The CGL situation p3 Options

[emouse]

He was banned from the freelancer forums on request of the line developer.

As someone who's been a forum moderator, I have difficulty taking that as anything more than someone annoying an administrator to the point where they take action. The person who got banned will always have their view about why they were banned, but it always comes down to they annoyed the owner of the forum too much.

[Sengir]

It means the BT Freelancers are choosing to act like professionals and not burn their bridges. Nothing more, nothing less.

You know for fact that BT freelancers are not treated differently than the SR writers? Then we would indeed have an interesting piece of group dynamics, which is somewhat harder for me to believe than the idea that something which constitutes the personal hobby of the company leadership received more attention than other projects.

Adding fuel to this particular fire causes as much damage to the arsonist as it does to everyone else.

So...what harm did this letter exactly cause? Anybody tried to print it and cut his fingers on the paper?

[Jaid]

So you are afraid that this number is sufficiently small enough to provoke the inquisition?

On the other hand, we don't know nothing about you – in fact, you could be one of the sources (even if you didn't give the letter to Frank directly), trying to find others to take the fall for you.

his concern, which he has quite clearly stated previously, is that if he puts "freelancer for catalyst game labs" on his resume, a potential employer could look up "freelancer for catalyst game labs" using google, note that an unnamed freelancer for catalyst game labs leaked confidential information (and whether or not it was under an NDA of any sort, it pretty clearly was not meant for the general public), and immediately there is uncertainty as to whether or not he did it. it looks bad on him because someone is not willing to step up and admit who did it, and now any future employer who sees "freelancer for catalyst game labs" is going to be left wondering if it was him.

as frank noted, whether or not it is needed, employers don't like people who leak confidential information. (and quite frankly, i don't feel the most recent posting of a private letter actually provided us with any significant information that we didn't know -- and it should be noted that frank's comments on the letter are nothing more than speculation on his part, since he just makes assumptions, attributes reasons people acted in the way they did with no evidence as to why they actually did it, and then treats that as gospel truth -- which means that information such as "nobody is working on the problem anymore" is not necessarily in the least bit valid, since it is extremely unlikely they don't have someone doing the job, whether or not that person or persons have the tite. it should also be noted that knowing who it was accomplishes precisely nothing. we already pretty much knew it was the colemans; now we just know for sure. but guess what? that doesn't accomplish a damn thing.)

or, to put it another way: a potential employer who has 2 resumes in front of them, one from somebody who belongs to a group that is known to have leaked private, confidential information, and another one from somebody who does not belong to a group that is known to have leaked private, confidential information, who do you think the employer is going to want to hire? assuming he does get hired, will his employer trust him? as part of the group defined as "CGL freelancers", he becomes in a way responsible for the actions of another person who is part of that group, unless and until that individual steps up as an individual and clears the name of everyone else.

[Stahlseele]

As someone who's been a forum moderator, I have difficulty taking that as anything more than someone annoying an administrator to the point where they take action. The person who got banned will always have their view about why they were banned, but it always comes down to they annoyed the owner of the forum too much.

As far as in remember, he got banned for saying his opinion about the line dev(Jason M. Hardy) in there in a not so nice choice of words.

[Dread Moores]

If you wouldn't call "banned from the freelancer forums on request of the line developer" "forced out", then there is indeed no point of talking to you at all. Your "disclaimer" just add to that.

Fair enough. It really wasn't meant as a knock on anybody. But you're right, it's personal opinion that was unimportant to the question being asked. Previous post edited to remove it. More flammable material really isn't needed to get the question answered.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

As someone who's been a forum moderator, I have difficulty taking that as anything more than someone annoying an administrator to the point where they take action.

The key issue here is that it wasn't an administrator that was annoyed, but the line developer.

The person who got banned will always have their view about why they were banned, but it always comes down to they annoyed the owner of the forum too much.

Which doesn't change a thing about the "forced out" part. Some people tend to be annoyed quote easily, too.

Nice try of the blame game, however.

[otakusensei]

Okay, so that's one. I wouldn't call it forced out myself, but I can see why some would. (Please note, that's not meant to open that up as a topic of debate). Was there more than that?

I guess I'm just a little confused here. There seems to be a really heavy defensive show of support for the freelancers, as if there was some kind of organized campaign to get rid of a number of them. It's clear there are payment issues, and I really don't think anybody's disputed that fact. It's also clear there are some financial issues to be addressed. Again, I don't think anybody's disputed that. But I don't quite understand the feeling that framework some have presented as a "freelancer vs CGL" argument. There's obviously issues to be resolved, but Cain's post seemed to indicate multiple folks being forced out, and that it was an intentional move on the part of CGL management. I'm not really seeing that backed up. Is there something I'm missing here?

