IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

32 Pages V  « < 20 21 22 23 24 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
> CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting
Tiger Eyes
post Jun 23 2010, 11:23 PM
Post #526


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Joined: 21-July 05
From: Seattle
Member No.: 7,508



I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but the conversation where I was asked to not report royalties was witnessed by another CGL employee, who immediately reported it to Randall. It was also discussed, at length, by the director team.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fistandantilus4....
post Jun 23 2010, 11:35 PM
Post #527


Uncle Fisty
**********

Group: Admin
Posts: 13,891
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Next To Her
Member No.: 6,928



We've seriously had three pages of the logical intricacies of 'Yes' and 'no' and 'is' is 'is' even to the point of bringing in the laws of physics. This is well beyond speculation at this point. This thread will not see a tenth or eleventh incarnation if it continues in this vein.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crizh
post Jun 23 2010, 11:37 PM
Post #528


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Scotland
Member No.: 15,722



I doubt it is going to make a difference to these guys.

If they can't challenge your veracity or reliability then they are going to continue down-playing the significance of the accusation.

It is beyond comprehension that an accusation of falsifying royalty reports has not been addressed by CGL if it is not 100% true.

Silence is just another form of damage control. Ignore it and hope it will go away. Or derail the thread again with trivial nonsense and hope everybody is so distracted by the shiny things that they will forget all about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 23 2010, 11:39 PM
Post #529


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (Tiger Eyes @ Jun 23 2010, 07:23 PM) *
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but the conversation where I was asked to not report royalties was witnessed by another CGL employee, who immediately reported it to Randall. It was also discussed, at length, by the director team.


I'm not pointing fingers, just speculating. I tend to side with you since I have worked for plenty of d-bags. Can't find the video link from the local news, but the last company I worked for got raided and shut down by state regulators a month after I left. But as I am sure you understand, until the dust settles, it is all just he said she said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 23 2010, 11:47 PM
Post #530


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



@Tiger Eyes: Actually the more I think about it the more similar I realize my situation actually was to yours. I had just found out I was becoming a father and realized what the company I was working for was actually doing and that I didn't want to set that kind of example for my son. I found a new job and put in my two weeks. I was IT administrator / web developer and they relied on what I did heavily and I was concerned I could be held liable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crizh
post Jun 23 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #531


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Scotland
Member No.: 15,722



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 24 2010, 12:39 AM) *
until the dust settles, it is all just he said she said.


But when the dust settles it might well be far too late.

You need to ask yourself 'What would I do if I were certain that this is true right now?' and consider the possible consequences of acting like it isn't true only to later discover that it is.

My feeling is swaying towards the position that I'm fairly sure that Jen' is being truthful and that CGL's silence on the matter is a corroborating silence. In which case I ought to be acting, right now, as if Jen' is telling the truth and actively trying to prevent CGL from profiting from their actions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 12:00 AM
Post #532


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (crizh @ Jun 23 2010, 07:53 PM) *
But when the dust settles it might well be far too late.

You need to ask yourself 'What would I do if I were certain that this is true right now?' and consider the possible consequences of acting like it isn't true only to later discover that it is.

My feeling is swaying towards the position that I'm fairly sure that Jen' is being truthful and that CGL's silence on the matter is a corroborating silence. In which case I ought to be acting, right now, as if Jen' is telling the truth and actively trying to prevent CGL from profiting from their actions.


I am pretty sure CGL's silence is council induced silence, which doesn't really mean anything. Without the court transcripts were all just talking out of our rears' basically. And without concrete evidence there isn't anything for you to act on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Taharqa
post Jun 24 2010, 12:00 AM
Post #533


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 19-May 10
Member No.: 18,593



QUOTE (Deadmannumberone @ Jun 23 2010, 10:30 PM) *


I am quite aware of the source of the quote. I am just trying to figure out exactly what M&P's point in bringing it up was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Chase
post Jun 24 2010, 12:00 AM
Post #534


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,179
Joined: 10-June 10
From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border
Member No.: 18,688



QUOTE (Cabral @ Jun 23 2010, 11:48 PM) *
Okay, I only did a quick search, but I only found that what Tiger Eyes* was asked to do violated her personal ethics, CGL's contractual obligations and was potentially illegal. Without addressing her ability to fully evaluate CGL's contractual obligations, I don't see any real basis for a slander case.

