Wait, what. If Bills said 'well, in accordance with the contract, I want you to do XYZ' then Tiger Eyes is lying - because that's not what she said happened at all.

Again, there isn't really a 'third way' - either you think Tiger eyes is telling the truth, or you think Tiger eyes is lying (in your case because she's lying about the contractual requirements, and in the previous case because she lacks credibility so you don't belive her.. i.e. you think she's lying, or whatever)

Tiger Eyes could have been told to "fix the books". She could have been asked to enter some numbers someplace where she didn't feel it appropriate. She could have been asked to change past numbers and not been given a reason, read into it and objected. Or not read into it and it was simply inaccurate.

So, she quit because either she was being set up to take a fall, or she was being put in a situation where she could be fired for non-compliance or she was in a situation that she didn't feel that doing something "wrong" was worth keeping a job.

I just can't see how anything about that situation could be black and white when you have at least three people involved. They all have motives and I doubt those were made available to all parties involved. I believe what Tiger Eyes did and her reaction was what she believed was right for her. I don't know what right for me or right in general would be unless I was in her situation.

What if the answer if "I don't know"?

The facts of the situation are black or white BUT I'd bet my SR 1E core rules that we'll never get those facts. That is to say, we'll never see a CCTV video of the conversation, or a tape recording, or some magical document that proves things one way or another.

So if that's the case, you're right - there is no true black or white from where we, the audience, are standing. All we've got are opinions, personal accounts, and rumors. And at that point, if we care, all we can say is "Who do we trust?" and make our own, personal decision based on that trust.

As a few people have said - there IS a truth here - a definite "Yes or No" answer - the problem is that we'll never get that magical affirmation of truth so we've got to work with what we have and what we believe.

(And for what it is worth, at this stage of the game I happen to believe Jennifer - but then again, that's just my opinion.)

Your assuming someone holds him responsible. Thats just not the way it works around these parts with the ex-Microsoft/Boeing/etc deep pockets. See what happens is his friends will bail him out, probably by having him declare bankruptcy and then investing in some new venture where he can co-mingle funds again. I've seen companies with 10 employees with a fleet of BMWs paid for by the company. I've also seen where investors make their buddy CEO with a fat salary and say just do nothing don't F up my company (which amazingly they have a hard time doing). They will get a signing bonus of some 5 million dollar mansion and do their best to ruin the company by doing things they think are boosting moral or helping with the bottom line, only with no experience they really have no idea.



Well they do pay their employees and contractors... Worse is kinda relative. I will say this all those things you think are so evil with big corporations are 100x worse with small business when investors are involved (usually, there are always exceptions) because no one has the time to police you when you making less than 10 million a year. Small buisness without investors depends a lot on the owner. I've seen some owners who had ethics and some who didn't

I'm in the same boat. I believe Jennifer, based on what she wrote and how she handled herself after. But again, its hard not to believe when you don't have the other side speaking for themselves...all opinion, of course!

No muddying involved. Yes, some issues are yes/no. This is not one of them.

I cannot say what happened between Tiger Eyes and LLC. As such, "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information" is as valid a response as "yes, she was asked to do something inappropriate", "no, she is a part of a conspiracy", or even "I don't think there was wrongdoing on anyone's part; it was misunderstanding."

I understand that some people feel very strongly on these matters, whether from personal involvement or similar experiences, but it does not validate the dismissal of sound conclusions.

A common misconception about the US legal system is that "not guilty" is the same as "innocent"; in fact, it signifies only that there was not sufficient evidence to render a guilty verdict. It does not address true innocence. By the same principle, it is okay here to say, I do not have enough information to render a decision either way.

There's the old saying that there are three sides to every story. Your side, their side, and reality.

Saying you don't think you have enough information to pass judgement is not the same as saying someone is lying.

To me, it doesn't matter too much going forward because in that particular case the party potentially wronged is Topps. Topps has arranged to have someone actively oversee the operations of the company.

On the other hand, I am much more concerned with whether freelancers who are owed money get paid and paid timely in the future. Unlike Topps, the freelancers aren't in a position where they can oversee what's going on. Paying them requires CGL to do the right thing on a more voluntary level, so goes a much longer way in getting any sort of credibility or trust back.

Once new printed material shows up, I'd definitely like to hear from freelancers confirming whether or not they were paid promptly.

In the name of transparency, I'll announce when I get paid for any of the books I've worked on, if you're interested. I know I've contributed minor work to 6WA, a chunk of War, a chunk of Attitude, and a few other things.

Yes it is. You either believe it or you don't. An 'I don't know' is a negative response denoting that at this point you have not been convinced. Simply. Cut and dried.

no. it really isn't. pretending like it is won't make it so.

