If directed at me, my comments are about Frank's post, not the letter. Frank himself admits those points are rumor.



Sure, it's like me saying bad things about you, then saying "well, at least I didn't bring up your marital infidelity or the rumors of your spousal abuse. I admit, I can't verify that, but I heard it from your ex-wife, but she was really angry at the time".

If it was rumor and hearsay, he should have kept that part to himself. The letter? While I don't think he should have posted it, that's from Randall himself. Stories from other people that may or may not be true? Not so much.

Given the treatment AH received after posting on the private freelancers forum I can't see why the whistleblower would be inclined to reveal his/her identity on that forum.

It has already been demonstrated that somebody there can't be trusted.

A rumor that got a non-denial denial with the first press release, steady backing by details and now, a leaked letter. Thus, amusement.

I know, but I just can't believe people get pleasure from that.

K.

I'm sorry, which points that Frank stated that he couldn't verify, and heard from people who were angry, such as Randall "getting a cut of the money" if he backs Loren, fit any of those letters or press releases above?

They don't. That's Frank trying to stir the pot. Amusing to you or not, someone could think such an accusation would be defaming. It also doesn't help his cause of being the "righteous person" in this whole thing.

I know that you and your quoted poster have delved off into personal issues here. But do keep in mind, some of us have registered simply because we've been lurking for a long while (on this incarnation of DS/DR). This is a topic bound to bring lurkers out. We do in fact, care about Shadowrun (and BT/CT/EP in my case). But I also don't feel that relationship between fan community and company is as reciprocal (beyond transfer of money and product) as you do. It doesn't make either opinion wrong. I just want to be clear that simply cautioning for levelheadedness or trying to present opinions on why some of us may want CGL to continue with the license does not equate to trolling. It might be an unpopular opinion here (I honestly can't tell) and it may have been handled badly by some posters (myself included) at various points. I'll grant that on all sides of the discussion.

I tend to view the assertions of people who have registered on the boards merely to throw mud at frank with some skepticism.

He's a prick, and some of his assertions that he makes are awful and do not follow from the facts presented, but there's nothing that he has presented as FACT that has been contradicted.

This isn't meant as an insult, but an honest question. Do you really feel CGL should be presenting an official response to opinions or facts, beyond the press releases? I guess what I'm asking is, does that seem like a constructive use of time for company employees to be debating this out on message boards, considering the current circumstances?

No it doesn't

Oh wait, you probably weren't asking me.

Jason H.

Constructive? Yes. The structure of RPG games is one that relies on a core group of dedicated hobbyists to make multiple purchases. As such, it needs to keep the dedicated fans happy; think of it as the 20/80 rule used in grocery stores (20% of products drive 80% of traffic) applied to people. People naturally want to know what's happening with the company that produces the product it purchases. Shadowrun, in particular, has been passed around like a live frag grenade through various companies over the course of its 20 years, so we have less loyalty to a company than the product the company produces - if Catalyst wants to keep our goodwill, they would be wise to put the minimal effort into quenching the fires. Considering that an official denial of anything stated would be simple and non-resource intensive, the silence we are hearing is deafening.

No-no – he was just asking nicely if you consider some posters being sockpuppets.

I've been lurking for a while, following with interest. If I had just wanted to "throw mud at Frank" I'd have probably chimed in some time ago. Posting those things he admits he can't verify was wrong. I have no where argued against what is verified fact. My number of posts on this message board is irrelevant to that. It's the internet, disregard what I have to say by whatever subjective method you want. It doesn't change that Frank shouldn't have posted the bullet pointed items under "Truth & Lies" that he himself admits aren't verified and are rumor.

No, I wasn't. But it's a pretty telling answer. I also happen to agree with it.

