Quote from: CRKrueger;999123Really, 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.

If you are owner of both, there is no conflict of interest, there is merely self-interest. There's nothing unethical about licensing an IP and trying to make money off it. Is there more to this allegation or are you just naive?

Quote from: Dumarest;999202If you are owner of both, there is no conflict of interest, there is merely self-interest. There's nothing unethical about licensing an IP and trying to make money off it. Is there more to this allegation or are you just naive?

She was the CEO of TSR, and made the decision for TSR to buy the license for the Buck Rogers game from the Dille Estate, herself of course being a Dille and heir to the estate.  If she didn't buy it for a fair price, she's not fulfilling her fiduciary responsibility to TSR as CEO.  If she personally profits from that, depending on the state and whether it was a publicly traded company, she may have some 'splaining to do to State or Federal Law Enforcement.

In any case, buying something from yourself using company money to do it, doesn't look good, it looks like conflict of interest, which is why people are still talking about the stink a few decades later.

CK you're talking out of your ass, as usual, and know exactly zero of the actual business deal that may or may not have been worked out. Why not reserve judgement until the facts come to light?

Quote from: CRKrueger;999141Well, since in your mind "pretends to be an expert" is really "has said something about it at some point", then I guess so...
I'll answer with the explanation for it like I did with the Alberta beef.

Guess what genius, I live in Alberta, and have lived here regularly throughout my adult life. But guess what? That doesn't make me an expert on Alberta beef anymore than your laughable 'three weeks eating out a lot' does.

Would you like to further embarass yourself with your 'explanation' for your expertise you clown?

You're a complete egomaniac Know-It-All joke to me at this point. You're babbling about climate science would be embarrassing to anyone with a shred of self-knowledge.

Your kneejerk anti-intellectualism and attempt to pull being a Big Man because of your assumption about age also exposes you for the self-important Blowhard I always suspected you were.

Grow up, little man.

Wow, someone is pissed.  Let's take a look at what's driven you insane, shall we?

Quote from: CRKrueger;979572I will have to say, Alberta beef is damn good...It's all in how you raise the cows and what you feed them.  The best beef producers manage their cows the old fashioned way, through selective breeding, they don't shoot them full of chemicals and pack them in to stand crammed together in their own shit for their entire lives never using all that steroid-grown muscle.  

That's the statement where I'm "pretending to be an expert".

So you're telling me that I'm wrong about the way beef marketed as Alberta Beef is raised and treated?  You may want to check the Alberta Beef Producers' and Canadian Cattleman's Association websites before you answer.

Climate Science?  That one confused me I must admit.  Let me look up the last time I mentioned it, and let me explain the words to you because it's clear you must have misread them.  Explanation will be in {}

Over a year ago...damn I have my own stalker now.

Cruesader - No one argues against climate change being real.
My Response - Eh, you see outright deniers {meaning there are those who argue there is no climate change at all}. Most of it is arguing over how much is man-made and to what degree we can adjust.

I stand by my statement.  Most climate change deniers I've seen focus on claiming we can't prove how much of it is anthropogenic, or if it's even anthropogenic at all, and/or claiming we can't prove that we can stop it, so why spend money trying?  Neither of which, btw has anything to do with Climate Science, but discussing the arguments of climate change deniers.

Cruesader - It seems like people are taking more issue with organizations trying to instill panic in the masses, and use this panic to tax or otherwise choke money out of the populous.
My Response - Some are actually worried about abuse, but than again some are trying to instill panic in the masses themselves simply because it's cheaper than cutting carbon output. {In other words, the fearmongers are the ones denying climate change}.

I stand by this statement too.  I think there are some who question the political motives of climate change supporters scientists and think they do this for their own monetary or other reasons.  I think most just are drumming up denial to save money.

Cruesader - Shitloads of people have gotten filthy rich on climate change. Remember 'Carbon Offsets'?
My Response - And many, many more stand to get much, much richer if energy technology and consumption does not change.  {There's WAY more money to be made peddling Climate Denial than Climate Change}

Yeah, this one's true as well, I've yet to say anything about actual Climate Science at this point.

Cruesader - If human actions were doing this, you'd be shocked to find that Americans aren't the worst by a long shot. China and India are trashing the environment faster than we could ever hope to fix it.
My Response - China and India are slowly killing us all just with their population levels, forget everything else. But as a developing country, Brazil is also a big problem. However, us sticking our heads in the sand, makes it impossible to make those other countries move an inch. If we actually made it part of our Foreign Policy, then we might be able to curb their excesses...or not. {Whataboutism doesn't excuse our responsibility or our opportunity to lead.}

Yep, still true.  China and India ramp up their technology much more, then when it comes to carbon emissions, we'll be a rounding error by comparison.  But they're not there yet, and we need to get shit under control before they do.  Again, not really talking about Climate Science at all.

