The Shadowrun Situation

[magnuskn]

We really should all stop feeding the trolls. Most of the last 10 or so pages were irrelevant discussions about the fucking BT storyline and ruleset (start your own thread), or discussions with CGL shills about stuff that all reasonable people here agree upon and understand. Both of these subjects being entertained by said CGL shills and fanboys who obviously intend to derail all constructive discussion of the subject at hand.

BT is just as much a part of any discussion about Catalyst than Shadowrun. The storyline of BT is a part of concern for BT fans. The Shadowrun storyline was also discussed in this thread.

I don't think extended discussions about either storyline is pertinent in a thread regarding the business practices and financial situations of IMR / CGL / LLC. The last couple of pages have been relentless discussions of BT rules and storyline, not just passing mentions of said company fuckups regarding those.

The signal to noise ratio is getting lower, and we're losing track of the subject at hand. You guys obviously have a lot to discuss and debate regarding BT itself, NOT the business side of things. I persist : you should start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.

The storyline is a pertinent point of the discussion, since it sucking so hard that most people here want it expunged from continuity is relevant to how the next company to pick up the license will proceed with the game.

It's ironic in a way: For Shadowrun, which is an RPG, the storyline seems to be fine for most people; while for BattleTech, which is mostly a tactical game, the storyline sucks so much that its continuance could be a breaking point for many fans to return to the game.

[knasser]

So Frankie I was thinking you seem a bit too weaselly in your predictions. You say that the new CGL stuff is vaporware. How about a little wager?? If CGL prints a new book this year you stop posting anything about CGL. If they don't I don't post anything at all. Up for that?? We can set the date at today so you don't have to worry about the stuff they already put out. Deal??

Seeing as you're an anonymous person whilst Frank is open about his identity, your offer to never post again doesn't really mean a great deal. So, if you're going to offer such a bet (though there's nothing to gain for anyone in taking it), does this mean that you're going to tell us who you are?

It's curious, because to make such a bet very strongly implies that you consider yourself Someone Worth Listening To in the first place - an insider . Most of the insiders, we can identify. Is this you confirming that you are indeed Loren "Big House" Coleman?

K.

[Username17]

Dave is either a) complicit in Loren's actions or b)the most incompetent office manager ever.

Fascinating. Because earlier you said that he was fighting with Loren Coleman over control of the company. If someone is in conflict with the majority shareholder who is in sole control of the company's purse strings, why would you have to be complicit with the person you are fighting with or incompetent to lose that fight?

What evidence do you have that DSG ever did anything wrong? We don't have any evidence that he did anything right, but by your own testimony he was being actively thwarted in his goals by the primary owner of the company. Under the circumstances, how can we know that any of his failures were for lack of trying?

-Username17

[Stahlseele]

I don't see how the choice between criminal and incompetent is such a hard one . . i would allways chose the criminal . .
the incompetent can't get anything done, while the criminal will get stuff done one way or the other . . and as long as you give him enough incentive not to fuck you over, he's probably gonna be the best thing that could have happened to you, seeing how he does not care about laws or other such nonsense, if he is motivated enough . .
With the incompetent one, you run the risk of never accomplishing anything.
With the criminal one, you run the risk of accomplishing things and losing something.

[Blasted]

I don't see how the choice between criminal and incompetent is such a hard one . . i would allways chose the criminal . .
the incompetent can't get anything done, while the criminal will get stuff done one way or the other . . and as long as you give him enough incentive not to fuck you over, he's probably gonna be the best thing that could have happened to you, seeing how he does not care about laws or other such nonsense, if he is motivated enough . .
With the incompetent one, you run the risk of never accomplishing anything.
With the criminal one, you run the risk of accomplishing things and losing something.

Here's the problem: If your business involves money (and most do) the criminal is going to siphon it out from under you. The incentive is always there. You can't remove it, only reduce your exposure.

A clever criminal will take all your money, skip the country and leave you to face the courts as it turns out it's hard to explain all the illegal dealings your company has been involved with as "he did it."

A poor criminal will be caught and fired, never adding anything to the company, because if he were clever enough to add to your company, he would have been clever enough not to get caught.

Incompetents will always be with us, but it's a decent managers job to weed them out. If the incompetent is the manager... you've got problems.

Of course, there are many shades in between, but the by and large of it is that they're both bad news, but the criminal can be much worse.

