CGL Speculation #8, Put on your asbestos underwear Options

[LurkerOutThere]

For starters it might look like a lot of the weird accusations made by folks about the freelancer conspiracy are true even if they are baseless. Secondly this whole matter has a bad aroma to it even if the accusations are totally baseless so them publicly announcing that might look bad in some of the eyes of the community not to mention Topps might think it lacked discretion.

[Fuchs]

For starters it might look like a lot of the weird accusations made by folks about the freelancer conspiracy are true even if they are baseless. Secondly this whole matter has a bad aroma to it even if the accusations are totally baseless so them publicly announcing that might look bad in some of the eyes of the community not to mention Topps might think it lacked discretion.

Well, it may look weird, if one supports Coleman. People founding a firm of their own to keep working in their chosen field of business, and maybe get their money from someone who co-mingled 750K and built a house for 650K while creditors went unpaid is not just totally ok, but the right and moral thing to do even.

[MindandPen]

Out of curiosity, why?

In multiparty negotiations you do not want to reveal your pricing strategy. If you are an unknown player, you want to stay that way as it gives you a tactical advantage. Knowing who your competition is allows you to ghost their weaknesses in your proposal. If you do not know who they are, you can not ghost them.

-M&P

[DracoBlue]

There was some limited information about Catalyst provided by James Hardy today in his live chat.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=31341

[BTFreeLancer]

As for myself <snip>

as I've said before Jen, I think it's bad idea to have creative types involved on the business side of a gaming company. Simply because every freelancer I know has some sort of ego about their work (it goes with the role), and that has to spill over at times. That's a personal thing on my behalf, and I can fully understand if people disagree.

that said, good luck to you, Stephen and especially Dave - look forward to seeing what you guys put out.

[Jaid]

Jen, for better or for worse, you have deeply interjected yourself into this debate by making specific accusations, namely that Coleman was not paying royalties to Topps and that Randall went along with it. Pretty much everybody on this board is grasping for straws to try to piece together a situation for which there is very little factual information, so that accusation is like a lightning rod. To my knowledge, you are the only one in a position to know who has come out and made such a direct and damning statement, so that kind of puts you in the hot seat. You may not like it, but if you are going to make those kinds of statements, I reserve the right to have my suspicions and to engage in a little scrutiny. Claims coming from a former employee are very different than claims coming from someone working for a direct competitor. So until I can get confirmation on that issue one way or another, yeah, I am suspicious.

As to the DSG/computer issue, yes I should have made clear that it was an alleged action, and not a confirmed one. My apologies to DSG.

Actually, and i've pointed this out before and i'll probably have to point it out again: Jennifer Harding has not said that Randall Bills told her to falsify royalty reports. She *has* said, several times, that she was told to work with Loren L Coleman, and that if she couldn't do that, she should leave. She has further stated, as I recall, that she doesn't feel Randall Bills asked her to falsify those reports, or that he had done anything on that level of unethical behaviour. Given that she clearly (and legitimately) felt that being told to falsify royalty reports by Loren L Coleman was unethical (and potentially illegal), I'd say we can safely deduce that, based on Jennifer Harding's comments, Randall Bills never ordered her to falsify reports. (in fact, in this post, she explicity states that Randall Bills never did ask her to falsify the reports)

At a guess (and this is pure guesswork, mind you) the conversation may have gone something like this:

Jennifer Harding(JH): Randall, Loren [ie Loren L Coleman, the non-cryptozoologist] just told me to falsify royalty reports to Topps by not including foreign royalties owed to them.
Randall Bills (RB): Well, you need to work with him, even if you don't approve of what he is doing. Keep working with him on getting the financial information to Topps.
JH: But Loren keeps trying to use all kinds of questionable accounting practices and dishonesty in the process. We need to remove him from this process, I refuse to work on something that is going to be pushed towards being an unethical and dishonest.
RB: Well, you will have to either work with Loren, or if you feel that your ethical standards are being compromised and you can't work with Loren, you will have to leave the company, but we're not removing Loren from the process.
JH: Well then, I will have to leave the company.