Some payment issues, that's the key point here. We aren't talking about an employer that misses a paycheck by a day or a week. It also speaks to the professionalism of CGL. The negative feeling you see here is because that's what we have to work with. I thought something was off for quite some time after hearing about books and products and never seeing them come to light. I was worried that CGL was in dire financial straights, that Battletech and Shadowrun weren't selling well enough to keep the lines going and that my favorite roleplaying game was going to disappear from lack of interest. I tried to drum up more support and specifically talked up Catalyst in local circles as a great company doing really excellent work. When Frank dropped the original post some things clicked into place for me.

I was relieved at first to understand that Shadowrun had been doing well, that there wasn't much worry financially that the line was in danger. At least not from sales. But the rumors about the Colemans and the embezzlement explained neatly what I'd been seeing in releases and hearing from freelancers for some time. My copy of SR4A has some art that was signed by the artist who lives near my FLGS. He was happy to sign it but mentioned that he was having a hell of a time getting paid. I thought it was odd, but chalked it up to issues at the company and the change in line devs. When CGL started shedding talent with people citing ethical issues I knew things were worse than I suspected no matter what the details.

I feel betrayed. You might disagree that I'm reacting rationally, but that's how I feel. Working with as little detail as we are I'm going with my gut for the most part. I don't want to dislike CGL, I don't have an axe to grind. I love the work that I've seen from CGL recently, I want whatever keeps it from doing more and better work out of the way and quickly. I have yet to hear something from the CGL camp that sounds like a remedy or a resolution. Lots of promises, but no real action. Honestly, I don't expect any but my trust is shaken to a level that I can't just sit back and wait. However as a consumer that's all I can do. Well, that and post here.

So I understand if you want to be the voice of reason and inventory what is known and critique the individual response of folks in an effort to contain the situation. That's noble. But from my view there are a lot of questions that have been answered recently and now even more that need to be answered quickly if my faith in CGL is going to be restored. As it stands I don't even know if I can recommend that people buy into the game because I can't be sure the people who worked on it were paid. I hate that. I don't want that.

I want a reason to trust CGL again, or I want it to do the honorable thing and let someone else take over the license.

All I can do right now is wait and see what happens.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

it looks bad on him because someone is not willing to step up and admit who did it, and now any future employer who sees "freelancer for catalyst game labs" is going to be left wondering if it was him.

That's the way the cookies crumble.

Even if some scapegoat is presented, though, it can be missed, or simply dismissed.

[Jaid]

So...what harm did this letter exactly cause? Anybody tried to print it and cut his fingers on the paper?

and what good did the letter do? what relevant information has actually been gained by us, the fans, that was necessary for us, the fans, to know?

(clearly, the freelancers have a vested interest, as they have money on the line... but then again, this letter was to the freelancers, so any interest the freelancers have, had already been satisfied)

so far as i can tell, there really isn't a whole lot of new information at all, none of it particularly helps us out significantly, and then it is followed by a bunch of speculation from frank wherein he apparently gets to decide what happens in any case that it isn't clearly defined, and why people did what they did, with a healthy helping of attacking people for their religious beliefs on the side.

none of which is in the least verifiable (well, except that it's right out in the open that he did in fact attack someone for having religious beliefs, but that really doesn't help anyone either).

[Dread Moores]

So I understand if you want to be the voice of reason and inventory what is known and critique the individual response of folks in an effort to contain the situation.

Mostly I was just curious about the forced out part. I haven't read through all the relevant threads completely yet, so was trying to see what I missed.

And I can understand the lack of trust issue. Myself as a fan, it hasn't affected too much personally. I'd certainly be a bit more leery of recommending folks seeking to join up as a freelancer at this point, based on the information that's out there.

[otakusensei]

Mostly I was just curious about the forced out part. I haven't read through all the relevant threads completely yet, so was trying to see what I missed.

And I can understand the lack of trust issue. Myself as a fan, it hasn't affected too much personally. I'd certainly be a bit more leery of recommending folks seeking to join up as a freelancer at this point, based on the information that's out there.

I'm dealing with suddenly going from not playing for over a year to being in two games a week with three groups. A mix of old and new players but everyone enthusiastic and absolutely loving the setting and game. The present situation has taken me from ecstatic to carefully reserved too fast. The owner of my FLGS is in one of the groups (a new GM!) and he was concerned because he doesn't want to sell a book that the writers haven't been paid for. I'm just glad I'm not in his situation.

[crizh]

what relevant information has actually been gained

As I previously suggested, much that was previously purely speculation and guesswork became fact.

The identity of the Colemans as the cause of the financial problems for example.

