It's hard to start a small business. Long hours, uncertainty, not knowing when you'll get a return for your investment: going hungry, the stress alone can burn you out before long. Your inspiration, verve, and all your idealistic plans can go to the way side when glossy dreams become bitter reality.
Most of us have the potential to do what L.L. Coleman allegedly did. This does not excuse him. But the fault lies not only with him but also with the other owners for a business that allows the possibility that this could happen. It might have been convenient for them to allow open access to the company's resources, but in the end it was just laziness. Apathy, laziness, taking that easy money, you don't have to be evil to do these things.
Whether IMR/CGL will be producing our games in two months or whether its another company, my only hope is that whoever it is will learn from all of this, hell I have, if I'm ever in a position to start an LLC, commingling of funds is going to be one of my top concerns. "Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger" may be an over used cliche, but in this case IMR can actually be a better company if they survive.
Signed, Shadowrun fan, small business owner.
Full Version: CGL Speculation #5
QUOTE (Pepsi Jedi @ Apr 15 2010, 04:07 PM) 
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.
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.
Sure and the alleged acts may be on the higher end of the corruption I am used to seeing. But truly honest people who don't lie, cheat, and steal in business are statistical anomalies IMO.
Also again I would advise against saying stealing though, it technically might not of been. But hey go ahead and be mad about it if you want, that part I agree with. I personally am not mad. Contextually though while I like the core 4e mechanic better than previous editions, the rest of the rules failed so heavily in implementing it for me I am not married to the Catalyst team and if they go under so be it.
QUOTE (The Monk @ Apr 15 2010, 04:13 PM)
It's hard to start a small business. Long hours, uncertainty, not knowing when you'll get a return for your investment: going hungry, the stress alone can burn you out before long. Your inspiration, verve, and all your idealistic plans can go to the way side when glossy dreams become bitter reality.
Most of us have the potential to do what L.L. Coleman allegedly did. This does not excuse him. But the fault lies not only with him but also with the other owners for a business that allows the possibility that this could happen. It might have been convenient for them to allow open access to the company's resources, but in the end it was just laziness. Apathy, laziness, taking that easy money, you don't have to be evil to do these things.
Whether IMR/CGL will be producing our games in two months or whether its another company, my only hope is that whoever it is will learn from all of this, hell I have, if I'm ever in a position to start an LLC, commingling of funds is going to be one of my top concerns. "Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger" may be an over used cliche, but in this case IMR can actually be a better company if they survive.
Signed, Shadowrun fan, small business owner.
Most of us have the potential to do what L.L. Coleman allegedly did. This does not excuse him. But the fault lies not only with him but also with the other owners for a business that allows the possibility that this could happen. It might have been convenient for them to allow open access to the company's resources, but in the end it was just laziness. Apathy, laziness, taking that easy money, you don't have to be evil to do these things.
Whether IMR/CGL will be producing our games in two months or whether its another company, my only hope is that whoever it is will learn from all of this, hell I have, if I'm ever in a position to start an LLC, commingling of funds is going to be one of my top concerns. "Whatever does not kill you makes you stronger" may be an over used cliche, but in this case IMR can actually be a better company if they survive.
Signed, Shadowrun fan, small business owner.
I can think up a shadowrun adventure based on some of this. Have a owner of a company who invested lets say for the adventure just as much capital into the company as the other owners. Have 1 owner busting his ass in the business while the others sit on a beach sipping your favorite Rhum beverages. Have the hard working owner slip into bitterness as the others reap in the same rewards he is, and he begins funneling extra money into his coffers because he "deserves it". End it with one side hiring shadowrunners to destroy the other owner/owners. Not that this is any way necessarily related to the current situation, but your post kind of sparked the idea with someone else post that Coleman was one of the owners who made this his full time job.
By the way, this reminded me that I need to get out of New Jersey. Around here, $650k isn't a mansion. It's a 4 bedroom, 2 or 3 bath, 2300 square foot detached single family house.
QUOTE (DWC @ Apr 15 2010, 12:52 PM)
By the way, this reminded me that I need to get out of New Jersey. Around here, $650k isn't a mansion. It's a 4 bedroom, 2 or 3 bath, 2300 square foot detached single family house.
About the same here in the SF Bay, if you are not picky about school quality.
BlueMax
There's plenty of cheap house costs here in Elkhart, IN! <-- is trying to get more SR player/GM's in his area.
