The CGL situation p3 Options

[emouse]

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.

Did he approach you about doing future work after being removed from the forums or Basecamp, or did he just offer to pay for material you had already written?

[Dread Moores]

and that the BT side of thing has had pretty much the same line developer for a long time

Not a freelancer, and not really qualified to speak on how they're treated. But as a fan of both, I'd say that what Ancient mentioned, along with the existence of Battlecorps, makes a really big difference in this fan's perception of the big differences in how the two lines are treated. BT seems to get a lot more product, and much better proof-reading. Not having had the multiple LD changes that SR has been through seems to have really benefited the BT side of things. Also, there does seem to be a bit more active presence in terms of keeping the community aware of product status on the BT sides. It was frequent to see blogs or posts in the forums from Randall or Herb talking about when products hit layout, etc. That seems to have changed some under Jason, but I didn't notice that quite as much before on the SR site. (It could have been common here on Dumpshock, as I mainly only lurked in game discussion threads previously. So very possible I missed it.)

[Jaid]

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.

ah, but you are not working for the company, and as i said, that information was already available to freelancers who do work for the company (and presumably also for full time employees).

but even then, does it make a difference to you that it was mr coleman, or does it merely make a difference to you that the person who did it is still with the company, albeit with measures taken to attempt to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? does it really matter who did it, or does it matter that it was done?

[Demonseed Elite]

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.

If engineers and software designers are authoritarian people, then I guess I was an authoritarian Shadowrun freelancer! Though I'm not sure I'd describe either of those two professions that way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

By the way, I was also removed from the freelancer forums, long before this current stuff happened. I was removed from the freelancer forums when Peter Taylor was "let go" as line developer. I was never really given a reason why, though I imagine it was because of earlier fallout I had with Catalyst when they wanted the Manhattan e-book drafts from me before sending me the contract. I repeatedly asked for the contract, it was not sent, and then finally I told them to take me off that project and not to use any of the material I had already given them. Shortly thereafter, my account was banned from the freelancer forums.

It bothered me a bit, but I was pretty disappointed with Catalyst anyway so I took the not-so-subtle hint and stopped writing for them.

[Sengir]

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

"... and this is relevant because ________"

- We have a name and not just someone claiming that Coleman is the culprit
- We have a timeline
- Coleman stays in control

[Jaid]

- We have a name and not just someone claiming that Coleman is the culprit
- We have a timeline
- Coleman stays in control

that's nice. how is that relevant? what's the difference between knowing who it is that took the money, and simply knowing the money was taken? (which we already knew as fact). what timeline do we have? we already know from official statements that they are officially planning to pay the freelancers, keep the license, and continue producing shadowrun. and what is the difference between knowing who took the money and is still part-owner, and simply knowing that the person who took the money is still a part-owner?

do you actually have any dealings at all with mr coleman that you are significantly impacted by knowing who specifically it is?

knowing that it is mr coleman doesn't really gain us anything. there is no real benefit to having that information for the average fan.

[Cochise]

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.

Nice dodge on the "conflict involving personal ethics" part (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

______________________

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.

Even when looking at the freelancers I know or at least have some idea where they come from, I do see similar backgrounds in both camps ... as well as people who come from a drastically different angle. But I have to concede that my (current) insight (and interest) there is heavily restricted, so it's quite possible that within the freelancer camps there really are major differences in that area that could explain the perceived disparity. It could however also be interesting to look at what actual positions the people in question hold / held within said "more authoritarian" structures ...

[Ancient History]

Did he approach you about doing future work after being removed from the forums or Basecamp, or did he just offer to pay for material you had already written?

Since you must know - and apparently have no intention on backtracking anything you've said - Jason wanted to use the material I had already written, though of course he hadn't bothered to look up everything I was currently contracted for at the time, and I told him I was terminating the contracts.

[Sengir]

what timeline do we have?

- End of 2009: CGL figures out there is something wrong, starts to analyze their accounts and figure out what and how the Colemans have to pay back
- One week before that work is finalized, the operations manager leaves
- The very day it gets serviced, the accountant quits
- Another week later the party line is "the process of paying back goes according to plan"

and what is the difference between knowing who took the money and is still part-owner, and simply knowing that the person who took the money is still a part-owner?

Those who quit made it quite certain that they wouldn't work with the "old guard" again.



@Demonseed: So essentially they wanted to see the the work and then decide if you get payed?

[-Nyx-]

Basically, I was just kidding about the anarchy/military sides of CGL... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

And I'm just wondering, why on one hand the exact reasons and time-table for AH ending his freelancership are interesting, while on the other hand the identity of the owner causing trouble within CGL isn't.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying, that one or both informations are interesting or not... I'm just wandering about the different treatment they receive form some people here...)

