The Shadowrun Situation

[Fuchs]

What Coleman did - taking over half a million out of the company while not paying freelancers - was unquestionable immoral and unethical. If it was illegal is a question the authorites in the US have to answer. There one applies the "presumed innocent" principle.

Mixing criminal law with morals and ethics to turn a blind eye to what we know, confirmed by a number of people, says enough about people who support Coleman.

But assuming Coleman and his cronies are not to blame until tried in court, and yet condemning Frank and others for actions who are also not tried in court (and may never, for lack of being illegal) is pure hypocrism.

[Clutch9800]

If you kill a bum in the street and everybody finds out about it to the point where there are people that you barely know who live in the Czech Republic howling for your prosecution and you don't get prosecuted.....then there's probably a reason why.

Tony Blair in the UK knowingly lied to Parliament and started a war that was illegal, everyone knows this, we have evidence of it, and we're still trying to actually get that one as far as an actual trial.

I'm sure we can think of cases in the USA where there has been widespread knowledge of a crime but no result. If the analogy doesn't fit, you must aquit, I say.

K.

My Friend,

I am not naive enough to believe that good always prevails, nor am I naive enough to believe that evil is always punished.

I am however, positive that I don't much ever know the truth about anyones actions but my own.

Clutch

[setmonster]

If you stopped to think about it, you would realize it says a lot about you as well Fuchs because you clearly prefer the opposite: presume Coleman and cronies are guilty until proven innocent and the opposite for Frank Trollman and crew. It hardly makes you seem like the bigger man.

Beyond that, your statement makes no sense. I don't think Frank is guilty until proven innocent because Frank has not been accused of anything, with the exception of being an ass, perhaps. If Frank were accused of something criminal, I would likewise presume his innocence until proven guilty.

Way I've been following this situation, Coleman (or, rather, his pals) have admitted to guilt as regards the following:

a) Co-mingling funds
b) Not paying freelancers, distributors, publishers and others (e.g. Wildfire)

Might not be criminal offences, but Coleman is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

[Centurion13]

Tony Blair in the UK knowingly lied to Parliament and started a war that was illegal, everyone knows this, we have evidence of it, and we're still trying to actually get that one as far as an actual trial.

I am sorry, folks. I promised to remain a lurker here - I don't add a lot to the proceedings and just seem to tick some folks off.

But really, an illegal war? That's like 'pretty ugly' or 'jumbo shrimp'. War is the antithesis of the rule of law, it occurs when the rule of law breaks down and you have no other way of accomplishing a goal. It certainly doesn't occur inside a courtroom and those who conduct it would cheerfully blow the people inside that courtroom away if it gave them a better shot at the enemy.

Or so it seems to me.

Further, the statement implies there is 'legal' war. Really? How many people have to agree to its occurring before it's 'legal'? What about the victims? Do they get a say before it starts?

People were fooled into going into Iraq, no doubt. But to scream that this war was illegal and then demand that someone, somewhere put things right when the very people you appeal to are the folks who made it possible in the first place? Just silly.

It demonstrates muddled thinking which I find both foreign and discouraging.

And when it's brought to bear on the CGL issues, I am not sure it results in the most likely speculation.

Cent13

[martian_bob]

[Taharqa]

Way I've been following this situation, Coleman (or, rather, his pals) have admitted to guilt as regards the following:

a) Co-mingling funds
b) Not paying freelancers, distributors, publishers and others (e.g. Wildfire)

Might not be criminal offences, but Coleman is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

You are setting up a straw man. Everyone, including the folks at CGL, agrees that those two things happened.

Same goes for your argument, Fuchs.

[Kaelik]

Yes Cent, you should not post stupid things.

GBR has laws about when military force may or may not be used according to the laws of that country.

The statement "The Prime Minister ordered troops to engage in a conflict that violates the laws regulating what he may or may not order troops to engage in." is nearly identical with "engaged in an illegal war."

