I'm responding by PM because I understand that you most likely do not want to make worse what is already a bad situation.

Transcription

1 Downloaded from: justpaste.it/xq2z A word in private, Mar , 10:22 AM I'm responding by PM because I understand that you most likely do not want to make worse what is already a bad situation. I may have let a bit too much feeling into what I posted, I can understand why you are defensive. I have to admit that I'm not exactly on your side, as much as there can be sides in this. I've been very keen to pay attention to the names behind what I feel has been a Renaissance in the setting and direction for Shadowrun and I've been disappointed to see most of those names go. This isn't anything personal, you just happen to be relatively new and currently acting as mouth piece for what looks to all the world like a powerful force bent on bleeding this game dry. I know that I'm assuming a lot based on the rumors, but like I said; if things are 25% as bad as what the rumors sound like I'm disappointed with the present response. It sounds like denial, like damage control, and not like a company trying to right itself. By spin I only mean that you are trying to put a positive face on what is a grim situation. If the situation isn't grim, or as grim, then that's fine. I wanted to be blunt about being honest. It really is the best way to go in all things, always. Funny hearing that from someone who enjoys Shadowrun so much, but I try to only be a cold hearted bastard on the weekends. I'd like to be on your side, but I have reservations because it seems like there are things that I'm not being told. The official statement was a bit light on details, where the rumor was not, and that tends to look a bit fishy. I can understand CGL not wanting to air all their dirty laundry in public though, especially if there are legal proceedings to look forward to. I don't envy your position at all, and I have nothing personal against you. I'm praying this all works out for the best and we all have a game we can enjoy and be proud of when it's over. I've been playing for a long time, buying both books and PDFs recently, and I'll keep buying them as long as you keep putting them out. As a consumer I have an interest in making sure that my money isn't going to clubbing baby dolphins or other such irresponsible nonsense. I don't want to have to stop buying CGL products, so show me this company is a good steward of their properties.

2 Re:A word in private, Mar , 10:38 AM I appreciate you taking the time to set out your position. I understand Shadowrun fans are passionate about the game; I am too. As I mentioned when I became line developer, way back in 2000, the editor at FASA asked me which of their product lines I'd be interested in writing for, and I didn't hesitate--i said Shadowrun. FASA closed about six months later, which was the start of my star-crossed existence with Shadowrun, but that's another set of stories. The point is, I love the setting, and I have fought hard for it in different ways over the years (my first credited contribution to the line, BTW, was Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book back in 2004; my most recent freelance credit was for Seattle I'm relatively new as line developer, but not new to the line). I don't plan to stop fighting for the game. I know the rumors have been more specific than the official statements, but as I said, that's the way things are going to be. A corporation cannot afford to let the quantity and quality of the information they release to the public be affected by the quantity and quality of rumors. There are reasons certain information is kept private, and those reasons do not change because someone decided to start a rumor. It fact, it would be irresponsible of Catalyst to adjust corporate policy simply to satisfy those who spread rumors. The only way I can show you, and other players, that Catalyst is a good steward is through what happens next. It's been a bad week, with books being pulled from sale and others being delayed or otherwise complicated. So we'll show you what kind of a steward we are by how we move forward. I mentioned some criteria previously, namely: Are freelancers paid? Does Catalyst still have the license? Are we moving ahead on quality books? If we can't answer "yes" to enough of those questions, Catalyst will have shown itself to be a poor steward and will deservedly exit the Shadowrun business. My goal, then, is to make those answers "yes" in any way I can.

3 ((This is a PM in response to a post I made to DS calling Jason out for a making a disparaging comment about AH. I think some of you will recall this particular shit storm)) Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:20 PM I already had a PM conversation with Bobby about this. The fact that he decided to post the altered drafts indicates that he chose to ignore that conversation. Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:23 PM Well then, that answers your question. If you have a concern, why not state it? I don't know what's worse, that your comment specifically cast AH in a negative light or that you are in the unique position to be able to answer your own, now rhetorical, question.

