Lantz, I’m “here” on QT3 every day. Sometimes several times a day. Just not on this thread.
I’m not sure what you think has changed from the start of this over the past several months. You can read Nightgaunt’s timeline at the very top. It’s a pretty reasonable order of events.
No, I said that’s what your positions make you sound like each time you change/refine them (and contradict yourselves). It’s perfectly possible it is more of a communication mismatch with some incompetence and mistakes sprinkled in - we’re all guilty of that at one point or another. At some point, though, it is a bit much to take seriously.
It’s not an opinion about Stardock in other matters, its employees, owners, community managers or fans, just the way you argue the case in the public light - and somewhat in the court too.
We do have a different standard.
@Elestan, let me reaffirm my appreciation of your posting here, which I have found to be very fair even when you clearly have an opinion.
Fair enough. But it’s really not worthwile to engage in discussion that has no legal validity.
For example, if you read the amended complaint, I asked the lawyers to remove the “not the creator” language because I thought it was needlessly provocative and not legally relevant.
As for Thragg’s question, I believed for many years that Fred did the programming and Paul did the design, art, and writing with the music done by others and that anyone else involved was fairly incidental. It was only during the research of the 25th anniversary article that I learned just how much of the game was actually done by others. Back in 1992, a two man team with minor help from others wasn’t too unusual. Though, this really isn’t relevant to the current situation one way or the other.
I think that’s pretty insightful. I will be the first to admit that something in my writing style aggravates people. And not just on forums, just in general written communication. It could be purely a failure of empathy on my part.
So you are not here to discuss things, but instead to only cast aspersions on specific posters like your opening insinuations that Elestan may be some kind of shill, and the forum as a whole with your remarks about people only taking their position in this dispute due to disagreements in P&R and assumptions about people are hoping SC:O gets pulled from the shelves?
You may consider this question unpleasant. You may say I’m reading too much into your words. But here you are literally saying discussing things here is not worthwhile. Yet you have come in here to push your line. How is one not to interpret this as your desire being not to engage in good faith discussion and only to push your position?
How do you go from me not wanting to not bother talking about things that aren’t relevant to the topic become “I’m not here to discuss things”?
It’s not all black or white. For example, I take real issue with Elestan’s arguments but I don’t for even a second believe that he wants Star Control: Origins yanked from the shelves and he’s very partisan.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the plain language of Paul and Fred’s suit seeks that very eventuality (and if you don’t take my word for it, let me just hand the mic over to Elestan). Sure, it’ll never happen because they have no IP in Star Control: Origins but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
I would be willing to respond to you with more detail if you were willing to extend some courtesy in how you treat me and others who don’t share your point of view.
There was no cause of action regarding the creator part. It was just part of the background because legally speaking, Accolade was the “creator” of Star Control and Paul and Fred were the designers but there’s no point in arguing something like that (again, IMO) unless there’s a legal purpose to it. When I read the hostility towards it and with my own industry experience I asked for that to be removed in the amended complaint.
For example, (and in case Tom is reading this, this is on the public record) if they had announced their game as “From the creators of Star Control II comes a new exciting game called Ghosts of the Precursors” I doubt we would be here now.
I’m sorry if this will sound unpleasant, but you do not extend that courtesy to others and your pretending to do so and occasional pearl clutching about it is something that turns people off.
You’ll notice when I say seemingly hash things like this I’m not calling you an asshole or anything. I am often trying to make you see how badly you come off with these statements. Especially when you lament how you claim to be treated so badly here in QT3 and elsewhere.
When you complain that people on this forum are biased and have animosity toward you due to P&R or whatever you are making aspersions against everyone. When you then back down and say “well, not in this thread”, okay, reasonable misunderstanding for one reply, but what did you mean then and why do you then seem to persist with the line? Then you reply directly to a quote of mine with the whole “if you hope SC:O gets pulled from the shelves” thing and you wonder why I think you are accusing me of or assuming that I think that? If that wan’t directed at me then it was another general accusation against either the thread of the forum in general, you can pick which one you meant but either way can’t you see how this rubs people the wrong way and does not help your cause?
And yes, I am often snarky and sarcastic. Welcome to the internet. Don’t come into the kitchen just to complain about the heat.
