for information that may help a competitor, or lawsuit, or someone looking to scoop a big product.
"Is Soandso going to CES next week?" "No, Jim Someone is!" "Oh, really?"
Now they have names for the next round.
He takes responsibility for it being his own fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I know a lot of us like to blame people for their own problems, but in this case he knows it's his own fault—which, to me, makes the whole situation even more sad and awful. I feel really bad for him, and I hope he can find a way to come back from this.
From TFA:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: He takes responsibility for it being his own f (Score:2)
A depressing comment to read. These are things I worry about, losing the income that makes much of the lifestyle I provide my family, when I disagree with my superiors. I have clinical licensure, ethics and people's lives to worry about compared to Benjamins my bosses count, so I have valid disagreements but they mean diddly when you're replaceable.
Re:He takes responsibility for it being his own fa (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm so sorry to everyone. I've failed you. You believed in me and supported me and trusted me and I've failed you. I've failed me.
Looks like after working a long time with the Japanese, the guy handles guilt the way the Japanese do.
Simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a simple rule - unless you have been specifically authorized, don't talk about your companies business in public. Chances are very good you signed an agreement to that effect.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes the company doesn't care about you. You are only a tool to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have missed something. Exactly how did you get from "don't talk about our business" to "we don't care about you"?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know, maybe the complete disparity between the "crime" and the consequences?
Every time I read stories like this, I realize where all the kids who enjoyed themselves in their childhood by pulling the the legs and wings of various kinds of helpless insects unfortunate enough to fall into their hands went; they all went into "management".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without an NDA, you'd be lucky if you didn't screw up somehow. Not only could you be revealing trade secrets, you could also misrepresent your company, or in the worst case, reveal insider financial or strategic information. Best to keep that line drawn, especially on a public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Additionally, there is the cumulative effect of lots of little, seemingly unimportant, information that adds up to a whole lot of information.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you live in a civilized part of the world that protects you against being fired without proper cause.
And that's why I (Score:2)
never say or publish anything about my workplace on the Internet, good or bad. On Facebook I work for some undisclosed company at some undisclosed location doing some undisclosed thing (which is more than likely programming, for those who know me).
NDA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did he sign a NDA when he was hired? If so, the company reaction wouldn't be that surprising.
Chances are... YES... I haven't started a job in nearly 2 decades that didn't require me to sign an NDA or some kind of agreement to that affect.
HR issue (Score:1)
It's an HR issue, they have no business explaining.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It was a stupid judgement call on his part (Score:1)
Hence why he said only A FEW were patented, and THE REST were held as trade secrets. Reading!
Re: (Score:1)
I filed a bunch of patents
Maybe you meant you wrote a bunch of patents but didn't file all of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Trade secrets == IP == the reason the company is making the money and not some competitor. Giving away secrets == donating a large chunk of earnings every year.
Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a common and reasonable policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it? I've noted this blind acceptance of this particular meme, while in the same breath demanding every iota of information (Facebook passwords, credit history, etc.) from prospective employees. And especially in this instance, no actual harm was done to Nintendo, so where is the justification?
People talking shop about their jobs is as old as the hills. The fact that this encompasses new technologies is maybe slightly different, but it is that gray area that the web inhabits between journalism and hobby.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Common, perhaps. Reasonable? Bullshit.
In civilized parts of the world, Nintendo couldn't get away with this sort of crap.
The First Rule (Score:2)
The first rule of Nintendo Club is:
You do not talk about Nintendo Club.
The second rule of Nintendo Club is:
You do not talk about Nintendo Club.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is proprietary to Nintendo.
Re: (Score:2)
The fourth rule of Nintendo Club is:
There is a Nintendo club and will be for quite some time, they have 10 billion dollars.
This isn't "Tomato" is it? (Score:2)
I'm at work so I can't check, but there was a person going by the handle "Tomato" who was the driving force behind the fan localization of Mother 3. I know he mentioned at one point that he worked as a localizer for Nintendo of America - but I don't know if anyone found out what his actual name is. Tomato did an amazing job translating Mother 3, and if this is the same person NoA are idiots for firing him, especially when he singlehandedly proved that Mother 3 had an audience in the United States and would
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So what? (Score:1)
Nintendo is a weird company... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nerd support boycott (Score:2)
I'd suggest boycotting Nintendo but they stopped making anything that interested me in 1995 so I haven't really bought anything from them in 20 years.
I love that people offer insight into things that many gamer benefit from and I often wondered about when I was playing games like Chrono Trigger and wondering how many people were involved in the way Magus talked in English.
I hate that companies that essentially exist because of the fans punish the fans.
Here's how it looks to a company ... (Score:2)
They put time, resources, and $ into setting up a process. Now you are just giving that away to the world. Even if we all recognize it as nothing special, that's not how the company sees it. IMHO, this thinking is especially prevalent in Asian cultures. They aren't into the whole OSS way of thinking. Not making any value judgement on that, just saying.
In any big company, there's very little room for "Oh Joe's a good guy, give him a break". Some VP heard about it and that's it. Goes back to Asian cultures as
Firing someone what gives? (Score:2)
Seems some kind of power trip of people "in charge" often done due to the need of looking good.
What does it to the person getting fired? Anything learned from it, getting a chance to do better?
No such thing. Is it not a failure of the system in which this happen and the emergency solution is to terminate a person in a most humiliating way: Here is a cardboard box, pack your things and leave, you have no value!
All looking good and satisfying to the outside s/he got fired - ri
The first rule (Score:2)
The first rule of localization procedures is that you don't talk about localization procedures!