[knasser]

I don't see how the choice between criminal and incompetent is such a hard one . . i would allways chose the criminal . .
the incompetent can't get anything done, while the criminal will get stuff done one way or the other . . and as long as you give him enough incentive not to fuck you over, he's probably gonna be the best thing that could have happened to you, seeing how he does not care about laws or other such nonsense, if he is motivated enough . .
With the incompetent one, you run the risk of never accomplishing anything.
With the criminal one, you run the risk of accomplishing things and losing something.

Criminal brings a whole host of risks with it that incompetent does not. I personally, ethics aside, would likely choose to have someone working for me that brought in $70,000 dollars of profit per year, than someone who brought in $100,000 dollars of profit per year but achieved that through fraud, etc. Those aren't arbitrary figures, I picked. I think in most cases, moderately achievable financial fraud, i.e. it's not a big, involved operation, tends to garnish your income rather than radically transform it. If it is a big involved operation, then your business is the crime itself, rather than an actual business model that you're merely operating in a criminal way. Conversely, if your business is so tight that you really need that garnishing, then I think for safety's sake, I'd be looking to get into a different business or do something radical to transform it.

[Stahlseele]

*shrugs*
i guess i have become a bit jaded seeing the almost criminal incompetence of the managers in my own corporation <.<

[knasser]

*shrugs*
i guess i have become a bit jaded seeing the almost criminal incompetence of the managers in my own corporation <.<

Defined hierarchies in the work place are there so that you can be forced to give respect to the incompetent. In a flat organizational structure, the skilled people who actually do things would drive the business listening to only those people they chose to listen to, i.e. those that knew what they were talking about. Managers would tend to drift toward what, outside the artificial constraints of a hierarchical business, would be their natural niche - that of admin and secretarial duties. Unfortunately instead of being left to handle all the little details of people's organization so that the skilled can focus on their work, they are placed in a position of authority and attempt to instruct the competent. This perversion of the natural order leads to no end of problems.

Look at CGL. You had a skilled team of creative people writing the game, and then some people who knew far less than they did about SR, squatting on top of them reaping the lions share of the profits and ultimately endangering the entire game line. It's all very backwards.

Disclaimer: I am management.

K.

[LaughingMan2070]

Fascinating. Because earlier you said that he was fighting with Loren Coleman over control of the company. If someone is in conflict with the majority shareholder who is in sole control of the company's purse strings, why would you have to be complicit with the person you are fighting with or incompetent to lose that fight?

What evidence do you have that DSG ever did anything wrong? We don't have any evidence that he did anything right, but by your own testimony he was being actively thwarted in his goals by the primary owner of the company. Under the circumstances, how can we know that any of his failures were for lack of trying?

-Username17

I know you want to protect your boy and all but come now. For three years he could not pay the employees on time and didn't address it? Couldn't pay vendors on time and didn't see it as a problem? The rest of the ownership seems to have been uninformed about this according to my sources and the chatter. Dave wasn't living in a vacuum. He had access to the books and the chequebook.

I know he knew what was going on but for the sake of argument I offered him the out as an imbecile. Spin it however you want not everybody is going to buy your cover-up.

[Username17]

I know you want to protect your boy and all but come now. For three years he could not pay the employees on time and didn't address it? Couldn't pay vendors on time and didn't see it as a problem? The rest of the ownership seems to have been uninformed about this according to my sources and the chatter. Dave wasn't living in a vacuum. He had access to the books and the chequebook.

I know he knew what was going on but for the sake of argument I offered him the out as an imbecile. Spin it however you want not everybody is going to buy your cover-up.

Here's the thing: No one but you thinks the world revolves around DSG. He's not "my boy" and I don't have to cover up anything for him because I've never talked to him and am not even exactly on his side.

Your specific claims about how much power and knowledge he had at any particular point are fairly hard to put proof to. After all, you were the one who laid claim to the idea that he had thought IMR was worth buying out some time before the shit started hitting the fan (something which I have verified from more reputable sources). But if that was the case, it indicates that at least at that point he did not have access to uncooked books. Because if he had, he would have been pressing to do then what he is pressing to do now: have IMR declared insolvent and start a new company.

Indeed, the basic problems with your aspersions are twofold:

• No one gives a fuck about David Stansel Garner, because he isn't even necessarily the person most likely to get the SR license. So your crusade against him is pointless.
• They aren't even internally consistent. You're accusing him of various shady dealings that do not add up to holding the same amount of information or having the same goals.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Since some people try to ignore the facts:

Loren L. Coleman co-mingled over half a million dollar. That's the cause of financial difficulties of IMR.

Randall Bills is covering for LLC, to the point of telling Jennifer harding to quit if she cannot stomach falsifying reports to Topps on LLC's orders.

