A personal attack would be more than bringing up his tendencies. I don't address the points he made because, they may be accurate, these same points have been raised by many others over the course of this games development or lack there of... I don't have a problem with that aspect of this, I just question his motives, which i do not feel based on his past are for the greater good. Anyone with a name can get people behind them by simply repeating their concerns, good intention or not.
Like I said, you are unable to address his points. So all you do is attack him.
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A personal attack would be more than bringing up his tendencies. I don't address the points he made because, they may be accurate, these same points have been raised by many others over the course of this games development or lack there of... I don't have a problem with that aspect of this, I just question his motives, which i do not feel based on his past are for the greater good. Anyone with a name can get people behind them by simply repeating their concerns, good intention or not.
Like I said, you are unable to address his points. So all you do is attack him.
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
LOL see, now you are trying to make personal attacks on me. You are unable to address the content of anything and do nothing more than attack the poster. You just can't help it. You have nothing valid to say and so you perform personal attacks. The crazy thing is that you then attempt to claim to not do it. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
A personal attack would be more than bringing up his tendencies. I don't address the points he made because, they may be accurate, these same points have been raised by many others over the course of this games development or lack there of... I don't have a problem with that aspect of this, I just question his motives, which i do not feel based on his past are for the greater good. Anyone with a name can get people behind them by simply repeating their concerns, good intention or not.
Like I said, you are unable to address his points. So all you do is attack him.
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
LOL see, now you are trying to make personal attacks on me. You are unable to address the content of anything and do nothing more than attack the poster. You just can't help it. You have nothing valid to say and so you perform personal attacks. The crazy thing is that you then attempt to claim to not do it. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
What was an attack on you? I asked you a fair question...I have no desire to discuss anything with anyone with an agenda against a game or business model (they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in regard to this game for a multitude of reasons). If it doesn't apply don't own it, you basically just did by calling it an attack.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A personal attack would be more than bringing up his tendencies. I don't address the points he made because, they may be accurate, these same points have been raised by many others over the course of this games development or lack there of... I don't have a problem with that aspect of this, I just question his motives, which i do not feel based on his past are for the greater good. Anyone with a name can get people behind them by simply repeating their concerns, good intention or not.
Like I said, you are unable to address his points. So all you do is attack him.
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
LOL see, now you are trying to make personal attacks on me. You are unable to address the content of anything and do nothing more than attack the poster. You just can't help it. You have nothing valid to say and so you perform personal attacks. The crazy thing is that you then attempt to claim to not do it. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
What was an attack on you? I asked you a fair question...I have no desire to discuss anything with anyone with an agenda against a game or business model (they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in regard to this game for a multitude of reasons). If it doesn't apply don't own it, you basically just did by calling it an attack.
LOL, your personal attack was your attempt to label me in order to dismiss what I said. Much like what you are doing in all your other posts, but you know this. But thanks for proving my point, you are only interested in personal attacks, just like I pointed out. Heck just look at your last line, you attempt to apply a made up label of yours in order to dismiss what I say, again ignoring the content of the post and directly attacking the poster.
Thank you for proving my point about your agenda and in your lack of ability to address the content in a post and that your only interest is in personal attacks, of course that was clear to everyone before your admission.
What was an attack on you? I asked you a fair question...I have no desire to discuss anything with anyone with an agenda against a game or business model (they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in regard to this game for a multitude of reasons). If it doesn't apply don't own it, you basically just did by calling it an attack.
LOL, your personal attack was your attempt to label me in order to dismiss what I said. Much like what you are doing in all your other posts, but you know this. But thanks for proving my point, you are only interested in personal attacks, just like I pointed out. Heck just look at your last line, you attempt to apply a made up label of yours in order to dismiss what I say, again ignoring the content of the post and directly attacking the poster.
Thank you for proving my point about your agenda and in your lack of ability to address the content in a post and that your only interest is in personal attacks, of course that was clear to everyone before your admission.
You're not trying to dismiss what I've said? LOL
Anyway...What have you said that warrants a dismissal? If that's how you view my posts, that's fine with me, I have no reason to dismiss it, if you see me as attacking you, fine.
You seem dead set on discussing me, again fine, that doesn't bother me either, I'll be just as happy as I was five seconds ago. Anything else you want to know?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A personal attack would be more than bringing up his tendencies. I don't address the points he made because, they may be accurate, these same points have been raised by many others over the course of this games development or lack there of... I don't have a problem with that aspect of this, I just question his motives, which i do not feel based on his past are for the greater good. Anyone with a name can get people behind them by simply repeating their concerns, good intention or not.
