![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#476
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Vancouver, BC Member No.: 728 ![]() |
We don't always have perfect information in life, and yet we can still form opinions and beliefs. I think some posters have gone a little too far down post-modern road and ended up in a place where they won't stand for anything being stated definitively. While it is of course possible to not have enough information to reach a conclusion, I don't think we need to endlessly defer decision-making. Most people don't operate that way in practice.
Back to thread relevance: that means I believe Tiger Eyes experienced what she said she experienced and am willing to believe that the event she said occurred, did. If you want to assign a lower probability to that, are you questioning her reliability in communicating the event, or in interpreting what happened? I think one should be precise. Anyways, I wanted to say that before the latest spate of posts, so I'm adding it even though this subject is probably a little bit of a dead horse by now. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#477
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 583 Joined: 6-November 09 From: MTL Member No.: 17,849 ![]() |
How about we all get past the predicate calculus and fuzzy logic and get back to the speculatin'? We still have another 10 pages to go before we reach thread 10.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#478
|
|
Neophyte Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 ![]() |
All joking aside. I shall go back to lurking this thread, and hoping that something good comes of all of this. All joking aside really? And here I thought, "and hoping that something good comes of all of this." was the funniest thing I have read in this thread yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Yes, yes out of context. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#479
|
|
Uncle Fisty ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 ![]() |
How about we all get past the predicate calculus and fuzzy logic and get back to the speculatin'? We still have another 10 pages to go before we reach thread 10. That's what I like to see; man with goals. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I get so tired of arguing for arguements sake. Seems to be a minority opinion in this thread though. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#480
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 ![]() |
I was calm but it was still rather offensive. If I offended, I apologize. QUOTE That actually isn't a contradiction. As stated the IP's have had several owners, Catalyst could be effected by a boycott, especially since they need liquid funds right now to get things to print to hold the ship together. My point was that the license won't die with CGL as it didn't with FASA or FanPro. You acted like bringing down CGL would bring down Shadowrun. Not only is the boycott of conscience not likely to bring CGL down, you are correct in that it can;t touch the franchise, which is owned by Topps. QUOTE For starters I think you must be equating post count or date joined on Dumpshock when gauging my love for the game. No need to turn this into a swinging johnson contest over nerd love, I have been a huge SR and BT fan for twenty years now. Twenty-one years on my part. Twenty-six years of Battletech, although not nearly as intensely. I even have Jordan Wiseman's autograph on my original BBB. Post count has nothing to do with passion and longevity. QUOTE Passion without temperance creates games like F.A.T.A.L. It does not make perfection. First of all, comparing Shadowrun to FATAL is not just offensive, it's practically a Godwin of RPG debates. You lose. Second, FATAL was powered by perversion. Passion has nothing to do with it. Third, have you done any professional writing? I'll let you in on the secret, it's not the writing that makes you a good writer. It's the rewriting. It's not uncommon for a published piece to go through five or six drafts before being submitted, let alone being released. And what do you think is required to proof and edit all those drafts? Bingo! Passion for what you're doing. Passion powers the path for perfection, and you can have a technically-perfect piece. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#481
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 ![]() |
Seems to be a minority opinion in this thread though. You and me, honey. You and me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#482
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,705 Joined: 5-October 09 From: You are in a clearing Member No.: 17,722 ![]() |
