The Shadowrun Situation

[Maxus]

Guys... it's Clutch.

What more needs be said?

Cent13

I hadn't seen him around for a while?

That, were I seriously thinking of a shadowrun on Loren Coleman's home, with vandalism and theft included for fun and profit, the first you'd hear about it would be when it came on the news after it happened and NOT on an internet message board, in a thread where Coleman's finances are a central point?

I'm like my sister. Someone accused her of being a witch because she bought a small pack of tarot cards on a lark. Her response was to pop an eyebrow and say, "If I were really a witch, there'd be a lot more toads and newts around and they wouldn't get better."

But, you're right. Clutch is a Stoleman supporter. They've been grasping as straws since Frank broke the news, first desperate for some foothold to claim Stoleman's not a corrupt sonofabitch with his thieving hands stealing from the people working for him.

Then they moved onto trying to attack the evidence, which is a logical thing to try when guilt is basically known.

Then they tried to attack the character of the people providing the evidence, but since the only one really known is Frank and he's just the intermediary that isn't very productive.

And lately, they've been rather quiet.

[Clutch9800]

Well,

Honestly, I'm not an anybody supporter.

There's just a LOT about this that I don't understand.

Mainly, why, if a crime of the alleged magnitude has been committed, no one has been charged with anything.

Why an alleged thief was allowed to retain the license by the very company he alegedly stole from, albiet through the end of the calender year.

Why said alleged thief went to GenCon and was not even said "Boo" to, much less drawn and quartered.

These allegations are either Chicken Shit or Chicken Salad.

Clutch

[RobbyPants]

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with a serious lack of paperwork on their part?

[Wesley Street]

Yeah, Coleman went to GenCon. And at the Catalyst panel, before anyone even asked a question, he stated, "We're not talking about it" and left the room. Way to clear the air there, buddy.

Why have there been no formal charges? Because it's a white collar crime committed by a dinky-ass games company. And this is America. Short-term tax fraud is pretty easy to get away with when you aren't on the IRS' radar.

Why is Topps allowing Catalyst to retain their licenses? Two obvious answers. Lack of paperwork and corporations would rather work with the devil they know than the devil they don't.

[Fucks]

Guys... it's Clutch.

What more needs be said?

Cent13

Co-mingling of money? Haven't hear that for quite a while now.

[Wesley Street]

Don't let it be said that I'm not willing to stand corrected...

Quick correction to your Gaming Den post: At the Catalyst seminar, Loren mentioned that the internet rumors were not going to be discussed, but he did not leave--he stayed there the whole time. I know because I sat next to him. He left the Shadowrun seminar, though, which is common--he generally doesn't attend that one.

Thought you would want to know in the interests of accuracy.

Jason H.

Shadowrun seminar. Not Catalyst seminar.

Carry on.

[Neurosis]

There's just a LOT about this that I don't understand.

Mainly, why, if a crime of the alleged magnitude has been committed, no one has been charged with anything.

Why an alleged thief was allowed to retain the license by the very company he alegedly stole from, albiet through the end of the calender year.

Why said alleged thief went to GenCon and was not even said "Boo" to, much less drawn and quartered.

I pretty much completely agree with this part of this post by Clutch. I don't understand any of these things either. (Note I am completely not saying that I agree with everything or anything else that Clutch has said.)

And at the Catalyst panel, before anyone even asked a question, he stated, "We're not talking about it" and left the room. Way to clear the air there, buddy.

What the fuck?

Why has Coleman taken no actions either to apologize OR to defend his actions? You'd think he'd have to do one or the other at some point.

Don't let it be said that I'm not willing to stand corrected...

Quick correction to your Gaming Den post: At the Catalyst seminar, Loren mentioned that the internet rumors were not going to be discussed, but he did not leave--he stayed there the whole time. I know because I sat next to him. He left the Shadowrun seminar, though, which is common--he generally doesn't attend that one.

Thought you would want to know in the interests of accuracy.

Jason H.

Shadowrun seminar. Not Catalyst seminar.

Carry on.

Oh.

[Wesley Street]

Why has Coleman taken no actions either to apologize OR to defend his actions? You'd think he'd have to do one or the other at some point.

I was honestly surprised to see him. It seemed like a good number of the audience at the seminar were actually aware of what was going on and that surprised me a bit. But it probably shouldn't have.

There was a question along the lines of "has the economy made things difficult?" and the audience shifted uncomfortably as it seemed the questioner was perhaps hinting at a forbidden topic.

