Rob Irving (Former Lead Designer of Star Citizen) interview - admits Escapists article is true

JohnP0100

Distopia said:

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

http://www.familiesagainstcultteachings.org/Cult-Education/Cult-Warning-Signs/
Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided. 

Rob was involved in 3 out of 5 Wing Commanders and even he can't be considered 'good' since he left CIG.
Just look at the comments in this very thread. This is definitely cult' behaviour.

I think you should focus more on the topic, and less on such things. IF there is something of value here, why bring it down to such a level? Ignore folks if that's how you feel about them. Unless you want the thread closed of course..

Here's the kicker. They can't go after Rob's work cause he was involved in WC3/4 and 5.
They can't go after his 'Bias' when he got hired cause he was part of the 'old guard'.

All they have left is the narrative that Rob 'didn't believe enough'. Sound familiar?
Guess where that narrative is most used?

DKLond

JohnP0100 said:

DKLond said:

To me, we're all human and we all have things we'd rather be doing than hard work.

To work hard, you really have to believe in the end result. Certainly is true for me.

Slacking off is something most of us enjoy.

Is that an attack on humanity as a whole?

What a joke.

Being involved with something great when you're a young guy doesn't mean you're responsible for that greatness or that you're still as passionate as you perhaps once were.

But you're right about Wing Commander being great and very challenging to make for its time.

Who would you guess was more involved in its creation - CR the "cult figure" or Rob Irving?

Be honest now.

The twist and turns on trying to make it sound like 'slacking off' is not a personal attack is hilarious. ROFL!

Be honest now, do you really think it'll work?
Actually, do you really believe that?
Be Honest Now.

#NOTACULT

Define "work".

Change the minds of people who know next to nothing about Star Citizen and have decided to stay in denial about it?

I doubt it

But I've always held that being rational and reasonable is the best way to contribute in any debate. To do my little bit so that people who're open or in doubt have the best chance at becoming informed.

I have very, very little interest in changing minds that don't want to be changed because they're desperately invested in being right about whatever.

JohnP0100

DKLond said:

Define "work".

Change the minds of people who know next to nothing about Star Citizen and have decided to stay in denial about it?

I doubt it

But I've always held that being rational and reasonable is the best way to contribute in any debate. So, for people who're open or in doubt have the best chance at becoming informed.

I have very, very little interest in changing minds that don't want to be changed because they're desperately invested in being right about whatever.

Ah.. So you know about Star Citizen then?
How do you feel about Rob's statements?

Are you willing to say you know more than Rob?
Remember that Rob was formally LEAD DESIGNER of STAR CITIZEN.

Distopia

Little-Boot said:

I thought it was clear that there was some truth in the article. Escapists refusal to retract any of it and SC's failure to act on their legal ultimatum indicated as much. 

I saw a few of the less objective SC supporters with their fingers in their ears "lalalala-ing"; but everyone else seemed fairly clear the article was most likely sound.  

I'm far from a SC supporter, yet even I am hesitant to take a news article like that at face value, the media and the truth aren't exactly the best of bed follows in this day and age. They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity. They've also yet to follow up as they vowed to do . Which reinforces my opinion on the matter of it being about clicks rather than truth. Sorry I don't have any more respect for such outlets... the media's current practices are the cause of that though.

I really don't care what happens with SC one way or the other. When it's an actual game I might wanna try out that may change, until then it's words on paper, and holds no value to me what so ever.

JohnP0100

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

I thought it was clear that there was some truth in the article. Escapists refusal to retract any of it and SC's failure to act on their legal ultimatum indicated as much. 

I saw a few of the less objective SC supporters with their fingers in their ears "lalalala-ing"; but everyone else seemed fairly clear the article was most likely sound.  

I'm far from a SC supporter, yet even I am hesitant to take a news article like that at face value, the media and the truth aren't exactly the best of bed follows in this day and age. They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity. They've also yet to follow up as they vowed to do . Which reinforces my opinion on the matter of it being about clicks rather than truth. Sorry I don't have a more respect for such outlets...

Name one other article that accuses a VP of a company of 'racism' and no legal action happened.
Then again, if someone like Rob can't convince you, /shrug.

DKLond

JohnP0100 said:

DKLond said:

Define "work".

Change the minds of people who know next to nothing about Star Citizen and have decided to stay in denial about it?

I doubt it

But I've always held that being rational and reasonable is the best way to contribute in any debate. So, for people who're open or in doubt have the best chance at becoming informed.