See, here is where you are wrong. The answer to "Was Tiger Eyes asked to falsify reports" is indeed a boolean, yes or no. However, the answer to "Do you think Tiger Eyes was asked to falsify reports or not?" is not a boolean. There is a third choice, "I'm not sure", which is functionally equivalent to 'I don't have enough information to decide yet" And thus, you are wrong. How can you think something which you don't know? I'm not sure = no, I do not think it is so. I reserve judgment = no, I do not think it so. Incidentally: I'm not sure != I think it is not so. I reserve judgment != I think it is not so. So, one can not believe Jenny and still not-not believe Jenny. Anyway.. Logic is satisfied. Now, moving on to the facts. Jenny has claimed that she was asked by Coleman to report less income for the purposes of royalties than she believed Topps was due. She confronted Bills with this and, when she did, she was not shown a legal agreement better defining what the royalty payments should be so as to alleviate her confusion. She was told, and I'm quoting here, "If you do not feel comfortable doing that, then it might be better to find other employment." Thusly, she resigned. Perhaps Bills could have produced a legal agreement and she did misunderstand the situation, however the statement, which precipitated her resignation, as she has reported it, was, "If you do not feel comfortable [misreporting royalty payments to Topps] then you should find other employment." I really don't think there's much in such a statement to misunderstand. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#483
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 ![]() |
What if the answer if "I don't know"? Then you do not think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports, and thus her positive assertion that she was is a lie. When someone makes a positive assertion, and you 'doubt' or 'don't know' about that assertion, you think that assertion is not correct on the basis of current evidence - you are doubting Tiger Eye's personal intergrity because you think she is telling a lie. Your own logic will be about needing to confirm with secondary sources etc, but this is only because you think Tiger Eye's A) lacks personal intergrity B) misunderstood her own job requirements The third scenario is C) So I guess I would accept 'Tiger eyes is incompetent, and thus I think she is lying about the request but not intentionally' - but those are literally the only scenarios, and yes that still means Tiger Eyes is a liar. As the logic was established above. QUOTE "I am slightly inclined at present to believe [X or Y], but feel that my ability to make a proper judgment call on this is impeded by the fact that we only have one side of the story, therefore I don't feel it is appropriate to give a response because in my own personal opinion, my judgment call is not valid." The only reason to doubt tiger eye's statement is because you think she is lying. That is why you seek a second opinion - to reduce the risk that the holder of the first opinion is lying. There is no 'sides to the story' here. A = The claim is tiger eye's claims she was directly asked to falisfy royalty reports by Either A = True or A = False There are literally no other answers what so ever. Edit: AH pointed out that I am an idiot. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#484
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 ![]() |
Minor, niggling correction: I believe it was Loren that asked her to falsify the royalties reports to Topps, and Randall who told her if she had a problem with it she should quit. Let's keep our rumors straight.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#485
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 ![]() |
Would you rather see sub-par material or see SR drop out of print entirely? Crap is worthless to me. I won't even read it if it's free, just not worth the time. It's like people pining for the Laurell K. Hamilton of "Guilty Pleasures" buying book 19 of the series and then whining about how the series isn't isn't any good since book 5. Well, yeah, I can see you figured that out 13 years ago, why are you still wasting your time? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#486
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 ![]() |
Then you do not think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports, and thus her positive assertion that she was is a lie. No. Stating that you do not have sufficient information to make a judgement means just that. "I don't know" or "not enough information" is not a dispute of the presented facts as much as it is not an affirmation of them. You may want everyone off the fence but it's not your call. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#487
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 19-May 10 Member No.: 18,593 ![]() |
Then you do not think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports, and thus her positive assertion that she was is a lie. When someone makes a positive assertion, and you 'doubt' or 'don't know' about that assertion, you think that assertion is not correct on the basis of current evidence - you are doubting Tiger Eye's personal intergrity because you think she is telling a lie. Your own logic will be about needing to confirm with secondary sources etc, but this is only because you think Tiger Eye's A) lacks personal intergrity B) misunderstood her own job requirements The third scenario is C) So I guess I would accept 'Tiger eyes is incompetent, and thus I think she is lying about the request but not intentionally' - but those are literally the only scenarios, and yes that still means Tiger Eyes is a liar. As the logic was established above. Would you please stop trying to put words in people's mouth? Just because you are willing to jump to conclusions quickly doesn't mean those who are being more cautious and circumspect in their own judgements are doing anything but ... being cautious and circumspect in their own judgements. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#488
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 ![]() |
