New Gettysburg Video
Norb Timpko
be interested in our project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTwxBNtfGZw
Norb
Brett S.
This is probably as good a time as any to let everyone know I'll be
hosting a modding site for War 3DII Gettysburg, just like I did/do for
Take Command Second Manassas: http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/wargame-mods/norbsoftdev/
Brett
Lunchbox
news:bcmNl.223$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Gettysburg will support widescreen, right?
NorbSoftDev
miss yours, you can always add it to the ini file. You could mod the ini
file for any resolution in TC2M as well. There was just no gui interface to
the feature. It looks great! I have run at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 and
they both really bring the game to life.
Thanks for asking,
Norb
"Lunchbox" <not...@email.invalid> wrote in message
news:zP%Nl.16154$hX2....@newsfe19.iad...
Giftzwerg
nor...@norbsoftware.com says...
> Yes, we'll throw all resolutions that we can think of in there. Even we
> miss yours, you can always add it to the ini file. You could mod the ini
> file for any resolution in TC2M as well. There was just no gui interface to
> the feature. It looks great! I have run at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 and
> they both really bring the game to life.
Which one of these guys is Totally Evil?
I forget.
Eddy, get me back in the ballpark, willya?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel"
- CBS News
"I'll start believing there's a crisis when the people telling
me there's a crisis start behaving as though there's a crisis."
- Glenn Reynolds
NorbSoftDev
while now. Amazing how many people will believe anything written on the net
without ever checking the facts. I think the current rumor is that I feed
off the blood of innocents. But it's not confirmed :) burp...
Norb
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2472807dc...@news-east.giganews.com...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> That's probably me :) I've been the target of a slander campaign for a
> while now.
Slander campaign ? You sure ? Was that before or after people found
out you were "coder" on the Wargamer forums ?
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=302136
It gets really hilarious when you start talking in the third person
about yourself like in
"Although I'm not a personal friend, I have exchanged emails with
Norb"
"Norb has been very helpful with sharing his coding knowledge with me
over the years."
Been phoning yourself too ? There's professional help out there for
this you know ?
And just to make good on a promise - some choice quotes from me from
that thread :
"Here we have 2 guys disputing something – and unless you’re one of
them there’s no way of knowing 100% for sure what’s going on.
But what we have all seen in here is one of them acting like a sneaky,
lying piece of work I wouldn’t trust a cent to.
Makes the case for the other guy watertight in my book."
-
"Practically everyone who has no direct stake in this immediatly went
from "I smell a rat" to "I see a rat". Case closed - game over.
-
I’d be ashamed to be associated with the likes of him, but that’s just
me I suppose.
Oh, I got plenty of faults too – one of them is a really pigheaded
streak for things like this, so you can rest assured that in the
future I’ll point people to this very thread whenever his name or
future products gets mentioned somewhere. "
QED
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
NorbSoftDev
what it's like to watch everything you've worked for the past six years get
ripped apart publicly. That no matter how you try to contact people and
explain the truth, it becomes obvious that their goal is to destroy you, no
matter who is right or wrong. I'm human, I have a temper, and I don't like
seeing my name get dragged through the mud. Maybe other people can handle
that better.
I won't slam people using my name. I know what it's like to google your
name and see how horrible the comments can be. I'm not some celebrity, I
just try to make games, but when you google my name you find some stuff that
is like the garbage they put in the tabloids. So I don't do that to anyone
else, I won't give credibility to a flame war.
There are so many people that stand up for so many things, but not one of
them came to me to find out if anything written on there was true. Not one.
Still to this day, only the people that work with me or are friends have
ever asked me about what was written. People just choose to believe what
two or 3 people started, like mob mentality. I'm still waiting for anyone
who is interested in knowing whether the accusations are true, to just ask
about them. But so far it seems that people would just rather believe the
juicier side of the story. I don't blame anyone, it's the world we live in.
There are very few real truth seekers out there, that really find out the
truth before they decide to jump on the bandwagon.
I know why it all was written and I know the source of where it all started.
The people that really matter know the truth. If anyone else wanted to
know, they just had to ask. Why do you think I still have people working
closely with me? Do you really think that if I was as horrible as people
have described that I would have a loyal game team? You have to be able to
trust the people you work with closely for 2+ years. Yet it's our team that
is finishing up their next game, while other's sit focusing on the past,
firing salvo's through others.
Just my 2 cents on the issue. I'm calm enough now to discuss it reasonably
:)
Norb
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1bb98b-30b7-49ce...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I guess that if you want you can focus on that. No point in focusing on
> what it's like to watch everything you've worked for the past six years get
> ripped apart publicly. That no matter how you try to contact people and
> explain the truth, it becomes obvious that their goal is to destroy you, no
> matter who is right or wrong. I'm human, I have a temper, and I don't like
> seeing my name get dragged through the mud.
Fair enough, but hardly the point.
The point for many, many neutral onlookers like me was simply who to
believe in this whole sorry mess of this partnership break-up.
Then one party starts posting stuff under a fake identity, doing
exactly the kind of stuff the other side says he does and gets found
out.
How long would it take 12 honest people in a jury to come to a verdict
in such a case ?
> I know what it's like to google your
> name and see how horrible the comments can be.
So ? This somehow forced you to use a sock-puppet to rectify stuff ?
But I guess you figured out the correct response after all : post
under your real name - like in here - and people will respect that.
> but not one of
> them came to me to find out if anything written on there was true.
Man, there are *screenshots* of you trying to cover it up - don't for
a moment try to pretend nothing happened on your forum.
> People just choose to believe what
> two or 3 people started, like mob mentality. I'm still waiting for anyone
> who is interested in knowing whether the accusations are true, to just ask
> about them.
You mean someone prevented you from typing your version of the events
on that Wargamer thread under your own name ?
Amazing.
>But so far it seems that people would just rather believe the
> juicier side of the story.
A: B is a crook
B: A is a crook
<A starts acting like a crook>
It ain't the juicier story people believe ...
> I know why it all was written and I know the source of where it all started.
Please enlighten us. Really. Full details.
> Why do you think I still have people working
> closely with me?
Because there's nothing wrong with your product. Got both of your
previous games myself and have recommended them to others.
See, that's why I still post about your game in here when there's
something new to report, as Brett Schulte can attest. I believe that
everyone should decide for himself if what is said and done is enough
evidence to tilt the personal balance one way or the other.
I'm heavily tilted one way, but throw some evidence in here and see
what gives.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> them came to me to find out if anything written on there was true.
Well, as a rule, *you* usually fight bad info about you with good info. If
one waits for "people to come to him", then he shouldn't be surprised if his
behaviour is mistaken for "silent consent". My 2 cents.
eddys...@hotmail.com
He, Mr. Beretta, remember the thread where JR was accusing you of
"pretending to be a game journalist" ? :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
6a5357...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> Man, there are *screenshots* of you trying to cover it up - don't for
> a moment try to pretend nothing happened on your forum.
Phew. I'm sensing that there was a thermonuclear flame-war that I
missed.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Does anyone remember the good old days when flagrant lies and ludicrous
backpedaling by a Speaker of the House warranted serious media
attention? I do. I believe the period in question lasted from 1994 to
2006."
- Ace of Spades
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <b0258af5-828e-4528-b8a2-
> 6a53575aa...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Man, there are *screenshots* of you trying to cover it up - don't for
> > a moment try to pretend nothing happened on your forum.
>
> Phew. I'm sensing that there was a thermonuclear flame-war that I
> missed.
Well, I'm giving Mr. Timpko the chance to post his version of history.
This time he can't claim nobody asked to hear his side of the story.
<grabs some popcorn>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <b0258af5-828e-4528-b8a2-
>6a5357...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> Man, there are *screenshots* of you trying to cover it up - don't for
>> a moment try to pretend nothing happened on your forum.
>
>Phew. I'm sensing that there was a thermonuclear flame-war that I
>missed.
From what little info I was privy to, it wasn't your typical 'grab
some popcorn and enjoy making fun of the asshole' flame-war that you
get with a JR or DS. It was one of those that made you want to take a
shower afterwards. If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
sleeping dogs lie.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
> If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
> sleeping dogs lie.
Goading ?
He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
Well, I did now.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
> > sleeping dogs lie.
>
> Goading ?
>
> He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
>
> Well, I did now.
Well, played, sir!
Seriously, though, the only thing I know about the situation was that a
partnership dissolved - with great acrimony, obviously - and the
question of who-created-what appears to be paramount.
It's just some game code. From the temperature you'd think it was like
when Nigel Tufnel left Spinal Tap.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <906d2b32-a72e-4706-8b6f-c8c550512b03
>
> > > If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
> > > sleeping dogs lie.
>
> > Goading ?
>
> > He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
>
> > Well, I did now.
>
> Well, played, sir!
Well, I guess you could interpret my post as either me playing dumb on
purpose or else as a sneaky back-handed way to set a trap or you could
apply Ockham's razor and conclude that I do what I always do in such a
case : post a put up or shut up message.
> Seriously, though, the only thing I know about the situation was that a
> partnership dissolved - with great acrimony, obviously - and the
> question of who-created-what appears to be paramount.
Yup. Couldn't care less normally. Break-ups happen, you shrug and move
on and let the courts decide who owns what of the old company.
> It's just some game code.
Obviously worth money. And when money is involved ugly things happen.
> From the temperature you'd think it was like
> when Nigel Tufnel left Spinal Tap.