Hey Jason. Any word on the books and when they might be ok to buy again? I'm looking to buy Vice tomorrow. I'd much rather buy the PDF at this juncture than the hard copy off ebay, but if it's going to be weeks or longer I'll go ahead and buy on the secondary market.
Im kinda curious why the warehouse guy was fired? If he was a scapegoat or just didnt do his job right. If he was a scapegoat, then thats not cool.
QUOTE (Pepsi Jedi @ Apr 15 2010, 05:45 PM)
Hey Jason. Any word on the books and when they might be ok to buy again? I'm looking to buy Vice tomorrow. I'd much rather buy the PDF at this juncture than the hard copy off ebay, but if it's going to be weeks or longer I'll go ahead and buy on the secondary market.
It shouldn't be much longer. I hope to have definitive news within the next 10 days or so.
Jason H.
I'll chime in and say that Jason is acting quite reasonably in his position as a spokesperson for CGL. He is being as open as he can be, avoiding topics that he can't or shouldn't or wont respond to - while admitting that he is avoiding being specific about those topics.
That's not to say I agree with the actions at CGL, but as a long time shadowrun fan I'm content to use the products I have and when new products emerge that I find interesting I will purchase them. In the grand scheme of things (alleged) embezzlement is a smaller crime than the crimes that occur every day to secure oil to power our cars here in the US(see Nigeria, Iraq, etc). If you drive a car or purchase any product that's been shipped anywhere in the world you really don't have a leg to stand on for your ethical objections / boycott of CGL.
Doesn't make this LLC fellow someone I would lend money to though.
That's not to say I agree with the actions at CGL, but as a long time shadowrun fan I'm content to use the products I have and when new products emerge that I find interesting I will purchase them. In the grand scheme of things (alleged) embezzlement is a smaller crime than the crimes that occur every day to secure oil to power our cars here in the US(see Nigeria, Iraq, etc). If you drive a car or purchase any product that's been shipped anywhere in the world you really don't have a leg to stand on for your ethical objections / boycott of CGL.
Doesn't make this LLC fellow someone I would lend money to though.
Hey folks--
I've been approached by several people so far, and thought I'd go ahead and make the public announcement. I am no longer working as the Production Manager for Catalyst Game Labs. My reasons for leaving were not related to the current events being speculated about in this thread. I have previously chosen to remain a very quiet member of the community on these arguments. That choice will still stand.
There are innumberable factual inaccuracies in all of the arguments and it is not my place to clarify each of them.
I have asked this before, both publically on DSF and in private conversations with several people, but will do it one more time. Owners - please remember that you have your own methods of communincating with each other and that airing the dirty laundry of either side of your debate is not helping anyone. BT crew - I respect your position, and fully understand the frustration that you are feeling (I met weekly with Herb and he is your biggest advocate, so trust me when I say this), but coming to DSF just to slam on the SR folks isn't going to help mend the fractures within our freelancing community.
Everyone, please take a deep breath, look at the world from your perspective, their perspective, and the perspective of the few of us caught in the middle. After doing that, post. You can keep your ire, your personal emotions, everything that you feel, but post in a constructive manner rather than one which ends up getting people banned.
Thank you,
-Stephen
I've been approached by several people so far, and thought I'd go ahead and make the public announcement. I am no longer working as the Production Manager for Catalyst Game Labs. My reasons for leaving were not related to the current events being speculated about in this thread. I have previously chosen to remain a very quiet member of the community on these arguments. That choice will still stand.
There are innumberable factual inaccuracies in all of the arguments and it is not my place to clarify each of them.
I have asked this before, both publically on DSF and in private conversations with several people, but will do it one more time. Owners - please remember that you have your own methods of communincating with each other and that airing the dirty laundry of either side of your debate is not helping anyone. BT crew - I respect your position, and fully understand the frustration that you are feeling (I met weekly with Herb and he is your biggest advocate, so trust me when I say this), but coming to DSF just to slam on the SR folks isn't going to help mend the fractures within our freelancing community.
Everyone, please take a deep breath, look at the world from your perspective, their perspective, and the perspective of the few of us caught in the middle. After doing that, post. You can keep your ire, your personal emotions, everything that you feel, but post in a constructive manner rather than one which ends up getting people banned.
