That's one compelling reason to get rid of him, even if it means forming a new company (and this time don't use an LLC).

What he stated was the gist of it. It was not complete and full information, but if you step back a bit, take deep breath and think about the situation you will realize that, as far as the consumer is concerned, the information accurately represents the current situation. Neither your tone, nor your argumentation do him justice.

If I learn of a clothes producer being accused of exploiting workers I want to know what the company is saying about this, not hear about their new fall line. As a consumer I want to know if ethically I can buy their product, and keep my conscience clean.

If I hear that apparently CGL has a history of not paying freelancer (on time, or at all), and one owner has mingled personal and corporate funds, then as a consumer, I need to know if I can support that company still by buying their product, or have to stop for ethical reasons.

Removing him from ownership and removing him from operations are two separate things. I agree that removing him from ownership is tricky, but Randall Bills' letter to freelancers defends keeping Loren L. Coleman involved in the operations of Catalyst Game Labs, which personally I totally disagree with.

Uhh...FASA had a history of not paying their freelancers on time. FanPro had similar issues. Did that stop you from buying either of their products?

It sounds as if you're more concerned about the owner's actions. And in the end, you'll need to make a personal decision on that regarding your conscience. I only point that out, because the freelancer payment issue is most definitely of concern, but not unique to CGL or this particular situation.

Probably surprisingly to some of the folks here, I'm with DE on that one.

I do not think that Coleman would still be involved in the operations if this had happened at a public company.

I didn't know about the freelancers not being paid by FASA or Fanpro, so it could not stop me at the time.

I am also concerned about the quality of the product, since I do not trust people to be capable enough to produce quality material if they demonstrate faith in people who mingle personal and corporate funds.

To put it another way: Shadowrun heavily deals with crime, megacorps, plots and intrigues. I have trouble taking anything seriously if it was written by someone who trusts Coleman after what he did. They are just too naive, in my opinion, to be working on a game as gritty and double-dealing as Shadowrun.

The same fundamental issues apply. Handwavium alone can't make someone with a significant ownership stake disappear from daily operations to which he's traditionally been party against his will. I'm not defending the actions of Loren L. Coleman in any way, but Randall Bill's decision to keep his friends close and Loren L. Coleman closer makes quite a bit of sense from a business perspective. Catalyst's immediate priorities are almost certainly remaining operational day-to-day, recouping funds from the Colemans, and renegotiating the SR/BT licenses. Hostile ouster doesn't further any of those short term goals. The other owners' decision to act in their own best interest shouldn't be, in my mind, taken as an endorsement of what's happened or a sign that future options are being taken off the table.


The people writing the books and the people making the business decisions are separate groups, by and large. This is a non-factor.

I am concerned about people trusting Coleman enough to keep writing the books writing the books.

who else are they going to send to New York to talk to Topps/Tornante? I doubt the other owners are ecstatic about the choices, but Loren is likely the best chance (now DSG is gone )for keeping the licenses, which means best chance for people getting paid, and best chance for products getting shipped. For the moment. Securing the licenses is primary, dealing with the other stuff can/has to wait until that is sorted.

Are you serious? Sending a guy who has mingled personal and corporate funds, and who people claim has not paid the royalities Topps was due, to Topps is their best bet to get the license?

Would you trust Coleman at this point? Would anyone?

Would you want your license, and therefore your money, trusted to Coleman?

It's a sorry state of affairs, but quite possibly the truth. There just aren't very many staff people still at Catalyst and out of those, I'm not sure any of them are knowledgeable in the operations to the extent that might be necessary. And it seems like the owners--aside from Loren L. Coleman--took a very hands off position on the operation of the company, meaning that no one else appears to have a clue.

It's totally, absolutely screwed up, but it could very well be the reality of the situation. Which is one reason why I haven't had much faith in InMediaRes' management.

It seemed to me when I read that letter that Loren L. made some calls, called in favors, and had buddies in the gaming industry put pressure on Catalyst to keep Loren around. If Catalyst would lose the license by losing Loren L., would that help them? Or if they would have trouble with distributors as a punsihment for hanging LLC out to dry?