And so yes, the statement "illegal war" does in fact have a meaning, it means that someone in the country decided to involve that countries military forces in a war when they did not have the right to do so.

This is not rocket science, it is fucking obvious.

[TheFlatline]

If you kill a bum in the street and everybody finds out about it to the point where there are people that you barely know who live in the Czech Republic howling for your prosecution and you don't get prosecuted.....then there's probably a reason why.

But that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. It just means it won't be prosecuted. Is that really such a hard concept to understand?

I'm not saying that if you commit a crime and never get caught then there was no crime. I'm saying that if you do something that some people may think is a crime, and lots of people know about it, but you are never charged with a crime, then it probably wasn't a crime.

No offense, but fuck you're stupid dude. That's not the way the justice system works at all. Ever notice that if you're acquitted they say you're "not guilty" but not that you're "innocent"? That's because you may have committed the crime, but the prosecution can't meet the burden of proof to punish you. If the parties who *could* provide evidence to indict Coleman decide to cover for him, and those people are the ones who would press criminal charges to indict him, then according to you no crime could have been committed. You have woefully circular logic.

What LLC did is out there. Everybody knows about it. If it's criminal, indict him.

Trust me I would if I had the authority.

The two people in the best position to bring charges are... Coleman's wife and Randal Bills. If you think Coleman's wife is going to press charges you're a fucking idiot. Randal Bills already said he will protect his friend. Beyond that, it's questionable if anyone *can* press charges.

[Centurion13]

This is not rocket science, it is fucking obvious.

The phrase still sounds dumb, and it makes the person writing it out to a bit soft in the head.

Another thing that makes ya look a little less intellectually gifted and a little more aggro is swearing for no apparent reason. But please, do whatever makes you happy.

Please, click ignore on my post.

Please.

Cent13

[Fuchs]

Way I've been following this situation, Coleman (or, rather, his pals) have admitted to guilt as regards the following:

a) Co-mingling funds
b) Not paying freelancers, distributors, publishers and others (e.g. Wildfire)

Might not be criminal offences, but Coleman is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

You are setting up a straw man. Everyone, including the folks at CGL, agrees that those two things happened.

And all the cronies of Coleman ignore that, and instead focus on trying to paint all the ones who are fed up with CGL's mode of business as villains.

[Clutch9800]

No offense, but fuck you're stupid dude. That's not the way the justice system works at all. Ever notice that if you're acquitted they say you're "not guilty" but not that you're "innocent"? That's because you may have committed the crime, but the prosecution can't meet the burden of proof to punish you. If the parties who *could* provide evidence to indict Coleman decide to cover for him, and those people are the ones who would press criminal charges to indict him, then according to you no crime could have been committed. You have woefully circular logic.

Buddy,

They say that because you've been found not guilty of the crime you've been brought before the court to answer for.

"Innocent" is something that no earthly Judge can call you.

Take any prize from the lowest row.

Clutch

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

No offense, but fuck you're stupid dude. That's not the way the justice system works at all. Ever notice that if you're acquitted they say you're "not guilty" but not that you're "innocent"? That's because you may have committed the crime, but the prosecution can't meet the burden of proof to punish you. If the parties who *could* provide evidence to indict Coleman decide to cover for him, and those people are the ones who would press criminal charges to indict him, then according to you no crime could have been committed. You have woefully circular logic.

Buddy,

They say that because you've been found not guilty of the crime you've been brought before the court to answer for.

"Innocent" is something that no earthly Judge can call you.

Take any prize from the lowest row.

Clutch

Don't be fucking obtuse. 'Not guilty' means 'we didn't have enough evidence to convict you'. It doesn't mean 'we know you didn't do it'.

And honestly, earthly judges are all that matter, in this case and in every case.

