But, as things stand, crowd-funding is a donation. It is not the purchase of a product or an investment, and the usual statutory or contractual obligations do not apply. You have (I'll amend my wording from my earlier post) very little protection or legal recourse.
And no, a private company not on the stock market is NOT required to open their books, especially not when a competitor demands it.
Have fun
Not entirely correct. Kickstarter is very specific what the project creator has to do in case he fails. Including return of remaining funds and detailed financial reports.
"When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.
...
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:
they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.
The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers."
I wouldn't expect an unbias post coming from Erillion they seem to think everything that Chris Roberts has to say is the 100% truth.
All I know is when CR said he was going to make a space sim and started all this, people should have asked for their money back when he changed it to a space sim FPS.
1. DS did not post pics of CR's daughter, someone else did and sent it to him. Plus it is a non issue because she was featured as an artist on imb. So in fact her own parents posted her picture(s). How the hell can you blame DS.
2. The Escapist done a very professional article on SC and CR. To say they shouldn't have posted it would of been bad journalism. Like Kotaku did, they admitted they had the same information but were setting on it and still advertising SC ships. Now why aren't you guys jumping all over them? That is bad Journalism.
3. This can all be settled today, CR just has to release a beta of the game, not a module or a walk around ship with only a camera and no character. A actual game that has all the whistles of a space sim he promised years ago. Not a FPS that was never part of the original Kickstarter.
4. You backers should really thank DS, without him bring this all to the forefront you would still be taken for a ride for God who knows how long.
5. Last you should be most thankful to the 7 whistleblowers and maybe the 2 unidentified people that have brought all this to the front and have put their livelihoods on the line for acknowledging a corrupt developer.
6. To discount all of the afore mentioned and taking CR at his word as an honest person is just amazing. You can't discount all the comments from the others and expect them all having it in for CR, now that would be some conspiracy and very unbelievable.
Whistleblowers usually stay anonymous especially if they still work there or even if they have left or were fired they wouldn't want it out incase it affected them getting another job, but it doesn't mean it's not try because they are anonymous. lol
Thank you Mylady Obvious for that explanation.
Now please ...
some proof !
Have fun
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
You are not seriously insinuating that SEVEN people that left the company for completely different reasons at completely different times have all decided to gather together and defame their ex-employer. You know that is grade A tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense, right? The much more likely explanation is that there is something really wrong in CIG wonderland.
If an anonymous source is corroborated by just ONE other verified source the police can get search and arrest warrants. We have SEVEN different verified sources.
Please dude, we know you are the shiny beacon of everything CIG here and that is fine but saying there is no proof is just completely ridiculous. Saying these people are somehow out to get CIG is conspiracy theory nonsense.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Actually it would benefit Chris Roberts and Star Citizen if he did show proof that everything is fine with the project, because if it turned out that everything is fine people would have more faith in the project and they would probably get them more funds.
When the TOS changed in February of this year to make refunds payable 18 months after expected completion date instead of the 12 months in the previous TOS (among other changes,) were all backers asked to agree to the new TOS or did this cover it?
Hello Iselin,
I cannot remember. I am/was fine with all versions of the SC TOS so far. 12 or 18 months did/does not matter to me. Launch date/year did/does not matter to me. Star Citizen should be a new milestone of the genre, no matter how long it takes ... THAT is what mattered/matters to me. Until then i have literally dozens of other great games still to play - on Steam, on GoG, as MMO's (Lifetime Accounts or F2Ps) or as stand-alone games.
Have fun
Thanks.
Any other backers remember being asked to agree to the new TOS?
I am a day one $30 backer from Kickstarter. I never got asked anything about a TOS change at all. In fact, i did not even know about the change until it was mentioned in this thread. I check my Kickstarter account every other week and i have subscribed to all mailing lists of projects i backed.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
You want comical? Go read some of the posts by posters on the RSI forum. Over there Chris Roberts is God, and any ill spoken about CR or SC is blasphemy. Anytime a post is posted by a member that even mildly criticizes SC or CR a disclaimer is also included assuring everyone that they love and support SC and CR lest they be tarred and feathered before being fed to the wolves. Over there they brag about buying additional ships as a way of getting back at Derek Smart. Come to think of it, it actually would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
You are referring to 0.1 % of the posts on the forum. Every crowd has some nuts.
The vast majority of backers on the forums is simply discussing the game and its many NOT YET EXISTING aspects.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
You are not seriously insinuating that SEVEN people that left the company for completely different reasons at completely different times have all decided to gather together and defame their ex-employer. You know that is grade A tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense, right? The much more likely explanation is that there is something really wrong in CIG wonderland.
If an anonymous source is corroborated by just ONE other verified source the police can get search and arrest warrants. We have SEVEN different verified sources.