This is a small business. Everybody knows everybody. People are friends. People help friends. It's like small town politics, I guess. You should know how corrupt and mafiose these can be.

Aside from what DE says (and I agree with him there), that may be a reason to keep LLC close for the time being.

If that is the truth, then Catalyst is finished. I can't see anyone who is accountable to investors being able to trust Coleman at this point.

I think this is what annoys me the most about this whole situation. And I'm not talking about the fact that LLC should be removed. I'm talking about the fact some people here (not necessarily Fuchs) keep insisting on more detailed information about what is going on. CGL is NOT a public company. We are not owners or even investors (afaik) of CGL or even IMR. We have absolutely NO right to know its internal happenings, and anything we are told we should be grateful for (if taken with a grain of salt). I am not trying to be a Catalyst apologist by any means, but I think those here that consistently keep harping for more detailed information just need to shut up. Yes, I hate the fact that this whole financial situation has threatened the life of one of my favorite games. Yes, I seriously hope that all of the freelancers get paid what they are due. Yes, I hate that we lost some good people because of this mess. Yes, I would love to know more about what exactly is going on inside CGL. No, I don't think we deserve to be told just because we are loyal fans of the game.

Look at it this way; Topps is likely valuing the properties on how much revenue they brought in for WizKids, as that was when they acquired them. As such, they likely wanted someone with WK line experience at the helm. And by that, I mean MWDA line experience, as that was the WK cashcow. The SR clix was a non-starter, and the synergy with the Mech Assault X-Box games helped drive MWDA sales. So your two main options there are Dave Stansel-Garner (gone), and Loren L Coleman.

better the devil you know.

Absolutely true. It is a private company and there is zero legal necessity for InMediaRes to tell any of the fans anything. Of course, there's always been a difference between what is legally necessary and public relations.

I look at it this way: "You trusted the license to a guy who could not keep his money and the company money separate? And without making sure those accusations of him breaking our contract and keeping money due to us from us?"

I do not think anyone who would trust Coleman at this point would be acting in a responsible manner befitting a professional.

I can't see how Euro zone countries' citizenry would trust Greece to wisely spend $40bn! The Euro must be finished! Goldman Sachs helped drive and then profited from a market bubble! They've got to be finished, right!?

Fact of the matter is that people deal with unsavory, unpopular or unethical partners every day because they offer valuable services or a good return on investment. The licensing question is a business decision, not a moral once, and will almost certainly be treated as such.

Catalyst has a proven capacity to monetize the licenses. Other contenders may or may not be able to show a business plan that inspires confidence at Topps. Given the choice between a restructured Catalyst that's taken steps to ensure future accounting is proper vs. a new licensee vs. simply not licensing the property (an option if licensing will cause damage to the IP's value > devaluation it would experience if left fallow), Topps will balance risks and make a decision to maximize their profit over some term.

Exactly. But if they want us as customers, then telling us about their corporate ethics is expected these days. They do not have to, of course, but if they do not then that alone tells us something.

Private or public company - having someone like Coleman at the helm is enough to cast a doubt on them. They can either clear that up by clearing Coleman, or by removing him, or suffer the tarnished reputation that brings.

It makes no business sense to trust someone who is accused of having cheated you until those accusations are cleared. Especially if it has been admitted that there were financial irregularities.

Would you let your agent invest your own money, maybe your entire retirement fund, in a business led by Coleman?

If not, why would you expect anyone else to trust him with money at this point?

Because he's one of the owners of a private corporation. Without knowing all of the legal details of how the LLC is put together, it may not even be possible to remove him.

As for Jason, I will judge him based on the products he produces.

-M&P

Personally, I'm a big fan of skilled and open companies. That's why I applaud what Posthuman is doing. They not only seem to have a solid understanding of the business (to the point of maybe being visionary in this business), but they are also very open with their customers. That's a great thing.

But none of us know how Topps will reach their decision and I can't really take anyone seriously who thinks they know the outcome. There are too many unknown variables.

