Are you stating, as a Stardock employee with that kind of authority, that Tom Chick will not be employed in the future project he has referred to, or any others?

I'm saying that he doesn't work for us now. I have no idea if he will or will not do any more work for us in the future; I'm not responsible for that.

And, seriously, you need to lighten up a bit. You sound like you belong in a military tribunal.

Ok Kinjiru, that's fair.

I felt passionately about a topic and came here to 'tell' Stardock that future business relationship with this guy will sour business relationships between them and - again this is my hope - a number of other conscientious consumers. Folks who vote for good business practices with their dollars.

If you think I've been belligerent, you're probably right, but it's only because every single reply from Stardock has been to defend their innocence in Tom's business practices. That they have no control over the guy. As if we didn't know?

Can anyone reasonably think that was the issue I raised at the start of this thread?

It's very frustrating to tell someone one thing and to get not one but a gang-bang of responses off on unrelated tangents.


The question is what Stardock is going to do with the knowledge they've been armed with now, not what they should could or would have done about Tom's business practices in the past.

Speaking of being on the company payroll, Axantur, how much are the SoTS guys paying you for "spreading disinformation"?

What, specifically, have I said that is false or misleading? I quoted Tom's articles, I quoted Tom. What information have I conveyed in poor conscience?

You have my relationship backwards here. I've given both Stardock and Kerberos money - voting with my dollars for games I enjoy - and supported both games among my friends.

Tom Chick is not getting money out of the success of either game.

If you planned on getting paid by company A at some future date, and said something -be it positive or negative- representing yourself as a neutral party about company B which happens to compete, that is a conflict of interest.

Game-by-game basis here doesn't matter. You have an ongoing business relationship with one of the two parties. The word 'ongoing' is very important there. Having had a business relationship in the past would not be relevant.

All right, people, let's try to avoid disintegrating into an all out flame war.

Seems to me this is someone just trying make a fuss about pretty much nothing. Who cares?

It's very frustrating to tell someone one thing and to get not one but a gang-bang of responses off on unrelated tangents.

I can see that, but this line:

Those were good games, but it isn't worth supporting bad business practices and backroom underhanded deals like these.

made it seem like you were impugning Stardock's business practices in general.

Ok from a gamers point of view---I am not influenced by one review from anyone!!!
And if anyone is then shame on you for being so narrowminded---I highly doubt that one review would kill any game---If the game is good on its own merit it will sell---I think enough gamers like me have been burned more than once by poor products that have been released---I never even heard of sword of the stars until this post to be honest---maybe the company should be upset with whoever they hired to market the game!!!!!! It's not stardocks fault that everyone will be comparing their game with stardocks---so I say to all u other devolopers out there---quit following others ideas and learn from stardock on making a great game and then maybe your game might sell too  

I believe that TorpedoBeetle meant that we are not paying him, encouraging him, or in anyway deliberately trying to influence Tom Chick's reviews of other strategy games.

I never believed this to be the case, and would never believe it. I understand that some - considerably closer to the trees to fail to see the forest - are not able to discern this, and I hope that cooler heads will prevail there.

You said earlier you were sorry I was determined to think ill of you. This is backwards. The very problem is that I think so highly of Stardock and so ill of Tom Chick. The existence of a busienss relationship between one entity I wish to support and one entity I wish to admonish is the very source of my conundrum.

It's terribly frustrating, apologies if I came off hot headed.

What, specifically, have I said that is false or misleading? I quoted Tom's articles, I quoted Tom. What information have I conveyed in poor conscience?

How about

I guess I'm done listening to opinions...there are too many Stardock employees out on a disinformation campaign to respond to here.

You can slant that as false, misleading, unethical, slanderous, or childish. Stardock replied en masse since they enjoy working for stardock. Some posters replied because they appreciate the work stardock has done. And you make a completely false claim and a slurr against their business practice.

Sorry Cari, I switched tenses midsentence...from past to future.

My bad.

I'll go flog myself.

Yeah Marc, I agree...kind of a misunderstanding. I can go back and edit that if you want, but maybe it's more fun just to let it stand so folks can laugh at me.

My bad.

Thanks.  As someone who has a hard time apologizing even when I know I'm wrong, I appreciate apologies.

can go back and edit that if you want

Nah, then someone will jump on and acuse one of the moderaters of doing it.

 

well now that we know there are a few people from stardock reading this thread what new and exciting things are comming out with gal civ---don't be shy tell us  

cmon how about a few more teaser pics  

Knightblade05, you have to hang out in #galciv to get teasers.

Seriously, though, I don't know how much we are allowed to tell/show you at the moment.

Tom Chick didn't and doesn't stand to gain anything from us for writing a review of Sword of the Stars. Therefore, he didn't do anything wrong, and so we have no reason to not work with him in the future.

Hey cari I was just in the right place at the right time---had to give it a try--have a good evening everyone  

(Side-Note)

It's actually funny that all this is coming from Tom doing a harsh review, since that's how Brad and Tom came to know one another.

Tom did a critical review of 'Entrepenuer' (an early Stardock Entertainment title) a few years back, pointing out some flaws in the game that Brad didn't notice. Taking these flaws seriously, Brad went to Tom to get serious feedback from a reviewer that had obviously played the game, so the next time around those flaws could be properly resolved.

(End Side-Note)

Anyways, I can't possibly shed any new light on the matter, but here's an analogy that sums up my views on this...