It got heated for a reason : people finding out one side was doing -
let's be charitable - weird stuff to cover things up. Then that side
got caught operating a sock-puppet. That made it nasty.
When a couple you know is getting a divorce you tend to not want to
pick sides - until the circumstantial evidence starts weighing heavily
in one direction. And even more so when you've given the other side
the opportunity to present his side of the story ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
>On 12 mei, 15:11, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
>> sleeping dogs lie.
>
>Goading ?
I was thinking of Gifty's first post when I wrote that but if the shoe
fits...
>
>He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
>
>Well, I did now.
>
Do carry on, don't let me stop you.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 12 mei, 15:11, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let
> >> sleeping dogs lie.
>
> >Goading ?
>
> I was thinking of Gifty's first post when I wrote that but if the shoe
> fits...
If it's a size 43 European it might :)
> >He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
>
> >Well, I did now.
>
> Do carry on, don't let me stop you.
You know me, a PITA borderline sociopath, but fair enough to give
everyone a second chance. Never a third.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
<eddys...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:81209713-1622-4c9b...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
According to some using the word "journalist" near the word "videogame"
already borders on false pretense :^D
NorbSoftDev
>believe in this whole sorry mess of this partnership break-up.
The reasons for the breakup have been explained. I have tried not to
be inflammatory in my official explanation. But in the end,
partnerships are allowed to break-up. There is nothing illegal or
even odd about this. Even if we just don't like each other anymore,
one or the other is allowed to leave. As long as all the details are
handled legally, and they are. Otherwise I would not be able to
create the next game. The only evidence I have of this is that the
game team knows all the details and their still around. Do you really
think they would be there if there was a chance that the game would be
pulled because I was doing something illegal? That would be an awful
lot of work and time wasted. Of course it makes sense that the side
that feels they have been slighted would start a slander campaign.
>Then one party starts posting stuff under a fake identity, doing
>exactly the kind of stuff the other side says he does and gets found
>out.
So if someone decided to post things that they know are not true,
using someone else to post their slander, that's ok? Here we
disagree. In your links, you always link back to the wargamer thread,
but never to my explanation. It seems to me that if you were really
just providing information to the consumer you would link to both so
that the reader can make their own decision. Rather than just
presenting one side of the story. It would also seem right that
before you spread it all over the internet, that you would check the
facts. If you are going to act the reporter, you should do the leg
work first.
That entire thread was started based on something that the writer knew
was not true, or at least knew soon after. So they have credibility?
It's ok to post a misrepresentation of the truth if you use your own
name? So what do I do? Do I post the email that I sent to them
explaining that no one was banned, that the forum was locked? What
about the other person that claims to know so much about the
situation? Do I post the response from them saying that he didn't
want to hear my side of the story? How can you know the story if you
only hear one side? Should I go and gather people and have them start
to post lies for me? This was a no win situation for me, but I'm
still here and I'm still going to finish Gettysburg and it's going to
be great!
>You mean someone prevented you from typing your version of the events
>on that Wargamer thread under your own name ?
It became very obvious early on that no one on there wanted to know
the truth. Even after I refuted all of their ammo in my response on
the MMG board, they continued posting the same exact things. There is
no point in posting in that type of environment, I was going to lose
no matter what. It's a flame war and it picked up steam and nothing
was going to stop it. People that really wanted to know what was
going on, emailed me, at then they had both sides of the story and
could judge with all the information.
>Please enlighten us. Really. Full details.
Ask away, I have nothing to hide. There is so much garbage posted
that I'm not sure what currently is believed. That's why I made the
joke. I can't keep up with it. I don't read the wargamer anymore and
I doubt that I ever will. If someone posted such slander on one of my
boards, slander that could destroy someone, I would research to make
sure it's true before I allowed it to continue. Many would disagree
with that, but that's how I've always run things.
>See, that's why I still post about your game in here when there's
>something new to report, as Brett Schulte can attest. I believe that
>everyone should decide for himself if what is said and done is enough
>evidence to tilt the personal balance one way or the other.
Like I said above, if you really meant that you would post two links.
One to their attack and one to my response. But you only have link to
their version of events. So I disagree that you are letting people
decide for themselves. You present only one side of the story.
But much of all this is just a matter of opinion, which can be argued
forever. If we can keep it respectful, there's no reason that I can't
respond to which ever of these allegations that you have chosen to
believe.
Gilles de Dupont
> Yes, we'll throw all resolutions that we can think of in there. Even we
> miss yours, you can always add it to the ini file. You could mod the
> ini file for any resolution in TC2M as well. There was just no gui
> interface to the feature. It looks great! I have run at 1920x1200 and
> 1680x1050 and they both really bring the game to life.
>
> Thanks for asking,
> Norb
I didn't know TC2M supported widescreen through an .ini hack. All along I
have been playing it on my widescreen LCD using 4:3 centre image only.
Gilles de Dupont
> Oh, I got plenty of faults too – one of them is a really pigheaded
> streak for things like this, so you can rest assured that in the future
> I’ll point people to this very thread whenever his name or future
> products gets mentioned somewhere. "
>
> QED
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
STFU. Are you aware that by you trying to damage this persons chance of
selling his game as a success you are damaging his livelihood and can be
sued for that?
Gilles de Dupont
>There are very few real truth seekers
> out there, that really find out the truth before they decide to jump on
> the bandwagon.
I don't need to seek the truth because I am not some gossipping fag like
Eddy. I will buy your game based on its credibility alone and am not
interested in reading a soap opera before I decide to buy or not.
Gilles de Dupont
> Fair enough, but hardly the point.
>
> The point for many, many neutral onlookers like me was simply who to
> believe in this whole sorry mess of this partnership break-up.
Why do you even care? It is about deciding on buying a game or not and
not if you want to marry the developer and suck his dick. Although; I am
fairly certain, you would like to suck his dick.
Gilles de Dupont
That's because you life is so pathetic you have nothing else better to
do.
NorbSoftDev
[Initialization]
WinW=1024
WinH=768
I think you can set it to whatever you want.
"Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> wrote in message
news:rRlOl.80146$3k7....@newsfe17.iad...
NorbSoftDev
movies. I more addressing the people that constantly point back to that
thread every time the game is mentioned. They never researched whether or
not any of it was true before they decided to spread the word.
"Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> wrote in message
news:2_lOl.80149$3k7....@newsfe17.iad...
NorbSoftDev
you respond, you give a sense of credibility to the falsehoods. But when
you ignore, some assume it's because it's the truth. You just can't win. I
decided that if someone really wanted to know the truth, I would respond.
But if people were just going to post accusations, then I wouldn't. I was
getting hit with so much stuff, that it was hard to keep track of it all. I
had one guy on the mmg board constantly posting accusations, trying to start
a flame war. I honestly didn't know what to do and I don't know if things
would have turned out differently had I handled things in a different way.
Some say that any PR is good PR, I guess we'll see when we finish :)
"Vincenzo Beretta" <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%MdOl.12957$Ux....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
rus4...@hotmail.com
>
> It became very obvious early on that no one on there wanted to know
> the truth.
Well, let's start here:
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=7b1b2f8232abaa4e66f9baf654ab8ad7&threadid=24289
QFT: "The artist and designer had issues, so the artist left."
That's not true.
It was YOU that had a problem with the artist.
You ran him off because he wasn't "pulling his weight," putting as
much time into CWBR as you thought he should.
Sound familiar?
For that matter, I never knew Adam to have a problem with anyone, not
a soul.
He's just not wired that way.
Gilles de Dupont
> I threw it in one of the patches. Here's the basics:
>
> [Initialization]
> WinW=1024
> WinH=768
>
> I think you can set it to whatever you want.
OK, thanks. Will look into it later. My copy is from Gamer's Gate so I
assume that is already patched to the latest version.
NorbSoftDev
it civil.
That's not what he told me. We got back together and worked everything out
later. He told me the reasons that he left. Yes, we had our differences,
but nothing we couldn't overcome. From what he told me, seems that A. had a
big problem with me as well at that point, he had some disturbing things to
say when we finally resolved our issues. But you don't have to take my word
for it, you could ask him yourself. I don't think he'd want to get dragged
into this, but you could try. Last I heard, they still don't talk and they
were very close. So that's two of his old friends that don't speak with him
anymore.
If you want more detail, it came down like this. I have to look through
some of my old emails to remember the details, but we had to formerly create
a company for the GDC. This was supposed to be a 3 way split. At that
point A. dropped this bomb on me, there was no way he was going to create a
company that included R. I always backed him up at that point, so we talked
to R. and offered him a percent of the game, but not of the company. I
think that was probably the beginning of the end. Later, from what R. told
me, it came down to the frustration of working with A. But this is all
ridiculous to talk about, if you want to know the reason, ask him yourself,
why ask me? I just wrote what he told me, at the time I didn't understand
why he left, that's one of the reasons I got so mad at him when he did.
<rus4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fe7838c-485f-4c74...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
NorbSoftDev
ever made it to gamer's gate.
"Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> wrote in message
news:VqnOl.61293$HZ1....@newsfe15.iad...
James D Burns
"Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> wrote in message
>
>
> STFU. Are you aware that by you trying to damage this persons chance of
> selling his game as a success you are damaging his livelihood and can be
> sued for that?
The man is at the minimum guilty of stealing the original code from his
former partner who helped co-create the engine. And he did it when his
partner was fighting for his life against cancer. Screw him he doesn't
deserve anyone's good will. I personally hope he fails miserably and his
partner then sues him for every dime he does make.