Most likely he would not. Based on my experience, such actions would draw the attention of the IRS and the SEC. The results of those investigations would determine the change in share value, which would determine the shareholders votes on keeping the individual.

Also, if it was a much larger company than it currently is, even privately held, he would most likely have a problem, given concerns of the market.

But, this is not either of those. This is an LLC, in a relatively small field.

My educated guess is that the long term plan and the short term plan look radically different. To continue your earlier analogy, they have to seal the compartments, stop the flooding, and regain control of the ship (keep the license). Then, once moving (through sales of material) they can patch the holes, and repair the vessel (that will be when we see the future of Loren L Coleman).

-M&P

We may not know all the variables, but that Coleman's involvement is weighing against Catalyst should be clear given the info we have.

I think you make a mistake in assuming Randall "trusts" Coleman.

I'm not sure if you've worked for a corporation before, but I've worked for plenty of individuals that I did not have an ounce of trust for. Of course it's not an ideal situation, but it happens ALL THE TIME. One thing you can trust, is that you can't trust them. Might sound stupid but it makes them predictable.

This just isn't true. Odds are you're posting from a Windows PC. Microsoft is a proven and abusive monopolist, yet the companies that were harmed by its use of market power are still bundling its software and selling it all over the world. More often than not, that software runs on computers that depend on CPU's and chipsets manufactured by Intel, another proven, abusive monopolist with whom vendors are doing considerable business.

The fact that someone was abusive or a cheat in the past doesn't foreclose future business. Even near-certain abuse in the future isn't sufficient, in many cases, to motivate severance of a business relationship. It's certainly part of the decision-making calculus, but the availability and viability of alternatives also matter. Again, I'm not defending what's happened, but you're assuming that YOUR view of business ethics and Topps' view of what's financially responsible are identical. That's likely not true. As Demonseed said, we have no idea what factors Topps will base its decision on. We'll know WHAT they decide come May.

Not entirely correct. As pointed out, the letter to the freelancers mentioned support CGL received from people in the industry. Earlier you stated that you immediately dismissed those claims as "drivel." So your thoughts are not based on "the info we have," but rather the info you choose to believe. That's fine, that's what most of us do, but I wanted to make that clear.

Jason H.

We're not talking about working for Coleman, we are talking about trusting Coleman with your money.

This may be stating the obvious, but I would guess they will base the decision on what they believe will return them the most money.

-M&P

Support from people who trust Coleman at this point is not really anything to be proud of - unless somehow, those "in the industry" somehow got info we did not get, and which would prove the accusations aganst Coleman wrong. In which case I expect CGL to have published such info long ago, to shut the speculation up, which is cleary damaging Catalyst.

Again, that is your opinion of people that you are considering in the abstract. Will Topps' opinion of them be the same? We will see that in a month or two.

Jason H.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think you make the mistake of believing they trust Coleman. You don't know what sort of arrangements they are setting up, or even who is handling the money now. During normal operations, yes, Coleman would probably have the final say so on what happens with the money. This is far from a normal situation though...

I have a hard time understanding some of the zealous calls for a radical restructuring of CGL, of removing Coleman and letting the full moral weight of the judicial system fall on him. The objective of CGL is, and will continue to be, to survive and continue to produce high quality products. Given the current situation and the seeming impossibility of removing Coleman while reacquiring the funds to pay the freelancers and keep the CGL boat afloat, I can only imagine that the owners are making the grim, though necessary, decision to try and stay alive.

The sort of approach that some posters here feel the company should take is tantamount to asking CGL to commit seppuku for its sins.

@Fuchs

*Church Lady walks reads Fuchs posts* "Well, isn't that special"

LL Coleman ... did I talk about him ? No because I have no word to describe his felony ! he did something wrong and I've stated it before. The thing is that Trollman is taking pleasure and is orgasming while telling his facts. He is not exposing them with a flat cold reason. He got anger and pleasure to see the chaos he's creating while doing so. It's bad to do that, he should have stayed objective and use a cold neutral tone in his messages.



Hum didn't think of it that way.

