They'd give him time to respond to a follow-up article, I mean.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Escapist's clarification on their sources for the Star Citizen op-ed
- Thread starter Last Hearth
- Start date
They'd give him time to respond to a follow-up article, I mean.
The biggest problem is not the lack of reliable proof for the validity of their sources. That is one huge problem, yes, but even if that wasn't the case and even if all their sources were 100% waterproof this STILL would be a terrible, unexcusable article.
In this article the author accuses a company's VP of Human ressources of the following things:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Ageism
-Homophobia
-Financial Fraud (along with her Husband & CEO)
If you think about printing/posting even ONE of those claims you better have proof or at least some DAMN good evidence. An email exchange that's proven to be real, photographs, letters, whatever. Those are accusations you can't just throw out there into the world.
But the author didn't just accuse her of one of those things, she accuses her of ALL of those things. And on what ground?
Because an ex-employee told her. WHAT. Here is what you do: If a (obviously) disgrundtled ex-employee of a company approaches you, you take whatever he says, at best, as a baseline for your investigations. None of what he says can be just taken for granted becasue obviously he doesn't have a great relationship with the company he is talking about and can't be believed to talk about if objectively. You DON'T just take whatever he says and print it as is.
Now, The Escapist says they felt good posting the article because several sources told them these allegations were true. Various problems here.
First:
How would these sources, if we just assume for a minute that they really were working for CIG, ever know, for a fact, about how their CEO spends the company's money? How would they know how he pays for his house and vacation? Anything regarding those topics would be, at best, hearsay, if thouse sources weren't really, really high-ranking employees. Again: Could be possible ground for the start of an investigation but dear god, this can't be your whole damn argument.
Second:
In their response, The Escapist writes this: "three sources (CS1, CS4, CS5) initially contacted Lizzy via separate phone calls on Sept. 26 with information they wanted to share after seeing the initial story about CIG on The Escapist. They got her number via a mutual contact." And this: "Four other sources (CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7) initially contacted Lizzy via email on or before Sept. 27." And this: "The two emails (CS8-CS9) from current employees came into Lockbin on Sept. 27. in the early morning.") ALL of the 9 sources contacted The escapist in the span of max 48 hours. Not one of them was approached by the author, but all of them actually approached her in a very, very short timespan. Seems like a weird coincedence. What seems a lot more likely: Those 9 people (again, assuming all of them really are valid sources and individual people) spoke to each other beforehand, planing their approach. The second you realise that, Escapists reasoning for why their sources can be trusted collapses. Because their argument is that all of them said the same, assuming then that has to mean it's true. If you asumme, however, that they all talked with each other beforehand and simply agreed on what to say...that reasoning seems pretty silly.
That's my problem with the discussion that seems to take place right now. Escapist (and CIG themselves, stupidly) managed to make the validity of their sources the focus, while the real problem lies somewhere else. It's possible that The Escapist actually manage to come out on top if they manage to proof the validity of their sources, even though that doesn't proof any of their points or make the article any less shoddy.
In this article the author accuses a company's VP of Human ressources of the following things:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Ageism
-Homophobia
-Financial Fraud (along with her Husband & CEO)
If you think about printing/posting even ONE of those claims you better have proof or at least some DAMN good evidence. An email exchange that's proven to be real, photographs, letters, whatever. Those are accusations you can't just throw out there into the world.
But the author didn't just accuse her of one of those things, she accuses her of ALL of those things. And on what ground?
Because an ex-employee told her. WHAT. Here is what you do: If a (obviously) disgrundtled ex-employee of a company approaches you, you take whatever he says, at best, as a baseline for your investigations. None of what he says can be just taken for granted becasue obviously he doesn't have a great relationship with the company he is talking about and can't be believed to talk about if objectively. You DON'T just take whatever he says and print it as is.
Now, The Escapist says they felt good posting the article because several sources told them these allegations were true. Various problems here.
First:
How would these sources, if we just assume for a minute that they really were working for CIG, ever know, for a fact, about how their CEO spends the company's money? How would they know how he pays for his house and vacation? Anything regarding those topics would be, at best, hearsay, if thouse sources weren't really, really high-ranking employees. Again: Could be possible ground for the start of an investigation but dear god, this can't be your whole damn argument.
