Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

echiang wrote:

Many of the requests for information aren't coming from me.

Many of the requests for information have nothing to do with the past issue of potential litigation.

These conversations are a little exhausting to follow, so I have to admit that I haven't read everything in this thread. That said, I just want to reiterate this point: I have no relation whatsoever with PCK, and I don't particularly care about the fate of individual cards like Lilith's Blessing, but I'm the kind of person who would like to see some types of information (like explanations for decisions) be provided. Just to reaffirm that Eric's point here is correct.

My dear Andrew,

Given your continuous barrage of blitzkrieg questioning and accusations (which by the way, some people might consider "bullying" ), it makes me think that you're just looking for responses that affirm your pre-conceived confirmation bias. So far, I've made a reasonable effort to address most of your points and questions, even if in some cases I might not answer things as fully as you would like, or other cases where I decline to answer the particular question (but I at least acknowledge the question that was asked). However, given your behavior, I increasingly question how worthwhile it is to continue to respond to you and answer your questions.

To paraphrase Hugh, I am beginning to wonder if you "don't just quote the bits you want" and "deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments." On multiple occasions, you have conveniently ignored points/responses I have made that prove you wrong, and ignored questions that I have asked you in response.

So before we continue too much further, let's hit the pause button and tie up some of these loose ends (it's my turn to ask you some questions ):


#1. You had a nice diatribe over my "role" in the creation of Lilith's blessing:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

If you would like transparency about your own role, I would like to register with you a complaint about the card Lilith's Blessing. It seems badly designed and prolongs the game by adding excessive amounts of resources into the game for a comparatively low opportunity cost. In addition, the design of the card also adds needless complexity by the addition of a new otherwise redundant keyword. To cap it off, and possibly the worst of the offences, is the fact that by design it eliminates hunt actions and reduces the number of potential minion interactions (which is a strength of the game).

....

On the same score, since Lilith's Blessing is presumably a card you were involved in designing then it reflects badly that it is the one which was banned. I would therefore suggest your design methods are flawed. (Of course predicated on the fact you were responsible for designing Lilith's Blessing).

Yet on multiple occasions, I have already established that I had nothing to do with the design of the card. Including:

A. Earlier in the very thread you posted:

echiang wrote:

AaronC wrote:

Banning LB is fairly easy to justify because it is a storyline promo card that was not (supposedly) playtested.

Aaron, that is incorrect. For some reason there is this persistent rumor / belief / urban legend that Lilith's Blessing was never playtested. I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again (to correct misinformation):

1. Lilith's Blessing was before my time as Storyline Coordinator (so I had nothing to do with it).

2. Lilith's Blessing was playtested in all of the playtest rounds for Heirs to the Blood.

B. Specifically spelled out as early as last year (January 2012) on the VEKN website: vekn.net/index.php/storyline-events/2012-storyline-progress-update

Storyline Cards & Playtesting
As mentioned earlier, the upcoming storyline reward cards are being fully playtested with the Sabbat mini-set. I do think it is important to clarify and correct some misperceptions about past storyline cards during the tenure of my predecessors Robert Goudie & Ben Swainbank.

After talking with many players and seeing a variety of forum posts and threads, many players are under the impression that *none* of the older storyline-related cards were properly playtested. While many storyline cards were not playtested (to the best of my knowledge), there were many that actually were playtested. Also note that there are non-storyline cards which do not appear to have been playtested (10th Anniversary being the primary example that is commonly cited).

Lilith's Blessing, Guide and Mentor, Infamous Insurgent, Karsh (Advanced), and Claudio Severino underwent three rounds of playtesting with the Heirs to the Blood set. Most of the time it's people claiming that Lilith's Blessing was never playtested. Though some people might be in denial of the facts, Lilith's Blessing did go through the entire playtest process. (Personally, I agree that it needed *more* playtesting beyond that but that's a different issue and the fact remains that it *was* playtested for three rounds).

So Andrew, are you willing to admit your mistake and acknowledge your ignorance of publicly available information (in this case)?


#2. You argued that demands for transparency are recent when I provided evidence (from almost 10 years ago) that such calls have an established history:

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Never been asked for The demands for transparency are recent. Mostly spear-headed by Eric and mostly occurring after he was ejected from the Inner Circle. Most players seem to run with the theory that if new cards come out and they work well, then that's good enough for me.

No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago.

Andrew, are you still arguing that the desire for transparency is only a recent phenomenon? Or will you acknowledge that it has a distinguished history from past discussions?


#3.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

I'm doubting that the VEKN will be doing anything at all to get to the "ends". I'm very much doubting that the means used involve taking people into darkened rooms and beating them up. It's the VEKN, not an international spy agency.