Now, i very much doubt those exact words were used. but something along those lines fits the facts we have been presented much more closely than Randall Bills telling Jennifer Harding to falsify documents in that conversation. Which isn't to say that Randall Bills hasn't made mistakes, necessarily. Or that she approved of everything he did (it's also stated, in thread 3 somewhere, that she felt Randall Bills hadn't kept promises to change things in the company to Jennifer's satisfaction; likely when Randall promised changes, Jennifer felt those changes were going to include Loren L Coleman being removed, based on what I can see.)

So in fact, of all the people who left CGL, Jennifer Harding is one of the few (or indeed, the only?) where we can actually point to it and say we actually *do* know the reasons at all, beyond just a general decision to leave.

[LurkerOutThere]

Well, it may look weird, if one supports Coleman. People founding a firm of their own to keep working in their chosen field of business, and maybe get their money from someone who co-mingled 750K and built a house for 650K while creditors went unpaid is not just totally ok, but the right and moral thing to do even.

The point, you and it have never met have they?

[Fuchs]

The point, you and it have never met have they?

You really don't get why people trust others over Coleman and his friends? That a history of bad business practices, of not paying freelancers, of co-mingling money makes people not trust them? You really don't get why those facts mean that this is not seen as "both sides are equally bad/did the same mistakes"?

[LurkerOutThere]

Okay Fuchs, I keep hoping that some spear of logic or some ray of whit will pierce that permanent veil of recursive and fevered rhetoric. The more I discuss with you the more I cannot help believe that some cause out there is missing out on a very impassioned although somewhat direct minded crusader. Can you go put a few hours in at a food kitchen or something?


Let's recap for anyone else who's reality filters are set to conspiracy.

Declarations Ahead of Time: I know very few of the people involved and none of the principle's I've met Jennifer once (I think) and I believe have done the same for Bills. As such my personal investment is low, I am inclined to trust Jason, Bishop, Bull, Stephen, and Jennifer and take their statements where they make them at face value.

There is currently a legal proceeding going on that through the process of discovery will likely uncover much of what is going on at CGL get it into he public record or at least provide insight into some murky points.

Innocent until proven guilty is last I checked the law of the land. Not having first hand knowledge of the issues at hand I am loathe to form beliefs based entirely on internet speculation. Every single issue that has been "confirmed" by both sides has their own take on it. It is entirely possible for both sides opinions to not be free of duplicity yet for one or both to be false.

So going back to what got us into this line of thought, someone asked why it might not be prudent for sandstorm or any other former potential licensee to be playing their hand openly. I responded that it would like basically unethical/unprofessional to do so at this time. If I was a new company of disgruntled ex-freelancers or just ex-employees of any stake the LAST thing I would want ESPECIALLY if I was above reproach is have it appear that I have undercut my competition or engaged in unethical or unprofessional conduct. If the accusations against some members of IMR are true and are going to factor into Topps decisions at all a new company would be best served by staying out of the mud pit.

You (Fuchs) responded with the equivalent of a digital stutter quoting figures that frankly, don't mean anything in the scheme of things other then a dishonest attempt at shock value. The OFTEN DEBUNKED[/b[ 750k figure implies A) None of the draws were legitimate [b]at all B) He and his wife recieve no monetary rewards what so ever for five years worth of work on the companies behalf. While mingling of funds has been admitted to we basically have one side, the side presumably qualified to know saying it's not nearly as much an issue as people have made it out to be and while concerning and infuriating is being worked on.

Fortunately I presume we as SR fans have an advocate in this, an angel of mercy or wrath complete with flaming sword who has both the authority and a vested interest in doing what's best for the line. That entity is the Topps corporation who I'm sure even now is weighing and measuring issues they can look deeper in on then anyone here. If they think IMR can deliver and have righted their ship and continue to deliver great products they will render unto them. If they think another entity, Sandstorm for instance, can do a better job they will likely pick them up through the bidding process.