Like I said, you are unable to address his points. So all you do is attack him.
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
LOL see, now you are trying to make personal attacks on me. You are unable to address the content of anything and do nothing more than attack the poster. You just can't help it. You have nothing valid to say and so you perform personal attacks. The crazy thing is that you then attempt to claim to not do it. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
What was an attack on you? I asked you a fair question...I have no desire to discuss anything with anyone with an agenda against a game or business model (they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in regard to this game for a multitude of reasons). If it doesn't apply don't own it, you basically just did by calling it an attack.
LOL, your personal attack was your attempt to label me in order to dismiss what I said. Much like what you are doing in all your other posts, but you know this. But thanks for proving my point, you are only interested in personal attacks, just like I pointed out. Heck just look at your last line, you attempt to apply a made up label of yours in order to dismiss what I say, again ignoring the content of the post and directly attacking the poster.
Thank you for proving my point about your agenda and in your lack of ability to address the content in a post and that your only interest is in personal attacks, of course that was clear to everyone before your admission.
You're not trying to dismiss what I've said? What have you said that warrants a dismissal? If that's how you view my posts, that's fine with me, I have no reason to dismiss it, you see me as attacking you, fine, have a good day...
"I have no reason to dismiss it" LOL you just said you did, you really don't read what you type do you. Wow the back peddling starts. See what happens when your BS is called out. Nope I am not dismissing what you say, just pointing out that your line of, no personal attacks, was complete BS. And it was, you have done nothing but personally attacked him and me in order to ignore what he or I say.
What is really funny is that you attacked some one and said this.
"You folks really need to step out of your two sides to every story bubble... Everything isn't about fanboys and what? Haters? I couldn't care less what happens with star citizen, that doesn't stop me from realizing or acknowledging the source here and his track record. Are we all supposed to be of one mind ? That's your idea of reality? Gotta love attempts at forced group think... shaming others into agreeing with you doesn't work bud."
When this is exactly what you have tried to do. Man talk about the Pot calling the kettle black, hahahaha.
"I have no reason to dismiss it" LOL you just said you did, you really don't read what you type do you. Wow the back peddling starts. See what happens when your BS is called out. Nope I am not dismissing what you say, just pointing out that your line of, no personal attacks, was complete BS. And it was, you have done nothing but personally attacked him and me in order to ignore what he or I say.
My points about Derek Smart were about things he's done which were very much the same as he's doing here, at least in my eyes, so in turn it's a "no wonder: situation to me on why CIG did what they did. I've even gone as far as saying hey it's great if he gets something rolling, yet him in and of himself is questionable in terms of motive. WHat is unfair about that?
IF you're not the typical person I've run into in regard to Star Citizen my bad, but i don't have a bone in this race, I don't wnat a bone in this race, my points were strictly about Derek Smart, I figured you for that type due to your comment " Its almost like you are unable to address the points he makes, I wonder why that is..." Making it sound like I'm trying to defend SC, it's those types that think in those two team types of mentality. I avoid conversation with them (as well as the super fan), it always goes no where, much like this conversation I'm sure.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What is really funny is that you attacked some one and said this.
"You folks really need to step out of your two sides to every story bubble... Everything isn't about fanboys and what? Haters? I couldn't care less what happens with star citizen, that doesn't stop me from realizing or acknowledging the source here and his track record. Are we all supposed to be of one mind ? That's your idea of reality? Gotta love attempts at forced group think... shaming others into agreeing with you doesn't work bud."
When this is exactly what you have tried to do. Man talk about the Pot calling the kettle black, hahahaha.
No that's not what I was trying to do I was trying to avoid talking to folks who think like that (hence my question to you.., the conversations always go like this one is, If you're waiting for me to get mad, good luck...:), it hardly ever works, I can go on like this for a long time if you really want. I know the game well... and it's obvious you're playing it... SO where does this end? We keep going, we agree to disagree? What is it that you want? An apology? What's your point here? We disagree on what an attack is... That's where this started.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What if... They dont really have 85 Million. What if... They just kept reinvesting backer money to increase the counter for marketing purposes. What if.. They really only have a fraction of that amount.
What if...