Um, is this not the most recent document?
and does it not say:
Right there is the accusation that they have held themselves out to be the sole creators.
- Reiche’s and Ford’s ongoing representations that they are the “creators” of the
Classic Star Control Games in connection with the promotion of a new game that they are calling
the “direct sequel” and “true sequel” to Star Control II is false and misleading, and has been made
in a willful attempt to deceive consumers into believing that their game has the legitimate
association to Star Control over Stardock’s New Star Control Game as well as an effort to
dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark
and the Stardock Marks to which they have never had rights.
Heck, and while I’m quoting, here’s my favorite
As the latest aspect of their carefully orchestrated plan and scheme to deceive and
mislead the public by misrepresenting their alleged rights in the Classic Star Control Games and
promote the Ghosts of the Precursors Game, Reiche and Ford recently commenced a
“GoFundMe” campaign, the so-called “Frungy Defense Fund” (“Reiche’s and Ford’s
Campaign”).
Those bastards!
So in other words, we have different definitions of what constitutes being rude. Fair enough.
In your case, I think you read way too much into what people say. I’ve read enough of your posts this evening to see that you seem to have this issue with a lot of people.
For example, if I felt “treated so badly here in QT3” why would I spend so much time here? I don’t think I can make my words any more clear than when I originally wrote them so we’ll simply have to agree that we don’t quite understand each other.
Yes. You can compare that with the original complaint which stated that they are not the creators and some language implying that their contribution was “limited” I am sure Elestan can diff the two.
Ah, so you replaced verbiage accusing them of not being the creators with verbiage accusing of lying about being the sold creators.
Thanks for the clarification I guess.
Yes. They do seem to do that.
I’m not sure how else you’d interpret that.
Such as? Or is this an other empty accusation.
Was it my interpretation of the word bias as spoken by a single poster (not a lot of people) as having an element of an accusation that one’s opinion is unfair in some way? Like the literal dictionary definition of the word bias?
I can’t seem to find the word “sole” in there. Perhaps you can circle it for me.
Maybe they meant creators in the sense that they were the primary creative influences behind the game. Just like what Greg Johnson described in the post years ago that you directly replied to. Which demonstrates that for years you have had full knowledge of the credit at least one team member gave to P&F as the creators of the game.
It was quite a bit more than that. Here is a diff between the two public documents:
here’s another removed part:
All of this is in the factual background for the complaint. It’s the various COUNTS that list the issues of the case and that hasn’t really changed much.
But I didn’t like the suggestion that Paul and Fred weren’t instrumental to the development of Star Control so I asked that the language be changed.
Well said.
I honestly do not know what Brad & Rhonin are trying to accomplish here. Brad simply cannot answer in good faith as any statements would be used against him in the court case. In short, he cannot compromise in this arena as it would be counterproductive to his overall interests. This is entirely understandable but then it makes discussing this with him like speaking to a brick wall. He has no real choice but to parrot the same lines over and over again. Also, I find the attempt to paint himself as a victim on Qt3 distasteful given the considerable number of people here who have supported Brad and Stardock financially over the years by purchasing his/their products.
Rhonin does not have any extra information to add and “but as long as Elestan is going to be participating then it seems fair that a Stardock advocate participate” seems like a direct admission that he is here under Brad’s direction. This smacks of a naked attempt to try to steer the conversation in a particular direction, or in effect trying to moderate this thread. Even in the best light it comes across as a rather ham-handed attempt to recast this discussion.
Okay, sure, I’ll happily try to assume that was done out of pure niceness and not because your attorneys mentioned it really wouldn’t stand up. I truly hope it is a sort of olive branch since there’s nothing I’d like more for this to be settle amicable with you making your game separate from the SC2 universe and them following up the storyline.
Still, there’s that language I quoted about the fraud and the scheme and the claiming to be sole creators. Can you see how one reading this might not focus on the removal of one salacious claim when you are still making some really salacious claims?
In my opinion, what made Star Control a classic was the right mixture of super talented people. I think if you had removed Erol or Greg or Dan or Riku we wouldn’t be talking about Star Control today.
But that doesn’t change my opinion that Paul and Fred were instrumental. They were. But it’s not relevant to the trademark case either way imo.