I wouldn't buy a life preserver from this ass if I was in the middle of the
Pacific ocean. I'd rather take my chances swimming it, then associate myself
with such a scumbag.
Jim
rus4...@hotmail.com
> Man, that is going back very far! But I said I would answer if we can keep
> it civil.
>
> That's not what he told me. We got back together and worked everything out
> later. He told me the reasons that he left. Yes, we had our differences,
> but nothing we couldn't overcome.
You tossed "R" over the side Norb, not "A," and the issue was elbow
grease, or lack, thereof.
Do you really think that ANYONE who knows "A" is going to believe that
he would ditch a partner because he wasn't working hard enough? ;-)
You were the one that demanded that "R" turn his art over, including
his 3D Max files, for what you offered, or he'd receive nothing, NADA.
And when he blew you off, you had to start over again from scratch
with "S."
LOL, you make it sound like some kind of love-triangle, with "A"
manipulating you behind the scenes.
On the contrary, you were in complete control of that whole deal.
And while I was shocked when I learned that "R" was going back to work
for you, I wasn't a bit surprised when he bolted from your new "team,"
along with J.D., without either of them having hit a lick.
(For our readers, its worth noting that "S" knew better when he got
involved with Norb and demanded payment up-front for his work, having
heard of the problems that "R" experienced).
While we're on your comments at the IGDA forum, let's take a look at
another jewel, QFT:
"I will start from scratch if I have to, but it's a lot of work and
most of it is completely my design."
Now there's a heck of a deal.
Programming skills and COPIUS production work aside, you're claiming
to have designed a game devoted to a genre (wargaming) and subject
matter (the ACW) about which you had no interest, NONE.
(For our readers: Norb is an FPS devotee, and is perhaps most renowned
for a mod that he did for QUAKE).
The truth is, Adam hustled you into programming a game for him.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg had sold well, and he convinced you that there
was money in it.
It was his idea, Norb.
No Adam, no game.
On more than one occasion, you made reference to his role in the
creation of the design docs and routinely redirected suggestions/
criticism regarding the design in Adam's direction.
His personal misfortune, the cancer and his dismissal from BAG,
notwithstanding, perhaps that's what you ought to be angered most with
him about, BTW.
He talked you into making a game intended for a mass audience for
which there was no market, (TM) D.W.,.
And he continued to be the leading figure in the design of the games
through 2005, when health, employment, and other personal issues,
notably the loss of an unborn child, simply overwhelmed the man.
But, let's not get all emotional about this, being the ruthless,
analytical types that everyone hereabouts, loves to hate. ;-)
About Eddy, and the alleged sockpuppet incident at the Wargamer
forums...
All you have to do to put that whole episode behind you is to contact
the admins and ask them to check the IP addys under which the
following handles posted to that thread:
Blister
Coder
Norb
Then request that they clear your name by checking with your ISP, at
the time, to insure that none of those addresses was ever dished out
to your MAC address(es) on their WAN.
They can straighten this whole terrible misunderstanding out for you,
and the others, PDQ, and make a public statement to that effect.
Now, wouldn't that be a monkey off your back?
NorbSoftDev
is your proof? Where did you here this and how good was your source? I say
that you are wrong. I could site the US laws that apply to this situation,
I have researched it a lot. But I get the feeling that the point is not
what is legal, it is to attack me. Otherwise you would research it yourself
before posting this sort of thing.
"James D Burns" <jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kyqOl.42521$uD3....@newsfe20.iad...
NorbSoftDev
just want to attack. It's very easy to find out the entire truth, so there
is no use in arguing over it. R. is not dead, so go ask him, that's what I
did and you don't believe me. So what else can I do? That's about as good
of evidence of the truth that you get.
Knowing me and my desire to make dates, you would have to know that there is
no way in the world I would do anything to get rid of our only artist a few
months before we were supposed to deliver. It just doesn't make sense.
If anyone knew A. the way I knew him, they would understand. I guess you
have to work with him and depend on him to really understand who he is. I
am not going to start a flame war, so I'm not going to get personal, but I
kept all of our issues internal for the sake of the games. And yes, there
are those that have worked with him that fully understand the frustration
level he can cause.
But here we go again, why stick the to facts when it's more fun to damage
someone's name. The proof is obvious, while one person sits at home and
attacks me through others, I'm making another game. If they were as good as
they claim to be, they would also be making another game. It's not like I
turned one around in a matter of months, it's been a long process. So the
question remains, where is his game? Show me a game that he has finished
with his own team and I'll believe some of what you write. Put up or shut
up is the term I believe. So before he met me he never did a solo project
and after we split he still hasn't done a solo project...
All the other relationships that you know just enough about to get you in
trouble, did not go down as you describe. But again, this is an attack, not
a search for truth. There's not use in pointing the falsehoods about them.
Now to tug on our heart strings. That's what you turn to when the truth
gets hard to find. That's why the attacks on me were so successful. If
there was an ounce of truth in any of this, there would be no reason at all
to bring any of that up. The mere fact that it was brought up at all only
furthers the proof that there was not enough evidence to convict me based
solely on the facts. If there was anything that I had really done, then it
wouldn't be required. Every time I'm close to proving to someone that this
entire thing is pointless, this is where they turn. If anything, these
attacks are going to make people wary of ever partnering with someone who
has any type of illness, because if things don't work out and you have to
leave them, you're name will be dragged through the mud. Going through
hardships in life is not an excuse for failure, it is a chance to rise to
the occasion, not spend your life blaming the only person that ever made you
a success.
<rus4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68757368-e9f5-4ab6...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
James D Burns
"NorbSoftDev" <nor...@norbsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:_SqOl.942$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> This is just what I'm talking about here. How do you know I did this?
> What is your proof? Where did you here this and how good was your source?
> I say that you are wrong. I could site the US laws that apply to this
> situation, I have researched it a lot. But I get the feeling that the
> point is not what is legal, it is to attack me. Otherwise you would
> research it yourself before posting this sort of thing.
>
No you don't get it. I don't care that technically you could do what you did
because your partner trusted you and therefore failed to get anything in
writing when you both started out. I care about what is right and what you
did simply isn't right. I bet any civil jury in the land will agree as well.
Now had you gone ahead and gotten an arbitrator to come in and work out a
fair division of the assets and then bought out your partner's share, I'd be
a big fan of your game. You could still do that, but you won't, and that
speaks volumes to me.
Jim
NorbSoftDev
just feel it's irresponsible to present it as something that is fact, when
the truth is that legally I have done nothing wrong. It's how you wish it
was and how he wishes it was, but it's not that way so you want to persecute
me by presenting your opinion as fact. I just find it hard that so many
people that are championing what they believe to be the ethical choice, are
so willing to present mistruths disguised as fact. So you don't like the US
law covering this issue, well it's all we got so that's what I'm following.
"James D Burns" <jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddsOl.18554$ho7....@newsfe10.iad...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I care about what is right and what you
> did simply isn't right.
Ditto.
A lot of dancing around the issue by babbling about what is strictly
legal or not isn't going to convince this puppy.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:9befdd5a-2d9b-4e8f...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Precisely my feeling, whatever the legalese.
Good to see Juarez is still around too, & still on the wrong side of the
fence. Assuming that was Juarez & not <ahem> Coder that Mr Burns was
originally replying to.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9befdd5a-2d9b-4e8f...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 13 mei, 06:42, "James D Burns" <jburns7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I care about what is right and what you
> >> did simply isn't right.
>
> > Ditto.
>
> > A lot of dancing around the issue by babbling about what is strictly
> > legal or not isn't going to convince this puppy.
>
>
> Good to see Juarez is still around too, & still on the wrong side of the
> fence.
All we need now is Mario stepping in to "help" the poor developer :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
"Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:33mOl.80152$3k7....@newsfe17.iad...
Imagine the life of his critic...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> "Gilles de Dupont" <N...@SPAM.HERE> ha scritto nel messaggionews:33mOl.80152$3k7....@newsfe17.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:34:52 -0700, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> On 12 mei, 15:11, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> If the guy's smart he'll ignore the goading and let sleeping dogs lie.
>
> >> Goading ?
>
> >> He complains about nobody asking him for his version of the events.
>
> >> Well, I did now.
>
>
> > do.
>
> Imagine the life of his critic...
Georgie boy ?
<insert entry on "Planet Earth" in the Hitchhikers Guide to the
Universe>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
> When you respond, you give a sense of credibility to the falsehoods. But
> when you ignore, some assume it's because it's the truth. You just can't
> win.
If how you put things were true, then people could get away with any
falsehood. It isn't. If someone speaks in general terms, and you answer like
if he was speaking about you, then, yes, it soulds like if you are admitting
something :o) But if someone speaks about *you* in direct terms, just answer
with the truth (backed by facts).
True, some people will choose to believe in what one side says no matter
what. Fine: they are not interested in what the other side says anyway. But
if you think you are right, just say so - and put up your facts. There is no
better method to make the other side to look like an idiot.
> I decided that if someone really wanted to know the truth, I would
> respond.
Very childish, IMHO, but it's your call.
Giftzwerg
nor...@norbsoftware.com says...
> The proof is obvious, while one person sits at home and
> attacks me through others, I'm making another game. If they were as good as
> they claim to be, they would also be making another game. It's not like I
> turned one around in a matter of months, it's been a long process. So the
> question remains, where is his game? Show me a game that he has finished
> with his own team and I'll believe some of what you write.