It's in the Guinness Book of World Records so it has been accounted for.
Look, I am no longer at CIG, but I recall when Chris and I were working at Origin, Derek Smart sent several negative emails accusing us of stealing his ideas etc, the guy is just not worth the time to read.
He is just trying to get attention - something none of us should ever give him.
IMHO, I think CIG did the right thing here, that guy is just not worth the trouble.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I have not nor do I plan on donating to Star Citizen. Nor do I plan on playing the game after release. I have no interest in it. Having said that, I know exactly who Derek Smart is and that's the only reason why I'm interested in this topic.
First, Derek Smart is creating a competing product. Second, Derek Smart has no concept of a number of things: public relations, user experience, community management. He thinks that ANY criticism leveled at him or his games is trolling. He'll abuse the Steam tools for his game to silence 'real' criticism of his games.
The guy thrives on attention and drama, but when he finds himself in an argument with someone that points out when he's wrong he'll use any means necessary to silence that person. I've seen this numerous times and I've had first-hand experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if all this is him purposely trying to drum up attention for himself and his projects.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
...
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I'm not attacking the messenger because I don't like the message, I'm attacking the messenger because I don't like the messenger !
I believe that the messenger is cynically exploiting an opportunity to create publicity for themselves. If it was Gabe Newell (or somebody else that I consider to have a shred of credibility or integrity) making these accusations, I wouldn't be reacting in the same way at all. But it's not.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
...
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I'm not attacking the messenger because I don't like the message, I'm attacking the messenger because I don't like the messenger !
I believe that the messenger is cynically exploiting an opportunity to create publicity for themselves. If it was Gabe Newell (or somebody else that I consider to have a shred of credibility or integrity) making these accusations, I wouldn't be reacting in the same way at all. But it's not.
I started laughing the moment I read about what was going on with Star Citizen and Derek Smart. What's rather ironic about this is that if this was reversed then Derek Smart would be calling the others trolls. The guy is as hypocritical as they come.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I have not nor do I plan on donating to Star Citizen. Nor do I plan on playing the game after release. I have no interest in it. Having said that, I know exactly who Derek Smart is and that's the only reason why I'm interested in this topic.
First, Derek Smart is creating a competing product. Second, Derek Smart has no concept of a number of things: public relations, user experience, community management. He thinks that ANY criticism leveled at him or his games is trolling. He'll abuse the Steam tools for his game to silence 'real' criticism of his games.
The guy thrives on attention and drama, but when he finds himself in an argument with someone that points out when he's wrong he'll use any means necessary to silence that person. I've seen this numerous times and I've had first-hand experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if all this is him purposely trying to drum up attention for himself and his projects.
What does any of that have to do with the short list of 8 demands that the author has presented CIG with in a good faith effort to simply attain a bit of transparency and accountability for the tens of millions of dollars the public has entrusted with CIG?
This a short list of demands that not only a good majority of gamers are agreeing with, but the media is agreeing with it as well. As a matter of fact, any rational and clear thinking person would and should agree with such demands simply because it is a smart business practice to demand accountability from someone that you have entrusted money with to complete a service or a product. We are not asking for a finished product here. We are just asking for a good faith showing of how that money has been allocated to date.
The fact that there would be people defending CIG in this matter, regardless of who brought forth these 8 demands in light of the fact that this company has been given $85 MILLION dollars with no accountability for that money, reinforces the saying that there is a sucker born every minute. It's like you people have never heard the story of the boy that cried wolf. Just because that boy was BSing about the warning and danger of an approaching wolf all the prior times he cried it did not mean that there was no wolf present that final time. And if people would have listened to him that final time the results would not have been so tragic. Apparently, the story is being repeated here except in this story the wolf is CIG and you, the white knights, won't stop criticizing the boy (DSmart) until the wolf jumps up and bites you in the ass.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I have not nor do I plan on donating to Star Citizen. Nor do I plan on playing the game after release. I have no interest in it. Having said that, I know exactly who Derek Smart is and that's the only reason why I'm interested in this topic.
First, Derek Smart is creating a competing product. Second, Derek Smart has no concept of a number of things: public relations, user experience, community management. He thinks that ANY criticism leveled at him or his games is trolling. He'll abuse the Steam tools for his game to silence 'real' criticism of his games.