Final cleanup:
I do not believe the late payment of freelancers is as big a black spot as you claim it to be. As others have stated every company that has worked on SR has done this at some point and many other gaming companies that employee freelancers do as well. Do I support those who withhold copyright until payment has been issued, yes it's their right and I support that.

Further I do not believe that the freelancer pool concern is really as valid as people make it out to be, every single creative team that has been involved in Shadowrun since I've been playing it has turned out material that I've loved and stuff that honestly the paper have better served as TP. I don't see this trend changing overmuch. If anything I lament about this whole process is previously I disliked certain books, now I dislike the work of certain people.

Final thought: I don't believe in two wrongs making a right but given the number of leaks, disclosures, and breaches of trust involved on all sides can you not see how much a new company even composed of former freelancers would want to distance themselves from this whole mess. That you try and connect this point back to the same talking points about IMR/Coleman does more to underline and re-enforce my point then I could hope. In business and legal proceedings especially to an outside agency (Topps) "they started it" is a horrible thing to be a negotiation platform on.

[Ancient History]

You (Fuchs) responded with the equivalent of a digital stutter quoting figures that frankly, don't mean anything in the scheme of things other then a dishonest attempt at shock value. The OFTEN DEBUNKED[/b[ 750k figure implies A) None of the draws were legitimate [b]at all B) He and his wife recieve no monetary rewards what so ever for five years worth of work on the companies behalf. While mingling of funds has been admitted to we basically have one side, the side presumably qualified to know saying it's not nearly as much an issue as people have made it out to be and while concerning and infuriating is being worked on.

I'm pretty sure the draws were separate from the salary that Loren L. Coleman received. I'm also pretty sure that Frank originally quoted $850k, which was based not only on the $726k in questionable draws but also the speculated $100k or so in unreported income from the conventions - which, t'be fair, we don't have numbers for. And which IMR apparently also doesn't have numbers for. Because no numbers were reported.

I do not believe the late payment of freelancers is as big a black spot as you claim it to be. As others have stated every company that has worked on SR has done this at some point and many other gaming companies that employee freelancers do as well. Do I support those who withhold copyright until payment has been issued, yes it's their right and I support that.

Okay, I was generally willing to let you engage in hyperbole, but this is bullshit. Just because everybody else does a bad thing does not mean it stops being a bad thing. If you see a riot in progress, it doesn't mean it's okay for you to pick up a brick and break a window.

Further I do not believe that the freelancer pool concern is really as valid as people make it out to be, every single creative team that has been involved in Shadowrun since I've been playing it has turned out material that I've loved and stuff that honestly the paper have better served as TP. I don't see this trend changing overmuch. If anything I lament about this whole process is previously I disliked certain books, now I dislike the work of certain people.

T'be fair, you haven't seen anything from the latest batch yet. The closest you've got is 10 Jackpointers, which was heavily edited by people no longer involved in editing.

Final thought: I don't believe in two wrongs making a right but given the number of leaks, disclosures, and breaches of trust involved on all sides can you not see how much a new company even composed of former freelancers would want to distance themselves from this whole mess. That you try and connect this point back to the same talking points about IMR/Coleman does more to underline and re-enforce my point then I could hope. In business and legal proceedings especially to an outside agency (Topps) "they started it" is a horrible thing to be a negotiation platform on.

I'm failing to grasp your central point here - the fact that people recognized there was a problem, attempted to address it, were shot down, and then began informing the general public of the problem - is a bad thing? Breaking an NDA is a bad thing. Breaking someone's trust is a bad thing. Trying to do the right thing the right way and failing to achieve the desired result is not the bad thing. Informing the public of these issues is not necessarily a bad thing, provided you're not breaking an NDA. Which, as I think we've covered, didn't exist for a large number of the freelancers. I'm not saying people have been all sweetness and light, but at what point exactly do you draw the line and blame everyone equally? That makes no sense to me.