I'm a newcomer to the present dispute ... but I find this point
logically compelling.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Does anyone remember the good old days when flagrant lies and ludicrous
backpedaling by a Speaker of the House warranted serious media
attention? I do. I believe the period in question lasted from 1994 to
2006."
- Ace of Spades
NorbSoftDev
what you say here and other's feel that you're just adding fuel to the fire.
My responses have been ignored anyway, the same stuff is posted no matter
what I write. I see your point though and I'm more on your side and here I
am :)
"Vincenzo Beretta" <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IbwOl.13771$Ux.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
NorbSoftDev
here. Not sure what happened, but here it is again.
OK, that's fair, you admit that it's pure slander. I can deal with that. I
just feel it's irresponsible to present it as something that is fact, when
the truth is that legally I have done nothing wrong. It's how you wish it
was and how he wishes it was, but it's not that way so you want to persecute
me by presenting your opinion as fact. I just find it hard that so many
people that are championing what they believe to be the ethical choice, are
so willing to present mistruths disguised as fact. So you don't like the US
law covering this issue, well it's all we got so that's what I'm following.
"James D Burns" <jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddsOl.18554$ho7....@newsfe10.iad...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <OrrOl.945$5F2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> nore...@norbsoftware.com says...
>
> > The proof is obvious, while one person sits at home and
> > attacks me through others, I'm making another game. If they were as good as
> > they claim to be, they would also be making another game. It's not like I
> > turned one around in a matter of months, it's been a long process. So the
> > question remains, where is his game? Show me a game that he has finished
> > with his own team and I'll believe some of what you write.
>
> I'm a newcomer to the present dispute ... but I find this point
> logically compelling.
Somehow I think some people might interpret this the wrong way :)
Personally I'm waiting for " ... and third I ain't got no hound"
<grabs another mouthfull of popcorn>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
I simply think that a useful measure of "who created what" can be found
in "OK, who can do it again." I admit to knowing absolutely nothing
about the dispute in question, but it seems to me that this Norb guy has
a point when he argues that he's still actually producing software based
on the orginal while the other side isn't.
Assuming he's correct on the facts, I find this a telling point.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> ... but it seems to me that this Norb guy has
> a point when he argues that he's still actually producing software based
> on the orginal while the other side isn't.
>
> Assuming he's correct on the facts, I find this a telling point.
So would the lawyer of Adam Bryant if he was stupid enough to put in
writing that he's basing his current game on the code written for the
previous Take Command games.
See, this is an ownership dispute - of the assets of the now defunct
partnership. Code being one of these, but also design, graphics, the
website, forum etc.
If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
still at the company if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
on my own computer ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
James D Burns
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f89e00e7-0b18-43b5...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
> fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
> still at the company if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
> on my own computer ?
>
Exactly, per Norb's own words here:
http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=7b1b2f8232abaa4e66f9baf654ab8ad7&threadid=24289
"Together we formed a company in March of 2004. It is a PA S-Corp and we
each own 50% of the stock. We have no papers, etc., I just filed on the
internet and did the paper work myself. We have published 2 games."
They each owned half the assets. But Norb walked away with 100% of the
assets (without his partners permission) and failed to pay his ex-partner a
dime for his half. I think Norb was hoping his partner would die so there
wouldn't be an issue as he was very ill at the time. It's theft any way you
look at it as far as I can tell.
I don't have any horse in the race, as I don't know either one of them. but
what I saw and read during the time the thread Eddy linked was being
created, I was revolted by Norb and his deceptive and dishonest actions in
trying to manipulate the conversation by creating at least three false
accounts.
Jim
Frank E
>If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
>fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
>still at the company
if you currently work for the company, it's not a partnership (in the
legal sense). If it's a software company and they end a partnership,
the least complicated way to divide up the assets is just to give all
sides rights to the code.
> if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
>on my own computer ?
>
I don't think that enters into the equation.
Rgds, Frank
NorbSoftDev
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f89e00e7-0b18-43b5...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
> > fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
> > still at the company if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
> > on my own computer ?
>
If you are an employee of the company, they own what you write. But
neither of us were employees. This was a hobby that we did on our
free time. That makes all the difference in the world according to
the law. Yes, my employer owns all the source that they pay me to
write. But what I write at home in my free time is mine. If you
don't like the law, you should take it up with the US copyright
office, not with me. I just researched it to find what my
responsibilities were and am following it.
> Exactly, per Norb's own words here:http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=7b1b2f8232abaa4e66f9baf65...
>
> "Together we formed a company in March of 2004. It is a PA S-Corp and we
> each own 50% of the stock. We have no papers, etc., I just filed on the
> internet and did the paper work myself. We have published 2 games."
>
> They each owned half the assets. But Norb walked away with 100% of the
> assets (without his partners permission) and failed to pay his ex-partner a
> dime for his half. I think Norb was hoping his partner would die so there
> wouldn't be an issue as he was very ill at the time. It's theft any way you
> look at it as far as I can tell.
>
I do not own 100% of the assets. This is what I'm constantly dealing
with, people assuming they know what is going on when they don't. We
each own whatever we created on our own. It's not just me, it's him
as well. Because we were not employees, we own our own IP. I do not
own the art, the site, the domain, etc. and I have never claimed to.
Please, if you are going to brand me a villain, at least get my crime
right.
Frank E
<jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f89e00e7-0b18-43b5...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
>> fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
>> still at the company if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
>> on my own computer ?
>>
>
>
>Exactly, per Norb's own words here:
>http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=7b1b2f8232abaa4e66f9baf654ab8ad7&threadid=24289
>
>"Together we formed a company in March of 2004. It is a PA S-Corp and we
>each own 50% of the stock. We have no papers, etc., I just filed on the
>internet and did the paper work myself. We have published 2 games."
>
>They each owned half the assets. But Norb walked away with 100% of the
>assets (without his partners permission) and failed to pay his ex-partner a
>dime for his half.
Since we're talking about code here, couldn't both sides walk away
with 100% of the assets?
Rgds, Frank
NorbSoftDev
agreement. That's been the argument we have been having since we
started. I have been upset that he was not doing the job that we
agreed to when we started. So if there was a shareholder agreement
from the start, then one of two things would have happened. First, he
would have performed the duties that he agreed to and we would still
be making games because I never would have had reason to leave, or #2
he would not have done the duties in the agreement and I would then
own all of mmg since he would have broken the agreement. So even if
we had the piece of paper, we would still be in the same place. Him
trying to discredit me because he was not happy the way things turned
out.
On May 13, 8:13 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 05:13:24 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
> >fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
> >still at the company
>
> if you currently work for the company, it's not a partnership (in the
> legal sense). If it's a software company and they end a partnership,
> the least complicated way to divide up the assets is just to give all
> sides rights to the code.
Yeah - right.
Could you give just 1 (one) example where in a company split all
parties agreed to *both* owning a particular asset ?
I'm not talking about joint custody of the dog in a divorce here, I'm
talking IP.
> > if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
> >on my own computer ?
>
> I don't think that enters into the equation.
He, it's not *my* argument.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
b61cf5...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > ... but it seems to me that this Norb guy has
> > a point when he argues that he's still actually producing software based
> > on the orginal while the other side isn't.
> >
> > Assuming he's correct on the facts, I find this a telling point.
>
> So would the lawyer of Adam Bryant if he was stupid enough to put in
> writing that he's basing his current game on the code written for the
> previous Take Command games.
Does Bryant *have* a current game?
> See, this is an ownership dispute - of the assets of the now defunct
> partnership. Code being one of these, but also design, graphics, the
> website, forum etc.
OK, but let's not pretend that the program code itself isn't at the
center of any dispute. A computer wargame is all about the program
code. If the code is decent, then all the other stuff is so much chaff.
If the code sucks, then all the graphics and art under heaven won't save
it.
> If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
> fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
> still at the company if I were able to prove I could rewrite the app
> on my own computer ?
My understanding is that Timpko wrote the program code and Bryant did
the graphics, artwork, sounds, etc. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, but
it's as if Stephen King and his publisher decided to split, and the
publisher claimed ownership of the actual text of THE STAND because they
provided the cover art, illustrations, and leather binding. In terms of
a software product, the code's the thing, and the other stuff is just
fluff.
It simply amazes me that this fellow has been so roundly declared to be
History's Greatest Monster because he dares assume ownership of code he
actually wrote. To hear Jim Burns tell it, this Norb guy not only
helped crucify Christ, he bought the nails!
eddys...@hotmail.com
> This was a hobby that we did on our
> free time. That makes all the difference in the world according to
> the law. Yes, my employer owns all the source that they pay me to
> write. But what I write at home in my free time is mine.
Nope. It was owned by Madminute Games of which you owned 50%
> We each own whatever we created on our own.
Really ? Have you consulted your lawyer on this ?
> I do not
> own the art, the site, the domain, etc. and I have never claimed to.
Really ? Do you deny having complete, total and sole access to the
Madminute domain, website and forum while your ex-partner has not ?
> Please, if you are going to brand me a villain, at least get my crime
> right.
Depends on the answers on the questions above.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
<use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote:
>> "Together we formed a company in March of 2004. It is a PA S-Corp and we
>> each own 50% of the stock. We have no papers, etc., I just filed on the
>> internet and did the paper work myself. We have published 2 games."