Bills has shared his side of the story in a podcast (defending Catalyst and its behaviors toward freelancers and the 'co-mingling' as accidents). But he's not looking down the barrel of a lawsuit either.

[TheFlatline]

I pretty much completely agree with this part of this post by Clutch. I don't understand any of these things either. (Note I am completely not saying that I agree with everything or anything else that Clutch has said.)

That's because you haven't read the hundreds of posts on the matter.

1. There hasn't been particularly a criminal violation unless there's merit to the idea that there should be more owners than there are on the paperwork. Also, the IRS might look into things, but it has to go a *long* way before that becomes criminal. Therefore, it's a civil matter, which means someone involved has to bring the matter up in civil court. This is happening right now. Otherwise, it was up to other individuals to press the issue, which they stated they will not do even if this "comingling" was done with complete malice.

2. If Topps hasn't been getting paid, it's in their interests to extend the license just long enough to see if they *will* get paid. Getting paid late is better than not getting paid. If Topps *is* getting paid, they don't give a crap unless Shadowrun depicts baby rape or something else that will damage the IP in the long term.

3. How many Shadowrun fans go to Dumpshock and TGD? Let's be honest and say far less than 5%. That means that at *least* 95% of fans are ignorant, and wouldn't show up at Gencon to draw and quarter Coleman. Besides, I'll bet real money that if fifty people got together and started heckling Coleman, they'd be kicked out of Gencon. Who wants to, or has time to do that after the layout in time and money to attend Gencon?

4. Shady, under-handed shit *did* happen. This is admitted to by CGL. Period. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Seriously dude, you don't get to say "I have serious questions" when your doubts arise over voluntary ignorance. The information is out there, time-sorted, and available for people to read and form their own conclusions about. Just because you won't do it doesn't mean that suddenly the facts change.

If you're still okay with it after educating yourself, then more power to you, you and I will have to agree to disagree. But educate yourself first, please.

[Neurosis]

That's because you haven't read the hundreds of posts on the matter.

I actually read this whole goddamn topic (it was excruciating and a time sink but I did it, so don't talk to me about educating myself, please) but not the four hundred million page ones on Dumpshock.

Now I have not read it MORE THAN ONCE but I still have read it. And based on my first reading I don't recall seeing answers to all of those questions. At least not ones that made sense to me.

*answers*

1. I guess that kind of makes sense. It does not really match my understanding of how the legal system works, but my understanding may be flawed. (It is like a riddle or something. 'When is embezzlement not a crime?')

2. That definitely makes sense (and in a very Shadowrun sort of way).

3. Forget TGD for a moment. Wasn't this whole ugly thing dragged out on Dumpshock? A LOT of Shadowrun fans go to Dumpshock.

4. I have no idea what you are speaking to here. I am not saying that CGL did not admit to doing or do exactly what they admitted to doing. Obviously that CGL 'comingled funds' (whatever the fuck that means) is beyond question.

[erik]

3. Forget TGD for a moment. Wasn't this whole ugly thing dragged out on Dumpshock? A LOT of Shadowrun fans go to Dumpshock.

And still I think <5% of them visiting the forums was probably a pretty good estimate. Most people who play games don't read forums for games.

4. I have no idea what you are speaking to here. I am not saying that CGL did not admit to doing or do exactly what they admitted to doing. Obviously that CGL 'comingled funds' (whatever the fuck that means) is beyond question.

I can only guess that coupled with agreeing with Clutch upon things that have already been shown to be faulty arguments is what probably prompted TheFlatline to assume you simply had not read up.

Here's the part that gets me though. If you read this whole thread without knowing what "comingled funds" means, then yes, some outrage is called for. It is baffling how you can say something is "beyond question" but then saying "whatever the fuck that means" in the same sentence.

It makes my mind want to asploooooode.

It is beyond question that something which I do not understand what it was definitely occurred.

What the what?

[Neurosis]

And still I think <5% of them visiting the forums was probably a pretty good estimate. Most people who play games don't read forums for games.

And 42% of all statistics are made up on the spot, but I'm willing to concede this point because I don't care. I myself was a long time Shadowrun player who did not post on Dumpshock until recently.

I can only guess that coupled with agreeing with Clutch upon things that have already been shown to be faulty arguments is what probably prompted TheFlatline to assume you simply had not read up.