I guess the part I struggle with is what gets accepted as fact versus supposition or leap of logic. There's really only one side of the story being presented here. We're not seeing (and rightfully so, I feel) Jen Harding rushing out to support Frank's posts. We're not seeing still remaining CGL employees rushing out to present counter-arguments on a wide scale. What we are seeing is a number of freelancers (who have legitimate payment complaints/issues) who are relatively unhappy with the company (for various reasons and at various levels). In some cases former, and in some cases current freelancers, that is. That's not to imply that they're mistaken or wrong or anything of the sort. It's simply trying to point out that some of the community may feel a bit differently about posts similar to Frank's, because we're only seeing his side. Additionally, some of us don't have the history with Frank that community seems to here, as there seems to be some amount of personal leeway given due to past interactions between the more prolific posters here. Though that's obviously to be expected on a board of this size and duration.

I guess it just feels like some of the folks who've taken the "let's wait and see what happens" attitude are being lumped into some kind of unnecessary pro/anti-CGL debate.

The minimal time it takes to release an official rebuttal to the facts (not allegations) Frank has asserted is not worth your time only if you don't care about quenching the ongoing flames of speculation going across the internet.

Considering how simple it is to say "No, it's all B.S. and Frank has it wrong" makes Frank's statements that much more credible.

There is all the world of difference between your polite and reasoned post and the other stuff. Aside from the logic and the friendly tone, you're making a very different point. You're saying people should be level-headed and that there are reasons why one might want CGL to continue with the licence. I don't dispute either. The other post was basically shut up and quit caring so much. I have no problem with reasonable discussion.

Now we'd better be careful. 'Levelheadedness' is five syllables and you also used 'reciprocal' which sounds dangerously 'college-educated' to me. Best hope he doesn't notice.

Peace,

Khadim.

I might not agree with all of that, but thanks for that. It's nice to see things debated or answered, well...nicely.

I wonder if the silence wouldn't be so deafening if the plan had been put into place fully before details were released. I can't always say on the SR side things have worked that way, but I know on the BT side, we've seen a lot of communication in the past regarding things like the name change, Wizkids to Topps move. Some of the silence feels like it could be caution after the release of so much inside information. Right or wrong, I'll leave that up to theorists to debate. I'm just not so sure that if this whole situation hadn't been revealed earlier that the only other result would be "Sweep it all under the carpet!".

Really? You think if I just say "Frank has it wrong" people will say "Okay, well, good to know."

Let's test: Frank has it wrong.

Now, is that going to settle anything? Or is it going to bring along requests for a flood of follow-up details, specific points to debate, etc., etc.? I have a guess--do you?

Jason H.

Is that an actual statement from you, or just a test?

K.

I think you just proved his point and in only 4 minutes.

And unless he answers, he's proved Octopiii's.

K.

I think my paraphrasing of any official statement and your literal take on it is not exactly what people had in mind, no.

That's not what he said.

Then do people want me to respond to Frank's stuff line by line? Here's at least three problems. 1) It gives rumors a weight I do not believe they should have; 1) It starts to get into things that I still firmly believe should be private; the fact that someone else does not share that belief doesn't change my opinion on that matter; 3) It takes a lot of time.

For the record, #s 1 and 2 are the truly important ones.

Jason H.

Point numbers 1) and 1) you mean?

Right. They're so important, they're co-#1s!



Jason H.

Kidding aside, it's tough on this side, we have one side of information, posted by people with agendas. These comments take a life of their own and spread, but we have nothing from the Catalyst side, a side with agendas as well, to refute the ever increasing amount of crap. I can understand not wanting to give the rumors weight, but a point has been reached now that -not- responding to the rumors has given them weight as well. Sure, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but does Catalyst really want Frank's posts to be the major "word" out there on this subject?

Even something as simple as "we have people filling in for the office manager and bookkeeper until such time as we find a permanent replacement" could put to bed the theories of Loren overseeing his own repayment to the company. By not addressing it, people assume it must be true.

Its honestly none of our business who is overseeing it.

While I agree with you, it's clear others don't, as the posts here show. The end result isn't helpful.

Not to stat a flame war, but it's a pretty common practice in churches to advise Christians not to act in such a way that appears to be incorrect. It's the basis of the idea that you don't want to get an apartment with someone of the opposite sex because people will assume that you are sleeping together.