Thank you,
-Stephen
QUOTE (JM Hardy @ Apr 15 2010, 06:11 PM)
It shouldn't be much longer. I hope to have definitive news within the next 10 days or so.
Jason H.
Jason H.
Thank you for the reply.
Hard copy it is. I'll look at picking up the PDF for the Ipad when they become available again. Thanks.
QUOTE (MindandPen @ Apr 16 2010, 01:59 AM)
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.
What? If in your role as an employee you mingled personal and company funds, then could not account for the company funds, you'd be criminally charged with the crime of "Theft as a Servant"
For which you would then be fired.
In Australia anyway.
Yeah here in the US you "Should" be fired and go to jail... The "why's" this hasn't happened, seem to be equally tied up in "it'd destroy the company the way it's set up" and "He's gonna pay it back, really!" sort of things.
That being said. We do not "KNOW" why he hasn't been fired and the other owners have him arrested. That would be pure speculation.
We just know that he's not been, fired, nor arrested.
That being said. We do not "KNOW" why he hasn't been fired and the other owners have him arrested. That would be pure speculation.
We just know that he's not been, fired, nor arrested.
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Apr 15 2010, 06:46 PM)
What? If in your role as an employee you mingled personal and company funds, then could not account for the company funds, you'd be criminally charged with the crime of "Theft as a Servant"
For which you would then be fired.
In Australia anyway.
For which you would then be fired.
In Australia anyway.
Loren L Coleman is an owner. So in the example of a public company, it would be the equivalent of a member of the board, or a senior executive. The mingling of funds is not in and of itself usually illegal (IANAL) but the inability to account for it that would be the problem.
-M&P
QUOTE (MindandPen @ Apr 16 2010, 10:20 AM)
Loren L Coleman is an owner. So in the example of a public company, it would be the equivalent of a member of the board, or a senior executive. The mingling of funds is not in and of itself usually illegal (IANAL) but the inability to account for it that would be the problem.
-M&P
-M&P
Yes, if you did that as a part owner, you'd be facing charges re: your relationship with the other stockholders. Pass through corporations in Australia are set up differently from the US though, but with the closest possible arrangement, LLColeman's actions would carry one of a number of criminal charges depending on exactly the terms of the founding agreement were.
To use your examples, a senior executive would be charged with theft as a servant - and as LLColeman can be an employee and an owner
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Apr 16 2010, 09:46 AM)
What? If in your role as an employee you mingled personal and company funds, then could not account for the company funds, you'd be criminally charged with the crime of "Theft as a Servant"
For which you would then be fired.
In Australia anyway.
For which you would then be fired.
In Australia anyway.
Our laws in Aussieland different, isn't our 'jail for life' like 25 years instead of 'life' or something
?
We have that silliness in the US too. Maybe it originates in British Common Law perhaps?
QUOTE (MindandPen @ Apr 15 2010, 08:20 PM)
IANAL
<Insert Beevis and Butthead giggle>
Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course, I have a lot of respect for the posts you made here and what you've added.
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 16 2010, 11:22 AM)
We have that silliness in the US too. Maybe it originates in British Common Law perhaps?
Oh really? I wasn't aware, I thought the sillyness was constrained to just us
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Apr 15 2010, 11:13 AM)
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?
Would you trust Coleman at this point? Would anyone?
Would you want your license, and therefore your money, trusted to Coleman?
These are great questions, but the guy hasn't been convicted of anything. The worse case is that Topps audits CGL and Topps' auditors reach the conclusion that CGL would have problems being a going concern. This would potentially be enough of a red flag for Topps to consider not renewing the license. But corporate relationships do matter. If Coleman can convince Topps that he can fix his sinking ship, then they might renew the license.
If folks are completely against CGL having the licenses going forward, then write to Topps and tell their senior management why the renewal is a bad idea. Letters do matter. Otherwise, I suspect that Topps will renew it based on the relationship that CGL has with Topps, assuming the audit report is not too harsh.
Theft as a Servant is from british common law, although now it's part of the crimes act of 19XX in Australia anyway.
I was referring to the 25 year "life sentence", but I'm sure we have an equivalent of "Theft as a Servant" too.
