The CGL situation p3 Options

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Regardless, the company is moving forward with the apparent support of a huge network of people, and even some of the fans.

The key word here is "apparent".

Personally, I'm not entirely certain that said network is huge by any means.

[Prime Mover]

Think you might be surprised at the number of people who just want things stabilized so that the game can live on. Happy with the direction Shadowrun has been going and wistfully wishing this would all just go away and leave their game alone! Overly simplified I understand but there are people who care more about the line then any money problems.

[emouse]

Right and Wrong

Stealing money from people is wrong. Helping your friends steal money is wrong. Rich people stealing money from poor people is more wrong, because it hurts the poor people more than it helps the rich people.What Loren Coleman did was wrong. What Randall Bills did was wrong. It is wrong because even if Randall is telling the truth, then he is at the very least giving Loren Coleman assistance while he steals money from people who have very much less than he does. That's wrong.

The person Coleman took the money from is Bills. So Bills going to him and saying, "you're still a friend but you have to pay the money back" is wrong? That makes him a bad person?

"Lies are wrong, truth is right. It's that simple."

And when you sign a contract with an NDA and then break it, you've lied. So by your reasoning, that's wrong too.

Legal and Illegal

Breaking a contract is not a crime, but having people work for you without paying them is not only a crime it is unconstitutional.

Wow. No.

The freelancers had contracts in place. Publishing material that has not been paid for would be breaking those contracts. While payments have not been made, Catalyst has shown some degree of good faith by pulling sales of material in which certain freelancers were not paid. They have further contacted all freelancers to provide some degree of explanation and assert their intent to live up to existing contracts. None of it is illegal. And it's definitely not 'unconstitutional'.

"We fought a war about it, look it up."

Again, no. Taxation without representation. Not 'England screwed us out of our freelance pay'.

Taking money without reporting it is also a crime.

Aside from your assertion about sales at conventions, if the finances involved were on the books, which it sounds like they were, then taxes would have already been paid. The LLC reported profits are factored into the personal owners' taxes, as the LLC is the personal property of the owners. With partners, there's a particular form to use to avoid 'double taxation' (paying taxes as the LLC and as the owner). As partners, Randall and Loren joint-own Catalyst, so it all belongs to either of them. If one took more than he was supposed to, he was taking it from his partner.

Living up to your contracts

Do you know how much weight a contract of any kind has to cover up illegal activities? None whatsoever.
I am not under contract of any kind with Catalyst Game Labs. Catalyst Game Labs does not have NDA contracts for numerous employees. Even if they had those contracts on people who chose to divulge information through me, they would be unenforceable in the face of criminal activities.

Since there are no criminal activities, the only counter would be "I didn't get paid so there's no contract". That's it. They'd still potentially be facing civil lawsuits from Catalyst for damages, but that seems really unlikely due to Catalyst not having the funds to pursue such a measure, and Randall not seeming like the sort to pursue such a matter.

Someone who decided that instead of honoring their contracts to pay people money for real work that they really put in - to take that money and put it in their pants and dance around.

I'm not sure how Catalyst responding to unpaid freelancers--who were understandably upset that material they had not been paid for was published--by pulling those publications from sale until payments are made can be seen as 'taking that money and putting it in their pants and dancing around'.

This means among other things that there are many accusations and suppositions that end up on my desk that don't get repeated - because I can't substantiate them. The statement by Randall Bills is from his mouth unedited. It is him putting the very best possible face on the situation. And while he prevaricates pretty well, he still straight up admits that the people who were supposed to hold Coleman's feet to the fire are Jennifer Harding and David Stansel, that they have quit, and that even now he has not found people to take over their duties (duties that included getting the money back from the Colemans).

That's actually not what he said at all. He said that Jennifer Harding quit and that she was the Office Manager and Bookkeeper. It's reasonable to guess that she would be involved in getting the money returned, but he did not 'straight up admit' what you claim. Are you basing this conclusion on additional information that you have?

This means among other things that there are many accusations and suppositions that end up on my desk that don't get repeated - because I can't substantiate them.
...
But it's not half as damning as some of the things that I can't verify. These things include and are not limited to:

Well done, sir.

I can't verify them, because they are each from just one or two people - and those people are admittedly super angry.

So, were either of those people Jennifer Harding or Dave Stansel? It's a pretty easy conclusion to make. Keep in mind that by your standards, keeping quiet about the truth is super wrong, as is lying. We await your answer.