The same theory extends here, CGL must be careful to appear to be doing everything they should. Part of that is keeping quiet and giving folks every reason to mind their own business, but part of it is also making sure it doesn't look like it's shacked up with some hussy.

Jason, it was real cute. But you really should consider asking them about a second press release, maybe some details. We're operating in a vacuum here; but like Star Wars, this is a loud one.

Actually, people don't have to assume anything to be true, and I believe they can read the letter that has been posted here as well as Frank or me or anyone else. I would assume they would read this paragraph in its entirety:



and note that the "process" overseen by the bookkeeper and operations manager was the audit and the plan to get production and payments on schedule, not specifically the plan for repayment. I'd also assume they'd note the next paragraph:



Which states that a plan has been developed with "checks and balances to ensure this doesn't happen again in the future." This was delivered to "pertinent parties," meaning more than the bookkeeper and operations manager have this information, so there are a range of people involved in analyzing this plan and making sure it is adequate.

What else does the letter say? Well, right after the line about people leaving, it says:



So the positions are going to be filled. But again, the letter never said the all duties of overseeing the new structures fell under the purview of the bookkeeper and operations manager. The duties of who will be overseeing what are contained in the plan, which is a confidential document. Frank's interpretation also made it sound like Loren and Randall were the only people left at Catalyst's central office, which is not the case.

One more quote: Later in the letter, it states:



Again, those checks and balances were not just the province of the bookkeeper and operations manager, and the letter never said they were.

The response people have been wanting is right there in the letter.

Jason H.

Putting on my legal hat, it's exceedingly unlikely that you're going to see Catalyst affirm or deny anything, anywhere until there's a final resolution of the license issue in May.

Consider some of these issues objectively. The company is clearly in a financial bind. The correspondence leaked and public comments made suggest that the Colemans are working to repay the company. As much as some may dislike this, it's likely the only viable option for Catalyst. Given that they're having trouble paying freelancers, they're likely lacking the funds necessary to effectively prosecute a civil suit. Even if Catalyst had the money, a legal action against the Colemans would drain their resources and reduce their ability to repay Catalyst.

A few folks have raised the thought that whatever happened was criminal. I'm not going to comment on the likelihood that the actions in question met the mens rea required for major fraud, but it's safe to say that criminal prosecution wouldn't be in Catalyt's best interests even if a prosecutable offense occurred. Initiation of a criminal investigation or prosecution would destroy any chance of repayment in a timely manner by driving the Colemans into the arms of criminal counsel who's first piece of advice will be "say nothing!" Even a successful prosecution would be a blow to CGL. Convicts on work release don't exactly rake in piles of cash. Restitution would be a slow drip of cash, not the relatively quick pour needed to get the company back on its feet.

Anyway, as to the "deafening silence" bit . . . Statements confirming or denying individual points being discussed here don't do anything to help Catalyst's short term bottom line, but DO run the risk of alienating the Colemans and ending their voluntary cooperation. That would be more of a shotgun to the face scenario than a gun to the foot. Something best avoided.

Unnecessary public statements could also put Catalyst in an awkward position in the future. Say a statement is released confirming the amount given by Frank, but later review of the books shows it to actually be 10% less. Catalyst would need to publish a correction, which keeps the hype cycle fed and makes focusing on things essential to the firm's survival more difficult. Or, say a later review shows that the amount is actually somewhat greater because of previously unanticipated tax consequences and that the company is in a position where it needs to sue to reclaim the difference between the now-larger amount and that voluntarily recaptured from the Colemans. Now you've got an annoying press release that opposing counsel can wield in negotiations and raise at trial (which they could anyway using discovered internal documents, of course, but publicly stating things makes it a much bigger pain).

Lots of other considerations come into play, but the most important thing (to most of us, at least) is that a solvent Catalyst is going to be able to pay the freelancers, while they're likely to recover NOTHING from a bankruptcy. They're not secured creditors; banks, printers and full time employees are going to be higher up the priority chain and walk away with most of the money.

