First draft goes to the developer and often to the other freelancers. Developer makes comments on it and hands it back to author.

Second draft goes to the developer, who gives it a quick look to make sure that his notes were fitted in, modifies it if he feels the need (the "dev-edit," which is about world/game considerations and meshing the material with the rest of the book, not copy-editing concerns) then sends it to the freelance copy-editor.

Copy editor returns the draft to the developer, who sometimes does a bit more dev-editing, then passes it into layout.

Sometimes in tight situations or small drafts, the developer handles both the dev- and copy- edit themselves.

The central thing is that I was not brought in to re-invent Shadowrun. This is not a gaming universe, in my opinion, that needed a large amount of serious fixes to make it work. So I'm not thinking about dramatic changes or anything like that--I want to continue with things that make SR great, things like the gritty atmosphere, the sense of a universe stacked against runners, but also a setting that recognized the independent spirit of the runners, their attitude, and their determination to live their lives without selling out.

I think metaplot is important, but it's something to be very careful with. Some of the great moments in SR history, like Dunkelzahn's death or the Renraku Arcology shutdown, were great story arcs, and some of the things that made them great was they were dramatic and there were ways provided for street-level runners to get involved in the action. I don't want to be telling too many stories of the ultra-powerful who are beyond what players could hope to be, and I also don't want to tell stories where players have to be The Greatest Runners in the World in order to have any effect. I want to see dramatic things happen in the Sixth World, and I want to see how those things affect people at the runners' level. I want cool stories and settings where people read them and say "We've got to be involved in this."

I want each sourcebook to be useful to players and gamemasters. There are a number of ways to be useful--exciting plot hooks, details on how the nations and corps of the world are evolving, stats on NPCs playes might encounter, info on new gear, rules to cover different types of situations, and new looks at different parts of the runners' lives are some of those ways. The things I try to keep in mind when working on a new book are (in no particular order): 1) Is it fun to read? 2) Is it consistent with canon while moving it ahead? 3) Does it provide something useful for players' games? Answering these questions isn't always easy, and my opinions about how books do in answering these questions will not always match up with readers' opinions. But those are the key elements I want books to supply.

I realize some of this sounds a bit vague, and some of that is due to the fact that I'm not going to be the only one coming up with ideas. I don't like to go into freelancer meetings saying with a hard-and-fast version of how things will go. I like to hear what freelancers think, and I like what happens when they bounce ideas off each other, as they can go in some interesting and creative directions. Thus, a good deal of the future direction will be determined by the energy and creativity of the freelancers. There will be some ideas I like, and some I'll veto, but I want them to play a role in shaping the game, since that's a large part of the fun of writing for it.

Let me know if you want clarifications on anything I've said here--it's late as I'm writing this, so I may be a little fuzzy-headed.

Jason H.

The central issue is the attempt to defraud Topps. LMR is totally dependent on the SR license. The only value for Topps is the license fees for said license. If your licensee is trying to defraud you of your license fees, they are probably a 'high risk' client, particularly given their own internal dibious accounting issues. Now, Tiger eyes may be lying about being asked to defraud Topps, but I leave it up to you to decide if you think Tiger Eyes is a liar.



The main problem is there is no SR4 Writers handbook, so the setting knowledge is based on what you personally know.

Good to know. Thank you. Will we be seeing more NAN-related material? Perhaps in 6WA?

Or not, if they didn't sign any – as already established…

…that just happen to be the "people" who were the original author of those chapters – so the one most qualified to check on them…

…and of course you can discern "malicious intent" telepathically.

A little think on the ad hominem side, don't you think?

Yeah, we are not very fond of Loren L. Coleman either, sucking away the foundation for us every seeing more Shadowrun books with the same quality as CthulhuTech or Ecplice Phase.
Now… about leaking the replacement drafts to the original author… you can't fathom that this has at least the slightest chance of increasing the quality of the book?

Contrary to you, "people" don't assume malice…

So in "your world" – contrary to "their world" – embezzlement, spin, random turnover and paranoia make for a totally great & productive working environment, generating awesome product?

This is irrelevant. Leaking the drafts without the knowledge of the authors involved was a betrayal of trust. The replacement freelancers provided those drafts while trusting that their fellows wouldn't release them outside of the forums. Had they known that their unvarnished work would have been leaked then they might have provided a more polished draft, or even not bothered submitting one at all.

As for whether this has a chance of increasing the quality of the book, sure, it does. However that pales in significance compared to the potential damage this does to the trust in the SR freelance community. You can't fathom that this has at least the slightest chance of decreasing the quality of future books, because the freelancers aren't willing to work together?