I have very, very little interest in changing minds that don't want to be changed because they're desperately invested in being right about whatever.

Ah.. So you know about Star Citizen then?
How do you feel about Rob's statements?

Are you willing to say you know more than Rob?
Remember that Rob was formally LEAD DESIGNER of STAR CITIZEN.

I'd like to claim I'm reasonably informed about the project given the natural limitations of not being a part of it.

As for his statements, they sound reasonable and level-headed.

He's a guy who didn't want to be "just another guy" in a huge team on a game that grew too big for him. He wanted to be a part of a small team doing a less ambitious "Wing Commander Online" - and he didn't want Chris Roberts to invest all the money into making the game bigger.

Again, he'd rather do something smaller and less stressful.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Adjuvant1

Distopia said:

 They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity.

Look, I really don't expect an answer, to this next question, but just look at the reference. Does it look like Finnegan posts alot of clickbait to you? That was an unfair generalization.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/articles/Lizzy Finnegan

You are not being impartial calling Lizzy Finnegan "clickbait".

tawess

JohnP0100 said:

tawess said:

Yeah... he says there is some truth to it.... Not like anyone with half a brain ever doubted that... 

That is far from EVERYTHING being true and as described. 

#criticalthinkingisaartform

Lets apply this 'critical thinking'.
If you saw an article that is mostly false, why not say that?
Why say 'there is some truth to that' and not speak about the false statements?

Then again, this is Star Citizen where if you do apply 'critical thinking', the whole thing looks shady as hell so I'm not surprised that the poster don't get the irony of the hashtag.

Why be vague

because a bunch of NDA´s and the very real risk of being taken to court. After all he most likely does not have any records to prove any of it. It then becomes a matter of word against word and i am pretty sure RSI/CI have their arses at least partially covered. 

So they would take him to court and bury him in legal fees and bureaucracy. Making him a pariah in his chosen field and in essence taking away his ability to work. 

That at least would be my reasoning if i was him. 

Distopia

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

I thought it was clear that there was some truth in the article. Escapists refusal to retract any of it and SC's failure to act on their legal ultimatum indicated as much. 

I saw a few of the less objective SC supporters with their fingers in their ears "lalalala-ing"; but everyone else seemed fairly clear the article was most likely sound.  

I'm far from a SC supporter, yet even I am hesitant to take a news article like that at face value, the media and the truth aren't exactly the best of bed follows in this day and age. They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity. They've also yet to follow up as they vowed to do . Which reinforces my opinion on the matter of it being about clicks rather than truth. Sorry I don't have a more respect for such outlets...

Name one other article that accuses a VP of a company of 'racism' and no legal action happened.
Then again, if someone like Rob can't convince you, /shrug.

Huh? I am not sure what legal action has to do with what I said.. I was just sharing my opinion on the current state of web based news sources. 

I'd be convinced if he wasn't so vague, yet here we are.. He didn't commit to saying anything there.

Distopia

Adjuvant1 said:

Distopia said:

 They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity.

Look, I really don't expect an answer, to this next question, but just look at the reference. Does it look like Finnegan posts alot of clickbait to you? That was an unfair generalization.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/articles/Lizzy Finnegan

You are not being impartial calling Lizzy Finnegan "clickbait".

My answer would be there's a huge difference between handling news stories based on game demos and previews (which is what I mostly saw there) and something like this. And no I am not impartial when it comes to web based news sources in regard to important matters. I thought i made that rather clear.

JohnP0100

DKLond said:

I'd like to claim I'm reasonably informed about the project given the natural limitations of not being a part of it.

As for his statements, they sound reasonable and level-headed.

He's a guy who didn't want to be "just another guy" in a huge team on a game that grew too big for him. He wanted to be a part of a small team doing a less ambitious "Wing Commander Online" - and he didn't want Chris Roberts to invest all the money into making the game bigger.

Again, he'd rather do something smaller and less stressful.

Seems pretty clear to me.

For someone that is all about 'reasonable and level-headed', you sure speak a lot for other people.

As the other poster said, lets apply 'critical thinking' here and not project your desire to slack off (that's what you said right?) onto other people. Okay?

Little-Boot

Distopia said:

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

I thought it was clear that there was some truth in the article. Escapists refusal to retract any of it and SC's failure to act on their legal ultimatum indicated as much. 

I saw a few of the less objective SC supporters with their fingers in their ears "lalalala-ing"; but everyone else seemed fairly clear the article was most likely sound.  