Please dude, we know you are the shiny beacon of everything CIG here and that is fine but saying there is no proof is just completely ridiculous. Saying these people are somehow out to get CIG is conspiracy theory nonsense.
To be entirely fair the fact that seven people out of nearly 300 are all that have come forward is grounds to be suspicious of the claims made. Especially the claims of blatant racism and emotional abuse in office emails. I mean come on, EMAILS. And two of the sources supposedly still work there so getting a copy of these emails should be super easy. So why haven't they shown any evidence.
Seven people can easily get together and decide on a story to push, just as easily as they could all be telling the truth and it's all really going down.
This is the reason that asking for real evidence of the claims being made is not an unfair request.
But I could also just be stirring the pot to get more rage out of all this to amuse myself, so you can't really trust my input. ;p
When the TOS changed in February of this year to make refunds payable 18 months after expected completion date instead of the 12 months in the previous TOS (among other changes,) were all backers asked to agree to the new TOS or did this cover it?
Hello Iselin,
I cannot remember. I am/was fine with all versions of the SC TOS so far. 12 or 18 months did/does not matter to me. Launch date/year did/does not matter to me. Star Citizen should be a new milestone of the genre, no matter how long it takes ... THAT is what mattered/matters to me. Until then i have literally dozens of other great games still to play - on Steam, on GoG, as MMO's (Lifetime Accounts or F2Ps) or as stand-alone games.
Have fun
Thanks.
Any other backers remember being asked to agree to the new TOS?
I am a day one $30 backer from Kickstarter. I never got asked anything about a TOS change at all. In fact, i did not even know about the change until it was mentioned in this thread. I check my Kickstarter account every other week and i have subscribed to all mailing lists of projects i backed.
There was never any email or notification otherwise. The changes were put in a new launcher that coincided with one of the AC patches. From what I remember it used the typical boilerplate legalese of "By clicking PLAY you agree to the terms and conditions as covered in the ToS blah blah blah."
But, as things stand, crowd-funding is a donation. It is not the purchase of a product or an investment, and the usual statutory or contractual obligations do not apply. You have (I'll amend my wording from my earlier post) very little protection or legal recourse.
And no, a private company not on the stock market is NOT required to open their books, especially not when a competitor demands it.
Have fun
Not entirely correct. Kickstarter is very specific what the project creator has to do in case he fails.
Yes, very specifically mentions that only on project failure do they have to provide financial details.
Yes, i said that in my first sentence: "...in case he fails"
The TOS also states:
"Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life."
I think that the honest communication part has already been breached. Didn't he try to hide the fact that he hired his wife Sandi Gardiner? Correct me if i am wrong.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Protip: news media is not responsible for reporting the truth. They present whatever will generate the most ad revenue. There is no punishment for reporting false stories, its just embarrassing when they get caught. They also know they will lose ad revenue if they're not seen as credible.
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
And several other sources, NAMED sources, six people working at CIG, not anonymous disgruntled ex-employees contradict their stories.
Guess who i consider a more reliable source ? Its those people still working there. Who have no axe to grind with CIG.
Have fun
Yes, because employees always tell it like it is when the employer is reading over their shoulders lol.
I've done many, many workplace investigations and no matter how toxic the work environment, there are always some employees who will come forward praising the employer without reservations.
In my experience what is told to me in confidence when the employee feels safe in knowing his / her identity will be protected is always more credible. It's really, really tough to find a current employee who will go on the record being critical of the employer for obvious reasons.
As a matter of fact this current outpouring of "heartfelt" pro-CIG public testimonials is very suspect and, frankly, sort of desperate.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
And several other sources, NAMED sources, six people working at CIG, not anonymous disgruntled ex-employees contradict their stories.
Guess who i consider a more reliable source ? Its those people still working there. Who have no axe to grind with CIG.
Have fun
It does not matter who you consider more reliable. The fact that seven independent verified sources have come forward (not including the 2 still employed because those could not be verified) is enough to warrant an investigation.
Not all employees might have witnessed what has been reported since they don't work at that office or they have not received any such emails. Your internal sources are getting paid by the accused so they are by definition not reliable sources.
In short: Your internal sources do not invalidate the other verified sources.
You are insinuating again that there is some sort of conspiracy and all these individual sources have an axe to grind with CIG. More than half of them left on their own accord. This is tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense my friend.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
With ds always lurking I would say both sides are being shady. The whole buisness is juvenile. Its DS and some reporters muck racking to benefit their own agenda. While CR being sketchy abut details. It's like high school all over again. There's the cool popular kids and the rebellious kids who make fun of the popular kids so they can look better. So weak.
You are insinuating again that there is some sort of conspiracy and all these individual sources have an axe to grind with CIG. More than half of them left on their own accord. This is tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense my friend.