Regardless of the situation at CGL, two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, two wrongs just make a difficult situation even worse.

6WA will contain write-ups of the following nations:
Algonkian-Manitou Council
Athabaskan Council
Pueblo Corporate Council
Salish-Shidhe Council
Sioux Nation

So yes, you'll get some NAN material!

Jason H.

Actually no, even if CGL was defrauding Topps that doesn't have anything to do with the process of getting checks to freelancers and books out the door, it's not something that should be done surely, but It doesn't affect the Freelancers or the end consume. One could even make a statement that it is symptomatic of the cash shortfall situation but both requires a level of insider knowledge I do not posses and absolves folks of their moral responsibilities if such a breach occurs.


Now for Robert::

It is quite possible that not disclosing material internal to the freelancer forums was a stated requirement of using the freelancer forums, even if it wasn't there is a certain level of professional decorum that is sadly lacking. Not even getting into issues of right to redistribute.


A postion those people terminated rendering them back to Joe Schmoe status, AH has no more qualifications to read and review the material then any other end user does.

People who steal or embezzle are thieves, people who pass information that is not theirs on to others are also thieves in my mind.

Quality product is the relevant thing to the customer.

It was not leaked to public scrutiny.
The whole point of posting such a draft is to get expert opinion… and though there would be few more expert than the original author, it's not like it's better to embarrass yourself in front of the current freelancing staff by being more than commonly "unvarnished".


Any possible damage was long done since the very start of this whole trainwreck, given the initial whistle blowing.

While that may be a possibility as well, the problems with communications were a persistent characteristic on the IMR side, as noted by former freelancers. Contrary to that, the freelancers themselves seem quite connected themselves…
The move to a even more restricted form of communication came from IMR, not the freelancers.

None of that matters - if CGL doesn't have the license, they cannot continue to product shadowrun materials. It is Game Over for the business. Do not pass go, do not sell any more product. If the license is removed, IMR winds up its operations.

So it is a spectacularly stupid thing to do to cause your accounts clerk (or book-keeper or whatever) to resign with the publicly started reason of 'would not aid attempt to defraud license holder' when the license is up for renewal.

Dead on!

Mesh

Fantastic! Now for some missions work set there...ahem...Bull...ahem...

There's a lot possible.

No. He still is the author of the original work on these party of the books, copyright and all.
In fact, that's the whole reason they need to be rewritten…

IMR had him write the whole thing in the the first place. Even after they revoked access, they still planned to use that material.
So IMR considered him qualified on that matter prior and later to his engagement.

So much about your assessment of qualification.

Now, the interesting thing to know would be: Is there a place in you mind for the concept of "proportion"?

Actually I am speaking of his qualifications now, by my understanding AH has withdrawn permission to use his work effectively terminating his qualification and arrangement. His only official interest in the matter, outside of what any end consumer has now, is making sure his work is not plagiarized by a published product.. You state the facts with authority but fail to grasp their meaning.

Regarding the proportion of crimes, you are getting confused between proportion and justification. Your logic is essentially that because a large crime has possibly occurred somewhere any number of small crimes in the general vicinity are perfectly reasonable. It would be akin to you suspecting your house has been burned down by someone in your neighborhood so you tell the cops it is acceptable for your to steal your neighbors mail.

I don't play 4th so I am hoping that CGL loses the license to increase the odds of getting a new edition that better supports the feel of the setting that I had in earlier editions. Does this make me part of the Cult of St. Frank?

No. While withdrawing his work does indeed terminate his arrangements, it does state nothing about the quality of said work, nor his technical expertise to create said work in the first place.
In fact, very contrary, said work was still considered for use by IMR after the fallout, so the quality of said work is beyond doubt, and thus, his expertise on this subject.

On the contrary – I'm considering his qualification by expertise (which is relevant for technical critique)… failing to grasp that meaning would be on your end.

No, I'm not. In fact, your mind seems to be confused if there is only the label "thief" for two activities vastly different and disproportional. Some people might even view stating such as slander on the leak side, as well as belittlement of the embezzlement side.

Welcome to the Cult of St. Frank, friar. Here's your pitchfork with integrated flamethrower and a lifetime card for free fuel.

Leaking information is not theft.

Perhaps we are getting caught up on semantics, AH might be qualified I'll more then concede that, but so are many many others, what he lacks is AUTHORITY, an arrangement he terminated himself. Further do you really believe that what AH rendered up here in his fit that after he took his ball and went home the game still got played constitutes a technical critique? Is that really the position you intend to advance?