I don't think there is anything conspicuous about the silence. Particularly if they want to convey that there are no hard feelings towards former employees and freelancers.


Yes, but her report of what she was asked to do doesn't have the bearing on a slander case that one might think.

Slander is the public defamation of character by the spoken word; libel the written. If the accusations were untrue, then there could and would be a suit to recoup the losses of the defamatory remark - the truth is a defense against slander and libel.

My point being, if Tiger Eyes was lying, then her reporting of it to us at large would constitute libel (since it's written) because it is false and defamatory. Should LLC be able to prove that business was harmed by those remarks (which is what we're discussing in a way, yes?) then there is definitely a case.

If there's no case - especially one as volatile in these circles as this - then one must ask why. If it is the simplest solution - Tiger Eyes is telling the truth - then the argument of the last few pages is moot. She is to be believed, as her veracity is confirmed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Taharqa
post Jun 24 2010, 12:06 AM
Post #535


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 19-May 10
Member No.: 18,593



@crizh

Your example is a classic case of "sampling on the dependent variable." Sure you can cherry-pick cases where being circumspect was wrong in hindsight, but you can also cherry-pick cases where people jumped to the wrong conclusions and should have been more circumspect. It means nothing, and yes you did Godwin the discussion by comparing cautious folks like myself to nazi sympathizers. Good for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MindandPen
post Jun 24 2010, 12:09 AM
Post #536


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 200
Joined: 23-March 10
From: Nashville, TN, CAS
Member No.: 18,348



QUOTE (Taharqa @ Jun 23 2010, 07:00 PM) *
I am quite aware of the source of the quote. I am just trying to figure out exactly what M&P's point in bringing it up was.


My point was that the Bill Clinton reference is one of the better known examples of trying to parse language to the point of absurdity. He still lost his law license and was the first elected US president to be impeached (not convicted, and Johnson wasn't elected or convicted).

The discussion, while interesting on a philosophy or logic forum, probably veered way off of this thread several posts back. It was a humorous attempt to make a point. I attached it as a reponse to your post as you were the last one in that part of the thread when I got there.

-M&P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 12:11 AM
Post #537


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Jun 23 2010, 08:00 PM) *
Yes, but her report of what she was asked to do doesn't have the bearing on a slander case that one might think.

Slander is the public defamation of character by the spoken word; libel the written. If the accusations were untrue, then there could and would be a suit to recoup the losses of the defamatory remark - the truth is a defense against slander and libel.

My point being, if Tiger Eyes was lying, then her reporting of it to us at large would constitute libel (since it's written) because it is false and defamatory. Should LLC be able to prove that business was harmed by those remarks (which is what we're discussing in a way, yes?) then there is definitely a case.

If there's no case - especially one as volatile in these circles as this - then one must ask why. If it is the simplest solution - Tiger Eyes is telling the truth - then the argument of the last few pages is moot. She is to be believed, as her veracity is confirmed.


Or it means they don't think she has the money to make her worth suing. But the fact that she is now working for the company that took IP's from Catalyst, lol well now that just makes this a darned soap opera. Ok this is pure speculation so follow me on this; a conspiracy to manufacture probable cause to terminate a contract. Say a game made a lot more money than expected. The IP holder now feels unfairly compensated by the publisher. The IP holder then recruits other internal employees within the publisher to assist in manufacturing a condition granting them probable cause to terminate their contracts and reclaim the IP and print it themselves. I don't know but it sounds like an exciting run (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tete
post Jun 24 2010, 12:16 AM
Post #538


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle Wa, USA
Member No.: 1,139



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 24 2010, 12:47 AM) *
I was IT administrator / web developer and they relied on what I did heavily and I was concerned I could be held liable.