Second:
In their response, The Escapist writes this: "three sources (CS1, CS4, CS5) initially contacted Lizzy via separate phone calls on Sept. 26 with information they wanted to share after seeing the initial story about CIG on The Escapist. They got her number via a mutual contact." And this: "Four other sources (CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7) initially contacted Lizzy via email on or before Sept. 27." And this: "The two emails (CS8-CS9) from current employees came into Lockbin on Sept. 27. in the early morning.") ALL of the 9 sources contacted The escapist in the span of max 48 hours. Not one of them was approached by the author, but all of them actually approached her in a very, very short timespan. Seems like a weird coincedence. What seems a lot more likely: Those 9 people (again, assuming all of them really are valid sources and individual people) spoke to each other beforehand, planing their approach. The second you realise that, Escapists reasoning for why their sources can be trusted collapses. Because their argument is that all of them said the same, assuming then that has to mean it's true. If you asumme, however, that they all talked with each other beforehand and simply agreed on what to say...that reasoning seems pretty silly.
That's my problem with the discussion that seems to take place right now. Escapist (and CIG themselves, stupidly) managed to make the validity of their sources the focus, while the real problem lies somewhere else. It's possible that The Escapist actually manage to come out on top if they manage to proof the validity of their sources, even though that doesn't proof any of their points or make the article any less shoddy.
Zambayoshi
Member
Stephen Totilo wrote something very interesting about Kotaku and use of anonymous sources. Seems quite reasonable to me: http://kotaku.com/about-anonymous-sources-and-kotaku-two-stories-on-kot-1509887768
**EDIT - following is not correct [[He wrote it in response to furor that erupted about a Jason Schreier article about working conditions at Trendy - http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642 ]]
I don't know exactly how Jason satisfied himself about his sources' bona fides - he may have had more information available to him than did LIzzy Finnegan - but like Stephen Totilo said -
**EDIT - following is not correct [[He wrote it in response to furor that erupted about a Jason Schreier article about working conditions at Trendy - http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642 ]]
I don't know exactly how Jason satisfied himself about his sources' bona fides - he may have had more information available to him than did LIzzy Finnegan - but like Stephen Totilo said -
Green Wiggly
Member
I see. I guess I didn't correlate the e-mails with nondescript video evidence.
And yeah, e-mails can be faked.
Feels like this thing is running out of steam until something else happens.
There are two important differences in my opinion: First, the nature of the allegations. The Kotaku article talks about working conditions. That is a whole different beast than racism, homophobia or actualy fraud. And, second, when it actually comes to the theme of sexism, Schreier states that he has actually seen the emails his sources talked about. He posts an actual chat log in the article. His story about the creation of a sexualised character for promotional purposes gets underlined by the released promotional material of that character.
Basically, Jason had a lot more (read: any) evidence for a lot less "harmful" allegations.
This is where Derek Smart enters into it. He's the mutual contact. He's likely also been in contact with them for a little while.
This is not true. Stephen's article, which was a reaction to two entirely different stories, was posted nearly a year after the Trendy piece, which did not trigger any "furor" other than leading the company to realize that it was best for Jeremy Stieglitz to switch roles. At least look at the article dates before you spread misinformation like this. (Stephen's article, published in January of 2014, refers to stories that had been posted the previous week; the Trendy piece ran in June of 2013.)
I'm assuming Zambayoshi writes for the Escapist
Why else would anyone defend that awful article so intensely? I'm not convinced that things are OK at CIG but irresponsible garbage like that proves nothing.
Zambayoshi
Member
Sorry, my mistake. I wasn't criticizing your work or methods. I do think that what Stephen wrote is quite relevant when considering Lizzy Finnegan's article though.
No, but my fact-checking is about as faulty it seems.
I agree the article proves nothing. I have some problems with how it came to be published but I'm very interested in discussing the process whereby it was published. I guess if anything I'm defending the idea that journalists shouldn't be afraid to publish such articles if they honestly believe the sources.
In this topic, so take it with a grain of salt.
call_kotaku
Member
That's basically saying "you can publish anything as long as you believe it's true". Being obligated to do the necessary amount of due diligence is what separates journalists from rumor mongers.
The fact that they gave CIG such a small window to begin with is clearly a red flag. I never set external suspenses that soon, especially via Email. For a freaking "journalist" to do so demands a loss of what meager credibility they may have managed to scrape together.