I apologize for mistaking Clutch's arguments, which were phrased as questions, for actual questions. I suppose that was my bad. I do not agree with those questions as arguments. I agree with them as questions.

It is beyond question that something which I do not understand what it was definitely occurred.

Exactly.

Let me try to rephrase this for you since I understand it seems confusing.

CGL is accused (although for some reason not in any legal sense of the word 'accused') of embezzlement. I know what embezzlement is, but I don't know if they did it.

CGL has admitted to "co-mingling of funds". This I don't know what it means, but I DO know that they did it.

***

I don't want to belabor the point, but I am trying really hard not to take a side here. As I have said multiple times I have a lot of respect for the people who make Shadowrun and have made Shadowrun throughout the ages. That includes people like Frank Trollman and Robert Derie who definitely has my sympathy as well as my respect.

I am not calling anyone a liar, I am just not condemning or defending any parties at this time. Again, I apologize for repeating myself, but I am not saying anyone is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. I am saying that the entire situation is like Schrodinger's Cat. Nothing is anything until it is proved to be so. What would qualify as 'proof'? I'm not sure I could even say. But right now I feel that a perfect understanding of the situation would require insider knowledge that I do not and cannot possess. Other people may have said the same thing as a defense of CGL. I do not mean it as a defense of CGL. I really just want you to take this at face value:

Even after reading this entire topic I do not feel that I really know what happened, because the waters are incredibly muddy and everyone on both sides has an agenda. This does NOT mean 'I think Loren Coleman is innocent'. It means I DON'T KNOW. The reason I don't know is not because I haven't done my research. I have made every effort to. The reason is that the situation is really far from cut and dry.

(And I'm not trying to rub anyone's face in my neutrality, either. But it certainly has come up.)

All I am doing is trying to keep abreast of the situation so that I myself may attempt to make informed decisions.

[kzt]

Commingling:

http://www.llc-made-easy.com/commingle-funds.html

[Neurosis]

Thank you for that, kzt. It was educational.

That is what they admitted to, and while it may or may not fall under the umbrella of "shady underhanded dealing", and it seems to indicate the presence of "shady underhanded dealing" it does not seem to be the same as them admitting to embezzlement.

[Kaelik]

Thank you for that, kzt. It was educational.

That is what they admitted to, and while it may or may not fall under the umbrella of "shady underhanded dealing", and it seems to indicate the presence of "shady underhanded dealing" it does not seem to be the same as them admitting to embezzlement.

Yes and no.

You see, Loren Coleman promised a number of people that he would make them part owners and took money from them for that purpose.

Either he stole that money from them, or he embezzled money from the company that he is not the sole owner off.

In either case, he stole from them.

[Neurosis]

If that is what happened, shouldn't this logically be a criminal case? With either those people (owners or non-owners as the case may be) pressing charges (for either embezzlement or fraud as the case may be)?

[Kaelik]

If that is what happened, shouldn't this logically be a criminal case? With either those people (owners or non-owners as the case may be) pressing charges (for either embezzlement or fraud as the case may be)?

Yes, it should be a criminal case with those owners pressing charges.

But once again, for the billionth time, all the possible maybe promised owners are choosing not to press charges, because they are his cult slaves, or Mormon and therefore religiously forbidden from persecuting him for his crimes.

And so, since you can't have a trial for theft when the guy will lie to your face that he gave the guy money, there is no trial.

[Neurosis]

Alright.

[Clutch9800]

Yes, it should be a criminal case with those owners pressing charges.

But once again, for the billionth time, all the possible maybe promised owners are choosing not to press charges, because they are his cult slaves, or Mormon and therefore religiously forbidden from persecuting him for his crimes.

And so, since you can't have a trial for theft when the guy will lie to your face that he gave the guy money, there is no trial.

The "Non-Owners" don't press charges, the District Attorney presses charges.

We know tha alleged crime has been reported, because Frank himself has made about a bajillion calls to every "crimestoppers" line that will take a collect call from Czechles-fucking-slovakia.

In addition, Phil D. would roll on Loren in a second. He was the guy who provided the original graphs and is one of the jilted "owners". Maybe I'm projecting, but in most of his posts he seemed a tad miffed.

Do you guys honestly think that the good folks at Shitstorm wouldn't roll on Loren? Most of them were with CGL when this all went down, they should certainly have something to say to any investigator who is looking into this.

That said.

