file PKC seeks to attack the V:EKN

01 Oct 2012 03:38 #38089 by echiang

Johannes, from April 2012 to September 2012, did the V:EKN use any of our "original ideas" without our explicit permission?


Just to clarify, as you already know, Eric, there is no such a thing as "your original ideas" with regards to this set. When did property that had NDA's and contracts signed about it on behalf of the VEKN come to be property of PCK?

Thank you for the response Gines.

Your statement seems to imply that (in your opinion) there were never any of “PCK’s original ideas” and that what we think are PCK’s original ideas have actually belonged to V:EKN the whole time. Thus, “PCK’s original ideas” is an empty, null set {}. We obviously disagree with that assertion.

I am curious how this relates to Johannes’ and Robert Goudie’s previous statements:

There is no reason to be worried about this, after all it is just a fan card submission, although based on a very early development cycle of an actual VEKN set. The design team has double checked all possible overlaps of card content to avoid any misunderstanding during a possible future publication process. I can re-assure you the VEKN issued set will not use any original ideas that have been published here (obviously a vampire name or a discipline spread is not an original idea, it is found in the canon). There are a couple of really minor things we´ll need to correct, but that isn´t much of an issue.

My advice:
1. Make sure Danse Macbre does not contain any card (card ideas) from the PCK-made set.
2. Move on.


I thought that we'd already handled points 1 and 2. :)

Even the forum URLs they included in their document are references to us saying we aren't going to use their ideas. Hard to know what concrete actions to take towards the goal when you are already there. :huh:

I shall remind you that it was Johannes who first coined the “original ideas” term. But if the V:EKN views “PCK’s original ideas” as an empty set, then saying that you won’t use any of “PCK’s original ideas” is meaningless because there is nothing (in your opinion) to use.

Johannes' statement that, "There are a couple of really minor things we´ll need to correct, but that isn´t much of an issue." is in my eyes a clear indication that ideas that are "PCK's original ideas" were also used for the V:EKN set without asking for permission.

Johannes and Robert, could you please clarify your statements in light of Gines’ definition of “PCK’s original ideas?”

I shall remind you that it was you (Eric) who put the "Confidential property of V:EKN" text on every single card for the playtest.

That is an interesting argument, yet one which ultimately does not stand. We still maintain that our creative work belongs to us and not the V:EKN. We never signed anything to the contrary, and have never been asked to.



If our cards are so “crappy” (as many posters here are convinced) and the V:EKN has no intention of using our “original ideas” (as Johannes has stressed repeatedly), then why does the V:EKN keep making this a big deal as well? Why not just leave us in “the tiny, dark universe of unreality where [we] live,” to quote Kevin Mergen.

If there has been no overlap between the PCK Guardians of the Faith set and the V:EKN Danse Macabre set since April 2012, the point is moot. As I see it, the Design Team and Inner Circle let this situation devolve through 5 months of inactivity. What are we supposed to make of Gines’, Johannes’, and Robert's most recent attempts to lay claim over what we consider to be our work? The fact that they are fighting so hard for what many consider insignificant, makes us increasingly wary.

pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Oct 2012 03:46 #38090 by echiang

Johannes, from April 2012 to September 2012, did the V:EKN use any of our "original ideas" without our explicit permission?


Define "use". For sure we didn't publish anything and I don't think any IP is relevant until something gets published .

Define the whole set of your "original ideas". List them one by one , I am going to debate them one by one and then I can truthfully answer. For the meantime I am not falling four your trap where you want me to say No and then charge me with some cornercase instance that you have already prepared.

What I can say is that in a big token of good effort we are making a huge honest effort to avoid at all costs to use your original ideas. So come any actual publication I am quite confident that there will be none of them present. It certainly took as a long time to identify what is what. You seem to forget that you were not the only ones working from August 2011 to December 2011 on that. You readily claimed original ideas from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (among others) as yours.

For everyone thinks I can just let this slide: let's put your name instead of mine on the letter. I simply don't know the relevance of it and I am pretty sure they became so obsessed with the whole issue that they are going to ride it to the end.

This is not an obsession. It is a principled and logical defense of our work, Guardians of the Faith. The only reason I used “original ideas” was because that is the term you have emphasized. In my question I was referring to *your* definition of “original ideas” since you keep using it. Gines’ has provided an interesting perspective on what that means to the V:EKN. Is that also how you define it?

There are many ways of "using" other than actual publishing. As just an example, it can be used to bolster’s one credentials by letting others think one has done more work than what one has actually done. It can be used to delay and buy time until replacement ideas can be come up with. Any playtester can look at the Round 2 cards, take away the Guardians of the Faith cards, and see what the rest of the V:EKN Design Team had done.