That's nice that they compared online profiles to see if there were any duplicates, but come on. How hard would it be to make multiple accounts? From what we know of Smart, he's certainly not above said action.
The sites that are publishing/"reporting" the unsubstantiated (false) accusations of a jealous attention-seeker are only causing damage to a legitimate business and hampering the implementation of a unique and promising game development model (one in which the player, not the publisher, has an influence on game design).
Smart is simply throwing figurative fecal matter at the wall in hopes that something sticks. His ultimate goal is likely that of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he can disrupt/delay development and funding, he can later cite these as proof to his mad rant and further his... would "cause" be giving him too much credit? I think it would... I'll go with scheme.
That's nice that they compared online profiles to see if there were any duplicates, but come on. How hard would it be to make multiple accounts? From what we know of Smart, he's certainly not above said action.
The sites that are publishing/"reporting" the unsubstantiated (false) accusations of a jealous attention-seeker are only causing damage to a legitimate business and hampering the implementation of a unique and promising game development model (one in which the player, not the publisher, has an influence on game design).
Smart is simply throwing figurative fecal matter at the wall in hopes that something sticks. His ultimate goal is likely that of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he can disrupt/delay development and funding, he can later cite these as proof to his mad rant and further his... would "cause" be giving him too much credit? I think it would... I'll go with scheme.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/883/feature/10184/Death-of-a-Salesman.html/page/1
Op-ed article at MMORPG.com about this situation.
Writer claims to personally know present and former employees of CIG and corroborates many charges made by Escapist.
So, another voice saying the same thing but with no connection to Derek Smart.
Op-ed article at MMORPG.com about this situation.
Writer claims to personally know present and former employees of CIG and corroborates many charges made by Escapist.
So, another voice saying the same thing but with no connection to Derek Smart.
WTF did i just read? Does he even understand the concept of this game?
"If Squadron 42 is as close as they say, then they need to wrap it up and get it out. Otherwise, it and everything else outside the dogfight module needs to go on hold while all available resources are turned to getting the dogfight module up and running well with multiple maps and all current ships. Squadron 42 and the dogfight module are their opportunities to monetize the game legitimately. Get them both on Steam as standalones for non-backers and create a cash shop to support them similar to the World of Tanks model.
Advancing through ships would be a great aspect to build your cash model around, but it wouldn’t be fair to backers who should be able to fly the ships they bought. You might do it anyway, and backers can just fly any ships they bought, no matter where they are in the advancement tree. That’d allow you to sell bonuses to advancement, which would monetize well. Also, anything cosmetic that could be added easily would be a good way to create revenue."
Amusingly even this writer is calling out Escapist for shitty practices.
He incorrectly attributes many of the events and named people leaving to completely spurious motives. A lot of the people named have well documented reasons for departure.
I did not get that from the article. He is abstract enough to say "I've heard things" which does not independently corroborate anything - it just means he thinks he knows who is speaking out and that it is at least one real person. He is not speaking to the veracity of the statements made.
It feels that the writer wants the game to fit a certain mold and the designers should change their goals. And I really hate the notion these days that every game needs to be available on Steam, even those that have reason to have their own loaders and controlled revenue streams.
That article is little weird saying things like "Even assuming neither Alex Mayberry nor Travis Day gave reasons for their departures in private..." when we know the (publicly stated) reasons why they decided to leave.
And "Chris has a reputation for being so embroiled in the minutia that his teams cant do their jobs, though." on which Gurmukh said that their previous art director was more restrictive than Roberts. 1:46:30 http://livestream.com/gnomon/crafting-star-citizens-3d-concepts/videos/101462367
"When I initially backed Star Citizen, I was told that life time insurance was a perk of backing early and that after a given date, it would never be offered again. Well, that changed. They now offer life time insurance on each new ship as its announced. You can make the argument that its fair to give buyers a chance to get the perk on each new ship, but the implication during those early campaigns was that it was specifically a perk for the early backers that got the game off the ground." Should they not give the same perk for the new ships, ships that would not have been able to be pledged against in the early backing state? I feel that we would have similar complaining if they didn't offer LTI for the completely new revealed ships. Also: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/Insurance-FAQ part "How do I get lifetime insurance?" says: "It is also included in the concept sale phase of ships."