>>
>> They each owned half the assets. But Norb walked away with 100% of the
>> assets (without his partners permission) and failed to pay his ex-partner a
>> dime for his half. I think Norb was hoping his partner would die so there
>> wouldn't be an issue as he was very ill at the time. It's theft any way you
>> look at it as far as I can tell.
>>
>
>I do not own 100% of the assets. This is what I'm constantly dealing
>with, people assuming they know what is going on when they don't. We
>each own whatever we created on our own.
I'm going to call BS here. Lets say Eddie and I decide to form a
software company; a partnership. Eddie writes the program and I do the
sales and marketing. If we decide to end the partnership, you're
claiming that Eddie would own all of the assets because he's the one
that wrote the code.
Maybe you did 'research' the copyright laws but I don't think you have
a leg to stand on legally.
Rgds, Frank
James D Burns
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24748d1ce...@news-east.giganews.com...
>
>
> It simply amazes me that this fellow has been so roundly declared to be
> History's Greatest Monster because he dares assume ownership of code he
> actually wrote. To hear Jim Burns tell it, this Norb guy not only
> helped crucify Christ, he bought the nails!
>
They were in a corporation together, so the corporation owned the IP rights,
not any one individual. Since both owned 50% of the stock in the
corporation, that means they both had equal ownership in the IP.
The fact he now claims in a post above that it was a hobby and not a
corporate venture is significant. And that is the crux of the issue. If
Bryant fails to exercise his legal rights to his share of the IP, Norb gets
away with what he did. If Bryant does try and exercise his rights via a
lawsuit, Norb is going to try and say, hey it was just two guys tinkering
around together as a hobby, there was no *corporation* to own anything. If
he admits it was a corporate venture, he admits the corporation owned the IP
rights.
All this said, I normally would have no problem at all if a guy screws up
and gets hosed out of his share because *he* failed to get it in writing.
But Norb pulled this crap when the guy was in danger of dying and made NO
effort to make sure the guys family would be taken care of. Instead he took
it for himself. That is what makes this all so repugnant to me, the sleaze
factor of this guy is just despicable.
Jim
Frank E
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 mei, 14:28, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 05:13:24 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >If the "partnership" between me and the company I currently work for
>> >fell apart, would a judge deem me the owner of software I wrote while
>> >still at the company
>>
>> if you currently work for the company, it's not a partnership (in the
>> legal sense). If it's a software company and they end a partnership,
>> the least complicated way to divide up the assets is just to give all
>> sides rights to the code.
>
>Yeah - right.
>
>Could you give just 1 (one) example where in a company split all
>parties agreed to *both* owning a particular asset ?
>
IBM and Microsoft. When they ended their partnership, both parties had
rights to DOS and continued to develop the code on thier own. I think
the same thing happened with NT and OS2 but don't quote me on that
one.
Rgds, Frank
NorbSoftDev
On May 13, 9:02 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 mei, 14:37, NorbSoftDev <use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > This was a hobby that we did on our
> > free time. That makes all the difference in the world according to
> > the law. Yes, my employer owns all the source that they pay me to
> > write. But what I write at home in my free time is mine.
>
> Nope. It was owned by Madminute Games of which you owned 50%
>
> > We each own whatever we created on our own.
>
> Really ? Have you consulted your lawyer on this ?
>
Yes, I have consulted many lawyers on this. I spent the month after
we broke up researching this to death. I wanted be 100% sure of the
law regarding this issue. I have spoken to at 5 least IP attorneys.
This is when the IGDA post was written, when I was trying to find the
answer to this question. The person that answered sits on the IGDA
board and they confirmed it. What people have told me is that this is
a 100% no doubt case. They have pointed me to the links at the
copyright office that apply. Here is the proof, I wrote an article
about what I learned on my forum:
http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=60&func=view&catid=23&id=5823
So I have consulted a lawyer, I would not make the claims if I had
not. I am not a good bluffer. We split, I researched the legal
course of action and I moved on. I actually have offered many
solutions to the issue over the years, but none have been accepted.
The problem being that he won't accept the above, and until that
happens we cannot more forward.
> > I do not
> > own the art, the site, the domain, etc. and I have never claimed to.
>
> Really ? Do you deny having complete, total and sole access to the
> Madminute domain, website and forum while your ex-partner has not ?
>
I have not changed any of the access since we parted ways. He created
the domain, not me. So that is still under his name as far as I
know. I don't remember what access he had to the forum, but I haven't
touched anything. He hasn't requested any changes either. So it's
hard to say what he can or can't do at this point. He still has ftp
access to the site, I haven't touched that either. I am sure of that
because he asked me a while back and I haven't touched a thing. If he
wanted something else, all he had to do was ask. I have not
monopolized anything. When mmg was around I ran it all because he
didn't know how to do it. I asked him to create a new site and take
over the webmaster job from me, but as far as I know he never did. So
no, I have not gone in and changed anything since we parted ways and
he has not told me that he wanted anything changed, so as far as I
know everything is up to his satisfaction.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> b61cf558e...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > ... but it seems to me that this Norb guy has
> > > a point when he argues that he's still actually producing software based
> > > on the orginal while the other side isn't.
>
> > > Assuming he's correct on the facts, I find this a telling point.
>
> > So would the lawyer of Adam Bryant if he was stupid enough to put in
> > writing that he's basing his current game on the code written for the
> > previous Take Command games.
>
> Does Bryant *have* a current game?
Why would that matter ? In a divorce is currently owning a car a
prerequisite for owning half of the family car from before the
divorce ?
> > See, this is an ownership dispute - of the assets of the now defunct
> > partnership. Code being one of these, but also design, graphics, the
> > website, forum etc.
>
> OK, but let's not pretend that the program code itself isn't at the
> center of any dispute. A computer wargame is all about the program
> code. If the code is decent, then all the other stuff is so much chaff.
> If the code sucks, then all the graphics and art under heaven won't save
> it.
Yup - sure is - but why do you think not a single mention of the code
of the old Madminute games is found in the *very* extensive list of
credits & resources for the new project ?
http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=25
> My understanding is that Timpko wrote the program code and Bryant did
> the graphics, artwork, sounds, etc. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, but
> it's as if Stephen King and his publisher decided to split, and the
> publisher claimed ownership of the actual text of THE STAND because they
> provided the cover art, illustrations, and leather binding.
What if Stephen King and his publisher had a contract saying each
owned 50% ?
Because that is the case here
> It simply amazes me that this fellow has been so roundly declared to be
> History's Greatest Monster because he dares assume ownership of code he
> actually wrote.
Like I wrote before : it's an ownership dispute - and normally I'd say
that courts were created just for that and that it's none of my
business.
But then there's a public fight in which basically A says that B is a
lazy, good-for-nothing and B says that A is a crook who ran away with
all the company assets.
I don't know either of them, but then A shows up at The Wargamer being
dishonest about just about everything.
For all I know B could be a waste of space on this planet, but what I
saw there at The Wargamer clinched it for me.
It's not even a legal thing anymore, it's a moral one : money I spend
on wargames needs to give me a fuzzy feeling of money well spend on a
design and developer I support.
I ain't got that feeling here.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
NorbSoftDev
> and gets hosed out of his share because *he* failed to get it in writing.
> But Norb pulled this crap when the guy was in danger of dying and made NO
> effort to make sure the guys family would be taken care of. Instead he took
> it for himself. That is what makes this all so repugnant to me, the sleaze
> factor of this guy is just despicable.
>
> Jim
He told me that he was diagnosed in his early 20's when I first met
him. I believe that he is around 45 now. As far as I know it comes
and goes, but I'm not really up on it anymore. I just know that
because of this, he gets a free pass and I get branded the villain.
So you are saying that people should never team up with someone with
any type of sympathetic problem because if things don't work out you
will get destroyed? I never thought of it that way. Usually people
like to succeed or fail on their own merits, not pull out their crutch
as an excuse every time things get tough.
Frank E
<use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote:
>Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a shareholders
>agreement.
You don't even have to go that far. As james pointed out, the real
question is whether there was a (legal) partnership or if it was just
two guys developing a game as a hobby. All the rest is irrelevant.
Rgds, Frank
NorbSoftDev
mmg get the IP to the source code? This is very clearly defined in
law, as it has been a bone of contention in many cases. There is no
issue that we both own 50% of mmg and therefore both own half the
assets. The problem is in understanding what mmg owns and what they
don't. The fact is that mmg never got the ip to the source. So it
remained mine to do with what I wanted. Please take it up with the
courts if you don't like it, I didn't write the law.
> >Could you give just 1 (one) example where in a company split all
> >parties agreed to *both* owning a particular asset ?
>
> IBM and Microsoft. When they ended their partnership, both parties had
> rights to DOS and continued to develop the code on thier own. I think
> the same thing happened with NT and OS2 but don't quote me on that
> one.
>
> Rgds, Frank- Hide quoted text -
>
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Good questions, time to clear up some misconceptions:
>
> On May 13, 9:02 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 mei, 14:37, NorbSoftDev <use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > > This was a hobby that we did on our
> > > free time. That makes all the difference in the world according to
> > > the law. Yes, my employer owns all the source that they pay me to
> > > write. But what I write at home in my free time is mine.
>
> > Nope. It was owned by Madminute Games of which you owned 50%
>
> > > We each own whatever we created on our own.
>
> > Really ? Have you consulted your lawyer on this ?