Never lose this out of sight - even if DSG was aware of what was going on, he would still not be even nearly as bad as those who keep supporting LLC and Randall Bills.

[Stahlseele]

*shrugs*
i guess i have become a bit jaded seeing the almost criminal incompetence of the managers in my own corporation <.<

Defined hierarchies in the work place are there so that you can be forced to give respect to the incompetent. In a flat organizational structure, the skilled people who actually do things would drive the business listening to only those people they chose to listen to, i.e. those that knew what they were talking about. Managers would tend to drift toward what, outside the artificial constraints of a hierarchical business, would be their natural niche - that of admin and secretarial duties. Unfortunately instead of being left to handle all the little details of people's organization so that the skilled can focus on their work, they are placed in a position of authority and attempt to instruct the competent. This perversion of the natural order leads to no end of problems.

Look at CGL. You had a skilled team of creative people writing the game, and then some people who knew far less than they did about SR, squatting on top of them reaping the lions share of the profits and ultimately endangering the entire game line. It's all very backwards.

Disclaimer: I am management. ;)

K.

Well, at least you are honest.
I don't know wether or not i would be brave enough to admit to being in management ^^

[Asbestos Underwear]

Since some people try to ignore the facts:

Loren L. Coleman co-mingled over half a million dollar. That's the cause of financial difficulties of IMR.

Randall Bills is covering for LLC, to the point of telling Jennifer harding to quit if she cannot stomach falsifying reports to Topps on LLC's orders.

Never lose this out of sight - even if DSG was aware of what was going on, he would still not be even nearly as bad as those who keep supporting LLC and Randall Bills.

We've been over this. DSG and RB are both indefensible fools.

DSH was involved in day to day operations for years, knew that people weren't getting paid, knew the books were shot, and only walked away when he couldn't use the weakness that resulted from the financial irregularities to take over the firm. RNB feverishly worked to drive BT into the ground instead of paying attention to broader business issues, made no fuss when its clear BT writers weren't paid on time (if ever).

The only practical distinction is that RB is and was a member of the firm, so he has skin in the game. LLC has functional control. RB loses his investment if he fails to support him. DSG tried to get control of the firm, but was able to walk away because he had nothing to lose. Neither is doing the morally correct thing - morally correct choices would have been made long, long ago. They're both operating in accord with their economic self interests.

Pretty much everyone involved in this shitshow has unclean hands. No one's a hero. The only person involved in the whole mess who walks out looking like a decent human being is Adam Jury. AJ's a classy dude with a good attitude who's focused on moving his product forward. He's got positive karma.

[martian_bob]

We've been over this. DSG and RB are both indefensible fools.

DSH was involved in day to day operations for years, knew that people weren't getting paid, knew the books were shot, and only walked away when he couldn't use the weakness that resulted from the financial irregularities to take over the firm. RNB feverishly worked to drive BT into the ground instead of paying attention to broader business issues, made no fuss when its clear BT writers weren't paid on time (if ever).

The only practical distinction is that RB is and was a member of the firm, so he has skin in the game. LLC has functional control. RB loses his investment if he fails to support him. DSG tried to get control of the firm, but was able to walk away because he had nothing to lose. Neither is doing the morally correct thing - morally correct choices would have been made long, long ago. They're both operating in accord with their economic self interests.

That's some ridiculous water-muddying there. DSG's motives aren't as crystal-clear as LLCs - I'd suggest a parallel narrative to your paranoid one where DSG was trying to make things better up to the day where he decided he needed to get control of the company before it went down in flames. Did that happen? I have no idea! Did your version happen? Who knows?! Both are possible and plausible.

Furthermore, there's more than just "right" and "wrong" in moral choices; the actions of punching someone or killing someone for no reason are both morally wrong, but one is clearly morally less wrong. This false equivalence between shady management and outright theft you're using to put those two on the same level is just misleading and dishonest.

Pretty much everyone involved in this shitshow has unclean hands. No one's a hero. The only person involved in the whole mess who walks out looking like a decent human being is Adam Jury. AJ's a classy dude with a good attitude who's focused on moving his product forward. He's got positive karma.

I think that whoever blew the first whistle in this thing gets at least a thumbs up from me. Hero, maybe not, but this could have festered for years and rotted everything that Catalyst touched from the inside out if it hadn't seen the light of day. Also, Jen Harding left at the right time for the right reasons and told the right people about what was going on. Similar thumbs up.

[crizh]

10, 9, 8....

Countdown till some Troll spits all over Jen's reputation for having the audacity to tell the truth about her situation in public.

[mean_liar]

Hasn't that already happened?