Since you're apparently unwilling or afraid to actually use specific quotes (probably to not make yourself look as insane as you do right now) I had to guess what you were actually on about (other than you being pissed because I hit too close to the mark somewhere, of course.)

My offer still stands, feel free to quote where I am actually Spouting Lore as if I am credentialed or an expert and I'll gladly explain myself.

Quote from: Voros;999215Your kneejerk anti-intellectualism and attempt to pull being a Big Man because of your assumption about age also exposes you for the self-important Blowhard I always suspected you were.

Nah that was just me trying to torque you off and taking a wild stab.  Who knew I'd hit the battleship?

Quote from: Voros;999215Grow up, little man.

Aren't you the one always accusing other people of being Internet Tough Guys?

Quote from: Voros;999214CK you're talking out of your ass, as usual, and know exactly zero of the actual business deal that may or may not have been worked out. Why not reserve judgement until the facts come to light?

I never said she overpaid, violating her duty to TSR as CEO, or that she underpaid, violating her duty as a trustee of the Dille Estate.  What I said was, it didn't look good {that's what bad optics means, btw}.

More importantly, and what all this is really about,  I said you're just posting to begin with because of your hard-on for Gygax, and you got caught again, which is, of course, true.

Quote from: Dumarest;999200If 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?

It was a very enjoyable game that is one of the few times I've seen D&D (classic sense/or modern) not stretch out of shape to emulate the genre/medium. Usually with licensed properties I recommend using better systems but in this case they made a great game. It's a shame it wasn't more popular.

It's a shame I can't get one of my group to post he used to run it quite regularly.

You'd think after the financial crisis and learning that loading up on carbs is actually bad for you, being skeptical of experts with financially vested backers wouldn't get you accused of insanity.

As usual it isn't the actual topic at hand but CK's need to be always 'winning' no matter what the issue.

But to get back OT Frank's KS is up to $61,000 which would be great if the goal was $100,000 but not so great for $250,000. I don't think the DF drama has much to do woth it as the regulars there are hardly big numbers and as CK said many of them disliked Basic to begin with.

I think $250,000 was just too much. Should have gone for $100,000, fewer rulesets with stretch goals up to $250,000.

Frank is also probably use to paying living wage rates as he last did a lot of RPG work back when the industry was a lot healthier and bigger than it is now.

Spoiler

Quote from: Voros;999598As usual it isn't the actual topic at hand but CK's need to be always 'winning' no matter what the issue.

Translation: That's a "no" on backing up your charges with specific examples.

I agree though, I don't know what the $250,000 is *for*.  Granted, there's a whole lot of people he has to pay off, but if this is a 40-year old campaign, there's a lot of stuff already done, I'm assuming.  

To be honest, this sounds a little like "Holy shit, that useless piehole John Wick got a million dollars, let's get the band back together and make some money."

I really want to see this fund though, it's the kind of "shoot for the moon" stuff that I think Kickstarter was made for, but you don't see a lot of, at least not in the RPG arena.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;997864Some info on the campaign setting, itself, can be found here:
http://worldsofempyrea.com/what-is-empyrea/

That sounds incredibly... boring. It's all races coming together hippie-like, with benevolent royalty who have the people's best interests in mind... where is the conflict? Even the orcs are friendly and peaceful. fuck, man.

Quote from: CRKrueger;999600To be honest, this sounds a little like "Holy shit, that useless piehole John Wick got a million dollars, let's get the band back together and make some money."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5tfRdkoY0

Quote from: everloss;999636That sounds incredibly... boring. It's all races coming together hippie-like, with benevolent royalty who have the people's best interests in mind... where is the conflict? Even the orcs are friendly and peaceful. fuck, man.

There's a little more info on the orcs, here.

Quote from: Empyrea Facebook PageFinally, problems in the southlands:

Gorvale: Slavery, the blot on our history, ended with the fall of Lord Gorvale and the southern orc plantations. That's what we're taught, but it's wrong. Nests of half-orc slaveholders still lurk in hidden areas. Knights are digging them out, but it's a long process. As to Orcun itself (their new city name), Monko the Merciful is trying and has royal help, but their race is still primitive, and he has enemies. So King John granted them 50 years to become civilized and join the realm. Do you think they'll make it? Should we help more?

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.

Evidence:

Expert non sequitur but not evidence.