>
> Yes, I have consulted many lawyers on this. I spent the month after
> we broke up researching this to death. I wanted be 100% sure of the
> law regarding this issue. I have spoken to at 5 least IP attorneys.
Really looks like a clear-cut case if you have to go see 5 of them ...
> This is when the IGDA post was written, when I was trying to find the
> answer to this question. The person that answered sits on the IGDA
> board and they confirmed it. What people have told me is that this is
> a 100% no doubt case.
So you claim to own the code for the full 100% ?
> http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid...
Nice deflection - but that is how your current company is handling
this, it says nothing about the old partnership contract and what that
stipulated ... or failed to stipulate.
> I actually have offered many
> solutions to the issue over the years, but none have been accepted.
Could well be. Can we get an example of a proposal ?
> The problem being that he won't accept the above, and until that
> happens we cannot more forward.
Hmmm. So he has to accept you owning 100% of the code and other
assorted tidbits as well I suppose before the issue can be settled ?
>
> > > I do not
> > > own the art, the site, the domain, etc. and I have never claimed to.
>
> > Really ? Do you deny having complete, total and sole access to the
> > Madminute domain, website and forum while your ex-partner has not ?
>
> I have not changed any of the access since we parted ways. He created
> the domain, not me.
It's his name, but your mailbox on the registrar whois which was
updated around the time of the split ...
> I don't remember what access he had to the forum, but I haven't
> touched anything.
That was not the question.
> He hasn't requested any changes either. So it's
> hard to say what he can or can't do at this point.
For someone who has researched everything so thouroughly you're
strangely negligent in this - weird.
> I have not monopolized anything.
> everything is up to his satisfaction.
Why then is there a dispute ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
James D Burns
"NorbSoftDev" <use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:123de4e5-99d0-4a48...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> He told me that he was diagnosed in his early 20's when I first met
> him. I believe that he is around 45 now. As far as I know it comes
> and goes, but I'm not really up on it anymore. I just know that
> because of this, he gets a free pass and I get branded the villain.
> So you are saying that people should never team up with someone with
> any type of sympathetic problem because if things don't work out you
> will get destroyed? I never thought of it that way. Usually people
> like to succeed or fail on their own merits, not pull out their crutch
> as an excuse every time things get tough.
He didn't get a free pass from me at all. Had you not done what you did in
that Wargamer thread, I personally would probably have never said a thing
against you. But by coming in and creating those false accounts, then lying
and trying to manipulate the discussion, you permanently lost all
credibility with me. By default that means your partner (who I do not know
and have never corresponded with) gained 100% credibility with me. This mess
is one of your own making due to your dishonest posting practices.
But as I said before, the legal issues aren't the issue for me. The issue is
doing what is right vs. doing what is wrong. I don't care if the paper work
is in order or not, you two had a business together. An honorable and decent
man in your position would have made some effort to make sure a fair
dissolution of assets was done (agreeable to both parties), and would have
brought in an arbitrator to make sure it was done fairly. It may very well
have turned out that you owned 100% of the IP for the code, but at least
you'd have done it the right and decent way.
Instead you went out and in your own words "researched to death" ways to
screw over your partner. You may very well have found a legal way to screw
over your partner, and he may not have a legal leg to stand on. But to me
that doesn't matter, to me what you've done is self serving and vile and I
would never support you by buying anything from you.
Jim
eddys...@hotmail.com
> The problem is not the assets that mmg owns, the problem is how did
> mmg get the IP to the source code? This is very clearly defined in
> law, as it has been a bone of contention in many cases. There is no
> issue that we both own 50% of mmg and therefore both own half the
> assets. The problem is in understanding what mmg owns and what they
> don't. The fact is that mmg never got the ip to the source. So it
> remained mine to do with what I wanted.
Clarity at last. Thanks.
> Please take it up with the
> courts if you don't like it, I didn't write the law.
Ok, so you're legally covered and did nothing wrong.
Great.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
P.S. in case you wonder why so many people would rather throw away a
$50 than to use it to buy your next game : consult the dictionary
about the difference between being legally right and morally right.
NorbSoftDev
>
> - Show quoted text -
No matter how many of these accusations I prove wrong, people are just
going to keep attacking with new ones. This is just a no win
situation. Even when this is all over and the legal teams have had
their hooks in it and I am shown to be correct in my statements,
people will still believe what they want. Again I'll give you the
reason, and you'll just move on to the next attack. He told me he
stopped checking his mmg email, so I switch mine in there. I don't
remember exactly when I updated the address, but it's not my address
that is listed. I have been running everything myself since the
split. I have still done my responsibilities. I pay the bills, get
the taxes done, and send him his checks.
Giftzwerg
says...
> > It simply amazes me that this fellow has been so roundly declared to be
> > History's Greatest Monster because he dares assume ownership of code he
> > actually wrote. To hear Jim Burns tell it, this Norb guy not only
> > helped crucify Christ, he bought the nails!
> They were in a corporation together, so the corporation owned the IP rights,
> not any one individual. Since both owned 50% of the stock in the
> corporation, that means they both had equal ownership in the IP.
Then what's the problem? I mean, we are talking about *software* here,
are we not? It's not like fighting over ownership of a refrigerator
where only one person can take the thing away.
> The fact he now claims in a post above that it was a hobby and not a
> corporate venture is significant. And that is the crux of the issue. If
> Bryant fails to exercise his legal rights to his share of the IP, Norb gets
> away with what he did. If Bryant does try and exercise his rights via a
> lawsuit, Norb is going to try and say, hey it was just two guys tinkering
> around together as a hobby, there was no *corporation* to own anything. If
> he admits it was a corporate venture, he admits the corporation owned the IP
> rights.
OK, but whether or not there was a corporation isn't some cosmic
mystery. Incorporation is a positive thing; if there was a corporation,
then there's a nice, neat legal document that details it. If there's no
such document, then you have no corporation.
My suspicion is that a dispute exists here *because* there was no such
document.
> All this said, I normally would have no problem at all if a guy screws up
> and gets hosed out of his share because *he* failed to get it in writing.
> But Norb pulled this crap when the guy was in danger of dying and made NO
> effort to make sure the guys family would be taken care of. Instead he took
> it for himself. That is what makes this all so repugnant to me, the sleaze
> factor of this guy is just despicable.
I have two problems with this, though.
First, I always squint suspiciously at arguments which hold that someone
is absolutely in the wrong because he didn't do <nice thing here> to
someone who was dying. Such arguments might go well with a sad violin
solo, but I'm not sure they carry much logical import.
Second, when you say, "he took it for himself," I can only ask what
"it" we're talking about. As Frank points out, if "it" is software,
"it" can exist in two places quite easily. Why can't both sides have
"it" and go their separate ways?
NorbSoftDev
Let me get this straight, cause I want to understand. So morally
right is to advertise your illness to win the masses and discredit
someone, rather than accept personal responsibility for your own
actions? Morally bad is to just follow the law when you are in a
dispute and cannot come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Got it.
James D Burns
>Let me get this straight, cause I want to understand. So morally
>right is to advertise your illness to win the masses and discredit
>someone, rather than accept personal responsibility for your own
>actions? Morally bad is to just follow the law when you are in a
>dispute and cannot come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Got it.
But you see, there's a paper trail, so again your credibility now suffers.
In your own words:
------------------------
"We have fought like crazy since even before the company started and I
finally got fed up with it. We've decided to keep the company around to
support our games, but no new products.
My question is, do I own the source code? I wrote every single line (around
79K lines) Can I do with it what I want. Based on other topics that I see
here, I figured that I did own it. But I also see that there is nothing that
I can do to stop him from suing me if he wants to.
I want to take the source, join the original artist, get a project
manager/business guy, and start a new company. Basically pick up where we
left off. I want to know if I can do this and if there is anything legal I
should do before starting another company."
------------------------
I see no mention of an attempt to come to a mutually acceptable resolution,
just that you've agreed not to make any more products. In fact I'd go so far
as to say this clearly shows that you simply wished to dump him and "pick up
where we left off".
Jim
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> > P.S. in case you wonder why so many people would rather throw away a
> > $50 than to use it to buy your next game : consult the dictionary
> > about the difference between being legally right and morally right.
>
> Let me get this straight, cause I want to understand. So morally
> right is to advertise your illness to win the masses and discredit
> someone, rather than accept personal responsibility for your own
> actions? Morally bad is to just follow the law when you are in a
> dispute and cannot come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Got it.
Well, if one party draws the touchy-feely sickness card (which, btw
was utterly irrelevant to me) then it's perfectly ok for you to create
sock-puppets to defend your case. Got it.
In this whole sorry mess of a dispute I've only seen one party act
dishonest. It's just your bad luck that it was you I suppose.
What drew people to support Adam Bryant so massively was not so much
the split-up, but your conduct thereafter on The Wargamer forum. It
simply just wasn't people feeling sorry for the sick guy as you now
try to pretend it is.
Well, maybe that's what you need to believe in order to be able to
look into a mirror, but you ain't foolin' me.
Like I said to Brett Schulte : I think everyone in here is old enough
to draw his own conclusions and I won't hold it against anyone if he
elects to help you with your new game, just don't count on my $50 in
support.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
James D Burns
>
> Then what's the problem? I mean, we are talking about *software* here,
> are we not? It's not like fighting over ownership of a refrigerator
> where only one person can take the thing away.