Anyone who has had that role probably has encounter questionable ethics. I gave a boss once 120 days to make a "reasonable effort" to buy licenses from the date I installed it for him or I quit (and I put it in writing with both he and I signing it). They started buying 10% of the behind licenses per month starting 30 days after the first install. Fortunately I happened to have a friend in the licensing department of the company we were stealing the software from that told me when they audit they look for "reasonable effort". It all worked out within a year but I had to threaten to quit, and if I hadn't refused to install it without something in writing my guess is nothing would have been done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crizh
post Jun 24 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #539


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Scotland
Member No.: 15,722



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 24 2010, 01:00 AM) *
I am pretty sure CGL's silence is council induced silence, which doesn't really mean anything. Without the court transcripts were all just talking out of our rears' basically. And without concrete evidence there isn't anything for you to act on.


There is no ongoing litigation regarding Jen's claims. A substantial amount of time after those claims were made a completely unrelated action was taken against CGL by a third party. There was never any reason not to rebut her claims and there still is not.

A lack of concrete evidence for Claymores on the jungle trail you are traversing is not a good reason not to take precautions against being blown to bits.


QUOTE (Taharqa @ Jun 24 2010, 01:06 AM) *
@crizh

Your example is a classic case of "sampling on the dependent variable." Sure you can cherry-pick cases where being circumspect was wrong in hindsight, but you can also cherry-pick cases where people jumped to the wrong conclusions and should have been more circumspect. It means nothing, and yes you did Godwin the discussion by comparing cautious folks like myself to nazi sympathizers. Good for you.


No my example is a classic one of blindly trusting someone that many people suspect is up to no good because you lack 'sufficient' evidence.

Assuming that a party that is accused of malfeasance is innocent when making business decisions is idiocy. You do your due diligence and cover your ass. You don't sit on your elbows and pretend nothing bad could possibly go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 12:35 AM
Post #540


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (crizh @ Jun 23 2010, 08:31 PM) *
There is no ongoing litigation regarding Jen's claims. A substantial amount of time after those claims were made a completely unrelated action was taken against CGL by a third party. There was never any reason not to rebut her claims and there still is not.

A lack of concrete evidence for Claymores on the jungle trail you are traversing is not a good reason not to take precautions against being blown to bits.




No my example is a classic one of blindly trusting someone that many people suspect is up to no good because you lack 'sufficient' evidence.

Assuming that a party that is accused of malfeasance is innocent when making business decisions is idiocy. You do your due diligence and cover your ass. You don't sit on your elbows and pretend nothing bad could possibly go wrong.


No litigation against her claims no. But she does now work for the company with whom the litigation is against, and something like a defamation suit wouldn't come until after the initial litigation is resolved. Unless the situation comes up as part of the initial litigation which depending on how messy it gets, it is certainly possible since the allegation is relevant to the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Chase
post Jun 24 2010, 12:43 AM
Post #541


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,179
Joined: 10-June 10
From: St. Louis, UCAS/CAS Border
Member No.: 18,688



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 24 2010, 01:11 AM) *
Or it means they don't think she has the money to make her worth suing. But the fact that she is now working for the company that took IP's from Catalyst, lol well now that just makes this a darned soap opera. Ok this is pure speculation so follow me on this; a conspiracy to manufacture probable cause to terminate a contract. Say a game made a lot more money than expected. The IP holder now feels unfairly compensated by the publisher. The IP holder then recruits other internal employees within the publisher to assist in manufacturing a condition granting them probable cause to terminate their contracts and reclaim the IP and print it themselves. I don't know but it sounds like an exciting run (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) .


SPECULATION? IN THIS THREAD?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #542


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (Doc Chase @ Jun 23 2010, 08:43 PM) *
SPECULATION? IN THIS THREAD?!