(Given the post I just made, take the following [as opposed to everything else on dumpshock] with a grain of salt: )
There's been a lot of discussion here of ethics. Is it ethical to work for someone who stole money? Is it ethical to buy product from a company that lies to it's business partners? Is it ethical to steal a little money, but not a lot? Is it ethical to steal money that you are owed or feel you deserve? Is it ethical to post private information in a public forum? Is it ethical to post public information in a public forum? Do you have the right to be offended? What is the nature of free speech on a public, but privately owned forum? How much of a right to information does an employee have? How much of a right to information does a consumer have? Of course none of these questions that are not yet settled in academia will be settled here.
That we're all so concerned about ethics in the creation and consumption of a game about steel and killing people for money, I think speaks to the cathartic nature of Shadowrun.
AH said he's been a dick to JMH. There's been a lot of dickery here and I appreciate his public confession. (Thank you.) There's really no excuse for the general dickishness that's taken place and I've contributed as well.
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this whole mess (besides the obvious human element as personified by Tiger Eyes). If you'll permit me to overly generalize, the two extremes in this debate are represented by JM Hardy and FrankTrollman. Both of them have used essentially the same argument: I know more than you do, trust me, but I'm not telling you what or how I know. Both of them have been vilified for this, and both of them feel justified in their actions. The only real difference I see is that JM Hardy is capable of not imploding into a ball of internet hate when someone disagrees with him, while FrankTrollman is not. In other words, they've used identical arguments, but JM Hardy is polite about it. Personality goes a long way.
Now, to say that because of this politeness we must stop questioning him or speculating is not a strong argument. JM Hardy is here in an official capacity as a PR spokesman of a corporation. He's been compared to Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi minister of information under Sadam Hussein. This is clearly unfair. While it certainly sounds like Loren L Coleman is not a moral person, he has not used chemical weapons on his own people or buried 30,000 people in a mass grave. It would me more fair to compare JM Hardy's current role to the White House press secretary. He's done a good job for his employers. He and his employer may chose to withhold information and that is entirely within their right. As has been pointed out more eloquently than I could, we are not entitled to his information. But it remains entirely within our right to continue to ask for it. As it is entirely within our right to form opinions, positive or negative, based on the company he represent's lack of forthrightness.
In other words, while some of what FrankTrollman originally said has sense been corroborated by other sources, including company owners, much of it has not. I remain skeptical because I don't trust anonymous sources. If you want to say something, don't use FrankTrollman. Man up and say it.
By the same token, I remain skeptical of much of what JM Hardy has said in his official capacity as a CGL spokesperson. (Emphasis added, because this is not a commentary on him as a person, only the role he is currently playing.) Citing unnamed owners, "titans of industry", lawyers, and CPAs without revealing who or what they've said leaves me distrustful. Again, we have no right to this information, but it's a bit dubious to bring it up without any supporting material. You can either "no comment" or respond to the question, but the middle ground CGL is asking JM Hardy to walk is not any more tenuous than FrankTrollman and his anonymous source(s?).
There's been a lot of discussion here of ethics. Is it ethical to work for someone who stole money? Is it ethical to buy product from a company that lies to it's business partners? Is it ethical to steal a little money, but not a lot? Is it ethical to steal money that you are owed or feel you deserve? Is it ethical to post private information in a public forum? Is it ethical to post public information in a public forum? Do you have the right to be offended? What is the nature of free speech on a public, but privately owned forum? How much of a right to information does an employee have? How much of a right to information does a consumer have? Of course none of these questions that are not yet settled in academia will be settled here.
That we're all so concerned about ethics in the creation and consumption of a game about steel and killing people for money, I think speaks to the cathartic nature of Shadowrun.
AH said he's been a dick to JMH. There's been a lot of dickery here and I appreciate his public confession. (Thank you.) There's really no excuse for the general dickishness that's taken place and I've contributed as well.
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this whole mess (besides the obvious human element as personified by Tiger Eyes). If you'll permit me to overly generalize, the two extremes in this debate are represented by JM Hardy and FrankTrollman. Both of them have used essentially the same argument: I know more than you do, trust me, but I'm not telling you what or how I know. Both of them have been vilified for this, and both of them feel justified in their actions. The only real difference I see is that JM Hardy is capable of not imploding into a ball of internet hate when someone disagrees with him, while FrankTrollman is not. In other words, they've used identical arguments, but JM Hardy is polite about it. Personality goes a long way.