The guy thrives on attention and drama, but when he finds himself in an argument with someone that points out when he's wrong he'll use any means necessary to silence that person. I've seen this numerous times and I've had first-hand experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if all this is him purposely trying to drum up attention for himself and his projects.
What does any of that have to do with the short list of 8 demands that the author has presented CIG with in a good faith effort to simply attain a bit of transparency and accountability for the tens of millions of dollars the public has entrusted with CIG?
This a short list of demands that not only a good majority of gamers are agreeing with, but the media is agreeing with it as well. As a matter of fact, any rational and clear thinking person would and should agree with such demands simply because it is a smart business practice to demand accountability from someone that you have entrusted money with to complete a service or a product. We are not asking for a finished product here. We are just asking for a good faith showing of how that money has been allocated to date.
The fact that there would be people defending CIG in this matter, regardless of who brought forth these 8 demands in light of the fact that this company has been given $85 MILLION dollars with no accountability for that money, reinforces the saying that there is a sucker born every minute. It's like you people have never heard the story of the boy that cried wolf. Just because that boy was BSing about the warning and danger of an approaching wolf all the prior times he cried it did not mean that there was no wolf present that final time. And if people would have listened to him that final time the results would not have been so tragic. Apparently, the story is being repeated here except in this story the wolf is CIG and you, the white knights, won't stop criticizing the boy (DSmart) until the wolf jumps up and bites you in the ass.
You know the story of the boy who cried wolf is about teaching people not to falsely cry wolf right? It's not a tale of the tragic consequences of the people not listening to the boy, it's a tale of the boy getting himself killed because he's a little shit that likes to play games with serious issues.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
I have not nor do I plan on donating to Star Citizen. Nor do I plan on playing the game after release. I have no interest in it. Having said that, I know exactly who Derek Smart is and that's the only reason why I'm interested in this topic.
First, Derek Smart is creating a competing product. Second, Derek Smart has no concept of a number of things: public relations, user experience, community management. He thinks that ANY criticism leveled at him or his games is trolling. He'll abuse the Steam tools for his game to silence 'real' criticism of his games.
The guy thrives on attention and drama, but when he finds himself in an argument with someone that points out when he's wrong he'll use any means necessary to silence that person. I've seen this numerous times and I've had first-hand experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if all this is him purposely trying to drum up attention for himself and his projects.
What does any of that have to do with the short list of 8 demands that the author has presented CIG with in a good faith effort to simply attain a bit of transparency and accountability for the tens of millions of dollars the public has entrusted with CIG?
This a short list of demands that not only a good majority of gamers are agreeing with, but the media is agreeing with it as well. As a matter of fact, any rational and clear thinking person would and should agree with such demands simply because it is a smart business practice to demand accountability from someone that you have entrusted money with to complete a service or a product. We are not asking for a finished product here. We are just asking for a good faith showing of how that money has been allocated to date.
The fact that there would be people defending CIG in this matter, regardless of who brought forth these 8 demands in light of the fact that this company has been given $85 MILLION dollars with no accountability for that money, reinforces the saying that there is a sucker born every minute. It's like you people have never heard the story of the boy that cried wolf. Just because that boy was BSing about the warning and danger of an approaching wolf all the prior times he cried it did not mean that there was no wolf present that final time. And if people would have listened to him that final time the results would not have been so tragic. Apparently, the story is being repeated here except in this story the wolf is CIG and you, the white knights, won't stop criticizing the boy (DSmart) until the wolf jumps up and bites you in the ass.
You know the story of the boy who cried wolf is about teaching people not to falsely cry wolf right? It's not a tale of the tragic consequences of the people not listening to the boy, it's a tale of the boy getting himself killed because he's a little shit that likes to play games with serious issues.
Good job on missing the point. You will finally get the point if you can answer the question ... ... and why did the boy finally end up getting killed? This shouldn't be too hard for you but given the responses in this and other similar threads, please forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the correct answer.
I'll even do you a favor and post the link so that you can read up on it. It will help you in arriving at the correct answer.
"...when we are alarmed with imaginary dangers in respect of the public, till the cry grows quite stale and threadbare, how can it be expected we should know when to guard ourselves against real ones?"
Comments
DUDE !!
(hats off to the creator of THAT video !)