Yes, that it's nobody's business but those who have a monetary stake in the company, meaning the owners. We aren't them. This isn't a publicly traded company with investors. If it were, I'd be agreeing with you quite a bit more.

guys, we're rehashing a lot of things right now, but before you jump to post, you should give the chance for people to reply, so you're not basically saying the same thing constantly. It will be considered as spamming by the mods.

Thanks

Shadowkids, and those BattleTechies that have joined us recently, heed my words for a moment.

Nothing we do or say on this or any other thread, on this or any other forum, is going to change how the folks at InMediaRes Productions LLC do business. At this point, there is nothing to be gained by sniping at one another, except to increase the overall level of hostility. Yes, I know that's a bit hypocritical coming from the guy that argues whenever Jason Hardy has tapped his keyboard lately, but please bear with me.

This entire situation boils down to only two things as far as fans are concerned: trust and entitlement.

Fans, freelancers, and most of the employees have no say in the management of Catalyst, and are not entitled to information about Catalyst's inner workings or financial information. None of us need to know it to get along with our lives or work, and it is private information about the running of the company. As much as we may feel that Shadowrun (or BattleTech for those just tuning in) is our game, the reality is that Catalyst does not have any responsibility to us beyond business relationships. It is thus inappropriate for us, as fans or freelancers, to expect or demand private information, or to make demands that change the management of the company.

The most essential element of the relationships within Catalyst, between its management and employees, between the employees and the freelancers, between the fans and the company, is trust. Freelancers and employees trust the management for open and honest communication, and that contracts will be honored and fulfilled by both sides. Fans trust that the company will continue to make great products for the game they love, and the company trusts that if they make great products then the fans will buy them and the company will prosper. What these threads should make clear, from the very first post, is that there has been a tremendous breakdown in trust at Catalyst.

None of us here, except perhaps Jennifer Harding or Randall Bills if he ever deigns to step in, have a sufficiently clear picture of Catalyst's financial situation. For myself, for some other freelancers and fans and employees, there has been a terminal breakdown of trust between us and Loren L. Coleman, and those that support him like Randall Bills. Whether or not you believe Catalyst will continue, or that what Coleman did is illegal, I believe everyone here can understand that a large portion of Catalyst's goodwill has been lost by these revelations, along with talented individuals like Adam Jury. Shadowrun, from all accounts, has been hit harder than BattleTech by the loss or withholding of copyright on behalf of freelancers. This I believe is because the majority of SR freelancers have closer relationships to Adam Jury and Jennifer Harding; I know that I personally have more trust and faith in them and their words than Jason Hardy.

...and let me say one word about that. I've been a dick to Jason lately. I don't need to admit it, it's been quite apparent to anyone that's read our last few exchanges. I have my private reasons for that, but I want to make this much clear: Jason believes he is doing what he feels is right. He is continuing to pursue his job as Shadowrun Line Developer, and as far as that goes is making an effort to fulfill his obligations. I can respect that, even if I do not agree with that. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been burned by people before. People that have lied to me and stolen from me. For me, and only for me, I cannot continue a relationship with such a person. I cannot continue to work with those that continue to support and trust such a person. Maybe Randall Bills is a bigger person than I am, maybe Jason Hardy's loyalty to the game or the responsibilities of his position are greater than the broken promises written out in his unfulfilled contracts. For myself, I believe the accusations against Loren, and I cannot continue to work for him or those that support him. That does not mean that anyone here should continue to hurl vitriol at Jason for his statements. He is restricted in what he can say, and has little recourse but to repeat the same sentiments until something on his end changes.

In short, Jason doesn't have the answers, stop beating him up for it.

He's the Shadowrun line developer and his public statements are generally in response to when people ask how this situation is impacting the Shadowrun line.

He's also given information about the process behind getting Shadowrun freelancers paid. It's not something he has direct control over, but likely has a bit of input in, if for no other reason than to keep track of who contributed to what.

That information has been confirmed by freelancers who have received checks and are waiting for them to clear. However what has been sent out so far doesn't cover everything owed.

He's even given us a little glimpse into the sort of 'new policies' that are in place, such as multiple owners being required to sign off on any draws from CGL accounts.