I'm far from a SC supporter, yet even I am hesitant to take a news article like that at face value, the media and the truth aren't exactly the best of bed follows in this day and age. They're more likely to run with a sensationalist piece for clicks, than to actually get to the bottom of something of this sort out of an obligation of personal integrity. They've also yet to follow up as they vowed to do . Which reinforces my opinion on the matter of it being about clicks rather than truth. Sorry I don't have a more respect for such outlets...

Name one other article that accuses a VP of a company of 'racism' and no legal action happened.
Then again, if someone like Rob can't convince you, /shrug.

Huh? I am not sure what legal action has to do with what I said.. I was just sharing my opinion on the current state of web based news sources. 

I'd be convinced if he wasn't so vague, yet here we are.. He didn't commit to saying anything there.

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

DKLond

JohnP0100 said:

DKLond said:

I'd like to claim I'm reasonably informed about the project given the natural limitations of not being a part of it.

As for his statements, they sound reasonable and level-headed.

He's a guy who didn't want to be "just another guy" in a huge team on a game that grew too big for him. He wanted to be a part of a small team doing a less ambitious "Wing Commander Online" - and he didn't want Chris Roberts to invest all the money into making the game bigger.

Again, he'd rather do something smaller and less stressful.

Seems pretty clear to me.

For someone that is all about 'reasonable and level-headed', you sure speak a lot for other people.

As the other poster said, lets apply 'critical thinking' here and not project your desire to slack off (that's what you said right?) onto other people. Okay?

You made it through a post without saying the word cult

Progress!

Anyway, since you've already forgotten your own question - I'll remind you:

You asked me how I felt about his statements, and I answered what I got out of them. I don't know why you're confusing that answer with speaking on his behalf - but I don't feel responsibility for that level of confusion on YOUR behalf.

I'm not sure what you mean by "critical thinking". My impression of your method would seem to be "let's create an anti-cult to combat what we perceive as a cult".

It's pretty obvious that there's "cult-like" behavior from both supporters and detractors of Star Citizen.

You seem passionately invested against it no matter the cost. Let's just say you're not helping your own cause by being like that.

If you want to make an impression, at least try to pretend there's more than one way to look at the project.

Distopia

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

I personally never expected a lawsuit, what is actually going on in "plain sight" is what I expected. As for a lawsuit, all the escapist needs in such a situation is people who actually told them these things, regardless of those statements being true or not, that is their only requirement. I don't doubt they have that covered. So what would the real purpose of a lawsuit be in that regard? 

IF we want to be completely objective one could also argue that TE hasn't moved forward with this story. While they can stand by their original piece for the reason I pointed out, they've made little in the way of furthering their narrative. Which is technically worse for a news outlet, silence I mean... especially one who all but promised to follow up.

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're laying out here as far as silence and guilt are concerned.

JohnP0100

DKLond said:

You made it through a post without saying the word cult

Progress!

Anyway, since you've already forgotten your own question - I'll remind you:

You asked me how I felt about his statements, and I answered what I got out of them. I don't know why you're confusing that answer with speaking on his behalf - but I don't feel responsibility for that level of confusion on YOUR behalf.

I'm not sure what you mean by "critical thinking". My impression of your method would seem to be "let's create an anti-cult to combat what we perceive as a cult".

It's pretty obvious that there's "cult-like" behavior from both supporters and detractors of Star Citizen.

You seem passionately invested against it no matter the cost. Let's just say you're not helping your own cause by being like that.

If you want to make an impression, at least try to pretend there's more than one way to look at the project.

So your answer to his statements that the 'Escapists article is true' is to say 'He wanted to be more than just another guy in a big team'.
Okay.

Your projection onto others is pretty obvious though.
First onto Rob; I want to slack off so Rob must as well!
As a side note, what kind of job do you have so you wish to slack off? I mean, I'm not looking for 'dream job' here but that's sad.

Then to me; 'you seem passionately invested'.

Stop with the projection and maybe we can communicate? /shrug.

Distopia

AT least we've made some progress here, "something" in the article was true.. at least according to an easily vetted source.

Little-Boot

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

I personally never expected a lawsuit, what is actually going on in "plain sight" is what I expected. As for a lawsuit, all the escapist needs in such a situation is people who actually told them these things, regardless of those statements being true or not, that is their only requirement. I don't doubt they have that covered. So what would the real purpose of a lawsuit be in that regard? 

IF we want to be completely objective one could also argue, that TE hasn't moved forward with this story, while they can stand by their original story for the reason I pointed out, they've made little in the way of furthering their narrative, which is technically worse for a news outlet, silence I mean... especially one who all but promised to follow up.