"Of course, that brings up another issue, which is all the additional ships. A good friend of mine spent a portion of his re-enlistment bonus backing Star Citizen, where he picked up a package with the Drake Caterpillar. A ship he still cant access or fly, by the way. Though there are an increasing number of new ships not in the original campaign that he could purchase and get right into the game with. When I asked about it during a visit to CIG, I was told he didnt have his ship yet due to how non-linear the development process was." Larger ships take more time to model and larger multicrew ships need additional technology to get them into the game. Plus how many Caterpillars have people pledged for versus other single seat ships?
"Those who bought ships like the Caterpillar are completely justified in being upset, and every new ship design announced is just salt on the wound." You didn't buy a ship, you donated money on which you got a ship as a reward.
"All of that could be attributed to bad marketing practices, though. Maybe its just miscommunication and not an integrity issue at all, but its just one example of the overall problem. CIG is founded on gifted money. Its not an investment, and its not a purchase." But you get it.
"The number of employees alone means theyve burned through the vast majority of the money theyve raised. So now its time for a change." But have they really burned through their money? We don't know.
" A lot of that can be done by expanding on DFM. New locations in the universe could first be maps in DFM, and non-backers could get access by picking them up as expansions in the cash shop, creating additional revenue for the project." Hell no.
Ummm, even the most junior accountant in the firm would have access to records on a daily basis that would be able to prove these claims. It's very easy, in fact.
If anything, that makes the sources even less reliable since they couldn't provide any tangible evidence whatsoever proving their points.
And get sued for corporate espionage?
Um, no?
why on earth would you think that? It's a large company with millions of dollars of cash, and you don't think it would be easy to hide someone siphoning off money? It happens in companies every day, all the time. Why would this company be any different?
Because I used to be an auditor who has looked at plenty of real life accounts and the transaction records to back them up? The fact that you think this company is "large" betrays your ignorance already. It's a tiny company, nowhere near the scale of even a mid-cap listed company. I've looked at companies with billions of dollars in cash and transactions and even pulling out executives' individual expense records is not hard at all.
Besides this isn't a case of "siphoning" money lol. That would be fraud. This is simply a case of very poor corporate governance which would be unsurprising at all for a small startup company.
One of the accusations was that Chris Roberts was paying for his lavish lifestyle with backer money.
You are right, there would be someone who would know where all the money is going, the issue is whether one of these sources was in that position. I doubt an artist is in that position.
They didn't disclose the job title of their sources? And it's not just one person who would know these things. It can be their personal assistants, junior accounts executives, accountants, finance managers, etc.
Spladam
Member
Once you build a timeline for the entire situation going all the way back to Wing Commander and BC3000AD, to Mr. Roberts starting a new grand project years in the future while Mr Smart is basically still trying to get the spiritual successor to his life's work to the world, things gather some clarity that is not evident when looking at the smaller pieces. Here is a rough timeline, correct me if I get any times and events wrong. I know the first half of this timeline is not all that relevant to the OP, I'm just establishing history for anyone who's joining the discussion now or has yet to learn the entire story.
Ok, now it gets interesting, correct me if I'm wrong, as this was difficult for me to source, but I thought I remember reading that it's at this point that Derek Smart first starts to exchange tweets with Lizzy Finnegan publicly, in context to his GG fiasco, if anyone can find this for me, I'd like to know. Regardless, this happens:
You guys know the rest.
TL;DR It would be easier to summarize the plot of Game of Thrones
-Edit: I made a thread out of this where we can discuss anything having to do with the entire issue, let's see how that goes....
: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=181269584#post181269584
• 1990 Chris Roberts releases Wing Commander, it's sometime about here that Derek Smart begins development of Battle Cruiser 3000AD, threatens to sue Roberts and company for infringement, and, according to Roberts, their response is "We told him we never heard of him and good luck with that..". I think this is significant because it seems "I never heard of you" might be the worst thing one could insult Mr. Smart with. I think it's at this point that a long term motive begins to establish.
• 1992, 1994, and 1996 Wing Commander 2, 3, and 4 are released respectively, all are rather well received.
