The CGL situation p3 Options

[BTFreeLancer]

What kind of credentials do you have to back up this kind of statement?

heh, I'm not going to drop my name into this mess (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

but in any position where you're expected to handle sensitive information, be it medical, legal, government etc, the employer will run a background check - basically identity and address verification, credit and bankruptcy checks, criminal and court proceedings, corporate listings, and in the last few years, media and internet hits. Stuff like what your Facebook or Twitter postings say - for example, if your Facebook page has a series of racist diatribes, you're unlikely to be welcomed at the INS. If you put on your application that you're a non-smoker, and your latest tweet says you just got back from having a smoke; well, that reflects on your overall integrity.

for most people, that doesn't matter - you can do whatever you want in your downtime. But in positions where you do have access to sensitive information or materials (prescription medication for instance), it *may* be taken into account.

This post has been edited by BTFreeLancer: Mar 29 2010, 11:00 AM

[krainboltgreene]

Ok, so zero.

Though it was kind of obvious when you linked "racial diatribes on a very popular social network" to "tabletop gaming whistle blowing on a very niche web forum".

post script: What you're trying to describe and talk about is my bread and butter.

post post script: Holy crap this forum is buggy as hell. What's with the constant authorization and refusal to post my replies? I know PHP is dense, but this is silly.

[Ol' Scratch]

Maybe your security settings are a bit too high, or you have an add-on or two that's affecting it. It works just fine for me.

And yes, I seriously doubt any kind of background check is going to hunt down posts you make on a gaming forum with an alias. I don't know if FrankTrollman is his real name (why people would use their real name on the Internet is beyond me anyway), but if it is, that might pop up on a ridiculously thorough background check if he was running for President or something and people were looking for anything and everything they could to write an article about. But really. Come on. The guy just effectively re-posted a forum post. The horror.

[Stahlseele]

It is his real name. Oddly fitting and he probably used it exactly for that reason.
Also, JQMcBishop, HM Hardy etc.

[BTFreeLancer]

And yes, I seriously doubt any kind of background check is going to hunt down posts you make on a gaming forum with an alias. I don't know if FrankTrollman is his real name (why people would use their real name on the Internet is beyond me anyway)

Frank Trollman is his real name, which the only reason I posted what I did. If he'd used an internet alias, it wouldn't matter.

@krainboltgreene: Fair enough. I'm not expecting anyone to put great faith in what I say especially whilst remaining anonymous (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The post was aimed at one person. Whether or not he chooses to take heed is up to him.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Two people who have never read 4chan.

A place where people can talk about pretty much everything and insult pretty much everyone (although everybody has no name and it is always called anonimous) and troll about anything, right, I've never read 4chan. Mind you, sometimes you can find good ideas in there, but most of the time is just "lulz" and (child-)pornography.
I don't see child-pornography here, and I think I never will, but people posting for the "lulz", yeah...

But any ethics board worth its salt will do a background check; and stuff like this turns up.

So you are saying that when doing a background check of Trollman, this stuff will come up? Talk about a good data search.

Correction: just putting frank trollman on Google I got back here by the second page and all I did was put 'frank trollman'

[raben-aas]

Re: Right and Wrong

It's also wrong to call fraud stealing. That's why there are two separate words for it. And: stealing from a corp and one owner having trouble separating his private account from his business account are two vastly seperate things, too. Also, it is wrong to be selfrighteous for all the wrong reasons.

Re: Legal and Illegal.

Not everything that is legal is also right. Not everything illegal is necessarily wrong. Giving away private letters of another may not be illegal, it's still wrong. I didn't do anything wrong in he whole affair (oh, I forgot: I was silent. Yeah. Shoot me). Nevertheless, you violated my privacy, too, as said letter was between the author and the recipients, i.e.: me.

Re: Breach of contract

All valid. The difference being that CGL says it will pay up. You claiming it won't doesn't make your statement right. And BTW if every breach of contract, that is: every payment missed would be reason enough to become victim of an internet-based witchhunt, A LOT of people still owing some corp money/payment of debts would be in SERIOUS trouble.

And yes, I know that you, Frank, are not a supporter of these witchhunts and that you don't distribute rumors (knowingly), but you cannot overlook the fact that every bit of truth YOU share WILL become a snowball of lies and rumors in the end. You may not have intended this, but you certainly have your share of responsibility for it.

Re: Western Society wants information to be free

And where on this planet may we find that Western Society you speak of? The CIA and NSA would both like to have a word with it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


For the record, again: I don't know Frank. Neither personal nor impersonal. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Never heard of the man before, uh, March 17th it was I think. What I hate – in Frank and oh-so-many-others – is the notion that they have any "right" to act like pr... to act like destiny itself gave them the right to do the things they do.

If (or when) CGL collapses and if (when) I get the message then that (insert name of CGL guy here) knew beforehand that every attempt to correct the situation was futile slash they just needed the time to rescue their own investments THEN i will get really angry and scream bloody murder.

Western Society, however, wants a man with a knife in his hand, standing behind his wife to FIRST stab, THEN be arrested. If you shoot him before the deed, you are bound to get into trouble.