[BTFreeLancer]

I'm pretty sure the draws were separate from the salary that Loren L. Coleman received. I'm also pretty sure that Frank originally quoted $850k, which was based not only on the $726k in questionable draws but also the speculated $100k or so in unreported income from the conventions - which, t'be fair, we don't have numbers for. And which IMR apparently also doesn't have numbers for. Because no numbers were reported.

and to be fair, we only have the graphs - Phil never expanded on what they actually represented.

and the $726k figure doesn't make sense anyway when you look at the individual draws graph. The draws attributed to Loren and Heather add to about $500k (the total draws are listed at $726k - but again, Phil has decided not to expand as to what that actually meant, and whether the two graphs were even related); not trying to downplay the Colemans' actions here either, but simply point out that people hear something is a fact from Source A, don't bother to look at the evidence presented themselves, and then pass that "fact" on to other folks as if it was holy writ.

this is why following this can be frustrating - because along with actual facts, we get these "facts" that are repeated so often, people forget that they're not facts at all. Like the Coleman's house being paid for illegitimately - I've not seen any evidence to support this at all, but people repeatedly state it as fact when making their arguments. Likewise, Randall Bills "support" for Loren's actions that caused Jen to leave - despite repeatedly being told otherwise, people still state that Randall has committed illegitimate acts too, when Randall's only crime as far as I cant tell is trying to do too much, wear too many hats. (Problem with being a Jack of all trades is you're a master of none.)

[Ancient History]

Likewise, Randall Bills "support" for Loren's actions that caused Jen to leave - despite repeatedly being told otherwise, people still state that Randall has committed illegitimate acts too, when Randall's only crime as far as I cant tell is trying to do too much, wear too many hats. (Problem with being a Jack of all trades is you're a master of none.)

Well, no. If Bills is "guilty" of anything, it's being fully supportive of Coleman even when the extant of his actions became clear and his assent and support of unethical or illegal behavior.

[Grinder]

Can't this thread just lay low for a while until the new license deal is done (no matter which company will get it)? I'm so sick of all the pissing contests over single words and sentences (LurkerOutThere, Fuchs, I'm looking at you) and the repetive postings of opinions (everyone in this thread).

[LurkerOutThere]

I'm not privy to Loren's salary or lack thereof if he did the final tally on the comingling is more damning considering that's a point I'd given him (as a person I don't know and don't have interaction with) the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking of Hyperbole, did you really just liken late payment to gang rape? I mean Saint Carlin tells us that rape is funny but I think your analogy is odd at best. But lets go with it for a moment, how long did you continue to work in a late payment situation before you finally withheld copyright? Is it really rape then if you continue to let it happen? I won't pretend moral outrage at your choice of metaphor just puzzlement. If we're going to use your (really bad) parallel at some point you as the the victim (rapie?) decided to go hang out at the scene of the crime with your assailants because you had nothing better to do on a Friday night.

To be fair your right I haven't seen anything I'm withholding judgment. The last crew gave me some books or just sections of books I really didn't care for or would have gone a different way, what's your point?

Again This particular item is thus. If i was in the former freelancers shoes the professional thing to do when trying to get a new contract is to not sling mud at your previous outfit, no matter how much they deserve it. This is based on my own contracting and interpersonal experience. Put it this way, you go into a Job interview, do you trash on your previous boss? No you do not. Because your new boss, no matter how much you think your justified, will usually assume your going to bag on them too.

[LurkerOutThere]

(LurkerOutThere, Fuchs, I'm looking at you)

/me does a trick!