• 1995 After much struggle in development and in finding a publisher, Take- Two Interactive releases v1 of BC3000AD, to poor reception as it's unfinished and riddled with bugs. Derek claims later that he was holding onto a later iteration of source code that fixed many bugs that he purposely did not share with the fellow development team, he also refutes allegations that he at this point assaulted his NEW adversary, Coca-cola machines. In the years following, Smart releases many more versions, each attempting to fix issues and give the world the game Derek dreamed of making, but in the end this does not happen. Derek develops and release three more titles based on his BC3kAD IP, all of which are received poorly by both critics and comsumers. One title, Universal Combat (2004) will see 5 more versions until it's final released version in 2009.
In the interim period here, for the early 90's to the early 2000's, Mr Smart becomes notorious to various online communities and message boards, including AOL and several Usenet newsgroups as a rather out spoken defender of his games, as well as establishing a reputation for starting and then exacerbating conflict on said forums. • 1992, 1994, and 1996 Wing Commander 2, 3, and 4 are released respectively, all are rather well received.
• 1995 After much struggle in development and in finding a publisher, Take- Two Interactive releases v1 of BC3000AD, to poor reception as it's unfinished and riddled with bugs. Derek claims later that he was holding onto a later iteration of source code that fixed many bugs that he purposely did not share with the fellow development team, he also refutes allegations that he at this point assaulted his NEW adversary, Coca-cola machines. In the years following, Smart releases many more versions, each attempting to fix issues and give the world the game Derek dreamed of making, but in the end this does not happen. Derek develops and release three more titles based on his BC3kAD IP, all of which are received poorly by both critics and comsumers. One title, Universal Combat (2004) will see 5 more versions until it's final released version in 2009.
• 2010-2011 Derek Smart begins development on the latest title in the BattelCruiser IP, Line of Defense, what could be considered the spiritual successor to BC3kAD.
• 2011 After a lengthy period away from the industry Chris Roberts announces his intention to develop a new Space Flight Simulator, Star Citizen, a project that will grow greater in scope and more ambitious with each year. Notice here we have what might be a recreation of what occured in the 90's, Derek Smart starts development of a new Space game to little fan fair, and Chris Roberts does the same to rather greater publicity. I personally believe that this is another instigation to to the same motives that started in the 90's for Derek Smart. and that it possible leads to great frustration for Mr. Smart, but that is me speculating.
Here's where we get to the part of the timeline that is most relevant to the OP, we will soon see what appears to be a connection between The Escapist's contributing writer Lizzy Finnegan and Derek Smart. It's also here sometime that Derek Smart contributes $250 to the SC Kickstarter in return or the "Rear Admiral" package, supposedly because he was genuinely interested in the project and wanted to support it, but according to CiG he has never downloaded or installed the software. I can't speak to his intentions, only to his history with the developer of the project. • 2011 After a lengthy period away from the industry Chris Roberts announces his intention to develop a new Space Flight Simulator, Star Citizen, a project that will grow greater in scope and more ambitious with each year. Notice here we have what might be a recreation of what occured in the 90's, Derek Smart starts development of a new Space game to little fan fair, and Chris Roberts does the same to rather greater publicity. I personally believe that this is another instigation to to the same motives that started in the 90's for Derek Smart. and that it possible leads to great frustration for Mr. Smart, but that is me speculating.
• 2/5/14 Derek Smart publishes his first message via his twitter account with regards to his concerns about SC, calling it a "massive Ponzi scheme" (Thanks to GAFer JoseJX for digging this up)
• 9/16/15 Line of Defense releases on Steam, it currently has 17% positve reviews, rated at "Very Negative", people who complain are banned from the forums, some are apparently banned for bug reporting.
• 6/6/15 Smart publishes his first of many rants, titled "Interstellar Citizens", on his personal blog with regards to his concerns over SC's development, where he expresses his concerns with the scope and reach of the SC project within it's given budget and his feelings on not being completed withing the kickstarter time frame due to feature creep. He also related a summary of all his games to date, of course talking about how awesome they are. We know however, at this time he has already called the SC project a Ponzi scheme.