>
I suspect the real issue is the fact Norb used the code for his new game
without his partners consent. His partner refuses to relinquish his rights
or Norb refuses to compensate him, so his partner has a legitimate claim on
the new games revenues. A settlement agreement where they both took the code
and went away would resolve it, but no settlement has ever been reached as
far as I can tell, so Norb just went ahead on his own without settling.
>
> OK, but whether or not there was a corporation isn't some cosmic
> mystery. Incorporation is a positive thing; if there was a corporation,
> then there's a nice, neat legal document that details it. If there's no
> such document, then you have no corporation.
I assume that there is since Norb says he did file online, it's the
pending/future litigation that this is really all about.
>
> First, I always squint suspiciously at arguments which hold that someone
> is absolutely in the wrong because he didn't do <nice thing here> to
> someone who was dying. Such arguments might go well with a sad violin
> solo, but I'm not sure they carry much logical import.
As do I, as I said it was his dishonest posting at the wargamer that made up
my mind. The part about his partner almost dying just added that much more
weight to the sleaze factor of the mans actions.
>
> Second, when you say, "he took it for himself," I can only ask what
> "it" we're talking about. As Frank points out, if "it" is software,
> "it" can exist in two places quite easily. Why can't both sides have
> "it" and go their separate ways?
>
Again, Norb hasn't settled this aspect with his ex-partner, he just took it
and moved ahead. That's the *legal* issue, no settlement has occurred
between them yet. So by moving ahead without a settlement, I say he took it
for himself. Had he settled the matter first, I'd have no issue at all.
Jim
Frank E
<use...@norbsoftware.com> wrote:
>The problem is not the assets that mmg owns, the problem is how did
>mmg get the IP to the source code?
Why would MMG have to get the IP to the source code?
Did you write the program before you formed MMG? If so then I'll
concede the point, you're legally and morally in the right. If you did
the programming after MMG was formed and are now claiming that you own
all rights to the source just because you were the programmer on the
project then I don't think you have a legal leg to stand on, all your
posturing aside. And even if it was legal, it would be an incredibly
sleazy thing to do.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Second, when you say, "he took it for himself," I can only ask what
> > "it" we're talking about. As Frank points out, if "it" is software,
> > "it" can exist in two places quite easily. Why can't both sides have
> > "it" and go their separate ways?
> >
>
> Again, Norb hasn't settled this aspect with his ex-partner, he just took it
> and moved ahead. That's the *legal* issue, no settlement has occurred
> between them yet. So by moving ahead without a settlement, I say he took it
> for himself. Had he settled the matter first, I'd have no issue at all.
Why can't Bryant do the same?
My understanding is that Timpko wrote all the program code. Bryant did
the artwork, graphics, maps, etc. But it seems to me that very little
of Bryant's work would find its way into a new game which deals with a
different battle entirely. Gettysburg would require new maps, new unit
graphics, new <lots of things> - the only thing that might remain
largely the same would be the game engine itself, which *in the abscence
of some agreement to the contrary*, seems to me to be Timpko's; lock,
stock, and barrel.
Giftzwerg
@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Does Bryant *have* a current game?
>
> Why would that matter ? In a divorce is currently owning a car a
> prerequisite for owning half of the family car from before the
> divorce ?
Ah, but if the partnership built the car, then I'd more willingly grant
ownership to the guy who built the engine, drivetrain and controls,
rather than the guy who painted and trimmed it.
> > > See, this is an ownership dispute - of the assets of the now defunct
> > > partnership. Code being one of these, but also design, graphics, the
> > > website, forum etc.
> >
> > OK, but let's not pretend that the program code itself isn't at the
> > center of any dispute. A computer wargame is all about the program
> > code. If the code is decent, then all the other stuff is so much chaff.
> > If the code sucks, then all the graphics and art under heaven won't save
> > it.
>
> Yup - sure is - but why do you think not a single mention of the code
> of the old Madminute games is found in the *very* extensive list of
> credits & resources for the new project ?
>
> http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=25
I think it just goes without saying that the actual program code is a
resource; when people accept an award, they generally don't include
themselves on the list of people they're thanking.
> > My understanding is that Timpko wrote the program code and Bryant did
> > the graphics, artwork, sounds, etc. Maybe I'm alone in my opinion, but
> > it's as if Stephen King and his publisher decided to split, and the
> > publisher claimed ownership of the actual text of THE STAND because they
> > provided the cover art, illustrations, and leather binding.
>
> What if Stephen King and his publisher had a contract saying each
> owned 50% ?
>
> Because that is the case here
OK, then all we need do is look at the contract to determine ownership.
What's the problem?
> I ain't got that feeling here.
The way some of you guys are talking, I'd already concluded that Timpko
had, like, sent his Nazghul 'round to torture your children.
NorbSoftDev
source was my property. It's just that people want to hate me so bad
they won't accept it. I have included links and a blog that explains
the issue, still not good enough. That is why I don't post about it,
because even when there is concrete proof, the haters won't believe
it. Even after this is all over and nothing changes, they still will
not believe it. I've tried my best to explain to those that really
wanted to know whether or not this garbage is true. But the salvo's
will just keep coming because they don't like it, facts obviously have
little to do with any of these attacks. I hope I've clearned things
up for those that really wanted to understand.
rus4...@hotmail.com
I looked at your screenshots, and it looks just like the game that
Adam designed.
Can't you do anything on your own?
burna...@gmail.com
> > attacks me through others, I'm making another game. If they were as good as
> > they claim to be, they would also be making another game.
>
> I'm a newcomer to the present dispute ... but I find this point
> logically compelling.
You shouldn't. People don't make games for all kinds of reasons, e.g.
illness.
DirkG
> Finally got my fios newsgroup thing working. So I thought this group might
> be interested in our project:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTwxBNtfGZw
>
> www.war3d.net
>
> Norb
>
>
Looks good. If it plays well, I'll be getting it.
Dirk
Chris Merchant
How dare you.
Off topic, sir.
Mike Kreuzer
news:002722ec$0$9747$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
I was wondering when you'd chime in.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Mike Kreuzer
news:695f2608-d50b-4efa...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
The following three questions seem unresolved to me.
- Do you understand the 'it may be legally right but it's not morally right'
objection to you not sharing the code with your former partner? You seem to
keep ignoring this point, I'd like you to address it directly.
- Do you still deny it was you who pretended to be Coder etc? You've alluded
that it was in fact you, but I've never read you admit to it. I apologise
if you have, but I missed it if you did, and a simple 'yes it was me' would
be sufficient.
- Do you see any relationship at all between your answers to the previous
two questions and why people want to 'hate you so bad'? And I'll admit it,
I'm one of the haters. So far I'm still left thinking what you did was
reprehensible.
Try not to rely on slander campaigns, or your former partner's illness, or
anybody else in your answers. As you say, this is all about personal
responsibility.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
James D Burns
>
> My understanding is that Timpko wrote all the program code. Bryant did
> the artwork, graphics, maps, etc. But it seems to me that very little
> of Bryant's work would find its way into a new game which deals with a
> different battle entirely. Gettysburg would require new maps, new unit
> graphics, new <lots of things> - the only thing that might remain
> largely the same would be the game engine itself, which *in the abscence
> of some agreement to the contrary*, seems to me to be Timpko's; lock,
> stock, and barrel.
>
You're giving far too much credit to Norb and not enough to Bryant I think.
From what I can tell, Norb was a FPS guy and Bryant was the wargame guy.
While Norb may have coded the engine, Bryant is the engines designer. He's
the one who told Norb how to code the relationships in game like fire
effectiveness, moral issues, leadership issues, etc. Without Bryant's input,
Norb could never had coded a civil war engine, because he knew nothing about
what he was making.
Had he coded the engine all alone before Bryant entered the picture, then
I'd agree 100% with you, but he didn't.
Jim
Brett S.
three posts when I last checked it several days ago. I did slog
through the whole thing though. The point about "Where is Adam's
game?" is a good one. I wasted over 100 hours of my life working for
free for Adam on a different Civil War battle. It petered out and
nothing ever came of it, wasted time for me. My mistake, and one I'll
never make again with him. I personally believe the best solution to
this messy divorce would have been for Adam to have taken one of
Norb's previous offers for a settlement and moved on. He hasn't, and
here we are.
Norb definitely made a mistake when he assumed the identity of Coder
at the Wargamer, but I understand to some extent because he was being
crucified there. That thread was ugly. I am happy that some of what
caused these issues to occur is being discussed here in a reasonable
way. If you aren't going to buy the Gettysburg game because of Norb's
decision to create "coder" to defend himself, that's your choice and I
have no problem with it. If you aren't going to buy the game because
you think Adam got screwed over in some way, it's still your choice
and I'm still fine with it, but it's a choice based on hearsay.
Brett
Giftzwerg
says...
> - Do you still deny it was you who pretended to be Coder etc? You've alluded
> that it was in fact you, but I've never read you admit to it. I apologise
> if you have, but I missed it if you did, and a simple 'yes it was me' would
> be sufficient.
Man, but the penalties for sockpuppetry have gotten pretty steep since
FidoNet. Now it's a capital felony, right up there with rape and
maiming?
Sockpuppets are annoying, but even some fancy-dan journalists (Glenn
Greenwald leaps to mind...) have succumbed to the lure of whipping up a
couple of wingmen when heavily outnumbered. It's always a mistake, cuz
you look like a dick when (inevitably) caught out, but I'm not sure
resorting to an alter-ego reflects in any way on the quality of one's
actual argument.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel"
- CBS News
"I'll start believing there's a crisis when the people telling
me there's a crisis start behaving as though there's a crisis."