[Clutch9800]

No offense, but fuck you're stupid dude. That's not the way the justice system works at all. Ever notice that if you're acquitted they say you're "not guilty" but not that you're "innocent"? That's because you may have committed the crime, but the prosecution can't meet the burden of proof to punish you. If the parties who *could* provide evidence to indict Coleman decide to cover for him, and those people are the ones who would press criminal charges to indict him, then according to you no crime could have been committed. You have woefully circular logic.

Buddy,

They say that because you've been found not guilty of the crime you've been brought before the court to answer for.

"Innocent" is something that no earthly Judge can call you.

Take any prize from the lowest row.

Clutch

Don't be fucking obtuse. 'Not guilty' means 'we didn't have enough evidence to convict you'. It doesn't mean 'we know you didn't do it'.

And honestly, earthly judges are all that matter, in this case and in every case.

Well,

I think we're making progress here. Not much, but some.

We've arrived at a conclusion that being declared not guilty in a court of law clears you of a crime yet can't make you innocent. Earthly or otherwise.

Now. What about an indictment? Much lower burden of proof. (Preponderance of the evidence)

What about a warrant for arrest? (Probable Cause)

Investigation? (Reasonable Suspicion)

Nothing? (Internet Lynch Mob)

Clutch

[Crissa]

Further, the statement implies there is 'legal' war. Really? How many people have to agree to its occurring before it's 'legal'? What about the victims? Do they get a say before it starts?

Well, there are internal laws and international laws and the UN. If any of these say the use of force was not authorized somehow, it would be illegal. And there is some indication that President W Bush and Blair did indeed change their country's rules regarding preemptive force before invading Iraq or toppling Afghanistan.

But morals are neither legal nor illegal, merely we hope they mostly match.

Does anyone else read Clutch like a drunk on a bender?

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

The phrase still sounds dumb, and it makes the person writing it out to a bit soft in the head.

No it doesn't. It only looks that way to you because you are completely ignorant of laws in general and specific.

Another thing that makes ya look a little less intellectually gifted and a little more aggro is swearing for no apparent reason. But please, do whatever makes you happy.

Another thing that makes you actually less intelligent is getting upset at "swearing" and not being able to figure out one of the many reasons that a word was used.

Please, click ignore on my post.

Please.

Pathetic.

[setmonster]

Way I've been following this situation, Coleman (or, rather, his pals) have admitted to guilt as regards the following:

a) Co-mingling funds
b) Not paying freelancers, distributors, publishers and others (e.g. Wildfire)

Might not be criminal offences, but Coleman is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

You are setting up a straw man. Everyone, including the folks at CGL, agrees that those two things happened.

Same goes for your argument, Fuchs.

So, what are you arguing, Taharqa? Why are you calling "innocent until proven guilty" on Coleman? Even Coleman's mates are calling him a twat. Only reason Randall Bills is sticking by his best bud Coleman is because "Titans of the Industry" and the Good Lord are telling him to. What's your excuse?

[Stahlseele]

Another Question:
Anybody know what the legal status of some of the ex-freelaners quitting at CGL and maybe getting a Job at . . say . . maye pegasus spiele who does shadowrun in germany? O.o
I mean, the stuff has to be translated anyway, this would just be cutting out the middleman . . and if the license does go bye bye for CGL, then germany could still produce and release shadowrun material, which would only have to be translated to american this time around, when a new licensee picks it up in some months . . or how ever long this is gonna take . .
And if the freelancers original draft is not changed too much and allready is in english, then it would not even have to be translated i guess. .

[Taharqa]

Way I've been following this situation, Coleman (or, rather, his pals) have admitted to guilt as regards the following:

a) Co-mingling funds
b) Not paying freelancers, distributors, publishers and others (e.g. Wildfire)

Might not be criminal offences, but Coleman is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

You are setting up a straw man. Everyone, including the folks at CGL, agrees that those two things happened.

And all the cronies of Coleman ignore that, and instead focus on trying to paint all the ones who are fed up with CGL's mode of business as villains.