Have fun
The only people who are truly able to answer the points he raised are CIG. Quick note though, you realize this thread is about why they'd want to cut consumer ties with him right? His reputation is important to that topic. Why would I even talk about his points in a topic not about his points?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those constantly on a crusade against this game , or kickstarters in general would you? That seems to be the type of poster who is completely lost in regard to the real point of this thread. Pushing and thrashing on and on about transparency, making this the duplicate of a number of other threads. The topic is how folks feel about the action CIG took. Their transparency over Star Citizens development has nothing to do with that... it's a separate topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
LOL see, now you are trying to make personal attacks on me. You are unable to address the content of anything and do nothing more than attack the poster. You just can't help it. You have nothing valid to say and so you perform personal attacks. The crazy thing is that you then attempt to claim to not do it. Perhaps you should read your own posts.
What was an attack on you? I asked you a fair question...I have no desire to discuss anything with anyone with an agenda against a game or business model (they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in regard to this game for a multitude of reasons). If it doesn't apply don't own it, you basically just did by calling it an attack.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
LOL, exactly
LOL, your personal attack was your attempt to label me in order to dismiss what I said. Much like what you are doing in all your other posts, but you know this. But thanks for proving my point, you are only interested in personal attacks, just like I pointed out. Heck just look at your last line, you attempt to apply a made up label of yours in order to dismiss what I say, again ignoring the content of the post and directly attacking the poster.
Thank you for proving my point about your agenda and in your lack of ability to address the content in a post and that your only interest is in personal attacks, of course that was clear to everyone before your admission.
He got served? Well played.
What´s funny is how some player ORG (Goonrathi?) trolled him and sent him their fleet list pretending it would be a refund request list X,-D
He was so happy! Until he found out.. .lol. You guys rock
You're not trying to dismiss what I've said? LOL
Anyway...What have you said that warrants a dismissal? If that's how you view my posts, that's fine with me, I have no reason to dismiss it, if you see me as attacking you, fine.
You seem dead set on discussing me, again fine, that doesn't bother me either, I'll be just as happy as I was five seconds ago. Anything else you want to know?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"I have no reason to dismiss it" LOL you just said you did, you really don't read what you type do you. Wow the back peddling starts. See what happens when your BS is called out. Nope I am not dismissing what you say, just pointing out that your line of, no personal attacks, was complete BS. And it was, you have done nothing but personally attacked him and me in order to ignore what he or I say.
What is really funny is that you attacked some one and said this.
"You folks really need to step out of your two sides to every story bubble... Everything isn't about fanboys and what? Haters? I couldn't care less what happens with star citizen, that doesn't stop me from realizing or acknowledging the source here and his track record. Are we all supposed to be of one mind ? That's your idea of reality? Gotta love attempts at forced group think... shaming others into agreeing with you doesn't work bud."
When this is exactly what you have tried to do. Man talk about the Pot calling the kettle black, hahahaha.
My points about Derek Smart were about things he's done which were very much the same as he's doing here, at least in my eyes, so in turn it's a "no wonder: situation to me on why CIG did what they did. I've even gone as far as saying hey it's great if he gets something rolling, yet him in and of himself is questionable in terms of motive. WHat is unfair about that?
IF you're not the typical person I've run into in regard to Star Citizen my bad, but i don't have a bone in this race, I don't wnat a bone in this race, my points were strictly about Derek Smart, I figured you for that type due to your comment " Its almost like you are unable to address the points he makes, I wonder why that is..." Making it sound like I'm trying to defend SC, it's those types that think in those two team types of mentality. I avoid conversation with them (as well as the super fan), it always goes no where, much like this conversation I'm sure.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No that's not what I was trying to do I was trying to avoid talking to folks who think like that (hence my question to you.., the conversations always go like this one is, If you're waiting for me to get mad, good luck...:), it hardly ever works, I can go on like this for a long time if you really want. I know the game well... and it's obvious you're playing it... SO where does this end? We keep going, we agree to disagree? What is it that you want? An apology? What's your point here? We disagree on what an attack is... That's where this started.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's in the Guinness Book of World Records so it has been accounted for.
Have fun
Here is some information from one of the disgruntled employees that left that sinking ship (**sarcasm**) Star Citizen/CIG ;-)
Have fun
Comment from Wingman
I think it's perfectly reasonable that GIG have refunded Derek Smart's pledge. He is no more important than any other backer, and there's no reason why HIS whining should receive any more attention than anybody else's whining. Given his reputation he actually deserves less credibility in this case than the average backer, because it's highly likely that he's using this "cause" primarily as a way to generate publicity for himself.