No. Stating that you do not have sufficient information to make a judgement means just that. "I don't know" or "not enough information" is not a dispute of the presented facts as much as it is not an affirmation of them. You may want everyone off the fence but it's not your call. This is very puzzling. Tiger eye's has said that she was asked to commit fraud. IMR has said that the only thing that has happened was so comingling You are looking at those pieces of evidence and reaching a conculsion other than 'Tiger eyes is telling the truth' which means that Tiger eyes is not telling the truth But even if we ignore that argument, what other evidence do you expect to get? All you have is Coleman vs Tiger eyes One of them lying Who is it? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#489
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 298 Joined: 15-March 09 Member No.: 16,974 ![]() |
First of all, comparing Shadowrun to FATAL is not just offensive, it's practically a Godwin of RPG debates. You lose. Second, FATAL was powered by perversion. Passion has nothing to do with it. I'm not saying SR is comparable to FATAL, I'm saying a game written with untempered passion turns out rules like what you get in FATAL. Third, have you done any professional writing? I'll let you in on the secret, it's not the writing that makes you a good writer. It's the rewriting. It's not uncommon for a published piece to go through five or six drafts before being submitted, let alone being released. And what do you think is required to proof and edit all those drafts? Bingo! Passion for what you're doing. Passion powers the path for perfection, and you can have a technically-perfect piece. When writing fiction alone, passion is fine. When collaboration on a work of fiction, too much passion can sabotage the project. When collaborating on a game, with setting material and rule mechanics, excessive passion will severely hinder production. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#490
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 24-March 10 Member No.: 18,356 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#491
|
|
The King In Yellow ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 ![]() |
QUOTE Tiger eye's has said that she was asked to commit fraud. No. QUOTE Jenny has claimed that she was asked by Coleman to report less royalties than she believed Topps was due. She believed it might enter fraud territory. It may have been otherwise and handled badly by Bills. It may be a legal gray area (these do exist, because laws are not boolean, especially those based on case, not codex). She decided that doing this would cross her personal moral event horizon. Her personal moral event horizon, however, is not well enough known to us - as are the legalities of what she was asked to report - that we can assume boolean yes/no answers to whether she was asked to commit fraud (a legal definition, not a moral one, anyway). I'm not saying she's lying or it was wrong to quit. Given how fickle employers are with accountants who even do fringe legal gray area stuff like that, I actually think it was the right decision for herself, and speaks for her moral integrity, given how unkind America is with the unemployed. However, whether you can actually throw around words like fraud, theft, and the likes, is something we cannot answer based on the information we have. QUOTE One of them lying. Who is it? Since I am not for you, I'm afraid I am against you, George. And with that, I'll not post any more on this matter. It's useless to try to reason with single-minded fanatics who think the world is made of blacks and whites anyway. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#492
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 ![]() |
One of them lying Who is it? It could be both. It could be that both are telling the truth as they know it based on conclusions drawn from a different set of facts. Tiger Eyes's statements are her statements of her conclusions based upon evidence she had available to her and we do not. Even if the statements come down yes/no questions ("did he ask her to omit revenue Topps was due?"), differing answers does not mean one of them is lying. Tiger Eyes may not have been aware of a contractual clause that allowed, for example, revenues below a certain amount to be omitted. On the other hand, perhaps Loren Coleman was simply not aware of regulations, contract terms, or something else ... Unlikely as that may be, there is still the principle of never attribute to malice what can equally be explained by stupidity ... I think at this point, we have reached an xkcd moment. This may be the internet, but we are still entitled to a neutral stance. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#493
|
|
The King In Yellow ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 ![]() |
QUOTE This may be the internet, but we are still entitled to a neutral stance. Not in the War Against Comingling, you're not! |
|
|
![]()
Post
#494
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 251 Joined: 17-March 10 From: Bug City Member No.: 18,315 ![]() |
So, Cthulhudreams, do you think Triston Payton is guilty of pushing that woman to the ground? He claims she slapped him after she turned down his offer for a romantic evening and he never hit her or touched her.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#495
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 ![]() |