-Movie Critic 'Billy McDoodle' (not a real critic, I know) get's a bit cameo in a comedy movie "Fun Times 3"
-"Fun Times 3" does well, and the critic and the production house go seperate ways
-Going back to his real job, Billy writes a negative review of another comedy that comes out 6 months later "Silly Willy 2"
-creators of "Silly Willy 2" cry foul since Billy was in a competing movie

Now, I'm neck deep in the sausage factory over here, so I understand that an outside gamer would see my view as inapplicable. But, as a gamer, I can see the difference between a bit part and a leading role.

I met Tom, I think he's nice guy (despite some negative reviews he may have given to games I like), but him writing the manual, as a contractor, in no way links him to the sucess of the product, nor to the failure of other 4x strategy games. His was a bit part, while us in the office (the onces responding to you) were the ones that have the vested interest.

So please, can't we live in an internet where both "Fun Times 3" and "Silly Willy 2" exist, both with their nay-sayers, without conspericy theories running amok

While I'm staying out of the whole Tom Chick affair (mostly because I simply don't care - game reviews are 90% a waste of time to begin with ) I'd just like to point out that, in my experience, Stardock people have been quite magnanimous when it comes to their "competitors'" products. Wardell even started his own thread about Dominions 3, encouraging people to check it out, and also said he'd be checking out Space Empires V.

That's class, and it's in short supply these days.

Anyways, I can't possibly shed any new light on the matter, but here's an analogy that sums up my views on this... -Movie Critic 'Billy McDoodle' (not a real critic, I know) get's a bit cameo in a comedy movie "Fun Times 3" -"Fun Times 3" does well, and the critic and the production house go seperate ways -Going back to his real job, Billy writes a negative review of another comedy that comes out 6 months later "Silly Willy 2" -creators of "Silly Willy 2" cry foul since Billy was in a competing movie

An interesting analogy. Roger Ebert wrote scripts for 3 movies during the 70s. Did he excuse himself from reviewing other movies during that period? No. Did anyone freak out over any bad reviews he might've given to other movies during that period? No.

Wait, I said I wasn't getting involved in this... nm!

Axantur, you seem to be stuck on the fact that Tom wrote that he would consider doing more work with Stardock as if there is an ongoing relationship. You say this creates a conflict of interest, but I would say there is not. Contractors often work for various, and often competing companies. Since they are not on the payroll once the job is finished, they no longer have official ties to their previous employer, and thanks to NDA's, they can't reveal secrets they learned in on place with the competitor. It is in their best interest to leave in good relations with each employer in order to keep open the possibility of future job offerings.

Tom's reviews are independent of contract work such as writing a manual. If you feel he happens to have a bias towards Stardock, go ahead and discredit him as a reviewer. But it's not because of a conflict of interest, it is because of his own personal bias.

Tom Chick didn't and doesn't stand to gain anything from us for writing a review of Sword of the Stars.

That is true IFF he does not have an ongoing business relationship ("future dollars") with either of the two parties.

You know already I don't believe his antics would have impacted one way or another his business relationship with Stardock directly - it's not like you're going to pay him more for this future work now, and you wouldn't have paid him any less if he'd given a good review. But you also don't know how much you were going to pay him back then, and no one can measure how much this affects your ability to compensate him in these hypothetical "future dollars". We can't run both timelines in a wayback machine and measure the difference.

Therefore, he didn't do anything wrong,

What if I said I agreed with this, even after saying all the above?

"The Appearance of Impropriety."

The existence of impropriety doesn't enter into it. I certainly believe there has been no actual impropriety here, either on Tom or Stardock's behalf.

But the appearance of impropriety clearly exists. He should have seen that, but it's too late now. Now that it's been pointed out, the response he's given so far is not adequate.

Axantur, you seem to be stuck on the fact that Tom wrote that he would consider doing more work with Stardock as if there is an ongoing relationship. You say this creates a conflict of interest,

So far we're in agreement, I said those things, you have mirrored my intention.

but I would say there is not. Contractors often work for various, and often competing companies. Since they are not on the payroll once the job is finished, they no longer have official ties to their previous employer, and thanks to NDA's, they can't reveal secrets they learned in on place with the competitor. It is in their best interest to leave in good relations with each employer in order to keep open the possibility of future job offerings.

You have just put, in very short form, the definition of a conflict of interest.

It's very true! Contractors work in these kinds of conflicts all the time. I know a guy that works as a contractor doing data forensics. Sometimes he gets hired to do forensics work for two companies that compete. It happens, he has to be up front and polite about it. Everyone gets along great: people on both sides know not to tell him things that they don't want the other side to hear, and trust him not to divulge the stuff he has to be told anyway.

But you know what?

Not once has he gone to work for the guys whose misdeeds require the forensics work.

OK, that example was ham-handed. Let me rephrase that last line.

Not once has he published a magazine article reducing a company's position, while improving one of his employer's conditions. If he did? I don't think he would fail to represent himself as being one of the folks making money in this "business circle".

That's really what it boils down to: representing yourself as a neutral third party when you're not.

Enough.

Tom had a contract with us to work on the GalCiv2 manual, completed his work, and was paid for it last December (as best I know for when the check should have been cut for when the work was completed, there's quite the lead time for physical manufacturing of items).

There is no ongoing business relationship with him, no contract for work, no payments to him based on GC2 sales. We contracted with him for a widget and he delivered it.

Stardock has spoken with him under NDA about our future games development work. And by "future" in this case, I don't mean next week or next month. _If_ we come to an agreement about future consulting work for that, that will come in its own time. If I had even breathed a word of the project to you, Axantur, the genre, and how we hoped you could help find missing semi-colons, you would be in the same boat as Tom right now. Assuming you were also under NDA.

It is reprehensible (imho) that anyone has attempted to develop some conspiracy theory or smear campaign out of a game review that was available more than 6 months after GC2 shipped and almost but not quite) 9 months after Tom completed his contract work.

Kris