Early on, Jason appears to be one of the people who pushed internally for Catalyst to give some sort of public response to this very thread.

So what is your problem? He's doing his job and providing the most accurate information he can provide as a current employee.

Beat up AH instead, he's much more eloquent! *grabs pitchfork and torch*

What's been indicated so far is that LLC is being kept around as a 'visions' guy and 'connections' guy. New company policies restrict his direct access to company funds. They actually restrict everyone's access to company funds, apparently.

One possible way of removing him from ownership may come after he pays down a portion of his debt. Catalyst could declare the remaining funds as payment for his ownership stake, meaning he'd no longer be an owner of Catalyst, but would also no longer owe the company anything else.

Window office time. Japanese style.

*long, loud, sustained applause*

Takes a big man to say some of those things, Bobby. You've got my support on all of this (wasn't gonna quote the whole thing, even if it deserves it), for whatever that's worth.

If our posts do not change anything then there is no need to stop posting at all either.

If peoples' posts are contributing nothing but vitriol to an already heated debate, that's a great reason to stop.

@ Ancient History

I really liked your post and thought that you made a number excellent points.

My respect for increased ten fold when you said, "I've been a dick to Jason lately."
While you didn't have to say that, it takes testicular fortitude to do so in my book. In an age where far too many people are unwilling to own their actions, you did. (Please note, I did not refer to said actions as mistakes or being justified. I am not qualified to make that judgement call.) Just as importnat though, when I put it all into context, I can understand that you are personally (financially) affected by this and have reason to be upset.

My view, is that I want CGL to survive and thrive so that the people owed money will get paid. Having a continued flow of product for SR would be nice as well.

Side Note: Yes, I know my Church Lady quote was snarky. But in my defense, straight up, I am Bob...Lord of Evil. No false advertising here.

This is a slight rehash of what others are saying but put another way.

If I only worked with and for people I could trust, I would not have anyone to work for or with. Corruption and dishonesty are so common you can't avoid trusting dishonest people with your money. In the 16ish years of work I've performed I don't think I have ever worked for or with someone who was truly trustworthy. Some were more honest than others but everyone lies, cheats and steals to some degree.

Sure sometimes I think about going solo and starting my own business so I could run one honestly, but odds are if I wanted to survive I would have to compromise my ethics in order to make it. My limit in working for or with others is simple I wont knowingly commit a crime, because chances are I am not being paid enough for the risk. Everything else is fair game because quite frankly if I want to work at all that is the choice I have to make. If the other side wants to commit felonies good for them, if the company I work for commits felonies every day good for them, I just don't plan on going to jail for any of them.

See... I don't see the world as this way. 100% of people are not criminals or corrupt. Some of them? Sure. Many of them? Sure. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It's NOT a forgone conclusion though and if everyone you've ever worked with for 16 years has been dishonest and thieves, you need to get into a different business or move or something. That's not common.

I'm not naive. I know that dishonest people exist and criminals exist. I KNOW that. But it's not so endemic that you have to choose 'lessor of evils' in your everyday life just to put food on the table. Again that's hiding whats really going on here.

Noone put a gun to LLC's head and said 'Steal over $700,000 and build yourself a $650,000 mansion'

He didn't NEED that. He chose to steal it. That sort of theft might happen around the country and around the world but it's NOT par for the course. We do not have to accept it as a cost of doing business.

As a customer. I don't want ___MY___ Hard earned money, spent on these books, going to a thief living in a $650,000 house while his workers are not paid.

As a customer, I CAN complain about this. I pay money for a book, trusting that the money goes to the right people and that my money isn't being stolen or diverted or 'Co-mingled' (( Which is just double talk for the Fraker stole it.)). As a customer I __CAN__ and __DO__ Have the right to be outraged at the theft of the money __I__ worked hard for, not going to the right people for what I chose to pay for.

Are there criminals in the world? Yes. Will there always be? Yes.

Do I have to pay for their $650,000 Mansions while Single mothers of children in their employ don't get paid?

NO.

And I have the right, by being somone who's dropped a few $100 on books in the past few weeks, to bitch about it.