(a former member of the 1st Lyran Guard... aehm, I mean 1st Panzerdivision)

[X-Kalibur]

I think we should start writing up missions around this. Anywhere from runners having to find and silence a corporate leak, to taking down Frank, to having to prove some corporation is doing something unethical for competition to start a smear campaign. With side ventures into why certain contractors quit... etc, etc.

Also, having to write up stuff with no promise of getting paid? That's a really poor showing on their part.

[Jaid]

- End of 2009: CGL figures out there is something wrong, starts to analyze their accounts and figure out what and how the Colemans have to pay back
- One week before that work is finalized, the operations manager leaves
- The very day it gets serviced, the accountant quits
- Another week later the party line is "the process of paying back goes according to plan"



Those who quit made it quite certain that they wouldn't work with the "old guard" again.

the timeline: we basically already knew all that. we already knew from the first thread that they had been doing an internal audit, and the times that the two employees left (including the fact that their bookkeeper, Jennifer Harding, had quit just as the whole situation was coming to a head, and that the operations manager had quit a week prior). we already knew catalyst was planning to get the person to pay it back. this is not new information to anyone who has been paying attention.

and those who quit already had the information, and didn't need any public leaks to be aware of who they weren't going to be working for again.

this is still not relevant to the fans in general. certainly, it is relevant to the people who quit because of mr coleman's actions, and the response (or insufficient response, i suppose) of the company. but it doesn't mean a damn thing to you or me. i didn't quit my job at catalyst because of mr coleman's actions, and neither did you (this is no doubt due in large part to the fact that we were not working for catalyst in the first place). had we been working for catalyst, we would have had the information, and would have been able to make a decision whether to continue working for them or not based on that information, and we would not have needed any information to be leaked to the general public in order to do so.

again: what benefit is to be had to us, the fans, from this private correspondence being made public? because as BTFreelancer has pointed out, it can certainly potentially cause harm to the freelancers, and as has been also pointed out, you can bet that catalyst won't be talking to their freelancers any more now, which means the people who *do* have a stake in knowing, who actually *are* directly affected, financially, by this situation, are no longer going to be kept up-to-date. to me, this sounds suspiciously like it hasn't helped anyone who needed it, and has only potentially harmed people.

we didn't really gain anything needed. oh, it was perhaps nice to know the reasoning behind mr randall's decision, but it really isn't *needed*.

[emouse]

Nice dodge on the "conflict involving personal ethics" part (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There are a couple scenarios I speculated on a while ago, both of which satisfied the 'conflict involving personal ethics' and the person leaving willingly, not being forced out.

Her statement says that she had a conflict between a decision by Catalyst management and her own personal beliefs.

I will say that my own view of being forced out is if you are put into a position where you have to resign or are fired when there is otherwise no conflict between yourself and the company management or direction. It implies to me that the person was doing everything they could to remain with the company.

But the way it has been presented, management made a decision, she disagreed strongly with it, she resigned, just doesn't seem to me like being 'forced out'. Her situation sounds more like bailing out of a bad situation rather than being forced.

[Jaid]

@Demonseed: So essentially they wanted to see the the work and then decide if you get payed?

he's mentioned this situation several times. in either this thread, or one or both of the previous threads. they simply weren't sending him the contract. not because they weren't *willing* to (he indicated previously that they did in fact send one... after he told them that he wasn't going to continue writing for them, it reached him), they simply were that disorganised. in point of fact, i recall him mentioning he was ready to send in his final draft, which rather implies they had already seen the work, though not the final draft, and still hadn't actually sent him a contract.

[emouse]

Since you must know - and apparently have no intention on backtracking anything you've said - Jason wanted to use the material I had already written, though of course he hadn't bothered to look up everything I was currently contracted for at the time, and I told him I was terminating the contracts.

Thank you for the further detail. Honesty, it sounds like a situation poorly handled on both sides. Your initial conversation comes off as someone trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and new freelancers, even if you felt your intent was good. The manager could have brought the matter up with you directly, rather than just going straight for what appears to be a termination procedure. It also sounds like he was neglectful about following through on that termination, although was offering to still pay for work done.

[Cochise]

Her statement says that she had a conflict between a decision by Catalyst management and her own personal beliefs.

And that doesn't qualify as "being forced out"?

I will say that my own view of being forced out is if you are put into a position where you have to resign or are fired when there is otherwise no conflict between yourself and the company management or direction. It implies to me that the person was doing everything they could to remain with the company.

What could a person do to remain with a company, once ethics are involved (albeit being "personal")? Just throw them overboard?

