CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting Options

[Cthulhudreams]

Wait, what. If Bills said 'well, in accordance with the contract, I want you to do XYZ' then Tiger Eyes is lying - because that's not what she said happened at all.

Again, there isn't really a 'third way' - either you think Tiger eyes is telling the truth, or you think Tiger eyes is lying (in your case because she's lying about the contractual requirements, and in the previous case because she lacks credibility so you don't belive her.. i.e. you think she's lying, or whatever)

[deek]

Tiger Eyes could have been told to "fix the books". She could have been asked to enter some numbers someplace where she didn't feel it appropriate. She could have been asked to change past numbers and not been given a reason, read into it and objected. Or not read into it and it was simply inaccurate.

So, she quit because either she was being set up to take a fall, or she was being put in a situation where she could be fired for non-compliance or she was in a situation that she didn't feel that doing something "wrong" was worth keeping a job.

I just can't see how anything about that situation could be black and white when you have at least three people involved. They all have motives and I doubt those were made available to all parties involved. I believe what Tiger Eyes did and her reaction was what she believed was right for her. I don't know what right for me or right in general would be unless I was in her situation.

[Kid Chameleon]

So do you think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports or not?

What if the answer if "I don't know"?

[Endroren]

I just can't see how anything about that situation could be black and white when you have at least three people involved.

The facts of the situation are black or white BUT I'd bet my SR 1E core rules that we'll never get those facts. That is to say, we'll never see a CCTV video of the conversation, or a tape recording, or some magical document that proves things one way or another.

So if that's the case, you're right - there is no true black or white from where we, the audience, are standing. All we've got are opinions, personal accounts, and rumors. And at that point, if we care, all we can say is "Who do we trust?" and make our own, personal decision based on that trust.

As a few people have said - there IS a truth here - a definite "Yes or No" answer - the problem is that we'll never get that magical affirmation of truth so we've got to work with what we have and what we believe.

(And for what it is worth, at this stage of the game I happen to believe Jennifer - but then again, that's just my opinion.)

[tete]

If his actions were criminal, then his bargaining position is weak. Most people do anything they can to stay out of prison.

Your assuming someone holds him responsible. Thats just not the way it works around these parts with the ex-Microsoft/Boeing/etc deep pockets. See what happens is his friends will bail him out, probably by having him declare bankruptcy and then investing in some new venture where he can co-mingle funds again. I've seen companies with 10 employees with a fleet of BMWs paid for by the company. I've also seen where investors make their buddy CEO with a fat salary and say just do nothing don't F up my company (which amazingly they have a hard time doing). They will get a signing bonus of some 5 million dollar mansion and do their best to ruin the company by doing things they think are boosting moral or helping with the bottom line, only with no experience they really have no idea.

Besides your supporting a much worse corporation every time you turn on your iPod, boot up Windows, or do a Google search.

Well they do pay their employees and contractors... Worse is kinda relative. I will say this all those things you think are so evil with big corporations are 100x worse with small business when investors are involved (usually, there are always exceptions) because no one has the time to police you when you making less than 10 million a year. Small buisness without investors depends a lot on the owner. I've seen some owners who had ethics and some who didn't

[deek]

(And for what it is worth, at this stage of the game I happen to believe Jennifer - but then again, that's just my opinion.)

I'm in the same boat. I believe Jennifer, based on what she wrote and how she handled herself after. But again, its hard not to believe when you don't have the other side speaking for themselves...all opinion, of course!

[Cabral]

I really get a splinter under my fingernails when someone tries to muddy the waters like this.

Some questions do have yes/no answers and are in fact black or white.

No muddying involved. Yes, some issues are yes/no. This is not one of them.

I cannot say what happened between Tiger Eyes and LLC. As such, "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information" is as valid a response as "yes, she was asked to do something inappropriate", "no, she is a part of a conspiracy", or even "I don't think there was wrongdoing on anyone's part; it was misunderstanding."

I understand that some people feel very strongly on these matters, whether from personal involvement or similar experiences, but it does not validate the dismissal of sound conclusions.

A common misconception about the US legal system is that "not guilty" is the same as "innocent"; in fact, it signifies only that there was not sufficient evidence to render a guilty verdict. It does not address true innocence. By the same principle, it is okay here to say, I do not have enough information to render a decision either way.

[emouse]

There's the old saying that there are three sides to every story. Your side, their side, and reality.

Saying you don't think you have enough information to pass judgement is not the same as saying someone is lying.

To me, it doesn't matter too much going forward because in that particular case the party potentially wronged is Topps. Topps has arranged to have someone actively oversee the operations of the company.

On the other hand, I am much more concerned with whether freelancers who are owed money get paid and paid timely in the future. Unlike Topps, the freelancers aren't in a position where they can oversee what's going on. Paying them requires CGL to do the right thing on a more voluntary level, so goes a much longer way in getting any sort of credibility or trust back.

Once new printed material shows up, I'd definitely like to hear from freelancers confirming whether or not they were paid promptly.

[David Hill]

There's the old saying that there are three sides to every story. Your side, their side, and reality.

Saying you don't think you have enough information to pass judgement is not the same as saying someone is lying.

To me, it doesn't matter too much going forward because in that particular case the party potentially wronged is Topps. Topps has arranged to have someone actively oversee the operations of the company.

On the other hand, I am much more concerned with whether freelancers who are owed money get paid and paid timely in the future. Unlike Topps, the freelancers aren't in a position where they can oversee what's going on. Paying them requires CGL to do the right thing on a more voluntary level, so goes a much longer way in getting any sort of credibility or trust back.

Once new printed material shows up, I'd definitely like to hear from freelancers confirming whether or not they were paid promptly.

