I'm wondering why you decided to make a nice long post that was completely kosher, then finish it off with a shot at Cain. Was it really necessary? Are more personal attacks going to make this discussion better somehow?

More Drop bears. *nods sagely*

In other news, Drop Bear attacks continue to derail threads. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

At this point there are two possibilities, Cain is either borderline paranoid about the whole thing or he is intentionally misrepresenting other's words and facts. Neither situation is desirable but since calling him a liar, no matter how truthful it might be, is evidently a personal attack i chose to hope for the other alternative. Cain continues to blatantly misrepresent others on this boards statements to what best supports the argument in his mind, up to and including deciet and whole fabrication. He's done it to Jennifer, Jason, and Patrick at this point yet to call him on his aberant behavior, which he doesn't apologize or hell even acknowledge is somehow a personal attack? With instantaneous response? Really?

Basically we're in the old continual argument bit, Cain keeps coming on and saying things that are at the various least logical leaps passed off as facts and at worst whole misrepresentations of what others have said and then Jason or others have to continually come and correct him even though it's the same misstatements he's been using for days now. Only Cain has quite the advantage as he is unfettered by the truth or sense and any attempt to suggest same is an "shot" evidently. You didn't rush to defend Patrick when Cain basically intimated that he'd been bribed for good behavior and towing the party line, never mind that Patrick had actually withheld his copywrites to see that payment. Why the special protection of some members reputation and feelings and not others. I'm not asking you to be ominpresent but as this has come up before and both times you've sallied forth to defend Cain's feelings and reputation as he worked to do nothing but slander and misrepresent the truth I can only be puzzled.

I will concede that Cain posts his accusations very carefully an eloquently, this isn't that hard when your not fettered by trifling things like facts or the truth. Hell talk radio is basically founded on this process.

Because Cain has every right to post even if he's wrong. Can we unequivocally say that he is, without knowing the facts? You are right in one regard, I did notice at least one instance where he refers back to a "rumor" that he himself posted originally. But the bottom line is that all there really is to go on at this point is wild conjecture.

Jason Hardy can only post so much, because 1) he's got other things, hopefully better things to do. 2) He isn't in control of the situation, he's just a man working for a company, for which he has happened to become the public face for here.
Because of this, and because the company has no obligation to disclose that information, not apparently any real reason to, since it's created this whole mess, there is only going to be little bits of actual information coming out from them. Even when there was information coming out, half the time it's considered bias or fit to flow with someone's agenda.

This is a thread of 47 pages of conjecture and quite likely completely made up thoughts. About 1 1/2 pages of it are likely actually useful. So when you say that you doubt Cain's Mental Stability, not only are you taking a shot at Cain as a person, rather than his arguement (Which is the whole point of the ToS guideline), but you're also continuiing this trend of hostile posting.

Yes, Cain's posts are inherently arguementative, in that he is arguing for arguing's sake. I doubt he sees it that way, but it's still a valid post, even if you don't like it or agree.

You were doing just great on your post until the last line.

Ok, folks, you keep invoking my name. Hence, I am here. My genie outfit is pink and glittery, and matches my amethyst belly-button ring.

I have stated earlier in this thread that I quit after being asked by Loren Coleman to falsify royalty reports to Topps. That request violated my ethical standards. Whether it violated other things, such as legal issues, I HAVE NOT speculated on, preferring to leave it in the hands of legal authorities--which is frankly, where it belongs. To be even more blunt, I quit when, after being informed of the request by Loren to falsify royalty reports, Randall Bills stated that Loren was the best person to carry on all negotiations with Topps, the SR/BT license holder. I found this decision even more upsetting to my personal ethics than the original request, since I had been assured by Randall that certain behaviors were going to be halted, and they were (blatantly) not.

There. Once and for all. I quit for reasons of personal ethics.

I'm going to stop you right there. Because she actually totally has gone into greater detail than that, in these threads. She said that Loren Coleman and Randall Bills asked her to falsify royalty reports and participate in fraudulent non-payment to creditor companies (which would be Topps Inc., Posthuman Studios, and WildFire LLC). Posthuman Studios and WildFire LLC have both publicly confirmed non-payment of royalties, and broken off financial ties with Catalyst with damages.

She specified that modifying a royalty report was not something she was ethically OK with, and suspected that it wasn't even legal (I am not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like the kind of thing you could get in legal trouble for). She further said that the non-payment issue was "angering" in light of the ~$650,000 house that Loren Coleman moved into in 2008.

It's perfectly OK to not keep up on everything everyone said. It's a complicated situation. But don't say that someone n particular has not said something in particular unless you really have read every single post (all 2000+ of them) to make sure that it is literally true. You can totally misrepresent people with incredulously worded phrases. It would be technically correct to start in on an angry tirade like this:



See? That doesn't make any factual claims, so it's not "false." Questions can't be true or false, even if the wording above implies that the answer is "no" (when in reality, it is "yes"). And you can even throw some wild speculation that undermines her credibility as a source just by labeling it as totally baseless speculation. Bu that thing you actually did? The one where you say Jennifer Harding didn't say anything more, when she did? That's not OK as a debating tactic.