But the way it has been presented, management made a decision, she disagreed strongly with it, she resigned, just doesn't seem to me like being 'forced out'. Her situation sounds more like bailing out of a bad situation rather than being forced.

So there was no driving force that directly opposed her ethic standards, to which she appearantly stood up and quit?

[emouse]

I think we should start writing up missions around this. Anywhere from runners having to find and silence a corporate leak, to taking down Frank, to having to prove some corporation is doing something unethical for competition to start a smear campaign. With side ventures into why certain contractors quit... etc, etc.

Also, having to write up stuff with no promise of getting paid? That's a really poor showing on their part.

There could also be outside corps who are trying to assure things go to hell, so send runners to either plant or disseminate additional data.

It's definitely rife with possibilities.

[Arclight]

"Trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and the new freelancers"? When he warned them they wouldn't see a dime for their work? Which somewhat seemes to be a SOP for FASA and CGL, one might think.

I think you're a lot more caring towards CGL management than appropriate, dude.

[Jaid]

And that doesn't qualify as "being forced out"?



What could a person do to remain with a company, once ethics are involved (albeit being "personal")? Just throw them overboard?



So there was no driving force that directly opposed her ethic standards, to which she appearantly stood up and quit?

the statement that someone is forced out implies that the person is being targeted and pushed out of the corporation, not that there is an irreconcilable disagreement between management and employee.

if the ethical situation was intended to push a specific person out of the company, that would certainly be "forced out". if it's just a matter of a disagreement, well, disagreements happen. this one simply happened to be irreconcilable in this case.

[Ancient History]

Thank you for the further detail. Honesty, it sounds like a situation poorly handled on both sides. Your initial conversation comes off as someone trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and new freelancers, even if you felt your intent was good. The manager could have brought the matter up with you directly, rather than just going straight for what appears to be a termination procedure. It also sounds like he was neglectful about following through on that termination, although was offering to still pay for work done.

You appear to still be operating under a few misconceptions, so allow me to clue you in:

Freelancers are not employees, they cannot be "fired" or "terminated." Jason moved to have me removed from the freelancer pool, but did not attempt to cancel my contracts. That would, in fact, be the stupidest thing he could have done in the situation, since my chapters were already written, edited, proofed, and in some cases laid out already. Instead, he continued forward under the illusion that Catalyst would eventually honor its contracts. I canceled the contracts on my own because I did not believe I would be paid and did not want to pursue any further business relationship with Catalyst under Loren Coleman.

[emouse]

And that doesn't qualify as "being forced out"?

No, it doesn't. I worked at a company where they started doing more email spam mailings as advertising. Not only did I hate the actual process of doing that kind of work, but I thought it was a lousy way to advertise and didn't want to do that kind of work. I disagreed with the direction the company was taking, and yes, it conflicted with my ethics a little. I quit because I didn't like the job any longer. I wasn't forced out. I decided I didn't like the direction the company was going in and I left.

If you don't like the decision an employer has made and leave because of it, that is NOT inherently being forced out.

[Cochise]

the statement that someone is forced out implies that the person is being targeted and pushed out of the corporation, not that there is an irreconcilable disagreement between management and employee.

Could it be that people do have a "slightly" different view of what "being forced out" means in terms of implication that you specifically need to be targeted?

if the ethical situation was intended to push a specific person out of the company, that would certainly be "forced out". if it's just a matter of a disagreement, well, disagreements happen. this one simply happened to be irreconcilable in this case.

Whenever I felt being forced to withdraw from something I liked, it usually involved "just a matter of irreconcilable disagreement" over certain matters without a particular act of targeting me. Still I usually felt "being forced out" ... be it by individuals, their actions or the entity they represented. ~shrug~
But then again ... that's just me.

[emouse]

"Trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and the new freelancers"? When he warned them they wouldn't see a dime for their work? Which somewhat seemes to be a SOP for FASA and CGL, one might think.

I think you're a lot more caring towards CGL management than appropriate, dude.

By his own transcript he approached one of the new freelancers and flat out said, 'the manager is lying to you', 'the company owner is a crook', and 'you will never get paid'.

I think you're looking for a black and white situation where there is only gray.

[The Monk]

I canceled the contracts on my own because I did not believe I would be paid and did not want to pursue any further business relationship with Catalyst under Loren Coleman.

Would it be fair to assume that even if they could have found a way to pay, you would not have wanted to because of Mr. Coleman?

[Ancient History]

In my defense, Jason was factually incorrect about the production schedule. We've already gone over the bit where Coleman has admitted to "financial mismanagement," so whether you consider him a crook or not...well, I do. As for not getting paid...yeah, I can't predict the future, but to the best of my knowledge all the freelancers that are owed still haven't been paid yet.