Embezzlement has not yet been proven, the leak has been confirmed by AH himself, slander implies I denigrate the reputations of those who did the leaking unfairly, quite the contrary. You are sitll trying to justify one wrong with an almost completely unrelated other wrong.

No one here should try to justify anyone else's actions, especially not mine. Whether or not someone violated their NDA is a matter of semantics; leaking a draft is unprofessional and commenting on it as I did - in public, sight unseen to the public, inaccessible by many - is wrong. Those actions are independent of whatever crap Loren et al. have taken, and two wrongs do not make a right. It was a shit move on my part, and I did not have the right to do it.

While it is not clear yet if this is the case here, leaking information, evne in violation of an NDA, or even in violation of the law, can be justified - like if it is done to prevent or uncover a more serious crime.

I don't know about you, but "co-mingling" money to the tune of over 700'000 dollars looks far more serious to me than breaking an NDA. But then, I'd never work for Coleman.

I think perhaps "qualification" isn't the best word for what you're talking about. You are more referring to AH's right to review the new material given that he is no longer a freelancer for CGL. His qualification, meaning whether or not he has the ability to do so, pretty much beyond doubt, I'd say.

I'm not. I'm debunking the assumed intent of malice taken for granted, as well as the comparison by label of unrelated actions.


Tell your sources.

Constructive advice, directed to the new freelancer alone, would indeed more beneficial.

No, but your gratuitous use of logic puts you in the same axis of evil as us.

K.

Yea, my fault on that, i've tried to clarify my position



So what crime is being uncovered by leaking Jason's writing's hmmm? I'll just direct you upwards to AH's post but I'm not sure it will pierce the thick reality blinders you have on.

Let's just say that his technical critique fits the other technical critique I heard.

You did, by applying the same label to vastly disproportionate and unrelated actions.

No.

We do not know. What we do know though is that some people, for whatever reasons they may have, do their utmost to try to portray people who expose some shady things - and may have overshot their target - as as bad or even worse than people who co-mingle over 700'000 dollars, damage a company's reputation and workforce maybe irreparably, and/or cover for such people.

And that says a lot about those people, and none of it is positive.

Out of sheer, curiosity: Why are YOU so vocal about it? Of course you have every right to be and in no way do I intend to tell you otherwise. I would merely like to know, what your stake in all this is.

If memory serves you were the one that originally linked the two, if i misread your comment I apologize. Let us agree that they are completely unrelated. The same label could be applied to both but I have never suggested there wasn't a difference in scale.

Is anybody playing Shadowrun?

It seems to me that most of the cats here are busy debating Shadowrun's future (which is important) and neglecting playing the dang game!!

That's an interesting, and creative, interpretation of what I've said on this situation. But, since you obviously haven't read my statements of position in the past, allow me to reiterate.

1. I think Loren's a pretty low individual who should pay back the money he's taken and be removed from the company. It's not my company, though, so I don't really have much of a say there.

2. I think Randall's decision to leave Loren in the company is an error, and have said so, both publically and privately, many times. That being said, I can understand his reasoning being based on his beliefs without thinking that he believes God spoke to him directly, and since I share many of the core beliefs he's stated he based his decision on, I'll support his decision until such later time as he (Randall) shows me that I shouldn't.

3. Frank Trollman did not cause this fracas in order to save anything, Shadowrun or otherwise. He started it to destroy something, namely Catalyst Game Labs. He paints himself as a crusading whistleblower, and a lot of people obviously believe that of him and think he can do no wrong. He's no crusader, though, and he's not a whistleblower; he's an ambulance chaser. He's not interested in saving anything; he's interested (based on nothing but his actions) in wreaking as much havoc as he possible can.

So, do I paint Trollman in as negative a light as people say I do? Damn skippy. I'd paint him even more negatively if I could withing the terms of service. What he did was wrong. Taking confidential information, however damning it might be to certain individuals, and blasting it out to the world at large...that's not whistleblowing, that's an attempt at wanton chaos and destruction. And he got it in spades.

A whistleblower takes his information to the authorities, in this case to Randall and the other owners and then to Topps. I believe in whistleblowers. What Frank did wasn't whistleblowing, and anybody who sees it as whisteblowing needs to re-examine what whistleblowing actually is.