Have fun
I might add, that in 35 years of working in the field of Labour (yes, I'm Canadian and that's the right way to spell it, damn it! ) Relations I have never seen a group of employees fabricate stories about employers.
One employee or two? Yes It happens, typically when one is trying to work the system for a pay-out (usually a "golden parachute.") But I have never seen more than two conspire to do it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
And several other sources, NAMED sources, six people working at CIG, not anonymous disgruntled ex-employees contradict their stories.
Guess who i consider a more reliable source ? Its those people still working there. Who have no axe to grind with CIG.
Have fun
The fact that he capitalizes "NAMED" sources is hilarioius especially since the comments by the "named" sources still working at CIG would have been a ton more credible if they had of remained "unnamed." No "named" employee in their right mind would go on record criticizing their employer. That's just common sense. Even the worst run company in the world can hand pick a half dozen "kiss ass" employees to praise it. This is how you know this whole charade of "named" sources is nothing but a fabricated PR stunt in an attempt to somehow discredit the "unnamed" sources in Lizzy's article. These people have to be smarter than that.
There are SEVEN sources reporting similar stories. That is more than enough proof.
And several other sources, NAMED sources, six people working at CIG, not anonymous disgruntled ex-employees contradict their stories.
Guess who i consider a more reliable source ? Its those people still working there. Who have no axe to grind with CIG.
Have fun
That seem like a completely crazy approach to trust, especially trust in a company.
If it were true, would they admit it? ( Has this happened in the history of corporations? )
Does not one usually examine who has the most at stake before deciding who may or may not be telling the truth?
Not trying to be a wise-ass here, I am honestly fascinated by this approach and I would love to hear the reasoning behind it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protip: news media is not responsible for reporting the truth. They present whatever will generate the most ad revenue. There is no punishment for reporting false stories, its just embarrassing when they get caught. They also know they will lose ad revenue if they're not seen as credible.
Wait, are you actually trying to assert that media never get sued for publishing false information or is this some kind of clever sarcasm I can't quite wrap my brain around?
Protip: news media is not responsible for reporting the truth. They present whatever will generate the most ad revenue. There is no punishment for reporting false stories, its just embarrassing when they get caught. They also know they will lose ad revenue if they're not seen as credible.
Wait, are you actually trying to assert that media never get sued for publishing false information or is this some kind of clever sarcasm I can't quite wrap my brain around?
Sometimes you just have to force yourself to ignore some posts because they are just way out there.
With ds always lurking I would say both sides are being shady. The whole buisness is juvenile. Its DS and some reporters muck racking to benefit their own agenda. While CR being sketchy abut details. It's like high school all over again. There's the cool popular kids and the rebellious kids who make fun of the popular kids so they can look better. So weak.
Forbes picked it up, I wonder what bone they have to pick with SC/CR.
With ds always lurking I would say both sides are being shady. The whole buisness is juvenile. Its DS and some reporters muck racking to benefit their own agenda. While CR being sketchy abut details. It's like high school all over again. There's the cool popular kids and the rebellious kids who make fun of the popular kids so they can look better. So weak.
This^ neither party is acting with integrity or without suspect agendas. I will however, give the article the benefit of the doubt(and this is a big reach for me as I generally consider game journalism something I scrape off my shoes.) as: A. she never expressed her own views she merely re-posted what both the sources and CR himself said to her. She made no personal allegations or conclusions, while giving both sides a forum. B. They have since gone to some pains to explain source verification leaving little credible doubt as to their attempt at integrity. if the sources in question, or CR, or both are mis-representing things that isn't the reporters look-out. C. they had the courtesy to give CR an early notification of the article and the chance and time at rebuttal. Even though two verified sources are enough to run with a story without that courtesy. And it is a courtesy not a requirement. D. nor is it her fault she was given a rant to wade through instead of a point by point rebuttal.
EDIT she's the only one in this whole mess that seems to have any sense of professionalism, from any side. She reported the story, she didn't insert herself into it, nor run away from it. Which is the ideal for any jounalist.
Comments
All I know is when CR said he was going to make a space sim and started all this, people should have asked for their money back when he changed it to a space sim FPS.
1. DS did not post pics of CR's daughter, someone else did and sent it to him. Plus it is a non issue because she was featured as an artist on imb. So in fact her own parents posted her picture(s). How the hell can you blame DS.
2. The Escapist done a very professional article on SC and CR. To say they shouldn't have posted it would of been bad journalism. Like Kotaku did, they admitted they had the same information but were setting on it and still advertising SC ships. Now why aren't you guys jumping all over them? That is bad Journalism.
3. This can all be settled today, CR just has to release a beta of the game, not a module or a walk around ship with only a camera and no character. A actual game that has all the whistles of a space sim he promised years ago. Not a FPS that was never part of the original Kickstarter.