Now, to say that because of this politeness we must stop questioning him or speculating is not a strong argument. JM Hardy is here in an official capacity as a PR spokesman of a corporation. He's been compared to Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi minister of information under Sadam Hussein. This is clearly unfair. While it certainly sounds like Loren L Coleman is not a moral person, he has not used chemical weapons on his own people or buried 30,000 people in a mass grave. It would me more fair to compare JM Hardy's current role to the White House press secretary. He's done a good job for his employers. He and his employer may chose to withhold information and that is entirely within their right. As has been pointed out more eloquently than I could, we are not entitled to his information. But it remains entirely within our right to continue to ask for it. As it is entirely within our right to form opinions, positive or negative, based on the company he represent's lack of forthrightness.
In other words, while some of what FrankTrollman originally said has sense been corroborated by other sources, including company owners, much of it has not. I remain skeptical because I don't trust anonymous sources. If you want to say something, don't use FrankTrollman. Man up and say it.
By the same token, I remain skeptical of much of what JM Hardy has said in his official capacity as a CGL spokesperson. (Emphasis added, because this is not a commentary on him as a person, only the role he is currently playing.) Citing unnamed owners, "titans of industry", lawyers, and CPAs without revealing who or what they've said leaves me distrustful. Again, we have no right to this information, but it's a bit dubious to bring it up without any supporting material. You can either "no comment" or respond to the question, but the middle ground CGL is asking JM Hardy to walk is not any more tenuous than FrankTrollman and his anonymous source(s?).
QUOTE (nemafow @ Apr 15 2010, 08:28 PM)
Oh really? I wasn't aware, I thought the sillyness was constrained to just us
Life is usually 30 years, used to calculate parole. Then there is "Life without the possibility of parole" which is "until you're room temperature".
-M&P
QUOTE (augmentin @ Apr 15 2010, 08:25 PM)
<Insert Beevis and Butthead giggle>
Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course, I have a lot of respect for the posts you made here and what you've added.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Of course, I have a lot of respect for the posts you made here and what you've added.
Got tired of typing it out so I resorted to shorthand.
I'm just trying to be a helpful little miscreant.
-M&P
QUOTE (MindandPen @ Apr 16 2010, 12:03 PM)
Life is usually 30 years, used to calculate parole. Then there is "Life without the possibility of parole" which is "until you're room temperature".
-M&P
-M&P
Good to know, thanks
just a thought on those arguing that loren l. coleman should be thrown in jail:
i'll readily agree that my sense of justice follows "you stole something, you should go to jail" as a general rule.
but my sense of justice *also* tells me that the other owners should be repaid the money that was taken from them, the freelancers should be paid the money that was owed them in the first place, and those who have chosen to stay at catalyst don't deserve to lose their jobs.
and quite frankly, if working towards the other owners getting repaid, the freelancers getting the money owed them, and CGL's other employees keeping their jobs requires that loren l. coleman *not* go to jail, well, i would have to say that my sense of justice would actually require that loren l. coleman not go to jail, because it is more important to me that everyone he has harmed get justice than it is that he get punished (which is also justice).
this, of course, presupposes that is isn't actually a mistake (which is technically still possible i suppose, but seems *really* unlikely), and that not pressing charges against loren l. coleman does in fact assist in getting those who have been harmed by his actions the justice (ie restitution) that they deserve.
and on a side note, i rather suspect loren l. coleman wouldn't have just told Jennifer Harding to blatantly falsify the royalty reports. that's not questionably illegal, that's just blatantly illegal, and her response indicated it was borderline not hundreds of miles past the border. on the other hand, just to give an example... here in Canada, at least, there are a number of ways you can handle account for, say, depreciation (lost value on physical properties over time; for example, a car that you bought one year ago is no longer worth what it was before you bought it). the government, for tax purposes, requires that you use one specific method, but for your own purposes (and for shareholder reports) you can use pretty much whatever you want (though naturally, your shareholders will want to know what method you're using). as such, it would be unethical (but not necessarily illegal) to change accounting methods every year to make your company look better in the financial statements for the shareholders... as long as you can make it not appear that you're falsely representing your company, that is.
similarly, it is possible that there was some vague wording (for example, if the contract somewhere defines a sold book as being something which has been given to the customer... which many who pre-ordered SR4A limited edition can attest has not happened with certain products) in the contract allows an accounting sleight of hand, so to speak: it may not technically be *illegal* to (for example) count those books as something other than sales, but it would certainly be of highly questionable ethics, especially if, say, the company decided to hold off on delivering books or deliberately chose the slowest way to deliver books, so that they could use this accounting method to their advantage.
i'm not saying that *is* what happened (this is the speculation thread, of course, so speculation is expected), merely pointing out that what loren l. coleman was trying to present to Topps may not have been illegal, but could have quite possibly been clearly ethically wrong and if intent could be proven, might be considered illegal.