And here's the point where this stops being about Loren Coleman and his thefts from the company...and yes, I do believe it was theft. Once again, what goes on in the ownership and management of CGL isn't my concern, or that of anybody else who isn'ta member of the set "Owners of CGL." That freelancers haven't been paid affects me, though in the interest of full disclosure I should note that since this started I have, in fact, been paid. But I've worked with the freelancers in the past and I may do so again. So a bunch of guys not getting paid does affect me.

Be that as it may, it brings us to the second part of this: the leaked drafts.

4. This is also wrong. It may or may not violate their NDA, but it certainly violates trust and it certainly violats professional ethics. I don't care if they were leaking drafts to Bobby, or if they were leaking them to Christ Himself...neither of these people is part of the freelancer pool. Bobby's already dealt with this part of the fray, so I'm going to drop that at this point.

But the fact remains that the freelancers can no longer trust other freelancers. The sad thing is, we don't know who the leak is and we don't know who we can't trust.

So, again, do I paint Frank as a demon? Yes, I do. On the other hand, so is Loren Coleman, in my book.

You continually justify small breaches of ethics (it was okay to leak the drafts) because Loren's breach was considerably greater (he stole an awful lot of money). How does that make you any better than how you see me?

Hm. Linked.

My statement was a reminder and emphasis of the very root cause of all of this: The Missing Funds. While that served to put things about the degrees of "wrong" we are talking here back into perspective, it by no means is a justification for anything else. Please excuse if that impression arose.

Now… linked: Of course, all of this is somehow linked to the root cause. If there hadn't been a torrent of fund from IMR to LLC, there would have been no whistle-blowing by Frank. No letter from Randall Bills to leak. No freelancers withholding copyright and no books vanishing from sale. Frank not exchanging insults with owners of IMR and being banned for it. Ancient History not taking his ball and going home after being kicked out from the playground – and thus no new freelancers writing drafts to be leaked.
While all those later things that happened due to the free will of people involved and thus not directly related, they all are linked to the root cause.

I respectfully disagree.

Jason wants us to wait and see and judge the quality of upcoming products on their merits.

We are actively in a position to determine whether CGL continues as a company, we can stop buying their products and strangle them to death.

Failing to do so long enough to judge the quality of product we currently have no access to on it's merits ensures that products containing material you have written remain still-born, they will never see the light of day.

I would like to have a choice.

I would like to know now whether it is worth waiting for the replacement material or if I should smother CGL in it's sleep before it can cough bile all over the cannon during it's death throes.

Obviously, you are not the ideal candidate to review material written by Jason.

Ideally I'd like to see Frank review both drafts. He seems to hate everybody equally, I'll trust his judgment on which one is best.

I'm just curious about this, Patrick. So are you saying you are supporting Randall's error? I mean, on one line you say you believe his decision is an error, but then in the next line you say you support that decision.

As a matter of fact, that is.

Though, technically, Frank only acted as intermediary for the actual whistle-blowers to protect them from reprisals.

Not exclusively. It's usually three steps: Internal, authorities, public media.

I've always loved the bravado of the vocal minority.

I'm certainly supporting his right to make that error. My faith is based in part on compassion. Were I in Randall's position, I might look at things, run them through the prism of my faith, and make the same error.

I don't have to like it, but at the end of the day it's not my decision to make. I think keeping Loren's wrong, but Randall doesn't. He has the right to make that error. I think it's going to bite him in the ass, but it's his to make.

How does the phrase 'ambulance chaser' measurably differ from the phrase 'exhausting wall-of-texters'?

Both seem to be equally derogatory. I don't think I would find it hard to argue that 'ambulance chaser' was actually worse.

It is unequivocally a personal attack and exactly the sort of ToS violation that got Frank perma-banned.

How does it's use demonstrate your morally superiority to Frank?

All right, thanks for the answer. I agree that it is Randall's error to make and that making errors is human. As a freelancer, though, I would insist to know more about IMR's procedures to prevent this from happening in the future and to correct the past issues with NDAs, contracts, and payments. At this time, I remain unconvinced. I've seen many emergency actions, but concrete future change remains vague.

And while in the past I may have given IMR the benefit of the doubt, that time is long over.

And before I commit to write another word for them, they'll need to answer all those questions to my satisfaction. I'm not convinced at the moment, either. And so it goes.

Where? Surely you can point out where this lambasting of whistleblowers is going on. Link us to some of this stuff.