Re: (Score:3)
Literally.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't get Nintendo. (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much all that's holding them afloat is exclusivity for the NES era intellectual property, which they keep re-hashing over and over and over again and their die-hard fans (of which there are a lot) keep buying.
Kind of a wonder how well them and a lot of other Japanese based games developers are holding out. Japan used to be the source of some very good games, especially during the late 80s and 90s, but over the last decade especially they've been crap. That is to say, companies like Square, Konami, Capcom, etc, haven't put out any good games in a LONG time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe for one moment that the 3DS is only popular because of NES-era intellectual property (although it certainly helps), and the 3DS is clearly most of what's keeping them afloat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much all that's holding them afloat is exclusivity for the NES era intellectual property, which they keep re-hashing over and over and over again and their die-hard fans (of which there are a lot) keep buying.
F-Zero, Star Fox, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, and Splatoon are examples of Nintendo IP introduced from the SNES through Wii U era that are not related to NES-era IP.
Pretty much all that's holding Sony / MIcrosoft afloat is SUPER 3D SHOOTER CHAMPIONSHIP EDITION 20XX THAT'S NOTHING LIKE LAST YEAR'S VERSION. I don't have any interest in Sony products (I trust I don't need to rehash Sony's shitty anti-consumer policies and products for the audience) but I did buy an Xbox 360 and didn't find much to play t
The fourth console (Score:2)
Hard to understand the hate for Nintendo's "re-hashing" when it's prevalent from every manufacturer
Is lack of new settings also prevalent on PC?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all that's holding them afloat is exclusivity for the NES era intellectual property
I dunno about that. It's still an older property at this point, but Nintendo is making plenty on Super Smash Bros. And while it's probably not churning out oodles of profit (yet,) Splatoon has a lot of promise as a brand spanking new IP.
Re: (Score:1)
N64 was decently successful although not top of the field.
Wii was basically the winner of the last console wars.
Re:I don't get Nintendo. (Score:5, Interesting)
They eked out profits in the N64 and Gamecube generations despite generally poor sales by keeping unit costs down and managing good first party sales.
They basically won the lottery with the Wii - between the quick-fix appeal of Wii-Sports, a very friendly media narrative (portraying them as the plucky underdog) and some well timed first party exclusives in the first 2-3 years of its lifespan, they made an unfeasible amount of money, most of which they banked.
Since then, their luck has run out and their output has generally disappointed. From the last 2-3 years of the Wii's life-span, through the Wii-U's launch and into the present, their gaming activities have generally been loss-making (sometimes startlingly so). However, they've been doing a lot of currency trading on the side, which has meant that some years/quarters they have shown an overall profit based on that. Just as pre-bailout General Motors was sometimes described as a pension fund that made some cars on the side, Nintendo has somewhat become a currency-trading house that makes a few games on the side. For the time being, they aren't going anywhere (and the Amiibo range has given their gaming revenues a boost, though this looks set to be temporary).
The longer term future for the company is more clouded. They've been able to sit on the takings from the early part of the Wii generation for a long time, at least in part because they've been paying out very small dividends to shareholders. The longer term risk is that shareholders will start to wonder what exactly is going on with the management of a company that is sat on a huge pile of cash, but not particularly good at earning more of it.
Shareholder revolts are generally rare in Japan (which hasn't really had a true Eisner-moment yet), but there are already signs of discontent coming out of reports of their shareholder conference calls. Their hesitant move into the mobile gaming market is almost certainly a reluctant sop to shareholder pressure.
Re: (Score:1)
Its called a NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreement. Open-Shut
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No such thing in the US- most employment is at will and they can fire you for anything except a small number of reasons.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never worked for a company (even when I was an usher sweeping up trash at the movie theater) that did not have a very strict "do not talk to any media about the company" policy.
It's always been a very public and documented rule.
And that was working at a place with no IP or trade secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only because company policy makes it so. If they want to fire you no reason given right now- they can. Many companies have policies they follow to CYA in case of lawsuits, as juries tend to be sympathetic to employees. But just firing you requires nothing more than marching you out of the office and sending you any accumulated pay.
Re: (Score:3)
No they can't. It's very difficult to fire people even in right to work states.
well, whatever. firing is so 1980. people don't have to be "fired" to get put out of a job. the company just claims a "restructuring" or a "reduction in force" and it's done. big tech companies do this regularly to clear out the bottom feeders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Chances are it WAS in the agreements he signed the first day of work.
With few exceptions, every place I've ever worked had boiler plate non-disclosure agreements that everybody was required to sign their first day. Most places even followed that up with training that explained what could and could not be said.
IMHO, it's NEVER a good idea to discuss work on ANY social media forum in any way. Stuff like this tends to come back to haunt you when you least expect it. It is an especially bad idea to complain about your work, past or present. It is just way to risky and could cause you trouble like this guy is in.
Re: (Score:2)
Many corporations also have illegal "all you do outside of work is ours" clauses too.
So? What exactly are you trying to say? Surely corporations are allowed to protect their intellectual property from disclosure by putting their employees under contract to protect it?
Re: (Score:2)
Naming on resume (Score:2)
That includes even saying that you work for xxx because it could imply an endorsement by xxx. It's not a new thing and an easy one to follow.
If taken strictly, this would preclude even naming your past employers on your resume. Why is it desirable that future employers lack knowledge of a candidate's experience?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most companies that I've been with, going back as far as the 1980's have had a "don't about the company on anything policy". That includes even saying that you work for xxx because it could imply an endorsement by xxx.
I wonder if this policy could be turned into a question for The Workplace Stack Exchange. Do you have a citation for this policy, or do reliable citations for this not exist because they would also violate confidentiality?