Did he approach you about doing future work after being removed from the forums or Basecamp, or did he just offer to pay for material you had already written?

Not a freelancer, and not really qualified to speak on how they're treated. But as a fan of both, I'd say that what Ancient mentioned, along with the existence of Battlecorps, makes a really big difference in this fan's perception of the big differences in how the two lines are treated. BT seems to get a lot more product, and much better proof-reading. Not having had the multiple LD changes that SR has been through seems to have really benefited the BT side of things. Also, there does seem to be a bit more active presence in terms of keeping the community aware of product status on the BT sides. It was frequent to see blogs or posts in the forums from Randall or Herb talking about when products hit layout, etc. That seems to have changed some under Jason, but I didn't notice that quite as much before on the SR site. (It could have been common here on Dumpshock, as I mainly only lurked in game discussion threads previously. So very possible I missed it.)

ah, but you are not working for the company, and as i said, that information was already available to freelancers who do work for the company (and presumably also for full time employees).

but even then, does it make a difference to you that it was mr coleman, or does it merely make a difference to you that the person who did it is still with the company, albeit with measures taken to attempt to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? does it really matter who did it, or does it matter that it was done?

If engineers and software designers are authoritarian people, then I guess I was an authoritarian Shadowrun freelancer! Though I'm not sure I'd describe either of those two professions that way.

By the way, I was also removed from the freelancer forums, long before this current stuff happened. I was removed from the freelancer forums when Peter Taylor was "let go" as line developer. I was never really given a reason why, though I imagine it was because of earlier fallout I had with Catalyst when they wanted the Manhattan e-book drafts from me before sending me the contract. I repeatedly asked for the contract, it was not sent, and then finally I told them to take me off that project and not to use any of the material I had already given them. Shortly thereafter, my account was banned from the freelancer forums.

It bothered me a bit, but I was pretty disappointed with Catalyst anyway so I took the not-so-subtle hint and stopped writing for them.

- We have a name and not just someone claiming that Coleman is the culprit
- We have a timeline
- Coleman stays in control

that's nice. how is that relevant? what's the difference between knowing who it is that took the money, and simply knowing the money was taken? (which we already knew as fact). what timeline do we have? we already know from official statements that they are officially planning to pay the freelancers, keep the license, and continue producing shadowrun. and what is the difference between knowing who took the money and is still part-owner, and simply knowing that the person who took the money is still a part-owner?

do you actually have any dealings at all with mr coleman that you are significantly impacted by knowing who specifically it is?

knowing that it is mr coleman doesn't really gain us anything. there is no real benefit to having that information for the average fan.

Nice dodge on the "conflict involving personal ethics" part

______________________



Even when looking at the freelancers I know or at least have some idea where they come from, I do see similar backgrounds in both camps ... as well as people who come from a drastically different angle. But I have to concede that my (current) insight (and interest) there is heavily restricted, so it's quite possible that within the freelancer camps there really are major differences in that area that could explain the perceived disparity. It could however also be interesting to look at what actual positions the people in question hold / held within said "more authoritarian" structures ...

Since you must know - and apparently have no intention on backtracking anything you've said - Jason wanted to use the material I had already written, though of course he hadn't bothered to look up everything I was currently contracted for at the time, and I told him I was terminating the contracts.

- End of 2009: CGL figures out there is something wrong, starts to analyze their accounts and figure out what and how the Colemans have to pay back
- One week before that work is finalized, the operations manager leaves
- The very day it gets serviced, the accountant quits
- Another week later the party line is "the process of paying back goes according to plan"



Those who quit made it quite certain that they wouldn't work with the "old guard" again.



@Demonseed: So essentially they wanted to see the the work and then decide if you get payed?

Basically, I was just kidding about the anarchy/military sides of CGL...

And I'm just wondering, why on one hand the exact reasons and time-table for AH ending his freelancership are interesting, while on the other hand the identity of the owner causing trouble within CGL isn't.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying, that one or both informations are interesting or not... I'm just wandering about the different treatment they receive form some people here...)

(a former member of the 1st Lyran Guard... aehm, I mean 1st Panzerdivision)

I think we should start writing up missions around this. Anywhere from runners having to find and silence a corporate leak, to taking down Frank, to having to prove some corporation is doing something unethical for competition to start a smear campaign. With side ventures into why certain contractors quit... etc, etc.