[Taharqa]

That's some ridiculous water-muddying there. DSG's motives aren't as crystal-clear as LLCs

Unless you have some ESP powers, nobody's motives are crystal-clear, actually. Nor is the actual true story of what went down at CGL. Both you and AU are speculating about things you couldn't possibly know.

EDIT: The false equivalence argument that people keep throwing around is a red herring. The issue is what weight should people put on the various claims and arguments being thrown around in a climate of uncertainty. Its not that I think DSG's, RNB's, and LLC's actions are equivalently bad, its that I don't really know what those actions were nor do I know the motives behind those actions. Thus, I am willing to hold off in making judgements on anyone. The proof will be in the proverbial pudding.

This runs counter to basic human cognitive processes which, in the absence of sufficient information to make a decision, prefers to manufacture information out of a modicum of data; reading the tea leaves, if you will. It is that basic cognitive process that Frank is taking advantage of in this debacle. We are starved for information, and Frank's soup kitchen seems to be the only place in town that is open.

And, to concur with AU, props to Adam Jury who has handled himself like a professional in all of this mudslinging. Same for Steve McQuillian.

[Asbestos Underwear]

That's some ridiculous water-muddying there. DSG's motives aren't as crystal-clear as LLCs - I'd suggest a parallel narrative to your paranoid one where DSG was trying to make things better up to the day where he decided he needed to get control of the company before it went down in flames. Did that happen? I have no idea! Did your version happen? Who knows?! Both are possible and plausible.

Furthermore, there's more than just "right" and "wrong" in moral choices; the actions of punching someone or killing someone for no reason are both morally wrong, but one is clearly morally less wrong. This false equivalence between shady management and outright theft you're using to put those two on the same level is just misleading and dishonest.

I wholeheartedly agree. The moral absolutist you're looking to excoriate is Fuchs, who's happy to demonize anyone who "sticks with" IMR, even if its in their economic best interests to do so. I don't care for RB, but at least what he's doing is rational. JMH's continued faith in management is much more disturbing than part-owners' flailing about to try and right their sinking ship.

It's remotely possible that DSG was a good actor in a bad system, but there's been no indication that he's worthy of praise or trust. As Jay noted, management pointed to him and said "This is the guy who will make sure you get paid and that we won't turn out like FanPro!" Didn't work out so well, did it? There were massive operational problems well before the shit really hit the fan. People were going unpaid long before the massive draws shown on PD's leaked graphs. I don't think DSG is the devil, but he sure as hell isn't the wonderful white knight some are painting him as.

I'd rather see the licenses go to a group that has no connection to IMR or FASA than let the same hamhanded folks have at them again.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

*snip* bullshit pseudo-epistemology

No, that derailing tactic won't work either. There is absolutely nothing wrong with informed speculation, especially when it has so far proved to be remarkably accurate.

[Taharqa]

*snip* bullshit pseudo-epistemology

No, that derailing tactic won't work either. There is absolutely nothing wrong with informed speculation, especially when it has so far proved to be remarkably accurate.

To my mind, informed speculation means assessing the potential biases of sources, considering other possibilities, and in general viewing all statements with a critical eye. And yet, anyone who has entered this thread with such an aim has been labeled a concern troll and a shill. Thats not the language of informed speculation, its the language of the lynch mob.

I find it amusing how people on this forum pride themselves on their skill at logic and rhetoric and then they engage in juvenile stunts like falsely quoting me. It makes me feel like I am in a room with a bunch of stoned adolescents trying to sound smart by talking about something like, I don't know,... Michel Foucault.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

To my mind, informed speculation means assessing the potential biases of sources, considering other possibilities, and in general viewing all statements with a critical eye. And yet, anyone who has entered this thread with such an aim has been labeled a concern troll and a shill. Thats not the language of informed speculation, its the language of the lynch mob.

If you don't want to be accused of concern trolling, then don't engage in concern trolling. Can't say it any plainer than that. If everyone else in this thread has a problem with the way you express yourself, the problem may not be with them.

I find it amusing how people on this forum pride themselves on their skill at logic and rhetoric and then they engage in juvenile stunts like falsely quoting me. It makes me feel like I am in a room with a bunch of stoned adolescents trying to sound smart by talking about something like, I don't know,... Michel Foucault.

Well, I can't claim to be stoned, or an adolescent. Nor am I particularly into Foucault. If you want me to expand my commentary on your post, I'll say that your pose of false objectivity and pseudo-scepticism does not impress me at all. Nor does it appear to impress anyone else on this forum. If you really don't think there's any value to this discussion, perhaps you shouldn't engage in it.

