You sound like an insider repeating CIG talking points. That response was shameful and indefensible. The fact that you are trying to defend it is telling in and of itself.
Regarding Liz. She is a journalist. That's what journalist do. So, on the one hand, you CR worshipers chastise her for not doing due diligence and releasing a story having done limited research, but when she does, by doing what you readily admit she did above, she is then "pressuring previous employees of CIG digging whatever she could find."
Make up your minds. Which one is it?
See that's you putting words in my mouth again for the second post. The response wasn't shameful, it was Roberts saying he's not giving in to any of the Derek Smart arguments. Which is exactly where this article stems from, it came from Liz wanting to ride the coat tails of Dereks Clickbait, and the people who fall for it. People who've been around the industry like Roberts, know full well what gators like Smart, bring to the table. After all, he was able to take over Alganon online by doing much less.
Also, how does pressuring former employees on twitter count as due diligence? She couldn't get them to talk, so she had to go with "mutual contact sources" read friends of a friend. All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
It was a shameful attack piece not befitting the CEO of a multi-million dollar company. There was no need for him to go there. If he is in the right, he should be able to back up his claims with legitimate proof. The only action that needs to be taken under those circumstances is to have his legal team simply draft and deliver a letter of cease and desist. That is how a professional organization handles matters of this nature. The fact that it was not done in that manner lends to the perception of evil. The ensuing result is not only predictable, but deserving.
Again, Liz is a journalist. You don't have to like the manner a journalist gathers her intelligence and information. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of entities who are in the receiving end of a whistle-blower story do not agree with the methods by which journalists gather and draft their investigative pieces. A good argument can be made that, given the reaction from the CIG camp, she did an outstanding job.
All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
Considering CR's rambling rampage of rage in response to an obscure article on a single game site making personal attacks on individuals , demands of the employees names so he can fire them, and little or no effort to calm the F down. I don't find it surprising at all they wished to remain anonymous. That dude comes across as unhinged. If he's anything like that in real life a weapons check every time he enters the building wouldn't be over the top.
The same could be said for DS. Have you actually seen the things he's said to people over the years? I'm not going to link anymore than I have, but there's a reason folks don't like his methods, they aren't how a decent person goes about things.
All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
Considering CR's rambling rampage of rage in response to an obscure article on a single game site making personal attacks on individuals , demands of the employees names so he can fire them, and little or no effort to calm the F down. I don't find it surprising at all they wished to remain anonymous. That dude comes across as unhinged. If he's anything like that in real life a weapons check every time he enters the building wouldn't be over the top.
The same could be said for DS. Have you actually seen the things he's said to people over the years? I'm not going to link anymore than I have, but there's a reason folks don't like his methods, they aren't how a decent person goes about things.
You should probably scroll back a few pages, I gave my thoughts to DS directly on what I thought of his tactics.
No it was not a claim, my original post said either these people are legit and something is amiss, or they're pissed and seeking some type of payback. I still stand by that. As that seems to be the only two possible scenarios here.
And there folks is the backpedaling. Let's look at what you wrote again....yeah sounds like a claim to me.
I still don't see how you believe that to be so outlandish, that kinda thing isn't unheard of. It just seems you want to completely shutdown the other possible scenario to me.. you want there to be something wrong... and will not see any other possible outcome.
A claim would be me saying that is the case, not that it's a possibility. So again no back peddling. On the other hand you seem to feel there are no other possible scenarios, that's fine, just stop picking fights because that's not how everyone sees it.
You claim that this kind of thing isn't unheard of.
Not picking a fight just asking you to back up the claim, which you obviously have no intention to so let's just leave it at that.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
Considering CR's rambling rampage of rage in response to an obscure article on a single game site making personal attacks on individuals , demands of the employees names so he can fire them, and little or no effort to calm the F down. I don't find it surprising at all they wished to remain anonymous. That dude comes across as unhinged. If he's anything like that in real life a weapons check every time he enters the building wouldn't be over the top.