Also, having to write up stuff with no promise of getting paid? That's a really poor showing on their part.

the timeline: we basically already knew all that. we already knew from the first thread that they had been doing an internal audit, and the times that the two employees left (including the fact that their bookkeeper, Jennifer Harding, had quit just as the whole situation was coming to a head, and that the operations manager had quit a week prior). we already knew catalyst was planning to get the person to pay it back. this is not new information to anyone who has been paying attention.

and those who quit already had the information, and didn't need any public leaks to be aware of who they weren't going to be working for again.

this is still not relevant to the fans in general. certainly, it is relevant to the people who quit because of mr coleman's actions, and the response (or insufficient response, i suppose) of the company. but it doesn't mean a damn thing to you or me. i didn't quit my job at catalyst because of mr coleman's actions, and neither did you (this is no doubt due in large part to the fact that we were not working for catalyst in the first place). had we been working for catalyst, we would have had the information, and would have been able to make a decision whether to continue working for them or not based on that information, and we would not have needed any information to be leaked to the general public in order to do so.

again: what benefit is to be had to us, the fans, from this private correspondence being made public? because as BTFreelancer has pointed out, it can certainly potentially cause harm to the freelancers, and as has been also pointed out, you can bet that catalyst won't be talking to their freelancers any more now, which means the people who *do* have a stake in knowing, who actually *are* directly affected, financially, by this situation, are no longer going to be kept up-to-date. to me, this sounds suspiciously like it hasn't helped anyone who needed it, and has only potentially harmed people.

we didn't really gain anything needed. oh, it was perhaps nice to know the reasoning behind mr randall's decision, but it really isn't *needed*.

There are a couple scenarios I speculated on a while ago, both of which satisfied the 'conflict involving personal ethics' and the person leaving willingly, not being forced out.

Her statement says that she had a conflict between a decision by Catalyst management and her own personal beliefs.

I will say that my own view of being forced out is if you are put into a position where you have to resign or are fired when there is otherwise no conflict between yourself and the company management or direction. It implies to me that the person was doing everything they could to remain with the company.

But the way it has been presented, management made a decision, she disagreed strongly with it, she resigned, just doesn't seem to me like being 'forced out'. Her situation sounds more like bailing out of a bad situation rather than being forced.

he's mentioned this situation several times. in either this thread, or one or both of the previous threads. they simply weren't sending him the contract. not because they weren't *willing* to (he indicated previously that they did in fact send one... after he told them that he wasn't going to continue writing for them, it reached him), they simply were that disorganised. in point of fact, i recall him mentioning he was ready to send in his final draft, which rather implies they had already seen the work, though not the final draft, and still hadn't actually sent him a contract.

Thank you for the further detail. Honesty, it sounds like a situation poorly handled on both sides. Your initial conversation comes off as someone trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and new freelancers, even if you felt your intent was good. The manager could have brought the matter up with you directly, rather than just going straight for what appears to be a termination procedure. It also sounds like he was neglectful about following through on that termination, although was offering to still pay for work done.

And that doesn't qualify as "being forced out"?



What could a person do to remain with a company, once ethics are involved (albeit being "personal")? Just throw them overboard?



So there was no driving force that directly opposed her ethic standards, to which she appearantly stood up and quit?

There could also be outside corps who are trying to assure things go to hell, so send runners to either plant or disseminate additional data.

It's definitely rife with possibilities.

"Trying to sabotage the relationship between the manager and the new freelancers"? When he warned them they wouldn't see a dime for their work? Which somewhat seemes to be a SOP for FASA and CGL, one might think.

I think you're a lot more caring towards CGL management than appropriate, dude.

the statement that someone is forced out implies that the person is being targeted and pushed out of the corporation, not that there is an irreconcilable disagreement between management and employee.

if the ethical situation was intended to push a specific person out of the company, that would certainly be "forced out". if it's just a matter of a disagreement, well, disagreements happen. this one simply happened to be irreconcilable in this case.

You appear to still be operating under a few misconceptions, so allow me to clue you in:

Freelancers are not employees, they cannot be "fired" or "terminated." Jason moved to have me removed from the freelancer pool, but did not attempt to cancel my contracts. That would, in fact, be the stupidest thing he could have done in the situation, since my chapters were already written, edited, proofed, and in some cases laid out already. Instead, he continued forward under the illusion that Catalyst would eventually honor its contracts. I canceled the contracts on my own because I did not believe I would be paid and did not want to pursue any further business relationship with Catalyst under Loren Coleman.

