I am waiting to see if this turns into another “ban the sucker we disagree with” then re-evaluate my opinion of people who are in Tom’s living room generally.
@stusser or @tomchick , Move this into P&R and stop the charade that it belongs in the Games section.
Edit: corrected grammar
To be fair I don’t know if “derail” is a good word to use here. They didn’t pull the thread off topic. It sparked some discussion. While it was pretty silly and shilly with the dodging of questions and repetition of talking points or links to PR statements it wasn’t off topic or egregious in any way. While not a lot of direct or new info was provided we were served with some good examples of why people aren’t finding Stardock super trustworthy these days.
And personally I got a kick out of the CM arguing that SC:O is indeed a derivative work of SC2 thus confirming infringement on P&Fs copyrights.
Fair enough. Perhaps a better metaphor would be that we were chugging along quite nicely, but then the train switched tracks and went through a rather unpleasant region. ;-)
In any case, I don’t think the Stardock folks have done themselves any favours here.
Absolutely true!
I’ve been here over a decade, and Tom did ask you to bow out of the thread.
It’s a thread about games, not politics. I’d appreciate it if folks kept it that way.
As a friendly suggestion to someone involved in ongoing litigation and not as a matter of forum policy.
-Tom
First off, I wouldn’t want them to release any such things, because I don’t want to be spoiled. But depending on their obligations to Accolade, they might not want to put anything in a fixed form until they were officially on leave, lest they give rise to a copyright claim.
I’d be on board with that, if Stardock’s trademark claims ended at “Star Control”, and its box art. If P&F stepped over that line with their announcement, they should pay a fair and appropriate price for doing so. It’s Stardock’s broadened, untested claims that jeopardize the UQM project that I take offense to.
Only internally to the game; that subtitle never appeared in any sales or marketing material used by Accolade or Atari.
That could well be a fair use, as discussed earlier here.
Wow…so you think that all of the negative opinions expressed about your litigation are really just because of your political views or personal drama? That’s…interesting. For the record, I had no idea what your political views were prior to this case, nor had I heard of your prior drama. You were just a guy who had made a few games that I liked, and a stance on maintaining and supporting them that I approved of.
I don’t see that happening even in the “worst case” outcome for Stardock. At most, you pay P&F some money, the old “Star Control” trademark gets cancelled (so you file a new one based solely on SC:O), and you have to remove the specifically SC2-originated elements from the game, meaning no Arilou, no Cmdr. Hayes, no Tzo Crystals. I don’t see any realistic likelihood of more than that.
I took “here” to mean when there’s a QT3 related drama. Not this particular thread. I haven’t been reading it in months.
Being biased doesn’t make someone unreliable. I’d disagree with that basic assumption. It isn’t an insult, simply an observation.
Brad certainly tried to… I’ll say again what I said last month: I gave them extra benefit of the doubt because of my distaste for his views (and hence said close to nothing on the subject).
It’s Stardock’s fault that every time they open their mouth they manage to sound more clearly like bullies and liars, until they eventually they our internal bullshit meters break.
We’re perfectly capable of separating Brad’s bullshit from Stardock’s bullshit, thank you very much - or, at least, keep ourselves from saying it out loud - unless it’s relevant because of the victim card.
So you meant the forum as a whole, but not the thread? Um, what?
You never did answer my question about what pre-existing personal bias you think I have against you. You’ve made the accusation, you’ve attributed motives to me like wanting to see SC:O pulled off the shelf. So, where’s your evidence of these positions you ascribe to me? What pre-existing animosity do I have from before the lawsuit? Or is it as it seems that you are just assuming it because I do not agree with your actions and have posted to that effect in this thread?
I have no idea who you are or what your biases are nor do I care.
You wrote: “Do you really wonder why so many people do not see Stardock in a positive light here?” I took “here” to mean whenever there’s a QT3 drama that involves me.
I’m very interested in this topic, and some day people will realize that everything I said above long ago is correct, but this thread is just getting needlessly unpleasant. There’s no reason for the aggressive barbs back and forth, regardless of the merits of your positions,
Yet you still felt it was a good idea to accuse me of having some personal pre-existing animosity to the point where I am longing for SC:O to be pulled from the shelves.
Do I, and you, really need any more reinforcement that you are viewing anyone who disagrees with your actions in this dispute as some kind of hater? Here we have a literal example of your leveling the accusation and then when pressed for proof you admit you don’t know and don’t care to do anything but accuse.
I guess thank you for admitting you don’t care if the accusations and assumptions you make against others are true or not.
Wow. I really don’t know what to say to that. You seem to read a lot into what other people say.
I wish QT3 had a mute person feature. You are very unpleasant.
I find extraordinary to come to this thread, guns blazing, and then request a “mute” feature when one feels other people are saying “mean” things. I have reported your last post as inappropiate: with every of your posts I am more convinced that you and your employee didn’t come here with the intention of having an enlightening discussion, but rather, to steer this thread towards grounds which are more suitable or comfortable for your company.
I understand why you feel that way. Most people don’t find it pleasant to be called on their bullshit. Especially when they can’t defend it in any way.
I think we have very different ideas of what guns ablazing are.
Your response prompted me to re-read what I wrote and I’m sorry I just don’t see how anything I’ve written could be characterized as “guns ablazing”.
Moreover, Rhonin, who is not an “employee” (he’s a part-time community manager), has been nothing but polite responding primarily to Elestan with facts and listening to feedback.In response, he’s been name-called and insulted several times. Similarly, it’s been only several minutes since we were called “bullies and liars”.
So I hope you can find it in yourself to forgive me to desire the ability to filter out those who cannot seem to have a civil conversation in order to be able to read those who are interested in treating each other with courtesy…
I am a fairly recent Stardock game purchaser (OTC) so I am clearly not part of the so imagined anti-Stardock front. I would love to hear anyone who doesn’t think that I am a long established forum member.
I find the constantly shifting statements from Brad and Stardock nakedly dishonest about this situation. I find that there’s no way to square their own statements and actions that show any kind of consistent reality. While I have opinions on the various conflicting positions that they have claimed for whatever window of time, just taking their revisions against each other they’ve convinced me by themselves and by their own words that they are not being honest.
Brad and his employees coming here and trying to gatekeeper who is a legitimate member of this community is the total bullshit cherry on the top. No one has been here long enough that they are immune from dissent.
I don’t find answering to direct civil questions with a link to another forum and an directive to read 600 comments on another forum a conversation.