It's also wrong. (He was just pondering the possibilities. And that's not illgal. Yet).

AAS

[Ol' Scratch]

It's also wrong to call fraud stealing.

No more than calling a square a rectangle. One is a subset of the other.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Western Society, however, wants a man with a knife in his hand, standing behind his wife to FIRST stab, THEN be arrested. If you shoot him before the deed, you are bound to get into trouble.

Uhm… no. Not complying to drop said knife immediately when asked to will get you shot legally.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

then by all means, give us their names so we can verify them.

If by "verify" you mean ban, blacklist and sue them…

But any ethics board worth its salt will do a background check; and stuff like this turns up.

So Frank is not likely going to be hired by hospitals hushing up medical errors as SoP.

[raben-aas]

No more than calling a square a rectangle. One is a subset of the other.

They are different things in law nevertheless.
Thinking a square to be the same as a rectangle and never see the difference may botch your chance to leave kindergarten. Ever.

Uhm… no. Not complying to drop said knife immediately when asked to will get you shot legally.

Even then you should be a cop. Or do I have to close the shutters on the windows before helping my wife cutting vegetables in the kitchen?

[Redjack]

And where on this planet may we find that Western Society you speak of? The CIA and NSA would both like to have a word with it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think your confusion is that most of the members of society do not consider the CIA, nor the NSA the measures of that society.

Western Society, however, wants a man with a knife in his hand, standing behind his wife to FIRST stab, THEN be arrested. If you shoot him before the deed, you are bound to get into trouble.

Allow me to introduce you to the legal concept of Imminent Danger.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Even then you should be a cop.

You don't need to be.

Or do I have to close the shutters on the windows before helping my wife cutting vegetables in the kitchen?

Not helping. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sengir]

Western Society, however, wants a man with a knife in his hand, standing behind his wife to FIRST stab, THEN be arrested. If you shoot him before the deed, you are bound to get into trouble.

Geeignet? Check, he's not going to stab his wife with his brain painted over the next wall
Erforderlich? Check, if you have good reason to assume that he might harm his wife (if he didn't, tough luck. You were acting out of fear or confusion, no problem for you)
Verhältnismäßig? Check, lethal force vs. potentially lethal threat.


German laws on self defence are really simple: If you are defending yourself or another person from an imminent, illegal attack, you are acting legally. If you overstep those boundaries but are acting out of fear or confusion (and in practice the persecutor would have to prove you didn't, good luck with that), your actions are not legal but justified.

[darthmord]

I think your confusion is that most of the members of society do not consider the CIA, nor the NSA the measures of that society.

Allow me to introduce you to the legal concept of Imminent Danger.

Note, the poster in question has his location set to Germany. The laws of Germany / Europe are just a tad different than those of the States in the US.

We are allowed (fully legal at that) to act in defense of another in the event of imminent danger / threat of severe bodily injury / death.

Europe by and large doesn't like the citizenry to have the means to defend itself. Take a look at their weapons laws. In the US, citizenry having arms is the means by which government tyranny is kept in check. You can thank an overbearing British government for making the Founders of the United States take up arms against tyranny.

The scary part is that there are those who would rather the bad events befall them than be defended by someone with a weapon.

[Sengir]

Europe by and large doesn't like the citizenry to have the means to defend itself.

Eh, we didn't come up with stuff like a duty to retreat from an attacker. AFAIK not even in France (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Ascalaphus]

Uhm… no. Not complying to drop said knife immediately when asked to will get you shot legally.

However, Western Society prefers it above all that the man just drop the knife without anyone getting hurt. Likewise, it'd be better if the money got back instead of into lawyers' pockets.

So Frank is not likely going to be hired by hospitals hushing up medical errors as SoP.

I could imagine a hospital wondering if he'd spill the beans about hospital clients he doesn't like, too. I'm not saying he would, but the hospital might wonder.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

If you overstep those boundaries but are acting out of fear or confusion (and in practice the persecutor would have to prove you didn't, good luck with that), your actions are not legal but justified.

It's not that cut & dry and there were cases were the defender had to pay compensation to the attacker and was punished. Of course, corpses don't need compensation and having a good lawyer helps, too.

[Arclight]

Note, the poster in question has his location set to Germany. The laws of Germany / Europe are just a tad different than those of the States in the US.

We are allowed (fully legal at that) to act in defense of another in the event of imminent danger / threat of severe bodily injury / death.

Europe by and large doesn't like the citizenry to have the means to defend itself. Take a look at their weapons laws. In the US, citizenry having arms is the means by which government tyranny is kept in check. You can thank an overbearing British government for making the Founders of the United States take up arms against tyranny.

There's not much difference between german and stateside law on self defence. There is, however, a very different law in regards to gun ownership and concealed carry / open carry law. The latter is higly regulated over here (=Germany). In Germany, the defender is not even required to evade an attack and can fully stand his ground, which, I was told, is the case in some US states.

[fistandantilus4....]

While educational and interesting, please stay on topic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sengir]

It's not that cut & dry and there were cases were the defender had to pay compensation to the attacker and was punished.

And there were also cases towards the other extreme.
The important thing to bear in mind when discussing German vs. US law is that German judges decide individually and not based on precedent.