• 6/10/15 Smart publishes the second article, titled "Interstellar Discourse", on his personal blog about SC, this time calling for an FTC investigation into the finances of CiG and it's use of Kickstarter funding. A FOIA request to the FTC on September 11 shows that up until that point, no such inquiries have been raised by the FTC. It's at this point that RSI refunds Smart's kickstarter backing, claiming he violated the TOS agreement by using his backing to promote LOD, Smart describes this actions as "That’s when all hell broke loose. I mean, literally".
• 6/17/15 Smart publishes his third article on his personal blog in which he details RSI's refunding of his kickstarter, saying "I was promptly deported by RSI. And to boot, they took all my stuff that I had paid for, and owned." He also states he has hired "researches" at great expense to himself, to assist him in going through "massive amounts of data". He continues to update the three articles on his blog over the coming weeks, notoriously banning and deleting comments that argue with his point of view on the matter.
• 8/21/15 Smart sends a letter via an attorney, addressed to Chris and Sandra Roberts and one Ortwin Freyermuth, co-founder of CIG, stating various concerns with the handling of SC's development, accusing the above of "false and defamatory statements" but most notably making demands for refunds for anyone asking for them, complete forensic accounting of expenses, and release date for all things promised on the kickstarter. I have to point out that Mr. Smart not a stranger himself to missing given release dates, and even though they were not kickstarter funded, it just seems ironic that this is such a sticking point for the guy.
• 8/22/15 Smart publishes an article on his personal blog comparing Line of Defense to Star Citizen in which he extols all the ways in which it is superior (almost every way) and praises all of Line of Defenses virtues. Steam page for LOD, read the reviews.
• 8/24/15 Smart publishes his fourth rant concerning SC on his personal blog, in which he quotes Sun Tzu under the title, apparently it had become a war for Smart and publicly states his demands from the letter, and further states that this is now a matter for the IRS and the FBI in addiction to the FTC.
• 8/26/15 Roberts and company send a letter to Mr. Smart in response to his letter, questioning his qualifications of questioning the Star Citizen finances, given his past bankruptcy and tax liens, and suggest that he is a "troll".
• 9/14/15 Smart responds to the response via attorney that states blah blah blah blah.
• 9/22/15 Derek composes his fifth and final blog about Star Citizen, but his time it degrades into ad hominem attacks on Chris and Sandi Roberts, in which Smart calls Sandi a liar and a fraud. Smart refutes the tax liens and refers to his bankruptcy as "funny". Smart claims to have sent evidence to state and federal authorities, as he said he was left with no course but legal action. Note: if you follow Derek's adventures, you see a pattern of pulling people into escalating words and action that justify ever more reactions from him, in what ends up being a constant elevation of flames.
• 9/23/15 It's at this point that Derek somehow embroils himself into a small GamerGate feud with Online Abuse Prevention Initiative founder and author of the now famous "twitter auto-blocking tool" Randi Harper.
• 9/16/15 Line of Defense releases on Steam, it currently has 17% positve reviews, rated at "Very Negative", people who complain are banned from the forums, some are apparently banned for bug reporting.
• 6/6/15 Smart publishes his first of many rants, titled "Interstellar Citizens", on his personal blog with regards to his concerns over SC's development, where he expresses his concerns with the scope and reach of the SC project within it's given budget and his feelings on not being completed withing the kickstarter time frame due to feature creep. He also related a summary of all his games to date, of course talking about how awesome they are. We know however, at this time he has already called the SC project a Ponzi scheme.
• 6/10/15 Smart publishes the second article, titled "Interstellar Discourse", on his personal blog about SC, this time calling for an FTC investigation into the finances of CiG and it's use of Kickstarter funding. A FOIA request to the FTC on September 11 shows that up until that point, no such inquiries have been raised by the FTC. It's at this point that RSI refunds Smart's kickstarter backing, claiming he violated the TOS agreement by using his backing to promote LOD, Smart describes this actions as "That’s when all hell broke loose. I mean, literally".
• 6/17/15 Smart publishes his third article on his personal blog in which he details RSI's refunding of his kickstarter, saying "I was promptly deported by RSI. And to boot, they took all my stuff that I had paid for, and owned." He also states he has hired "researches" at great expense to himself, to assist him in going through "massive amounts of data". He continues to update the three articles on his blog over the coming weeks, notoriously banning and deleting comments that argue with his point of view on the matter.
