CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting |
CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting |
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Jun 23 2010, 11:39 PM
Post
#529
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Jun 23 2010, 11:53 PM
Post
#531
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,666 Joined: 29-February 08 From: Scotland Member No.: 15,722 |
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. |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:00 AM
Post
#532
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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. |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:00 AM
Post
#533
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 19-May 10 Member No.: 18,593 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:11 AM
Post
#537
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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) . |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:31 AM
Post
#539
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,666 Joined: 29-February 08 From: Scotland Member No.: 15,722 |
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. @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. |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:35 AM
Post
#540
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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?! |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:48 AM
Post
#542
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 12:59 AM
Post
#544
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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) |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
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! |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 01:10 AM
Post
#547
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 84 Joined: 23-October 09 Member No.: 17,787 |
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. |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 01:10 AM
Post
#548
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 |
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 |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 01:36 AM
Post
#549
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 19-May 10 Member No.: 18,593 |
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? |
|
|
Jun 24 2010, 01:45 AM
Post
#550
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 |
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. |
|
|
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.