"i don't have enough information to answer that" is not the same thing as "i think she's lying", any more than it is the same thing as "i think she's telling the truth."

Wow. Just wow.

ok. since you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this, let's present it as follows:

"I am slightly inclined at present to believe [X or Y], but feel that my ability to make a proper judgment call on this is impeded by the fact that we only have one side of the story, therefore I don't feel it is appropriate to give a response because in my own personal opinion, my judgment call is not valid."

see? wow, amazing, almost like magic, a legitimate, valid reason to not have a strong opinion one way or another. we don't have all the facts.

if i ask you what A + B is, and i tell you that it's either 0 or 1, and you're only allowed to answer one of those, are you going to tell me which one it is just by looking at it, or are you going to think to yourself "hey, there isn't enough information there for me to answer that question reliably". ultimately, an answer in that case would be nothing more than a blind guess, and isn't really an informed opinion at all.

except in this case, there aren't only two variables, and there aren't only two possible answers. hell, we don't even know how many variables there are. how hard is it to grasp that there is not a sufficient amount of information to provide an answer with any degree of confidence? and why is it somehow unreasonable to be hesitant to give an opinion on something you don't know anything about?

Drop it Jaid. This isn't where you want to pick a fight by repainting what I said.

As they like to say in Scotland Not proven which is an actual verdict. Do I beleive her I find her more believable then some others but belief is not proof. Last time I checked it was innocent until PROVEN guilty except in france of course. blackwulf

Nothing personal, but if anyone was trolling it was you. A couple people were stating that they weren't willing to swing either way blindly, and offered up a third opinion on the situation. Then you came in and told them they were all wrong and the world revolves around black-and-white answers. Now you're directly threatening people because they're not agreeing with you? Oy.

The following quote was made "So do you think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports or not?"

A long discourse commenced about how the answer to that question was not yes/no.

I simply replied that yes, it is a yes or no answer. I did not give my opinion as to the answer, nor the gray that could be extrapolated from the question. I simply said {effectively} that the question is boolean. A lack of facts to support affirmation do in fact yield a negative answer. My entire add to the conversation was to nudge those quoting logic, that they are becoming too emotionally involved in the question to quote logic.

So, calling someone "obtuse" is not a personal attack? Good to know.

Doc - No one mentioned trolling. However, my choice of wording could have been better given my status. Also, please do not repaint what I said. I did not say everyone was wrong or that everything was black and white. Read my last post for a better explanation.

Thank you for the question, the moderators will review the post in question and take action if needed.

See, here is where you are wrong.

The answer to "Was Tiger Eyes asked to falsify reports" is indeed a boolean, yes or no.

However, the answer to "Do you think Tiger Eyes was asked to falsify reports or not?" is not a boolean. There is a third choice, "I'm not sure", which is functionally equivalent to 'I don't have enough information to decide yet"

And thus, you are wrong.

Robert - I allowed myself to be baited and reply in kind. I edited my post, but obviously not before hitting the submit button. I apologize.

Drop it. Its done. Over. Move on.

Thanks! It would be greatly appreciated.

Nothing is ever over on the internet.

All joking aside, the tone of your message is quite dismissive, and negative, and one would assume that since you were the party in the wrong in this case, you would admit so, or at least not act so. But, ah, I should wish so much for folks on the internet. I shall go back to lurking this thread, and hoping that something good comes of all of this.

We don't always have perfect information in life, and yet we can still form opinions and beliefs. I think some posters have gone a little too far down post-modern road and ended up in a place where they won't stand for anything being stated definitively. While it is of course possible to not have enough information to reach a conclusion, I don't think we need to endlessly defer decision-making. Most people don't operate that way in practice.

Back to thread relevance: that means I believe Tiger Eyes experienced what she said she experienced and am willing to believe that the event she said occurred, did. If you want to assign a lower probability to that, are you questioning her reliability in communicating the event, or in interpreting what happened? I think one should be precise.

Anyways, I wanted to say that before the latest spate of posts, so I'm adding it even though this subject is probably a little bit of a dead horse by now.

How about we all get past the predicate calculus and fuzzy logic and get back to the speculatin'? We still have another 10 pages to go before we reach thread 10.

All joking aside really?

And here I thought, "and hoping that something good comes of all of this." was the funniest thing I have read in this thread yet.

Yes, yes out of context.

That's what I like to see; man with goals. I get so tired of arguing for arguements sake. Seems to be a minority opinion in this thread though.

If I offended, I apologize.


You acted like bringing down CGL would bring down Shadowrun. Not only is the boycott of conscience not likely to bring CGL down, you are correct in that it can;t touch the franchise, which is owned by Topps.