Bringing the information forward was the right thing to do. Not because information wants to be free - because information doesn't want anything. But because Western Society wants information to be free. And as members of Western Society, it is our moral imperative to see that wrongdoing gets exposed, that lies are countered with truth, and that victims are afforded the vindication and support they deserve. And the fact that in my estimation, doing the right thing is the most likely path towards books coming out that I can buy, read, and enjoy - is certainly a plus.

So would you say that you made this decision based on deeply-held personal beliefs and a desire to do the right thing by your friends?

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

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?

My humble opinion would be that while freelancers create the scenario, they must eat, buy stuff, whatever, which means someone must pay for their service. If a freelancer decides to post all his ideas for free, after long hours of brainstorming and writing and editing, well, his/her choice, but I hope at least he has alternate ways to pay his/her bills.

Besides, if CGL sinks, we have no garantee, that:

A- another company will pick Shadowrun back in a short period of time.
B- if said another company will keep the rules as it is (as it was the case of FanPro-CGL)
C- said company won't trash Shadowrun.

In the end, the best case scenario would be that CGL pay up who they owe and get themselves back on their horses.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Think you might be surprised at the number of people who just want things stabilized so that the game can live on.

Oh, I'm certainly never surprised by wishfull thinking. Hope dies last, after all.

Besides, if CGL sinks, we have no garantee, that:

Given that it worked out two times already, it's pretty likely.

In the end, the best case scenario would be that CGL pay up who they owe and get themselves back on their horses.

It's more of an "ok case scenario" right now.

[Delarn]

then by all means, give us their names so we can verify them. In the interest of transparency and all.

Frank, I honestly think you think you're doing the right thing. I truly do. I also see that you haven't thought this through long term.

I see you're studying to become a medical professional - kudos to you, we need more, and you're obviously not an idiot. But any ethics board worth its salt will do a background check; and stuff like this turns up. I'm not a full time freelancer, I have a day job, and like most freelancers I generally keep very quiet on the internet, because I'm not a nameless figure (I am in this case - hypocritical or not) - I have a net presence, published works, etc; and when I next go to an employer, and they type my name into a detailed search engine, they'll see me keeping quiet about most of everything, a few author credits here and there for a niche hobby, but nothing controversial.

when your name comes up in the integrity check process when you're being hired to handle confidential information (and remember, improper release of confidential patient information has led to several lawsuits lately) - what is your net presence going to say?

at the end of the day, this is a hobby. Burn your bridges within the community by all means. But be aware that you might also be burning future bridges too. Keep that in mind next time these "people" (who have protected themselves, at the expense of ypu) get you to post something. An employer isn't going to care if you've alienated yourself from a gaming community - they are very much going to care that you've been posting potentially libelous claims vis-à-vis confidential information.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif) Classy !
@Frank: For someone that will be using Hippocratic Oath, you should learn that the internet is also a tool for the employer. Just remember, employers can go far to get info on you. IE: They can hire someone to watch your facebook, forums you troll and other info you leak over the web.

and I'm (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rollin.gif) away.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

For someone that will be using Hippocratic Oath […]

You might be surprised to learn it's optional.

[emouse]

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.

As someone who has done this sort of work, yeah, it's findable, especially if he used his real name. Keep in mind that it's now been posted to two forums, mentioned on others, and a number of blogs as well. It's more than just the forum post you mention. Look up the first post that started these series of threads, or look up his posting history. They wouldn't really look at a single post out of context, they'd look at as much of a history or trend as they could.

Not saying that with any sort of personal judgement in mind, just illustrating how, in my experience, that sort of thing gets handled.

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'

Welcome to Google, it is a background checker's dream come true. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ancient History]

The person Coleman took the money from is Bills. So Bills going to him and saying, "you're still a friend but you have to pay the money back" is wrong? That makes him a bad person?

As partners, Randall and Loren joint-own Catalyst, so it all belongs to either of them. If one took more than he was supposed to, he was taking it from his partner.

I would like to remind you that CGL has more owners than simply the Colemans and Randall Bills, and that one could make the very real argument that Loren essentially took the money from the freelancers, because he took the money that was supposed to pay the freelancers.

And when you sign a contract with an NDA and then break it, you've lied. So by your reasoning, that's wrong too.

I know it's too much for you to go back and read through the entire threads), but I'd like to reiterate that many of the freelancers are not under NDA.