For example (to drag this slightly back on topic) if the court in Hamburg had to deal with Frank's case they'd go medival on his ass, just like they always do in copyright questions. Most other judges would throw the case right out of the window.

[Arclight]

Will do, Sir.


Basically, two things make me wonder.

1. From my POV, it's been the freelancers that provided good products while FASA, Fanpro US and now maybe CGL were born and went belly-up. Now, a lot of those freelancers leave, but people put all their hope in the company. Why is that?

2. Were Mr Trollmann a journalist, all he did would be professional behaviour. Getting information from an informant, verify, publish. And he seems to be spot on with his critique. And because they can't argue about the facts he laid before us, people go after his personal ethics. As if the situation would look any better after this.

[Demonseed Elite]

The difference being that CGL says it will pay up

Hahahaha...wow. Sorry, but do you know how many times I've heard that from Catalyst, FanPro, and FASA before this current situation ever came up? The only difference, this time around, is that the freelancers have CGL's balls in a bit of a vice this time by withholding copyright and terminating contracts. And honestly, even with that, I'm not convinced that CGL will pay everyone that it is supposed to pay. They'll probably cherry-pick the freelancers they need to pay and postpone payments to more forgiving freelancers. Or maybe they'll find they just don't have the money to pay because of all this Coleman-related stuff, in which case, I certainly don't envy Jason's position.

[raben-aas]

Re: The closed case of the cop and that soon-to-be-shot veggie-cutting husband

For the files: I'll never help my wife in the kitchen again. In fact, whenever she asks me to, I just hand her a printout of this thread (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The hypothetical and ill-conceived example aside, it's still in the spirit of the law (apart from immanent danger maybe) that you can or should not treat someone like a criminal before he has committed a crime. And no, I don't mean Coleman here, but CGL. Who have not paid yet, yes, but who are not sitting on a plane headed for the Caimans, too. They MAY pay up. And while it is totally OK to have doubts, I think it's not OK to ... aw heck why do Ibother.

@Arclight:

Re: 1 - because not all freelancers left, because not even the majority of freelancers left, and because people do not have a real and profound understanding of just how bad the situation is, since no one knows what will be. Plus: Because no one knows if a new corp will continue SR, or continue it in a way that they would like it to be continued. So even if they think losing the frelancers that left is a real shame -- which it is! -- they still do not know if one should give up on a shaken and hurt SR, with the possibility that there won't be any afterwards at all.

Re: 2 - the point lies in the question what kind of journalist he is. "People have a right to know" has been the rallying cry for good journalists and sleazebags alike. And while I would NEVER call FT a sleazebag, any journalist is not above morale, even though most lof them THINK that the end justifies ANY means. And that they ARE above morale.

[Jhaiisiin]

One thing I keep seeing repeatedly is people here claiming that Bills made the decision all by himself with no influence from others to forgive the Colemans. If the Bills' information in the letter is accurate, this is patently untrue.

Here are the relevant portions:

However, I believe that despite the horrific mistakes made, we will heal faster by keeping Loren involved as part of Catalyst’s ongoing strategic thinking. Last week that belief received a huge chorus of support when we contacted and/or were contacted by numerous people in the industry, including three titans of the industry (I’m not at liberty to share their names to this large of a group without asking their permission). Each of those three were given a blunt (albeit very brief) synopsis of what occurred, and yet each still pledged their support to Loren and me in helping move forward (both in the incredible business savvy they possess that made them titans, but also in potential revenues to bring to the company). Furthermore, two of these people are intimately familiar with Topps and with their strong advice in our pocket we’ve already approached Topps.

Of note here is information saying that yes, he believes the company will heal faster with Loren still there. But not only that, so do various members of the industry.

Without getting into details we told Topps of our financial issues and made our case that despite those mistakes we have been fantastic in protecting and expanding the BattleTech and Shadowrun brands and that we are still the best possible stewards of those brands. Topps liked our attitude and appreciated our bluntness and we’re setting up a face-to-face meeting in NY, following the GAMA Trade Show this week, to present a plan for how to move forward with securing those all-important licenses.

Meaning Topps is aware of the situation and thus far has not balked at the problem. So that's one more group behind Loren, thus far.

I’m not the only one that has seen and believes in the points above. If all the mangers, employees and investors of Catalyst had lined up in opposition to my thoughts and opinions as outlined above, then I very much believe I would’ve backed away, feeling that my decisions were compromised.

Emphasis mine. Randall Bills didn't make the call despite everyone. He made the call because he had the backing of a significant portion of members of Catalyst Game Labs, including its investors. You know, the guys who get paid when the company does well. He does go on to state that some have left because they don't like the final decision, which we already know.

The point of all this is to remember that Bills isn't doing this on his own and saying F You to everyone else. He's got the backing of employees, managers, investors and the industry on this.

Are there people who disagree? Yep. Are there people who are understandably pissed off? Absolutely. Regardless, the company is moving forward with the apparent support of a huge network of people, and even some of the fans.

I'm all for lambasting someone for poor decisions, but for pete's sake, at least make sure you're lambasting the whole group responsible.