The same could be said for DS. Have you actually seen the things he's said to people over the years? I'm not going to link anymore than I have, but there's a reason folks don't like his methods, they aren't how a decent person goes about things.
You should probably scroll back a few pages, I gave my thoughts to DS directly on what I thought of his tactics.
Please don't feed into the Derek Smart deflection tactic. I am basing my opinion based on my own knowledge of the incident, and what I have read with my own eyes. The only thing that I have seen about Derek Smart in this incident, and of which I agree with, is a request for transparency and accountability. That is a reasonable request given the nearly 100 MILLION dollars that Chris Roberts has stiffed the gaming community out of, with nothing but concept drawings of space ships and a hangar to pan around.
All Roberts needs to do is bring forth a reasonable showing of good faith transparency and accountability and I am certain that all of us detractors will be more than happy to go away quietly. It is an asinine belief, as is being circulated among backers, that gamers are conspiring to see SC fail. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of us would love for a game like SC to succeed, but not all of us are so gullible and naive. Something is amiss and we have lost our patience. Make an effort to show a bit of transparency and accountability for the nearly 100 MILLION dollars contributed by the gaming community or you will go up in flames. Its really just that simple.
All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
Considering CR's rambling rampage of rage in response to an obscure article on a single game site making personal attacks on individuals , demands of the employees names so he can fire them, and little or no effort to calm the F down. I don't find it surprising at all they wished to remain anonymous. That dude comes across as unhinged. If he's anything like that in real life a weapons check every time he enters the building wouldn't be over the top.
The same could be said for DS. Have you actually seen the things he's said to people over the years? I'm not going to link anymore than I have, but there's a reason folks don't like his methods, they aren't how a decent person goes about things.
So because DS does it CR can do it? I don't think you mean to say that but it sure sounds like it. If you don't mean to say that then whatever you said is completely irrelevant.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
All of whom don't want to come out in the public, and lack any real evidence other than talk. Well talk is cheap, if they have a recording or receipts showing fraud, maybe I'll pay attention to that evidence. What they have in their article however, is not credible.
Considering CR's rambling rampage of rage in response to an obscure article on a single game site making personal attacks on individuals , demands of the employees names so he can fire them, and little or no effort to calm the F down. I don't find it surprising at all they wished to remain anonymous. That dude comes across as unhinged. If he's anything like that in real life a weapons check every time he enters the building wouldn't be over the top.
The same could be said for DS. Have you actually seen the things he's said to people over the years? I'm not going to link anymore than I have, but there's a reason folks don't like his methods, they aren't how a decent person goes about things.
You should probably scroll back a few pages, I gave my thoughts to DS directly on what I thought of his tactics.
I know what you said, and I know I've read all from both sides, it's been unfolding for quite some time. This late in the debacle, are you really surprised CR made his response personal? As he probably sees the article as an extension of a personal issue DS has with Star Citizen? If the article actually brought something tangible, as in proof, I'd say job well done. It doesn't though, the "sources" were poorly vetted at best, the story was rushed in a 3 day time frame, and the best ID check they did was linkdin.
I've worked for large international tech companies, some people are unhappy in all lines of work. Not everyone agrees with every decision their employers make. To think that somehow CIG should be expected to be this perfect shining company, with no one ever leaving seems odd to me. I'm sure CR could have toned down his response, but given the tone of the article I'm not really surprised.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
Well, if you have 10 million reasons, please list them.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
yes.
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
So because DS does it CR can do it? I don't think you mean to say that but it sure sounds like it. If you don't mean to say that then whatever you said is completely irrelevant.
Actually his response is what's giving this thing mileage. Prior to his response people who didn't have a dog in this fight read the article and generally came away with a he said she said from "disgruntled employees" by a site that had hurt it's cred a bit pandering to DS. His response however, lit it up. He's driving people to read the article that the best response would be to rebut ignore and let die away. As well one of the allegations by a couple of "alleged" employees was anger management, managerial discipline, fiscal irresponsibility type stuff. Responding as a raging 12 yr old with Tourette's is always the best way to show a cool and level head as a CEO of a company, people dig that. Which in turn modifyes peoples perception of the "disgruntled employees" bitching about anger managment, and then another look at other allegations, and hmmm. He threw "his attackers" a soft pitch thats for sure.. From a PR standpoint it's about the worst possible way to respond to these types of things.