As Frank isn't here and can't defend himself, I'm going to take the dubious position of putting a defense for him. I have no doubt that he'd do it better himself, but it is simply this: Frank believes that continuing Shadowrun under CGL is either impossible, or going to be very detrimental to the game. He's given logically supportable reasons why he believes this. Therefore he has an preference in seeing CGL lose the licence. If you believe that CGL losing the licence is the best thing for the game, then yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to see CGL lose the licence. I think it's demonstrable that Frank has strong feelings for Shadowrun and has done for a long time. He sees Loren Coleman's actions as an actual threat to the game. Again, I think that position is demonstrable. But I don't want to speak for Frank - as I see it, he thinks his position is fairly irrelevant to how events will actually play out because he thinks Loren Coleman has already set fire to CGL and it's going to burn anyway. He's mainly explaining things for the rest of us and shooting down hypocrisy and bad logic where he sees it. If he's outraged about what's happend, well I'm with him quite frankly.

As Randall Bill's letter keeps coming up, all I'm going to say on that as a religious person myself is that spiritual forgiveness is entirely independent of taking corrective action or appropriate measures of redress. Frank knows that, hence his original position of shooting down Randall's acceptance of Loren's actions based on spiritual forgiveness.

Anyway, I'm speaking for someone else which isn't my right. This is how I understand Frank's position. I think your paragraph above is wrong.

(But I still think Running Wild was great).

Khadim.

See above & these threads.

And before anyone jumps in to cry "How?":
Just take a look at the Annivery books (Core Anniversary, Seattle 2072), then compare them to the books that came afterwards or before, even digital supplements.
Then take a look at CthulhuTech and Eclipse phase: That's how Shadowrun books could look like… if there would have been money for Art Direction, Artists & full color print.

I was with Frank originally bringing this story to light. At best, it was considerable financial mismanagement. At worst, it was criminal. But just like I think AH crossed a line when he commented on unreleased drafts (which even AH admits now), I think Frank crossed well over a line when he commented on unreleased product plans on The Gaming Den. That's not relevant to the Loren L. Coleman financial mess, though it is relevant to Frank's desire to see CGL lose the license. But unlike the financial mess, I don't think it's any of the public's business. Those are creative decisions, which fans and freelancers alike may disagree with, but that disagreement should come in the form of freelancer criticism on the freelancer forums, fan book reviews and individual decisions to buy or not buy a product.

Unlike the financial mess, there's simply no way that Jason or anyone else at CGL could defend against criticisms on unreleased drafts or future product plans without spoiling those plans. It's a cheap shot.

Thank you for speaking this so clearly. I think it's important to point out.

Frank's initial outburst against religion went a long way to confusing the issue and stalling any real understanding on what Randall did wrong.

I have always presumed, perhaps incorrectly that redress was going on, in fact I believe that was flatly stated in the letter.

Sometimes quality doesn't matter. I support certain companies because I like what they do, above and beyond what they produce. For example, I supported Catalyst for a long time, because I liked what Adam did for customer service. He went above and beyond. I also refuse to go to the '76 gas stations, because they mistreated my stepfather. If a company lies to its customers, is mean to its employees, and treats people I respect like utter crap, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince me they're worthy of my support.

Catalyst has refused to pay their freelancers until they had their back to the wall. They've been dangling the LE in front of us for over a year now. And the way Tiger Eyes, AH, and Demonseed Elite have been treated is beyond the pale. Why should I continue to support such a company?

Well, it is possible that Catalyst will emerge from this experience a better company...

It will definitely have to work to regain any trust, but we will not know how this plays out until the license issues have been determined...

Wait and see is the only logical recourse that I can see at this point... I hope that they will change certain policies in the future... however, they will not get that chance unless they can retain that license...

Keep the Faith

I hate people who do not pay their bills despite being able to. That comes from a few years in collecting, and having to tell too many people that they'll likely not get paid despite the debtor driving a sports cars.

In this case a game I love has been hurt seriously by such people, and it has led to the removal of authors I liked. That compounds the issue. It also means I have a strong dislike for the enablers, the people who cover for the kind of people mentioned above who leave bills unpaid and use the money otherwise. Covering including anything but taking them to court to get all the money back one can (Randall) and working for such people (a number of people here).

As long as people like Coleman can get away with their antics because people "accept a little corruption" "Continue to work for them despite issues" and other excuses they'll continue their deeds.

Understandable. But do you think your heated participation will actually achieve anything?

No, they "have taken steps to see it repaid". Which is not any better than "We hope he'll pay us back". It's like "We've entered negotiations to settle this" actually often means "We sent a letter to ask them to forget what they owe us, and now wait for their answer. We do not expect this to work, we just want to buy time" in "legalese".

A redress would mean something they could pusblish, to show us what is being done - like taking Coleman's house as security.