Someone whom I trust implicitly and who has impeccable bona fides has informed me that Loren did indeed steal from the company, and that pretty much everything he's been accused of is in fact true to a large extent.

That's where things get wierd for me.

If I were to embezzle/co-mingle/"borrow"/whatever over $800,000.00 and had fifteen or twenty people, some of whom intensly disliked me know about it, I'm fairly certain that I would very quickly find myself in a cell with a psycopathic Troll nicknamed "The Ram".

So, I have reached a personal conclusion that this is in fact under investigation by the proper authorities. The fact that it took this long to send Rick Eddleman to jail is a pretty good indicator that these things take a long time.

So, we'll just wait and see.

Clutch

[RobbyPants]

But once again, for the billionth time, all the possible maybe promised owners are choosing not to press charges, because they are his cult slaves, or Mormon and therefore religiously forbidden from persecuting him for his crimes.

Is that an actual tenant of Mormon belief, or are you just saying they'll side with him because they're of the same religion?

[Username17]

But once again, for the billionth time, all the possible maybe promised owners are choosing not to press charges, because they are his cult slaves, or Mormon and therefore religiously forbidden from persecuting him for his crimes.

Is that an actual tenant of Mormon belief, or are you just saying they'll side with him because they're of the same religion?

There is an actual point of Mormon theology that you are required to give greater leeway to other Mormons in business than you would to non-Mormons. So the fact that Loren has taken other people's money and promised them partial ownership of the company, but has not delivered that partial ownership "yet" means that good Mormons are not supposed to take him to court or even stop giving him contracts in preference to non-Mormons with cleaner records.

There was a whole section of Randall Bills' memo to the freelancers where he talked about how his Mormon faith convinced him that he had to forgive Loren and let him have more chances to run the company into the ground. That is literally part of the religion. It's one of the reasons that there are more multi-level marketing scams per capita in Utah than anywhere else on Earth.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

The "Non-Owners" don't press charges, the District Attorney presses charges.

The district attorney can press charges, and would if evidence came into being, but as a general cost saving measure, if a robber breaks into someone's house, steals their money, and then the person claims to have given them the money, they don't have a trial, it's because you can't convict someone if the victim claims to not be a victim.

I mean what Clutch, do you not understand the concept of someone reporting their car stolen, the police pulling over their daughter, and then them not pressing charges against their own daughter?

What do you think happens in that situation, the police just say "Fuck it" and run a trial anyway?

We know tha alleged crime has been reported, because Frank himself has made about a bajillion calls to every "crimestoppers" line that will take a collect call from Czechles-fucking-slovakia.

...

Do you guys honestly think that the good folks at Shitstorm wouldn't roll on Loren?

Yeah, you aren't a biased dick at all, you are perfectly objective

[Koumei]

...and is Clutch that uneducated, or does he really think Czechoslovakia still exists, as opposed to having fallen apart and been reformed about ten times in the last decade year five minutes?

[Clutch9800]

What do you think happens in that situation, the police just say "Fuck it" and run a trial anyway?

In those two instances, probably not, but that's where the analogy falls apart. We aren't talking about a B&E and we aren't talking about a "borrowed" car. We're talking about over 800K taken in a very methodical way over an extended period of time. I've run cases like this. I've investigated cases of kids looting thier elderly parents bank accounts over an extended period of time and gotten convictions, even with reluctant victims/witnesses. It happens every day. It takes patience and victim advocacy.

That's what I don't get about this case.

Where did I ever claim objectivity? I speak from my own perspective, based on my training and experience. It's a concept called probable cause.

As far as my dig at SS, I have reasonable suspision that elements of that group played a very large part in facilitating the current situation in order to leverage the licenses, or the entire company, for personal gain.

As far as the rest, I'm well aware of the situation in Eastern Europe. On a related subject, I went out with this lady a couple of Saturdays back who worked for 12 years at NASA down in Florida, but now works at the new Boeing plant here. Anyway, for most of the dinner she complained about how since the shuttle is retiring all of our space program is being outsourced to the Soviet Union. I really didn't have the heart to break the news to her. So while I myself may not be as uninformed as you would think, I do travel in uninformed circles.

By the way, what is it we're arguing about anyway.

Clutch

[Username17]

I find it hilarious that after spewing character assassinations aspersions and general FUD at me, Sandstorm, Phil DeLuca, and everyone here... that he edited a statement that people who attack the messenger rather than the message probably don't have an argument right out of his own argument. It means he does learn.

-Username17