In short, working with the Colemans and commenting publicly only when absolutely necessary is not only the smart thing to do, it's quite possibly the only way for Catalyst to move forward successfully and for the freelancers to get their checks. Ask yourself this: if they DON'T succeed in righting the ship, are you going to care how many press releases they put out?

Although I'd like to see the freelancers get their due, there's an extent to which all of this doesn't matter. BT and SR are both reasonably lucrative licenses and I think someone will probably be publishing books for both lines in the future. If Catalyst survives and prints solid product, I'll buy. If someone else gets the license and prints solid product, I'll buy. Quality, not press releases, will earn my gaming dollars.

@edit: typo

I'll be talking to management about continuing communications. However, you have to understand that the GAMA Trade Show was last week, and that event understandably took over management's attention for a time.

Jason H.

You know, this is spiraling all out of control and this thread has turned into the worst of DumpShock.
It's full of people with personal vendettas, bandwagoning, wild speculations, attacks and anger.
Maybe we should all take a break before we shame ourselves any more.

All we know is that stuff happened and stuff is going to happen. We won't know more until IP renewal day.

At this point, my impression is....self righteous do gooder with an axe to grind.

For the past while I've been reading your posts on this issue and you've made personal attacks on the various parties involved and resorted to completely unsusbtantiated rumour to press your point.

We all know you don't like CGL....and "don't like" is, from what I can see, putting it mildly...but you burnt your bridges with the game a long time ago. Even were it to go to another company, the only way to guarantee that the game would go in a direction you would like it to is to run it yourself.

Maybe that's your plan....badmouth CGL so much so that Topps pulls the license, gives it to someone else...in this case you...and have CGL pass the unpublished works to the new company. Doesn't really matter what you say, after all....dirt sticks.

This bit about "informing Topps" for example is the latest. Topps is a company which holds the license to SR. Guess what?...they don't need you to tell them on a fan forum stuff that A: they already know and B: that you know they know.

You are trying to make yourself look like a white knight. Instead, you're looking like a putz. And by doing this publically, by acting so unprofessionally, you make yourself that much more difficult to hire or trust professionally. Now people will wonder...if I send him an email in confidence, will he publish it?



Unless you have the actual accounting books, this is nothing more or less than unsubstantiated rumour. You don't know CGLs financial situation right now. Theres no way on earth you could know unless you were high up in the company. Why keep trying to discredit the company? Why try to bring it down? You have a personal axe to grind because the company didn't take the game in the direction you wanted....I know that, you know that, we ALL know that....but has your hatred gotten so deep that you need to spread this sort of unsubstantiated rumour?



First - he didn't say that.
Second - do you have that much hate against Randall Bills that you denigrate his personal beliefs? Make fun of his religion? You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Third - can you make one post without a personal attack?
Fourth - a perfect example of my point. You are making things up, misquoting people and putting a bad spin on events. The only person this seems to be helping is you. You finally got a place you can vent your rage with the company.



Viable or not, keeping things private is the usual way things are done. Companies do not tend to discuss financial matters with the public.



This is a falsehood. SR has done very well under CGL. EVen then, various issues could very well conspire against any new company picking up certain material. They may, for example, want to take the game in a new direction.



That appears to be because you are ignoring all the others.

Right now, it appears all you are doing is slinging mud and it in the hope that some of it will stick. There are people here who will no doubt believe every word you say. There are others who have heard your point of view before and will be much more skeptical.

What do you want? Control of the game yourself? That actually wouldn't surprise me...you'd finally get the chance to determine the direction of the game.



That depends on if there IS a guilty party. You keep assuming the worst...and then announcing your assumption as Gospel truth. Given how CGL started, the explanation given is perfectly plausible. Its not even the stupidest accounting mistake I've seen. CGL started off small and has enjoyed very rapid growth. It would not be the first company to expand so fast certain procedures that worked well at one scale/time didn't turn out to be such good choices.



As can CGL.



Speaking of fantasy....revenge or not....this ending to your post is a good example. You assume the Loren Coleman embezzled the company and you posit a situation where he has admitted being a thief.