So, were either of those people Jennifer Harding or Dave Stansel? It's a pretty easy conclusion to make. Keep in mind that by your standards, keeping quiet about the truth is super wrong, as is lying. We await your answer.

While I can't speak for Mr. Stansel, I would (again) like to point out that Jennifer Harding has made it very clear she's had no direct contact with Frank before this thread. I would really appreciate if you would at least research your accusations a bit.

[emouse]

Think you might be surprised at the number of people who just want things stabilized so that the game can live on. Happy with the direction Shadowrun has been going and wistfully wishing this would all just go away and leave their game alone! Overly simplified I understand but there are people who care more about the line then any money problems.

If I had to pick the second-best outcome to please as many as possible, it seems like Catalyst giving up Shadowrun to keep making Battletech would probably be it. Let the fans who are unhappy with CGL be possibly happy or unhappy with another company and those who are happy with Battletech under CGL continue to be so.

Earthdawn and Shadowrun are at two different companies, and they were conceived of as being related while at FASA, unlike Battletech and Shadowrun.

[Ancient History]

Earthdawn and Shadowrun are at two different companies, and they were conceived of as being related while at FASA, unlike Battletech and Shadowrun.

Heh. You really don't know some of the old-school theories then.

[emouse]

I would like to remind you that CGL has more owners than simply the Colemans and Randall Bills, and that one could make the very real argument that Loren essentially took the money from the freelancers, because he took the money that was supposed to pay the freelancers.

While one may have lead to the other, it does not mean they are directly connected. It is still Coleman took money from CGL partners and CGL has not paid freelancers. If any freelancers were to sue they would be suing Catalyst, not Coleman. They would have no direct legal recourse against Coleman, unlike the co-owners of CGL. Even then, it is money that the freelancers are owed on publication. On the other hand, what Coleman took would have been money actually in Catalyst's (and Coleman's) account. We actually don't know if the money he took would have paid all of the freelancers, though it probably would have, or CGL wouldn't be remotely profitable.

While I can't speak for Mr. Stansel, I would (again) like to point out that Jennifer Harding has made it very clear she's had no direct contact with Frank before this thread. I would really appreciate if you would at least research your accusations a bit.

My impression by their own posts is that neither are responsible for such leaks they quit and took a higher road and I hope they do well for themselves. My point is that Frank's posts seem to implicate them, or else a current employee who likely would be breaking some sort of NDA. If they are really that angry, they should be following Stansel's or Harding's example and quit, not quietly stab at their own employer, trying to bring them down, while continuing to milk a paycheck for as long as possible.

[emouse]

Heh. You really don't know some of the old-school theories then.

I don't. I'd like to hear them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Obviously, not in this thread though.

[Ancient History]

While one may have lead to the other, it does not mean they are directly connected. It is still Coleman took money from CGL partners and CGL has not paid freelancers. If any freelancers were to sue they would be suing Catalyst, not Coleman. They would have no direct legal recourse against Coleman, unlike the co-owners of CGL. Even then, it is money that the freelancers are owed on publication. On the other hand, what Coleman took would have been money actually in Catalyst's (and Coleman's) account. We actually don't know if the money he took would have paid all of the freelancers, though it probably would have, or CGL wouldn't be remotely profitable.

If this were a legal court, we'd be talking about evidence. As this is not, let's stick to discussing the accusations and statements we have. While I really don't want to add fuel to the fire, my own understanding of the situation is that Coleman's "financial mismanagement" in part directly involved monies set aside for freelancers, hence my own considerable agitation about the matter. I would like to re-emphasize that is something I have understood from my conversations with others, and not something I have any proof of.

My impression by their own posts is that neither are responsible for such leaks. My point is that Frank's posts seem to implicate them, or else a current employee who likely would be breaking some sort of NDA. If they are really that angry, they should be following Stansel's or Harding's example and quit, not quietly stab at their own employer, seemingly trying to bring them down, while continuing to milk a paycheck for as long as possible.

I'm guessing your assumption as to how many actual employees that Catalyst has is probably very much larger than reality.

[Dread Moores]

Edit: Off topic and unnecessary

[emouse]

I'm guessing your assumption as to how many actual employees that Catalyst has is probably very much larger than reality.

My assumption is based on three having quit and Frank asserting that his source is 'angry Catalyst employees'. So Catalyst must have at least more than the three who quit, at least two according to what Frank said. I'm assuming that he is not equating employees with freelancers, but that may be wrong.