(again, i'd like to stress that all my examples in this post are hypothetical, merely being examples of situations that could describe the situation, not examples of what does describe the situation: i have no post-secondary training in bookkeeping, no formal training whatsoever as any sort of law-related profession, and i am also not a psychic so far as i know...)
i'll readily agree that my sense of justice follows "you stole something, you should go to jail" as a general rule.
but my sense of justice *also* tells me that the other owners should be repaid the money that was taken from them, the freelancers should be paid the money that was owed them in the first place, and those who have chosen to stay at catalyst don't deserve to lose their jobs.
and quite frankly, if working towards the other owners getting repaid, the freelancers getting the money owed them, and CGL's other employees keeping their jobs requires that loren l. coleman *not* go to jail, well, i would have to say that my sense of justice would actually require that loren l. coleman not go to jail, because it is more important to me that everyone he has harmed get justice than it is that he get punished (which is also justice).
this, of course, presupposes that is isn't actually a mistake (which is technically still possible i suppose, but seems *really* unlikely), and that not pressing charges against loren l. coleman does in fact assist in getting those who have been harmed by his actions the justice (ie restitution) that they deserve.
and on a side note, i rather suspect loren l. coleman wouldn't have just told Jennifer Harding to blatantly falsify the royalty reports. that's not questionably illegal, that's just blatantly illegal, and her response indicated it was borderline not hundreds of miles past the border. on the other hand, just to give an example... here in Canada, at least, there are a number of ways you can handle account for, say, depreciation (lost value on physical properties over time; for example, a car that you bought one year ago is no longer worth what it was before you bought it). the government, for tax purposes, requires that you use one specific method, but for your own purposes (and for shareholder reports) you can use pretty much whatever you want (though naturally, your shareholders will want to know what method you're using). as such, it would be unethical (but not necessarily illegal) to change accounting methods every year to make your company look better in the financial statements for the shareholders... as long as you can make it not appear that you're falsely representing your company, that is.
similarly, it is possible that there was some vague wording (for example, if the contract somewhere defines a sold book as being something which has been given to the customer... which many who pre-ordered SR4A limited edition can attest has not happened with certain products) in the contract allows an accounting sleight of hand, so to speak: it may not technically be *illegal* to (for example) count those books as something other than sales, but it would certainly be of highly questionable ethics, especially if, say, the company decided to hold off on delivering books or deliberately chose the slowest way to deliver books, so that they could use this accounting method to their advantage.
i'm not saying that *is* what happened (this is the speculation thread, of course, so speculation is expected), merely pointing out that what loren l. coleman was trying to present to Topps may not have been illegal, but could have quite possibly been clearly ethically wrong and if intent could be proven, might be considered illegal.
(again, i'd like to stress that all my examples in this post are hypothetical, merely being examples of situations that could describe the situation, not examples of what does describe the situation: i have no post-secondary training in bookkeeping, no formal training whatsoever as any sort of law-related profession, and i am also not a psychic so far as i know...)
I'm late on all this, but Jaid covered my own thoughts well with the first three or four paragraphs.
Also, Ancient History, well done sir.
Also, Ancient History, well done sir.
So the general consensus, then, is that everyone is tired of the ass-hatery and we could all stand to be a little more moderate in our speculation? 
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 15 2010, 11:15 PM)
So the general consensus, then, is that everyone is tired of the ass-hatery and we could all stand to be a little more moderate in our speculation?
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
Sounds like people are finally starting to make sense? All the intentional Negativity over the Dumpshock forums really is not something
I like seeing. I would rather hang around the Battletech forums, as there it is more like the interactions of friends then here, where sometimes it
seems more like Desolation Angels verses Bug Spirits. And this is the face you guys want to show new players coming here for information?
QUOTE (Cardul @ Apr 15 2010, 11:23 PM)
And this is the face you guys want to show new players coming here for information?