The fact is that we have three sources independently verifying that Catalyst has not paid royalty payments in full in a long time. Possibly "ever." I don't know how forgiving you think a ~$400 million dollar company like Topps is about failure to pay royalties, but we will find out at the end of May when they announce their decision, and two much smaller companies (PostHuman and WildFire) have already announced that they are not forgiving of refusal to pay royalties - to the point of withdrawing their support for the company.

-Frank

You know, I am quite displeased.

In the past, I will post something and the thread just ups dies on me. Not just here but on RPGnet and several other forums as well. There are a handful of close acquaintances that refer to me as the Thread Killer. Time and again I have posted here in the hopes that my supernatural ability will take hold and yet this thread refuses to die.

So, in the words of Captain Kirk, "Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target!"

I take aim once more and seek to kill this thread!

She said Loren Coleman, nothing about Randal Bills asking her to falsify royalty reports.

*Pauses in this long some what heated thread, to thank the goddess and all deity's that could be... for women with Amethyst belly button rings.*

That is correct, Randall Bills did not ask me to falsify the royalty reports. However, after he was informed of multiple issues I was having, he told me that if I did not feel I was able to work with Loren or felt what I was being asked to do was unethical, I should leave. He was also fully aware of Loren's request when he placed Loren in the lead for negotiating with Topps.

There is no proof her statement about having a belly-button ring, amethyst or otherwise! I demand proof!

However, her statements about Loren and Randall can be verified by other sources, and in some cases are documented in official corporate records.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, because where you see arguing for arguments sake I see either paranoid delusions or actual intentional lies.

So Jennifer would it be accurate to say that you left because you felt that Randal Bills was incorrect in assigning Loren L. Coleman to negotiate with Tops, in part or in full because of requests made to you earlier regarding royalty statements to tops? I also note you mention Tops exclusively as part of the statements you were asked to represent, is that correct?

I mean as along as we're getting the whole story from the source.

For those keeping track at home, we can also catch Jennifer in a factual inaccuracy. She said that Loren Coleman moved into his new mansion in 2007, the same year that money started disappearing from Shadowrun accounts. Factually, 2007 is the year that the Colemans contracted for that mansion. They didn't actually move in until 2008.

-Frank

I would hope that Randal had a long conversation with Loren about the falsifying of royalty reports. That is, unsettling, to my sense of moral propriety.

My stratagem in business is that being forthright is far easier than trying to deal with the fallout from deception. People, I have found, will be impressed that you are honest even if it is to your detriment.

It is hard to fathom that Loren is going to be an effective negotiator, I can't believe that he is going to have his A-game lined up. This stress would have put me into cardiac arrest!

I have found that standing too close to the bonfire with the gas can might lead to unintended consequences.

Wow, Frank. You've done it. By pointing out that one glaring factual inaccuracy, you've managed to sway me to your cause. Clearly, it IS a conspiracy of the highest order. *sigh*

I have to say that doesn't sound like you exactly quit of your own free will. When Randall made the "suggestion" that you leave if you could not work with Loren L. Coleman, that sounds like you were forced out. You might have done it with dignity, but you were still forced out in my mind.

I think I can safely say that most of Dumpshock has nothing but respect and good vibes for you. The idea of starting a Freelancer Aid Fund was because we sympathize for your financial situation. In fact, I'd still like to do that, if you're okay with it.

Ahem, Frank. I said

I perhaps could have said it more clearly, but what I mean was that the mansion was started in 2007. Not that the move was started in that year. I didn't mean to insinuate when they moved into their new home.

I think that, having been there we can safely recognize her as the authority as to what may have actually happened.

I'll concede on this one. I stand by the statement that, in my opinion, she was forced out based on what I know. But that's an opinion, not a fact.

If I was to spend the next week going through all of the factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations made in this and previous threads, I would create a list that was pages long without even entering in the corrections required. Suffice it to say that I have been privvy to enough of the information that I have intentionally not posted in most of these threads.

Those of you who know me, will understand the reasons for that choice.

None of the salaried individuals who have recently departed CGL, left under coercion. Each left of their own free-will and volition, with reasons that some have kept between themselves and the company, and others whom have shared their reasons.

Yes, Tiger Eyes has a belly-button ring. I am not sure of the color it is at the exact moment, though I have seen multiple versions throughout our friendship.

Blue and purple, framed in white gold. Geometric designs.

That's your view, and you're entitled to it. In my opinion-- and you don't have to agree with me-- she was unjustly forced out.

Obviously, I believe my opinion is right. If I thought it was wrong, I wouldn't have it as an opinion, now, would I?

But I concede that it is just my opinion.

Ethical AND a belly button ring? Now I'm in looooovvveeee...

And she is a single mother who needs money! A gamer, former writer, and fan of one
of the best game settings around...perfect woman for another gamer!
*ducks and runs!*

Closing up this bloated thread, discussion continues in CGL speculation #4: The Quest for More Money