I'm aware of neither.

The letter does not address the reasons behind the resignations of both parties. The term "process" includes the plan for repayment, if not specifically, then as part of the entire restructuring.



"pertinent parties" is a weasel phrase and means nothing.



Yes, the letter stated that "pertinent parties" will be overseeing the new structure. Which could be: Loren and Randall only, everyone with an ownership issue in Catalyst, employees that Loren and Randall hire, employees that the entire ownership hires, or employees that a third party contracted to adjudicate the issue hires.

Regardless, I'm surprised you base your support for "there needs to be no rebuttal" argument is to quote the letter that Frank got banned for posting and which was contained in the thread that was deleted. You can see where we would like some sort of official communication; you've now just stated that the only straight answers we're going to be receiving are leaked documents issued by Frank, who risks a perma-ban (not that he cares much, I imagine) for bothering to do so.

It's a violation of law for an employer to discuss private personnel matters in essentially every jurisdiction. Catalyst CAN'T say more than they have.

Again, contracts and the law aren't your friend. Boilerplate agreements with silent investors would prevent Catalyst from revealing they exist, let alone naming them. Something to the effect of "The information has been disclosed to X, Y, and three others" reveals the existence of others with equity stakes, in violation of those agreements.

Frank isn't constrained by law or the operation of contracts. As has been noted elsewhere, he's essentially judgment proof. To make a somewhat out of context analogy, he's waging an asymmetric war.

Quick note: Frank took a warning/suspension for attacking a religious belief, not posting the letter. Some may try to argue that the email falls under the piracy clause but I believe that claim will hold no water.

"If I sue him to get my money back, he will have less money to repay me" is a silly argument.



There is no privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case. Furthermore, a private RICO action holds for treble damages + attorneys fees if you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence (not a terribly high standard compared to a criminal case) some of the predicate federal crimes violated. Anyone who continues to assist, cover-up, etc any such violation can be named as a co-defendent. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be a bookkeeper for Catalyst either after discovering (an alleged) fraud and the subsequent lack of consequences against Coleman.



You don't want to alienate people who have the bargaining chips. The Colemans have the money, so what we can infer from your logic is that Catalyst is so strapped for cash that without ASAP repayment of at least some of the funds they will have significant liquidity issues.



Part of a bankruptcy reorganization involves liquidation and distribution of assets. Without knowing more about who owes who, it's hard to say who will walk away with any money. Besides, freelances do have bargaining chips no matter if Catalyst survives: their withholding of copyright prevents books from being printed, which kills cash flow. If not Catalyst, than a successor company.

Edit: I try to be polite.

Only so much as his current financial status and nation of residence complicates attempting to pursue a case, and makes enforcing any judgement CGL might win (and it certainly isn't a slam dunk) extremely difficult.

No company I have ever worked for is willing to expound on why a party has left the company. Now THAT would be a law suit waiting to happen.

So you wanted me to address the rumors that sprang from the letter--remembering that people were using that letter as a basis to further those rumors--and not use the letter? That seems odd to me.

My point was that Frank's reading of the letter is not the be-all end-all reading. I'm sorry you don't like words "pertinent parties." Let me know your standing to receive confidential business information for Catalyst, and I'll change that, but until then, it is not my place to violate other people's privacy. Similarly, I did not resign, so I cannot and should not speak for those who did. I am also not in charge of personnel decisions at Catalyst, but if I were, I wouldn't share any thoughts about why individuals left. That is a matter between employers and employees, and not for me to comment on in any way.

I understand that people are frustrated that not everything can be laid out, but the fact the some people want to know some things does not require Catalyst to tell them everything. Consider your job. Think about if you left it some day. How much do you want your employer to publicly discuss about their thoughts on why you left?

Jason H.

It can be assumed, fairly I believe, from the lack of payment to the freelancers that there's no money to fund litigation. Also, Jason has obliquely confirmed liquidity issues in his posts. In this situation, both the lack of a self incrimination privilege in the civil context and the threat of a private RICO suit are largely irrelevant. I can't think of many instances in which a civil RICO claim vs. someone with shallow pockets would be seen as a productive use or attorney time and/or client dollars. Straight state civil fraud claims would probably suffice.