In all seriousness I totally agree with you Grinder but my complaint long throughout is this thread is so full of misrepresentations, heresay, and outright fabrications that have been repeated to the point where they become accepted knowledge it boggles the mind. I railed against it a lot in the past and had mostly gotten over it, but then low and behold we try and have an actual bit of speculation and as soon as it looks to some like we're off the talking points someone has to bring up the dogma line again. It sounds like a campaign of slander and I despise those wherever I'm sitting on an issue.

Point of truth: If a majority, or even a portion of the things alleged are true and Topps knows about them (and how could they not at this point?) Shouldn't we all at the point of letting the dice fall and the game play out? Why the continual smear campaign, if it's true it'll stick and come out. If it's untrue it won't.

[BTFreeLancer]

Well, no. If Bills is "guilty" of anything, it's being fully supportive of Coleman even when the extant of his actions became clear and his assent and support of unethical or illegal behavior.

well, that's my point - we have no idea how supportive Randall is of Loren.

the only thing (and not even publicly mind you) Randall has said is he supports Loren because he thinks it's the best option for IMR to retain the licenses and move forward. We have no idea as to what extent that support entails.

[Grinder]

/me does a trick!

In all seriousness I totally agree with you Grinder but my complaint long throughout is this thread is so full of misrepresentations, heresay, and outright fabrications that have been repeated to the point where they become accepted knowledge it boggles the mind. I railed against it a lot in the past and had mostly gotten over it, but then low and behold we try and have an actual bit of speculation and as soon as it looks to some like we're off the talking points someone has to bring up the dogma line again. It sounds like a campaign of slander and I despise those wherever I'm sitting on an issue.

Point of truth: If a majority, or even a portion of the things alleged are true and Topps knows about them (and how could they not at this point?) Shouldn't we all at the point of letting the dice fall and the game play out? Why the continual smear campaign, if it's true it'll stick and come out. If it's untrue it won't.

Agreed on that. So why can't everyone hold their fingers still or go playing Shadowrun or hang out in the sun insted of repeating the same positions over and over again? By now everyone has made their opinions clear and tried their best to interprete their limited knowledge of the whole mess as the truth. Seriously, I don't think that any newcomers join this thread anyway, so way go over the same handful of "facts" over and over again?

[Ancient History]

Speaking of Hyperbole, did you really just liken late payment to gang rape?

I did. I changed the phrasing because somebody complained, but as far as group bad behavior goes, its a very effective illustration.

I mean Saint Carlin tells us that rape is funny but I think your analogy is odd at best. But lets go with it for a moment, how long did you continue to work in a late payment situation before you finally withheld copyright? Is it really rape then if you continue to let it happen? I won't pretend moral outrage at your choice of metaphor just puzzlement. If we're going to use your (really bad) parallel at some point you as the the victim (rapie?) decided to go hang out at the scene of the crime with your assailants because you had nothing better to do on a Friday night.

Wow. Just wow, man. I'm going to assume you didn't even read that, because you're basically trying to defend rape there, and I don't think that's what you want to do.

well, that's my point - we have no idea how supportive Randall is of Loren.

This is actually untrue. Aside from the letter to the freelancers, we know that Randall is still working at CGL with Loren. Even ignoring all the other shit I've hear about Randall, it speaks volumes about him that he is still willing to work with Loren and leave Loren in charge even after the extant of Loren's shenanigans had been revealed. That is how supportive Randall is of Loren.

[Grinder]

Last warning: don't post the same shit over and over again, otherwise this thread will be locked too.

[BTFreeLancer]

Even ignoring all the other shit I've hear about Randall, it speaks volumes about him that he is still willing to work with Loren and leave Loren in charge even after the extant of Loren's shenanigans had been revealed. That is how supportive Randall is of Loren.