Not villians, just reactionary rage zombies. Does that make you feel better?

[Taharqa]

So, what are you arguing, Taharqa?

All we know is that money was co-mingled and that has caused some very serious problems with cash flow and related issues with payments. In other words we know that there has been some pretty serious mismanagement at IMR/CGL.

However, we know very little about what actually happened. We know very little about the private discussions between owners (you know, the people who got fucked by Coleman's actions) about how to rectify the situation. And we know very little about what steps are being taken to change/fix things. Making claims about "theft," "embezzlement," and "fraud" are premature at best, and at worst undermine the ability of IMR/CGL to deal with the situation responsibly by forcing an albatross around their neck.

If things are as bad as Frank says they are, then there is no reason to not simply let the process play out as it must. Instead Frank is trying to whip up a lynch mob built on (potentially misdirected) rage and schadenfraude. If CGL is truly bankrupt and if some of the other accusations being leveled at the company are true, then the license would not be renewed, CGL will fold, and the forced bankruptcy case will reclaim some of that co-mingled money. The only contribution that Frank's "whistle-blowing" has made is to ensure that a lot of animosity and hurt feelings will persists in the fan base for years to come, regardless of outcome.

[Crissa]

Stahlseele: Even so, the German company would have a better time hiring freelancers in English - there are just more english writers than German ones.

But such things have happened, the major investor in Budweiser, Blizzard, etc are EU corps; and the WoD games were all licensed to German-Austrian companies.

If things are as bad as Frank says they are, then there is no reason to not simply let the process play out as it must. Instead Frank is trying to whip up a lynch mob

Wait, so... We don't have a right to know, and Frank shouldn't organize with other freelancers to make sure none of them are locked out of the proceedings?

WTF?

That's like... You know, I don't know. I can't imagine the argument this time.

-Crissa

[BeeRockxs]

Another Question:
Anybody know what the legal status of some of the ex-freelaners quitting at CGL and maybe getting a Job at . . say . . maye pegasus spiele who does shadowrun in germany? O.o
I mean, the stuff has to be translated anyway, this would just be cutting out the middleman . . and if the license does go bye bye for CGL, then germany could still produce and release shadowrun material, which would only have to be translated to american this time around, when a new licensee picks it up in some months . . or how ever long this is gonna take . .
And if the freelancers original draft is not changed too much and allready is in english, then it would not even have to be translated i guess. .

If CGL has no license, then Pegasus also has no license.

[BeeRockxs]

Wait, so... We don't have a right to know, and Frank shouldn't organize with other freelancers to make sure none of them are locked out of the proceedings?

Exactly. We as customers/fans/whatever have exactly zero rights in regard to information about CGL's business, management or lack thereof, etc.

[Mask_De_H]

Hey guys, I'm going to ignore the point of your posts, but instead ramble about a poorly-thought-out analogy one person used!

Kiss my ass.

My points are salient. If they make you uncomfortable, feel free to press that ignore button.

Clutch

Your posts are salient only in the fact that they are ill-reasoned and cloyingly stupid.

Your cute quips will only sink what few reasonable points you have. We at the Den are cool with insults and bluster, but without some solid backing to your ideas, most of us will be all too happy to take you up on your offer of ignorance.

[Kithkanan]

So "totally did" in this case refers to a reference to an unnamed owner written by somebody else that was probably signed off by Coleman? Not what I was hoping for.

So do you think it was a different owner besides Coleman who "comingled" funds?

Do you think that Coleman didn't agree to that press release?

Or are you just seizing on to the tiniest crack of wiggle room so you can pretend to be something besides a troll for a couple seconds?

Oh fuck you. You may be willing to give Coleman a pass, but I want him to admit what he did and not hide behind some flunky writing vague statements. You may be okay with him weaseling away, but I'm not.

[Jilocasin]

How on earth did you read what Kaelik wrote as it (huh, I remembered) being okay with Coleman weaseling away?