No, it doesn't. I worked at a company where they started doing more email spam mailings as advertising. Not only did I hate the actual process of doing that kind of work, but I thought it was a lousy way to advertise and didn't want to do that kind of work. I disagreed with the direction the company was taking, and yes, it conflicted with my ethics a little. I quit because I didn't like the job any longer. I wasn't forced out. I decided I didn't like the direction the company was going in and I left.

If you don't like the decision an employer has made and leave because of it, that is NOT inherently being forced out.

Could it be that people do have a "slightly" different view of what "being forced out" means in terms of implication that you specifically need to be targeted?



Whenever I felt being forced to withdraw from something I liked, it usually involved "just a matter of irreconcilable disagreement" over certain matters without a particular act of targeting me. Still I usually felt "being forced out" ... be it by individuals, their actions or the entity they represented. ~shrug~
But then again ... that's just me.

By his own transcript he approached one of the new freelancers and flat out said, 'the manager is lying to you', 'the company owner is a crook', and 'you will never get paid'.

I think you're looking for a black and white situation where there is only gray.

Would it be fair to assume that even if they could have found a way to pay, you would not have wanted to because of Mr. Coleman?

In my defense, Jason was factually incorrect about the production schedule. We've already gone over the bit where Coleman has admitted to "financial mismanagement," so whether you consider him a crook or not...well, I do. As for not getting paid...yeah, I can't predict the future, but to the best of my knowledge all the freelancers that are owed still haven't been paid yet.

...but at least I didn't know that they not just analyzed the situation but also had a plan to pay the money back when those people left


If people who have shaped the game world leave and won't come back, that is relevant to me.

Just to play with words here (again for pure amusement): So the decissions made by others didn't force you to make your decission of leaving? And thus of course you weren't "forced out" by those decssions?



That's the point where subjectiveness really comes into play ... and where you obviously put your own - potentially broken - definition above the ones others have made.

I think you're right. Some of us see the phrase 'forced out' as implying an active pursuit or conspiracy to make someone leave, hence the 'forced'.

Others seem to see 'forced out' as equivalent to quitting in respond to managerial decisions.

No, it wasn't. I was unhappy with the job I had and found a new one. No one forced me to do anything.



Being forced out implies someone in the company is actually trying to get you to leave. For instance, a person I knew was hired for a particular position. While there, the company had barely any work for that person related to their position, and had them working on a variety of other projects instead. That person was punctual and a good worker, but eventually fell into conflict with a manager. That manager tried a variety of things to get them in trouble, none of which worked. Eventually, they were informed that their original position was being terminated but that if they quit they could reapply to get a job doing the work they were already doing. They knew there was no way that the manager was going to rehire them, and even if they did, it would mean renegotiating their contract. Their answer was, "no, if you're eliminating this position, you'll have to fire me."

That, to me, is a clear example of being 'forced out', even though it didn't work.

Being informed by management that "We're going to pursue direction A" and then quitting because you feel strongly that they should go in direction B is not the same thing.

It matters to me because a number of people, who might not be friends but whom I've worked with and respect and admire, are no longer involved with Shadowrun.

The circumstances of that change will determine whether or not I continue to support Catalyst.

Should it transpire that Jen', for example, was 'constructively dismissed' for failing to be willing to be party to actions that were unethical or illegal I will have no further financial dealing with Catalyst and will actively pursue a future where they no longer possess the SR licence.

I imagine many others here and in the SR community at large feel the same way.

While the posted letter may not contain any facts that support such a conclusion it is one more step in the direction of the fanbase discovering the truth.

Unless a process of facts being uncovered in this manner is permitted to continue this 'truth' will remain a mystery to those of us who do not wish to remain involved in financing and rewarding unethical behaviour.

so you're saying that you would never have supposed that they were going to be trying to get the money back even after those people quit? somehow you were thinking that the other owners weren't going to want the money back even though 2 employees quit? i have a hard time imagining a situation such that the other owners would say "well, I wanted the money back *before* the operations manager and bookkeeper quit, but now that they're gone, I think I'd rather just be out a few hundred thousand dollars". in fact, i can't really think of any plausible scenario that has such an outcome.



we already knew they quit and didn't have any intention of going back. this isn't new from the freelancer post. when you quit, that means "i'm leaving and have no intention of going back.", otherwise you say something like "i'm taking a leave of absence" or "i'm going on a sabbatical" or "i'm taking a whole bunch personal days such that i won't be at work for the next month or so" (if you work for the Canadian federal government)

Because AH is here and seemed to be very willing to discuss the matter, and because his case was starting to be cited as someone who was 'forced out' over CGL's troubles.