[violence in the media]

*snip* bullshit pseudo-epistemology

No, that derailing tactic won't work either. There is absolutely nothing wrong with informed speculation, especially when it has so far proved to be remarkably accurate.

To my mind, informed speculation means assessing the potential biases of sources, considering other possibilities, and in general viewing all statements with a critical eye. And yet, anyone who has entered this thread with such an aim has been labeled a concern troll and a shill. Thats not the language of informed speculation, its the language of the lynch mob.

You seem to be discounting the ability to throw out unreasonable possibilities. A statement like "considering other possibilities" carries the connotation that the possibility exists that Coleman didn't steal all the money, or that he is blameless somehow, or that this was all a big misunderstanding. Maybe one of those things could come to pass, but I think it's safe to say that it's pretty unlikely that any of them will. Are we wrong to discount those possibilites, given that they're exccedingly unlikely?

Also, just because Bills is behaving rationally, given his financial interest, doesn't mean that he's behaving laudably. DSG may or may not be a "good guy" in all this but, from my POV, that's tangental and irrelevant. He didn't make off with a mansion-full of money. Sometimes you have to let the street dealer off in order to nail the kingpin.

[Taharqa]

You seem to be discounting the ability to throw out unreasonable possibilities. A statement like "considering other possibilities" carries the connotation that the possibility exists that Coleman didn't steal all the money, or that he is blameless somehow, or that this was all a big misunderstanding. Maybe one of those things could come to pass, but I think it's safe to say that it's pretty unlikely that any of them will. Are we wrong to discount those possibilites, given that they're exccedingly unlikely?

No, of course not. But you are bringing up the wrong issue. No one is disputing that Coleman co-mingled CGL funds with his own personal funds. CGL has flat out said so themselves. This is also pretty clearly the source of CGL's cash flow problem. That Coleman has been dipping into funds while freelancers have gone unpaid is also pretty clearly the source of understandable bitterness on the part of some former freelancers.

There are really two things under debate at the moment. First, a whole host of charges and accusations that have been piled on top of the co-mingling issue that imply not only malfeasance but perhaps illegal behavior. Second, there is the question of whether CGL/IMR has the capacity and willingness to rectify the situation and get back on its feet.

[Kaelik]

Unless you have some ESP powers, nobody's motives are crystal-clear, actually. Nor is the actual true story of what went down at CGL. Both you and AU are speculating about things you couldn't possibly know.

EDIT: The false equivalence argument that people keep throwing around is a red herring. The issue is what weight should people put on the various claims and arguments being thrown around in a climate of uncertainty. Its not that I think DSG's, RNB's, and LLC's actions are equivalently bad, its that I don't really know what those actions were nor do I know the motives behind those actions. Thus, I am willing to hold off in making judgements on anyone. The proof will be in the proverbial pudding.

See the reason you are a concern troll is because you are trying to claim that the fact that Loren Coleman stole almost a million dollars is in doubt.

It was admitted by CGL in a press release, although not the exact figure, which is also from CGL.

So yes. We know that Loren Coleman stole nearly a million dollars.

It's not speculation that he did so, it's a fact, and you trying to paint the hypothetical "DSG is a rat bastard who tried to exploit the financial woes that he knew all about" as equivalent in probability to "Loren Coleman stole a bunch of money" even though we have strong evidence that the first is false, and near certainty that the second is true.

[Taharqa]

See the reason you are a concern troll is because you are trying to claim that the fact that Loren Coleman stole almost a million dollars is in doubt.

It was admitted by CGL in a press release, although not the exact figure, which is also from CGL.

No, of course not. But you are bringing up the wrong issue. No one is disputing that Coleman co-mingled CGL funds with his own personal funds. CGL has flat out said so themselves. This is also pretty clearly the source of CGL's cash flow problem. That Coleman has been dipping into funds while freelancers have gone unpaid is also pretty clearly the source of understandable bitterness on the part of some former freelancers.

Hey, look at that, I am not just a concern troll, I am a concern troll ninja!

It's not speculation that he did so, it's a fact, and you trying to paint the hypothetical "DSG is a rat bastard who tried to exploit the financial woes that he knew all about" as equivalent in probability to "Loren Coleman stole a bunch of money" even though we have strong evidence that the first is false, and near certainty that the second is true.

I have never tried to paint DSG as a rat bastard. I don't know him, but I have heard from several independent sources whom I trust that he is a real stand-up guy. I do have some questions about his relationship to the forced bankruptcy lawsuit and so forth, but until I know more, I will continue to assume that he is a real stand-up guy.