Twenty-one years on my part. Twenty-six years of Battletech, although not nearly as intensely. I even have Jordan Wiseman's autograph on my original BBB.

Post count has nothing to do with passion and longevity.



First of all, comparing Shadowrun to FATAL is not just offensive, it's practically a Godwin of RPG debates. You lose.

Second, FATAL was powered by perversion. Passion has nothing to do with it.

Third, have you done any professional writing? I'll let you in on the secret, it's not the writing that makes you a good writer. It's the rewriting. It's not uncommon for a published piece to go through five or six drafts before being submitted, let alone being released. And what do you think is required to proof and edit all those drafts? Bingo! Passion for what you're doing. Passion powers the path for perfection, and you can have a technically-perfect piece.

You and me, honey. You and me.

How can you think something which you don't know?
I'm not sure = no, I do not think it is so.
I reserve judgment = no, I do not think it so.
Incidentally:
I'm not sure != I think it is not so.
I reserve judgment != I think it is not so.

So, one can not believe Jenny and still not-not believe Jenny.

Anyway.. Logic is satisfied.


Now, moving on to the facts. Jenny has claimed that she was asked by Coleman to report less income for the purposes of royalties than she believed Topps was due. She confronted Bills with this and, when she did, she was not shown a legal agreement better defining what the royalty payments should be so as to alleviate her confusion. She was told, and I'm quoting here, "If you do not feel comfortable doing that, then it might be better to find other employment." Thusly, she resigned. Perhaps Bills could have produced a legal agreement and she did misunderstand the situation, however the statement, which precipitated her resignation, as she has reported it, was, "If you do not feel comfortable [misreporting royalty payments to Topps] then you should find other employment."

I really don't think there's much in such a statement to misunderstand.

Then you do not think Tiger eyes was asked to falsify royalty reports, and thus her positive assertion that she was is a lie.

When someone makes a positive assertion, and you 'doubt' or 'don't know' about that assertion, you think that assertion is not correct on the basis of current evidence - you are doubting Tiger Eye's personal intergrity because you think she is telling a lie. Your own logic will be about needing to confirm with secondary sources etc, but this is only because you think Tiger Eye's

A) lacks personal intergrity
B) misunderstood her own job requirements

The third scenario is C) Randall bills asked her to commit fraud.

So I guess I would accept 'Tiger eyes is incompetent, and thus I think she is lying about the request but not intentionally' - but those are literally the only scenarios, and yes that still means Tiger Eyes is a liar.

As the logic was established above.



The only reason to doubt tiger eye's statement is because you think she is lying. That is why you seek a second opinion - to reduce the risk that the holder of the first opinion is lying. There is no 'sides to the story' here.

A = The claim is tiger eye's claims she was directly asked to falisfy royalty reports by Randall Bills Coleman.

Either A = True or A = False

There are literally no other answers what so ever.

Edit: AH pointed out that I am an idiot.

Minor, niggling correction: I believe it was Loren that asked her to falsify the royalties reports to Topps, and Randall who told her if she had a problem with it she should quit. Let's keep our rumors straight.

Crap is worthless to me. I won't even read it if it's free, just not worth the time. It's like people pining for the Laurell K. Hamilton of "Guilty Pleasures" buying book 19 of the series and then whining about how the series isn't isn't any good since book 5. Well, yeah, I can see you figured that out 13 years ago, why are you still wasting your time?

No. Stating that you do not have sufficient information to make a judgement means just that. "I don't know" or "not enough information" is not a dispute of the presented facts as much as it is not an affirmation of them. You may want everyone off the fence but it's not your call.

Would you please stop trying to put words in people's mouth? Just because you are willing to jump to conclusions quickly doesn't mean those who are being more cautious and circumspect in their own judgements are doing anything but ... being cautious and circumspect in their own judgements.

This is very puzzling.

Tiger eye's has said that she was asked to commit fraud. IMR has said that the only thing that has happened was so comingling

You are looking at those pieces of evidence and reaching a conculsion other than 'Tiger eyes is telling the truth' which means that Tiger eyes is not telling the truth

But even if we ignore that argument, what other evidence do you expect to get? All you have is Coleman vs Tiger eyes

One of them lying

Who is it?

I'm not saying SR is comparable to FATAL, I'm saying a game written with untempered passion turns out rules like what you get in FATAL.



When writing fiction alone, passion is fine. When collaboration on a work of fiction, too much passion can sabotage the project. When collaborating on a game, with setting material and rule mechanics, excessive passion will severely hinder production.

We don't know. That's the whole point of it. You can assume or be convinced that one of them is lying, but it's as valid an answer to say "I don't know", so as you can see, it is obviously not a question with just two possible answers.