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're laying out here as far as silence and guilt are concerned.

Any solicitor will tell you that you do not threaten legal action unless it is your intention to follow through; otherwise you are not only leaving yourself open to a free-for-all, but you are also flagging your own guilt to any casual observers. (If I had given CIG advice I would have told them exactly this- just issue a dismissive "disgruntled employees are disgruntled") 

I actually put a lot of stock in the chairman acting against what should have been his own professional advice, and then failing to follow through on it. It seems clear a nerve was hit and that CIG subsequently took advice that they had little hope of winning the case (which is true but the chairman should have known this).  

AnnaTS

I am not sure what i got from this either there is something going on at star citizen which people suspect or he misses working with the old team but the comment about not having to defend the game was interesting why wouldn't you want to defend the work you have done.

JohnP0100

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

I personally never expected a lawsuit, what is actually going on in "plain sight" is what I expected. As for a lawsuit, all the escapist needs in such a situation is people who actually told them these things, regardless of those statements being true or not, that is their only requirement. I don't doubt they have that covered. So what would the real purpose of a lawsuit be in that regard? 

IF we want to be completely objective one could also argue, that TE hasn't moved forward with this story, while they can stand by their original story for the reason I pointed out, they've made little in the way of furthering their narrative, which is technically worse for a news outlet, silence I mean... especially one who all but promised to follow up.

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're laying out here as far as silence and guilt are concerned.

I don't think you understand how media and their responsibility (in the eyes of the law) works.

If I say 'US Army is racists' and that gets published by a newspaper, you really think that newspaper will be fine (legally) cause they just 'wrote what we were told'? ROFL!

Distopia

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

Any solicitor will tell you that you do not threaten legal action unless it is your intention to follow through; otherwise you are not only leaving yourself open to a free-for-all, but you are also flagging your own guilt to any casual observers. (If I had given CIG advice I would have told them exactly this- just issue a dismissive "disgruntled employees are disgruntled") 

I actually put a lot of stock in the chairman acting against what should have been his own professional advice, and then failing to follow through on it. It seems clear a nerve was hit and that CIG subsequently took advice that they had little hope of winning the case (which is true but the chairman should have known this).  

I don't disagree, it is common for people to associate such a reaction as a perception of guilt. It very well could be guilt, this is tied to the problem I have with the media today, they know all of this, and exploit it, it's why such stories grow legs so fast. Especially in regard to topics like Racism, Ageism, or any other form of shaming. Those are the hot topics of today, and to find all of it in one place... A proverbial goldmine as far as clicks are concerned. 

It's the immaculate reception of gaming news... every hot bed topic under one roof lol.

It all could very well be true, but it's that factor that just makes it all seem piled on to me, which is a smart way to use the media, if there is some ulterior motive we don't know about.

JohnP0100

AnnaTS said:

I am not sure what i got from this either there is something going on at star citizen which people suspect or he misses working with the old team but the comment about not having to defend the game was interesting why wouldn't you want to defend the work you have done.

Read CIG's narrative from the beginning.
The days during / after KickStarter
The days after that till now.
It is all here - http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/445539/charge-back-and-refunds/p1

Then ask yourself, would you defend the work you have done, if you were part of a project like this?

Full disclaimer; I pre-purchased, lost faith because CIG couldn't keep a single straight narrative for more than 2 days and went through the refund/Charge Back process to get my money back earlier this year.

DKLond

JohnP0100 said:

DKLond said:

You made it through a post without saying the word cult

Progress!

Anyway, since you've already forgotten your own question - I'll remind you:

You asked me how I felt about his statements, and I answered what I got out of them. I don't know why you're confusing that answer with speaking on his behalf - but I don't feel responsibility for that level of confusion on YOUR behalf.

I'm not sure what you mean by "critical thinking". My impression of your method would seem to be "let's create an anti-cult to combat what we perceive as a cult".

It's pretty obvious that there's "cult-like" behavior from both supporters and detractors of Star Citizen.

You seem passionately invested against it no matter the cost. Let's just say you're not helping your own cause by being like that.

If you want to make an impression, at least try to pretend there's more than one way to look at the project.

So your answer to his statements that the 'Escapists article is true' is to say 'He wanted to be more than just another guy in a big team'.
Okay.

Your projection onto others is pretty obvious though.
First onto Rob; I want to slack off so Rob must as well!
As a side note, what kind of job do you have so you wish to slack off? I mean, I'm not looking for 'dream job' here but that's sad.