If Coleman came on this form and said "I'm willing to discuss this" I'd be glad to ask for more exact reasons and all the dirty little details we could get.

With the information put out there by AH himself, I think people can reach their own conclusion over whether he was 'forced out' or not.

My impression is that he wasn't.

I think this shows why it's important to distinguish between speculation about people being forced out and what the known facts actually show.

Is Jen's statement compatible with a situation in which she might have been forced out? Yes.

Is that the only explanation possible? No.

Has the person who quit publicly said, "I was forced out"? No.

that's nice and all, but what has it got to do with the letter? what new information did we gain from the freelancer letter being posted that is relevant?

it doesn't shed any light on why people left catalyst, and as has been pointed out, there will not be any official communication to anyone on the matter, because employers are not legally allowed to discuss that information.

it really isn't a step in the direction of uncovering the truth, because it doesn't really give us any information that we didn't already have available. we don't know anything more about the resignations of full time employees. we don't know anything more about how much was taken. the only thing we do know is that it conclusively was mr coleman, and we already had unofficial information indicating it was him.

the circumstances of that change are not clearly indicated, or even clearly hinted at, in the letter to the freelancers, beyond what we already knew. 1 + 1 = 2, and that is accurate information, but it doesn't tell us anything useful about the situation at catalyst. likewise, the letter is real, from everything we can tell, but it doesn't really give us any useful information.

I don't get all the fan loyalty to CGL. Why are people pledging their unswerving devotion to the business side of the enterprise -- the end which both screwed the pooch here and is (from our point of view and history's) utterly replaceable?

The only impact the legal entity known as "CGL" has from my perspective is the logo on the binding.

Now this utterly replaceable business side of this enterprise (by way of malfeasance and nonpayment) is interfering in the creative side -- the side that directly affects what I read in the books. This concerns me. If you're still reading this, it should concern you.

But hey, I suppose it's also possible that some freelancers conspired with some office staff to bring down the shining perfection of CGL by...quitting. Better grill them some more about that.

Yeah, who'd have thunk that something commonly nicknamed "Coffin Nails" could be bad for you.....

'the manager is lying to you'

CGL couldn't even pay the freelancers when they stopped book sales. And that was a week ago. What merit has "We will pay you" in that situation?

'the company owner is a crook'

And that's wrong? He, "by accident", created a situation where the business he managed is pretty close to go belly-up. All the while they told the freelancers, they would've to wait for their rightfully earned money. I doubt that CGL would be so lenient when a freelancer is falling behind schedule.

'you will never get paid'

Quite likely, historically speaking.

I think you're looking for a black and white situation where there is only gray.

I am not looking at all. All the books I do not own are out of print. I'll never invest a cent into 4th edition products. Why should I care?

1) if there is no company producing material, there is not likely to be any new material, and certainly not new official material.

2) the company absolutely does have an impact, and not all of the freelancers and employees are gone.

3) we don't know when any theoretical new company might start working on shadowrun, or if they even will at all, or what they will do with it if they do. we have a pretty good idea of what CGL (which has underwent major employee changes before) will do.

4) do you know at all what happens to make a book go from idea to reality? do you have any actual practical experience regarding how much work the company itself has on the process? i certainly don't. a few freelancers have left, that we know of. we have absolutely no statements whatsoever from many others, and there are other freelancers who may or may not be able to contribute material on the same level as those who were lost (only time will tell with that one, though certainly some of the freelancers will be missed).

but all that aside, i'm not discussing whether or not CGL should continue to exist or should continue to hold the license. i got in at the point where people were challenging a freelancer on why he should be displeased that someone disclosed private, confidential information, and then i proceeded to point out that the freelancer has legitimate cause to be upset, and that we didn't even gain anything useful from the leak such that it could even begin to justify why it's worth a negative impact on that freelancer's career (and by extension, other freelancers also).

Unfortunately, that's not all that's going on. Frank's posts seem to contain information that, if true, could have only come from a Catalyst employee and would have only been provided to the employee while under contract.

As far as CGL being 'utterly replaceable', at least one of the owners has been a creative and driving force in the Battletech line for years, prior to the existence of Catalyst. He's also one of the victims of the malfeasance, and has stepped up as the face of the effort to put things right.

