The Third Doctrinal War -- Stardock, Reiche/Ford, and Star Control

Pretty much exactly this.

That said, I’d probably still be miffed (rightly or wrongly) if those who knew my identity broke my illusion of anonymity without my consent.

Like you don’t do it for the titles of Sole Master of Game AI, Creator of the greatest 64bit engine of all time, Savior of Star Control, Fixer of the Start Button, among others.
Having a corporation mandates responsibilities, no matter how much you disagree, and not only facilitates bullying others.

Since when has doxxing of any stripe been accepted here?

What about Adam Baldwin? Is he a corporation? According to at least some people here, his career should be over because he doesn’t have the right politics.

I’m going to lock this thread for about 24 hours. The folks dragging drama in from elsewhere and using this thread as a place to air grievances – that that includes members of this community – have turned an already ugly situation even uglier. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do it here when the thread is unlocked.


EDIT: The thread is unlocked now. I would like to remind everyone this is not P&R, so please treat each other cordially and don’t drag in baggage from elsewhere. And if you’re incapable of doing that, just don’t post in the thread.

Thanks @tomchick.

So to get this thread back on track, let’s switch gears for a moment.

From what I gathered, the case probably isn’t going to be decided before 2019. But on Reddit, I’ve read that both sides have filed for injunctions (correct me if I’m wrong), which the judge still has to rule on. Since Origins is slated for release on September 20th, that means we should learn soon whether or not an injunction is granted, right?

Am I correct in assuming that whether or not an injunction gets granted will be a litmus test as regards the legal standing of the case in general? In other words, if P&F can’t block Origins, does that mean that Stardock has a chance of winning this dispute, or at least that their hand will be strengthened by it? (I also read on Reddit that filing an injunction is actually quite expensive, so that P&F might not want to do this.)

If P&F file an injunction and it is granted it means they probably have an exceptionally strong case. Losing the fight for an injunction does not strengthen Stardock’s hand appreciably. As Desslock pointed out above, an injunction not only has to show that you have a very high chance of winning but that you would be irreparably damaged by the actions you are seeking to prevent in a non-monetary way. For instance there is a case to be made by P&F that a release of Origins using their characters voiced by someone who has made some rather questionable comments about homosexuals, blacks and women could permanently damage their rights in a way that could not be realistically compensated financially. This however is an unlikely scenario.

Given the increased irrational and poor behavior on Brad’s part I have taken this off my wish list.

I’m not excusing anyone’s behaviour here, but it does seem that there is a substantial group of people out to besmirch Brad, and it started, afaik, just after Elemental, with an ex employee claiming alot of stuff that was thrown out.

Since then he has been persona non grata to alot of people.

This current lawsuit can be painted many ways, and we’ve seen it done. Over @explorminate, the support is overwhelmingly in favour of Brad, here the tone comes close to character assassination.

Given how internet keyboard warriors attack, and then hide behind anonymity etc, it’s no wonder Brad got pissed off.

I don’t think that makes it right, but somewhat more understandable.

I do think Elastan should keep that drama where it came from. You attack people, expect to be bitten.

Brad isn’t doing himself any favours here though, knowing full well that whatever you post is there forever, and subject to (willful or not) misinterpretation.

Not excusing the behaviour, trying to understand it.

I think we should skip the personal stuff in this thread (which will only lead to flame wars and other unpleasantness) and focus on the lawsuit. Otherwise, I expect the thread to be locked for good, and that would be a shame.

Thanks for that; this was helpful.

I always thought one of the unwritten rules of QT3 was to not drag drama between threads little lone dragging it from another site.


Huh, I guess it’s not even unwritten.

I am pretty sure this was what @tomchick was asking people to stop doing.

It’s the same pattern for you guys for years. Misrepresent something. Escalate it to character assassination, get others to tut tut “Oh, the bad thing is bad” (the bad thing that didn’t actually happen) and then later self-reference.

I remember the whole “sexual harassment” thread. Same pattern. Twist something behind recognition, make up a lot of extra nonsense to go with it. Get others to nod “tut tut” at the now completely misrepresented allegation and then hold onto it for future drama. At some point, the onus is on the person allowing themselves to be purposely manipulated to take responsibility for their contribution to the character assassination.

It happened two days ago. It’s certainly not six month old baggage.
This is the thread about the lawsuit and the issue discussed is directly connected to the lawsuit and Brads actions to drag Elastan into it. I find it hard to argue that it doesn’t fit here.

character assassination

noun: character assassination ; plural noun: character assassinations

  1. the malicious and unjustified harming of a person’s good reputation.

Except, of course, you know nothing about the actions. You know no context. You just moved directly into character assasination. If you are truly interested in discussing it, on topic, in context, why not simply go to the Discord server where you can review the actual facts instead of strawmanning the whole thing?

There, go have fun.

Sure. Although the facts I’m building my argument on seem pretty straight forward.

You threatened to dox him and admitted to it.
I’m stating that you threatened to dox him.

I fail to see where the character assassination comes in?

And you can read the entire context here:

Instead of just swallowing the snippets.

But so that we do understand each other: IF you are actually trying to harm someone in the real world, your right to anonymity is forfeit. Is that crystal clear enough for you? If someone were to threaten your family online from an anonymous handle, would you seriously say, "Well, I guess I’m hosed, I can’t find out who they are because that would be ‘criminal behavior’. " But you don’t know the context of the quotes you are shitting out there. You just substitute your own bias into them that has nothing to do with reality.

Let me refresh your memory:

That is character assassination.

Which you did just hours after @tomchick politely asked you not to engage in.

Let me give you a definition in return:

li·bel ˈlībəl/
Aa published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

Papa Tom gonna lock the thread.

I’m not thread copping, but might I suggest that anyone willing to take the time to express their dislike for Brad’s behavior follow the Discord link for the context? And maybe take the discussion of what a poopyhead he is there, before the lawsuit thread gets shut down?

There’s been some interesting discussions regarding the lawsuit and it would be a shame if lost an avenue to discuss it. I think Tom’s made it clear that Qt3 and this thread specifically isn’t the dumping ground for drama, pillorying of forum members, etc.