EDIT He's done more branding damage than 20 DS's could ever do.
So because DS does it CR can do it? I don't think you mean to say that but it sure sounds like it. If you don't mean to say that then whatever you said is completely irrelevant.
Actually his response is what's giving this thing mileage. Prior to his response people who didn't have a dog in this fight read the article and generally came away with a he said she said from "disgruntled employees" by a site that had hurt it's cred a bit pandering to DS. His response however, lit it up. He's driving people to read the article that the best response would be to rebut ignore and let die away. As well one of the allegations by a couple of "alleged" employees was anger management, managerial discipline, fiscal irresponsibility type stuff. Responding as a raging 12 yr old with Tourette's is always the best way to show a cool and level head as a CEO of a company, people dig that. Which in turn modifyes people perception of the "disgruntled employees" bitching about anger managment, and then another look at other allegations, and hmmm. He threw "his attackers" a soft pitch thats for sure.. From a PR standpoint it's about the worst possible way to respond to these types of things.
Yes, you're right, is unprofessional. However, Chris Roberts gets a pass on the response in that Derek Smart has targeted him personally AND his family. I mean, people are like well DS did this and that, but Chris Roberts went crazy and blah. It's ridiculous.
Roberts has always overpromised and underdelivered. He's profligate in spending and can't get things done on time. This is historical. The record is there.
Early on in the heyday of Star Citizen's money raising, there was this video showing off the new developer digs. I vaguely recall 'Wingman' Peterson leading a video crew through the facilities. He pointed out an area and mentioned that it had been computer cubicles, but when they'd gotten more money they'd torn it out and put in a motion capture booth. That's symptomatic of Roberts wastage of money.
And speaking of motion capture, he took the SC business to Andy Serkis' Imaginarium Studios to do SC's motion capture. That's certainly top drawer, which is, again, part of the problem. Imaginarium is doing all the new Star Wars motion capture. And worked the latest Avengers movie. Do you think that work came cheap? Especially as there are other competent mo-cap companies. Nope....top dollar. Again, wasting money. Though I am sure that Roberts enjoyed getting to hobnob with real creative professionals.
Roberts is going to make bad decisions (recent example: that letter). He's going to waste money; be it through hubris, bad planning, or conspicuous consumption. If you researched this, instead of just listening to his vainglorious musings, or assuming his greatness due to the name on the box, you'd have an inkling of how things would play out.
And after talking to folks who worked with him back when, there is so much more....
Since Roberts apparently hasn't learned from his mistakes back then, there's no reason to assume there aren't a ton of issues hiding just below the surface.
Post edited by Arglebargle on
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
So because DS does it CR can do it? I don't think you mean to say that but it sure sounds like it. If you don't mean to say that then whatever you said is completely irrelevant.
Actually his response is what's giving this thing mileage. Prior to his response people who didn't have a dog in this fight read the article and generally came away with a he said she said from "disgruntled employees" by a site that had hurt it's cred a bit pandering to DS. His response however, lit it up. He's driving people to read the article that the best response would be to rebut ignore and let die away. As well one of the allegations by a couple of "alleged" employees was anger management, managerial discipline, fiscal irresponsibility type stuff. Responding as a raging 12 yr old with Tourette's is always the best way to show a cool and level head as a CEO of a company, people dig that. Which in turn modifyes peoples perception of the "disgruntled employees" bitching about anger managment, and then another look at other allegations, and hmmm. He threw "his attackers" a soft pitch thats for sure.. From a PR standpoint it's about the worst possible way to respond to these types of things.
EDIT He's done more branding damage than 20 DS's could ever do.