Maybe you didn't sense the sarcasm in my comment? I absolutely welcome the civilized tone this thread is taking on thanks to the likes of AH, augmentin and Jaid.
QUOTE (tweak @ Apr 16 2010, 03:29 AM)
These are great questions, but the guy hasn't been convicted of anything. The worse case is that Topps audits CGL and Topps' auditors reach the conclusion that CGL would have problems being a going concern. This would potentially be enough of a red flag for Topps to consider not renewing the license. But corporate relationships do matter. If Coleman can convince Topps that he can fix his sinking ship, then they might renew the license.
If folks are completely against CGL having the licenses going forward, then write to Topps and tell their senior management why the renewal is a bad idea. Letters do matter. Otherwise, I suspect that Topps will renew it based on the relationship that CGL has with Topps, assuming the audit report is not too harsh.
If folks are completely against CGL having the licenses going forward, then write to Topps and tell their senior management why the renewal is a bad idea. Letters do matter. Otherwise, I suspect that Topps will renew it based on the relationship that CGL has with Topps, assuming the audit report is not too harsh.
He has not been convicted of anything, but CGL admitted there had been financial irregularities. Co-mingling of money is the least negative possibility there.
There's the audit report, but there's also the question of whether, at this point, any employe of another firm can afford to trust Coleman until those accusations have been resolved.
Would you be happy with your banker if he trusted your retirement funds to a firm headed by a guy who his former employees claim he cheated his firm and his partners? "Innocent untîl proven otherwise" counts in a penal court, but not in business. Not when you're accountable for your actions to your investors.
QUOTE (Cardul @ Apr 16 2010, 07:23 AM)
Sounds like people are finally starting to make sense? All the intentional Negativity over the Dumpshock forums really is not something
I like seeing. I would rather hang around the Battletech forums, as there it is more like the interactions of friends then here, where sometimes it
seems more like Desolation Angels verses Bug Spirits. And this is the face you guys want to show new players coming here for information?
I like seeing. I would rather hang around the Battletech forums, as there it is more like the interactions of friends then here, where sometimes it
seems more like Desolation Angels verses Bug Spirits. And this is the face you guys want to show new players coming here for information?
For information? Yes. I'd rather trust information coming from a forum with heated discussion, than something I have to suspect is heavily censored, or only frequented by people of one opinion.
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 16 2010, 03:22 AM)
We have that silliness in the US too. Maybe it originates in British Common Law perhaps?
same in Germany, life sentence is 25 years, earliest parole after 15 years.
That pretty much rules out common law as a reason.
[actually in Germany it's based on a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, which says that in accordance with the constitution, especially the human right of so called "human dignity", people have a right to get a chance to reintegrate into society. There are very few cases where a life sentence can be and is extended to the actual death of a convict.]
QUOTE (wusselpompf @ Apr 16 2010, 05:04 AM)
nsame in Germany, life sentence is 25 years, earliest parole after 15 years.
That pretty much rules out common law as a reason.
The German constitution was rewritten by the Allies (inc Britain and the US) in 1949. Probably changed since then, but you can't rule out the influence of Common Law there either. That pretty much rules out common law as a reason.
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Apr 16 2010, 03:10 AM)
For information? Yes. I'd rather trust information coming from a forum with heated discussion, than something I have to suspect is heavily censored, or only frequented by people of one opinion.
I wouldn't say it's heavily censored, but that's a probably a matter of personal taste. But it's most definitely a place with heated discussion, and you will rarely run the risk of people all being of the same opinion.
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 16 2010, 01:41 AM)
Maybe you didn't sense the sarcasm in my comment? I absolutely welcome the civilized tone this thread is taking on thanks to the likes of AH, augmentin and Jaid.
And here I thought when the charts came out we wouldn't reach the end of the page without further permabans and thread #6.
Of course, the new kindler, gentler thread is due mostly to AH who took the leadership in being the first to apologize. And a real apology, too. Not the ubiquitous "I'm sorry, but..."
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Apr 16 2010, 02:10 AM)
For information? Yes. I'd rather trust information coming from a forum with heated discussion, than something I have to suspect is heavily censored, or only frequented by people of one opinion.
You also don't know the motivations of people spreading the information. In other words take everything posted on the internet with the proverbial mountain of salt.
(I include all news organizations as well, b/c alot of their stories are provided to them by interested parties.)