What it speaks volumes to is that Randall considers the best way for IMR (ie, his business and livelihood) to survive is to retain Loren in some capacity. The guy is damned either way. If he tries and limit the damage to himself and his family personally by keeping Loren around, you and others accuse him of supporting Loren. If he does the "moral" thing as you see it, he loses his job and livelihood, not to mention has a nasty fight on his hands to recover the monies he might be owed.

what exactly do you think he should do Bobby? What would you do in the same situation? Hell, we know what you'd do - look out for number one, and screw everyone else. You and the other SR freelancers made that very clear - you were quite willing to throw the rest of us to the proverbial wolves as long as you got your due. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't go castigating Randall and the other owners for doing exactly the same thing. You had the option of walking away free and easy - they don't.

sticking around at IMR shouldn't be construed as support for Loren's action is my point - and quite a few posters have taken exactly that viewpoint.

[LurkerOutThere]

I did. I changed the phrasing because somebody complained, but as far as group bad behavior goes, its a very effective illustration.


Wow. Just wow, man. I'm going to assume you didn't even read that, because you're basically trying to defend rape there, and I don't think that's what you want to do.

I read it, I just chose not respond to your asinine metaphor's source material. You didn't even have the fortitude to say "Wait I shouldn't have done that" but you want to say I'm defending it? How are you mentally damaged that you think it's an effective illustration for discourse purposes? Gang rape is a violent assault on another's person by multiple people predicated on the victim's complete and utter lack of ability to fight back, it involves psychological trauma as well as the physical effects possibly including damage, disease, pregnancy, and death. The other just so we're all on the same planet involves one side in a business arrangement not paying the other for work already produced, no physical damage occurs from the act itself and while it is theft the huge difference is the writers do have a recourse in the form of withholding copyrights and seeking legal redress to stop the event. Both acts are wrong but they are nowhere near parallel both in severity of offense and the victims ability to actually do something about it.

For those keeping score I wasn't outraged then, but I'm kind of annoyed now. Your stupid little "GOTCHA' goes way beyond the pale, I didn't want to pick a fight at the time so I tried to make it lighter then in hindsight I really should have been. You are personally involved in the events at hand but last I heard you've got your paychecks that after bitching about you cashed. But you really think gang rape is a good metaphor in a half hear ted attempt to score some kind of gotcha moment? Throughout this entire discourse I have tried so hard to put myself in your shoes, but I literally cannot wrap my mind around the conceit or stupidity it must have taken to liken your situation to a rape victim.

[Catadmin]

Lurker,

Bobby changed that line because I asked him to and because, when we discussed the issue privately, he agreed with the idea that the metaphor went a little too far. If he didn't agree, he wouldn't have changed it, so please stop bashing him over it.

[LurkerOutThere]

No, if he truly felt that way he would have either changed it an apologized or not brought it up any further. Either of which I would have been fine with or at the very least not called attention to it anymore. But basically my read on his comments is he sees nothing wrong with his metaphor and only changed it to assuage your complaints then he accused me of defending rape in one more cheap throw away gag. Basically by my read Bobby doesn't think that comment went to far or is sorry he did it, he's sorry you complained about it. By his own stake he still thinks there's a parallel there which I just don't see.

[Ancient History]

what exactly do you think he should do Bobby? What would you do in the same situation? Hell, we know what you'd do - look out for number one, and screw everyone else. You and the other SR freelancers made that very clear - you were quite willing to throw the rest of us to the proverbial wolves as long as you got your due. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't go castigating Randall and the other owners for doing exactly the same thing. You had the option of walking away free and easy - they don't.