In the name of transparency, I'll announce when I get paid for any of the books I've worked on, if you're interested. I know I've contributed minor work to 6WA, a chunk of War, a chunk of Attitude, and a few other things.

[Redjack]

No muddying involved. Yes, some issues are yes/no. This is not one of them.

Yes it is. You either believe it or you don't. An 'I don't know' is a negative response denoting that at this point you have not been convinced. Simply. Cut and dried.

[Jaid]

Yes it is. You either believe it or you don't. An 'I don't know' is a negative response denoting that at this point you have not been convinced. Simply. Cut and dried.

no. it really isn't. pretending like it is won't make it so.

"i don't have enough information to answer that" is not the same thing as "i think she's lying", any more than it is the same thing as "i think she's telling the truth."

[Redjack]

Wow. Just wow.

[Jaid]

Wow. Just wow.

ok. since you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this, let's present it as follows:

"I am slightly inclined at present to believe [X or Y], but feel that my ability to make a proper judgment call on this is impeded by the fact that we only have one side of the story, therefore I don't feel it is appropriate to give a response because in my own personal opinion, my judgment call is not valid."

see? wow, amazing, almost like magic, a legitimate, valid reason to not have a strong opinion one way or another. we don't have all the facts.

if i ask you what A + B is, and i tell you that it's either 0 or 1, and you're only allowed to answer one of those, are you going to tell me which one it is just by looking at it, or are you going to think to yourself "hey, there isn't enough information there for me to answer that question reliably". ultimately, an answer in that case would be nothing more than a blind guess, and isn't really an informed opinion at all.

except in this case, there aren't only two variables, and there aren't only two possible answers. hell, we don't even know how many variables there are. how hard is it to grasp that there is not a sufficient amount of information to provide an answer with any degree of confidence? and why is it somehow unreasonable to be hesitant to give an opinion on something you don't know anything about?

[Redjack]

Drop it Jaid. This isn't where you want to pick a fight by repainting what I said.

[blackwulf]

As they like to say in Scotland Not proven which is an actual verdict. Do I beleive her I find her more believable then some others but belief is not proof. Last time I checked it was innocent until PROVEN guilty except in france of course. blackwulf

[Ol' Scratch]

Drop it Jaid. This isn't where you want to continue to be obtuse and pick a fight.

Nothing personal, but if anyone was trolling it was you. A couple people were stating that they weren't willing to swing either way blindly, and offered up a third opinion on the situation. Then you came in and told them they were all wrong and the world revolves around black-and-white answers. Now you're directly threatening people because they're not agreeing with you? Oy.

[Redjack]

As they like to say in Scotland Not proven which is an actual verdict. Do I beleive her I find her more believable then some others but belief is not proof. Last time I checked it was innocent until PROVEN guilty except in france of course. blackwulf

The following quote was made "So do you think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports or not?"

A long discourse commenced about how the answer to that question was not yes/no.

I simply replied that yes, it is a yes or no answer. I did not give my opinion as to the answer, nor the gray that could be extrapolated from the question. I simply said {effectively} that the question is boolean. A lack of facts to support affirmation do in fact yield a negative answer. My entire add to the conversation was to nudge those quoting logic, that they are becoming too emotionally involved in the question to quote logic.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Drop it Jaid. This isn't where you want to continue to be obtuse and pick a fight.

So, calling someone "obtuse" is not a personal attack? Good to know.

[Redjack]

Nothing personal, but if anyone was trolling it was you. A couple people were stating that they weren't willing to swing either way blindly, and offered up a third opinion on the situation. Then you came in and told them they were all wrong and the world revolves around black-and-white answers. Now you're directly threatening people because they're not agreeing with you? Oy.

Doc - No one mentioned trolling. However, my choice of wording could have been better given my status. Also, please do not repaint what I said. I did not say everyone was wrong or that everything was black and white. Read my last post for a better explanation.

[Grinder]

So, calling someone "obtuse" is not a personal attack? Good to know.

Thank you for the question, the moderators will review the post in question and take action if needed.

[Derek]

The following quote was made "So do you think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports or not?"

A long discourse commenced about how the answer to that question was not yes/no.

I simply replied that yes, it is a yes or no answer. I did not give my opinion as to the answer, nor the gray that could be extrapolated from the question. I simply said {effectively} that the question is boolean. A lack of facts to support affirmation do in fact yield a negative answer. My entire add to the conversation was to nudge those quoting logic, that they are becoming too emotionally involved in the question to quote logic.

See, here is where you are wrong.

The answer to "Was Tiger Eyes asked to falsify reports" is indeed a boolean, yes or no.

However, the answer to "Do you think Tiger Eyes was asked to falsify reports or not?" is not a boolean. There is a third choice, "I'm not sure", which is functionally equivalent to 'I don't have enough information to decide yet"

And thus, you are wrong.

[Redjack]

So, calling someone "obtuse" is not a personal attack? Good to know.

ok. since you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this, let's present it as follows:

Robert - I allowed myself to be baited and reply in kind. I edited my post, but obviously not before hitting the submit button. I apologize.

[Redjack]

And thus, you are wrong.

Drop it. Its done. Over. Move on.

[emouse]

In the name of transparency, I'll announce when I get paid for any of the books I've worked on, if you're interested. I know I've contributed minor work to 6WA, a chunk of War, a chunk of Attitude, and a few other things.

Thanks! It would be greatly appreciated.

[Derek]

Drop it. Its done. Over. Move on.

Nothing is ever over on the internet.

All joking aside, the tone of your message is quite dismissive, and negative, and one would assume that since you were the party in the wrong in this case, you would admit so, or at least not act so. But, ah, I should wish so much for folks on the internet. I shall go back to lurking this thread, and hoping that something good comes of all of this.