As for liquidation in bankruptcy, Catalyst's most valuable assets are its licenses and published works. It's impossible to be sure what assets Catalyst actually owns; however, the license, even if transferable at Catalyst's discretion (HAHAHAHAHAHA!), expires so soon that it's worthless. It's exceedingly likely that Topps either 1) already owns all of the Catalyst IP or 2) has it secured in the event of a bankruptcy. Any other structure would be malpractice on the part of Topps' counsel. Given that, I don't know where you think distributable funds will come from. Clawback vs. the Colemans is obviously numero uno, but the next biggest cash source would probably be liquidation of office equipment and software licenses.

You're implying that Frank can't be sued because he doesn't have any money and because he's living in Europe. With regards, you obviously know more about his personal finances than I do. As regards the second that's actually incorrect, he could be sued in his absence. But you'd still have to have something to sue him for. What exactly do you think he could be sued for / what actions has he taken that you believe are illegal?

He's not violated any NDAs. The only thing you could conceivably sue him over that I can see would be something of the libel family. And for that, what he said would have to be something other than the truth. If you know he's lied or mistaken about something, you could share it with us.

3/4s of all the posts against Frank are statements saying 'he can't prove this so he should shut up.' For one, a lot of the time what he's saying is he can't name his sources and that's something different. Secondly, Frank is someone who it is quite plausible could know what he's saying he knows and he also has a long history of being scrupulously honest and also right. At each step of the way, events as they emerge have backed him up. Personally I'm interested in anything he has to say.

The sudden flood of people appearing here just to shout at Frank is pretty impressive.

K.

Quoting Elbert Hubbard, "Never explain. Your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe it anyway."

No, I suggested his being in Europe makes it more difficult for CGL to file the suit and enforce a win, if they were successful. It does also effectively put him out of reach of the clout of contempt of court from a US judge until he returns.

Now if he happens to have assets in US jurisdiction CGL could chase those. But they'd have to put in a bunch of work (without being able to drag Frank before a judge to compel him to cooperate in locating them) just to check if there were any.



Did you follow the link? Interference with a contract, even if you are not a direct party to the contract, can be grounds for civil suit for damages.

Hush, don't startle the meatpuppets.

First off, thank you for posting R. Bill's letter. As someone who appreciates the work CGL has done and wouldn't mind terribly if they got their act together, having the facts is somewhat reassuring, even when most of the news is bad. In fact, the letter did far more to reassure me than the hazy official statement. Second, does the above mean that the under-reporting of convention sales can be substantiated? Because, as mentioned previously, and, apparently quickly forgotten, hiding income is a crime.

Is it possible that if things work out the way AH and Trollman wants, that CGL falls apart and that Coleman gets sued, ShadowRun, the license, the freelancers, and pretty much all of the ShadowRun material may get entangled in litigation and lawsuits for the foreseeable future?

Seems to me that who owns what, whether assets or written material is tangled like a cobweb. How long would it take for lawyers, judges, and the courts to untangle it all to everyone's satisfaction? Its possible that it never will.

Whoever are counseling the owners to work out a solution outside of the courts, one of them has got to be a lawyer.

That last point was a more general one, not specifically you.

K.

Frank is, i think, right now in the kzechech republic. Also on federal loan because he is a student i think.
And yes brash as he can be, as ugly as it sounds, usually he does not say anything he can't prove to be correct more or less.
Where do you think does the ammount of respect he still gets despite his way of talking/posting with/to others?
Because that man usually knows what he is talking about. I guess he just gets easyly irritated over people not getting something that seems so blatant obvious to him.

@Dwight: you have more than 200 postings and registered january 2009, you don't count ^^


Now for another Question:
What do you guess would happen of shadowrun did, in fact, go to another corporation and that corporation asked frank to come back and write for shadowrun?