4 Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:35 PM Didn't I already state my concern? Was I not clear enough? Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:40 PM You stated a question, for AH to answer in a public forum. Seems disingenuous when you know the answer. Normally though, you'd be fine asking a rhetorical question. But you're the line developer and you are in a unique position to know the answer to that question. Why not act as the authority if you are correct? If you were really out for the interests of the parties you feel are aggrieved, you could have listed them. Instead you simply hinted that AH was recalcitrant in posting the work of others he had no business releasing. Statement which I do not agree with. Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:46 PM I said what I knew. Honestly, at the moment, I don't have the time to look over all the other drafts to see if he put up edited ones or not, so I asked. But I knew he put up the edited PACKS, so I thought that was worth saying.

5 I'm sorry you believe that editors and publishers can have their work thrown around without their permission or input. I find it a little odd that people who are angry with Catalyst for not paying freelancers are okay with a writer taking editors' and proofers' work for free. Or when you're upset about the unpaid freelancers, do the unpaid editors not get included in that group, because their work can be published without hesitation or compensation? Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:49 PM Just because you don't have time to act in your capacity on line dev doesn't mean you aren't. For the record I wasn't aware that you could copyright editing and proof reading work. I'll have to be more careful in the future if that is true. Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 08:57 PM My capacity as live dev doesn't involve supervising Bobby. I'm doing that in my free time. I never said it was copyrighted. But people entered into work with a certain understanding; now their work is being used in a different way then they were told. Why should Bobby be able to take

6 advantage of their efforts without even acknowledgment? Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 09:04 PM Bobby entered into work with an understanding too. Now the guy who made the call to cut him off is trying to raise questions about his professionalism and integrity on a public forum. Now according to you the work AH did should never see the light of day unless he gets the permission of everyone that touched the docs? Isn't that sort of foolish on it's face if he was the one who was going to get paid for this work if it was used? Does he have to share tips with everyone who edited and proofed, or was that it's own arrangement? Do those people really have any say over the finished product and how it's used? Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 09:10 PM I didn't cut off his work. He did. He terminated his contracts. He has said so repeatedly. I notice you keep exaggerating the amount of people who need to be consulted to some ridiculous thing, like "everyone who touched the doc." I said no such thing. Only people who did definable work on it, which is a narrow, easy-to-define group. Four other proofers, namely. He can even ignore the hours of effort I put into it.

7 And finally, what Bobby could do is what the people who wrote SoLA drafts did--either release their unedited drafts, or make sure they contact the editors. Notice how Jong-Won Kim made a point about doing that. All Bobby had to do was put out unedited drafts, and then he is not taking advantage of the editorial infrastructure that improved his documents. Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 09:25 PM I didn't say you cut off his work. You cut him off as a freelancer, and in response he pulled his contracts. I keep exaggerating because I don't know where the line is. I always though that the buck stopped with the author when it came to copyrights, but you want to include the proofers and editors. My point is why stop there? Who decides how many people are included? Perhaps. I don't know what those drafts look like, if they still exist or if they are in a state any better than some of the other really rough work he's released. And I really fail to see the advantage he's getting from the editorial infrastructure you're touting, which I might add he was a part of. He isn't getting paid for his work, not anymore. I think the real point in this is so that there is a comparison with the work that you sent over seas today. I suspect you sent over 6WA, but that's purely speculation on my part.

8 Re:Bobby's free stuff, Jun , 09:33 PM Again, we're not talking about copyrights--we're talking about people's work, the expectations they had for it, and what was done with it. For the record, proofers made over 250 changes to PACKS. That's a significant improvement over the initial draft. If he was taking advantage of that infrastructure (which he now says he was not, and I'll take his word on that), then he would gain significant benefit by incorporating those changes and making a much more usable document. That's hours of work that went into the product, work for which the proofers will be compensated by Catalyst. Why should Bobby derive private benefit from their efforts and from the infrastructure Catalyst has set up? But since he says all the changes are his own, it's a moot point. My posts have been edited accordingly.