Exactly this. The correct response would have been a simple "disgruntled employees are disgruntled", but instead he created a PR disaster.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
yes.
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
Oh, is that the rule?
So one can say "at least 95 million," or "about 90 million," but when generalizing and talking about a number that we know to be a number higher than 90, because we all know we aren't talking about 90 on the button, simply saying "nearly 100" is against the rules?
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
yes.
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
Oh, is that the rule?
So one can say "at least 95 million," or "about 90 million," but when generalizing and talking about a number that we know to be a number to be higher than 90, because we all know we aren't talking about 90 on the button, simply saying nearly 100 is against the rules?
Gotcha.
Lol, I never said you had to do anything mate. I said it annoys me. Do I wish you would say approx. 90million? Yes, yes I do.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
yes.
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
Oh, is that the rule?
So one can say "at least 95 million," or "about 90 million," but when generalizing and talking about a number that we know to be a number to be higher than 90, because we all know we aren't talking about 90 on the button, simply saying nearly 100 is against the rules?
Gotcha.
Lol, I never said you had to do anything mate. I said it annoys me. Do I wish you would say approx. 90million? Yes, yes I do.
I heard that he pissed away some figure below $500 million.
So because DS does it CR can do it? I don't think you mean to say that but it sure sounds like it. If you don't mean to say that then whatever you said is completely irrelevant.
Actually his response is what's giving this thing mileage. Prior to his response people who didn't have a dog in this fight read the article and generally came away with a he said she said from "disgruntled employees" by a site that had hurt it's cred a bit pandering to DS. His response however, lit it up. He's driving people to read the article that the best response would be to rebut ignore and let die away. As well one of the allegations by a couple of "alleged" employees was anger management, managerial discipline, fiscal irresponsibility type stuff. Responding as a raging 12 yr old with Tourette's is always the best way to show a cool and level head as a CEO of a company, people dig that. Which in turn modifyes peoples perception of the "disgruntled employees" bitching about anger managment, and then another look at other allegations, and hmmm. He threw "his attackers" a soft pitch thats for sure.. From a PR standpoint it's about the worst possible way to respond to these types of things.
EDIT He's done more branding damage than 20 DS's could ever do.
This is not some aberration either. In my informal poll (sample size 10) of Origin Systems staff, Roberts was the 2nd most disliked person there. There's a reason for that. Several reasons.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
This whole 10 million rounding thing is really annoying me on a personal level. 90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
yes.
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
Oh, is that the rule?
So one can say "at least 95 million," or "about 90 million," but when generalizing and talking about a number that we know to be a number to be higher than 90, because we all know we aren't talking about 90 on the button, simply saying nearly 100 is against the rules?
Gotcha.
Lol, I never said you had to do anything mate. I said it annoys me. Do I wish you would say approx. 90million? Yes, yes I do.
I heard that he pissed away some figure below $500 million.
Sir you get a LOL thanks for the laugh. And at least that is actually accurate to boot.
Comments
It was a shameful attack piece not befitting the CEO of a multi-million dollar company. There was no need for him to go there. If he is in the right, he should be able to back up his claims with legitimate proof. The only action that needs to be taken under those circumstances is to have his legal team simply draft and deliver a letter of cease and desist. That is how a professional organization handles matters of this nature. The fact that it was not done in that manner lends to the perception of evil. The ensuing result is not only predictable, but deserving.
Again, Liz is a journalist. You don't have to like the manner a journalist gathers her intelligence and information. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of entities who are in the receiving end of a whistle-blower story do not agree with the methods by which journalists gather and draft their investigative pieces. A good argument can be made that, given the reaction from the CIG camp, she did an outstanding job.
You should probably scroll back a few pages, I gave my thoughts to DS directly on what I thought of his tactics.
Not picking a fight just asking you to back up the claim, which you obviously have no intention to so let's just leave it at that.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Please don't feed into the Derek Smart deflection tactic. I am basing my opinion based on my own knowledge of the incident, and what I have read with my own eyes. The only thing that I have seen about Derek Smart in this incident, and of which I agree with, is a request for transparency and accountability. That is a reasonable request given the nearly 100 MILLION dollars that Chris Roberts has stiffed the gaming community out of, with nothing but concept drawings of space ships and a hangar to pan around.
