Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

KevinM wrote:

It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards either sucked horribly or were too complicated and relied on an outdated, weak mechanic. It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards, if they were to be considered at all, should be considered for a Storyline Event. It's well-known that every playgroup said "Where are the cards that our clans/sects/disciplines need?"

If you look at the record or early playtest results, your absolutist statements are false.

You said that Inquisitors must stay or "bad things would happen". Then you got fired.

I repeat: "This is false. I'm not sure who you got this idea from, but they told you a half-truth, untruth, or outright lied."

Why don't you call bullshit on your source? It's certainly convenient for this person to let you wage a proxy war for them in public with bad information.

Ever wonder why this person studiously avoids ever talking about this situation on the forums? Think about it.

Your speculations aside, the situation Robyn described in her post has *nothing to do with* the cease and desist letter. Robyn posted over six months before the C&D letter was even sent, not in response to it.

johannes wrote:

Do you have an actual argument why it is provocative? When I see people use the phrase "it is clearly" most of the times they just want it to be without having an argument. And that an arbitrary number of other headers could have been used is obvious given the variety of the English language, it is not an indication that the one I used was provocative.

The word "seeks" is used to ascribe motive to PCK.

The word "attack" is used to appear on the defensive and solicit sympathy.

Jeff wrote:

KevinM wrote:

It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards either sucked horribly or were too complicated and relied on an outdated, weak mechanic. It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards, if they were to be considered at all, should be considered for a Storyline Event. It's well-known that every playgroup said "Where are the cards that our clans/sects/disciplines need?"

If you look at the record or early playtest results, your absolutist statements are false.

By "absolutist statements", I take that you mean that not all test groups thought the Inquisitor related cards were flawed. Instead of "all playgroups", would it be fair to say that
a) a large number
b) the majority
and/or
c) all but a few
of the test groups found the Inquisitor related cards fundamentally flawed?

Jeff wrote:

KevinM wrote:

It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards either sucked horribly or were too complicated and relied on an outdated, weak mechanic. It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards, if they were to be considered at all, should be considered for a Storyline Event. It's well-known that every playgroup said "Where are the cards that our clans/sects/disciplines need?"

If you look at the record or early playtest results, your absolutist statements are false.

Really? Wow, I guess that's why the Inquisitors cards are still in the play test! Oh wait, they aren't. Because they sucked, or were too complicated and relied on an outdated, weak mechanic.

Feel free to post a bunch of "early playtest results" that show us all how awesome the world thought your Inquisitor cards were. Jeff, the font was so small on one that it could hardly be read! If you think that was a good card, you are just fooling yourself.

Jeff wrote:

KevinM wrote:

You said that Inquisitors must stay or "bad things would happen". Then you got fired.

I repeat: "This is false. I'm not sure who you got this idea from, but they told you a half-truth, untruth, or outright lied."

I guess Robyn Tatu is a liar now. Oh, and Johannes, too.

Jeff wrote:

Why don't you call bullshit on your source?

What are you talking about?? I don't have a source, Jeff. Everything I've said in every thread to you or Eric has been public information or from the play test (since we weren't NDA'ed, it's public, right?)

Jeff wrote:

It's certainly convenient for this person to let you wage a proxy war for them in public with bad information.

Jeff, you are such a paranoid liar about this subject that you ascribe to me the role of an errand boy when everything I've said in every thread to you or Eric has been public information or from the play test (since we weren't NDA'ed, it's public, right?) I didn't need anyone's help to figure out that your "facts" are lies and that you deflect the fact that you are a liar by calling out everyone else constantly and refuse to take responsibility for your lies.

Jeff, you were fired.

You were fired because you refused to do what your boss(es) asked you to do, and then you threatened your boss(es).

Accept it. Own it. Learn from it.

Jeff wrote:

Ever wonder why this person studiously avoids ever talking about this situation on the forums? Think about it.

Who are you even talking about, Jeff?? Given your poorly-worded paranoid ramblings, you could be talking about at least four different people. Why don't you give us the name of the person that you rightly fear?

Jeff wrote:

Your speculations aside,

"Given Robyn Tatu's declarative facts aside,"

Jeff wrote:

the situation Robyn described in her post has *nothing to do with* the cease and desist letter. Robyn posted over six months before the C&D letter was even sent, not in response to it.

Fact: Robyn said that you threatened the VEKN -- "bad things would happen."
Fact: You continue to say this didn't happen.
Fact: One of you is a liar.
Fact: You've been caught in lies about this subject before.

For the sake of everyone else, and given the direction this thread is now heading, I'll leave this subject alone unless I'm personally attacked -- as I was at the NAC last year by Eric.

For the sake of Jeff: I'm sorry that you've decided that lies on this subject and paranoia about someone that I still don't know who it is are and were more important to you than whatever friendships you may have cultivated with the VTES community. Over my 15+ years with V:TES, I've had minor issues like this before (especially with CCCP) and I chose the friendships.

But as long as you hold onto lies as the truth, I don't think your friendship with the community -- or with me, as we used to be great friends, I thought -- can ever be repaired. I continue to hope, and as with any addict I wish the best for you, but it now appears that you've invested too much of yourself into this fairy tale and that coming away from it will damage you enough that you are fearful of tearing yourself away from it. I'm sorry that you chose this path, but you can choose otherwise, if you want to.

KevinM wrote:

For the sake of everyone else, and given the direction this thread is now heading, I'll leave this subject alone unless I'm personally attacked -- as I was at the NAC last year by Eric.

Kevin, I am really curious about this supposed "personal attack."

Throughout this entire ordeal (one year+), my contact with you has been limited and cordial.

Please point me to incidents where I have called you names or even been rude to you. In contrast, in the past year, there have been multiple times when you have publicly insulted me (calling me "crazy" for example).

Last year at the NAC, I was actually quite thankful that you allowed me to run a storyline tournament, and was also grateful for the prize support that you provided.

I don't recall any situation where I "personally attacked" you.

The only thing that I can recall is that we had a civilized (non-heated) discussion where you believed that you had been objective through the whole PCK-VEKN situation but I politely disagreed and felt that you had sided with Ben and the VEKN. But that discussion was always a polite disagreement.

So please tell me about this "personal attack" that I am responsible for.