Then to me; 'you seem passionately invested'.

Stop with the projection and maybe we can communicate? /shrug.

Why are you trying to manipulate what's being said all the time? Is that something that usually works for you in public exchanges?

Remember, we're on a public forum and all our statements here are visible. You can't pretend you said this or that in order to twist things in favor of your irrational arguments. I'll call you out on such things.

You asked me how I felt about his statements - and I answered that. If you wanted to know how I felt about a very specific statement, you should learn to be precise and ask me about that specific statement.

I already pointed out that saying some of the article is true is not the same as saying the article as a whole is true. He was being very vague - and we have no way of knowing WHAT part(s) of the article is true according to his perception. So, really, his statement is confusing and useless as a way to determine the truth of anything important here.

That he claimed the entire article is true is you speaking on his behalf and you seemingly wanting to spread an obvious falsehood around. Again, not very impressive behavior and not the kind of deceit that will aid you in your quest.

I believe I've already pointed out that I have no interest in changing your mind, and I certainly have no interest in communicating with "just" you. I'm answering your questions and exhanging on a public forum - because other people are here as well. I like to participate and contribute like that.

Once people start manipulating and being overtly deceitful - I stop losing interest in exchanging with them. But, again, we're not alone here - and I don't mind pointing out your deceit to others.

Little-Boot

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

I personally never expected a lawsuit, what is actually going on in "plain sight" is what I expected. As for a lawsuit, all the escapist needs in such a situation is people who actually told them these things, regardless of those statements being true or not, that is their only requirement. I don't doubt they have that covered. So what would the real purpose of a lawsuit be in that regard? 

IF we want to be completely objective one could also argue, that TE hasn't moved forward with this story, while they can stand by their original story for the reason I pointed out, they've made little in the way of furthering their narrative, which is technically worse for a news outlet, silence I mean... especially one who all but promised to follow up.

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're laying out here as far as silence and guilt are concerned.

I don't think you understand how media and their responsibility (in the eyes of the law) works.

If I say 'US Army is racists' and that gets published by a newspaper, you really think that newspaper will be fine (legally) cause they just 'wrote what we were told'? ROFL!

That isn't a synonymous example. If The Escapist relied on several vetted sources that confirmed each other's accounts... then even if the article was incorrect, they would have printed it in good faith. They would still win the court case. 

Distopia

Little-Boot said:

JohnP0100 said:

Distopia said:

Little-Boot said:

Distopia said:

I agree that the internet is full of clickbait crap, and I trust very little of it. 

But on this occasion the following happened: -

• A trained solicitor and CIG chairman wrote a pseudo-legal letter threatening legal action if the story was not retracted and an apology issued. 
• The Escapist publicly stood by their article. 
• CIG did not proceed with their threatened legal action. 

This strongly indicated that there was some truth to the article. 

I personally never expected a lawsuit, what is actually going on in "plain sight" is what I expected. As for a lawsuit, all the escapist needs in such a situation is people who actually told them these things, regardless of those statements being true or not, that is their only requirement. I don't doubt they have that covered. So what would the real purpose of a lawsuit be in that regard? 

IF we want to be completely objective one could also argue, that TE hasn't moved forward with this story, while they can stand by their original story for the reason I pointed out, they've made little in the way of furthering their narrative, which is technically worse for a news outlet, silence I mean... especially one who all but promised to follow up.

So I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're laying out here as far as silence and guilt are concerned.

I don't think you understand how media and their responsibility (in the eyes of the law) works.

If I say 'US Army is racists' and that gets published by a newspaper, you really think that newspaper will be fine (legally) cause they just 'wrote what we were told'? ROFL!

That isn't a synonymous example. If The Escapist relied on several vetted sources that confirmed each other's accounts... then even if the article was incorrect, they would have printed it in good faith. They would still win the court case. 

Exactly...

JohnP0100

@DKLond ;
Yes. Good.
And onto the 'stop projecting', can you do that as well?
Once you have done that, I feel like we can communicate better.

Lets first start off by NOT attacking Rob by saying 'he wants to slack off cause I do'.

Then lets move onto the fact he admits Escapists article is 'true'.

Then (are you still with me?), lets examine what a normal person would do, if they saw an article that was filled with false statements and ask ourselves why Rob would phrase his answers that way.

Then lets make sure no one is accusing others of being 'you seem passionatly invested'.

And then, I believe we have formed a foundation to discuss things.