4. You backers should really thank DS, without him bring this all to the forefront you would still be taken for a ride for God who knows how long.
5. Last you should be most thankful to the 7 whistleblowers and maybe the 2 unidentified people that have brought all this to the front and have put their livelihoods on the line for acknowledging a corrupt developer.
6. To discount all of the afore mentioned and taking CR at his word as an honest person is just amazing. You can't discount all the comments from the others and expect them all having it in for CR, now that would be some conspiracy and very unbelievable.
Have a good day and have fun!
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
You are not seriously insinuating that SEVEN people that left the company for completely different reasons at completely different times have all decided to gather together and defame their ex-employer. You know that is grade A tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense, right? The much more likely explanation is that there is something really wrong in CIG wonderland.
If an anonymous source is corroborated by just ONE other verified source the police can get search and arrest warrants. We have SEVEN different verified sources.
Please dude, we know you are the shiny beacon of everything CIG here and that is fine but saying there is no proof is just completely ridiculous. Saying these people are somehow out to get CIG is conspiracy theory nonsense.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Fixed that for you.
Have fun
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Guess who i consider a more reliable source ? Its those people still working there. Who have no axe to grind with CIG.
Have fun
Have fun
**** fixes of fixes of fixes spiral away into infinity like a Mandelbrot picture ****
Seven people can easily get together and decide on a story to push, just as easily as they could all be telling the truth and it's all really going down.
This is the reason that asking for real evidence of the claims being made is not an unfair request.
But I could also just be stirring the pot to get more rage out of all this to amuse myself, so you can't really trust my input. ;p
There was never any email or notification otherwise. The changes were put in a new launcher that coincided with one of the AC patches.
From what I remember it used the typical boilerplate legalese of "By clicking PLAY you agree to the terms and conditions as covered in the ToS blah blah blah."
The TOS also states:
"Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life."
I think that the honest communication part has already been breached. Didn't he try to hide the fact that he hired his wife Sandi Gardiner? Correct me if i am wrong.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Star Citizen... more like Scam Citizen
lol
** bows **
Have fun
I've done many, many workplace investigations and no matter how toxic the work environment, there are always some employees who will come forward praising the employer without reservations.
In my experience what is told to me in confidence when the employee feels safe in knowing his / her identity will be protected is always more credible. It's really, really tough to find a current employee who will go on the record being critical of the employer for obvious reasons.
As a matter of fact this current outpouring of "heartfelt" pro-CIG public testimonials is very suspect and, frankly, sort of desperate.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not all employees might have witnessed what has been reported since they don't work at that office or they have not received any such emails. Your internal sources are getting paid by the accused so they are by definition not reliable sources.
In short: Your internal sources do not invalidate the other verified sources.
You are insinuating again that there is some sort of conspiracy and all these individual sources have an axe to grind with CIG. More than half of them left on their own accord. This is tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense my friend.
Have fun
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
One employee or two? Yes It happens, typically when one is trying to work the system for a pay-out (usually a "golden parachute.") But I have never seen more than two conspire to do it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The fact that he capitalizes "NAMED" sources is hilarioius especially since the comments by the "named" sources still working at CIG would have been a ton more credible if they had of remained "unnamed." No "named" employee in their right mind would go on record criticizing their employer. That's just common sense. Even the worst run company in the world can hand pick a half dozen "kiss ass" employees to praise it. This is how you know this whole charade of "named" sources is nothing but a fabricated PR stunt in an attempt to somehow discredit the "unnamed" sources in Lizzy's article. These people have to be smarter than that.
That seem like a completely crazy approach to trust, especially trust in a company.
If it were true, would they admit it? ( Has this happened in the history of corporations? )
Does not one usually examine who has the most at stake before deciding who may or may not be telling the truth?
Not trying to be a wise-ass here, I am honestly fascinated by this approach and I would love to hear the reasoning behind it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes you just have to force yourself to ignore some posts because they are just way out there.
Forbes picked it up, I wonder what bone they have to pick with SC/CR.
The tinfoil hats look great on the defenders.
A. she never expressed her own views she merely re-posted what both the sources and CR himself said to her. She made no personal allegations or conclusions, while giving both sides a forum.
B. They have since gone to some pains to explain source verification leaving little credible doubt as to their attempt at integrity. if the sources in question, or CR, or both are mis-representing things that isn't the reporters look-out.
C. they had the courtesy to give CR an early notification of the article and the chance and time at rebuttal. Even though two verified sources are enough to run with a story without that courtesy. And it is a courtesy not a requirement.
D. nor is it her fault she was given a rant to wade through instead of a point by point rebuttal.
EDIT she's the only one in this whole mess that seems to have any sense of professionalism, from any side. She reported the story, she didn't insert herself into it, nor run away from it. Which is the ideal for any jounalist.