All Roberts needs to do is bring forth a reasonable showing of good faith transparency and accountability and I am certain that all of us detractors will be more than happy to go away quietly. It is an asinine belief, as is being circulated among backers, that gamers are conspiring to see SC fail. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of us would love for a game like SC to succeed, but not all of us are so gullible and naive. Something is amiss and we have lost our patience. Make an effort to show a bit of transparency and accountability for the nearly 100 MILLION dollars contributed by the gaming community or you will go up in flames. Its really just that simple.
let's just call them sources.
Visually verified for 6 I think, 1 was verified with badge and paystub 2 from linkdin
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@DMKano ;
They have shown employee passes, payment stubs and got verified on camera and LinkedIn. You should read the article. It is all there.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I've worked for large international tech companies, some people are unhappy in all lines of work. Not everyone agrees with every decision their employers make. To think that somehow CIG should be expected to be this perfect shining company, with no one ever leaving seems odd to me. I'm sure CR could have toned down his response, but given the tone of the article I'm not really surprised.
90 million and 100 million are not the same. I can think of 10 million ways they aren't.
"Nearly 100" and "100 million" is not the same either. Would a poster claiming "nearly 100 million" to be the same as "100 million" annoy you just as much?
to round to 100 million I would think you would you know follow the rules for rounding...so in this case at least 95million. Otherwise you round to 90 million or say about 90 million.
So to be in the ballpark I'd expect them to say about 90million or a little more than 90 million, etc
He's driving people to read the article that the best response would be to rebut ignore and let die away. As well one of the allegations by a couple of "alleged" employees was anger management, managerial discipline, fiscal irresponsibility type stuff. Responding as a raging 12 yr old with Tourette's is always the best way to show a cool and level head as a CEO of a company, people dig that. Which in turn modifyes peoples perception of the "disgruntled employees" bitching about anger managment, and then another look at other allegations, and hmmm. He threw "his attackers" a soft pitch thats for sure.. From a PR standpoint it's about the worst possible way to respond to these types of things.
EDIT
He's done more branding damage than 20 DS's could ever do.
Imagine someone publicly targeting your family.
Early on in the heyday of Star Citizen's money raising, there was this video showing off the new developer digs. I vaguely recall 'Wingman' Peterson leading a video crew through the facilities. He pointed out an area and mentioned that it had been computer cubicles, but when they'd gotten more money they'd torn it out and put in a motion capture booth. That's symptomatic of Roberts wastage of money.
And speaking of motion capture, he took the SC business to Andy Serkis' Imaginarium Studios to do SC's motion capture. That's certainly top drawer, which is, again, part of the problem. Imaginarium is doing all the new Star Wars motion capture. And worked the latest Avengers movie. Do you think that work came cheap? Especially as there are other competent mo-cap companies. Nope....top dollar. Again, wasting money. Though I am sure that Roberts enjoyed getting to hobnob with real creative professionals.
Roberts is going to make bad decisions (recent example: that letter). He's going to waste money; be it through hubris, bad planning, or conspicuous consumption. If you researched this, instead of just listening to his vainglorious musings, or assuming his greatness due to the name on the box, you'd have an inkling of how things would play out.
And after talking to folks who worked with him back when, there is so much more....
Since Roberts apparently hasn't learned from his mistakes back then, there's no reason to assume there aren't a ton of issues hiding just below the surface.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Oh, is that the rule?
So one can say "at least 95 million," or "about 90 million," but when generalizing and talking about a number that we know to be a number higher than 90, because we all know we aren't talking about 90 on the button, simply saying "nearly 100" is against the rules?
Gotcha.
I said it annoys me.
Do I wish you would say approx. 90million?
Yes, yes I do.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
And at least that is actually accurate to boot.