Okay, since you're getting personal about it - this is a misconception I've run across before, from Jason Hardy. Nobody withheld copyright to screw other freelancers out of their rightfully earned monies. This is not about greed, and nobody withheld copyright or, in my case, terminated their contracts lightly. Those actions were the result of long periods of conversation and debate, and I know I for one asked a fair number of people for advice and gauged the situation before I made my decision - which was finally precipitated by events outside of my control. I don't pretend my actions don't affect BattleTech, because they did - my leaving created delays, and for a cash-strapped company like IMR those delays effect everybody that works for the company. I also didn't do it because of any personal benefit on my part - I don't know about you, but I've poured thousands of hours of unpaid, uncredited work into Shadowrun over the last five years. I've edited, proofed, written and rewritten on short notice and without pay, and I haven't been alone on that. Every freelancer deserves to get paid, and when after a long period of time of not getting paid you get wind of a situation like this - I had every reason to withdraw my copyrights when I did so. So did everybody else who did, and so does everyone else who hasn't. That isn't about looking out for number one, that's about sending a message to the management that you can't shit on the people you depend on to write this stuff. With Shadowrun, at least, I hope that message was received. People did finally start to get paid. I can't say that would have happened if people didn't withhold copyrights, because until some people did there was no motivation apparent among the management to do so.

I don't know about you, but I've lost on this deal. Everyboday has. I have terminated contracts that would have paid me a couple thousand dollars. Some of it, I like to think, is some of my best work. Now those sections have to be re-written, re-edited, re-laid out, re-proofed. That takes time and effort, and it hurts the company, it hurts the other freelancers, and it hurts the fans, because not only is the book delayed but I don't think the replacement sections written by scabs drafted in from BattleTech or Spells & Chrome are up to doing a proper job of it. On that last point, I hope I'm wrong, but only because I still love Shadowrun and want to see the best possible books. From my experience working with Jason Hardy, I can't say he wants the same thing, or understands how to do it.

That's on me. I could have taken more abuse. I could have waited and hoped that maybe Randall and Loren would decide to do right, and Jason would get a little vision, and maybe, just maybe my stuff would be printed in the books and eventually I'd get paid. Maybe IMR would pull through and all the people involved, who did all the things they were not supposed to - lied, stole, broke contracts, mismanaged monies - would never get what's coming to them, never learn their lesson, because nobody did a damn thing. If I had stuck it out and dealt with Jason in the hope of getting money - that would have been greed, and that would have been the wrong thing to do.

I might be an asshole, but dammit I'm an asshole for the right reasons.

[BTFreeLancer]

Okay, since you're getting personal about it - this is a misconception I've run across before, from Jason Hardy. Nobody withheld copyright to screw other freelancers out of their rightfully earned monies. This is not about greed, and nobody withheld copyright or, in my case, terminated their contracts lightly.

and to be honest, I'm not saying you did - I'm saying (and I apologize for being a bit harsh - it was uncalled for sorry) that you did it to look out for yourself. (My objection to withholding of copyright was that the SR guys could have dropped us a note and said we're about to tip over the apple cart, you might want to get organized yourselves. But that's neither here nor there.) You obviously have different views on the matter. I'd never say anyone was trying to screw the other freelancers over - I'd say they just didn't care

I also didn't do it because of any personal benefit on my part - I don't know about you, but I've poured thousands of hours of unpaid, uncredited work into Shadowrun over the last five years. I've edited, proofed, written and rewritten on short notice and without pay, and I haven't been alone on that. Every freelancer deserves to get paid, and when after a long period of time of not getting paid you get wind of a situation like this - I had every reason to withdraw my copyrights when I did so.

I'm not saying you didn't - my point is that your primary objective was to make sure you were okay (and "okay" refers to more than financially) at the end of things - which is how I view Randall and the others at IMR doing things the way they are. It's not a case of wanting to have Loren around, it's a case of having to have him around. And aside from the management issues - I've enjoyed my time freelancing for IMR (even if those days might be over). And yep, I've put in hours upon unpaid hours for the love of the game. As has every freelancer I would say. But you know going in the renumeration is not commensurate to the amount of work put in.

That isn't about looking out for number one, that's about sending a message to the management that you can't shit on the people you depend on to write this stuff.

see that's where we disagree - (and I'm referring to the SR freelancers who withheld copyright - not you) the decision to withhold copyright was looking out for number one, and not about sending a message.