QUOTE (Warlordtheft @ Apr 16 2010, 04:07 PM)
You also don't know the motivations of people spreading the information. In other words take everything posted on the internet with the proverbial mountain of salt.
(I include all news organizations as well, b/c alot of their stories are provided to them by interested parties.)
(I include all news organizations as well, b/c alot of their stories are provided to them by interested parties.)
You know the motivation (and limits) of corporate spokespersons pretty well.
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 16 2010, 03:26 PM)
The German constitution was rewritten by the Allies (inc Britain and the US) in 1949. Probably changed since then, but you can't rule out the influence of Common Law there either.
not really. it was written by german law professionals and - what is more important - they worte the constitution in tradition of german law language and systematics.*
and this means, that de jure there is no such thing as prejudices in German law, although practially low ranking courts often take the rulings of higher courts into consideration - but this is informal. afaik this could be considered as the major difference between common law and continental european law.
* but of course, the initiative for the draft of the constituion was made by the west allies but then they didn't interfere much with the actual development process.
weird double post
QUOTE (wusselpompf @ Apr 16 2010, 02:30 PM)
and this means, that de jure there is no such thing as prejudices in German law, although practially low ranking courts often take the rulings of higher courts into consideration - but this is informal. afaik this could be considered as the major difference between common law and continental european law.
Precedent, prejudice is what determines whether killing your ex-wife is called "family tragedy" or "honour killing"
QUOTE (Method @ Apr 16 2010, 05:15 AM)
So the general consensus, then, is that everyone is tired of the ass-hatery and we could all stand to be a little more moderate in our speculation?
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
Who are you people and what have you done with my Dumpshock?
Non-consensus voices were banned, remember? Agreement does not take precedence over being right for some of us.
K.
QUOTE (knasser @ Apr 16 2010, 11:45 AM)
Non-consensus voices were banned, remember?
How quickly the memory does fail it seems.QUOTE (knasser @ Apr 16 2010, 12:45 PM)
Non-consensus voices were banned, remember? Agreement does not take precedence over being right for some of us.
K.
K.
Really? I'm seeing a whole lot of disagreement in all these threads. Those not with the consensus (whatever consensus that may be, because one sure doesn't seem to exist here) seem to be posting just fine. One voice was banned, that's true. Was more than one banned, to imply the plural voices there? If so, I missed it.
QUOTE (Dread Moores @ Apr 16 2010, 11:52 AM)
One voice was banned, that's true. Was more than one banned, to imply the plural voices there? If so, I missed it.
You are correct. Only one voice was banned and that one voice was banned for continual and repeated failure to abide by the simple rules of the community.. Not due to any failure to be in consensus with anyone for any other reason.
QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Apr 15 2010, 05:45 PM)
wasn't gonna quote the whole thing, even if it deserves it.
You weren't I am, for I believe it cannot be stressed enough:
QUOTE (Ancient History @ Apr 15 2010, 05:30 PM)
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.
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.
Those were nicely put words, AH. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you on this issue and I wish everyone would take your advice to heart.
There is so much animosity and even outright hatred in this (and these) thread(s) that it is no longer even remotely rational.
You have average comsumers thinking they are entitled to hammer Jason Hardy for a crime he did not commit and they are not affected by, while all jason Hardy does is trying to do the "right thing" ™.
You can agree or disagree with JMH, AH, Jennifer Harding or anyone else here, but you don't have the right to spew forth flames. Freddom of speech carries with it the responsibility to wield it without infringing on the rights of others and the right to remain unharmed in body as in mind counts here just as much.
"Freedom of Speech" does not equal "you can say anything you want" and everyone that thinks that should have it revoked until they are ethically fit to use it.
QUOTE (D2F @ Apr 16 2010, 12:24 PM)
You can agree or disagree with JMH, AH, Jennifer Harding or anyone else here, but you don't have the right to spew forth flames. Freddom of speech carries with it the responsibility to wield it without infringing on the rights of others and the right to remain unharmed in body as in mind counts here just as much.
"Freedom of Speech" does not equal "you can say anything you want" and everyone that thinks that should have it revoked until they are ethically fit to use it.
"Freedom of Speech" does not equal "you can say anything you want" and everyone that thinks that should have it revoked until they are ethically fit to use it.
With great power comes great responsibility!
Freedom of Speech and any other Freedom stops right where it impedes on anybodye elses Freedon in any kind or way.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.