Apparently, Derek Smart tried to make a similar game, but failed to pull it off. According to him, if HE couldn't do it, nobody else will be able to, therefore if CIG claim they can do it, they must obviously be scamming people. You see, his second name is not "Smart" for nothing, he is the greatest game designer that ever lived. Or will ever live. If he says it can't be done, you better believe it.
Of course, as is standard practice in these matters, all the "haters" will gleefully celebrate this as further "proof" that they are right, and that their concerns are valid. As for Derek, he doesn't give a damn either way, as long as he gets plenty of exposure and limelight in the process. He will milk it for all it's worth, then move on to the next "photo opportunity".
It seems that many posters here favour French law. If you can't prove you're innocent of their allegations (to their satisfaction), then you're obviously guilty on all charges.
It is always amusing to see people attack the messenger because they don't like the message.
Derek Smart asked some questions that a rational backer would want to know. This weird logic that asking 'hey, where's the beef? = hater' just means you outed yourself as a 'fan boy'. ROFL!
The response from CIG is equally hilarious as they just 'took the ball and went home'.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I have not nor do I plan on donating to Star Citizen. Nor do I plan on playing the game after release. I have no interest in it. Having said that, I know exactly who Derek Smart is and that's the only reason why I'm interested in this topic.
First, Derek Smart is creating a competing product. Second, Derek Smart has no concept of a number of things: public relations, user experience, community management. He thinks that ANY criticism leveled at him or his games is trolling. He'll abuse the Steam tools for his game to silence 'real' criticism of his games.
The guy thrives on attention and drama, but when he finds himself in an argument with someone that points out when he's wrong he'll use any means necessary to silence that person. I've seen this numerous times and I've had first-hand experience.
I wouldn't be surprised if all this is him purposely trying to drum up attention for himself and his projects.
I'm not attacking the messenger because I don't like the message, I'm attacking the messenger because I don't like the messenger !
I believe that the messenger is cynically exploiting an opportunity to create publicity for themselves. If it was Gabe Newell (or somebody else that I consider to have a shred of credibility or integrity) making these accusations, I wouldn't be reacting in the same way at all. But it's not.
I started laughing the moment I read about what was going on with Star Citizen and Derek Smart. What's rather ironic about this is that if this was reversed then Derek Smart would be calling the others trolls. The guy is as hypocritical as they come.
Well, it's called 'karma', in terms of Derek Smart. Who's NOTORIOUS for silencing his critics via any means necessary.
What does any of that have to do with the short list of 8 demands that the author has presented CIG with in a good faith effort to simply attain a bit of transparency and accountability for the tens of millions of dollars the public has entrusted with CIG?
This a short list of demands that not only a good majority of gamers are agreeing with, but the media is agreeing with it as well. As a matter of fact, any rational and clear thinking person would and should agree with such demands simply because it is a smart business practice to demand accountability from someone that you have entrusted money with to complete a service or a product. We are not asking for a finished product here. We are just asking for a good faith showing of how that money has been allocated to date.
The fact that there would be people defending CIG in this matter, regardless of who brought forth these 8 demands in light of the fact that this company has been given $85 MILLION dollars with no accountability for that money, reinforces the saying that there is a sucker born every minute. It's like you people have never heard the story of the boy that cried wolf. Just because that boy was BSing about the warning and danger of an approaching wolf all the prior times he cried it did not mean that there was no wolf present that final time. And if people would have listened to him that final time the results would not have been so tragic. Apparently, the story is being repeated here except in this story the wolf is CIG and you, the white knights, won't stop criticizing the boy (DSmart) until the wolf jumps up and bites you in the ass.
You know the story of the boy who cried wolf is about teaching people not to falsely cry wolf right? It's not a tale of the tragic consequences of the people not listening to the boy, it's a tale of the boy getting himself killed because he's a little shit that likes to play games with serious issues.
Good job on missing the point. You will finally get the point if you can answer the question ... ... and why did the boy finally end up getting killed? This shouldn't be too hard for you but given the responses in this and other similar threads, please forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the correct answer.
I'll even do you a favor and post the link so that you can read up on it. It will help you in arriving at the correct answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
I like that link:
"...when we are alarmed with imaginary dangers in respect of the public, till the cry grows quite stale and threadbare, how can it be expected we should know when to guard ourselves against real ones?"
Have fun