[emouse]

The key issue here is that it wasn't an administrator that was annoyed, but the line developer.

As far as in remember, he got banned for saying his opinion about the line dev(Jason M. Hardy) in there in a not so nice choice of words.

If a personal or questionable comments are made about any member of a forum, if that member complains to an admin, it becomes that admin's problem and annoyance. Doubly so if the member is important to the forum, which, I'm guessing, the line developer is in the freelancer forum.

And the fact that the line developer is not an admin in the freelancer forum means that it wasn't the line developer's final decision to remove that person from the forum.

But all of this is second hand knowledge. The person who feels he was forced out has his view of the banning, others have their view. Even he probably doesn't know exactly what the line developer might have said to the admins, or exactly what the admins were thinking when they banned him from that forum.

And the thing is, it seems to have very little to do with the implication that actual CGL employees were forced out, not freelancers, which is what the original 'forced out' comment was about.

Mostly I was just curious about the forced out part. I haven't read through all the relevant threads completely yet, so was trying to see what I missed.

No former CGL employees have come forward saying they were forced out.

A few freelancers for Shadowrun have publicly stated that they feel they cannot do any future work for Catalyst.

The one freelancer mentioned above apparently felt he had been forced out after being banned from a private forum set up for CGL freelancers, but was not run directly by anyone from CGL. <EDIT to remove a bit I was just flat out wrong about>

[Rotbart van Dain...]

If a personal or questionable comments are made about any member of a forum, if that member complains to an admin, it becomes that admin's problem and annoyance. Doubly so if the member is important to the forum, which, I'm guessing, the line developer is in the freelancer forum.

Ah, you are just confusing regular annoyance with chain of command. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Ancient History]

Okay, we're getting into some he said she said stuff here, so let me make this clear and then everyone can make up their own decisions.

During a freelancer chat discussing an upcoming sourcebook, Jason Hard (Line Developer) posted a production schedule. Pretty much immediately thereafter, I privately pinged a couple of the other freelancers, mainly the new ones that didn't have the connections with the older freelancer pool and employees. One of them forwarded the log to Jason. The following is the transcript of the private conversation that was sent to Jason:

[ Spoiler ]

Session Start: Sun Mar 21 11:55:21 2010
Session Ident: DavidAHillJr
01[11:55] <AncientHistory> If you buy one word Jason is spilling right now, I will hit you with a shoe.
[11:56] <DavidAHillJr> lol. I believe that to the best of Jason's knowledge, he's telling the truth. However, I know he's a very uninformed middleman.
01[11:57] <AncientHistory> No, I mean he's actually lying to you right now.
[11:58] <DavidAHillJr> Oh? You think he knows more? Fair enough. But, if they
[11:59] <DavidAHillJr> they're unable to pay licensing, why move forward with more products?
01[11:59] <AncientHistory> They hope to talk Topps down into accepting less money (who knows where they are going to get it from), but at the moment they can't even cut checks to freelancers. THat's a bad sign.
[12:00] <DavidAHillJr> But if they can't pay the freelancers to release, then moving forward on new product just isn't a rational path.
01[12:01] <AncientHistory> Nothing about this is rational. They're keeping a known thief as the company's president.
[12:02] <DavidAHillJr> Fair.
01[12:03] <AncientHistory> All I'm saying is that be aware Jason isn't telling you everything, the situation is probably worse than it is, and it is unlikely you're going to get pad for your ork.
[12:04] <DavidAHillJr> Duly noted.
Session Close: Sun Mar 21 12:53:45 2010

Jason then immediately asked for my to be removed from Catalyst's program management software (Basecamp) and their freelancer boards for "undermining me [sic] and the company." Jason could not actually do this himself, as he doesn't have the access on either Basecamp or the freelancer forums. When my ban came through, I contacted Jason and informed him I was terminating my contracts. It is my understanding he and several first-time freelancers are currently working to re-write my drafts for (at least) Corp Guide, Sixth World Almanac, and Runners Toolkit.

[emouse]

Ah, you are just confusing regular annoyance with chain of command. Thanks for clearing that up.

There's more than one way to annoy an admin, though, based on AH's account, this was not quite the case.

As AH has clarified, he was essentially let go by CGL based on the comments he made to new freelancers.

Ideally he would have been removed and then immediately contacted by the manager to let him know that he was let go. By the account given, the manager could not directly manipulate the tools being used to communicate with freelancers. So at best, that means there was an unfortunate lag between the actions needed to terminate the contract and the notification, during which the freelancer noticed and responded first. At worst, the manager started the process to terminate the contract and was negligent on following through with it.

I don't really see it as relevant to the original subject, nor an example of a CGL employee being 'forced out'.

Thank you, AH for clearing it up.