You're right - the VEKN is not an international spy agency. So why does there need to be so much secrecy and lack of transparency?

Still waiting on your answer Andrew.


#4.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

This is especially in the light of your past attempts at litigation; how could the VEKN trust you not to take litigation in the future if they did reveal information to you?

I don't expect the VEKN to reveal details about Danse Macabre that could be at issue.

But a lot of the information that I (and others) are asking for have absolutely nothing to do with that. What are you asking? Are you concerned that I'm going to sue them for banning Lilith's Blessing?

Still waiting on your answer Andrew.


#5.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

- I do not claim that VEKN = VTES, or VEKN = Players OR VTES = Players. You assume I do. VEKN currently has control of VTES. So at the moment, setting up a 'rival VTES' is basically attacking the VEKN. If you have such a vast problem with the VEKN, then establish your OWN players association with its own tournament rules, ranking systems, storyline systems and so forth. Potentially you may be able to, if you could prove your alternate players body was suitable, gain legal access to the IP required on your own.

So you are suggesting that I establish my "OWN players association," which is essentially a "rival VTES," which is "basically attacking the VEKN?"

VERY interested to hear your response on this one. I feel like your statement is very contradictory, so I'm really hoping you could better explain it.


#6.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

1) PROVE to the players you don't hold a conflict of interest now, which you held when the IC removed you from PCK. The core of that conflict being "Your own ambitions in PCK" vs "The current plans by the recognised developers of VTES, the VEKN". You would not accept an answer of "I'm not saying" from any other public official or office-holder, even after they leave office, so why should we accept it from you?

Why don't you provide half a dozen significantly different ways that someone (like me) could "prove" such a thing, to the degree that you (and other players) would be fully satisfied?

Without an answer from you on this, it leads me to think that you're intentionally asking an unanswerable question. That there aren't any realistic ways that would ever fully satisfy you.


#7.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

2) Why given your history of litigation should any member of VEKN respond to any request for information disclosure?

Many of the requests for information aren't coming from me.

Many of the requests for information have nothing to do with the past issue of potential litigation.

Or are you saying that PCK has provided the VEKN with a carte blanche excuse to never disclose any information ever? B-)

More or less the same as #4, but that's twice now that you've ducked that question.


#8.

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

4) At what point did you suddenly change your mind about angering the player-base? Was it before or after you began your threatened litigation during the production of Danse Macabre?

I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase?

In particular:

- What do you mean by "chang[ing] your mind"?
- What do you mean by "angering the player-base"?

A simple request for clarification is ignored. I can't answer your question if I don't understand what you're asking!


#9.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

echiang wrote:

Andrew, I challenge you to name (and provide evidence of) a VTES Storyline Coordinator who was more transparent than I was.

When it comes to comparing Storyline Coordinators, I had little to do with any others so making comparisons would be unfair on those I had little to deal with.

That seems awfully convenient.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've been playing VTES tournaments since at least 2004, if not earlier. So you've been a VEKN member when Robert Goudie was storyline coordinator, during the entire period when Ben Swainbank was storyline coordinator, while I was coordinator, and so far with Mike Nudd as storyline coordinator.

And there's nothing you can say about the "transparency" of Robert, Ben, and Mike?

@DeathInABottle:
I don't mind Pascal publishing some reasoning behind his decisions. However, there are extensive threads with arguments for and against the errata, banning and leaving-alone of Lilith's Blessing. Feel free to read through them. Pascal may not have felt the need to provide a specific answer to this because of the abundance of public opinions about the card. I'm sure that thread contains numerous examples of Pascal's opinions on the card. You could no doubt consider them as reasons why Lilith's Blessing ended up banned.

This has been my ongoing point to Eric. The opinions on the card are public knowledge and it is a touch irrelevant to ask which of the many comments there was "the one" when it may in fact be "the sum of the parts".

Jeff wrote:

Squidalot wrote:

Eric you missed in your timeline

Oct-11-Feb12 "designed bad cards and ignored majority playtester feedback"

If they were so bad, why the outrage at the GotF set?

Outrage over the legal threats sure, over your set no

Does anyone remember that odd link that came up for a VTES book produced from hundreds of online articles?

Do you think we can create one for Eric' posts?

Squidalot wrote:

Does anyone remember that odd link that came up for a VTES book produced from hundreds of online articles?

Do you think we can create one for Eric' posts?

Hugh, I think you are looking for this:

vekn.net/index.php/forum/10-news-and-announcements/43145-new-book-about-vtes#43496

and this:

www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/vampire:-the-eternal-struggle/isbn/978-613-1-40271-5


Yes, that would certainly be a cute idea.