Important facts about the first V:EKN set in development

Lönkka wrote:

BernieTime wrote:

personally think the idea of PDF distribution was a bad idea from concept, and apparently into execution.

Did any of the points Jeff made have anything to do with the didtribution method of the upcoming set?

Stop trolling please.

Ahhh comeon, if we cant troll then we are reduced to nothing ;o)

Dear V:EKN Community:

Thank you for the feedback to my post. Most of it has been thoughtful, constructive criticism and I appreciate that, as it was also my original intent. I will quote back a handful of responses which I feel were most appropriate and insightful, though many people made important contributions to the discussion:

“Unfortunate as it is, the current IC members and by extension card designers don't understand that the most important quality in a leader is the ability to communicate.”

“...when it comes down to it, we have few people in the community who are willing to make the commitment necessary to get things done and keep them going.”

“I want to play VTES as a game, not live it. As a player, give me sunlight, please.”

And every last intuitive and insightful word from Robba Yaga.

Shortly after I publicly posted, my rights to post on the Design Team forum were revoked. I had no reasonable expectation to keep my forum access once I had publicly posted (tighter rights management when there is uncertainty is standard procedure in the information technology world).

A couple days later, I proactively sent this link to this Wikipedia article to the Inner Circle and Design Team, along with some call-outs and suggestions about how to go forward. The article is lengthy, but contains good information and insights for those who wish to read it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_dissent

However, it took fully five days for the Inner Circle to notify me (on March 5th) that I was officially dismissed from the Design Team. I do not trust that any official procedure was followed, or even that an official vote was taken by the Inner Circle on this matter. There certainly was no notification that this action might be taken, nor a hearing of any type by the governing body for me to present my case, lodge an appeal or file a protest.

The V:EKN Inner Circle has the mistaken impression that it is running a for-profit corporation with “at will” employees rather than a non-profit corporation with a duty to its constituents and volunteers. This is further indication of dysfunction within the V:EKN and a continued lack of due process.

==========

I feel the need to address a few points which were directed at me publicly.

1) I did not sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). To my knowledge, most of the Design Team members have not signed NDAs either.

2) My post largely deals with underlying Design Team and Inner Circle process issues, as well as leadership issues. As others have noted, there is nothing in my post (except perhaps the number of cards) which would break an NDA. Most of NDAs deal specifically with release of information related to creative content or new products.

3) I did not try to blackmail anyone on the Design Team or Inner Circle. Early in January, I initiated a phone call with the Design Team Leader shortly after his return to work out ideas for going forward together. At the time, he seemed genuinely apologetic about his prolonged absence and I hoped this would be a good starting point. However, things took a turn for the worse as he heavy-handedly interacted with most members of the Design Team, causing lots of tension and chaos in the working environment. The three primary designers did not appreciate the way they were being treated. Since I had talked with the Design Team Leader most recently, I was designated to be the one to reach out to him again about the situation and offer solutions for going forward. As a contingency, the three primary designers jointly crafted a petition to the Inner Circle which elaborated upon our concerns and recommended these same possibilities. In late January, I initiated this phone call, though the conversation did not yield much of a response. After two hours, I told him I wanted to end the conversation with some kind--any kind--of a joint statement about how the Design Team could collaboratively proceed. He was unable and unwilling to do so, stating that he couldn’t agree to anything, not even a positive statement of his choice, without conversing with the V:EKN Chairman first. I told him I would take action because he would not. After we hung up, I sent the petition to the Inner Circle. That is the “blackmail” to which Johannes referred. It is also the “bad things [which] would happen” to which Robyn Tatu referred. It was “bad” only in the respect that the Design Team Leader would have his credibility challenged due to the disrespectful way he treated “his” team.

4) While the Team Leader may have returned to lead, for almost six months he was only the de jure leader while the primary designers grew into the de facto leadership of the team and did all the work. It was a mistake by the primary designers not to push earlier for recognition of this fact. But it was a worse mistake by the Inner Circle to compound and reinforce this problem once the Design Team Leader demonstrated his antagonistic actions and attempts to alienate the primary designers were going to be detrimental to the success of the project.

5) This situation is not entirely of my making. As some Inner Circle members posted, there is plenty of blame to go around. I felt the need to respond to an untenable situation affecting the Design Team. There were serious violations of process. The most highly productive members of the team were unethically disenfranchised. Yes, I am the one who made this a public matter, but only when it was clear that all internal options were exhausted and that those in charge of following through with process were willing to expediently ignore it. My intention was to effect some sort of positive change, even if it meant airing of privileged information.