[Cochise]

No former CGL employees have come forward saying they were forced out.

Just for my further amusement: What would you consider "being forced out"? Only situations where Catalyst fired a person or would it be enough that someone feels pressured to resign not due to better employment with another firm, but because of "irreconcilable differences" in terms of professional interaction ... e.g. when someone refers to "a conflict involving personal ethics"?

[Ancient History]

Ideally he would have been removed and then immediately contacted by the manager to let him know that he was let go. By the account given, since the manager could not directly manipulate the tools being used to communicate with freelancers, there was a lag between the two, at best, during which AH responded first. At worst, the manager started the process to terminate the contract and was negligent on following through with it.

Uh, no. Did you somehow completely misread what I just posted? I was banned from the freelancer forums and Basecamp, I was not "let go." I terminated the contracts on my end, Jason was more than willing to continue to use the stuff I wrote and promise to pay me for it.

[Jaid]

As I previously suggested, much that was previously purely speculation and guesswork became fact.

The identity of the Colemans as the cause of the financial problems for example.

and the concluding portion of your response should read something along the lines of:

"... and this is relevant because ________" (i leave it to you to fill the blank, because as far as i'm concerned, this really isn't useful information to me. it doesn't really tell me more or less about the situation, particularly given that we were already pretty sure it was the colemans anyways, so if for some reason it actually matters to us as fans who did it, this actually isn't anything new)

now, i suppose if i was looking at hiring mr coleman for some sort of financial position, or preparing to start a partnership with him, this would be very relevant. but i'm not. and in general, neither are the rest of the people on the boards here (this being the boards for discussing shadowrun, the game, not the boards for starting up business partnerships with the owners of the company that makes the game currently) the other owners of the company, and the financial staff at catalyst, are the ones who need to know who did it, because they actually have to deal with the problem. me? i have no say in the matter. knowing one way or the other has no significant effect on me directly. the difference between "someone who may or may not be the colemans has embezzled/misplaced funds" is not particularly more or less significant to me personally than "the colemans have embezzled/misplaced funds"

edit: for clarity, the only relevant part to me was that funds have been embezzled/misplaced, and the financial future of the company that currently produces shadowrun is in question. we already knew that officially anyways.

[BTFreeLancer]

You know for fact that BT freelancers are not treated differently than the SR writers? Then we would indeed have an interesting piece of group dynamics, which is somewhat harder for me to believe than the idea that something which constitutes the personal hobby of the company leadership received more attention than other projects.

BT hasn't received any more attention that SR has. Just different mindsets as mentioned before. In the BT Freelancers we have cops, plenty of former and current military personnel, chemists, engineers, software designers etc etc. Not sure what the make up of the SR guys is, but I'm guessing they're from less authoritarian backgrounds.

This post has been edited by BTFreeLancer: Mar 30 2010, 04:23 PM

[Cochise]

BT hasn't received any more attention that SR has. Just different mindsets as mentioned before. In the BT Freelancers we have cops, plenty of former and current military personnel, chemists, engineers, software designers etc etc. Not sure what the make up of the SR guys is, but I'm guessing they're from less authoritarian backgrounds.

Looking at what I "know" about people posting on this board, other SR boards and the SR playing people I know in person, I'd say the list is pretty much identical ... Lots of former and current militray personnel, doctors, chemists, engineers, software developers, etc. ... so your guess appears to be "off" .. at least within my experience.

[BTFreeLancer]

Looking at what I "know" about people posting on this board, other SR boards and the SR playing people I know in person, I'd say the list is pretty much identical ... Lots of former and current militray personnel, doctors, chemists, engineers, software developers, etc. ... so your guess appears to be "off" .. at least within my experience.

fair enough - was referring to the freelancers themselves though, not the fans/customers, in an attempt to explain the perceived disparity of emotion between the two groups.

[Ancient History]

Granted, I have practically zero experience of the BattleTech side of things, but I do know that most of the owners are die-hard BattleTech fans and that the BT side of thing has had pretty much the same line developer for a long time. While I cannot say that BT freelancers are treated different, the red-headed stepchild in me can't help but think they get a little more attention from up top and a generally more trusting work environment, even if they are getting screwed in the wallet as bad as SR freelancers are.

[tete]

I would say its relevant to me because having worked for one crazy CEO once upon a time and personally seen my friends loose their jobs thanks to two others... I never want to work for such a person again because you can see them destroying not only the company but peoples lives because of caring more about themselves than their company.

[emouse]

Just for my further amusement: What would you consider "being forced out"?

That's something I consider highly subjective, really, with only the employee knowing whether they feel they were forced out or not.

So, as I said, no former employees have stated that they were forced out.