I haven't stated a number anywhere, other than the ones I just gave, and as I've said before the number of people who could have given him the information he claims must be a 'very short list'.

[kzt]

You know, Frank...

Thing is, every time I read something from you, you're right. Game mechanics, legality, process, what-have you... everything you say is barbed-wire-coated truth. I just wish to whatever powers run this universe that you'd say it less abrasively.

Exactly.

[kzt]

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.

It links IP to ID, so if your source IP changes it wants to reauthorize. That was an "feature" added in the last upgrade.

[BTFreeLancer]

While I really don't want to add fuel to the fire, my own understanding of the situation is that Coleman's "financial mismanagement" in part directly involved monies set aside for freelancers, hence my own considerable agitation about the matter.

I doubt CGL was that organized. I think it was more a case of everyone reaching into the same bucket to pay suppliers, freelancers, purchase orders, and employees (including the Colemans) - that was probably the whole reason CGL took on a bookkeeper, and she was a freelancer as well before that. Not to disparage Adam or Jennifer, but CGL made the mistake of getting fans/contributors to be business people (even Dave and Troy were at heart fans). That's why I doubt there was any malicious intent on the Colemans' part - it was a case of a small business suddenly becoming a bigger business, and people not making the transition.

if I've not said before, I have no issue with SR freelancers withholding copyright - that's their prerogative. My issue is the fact that all CGL freelancers have been lumped in the same boat by people who have not had the decency to identify themselves to those people they've affected personally. And I'm not asking for them to publicly identify themselves; do it on the private forums, the Catlab Basecamp, the mailing lists - whatever. It'd be nice if they'd at least given us a heads up that our financial situation with CGL was about to become public knowledge.

Because just as I mentioned before about having a web presence, if I put down on my resume "former freelancer for CGL", and the first thing a potential employer sees when researching CGL is "disgruntled freelancers leak info", its not a good look. I have a lot of respect for the guys that have had their issues with CGL and kept them private. I know exactly where you're coming from guys. I have a lot less respect for those that have taken it upon themselves to put it in the open, and anonymously at that. I don't even bear Frank any ill-will - I honestly think he's motivated in his mind by the right reasons. But until the names of his "sources" are known - *all* the CGL freelancers are tainted with the same "whistle-blower" brush.

that's my agitation about the matter. That my *hobby* will start affecting my professional life, through no action of mine.

[Jhaiisiin]

That's actually not what he said at all. He said that Jennifer Harding quit and that she was the Office Manager and Bookkeeper. It's reasonable to guess that she would be involved in getting the money returned, but he did not 'straight up admit' what you claim. Are you basing this conclusion on additional information that you have?

I believe this is what he's basing his information on:

We immediately initiated an audit of the company's historical financial records, and designed a comprehensive plan to get Catalyst's production and payments back on schedule. This process took some three months of very long days, and was overseen by our Bookkeeper and Operations Manager, in conjunction with the Colemans

And

That frustration was mirrored by several Catalyst full-time employees who felt they simply could not continue with Catalyst after all that has occurred, including Jennifer Harding (Office Manager and Bookkeeper), Dave Stansel (Operation Manager) and Adam Jury (Head of Graphic Design), all of whom have formally left the company. We’re already moving to try to find appropriate people to take on their work and responsibilities.

Emphasis mine. The process of getting stuff fixed was overseen by 4 people. 2 of those 4, Jennifer Harding (Office Manager and Bookkeeper), Dave Stansel (Operation Manager), have quit, and have not yet been replaced (to our knowledge). Thus, no one is overseeing the process except those directly responsible for it.

It's a perfectly valid leap of logic without contradicting information.

[tristanh]

Truth and Lies

But it's not half as damning as some of the things that I can't verify. These things include and are not limited to:

• Loren forcing David Stansel and Jennifer Harding out - with Randall's blessing because they were trying to get the money back.
• Randall Bills getting a cut of the money in exchange for his unwavering support of the Colemans.
• The Colemans refusing to sign the deal to pay the money back in the form of giving up portions of their ownership of the company to the other owners.
• Loren Coleman having misfiled the incorporation of IMR LLC in the first place, in an effort to deprive the other investors of their share of the company and then hiding that fraud by misreporting the company's income over a three year period.
• ... and so on and so on ...

These are mere accusations. I can't verify them, because they are each from just one or two people - and those people are admittedly super angry.