6) I am not the only one with a vision for the game. Nor is the Design Team Leader, who has been steadfastly supported by the Inner Circle despite his prolonged absences and repeated poor handling of processes he was supposed to navigate. I agree wholeheartedly that this project is bigger than any one person, no matter who they are. The Inner Circle should treat it as such, though in my opinion they have not done so and that is what has really jeopardized its success.

7) As a side issue, the Inner Circle seems to have had issues with a part of the set’s direction. Instead of communicating directly what they disliked and entering a discussion about how the parts of the massive amount of work which they deemed not fitting could be pushed back to a later set, some heavy-handed decisions were made by the Chairman via the Design Team Leader as his proxy. Those decisions were not explained or discussed. That left behind a lot of questions and caused a major disruption in the Design Team from which it never did fully recover.

Jeff wrote:

As others have noted, there is nothing in my post (except perhaps the number of cards) which would break an NDA. Most of NDAs deal specifically with release of information related to creative content or new products.

Every single White Wolf NDA that I ever signed -- and I signed twelve of them -- stated that if I made public the fact that I was part of the group for which the NDA was intended that I was breaking the NDA. FWIW.

KevinM wrote:

Jeff wrote:

As others have noted, there is nothing in my post (except perhaps the number of cards) which would break an NDA. Most of NDAs deal specifically with release of information related to creative content or new products.

Every single White Wolf NDA that I ever signed -- and I signed twelve of them -- stated that if I made public the fact that I was part of the group for which the NDA was intended that I was breaking the NDA. FWIW.

Which just gives us some insight in how one company's NDA might have looked (since all twelve you ever signed were from White Wolf), and cannot be deemed the standard for all other NDA's as such.

And the fact that Jeff stated he never signed any form of NDA in the first place, renders the discussion about how an NDA might look kinda moot.

A lot of stuff has passed our view in the last few days, especially in the two posts from Jeff and the open letter to him from the IC. After considering what I have been reading, I think this matter cannot be blamed on Jeff entirely. To me, it seems like there's something seriously disfunctional within the VEKN and its Inner Circle.

Would they care to elaborate some on how the design-team leader was kept completely out of the wind in their open letter? Based on what I've been reading, the person should have been removed from duty after keeping quiet for as long as he did.

Whatever the reason for being silent for so long - personal situation, illness, lack of interest, unable to live up to the task, you name it - it seems to me that someone else should have stepped in (or should have been appointed to step in by the IC) and take over for the time being.

I can imagine pretty well the frustration of Jeff Kuta for having worked his ass off, only to be ignored after such a long time.

The question remains though; how will this continue? Will we still have a new set? Can we, as a community, know your plans, continuing from here?

Much appreciated!

Angel74 wrote:

After considering what I have been reading, I think this matter cannot be blamed on Jeff entirely. To me, it seems like there's something seriously disfunctional within the VEKN and its Inner Circle.

The probability that Jeff was just a nuts was not too high, but I would not call the Inner Circle "seriously dysfunctionnal". For two reason :

* it serve no purpose to piss them off by swearing at them and calling them name. After all, the VEKN work because of their (probably hard) work.

* we talk about, at worse and taking the Jeff version at face value, autoritative decision and being partial to friends. That's something that happen all the time, with everybody, in every organization existing. There is no money involved, no harassment, and at least for now nothing that threaten VtES.

What I fear is that the Inner circle would try to silence the whole thing, use some smoke screen, and try its best to continue the same road as before, as a reaction to the public protest, instead of being a little more open so as to ensure the problems are solved.

To avoid that, the more important thing is in my opinion to show at least some support to the IC, and at least give them some time. One of the issue is that some people does not work well together ; it's likely that some or all of thoses peoples will have to be removed from the project, it's likely that some or all of thoses peoples are friends or member of the IC, and it's likely that the IC will have the temptation to just bury everything to avoid showing weakness and having to take tough decisions. It's only human.

Angel74 wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Jeff wrote:

As others have noted, there is nothing in my post (except perhaps the number of cards) which would break an NDA. Most of NDAs deal specifically with release of information related to creative content or new products.

Every single White Wolf NDA that I ever signed -- and I signed twelve of them -- stated that if I made public the fact that I was part of the group for which the NDA was intended that I was breaking the NDA. FWIW.

Which just gives us some insight in how one company's NDA might have looked (since all twelve you ever signed were from White Wolf), and cannot be deemed the standard for all other NDA's as such.

I'm just pointing out that what Jeff said -- "there is nothing in my post (except perhaps the number of cards) which would break an NDA" -- is false. And I'm sure that he signed NDAs for White wolf in the past, so I don't know why he would say such a thing.

It isn't super-important. I just wanted it noted that it was falsely -- and not necessarily maliciously -- stated.

EDIT: It's been brought to my attention that the NDA didn't *explicitly* state what I said it states (which is true) but rather that the language used is implying such. So, take that for what it's worth.