I didn't even add the possibility of CGL counter suing Sandstorm to bankrupt them in litigation. If I the owner and I knew I was right I would do this. So the fact that they haven't either means he is wrong, or it means he can't steal enough money to pay for it. I don't know I'm just talking here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tymeaus Jalynsfe...
post Jun 24 2010, 12:53 AM
Post #543


Prime Runner Ascendant
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 17,568
Joined: 26-March 09
From: Aurora, Colorado
Member No.: 17,022



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 23 2010, 05:48 PM) *
I didn't even add the possibility of CGL counter suing Sandstorm to bankrupt them in litigation. If I was LLC and I knew I was right I would do this. So the fact that they haven't either means he is wrong, or it means he can't steal enough money to pay for it. I don't know I'm just talking here.



And the Conspiracy Theories are really flying now...

Wow...

Keep the Faith
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 12:59 AM
Post #544


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 23 2010, 08:53 PM) *
And the Conspiracy Theories are really flying now...

Wow...

Keep the Faith


I thought the goal of thread #9 was to make it to thread #10, my bad.

But honestly, you gotta admit, that is a top notch conspiracy theory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tymeaus Jalynsfe...
post Jun 24 2010, 01:03 AM
Post #545


Prime Runner Ascendant
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 17,568
Joined: 26-March 09
From: Aurora, Colorado
Member No.: 17,022



QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jun 23 2010, 05:59 PM) *
I thought the goal of thread #9 was to make it to thread #10, my bad.

But honestly, you gotta admit, that is a top notch conspiracy theory. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)


Maybe, but not one that I ascribe to at least...

But you are right... Speculation is indeed the motive of the thread though...

Keep the Faith
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lithium
post Jun 24 2010, 01:06 AM
Post #546


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 9-April 10
Member No.: 18,429



Talking of conspiracies, am I the only one who cannot access www.catalystgamelabs.com today?


EDIT: Nevermind, working for me again, but just saw the notification of the street date for the new Corp book!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Congzilla
post Jun 24 2010, 01:10 AM
Post #547


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 23-October 09
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 23 2010, 09:03 PM) *
Maybe, but not one that I ascribe to at least...

But you are right... Speculation is indeed the motive of the thread though...

Keep the Faith


If I thought it was right I wouldn't label it as a conspiracy theory. I would do what to many people in this thread have done and label an opinion as fact. But if you think CGL's lawyers aren't looking at that exact scenario, then I think you are mistaken. Lawyers don't care about tiny details like facts, they are paid to win...period. Reasonable doubt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shinobi Killfist
post Jun 24 2010, 01:10 AM
Post #548


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,431
Joined: 3-December 03
Member No.: 5,872



QUOTE (Lithium @ Jun 23 2010, 08:06 PM) *
Talking of conspiracies, am I the only one who cannot access www.catalystgamelabs.com today?


I can access it, maybe they were just updating the site while you were trying.

There news for the day is "The following books have a Street Date of July 21st, 2010:

Shadowrun Corporate Guide ($29.99)"

Edit: I'm too slow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Taharqa
post Jun 24 2010, 01:36 AM
Post #549


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 19-May 10
Member No.: 18,593



QUOTE (crizh @ Jun 24 2010, 12:31 AM) *
No my example is a classic one of blindly trusting someone that many people suspect is up to no good because you lack 'sufficient' evidence.


Nothing you have said in any way addresses the problem that I brought up, namely that you are just cherry-picking cases based on hindsight. Would you like me to bring up one of the many cases of African Americans lynched in the South for supposed infractions of the social order?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cabral
post Jun 24 2010, 01:45 AM
Post #550


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 734
Joined: 30-August 05
Member No.: 7,646



QUOTE (Tiger Eyes @ Jun 23 2010, 06:23 PM) *
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but the conversation where I was asked to not report royalties was witnessed by another CGL employee, who immediately reported it to Randall. It was also discussed, at length, by the director team.

I hope that wasn't directed at me in particular, but as I said before, for various reasons, I believe your statements to be true. I primarily objected to the assertion that there were only two valid positions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

32 Pages V  « < 20 21 22 23 24 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd December 2024 - 12:38 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.