Which has been responded to by Frank, the face of the leaked information, with mocking derision.

So it makes for some good drama and lots of posts!

I don't know?

I'm kind of confused by what you posted. It doesn't really contradict or involve what I was saying. My point is that what he said can and was probably taken as an attempt to undermine the company relationship with another freelancer. Doesn't matter how true or untrue what he said was, the fact that the manager decided to remove him from the process was understandable.

I had just received word that Bobby had been removed from the freelancer forums, and was preparing an e-mail to him, when he grabbed me on AIM to chat. Had I completed the e-mail, I would have looked up all of his contracts, but since I was talking to him on AIM I thought, hey, why not just confirm with him instead of wading through a spreadsheet? I'm deeply, deeply deeply deeply deeply sorry that I did not memorize in advance who wrote which sections of books that were already fully written before I became line developer.

Jason H.

If in the case of the 3 CEOs I know of on a more personal level... I would never accept a job from a company they are in charge of. If they were involved in a case of a buyout of my company I would take my buy out money and run. I actually did in one case take the buy out money and run because of the crazy CEO of the company who purchased us, I was lucky I got out and into a nice new job before he managed to bankrupt both companies. He was then fired by the board after laying off 3/4th of the company he took over. This is not the first time he had tanked a company and it wont be the last, because he has friends who keep putting him in charge despite failure after failure. In this particular case I would probably take the exact same stance with this CEO.

If the overall situation hadn't forced you to make a decission you would not have quit
You still limit the term "forced out" to a "someone" using some kind of force and outright deny that "something" (like a situation) can force you to do things as well ... and that after you already acknowledged that there might be different PoVs on the definition behind "being forced out".
Interesting ... but no longer amusing, so I'll stop here.

We can agree to disagree on the point. But I do hope that you see the difference between someone leaving because they disagree with management vs. someone being given no other choice but to quit a job they like because someone else has decided they don't want them there.

For many people 'forced out' implies the later, a conspiracy, and comes with some really bad connotations.

I'm a bit confused there. This sounds as if it wasn't you who had requested said removal.

So basically, you're saying:

It's completely okay for CGL management to try to trick the next generation of freelancers into the hopeful thinking that they might get their promised share of the book sales.

and

People that, through their fantastic work, made a lot of people buy Shadowrun products, have no right to warn others not to fall for hopeful thinking, when they have been screwed the second time in the Shadowrun business history.

Hypocrite.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I indeed made the request, but I was waiting for confirmation that it had actually happened (the tools to make the removals happen are in other people's hands). Once I received that, I started composing an e-mail that, as it turned out, I never sent.

Jason H.

I've been trying to be just a lurker lately but I can't contain my opinion any longer.

This does affect me as a fan, as a customer. Why? Because I don't like to knowingly purchase products and services from businesses that do not treat those working for them in what I deem to be a equitable manner. I do not like to purchase clothing that came from sweat shops or stores that do not give productive employees raises and benefits so they have enough to live on.

Freelancers are not being paid was rumor, then this became confirmed/verified. For this reason alone, I am done with any products from CGL and will now consider the setting of Shadowrun to be one whose fiction I will only support with purchases if they are no longer associated with it.

That amazing contributors like AH have left CGL is only the icing on this cow pie. For with that, I no longer have confidence that the same level of quality in product can be produced ... but even if for example "SR4A" stories and game mechanics were fun to read, I would not in good conscience would want to buy the product again knowing contributors were not paid, any more than if I thought those who authored my favorite novels were not paid.

To swing this "fictional" again: So this is what it looks like when a runner does a hood / data job against another runner's ongoing con job.

The transition from Fanpro to IMR/Catalyst was smooth because it was prepacked. Catalyst already existed as a licensee, was already producing material for BattelCorps, had seed money, included key FanPro staff, etc. The move from FASA to WizKidz, in contrast, wasn't clean or neat. It appeared for quite some time that traditional BatteTech would be entirely replaced with click miniatures. Shadowrun was without new product for a very, very long time.

If the license changes hands again, who do you think is going to carry the torch? Why do you think a new licensee would choose to immediately pick up the same group of writers, or the same in-flight books? It's more likely that a new licensee will take the lines in different directions. Shadowrun D20? Shadowrun, MS-style? BattleTech with WarMachine mechanics? If you like the general approach Catalyst takes to the games, you've every reason to be wary of a license transfer.

I see the difference ... and I usually call the latter professionally motivated harassment