Quote from: Dumarest;998779Outrageous to think anyone would be in business to make money! :eek: Next you'll tell me politicians aren't always honest!

Yeah but also take what Pundit says with a grain of salt as there is actually zero evidence for any of it except for the speculations of people who already hate her.

Quote from: Voros;998945Yeah but also take what Pundit says with a grain of salt as there is actually zero evidence for any of it except for the speculations of people who already hate her.

Well, ignoring the fan hate from Gygax fans who were angry Gary was outsted, Ryan Dancy did point out that there was a lot of left over Buck Rogers inventory, and I honestly don't think he has an axe to grind against her.  Further more, you'll note they did try to create a second Buck Rogers game with a different game system to capture the spirit again--this sort of indicates the first game didn't go over well.  Plus, regardless of intent, what you have is a person in their role as CEO licensing property she owns (from another business), therefore benefiting her own pockets.  It does raise ethical concerns--investors call the more extreme cases of that "tunneling".

Quote from: Voros;998945Yeah but also take what Pundit says with a grain of salt as there is actually zero evidence for any of it except for the speculations of people who already hate her.

While I tend to err on the side of her being a scapegoat, and certainly that we only have the word of her detractors, it's actually part of the public record that her family owns the Buck Rogers IP and that TSR licensed it for the Buck Rogers XIV game while she ran the company.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;998968While I tend to err on the side of her being a scapegoat, and certainly that we only have the word of her detractors, it's actually part of the public record that her family owns the Buck Rogers IP and that TSR licensed it for the Buck Rogers XIV game while she ran the company.

Sure, I don't doubt the game was a flop and I was aware of her family's connection to the IP, but as Peterson's research has show there is good reason to be skeptical of any received wisdom of the grognet. We have no way to know what her intentions were nor that any money was misappropriated.

Quote from: Voros;999010Sure, I don't doubt the game was a flop and I was aware of her family's connection to the IP, but as Peterson's research has show there is good reason to be skeptical of any received wisdom of the grognet. We have no way to know what her intentions were nor that any money was misappropriated.

The nerds  need a villain for their imaginary tale wherein Gygax did no wrong. Makes things easier for them to digest than human complexities are.

Quote from: Dumarest;999017The nerds  need a villain for their imaginary tale wherein Gygax did no wrong. Makes things easier for them to digest than human complexities are.

If Duck Dodgers had been a huge commercial success and brought tons of money into TSR, nobody would care that her family owned the rights.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999067If Duck Dodgers had been a huge commercial success and brought tons of money into TSR, nobody would care that her family owned the rights.

Interestingly there is a new series of novels now set between seasons one and two of the TV series starting Gil Gerard and Erin Grey, and I even saw some action figures for all the main characters from the show for sale on Amazon the other day.


For me, personally, I don't really see why anyone cares who was at the helm  and ran TSR onto the shoals...it didn't magically make D&D disappear from the cosmos. I still have all the same D&D books on my shelves: AD&D PHB, DMG, and MM, and the Basic, Expert, and Companion sets. Pretty much has served any D&D needs I've had for the past 35 years or however long.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999067If Duck Dodgers had been a huge commercial success and brought tons of money into TSR, nobody would care that her family owned the rights.

Really, we're getting the "money forgives all sins" spiel from the religious scholar?  

It's obvious why Voros wants to pretend there was no conflict of interest there.  For people with no Gygaxian axe to grind, it seems like even if you genuinely thought it would be a good idea, you'd be extra careful (independent valuation of the license, terms that were, if anything, weighted on the company's side, etc.) to avoid conflict of interest.  It may have been a good game, but it was a bad idea, ethics-wise, with bad optics, nevermind the fact that it actually didn't do well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;999123Really, we're getting the "money forgives all sins" spiel from the religious scholar?  

Don't forget, my first masters' was an MBA, even if it didn't stick.

The legal obligation of a corporation is to increase shareholder value; if Duck Dodgers had quadrupled the value of TSR stock, LW would have been fulfilling her legal duties.

Legal, ethical, and moral are three different words.

I don't pretend there is no 'conflict of interest.' Seems likely although I, and you CK are not copyright or corporate ethics experts although you like to pretend to be an expert on any and all subjects.

I just don't believe there is any evidence of the fraud and funneling of money away from TSR claim because...oh yeah: there is no such evidence.

Quote from: Voros;999129although you like to pretend to be an expert on any and all subjects.

You gotta be kidding me.  Breaking my irony meter is one thing.  You didn't have to destroy every one that exists. :eek:

Right CK, am I the one that pretends to be an expert on climate change science, human sexuality and psychology, world history, politics, even Beef in Alberta for Christs' sake?

 :rolleyes:

Quote from: Voros;999134Right CK, am I the one that pretends to be an expert on climate change science, human sexuality and psychology, world history, politics, even Beef in Alberta for Christs' sake?

 :rolleyes:

Well, since in your mind "pretends to be an expert" is really "has said something about it at some point", then I guess so.

Of course, one of your established patterns all over this site is claiming anyone who posts something about anything is a self-taught internet expert, so I'll consider the source on that criticism.  

Here's your answer to the mystery, I spent 3 weeks in Alberta and ate out a lot.  It's not exactly difficult to find out about Alberta beef.  There are beef industry and gov't publications and everything.

Sorry you do all your contracting from home, the side benefit of the road warrior is getting paid to travel and eat.

I might be one of those "Wikipedia Experts" you're always claiming everyone is.  I could have taken a lot of useless college classes,  I could just read a lot.  I could just be older or smarter, or maybe you're just a little too impressed with yourself and a little resentful that you haven't made full use of your education, so see everyone else as less...everything...than you.  Or, you're just mad at me today, but since apparently you're keeping some kind of scorecard, I doubt it.

It's interesting though, to find out that apparently despite all of Jeff's claims, I'm the one that lives rent free in your head. :cool:

P.S. Feel free to show a specific instance of anything where I'm pretending to claim expertise in a field.  I'll answer with the explanation for it like I did with the Alberta beef.

Quote from: JRT;998963Ryan Dancy did point out that there was a lot of left over Buck Rogers inventory, and I honestly don't think he has an axe to grind against her.  

  No, but Dancey did a) have an interest in portraying himself and WotC as 'saviors' of D&D, and b) hasn't always been the model of integrity. That said, I don't doubt that there was a lot of unsold stock. The first game did poorly enough that some announced products (such as the hardback Technical Compendium) were never released, and the second game vanished with barely a blip. This does suggest that whether out of business sense or just fear of optics, Williams wasn't completely consumed with plowing money into the property, or we'd have seen a lot more persistence on the line.

   It certainly looks like a conflict of interest, although the details of the deal may mitigate or increase that--for all we know, she could have licensed it to TSR for a dollar and hoped to profit from a boost in the brand. But it's definitely not something that speaks well of her. If one wants to defend Williams, focus on her attempts to grow the hobby through introductory products like the Big Black Box or to diversify the company into multiple areas of gaming. (TSR made a big board-game push in the late 80s and early 90s; perhaps she was just ahead of her time? )

If anyone who has played the Buck Rogers game wants to start a thread about why it's awesome or sucks, I'd love to read about it. I've never seen the game. Is it based on the old stories or the TV series or Buster Crabbe serial or what?