Anyone else amused by the conjecture and potentially libelous statements made there? Character damning things, with no proof outside of what two angry people told him. Under the heading of Truth and Lies.

While I can't speak for Mr. Stansel, I would (again) like to point out that Jennifer Harding has made it very clear she's had no direct contact with Frank before this thread. I would really appreciate if you would at least research your accusations a bit.

Sort of like Frank's statements above?

Emphasis mine. The process of getting stuff fixed was overseen by 4 people. 2 of those 4, Jennifer Harding (Office Manager and Bookkeeper), Dave Stansel (Operation Manager), have quit, and have not yet been replaced (to our knowledge). Thus, no one is overseeing the process except those directly responsible for it.

It's a perfectly valid leap of logic without contradicting information.

Except the problem is, there is a leap. The letter says they were both involved and worked on the plan to get the money back, then left. It makes no reference at all as to who is -currently- overseeing that plan. You are making an assumption that it's currently Loren Coleman by himself. The letter doesn't state one way or the other.

That leap basically says that they are running with not a single person doing any part of the office manager & bookkeeper's work. No one? They're going around meeting with license holders, presenting their plan for fixing their problem, and keeping said license (which pretty much holds the fate of the company), with those duties just flopping around, and no one pitching in?

Randall couldn't have meant that they're looking to find, but haven't yet found someone to permanently replace those positions, and not that there wasn't anyone doing it temporarily? Sure, he could have said that, but probably didn't think anyone would need it that spelled out?

Unless you get more information from the people -currently- running Catalyst, you're making assumptions. Now, after this leak, I would guess the odds of that are diminished.

This post has been edited by tristanh: Mar 29 2010, 05:21 PM

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Anyone else amused by the conjecture and potentially libelous statements made there?

It pales compared to the amusement about people trying to paint "libel" and "rumor" on a leak that even the company itself could not deny.

[darthmord]

Nice job taking Frank to task over his Truth & Lies section... except you apparently missed where he disclaimed that section as rumor and hearsay because he was UNABLE TO PROVE THE VERACITY of those claims.

Being up front and honest isn't a bad thing except to those who would rather hide and obfuscate.

My interpretation of the events (based on information released to date) is basically Loren Coleman took a bunch of money over a 3 year period that was NOT his by mere **accident** or a **mistake**.

Seriously?!? Really? I'm supposed to buy that lame ass excuse? My kids could come up with a better lie (and more convincing) than that.

On top of that, they are keeping the person who was the culprit in the taking? I know I'd question my employer's integrity and ethical leanings if someone was caught embezzelling and then kept on as an employee.

At this point, I just want my pre-order LE SR4A to come in (push the ship faster please?) and then go play my game and ignore the rest of the world.

[knasser]

And you win the prize! You now have the chance to avoid long-winded logical posts.... oh, wait.



Oh, I do - on both counts. That is the point. Some I can affect, others I can't. I khow the difference; you should, too. I am poking fun at you sillies for taking this kerfluffle (and by extension, yourselves) waaay too seriously.



Lordy, that was no rant, it was a subtle dig involving a game - apropos of the forum. C'mon, five syllables? Did you really pack more into that sentence for having used that word? You have some good points. Stop losing them by assuming everyone around you has a college education. You just sound stuffy and a leeetle pompous.

Cent13

So far as I can see, your sole presence on these boards is to have registered to take part in this thread and self-admittedly post purely to mock people for caring about Shadowrun. That and to ,ironically, explode in anger when someone mocked something you care about (and to a considerably lighter degree than you've been doing to us). I'll say it again, it's not for you to tell people how much they should care about something and not caring doesn't make you superior like you seem to think it does.

As to "assuming everyone around me has a college education" and "sounding stuffy and a leeetle pompous". Well you hardly need to have a college education to use words like "condescending" and "sanctimonious". And you've seriously misjudged your audience here if you think those words sound in any way elitest on Dumpshock. Maybe someone sounds elitist to you for using them, but round here we're okay with that. Do you imagine many people in this thread are reading posts and saying "heh - he called someone out for using more than four syllables, clever!"

But you wouldn't know much about "round here". I've never seen any questions from you about Shadowrun, never any discussion about your game or sharing what you've done with it. Your purpose in being here seems to be derive self-satisfaction from patronizing, insulting and dismissing people. That's not a very good purpose, is it?

K.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

There's no point, Knasser – the proper term for "poking fun at you" is "trolling".