It could be both. It could be that both are telling the truth as they know it based on conclusions drawn from a different set of facts. By 'different facts' do you mean untrue facts vs the true facts? Just because someone thinks something is true, does not make it true. Aristotle proposed that "continuation of motion depends on continued action of a force'. This is not true - it's reasonable, because he did not know about friction and it matches observable evidence at the time - but it is not actually true. Options: A) Coleman has the correct facts, and he asked Tiger Eyes to lawfully discharge her duties. Thus Tiger eyes is not telling the truth, because he did not ask her to conduct fraud. Tiger eyes may not be telling the truth in this scenario because: i) Tiger eyes is incompetent in her role as company book keeper, and could not correctly calculate the amount owed ii) Tiger eyes has deliberately made a deceptive statement B) Tiger eyes has the correct facts, and Coleman had asked her to fraudulently perform her duties. Thus, Tiger eyes is telling the truth, and Coleman is asking her to commit fraud. Coleman may have arrived at the incorrect facts for the same reasons as Tiger eyes, but Option i) is significantly less excusable, because he has overridden his specialist in doing so. So, Cthulhudreams, do you think Triston Payton is guilty of pushing that woman to the ground? He claims she slapped him after she turned down his offer for a romantic evening and he never hit her or touched her. I think both witnesses lack credibility, and would seek third party validation. On this basis, you can correctly infer that I think Triston Payon may be lying. If I was to make a decision purely on the evidence presented, on the balance I would suspect that Triston Payton is the liar, but as I said, I do not find either witness credible. To draw the parallel you are making, do YOU think that Tiger eyes is a credible source? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#496
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,946 Joined: 1-June 09 From: Omaha Member No.: 17,234 ![]() |
So, Cthulhudreams, do you think Triston Payton is guilty of pushing that woman to the ground? He claims she slapped him after she turned down his offer for a romantic evening and he never hit her or touched her. Why does rape keep coming up in these threads? First AH and now this, is it really that good of a talking point? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#497
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 ![]() |
I'm not sure you want to re-open that particular can of worms there, Lurker. It didn't go so well for you last time.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#498
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 ![]() |
By 'different facts' do you mean untrue facts vs the true facts? No. Two different subsets of true facts or even all the facts versus a subset of the facts. For example, if facts A, B and C are true and you know A and B are true but don't know about C while I only know B and C are true, we will likely arrive at different conclusions without either of us lying. Aristotle proposed that "continuation of motion depends on continued action of a force'. This is not true - it's reasonable, because he did not know about friction and it matches observable evidence at the time - but it is not actually true. As an aside, friction will eventually stop motion, meaning that motion will only continue with the continued application of force. Aristotle was correct. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#499
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,946 Joined: 1-June 09 From: Omaha Member No.: 17,234 ![]() |
QUOTE ('AH') I'm not sure you want to re-open that particular can of worms there, Lurker. It didn't go so well for you last time. Funny I don't recall it going so badly, what I recall fairly clearly is you likening non-payment of freelancers to gang rape and then being mystified when people take issue with that. With that level of self delusion going on memory distortion is bound to occur. My point in this instance continues to be can people perhaps find another option from an intellectual standpoint? Edit: For refrence |
|
|
![]()
Post
#500
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 ![]() |
No. Two different subsets of true facts or even all the facts versus a subset of the facts. For example, if facts A, B and C are true and you know A and B are true but don't know about C while I only know B and C are true, we will likely arrive at different conclusions without either of us lying. As an aside, friction will eventually stop motion, meaning that motion will only continue with the continued application of force. Aristotle was correct. Meh, Newton's laws clearly supersede that, but lets go for Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation then. However, we are really arguing over a definition here. You are seperating truths from absolute truths, and intention lies from unintentional lies. This is perfectly reasonable, though at the next level of detail. If we proceed with these definitions, my statement is better recast as: Either you think Tiger eyes is telling the absolute truth, or you do not think she is telling the absolute truth. Or for Mesh: Which scenario (of Tiger eyes is telling the absolute truth or tiger eyes is not telling the absolute truth) currently has the highest probability in whichever system you use to make decisions under uncertainty. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th July 2025 - 02:26 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.