• 8/21/15 Smart sends a letter via an attorney, addressed to Chris and Sandra Roberts and one Ortwin Freyermuth, co-founder of CIG, stating various concerns with the handling of SC's development, accusing the above of "false and defamatory statements" but most notably making demands for refunds for anyone asking for them, complete forensic accounting of expenses, and release date for all things promised on the kickstarter. I have to point out that Mr. Smart not a stranger himself to missing given release dates, and even though they were not kickstarter funded, it just seems ironic that this is such a sticking point for the guy.
• 8/22/15 Smart publishes an article on his personal blog comparing Line of Defense to Star Citizen in which he extols all the ways in which it is superior (almost every way) and praises all of Line of Defenses virtues. Steam page for LOD, read the reviews.
• 8/24/15 Smart publishes his fourth rant concerning SC on his personal blog, in which he quotes Sun Tzu under the title, apparently it had become a war for Smart and publicly states his demands from the letter, and further states that this is now a matter for the IRS and the FBI in addiction to the FTC.
• 8/26/15 Roberts and company send a letter to Mr. Smart in response to his letter, questioning his qualifications of questioning the Star Citizen finances, given his past bankruptcy and tax liens, and suggest that he is a "troll".
• 9/14/15 Smart responds to the response via attorney that states blah blah blah blah.
• 9/22/15 Derek composes his fifth and final blog about Star Citizen, but his time it degrades into ad hominem attacks on Chris and Sandi Roberts, in which Smart calls Sandi a liar and a fraud. Smart refutes the tax liens and refers to his bankruptcy as "funny". Smart claims to have sent evidence to state and federal authorities, as he said he was left with no course but legal action. Note: if you follow Derek's adventures, you see a pattern of pulling people into escalating words and action that justify ever more reactions from him, in what ends up being a constant elevation of flames.
• 9/23/15 It's at this point that Derek somehow embroils himself into a small GamerGate feud with Online Abuse Prevention Initiative founder and author of the now famous "twitter auto-blocking tool" Randi Harper.
Ok, now it gets interesting, correct me if I'm wrong, as this was difficult for me to source, but I thought I remember reading that it's at this point that Derek Smart first starts to exchange tweets with Lizzy Finnegan publicly, in context to his GG fiasco, if anyone can find this for me, I'd like to know. Regardless, this happens:
• 9/25/15 Escapist writer Lizzy Finnegan authors an article entitled "Eject! Eject! Is Star Citizen Going to Crash and Burn?" that seems to be sourced from Derek himself and his blog rants, as she quotes both Derek and his blog, links to it in the article, and claims that Derek allegedly (she likes that word) has a leaked letter from former CIG employee David Jennesin, which claims less then desirable working conditions at the studio and is critical of Roberts leadership. She quotes Derek at length, and mentions that four people have left or were fired since Derek posted the leaked letter on his blog.
Lizzy's article, like most publications on this fiasco, makes no mention of Derek's and Robert's history in the game development industry, which I think is more significant than people reporting seem to think it is, maybe I'm wrong.
• 10/5/15 The infamous "Star Citizen Employees Speak Out on Project Woes" article is published by the Escapist, authored again by Lizzie Finnegan, which claims, as you all know, to have information from questionably vetted anonymous sources that parrot the claims made by Derek in his last blog plus more sever allegations of illegal hiring practices and fraud. Other journalist call into question methods used by the Escapist to vet sources in addition to the manner in which the article is presented. It is published without a response from the person that it is accusing of illegal activities, as the Escapist seemed to be in a hurry and not able to wait more then 24 hours for a response. Mr Roberts did indeed respond, and manages to publish his somewhat awkward and rambling response online before the Escapist puts it into the article.
You guys know the rest.
TL;DR It would be easier to summarize the plot of Game of Thrones
-Edit: I made a thread out of this where we can discuss anything having to do with the entire issue, let's see how that goes....
: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=181269584#post181269584Yes, he does.
And when he says "I've heard things" he says "Ive heard a lot of the same things".
cor·rob·o·rate
verb
confirm or give support to
Thanks, I find a lot about this whole mess...especially the history between Mr. Roberts and Mr. Smart, very interesting.
hear·say
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
No, they didn't disclose anything about their sources.
And given the size of the company, I'd wager to say that the "handful of people" Roberts says have any overview over the current budget situation would account more or less for their financial department, no?