No.


She believed it might enter fraud territory. It may have been otherwise and handled badly by Bills. It may be a legal gray area (these do exist, because laws are not boolean, especially those based on case, not codex). She decided that doing this would cross her personal moral event horizon. Her personal moral event horizon, however, is not well enough known to us - as are the legalities of what she was asked to report - that we can assume boolean yes/no answers to whether she was asked to commit fraud (a legal definition, not a moral one, anyway).

I'm not saying she's lying or it was wrong to quit. Given how fickle employers are with accountants who even do fringe legal gray area stuff like that, I actually think it was the right decision for herself, and speaks for her moral integrity, given how unkind America is with the unemployed. However, whether you can actually throw around words like fraud, theft, and the likes, is something we cannot answer based on the information we have.


Since I am not for you, I'm afraid I am against you, George. And with that, I'll not post any more on this matter. It's useless to try to reason with single-minded fanatics who think the world is made of blacks and whites anyway.

It could be both. It could be that both are telling the truth as they know it based on conclusions drawn from a different set of facts.

Tiger Eyes's statements are her statements of her conclusions based upon evidence she had available to her and we do not. Even if the statements come down yes/no questions ("did he ask her to omit revenue Topps was due?"), differing answers does not mean one of them is lying. Tiger Eyes may not have been aware of a contractual clause that allowed, for example, revenues below a certain amount to be omitted. On the other hand, perhaps Loren Coleman was simply not aware of regulations, contract terms, or something else ... Unlikely as that may be, there is still the principle of never attribute to malice what can equally be explained by stupidity ...

I think at this point, we have reached an xkcd moment.

This may be the internet, but we are still entitled to a neutral stance.

Not in the War Against Comingling, you're not!

So, Cthulhudreams, do you think Triston Payton is guilty of pushing that woman to the ground? He claims she slapped him after she turned down his offer for a romantic evening and he never hit her or touched her.

By 'different facts' do you mean untrue facts vs the true facts? Just because someone thinks something is true, does not make it true. Aristotle proposed that "continuation of motion depends on continued action of a force'. This is not true - it's reasonable, because he did not know about friction and it matches observable evidence at the time - but it is not actually true.

Options:

A) Coleman has the correct facts, and he asked Tiger Eyes to lawfully discharge her duties. Thus Tiger eyes is not telling the truth, because he did not ask her to conduct fraud. Tiger eyes may not be telling the truth in this scenario because:
i) Tiger eyes is incompetent in her role as company book keeper, and could not correctly calculate the amount owed
ii) Tiger eyes has deliberately made a deceptive statement

B) Tiger eyes has the correct facts, and Coleman had asked her to fraudulently perform her duties. Thus, Tiger eyes is telling the truth, and Coleman is asking her to commit fraud. Coleman may have arrived at the incorrect facts for the same reasons as Tiger eyes, but Option i) is significantly less excusable, because he has overridden his specialist in doing so.



I think both witnesses lack credibility, and would seek third party validation. On this basis, you can correctly infer that I think Triston Payon may be lying.

If I was to make a decision purely on the evidence presented, on the balance I would suspect that Triston Payton is the liar, but as I said, I do not find either witness credible.

To draw the parallel you are making, do YOU think that Tiger eyes is a credible source?

Why does rape keep coming up in these threads? First AH and now this, is it really that good of a talking point?

I'm not sure you want to re-open that particular can of worms there, Lurker. It didn't go so well for you last time.

No. Two different subsets of true facts or even all the facts versus a subset of the facts.
For example, if facts A, B and C are true and you know A and B are true but don't know about C while I only know B and C are true, we will likely arrive at different conclusions without either of us lying.

As an aside, friction will eventually stop motion, meaning that motion will only continue with the continued application of force. Aristotle was correct.

Funny I don't recall it going so badly, what I recall fairly clearly is you likening non-payment of freelancers to gang rape and then being mystified when people take issue with that. With that level of self delusion going on memory distortion is bound to occur.

My point in this instance continues to be can people perhaps find another option from an intellectual standpoint?

Edit: For refrence

Meh, Newton's laws clearly supersede that, but lets go for Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation then.

However, we are really arguing over a definition here. You are seperating truths from absolute truths, and intention lies from unintentional lies. This is perfectly reasonable, though at the next level of detail. If we proceed with these definitions, my statement is better recast as:

Either you think Tiger eyes is telling the absolute truth, or you do not think she is telling the absolute truth.

Or for Mesh: Which scenario (of Tiger eyes is telling the absolute truth or tiger eyes is not telling the absolute truth) currently has the highest probability in whichever system you use to make decisions under uncertainty.