- Glenn Reynolds
Brett S.
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
This may have been partially true for the First Bull Run game, but
TC2M was FAR, FAR more "Wrangler" than Adam. While Adam was busy
dicking around with flags Wrangler designed every scenario and also
tweaked the files behind the game which affected things like casualty
rates, rates of fire, movement, etc. Adam did have a chance to use
the code on the project I mentioned in my earlier post, the one where
I wasted my time. Where is that game?
Brett
NorbSoftDev
this was an original idea :)
If you have ever modded the game, you'll notice that you can change
almost any aspect of the game through csv files. There is actually
very little in the source that is civil war specific. It's all in the
csv files. That's the way I wrote it, so that anyone could come and
make it whatever they wanted. Civil war, revolutionary war, lotr,
waterloo, probably could even do something with more modern warfare in
a way, you can do just about anything with it. All you have to do is
look at the mods that have been created. The point is that his
contribution was in the csv files, maps, and artwork, not in the
source. All of those assets are the property of mmg, so no I do not
have any morale issues.
James D Burns
"Brett S." <br...@brettschulte.net> wrote in message
news:f97b3462-5e0e-4de3...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>This may have been partially true for the First Bull Run game, but
>TC2M was FAR, FAR more "Wrangler" than Adam. While Adam was busy
>dicking around with flags Wrangler designed every scenario and also
>tweaked the files behind the game which affected things like casualty
>rates, rates of fire, movement, etc. Adam did have a chance to use
>the code on the project I mentioned in my earlier post, the one where
>I wasted my time. Where is that game?
IP rights do not change simply because someone does more work on future
projects than someone else. They co-created the engine together and they
co-owned it. I doubt any jury will ever find otherwise if this goes to
court.
He should have settled this long before venturing into a new endeavor.
Arbitration was obviously needed here, but instead he chose to go another
way because apparently he couldn't get Bryant to agree to just give up his
rights for nothing. He obviously knew what he was doing was wrong as he was
worried about being sued right from the beginning, so I have no sympathy for
him now.
Still, had he not done what he did at the Wargamer site, I'd have said it
was not my business and a personal matter between the two partners. But when
he came in and made up false accounts and lied, he was lying to me and
anyone else interested in the game. That made it personal and he's earned
the ire of his potential customers that he now suffers under.
I'm not too concerned about you and your wasted time, as it really has
nothing to do with what is at issue here. Whether or not Bryant did another
game is meaningless, the issue is Norb took the code that he co-owned with
his partner and has created another game with it. He should have found a way
to settle this issue first, but he obviously let his personal angst against
his partner prevent him from reaching an accommodation and arrogantly said
screw him.
Bryant may even be a total asshole that no one could possibly like
personally, but even if that were true, it means nothing at all. You aren't
allowed to trample someone's rights simply because you don't like them.
Jim
Mike Kreuzer
I'm treating him at face value when he claims to want to set the record
straight. He can start by answering those three easy questions, which yes,
includes actually admitting he was Coder. Small steps I grant you, but so
far he hasn't done even that.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <4a0b51e...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
> says...
>
> > - Do you still deny it was you who pretended to be Coder etc? You've alluded
> > that it was in fact you, but I've never read you admit to it. I apologise
> > if you have, but I missed it if you did, and a simple 'yes it was me' would
> > be sufficient.
>
> Man, but the penalties for sockpuppetry have gotten pretty steep since
> FidoNet. Now it's a capital felony, right up there with rape and
> maiming?
A : B ate the cookie
B : A ate the cookie
People shrug and continue
Then B gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Of course this says nothing about whether or not he ate that cookie,
but it sets a mood, especially when you notice that B won't even own
up to getting caught with his hand in the jar.
This ain't a trial and I'm no jury, but the above builds a picture in
one's mind of who's right and who's wrong.
But there is always a chance that B really didn't eat that cookie and
that's why people keep advocating he first owns up to getting caught
red-handed and then maybe starts making amends to A - by sharing a
cookie or whatever.
Is that really too much to ask for ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Of course this says nothing about whether or not he ate that cookie,
> but it sets a mood, especially when you notice that B won't even own
> up to getting caught with his hand in the jar.
>
> This ain't a trial and I'm no jury, but the above builds a picture in
> one's mind of who's right and who's wrong.
Here's where I disagree. That someone is caught cooking up some
sockpuppet allies is evidence that they were feeling outnumbered and
beleaguered - not evidence that their argument doesn't hold water in the
first place.
Giftzwerg
says...
> I'm treating him at face value when he claims to want to set the record
> straight. He can start by answering those three easy questions, which yes,
> includes actually admitting he was Coder. Small steps I grant you, but so
> far he hasn't done even that.
USENET RULE #66: "Never admit *anything*. Interlocutors never go away
when you offer up the confession they're ostensibly seeking - they
redouble and relentlessly press home their attacks."
Mike Kreuzer
Not the conclusion I've drawn from his silence.
<waves!>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <38ced0c4-fcdb-4876-97f8-1222bfce9454
>
> > Of course this says nothing about whether or not he ate that cookie,
> > but it sets a mood, especially when you notice that B won't even own
> > up to getting caught with his hand in the jar.
>
> > This ain't a trial and I'm no jury, but the above builds a picture in
> > one's mind of who's right and who's wrong.
>
> Here's where I disagree. That someone is caught cooking up some
> sockpuppet allies is evidence that they were feeling outnumbered and
> beleaguered - not evidence that their argument doesn't hold water in the
> first place.
I agree that "Looks guilty" <> "is guilty"
Unfortunately looks is the only thing we can go on, so let's check how
all of this got started
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=302136
A single guy dared to question Norb Timpko on "his" MMG forum and got
banned and the post deleted.
<thinks very hard>
Now, where have we seen that kind of behaviour before and what do most
people think of that guy ....
</thinks very hard>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Here's where I disagree. That someone is caught cooking up some
> > sockpuppet allies is evidence that they were feeling outnumbered and
> > beleaguered - not evidence that their argument doesn't hold water in the
> > first place.
>
> I agree that "Looks guilty" <> "is guilty"
>
> Unfortunately looks is the only thing we can go on, so let's check how
> all of this got started
>
> http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=302136
>
> A single guy dared to question Norb Timpko on "his" MMG forum and got
> banned and the post deleted.
>
> <thinks very hard>
> Now, where have we seen that kind of behaviour before and what do most
> people think of that guy ....
> </thinks very hard>
I'd argue there's a meaningful distinction between a forum *owned by the
game company* and a forum ostensibly separate from game companies and
put there for the purposes of discussing games.
If the banning in question took place on a system owned (or just
operated) by MMG (the link is defunct, but the domain name is
"madminutegames"), then I'm not sure I object all that much; I'll be
damned if *I'm* going to be insulted on a system I'm playing for. And
anyone who thinks he's not gonna get banned on a company forum for
<thing company disliked here>, then he's got a lot more faith in people
than he should.
SZO or GameThingie or whatever they're calling themselves is *supposed*
to be different. "By gamers for gamers" or some such shit? Such places
purport *not* to be in the game companies' pocket - but the
madminutegames.com site clearly is.
In other words, I don't ever expect respect or fairness from the likes
of you-know-who, but JR isn't supposed to be running that forum, and
we're not supposed to be dependant on his integrity ... or lack thereof.
To turn things back around, if I'm stupid enough to be posting in a
forum at www.stormeaglestudios.com, then I can hardly get pissed when my
opinion is summarily disappeared.
And again, on the larger issue of who-owns-what, even if I grant that
Timpko is the most churlish, nastiest dickweed since Java Man, and has
befouled tens of thousands of forums with his banning and sockpuppetry,
that doesn't mean he's not the rightful owner of his code, or entitled
to profit by extending it.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror
suspects on U.S. soil - indefinitely and without trial."
- Wall Street Journal
"Huh. I guess detaining terrorists indefinitely without trial was
a pretty good idea, then. Who thought that up, anyhow?"
- Giftzwerg
NorbSoftDev
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A single guy dared to question Norb Timpko on "his" MMG forum and got
> banned and the post deleted.
This is why it's a complete waste of time to talk anything with people
that just want to attack. I have addressed this issue, even here in
this thread. You don't want to hear the truth, you just want to keep
attacking until something sticks. I have addressed all these issues
here, but you'll just keep asking the same things over and over,
you'll never admit any of the facts I've presented are correct. You
all are still talking about the IP rights, but I've proven that false
and no one has disproven it.. Well it's the moral issue, I addressed
that and rather than respond or stick to any one thing, you just move
on to your next item on your list. No it's his banning someone on the
forum, but you already losted that one, you just forgot. It's the
same stuff over and over and over again. I've addressed it all in
full. So you'll find one little thing that really has nothing to do
with the issue at all and say, that's the reason. Admit that you will
stay where you are no matter what. You want to hate me and you want
to champion him, I completely understand that, I did it for 5 years
myself.
I didn't respond here to move the unmovable, I just wanted to point
out to the unbiased that these charges are all false and I believe
that I've done that. You still may not like what I've done, and that
is your right. You wouldn't understand anyway without knowing all the
details of all the years and I promised that I would not do that.
It's enough to know that everytime one of these guys posts that I have
stolen anything or have done anything that was not 100% within my
rights to do, they are knowingly presenting false information.