In any case, now that Gines’ is claiming the cards belong to V:EKN and you and Robert are saying that many of the original ideas come from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (we reject all those assertions), maybe you should list in detail, one by one, what you are claiming.

pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Oct 2012 04:08 #38092 by Azazel
To PCK:
Which cards have came from your ideas and do you have a way to prove that?
But then again, the original ideas came from the source material so your claim is moot.
I think you should just stop harassing VEKN and let us play the game.
The community doesnt´t know everything behind the scenes and never will.
Just continue with your own future designs and let the VEKN do the same.
Perhaps you will sometime make a set or few cards that will be published.
I hope the best of luck for that.

Please lets stop this madness that floods the forums.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Ashur, Lemminkäinen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Oct 2012 04:13 #38093 by Damnans

Johannes, from April 2012 to September 2012, did the V:EKN use any of our "original ideas" without our explicit permission?


Just to clarify, as you already know, Eric, there is no such a thing as "your original ideas" with regards to this set. When did property that had NDA's and contracts signed about it on behalf of the VEKN come to be property of PCK?

Thank you for the response Gines.

Your statement seems to imply that (in your opinion) there were never any of “PCK’s original ideas” and that what we think are PCK’s original ideas have actually belonged to V:EKN the whole time. Thus, “PCK’s original ideas” is an empty, null set {}. We obviously disagree with that assertion.

I am curious how this relates to Johannes’ and Robert Goudie’s previous statements:


My statement is not incompatible to Johannes' and Robert's previous ones.

But, since we do not know which ideas you claim to be yours, this point is moot. Could you please list your original ideas or your copyrighted material?

I shall remind you that it was Johannes who first coined the “original ideas” term. But if the V:EKN views “PCK’s original ideas” as an empty set, then saying that you won’t use any of “PCK’s original ideas” is meaningless because there is nothing (in your opinion) to use.

Johannes' statement that, "There are a couple of really minor things we´ll need to correct, but that isn´t much of an issue." is in my eyes a clear indication that ideas that are "PCK's original ideas" were also used for the V:EKN set without asking for permission.



Again. Which are your original ideas that the V:EKN can't use?

I shall remind you that it was you (Eric) who put the "Confidential property of V:EKN" text on every single card for the playtest.

That is an interesting argument, yet one which ultimately does not stand. We still maintain that our creative work belongs to us and not the V:EKN. We never signed anything to the contrary, and have never been asked to.


I am afraid my argument stands, because it proves that you (Eric) considered the V:EKN set (designed by the Design Team) to be confidential property of the V:EKN. Not having signed anything is irrelevant.


If our cards are so “crappy” (as many posters here are convinced) and the V:EKN has no intention of using our “original ideas” (as Johannes has stressed repeatedly), then why does the V:EKN keep making this a big deal as well? Why not just leave us in “the tiny, dark universe of unreality where [we] live,” to quote Kevin Mergen.

If there has been no overlap between the PCK Guardians of the Faith set and the V:EKN Danse Macabre set since April 2012, the point is moot. As I see it, the Design Team and Inner Circle let this situation devolve through 5 months of inactivity. What are we supposed to make of Gines’, Johannes’, and Robert's most recent attempts to lay claim over what we consider to be our work? The fact that they are fighting so hard for what many consider insignificant, makes us increasingly wary.


You are denying that you got help from other people to design those cards. But as long as you do not list which ideas you consider to be yours, we won't be able to end this conflict.

:vtes: V:EKN Website Coordinator

:baal: :AUS: :DAI: :FOR: :OBF: :PRE: :MAL: :STR: :flight: :cap11:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Oct 2012 04:15 #38094 by Damnans

In any case, now that Gines’ is claiming the cards belong to V:EKN and you and Robert are saying that many of the original ideas come from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (we reject all those assertions), maybe you should list in detail, one by one, what you are claiming.


You also claimed that the cards belonged to V:EKN. Do not forget about that.

:vtes: V:EKN Website Coordinator

:baal: :AUS: :DAI: :FOR: :OBF: :PRE: :MAL: :STR: :flight: :cap11:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Oct 2012 04:35 #38097 by Robert Goudie

In any case, now that Gines’ is claiming the cards belong to V:EKN and you and Robert are saying that many of the original ideas come from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (we reject all those assertions), maybe you should list in detail, one by one, what you are claiming.


If my comments were not clear then I apologize. They seem clear to me. I properly credited Carl with the original idea for Taking out the Cornerstone and then I mentioned that there were many participants in the design thread for that card (and 60+ posts). That is not the same as saying "the original ideas came from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal". At no time have i ever made a statement that "lays claim over your work".

I believe you've completely misunderstood the reason behind the vekn's silence on your set. It is NOT for the purposes of waiting you out so that you'll give up your rights (whatever those may be). You would think that we should be able to work things out quite easily since we have a common goal: You don't want us to use your ideas and we don't want to use your ideas. So what's to fight about? However, I can't keep you from reading into my comments and I can't keep you from reading into the vekn's silence. A case of damned if I you do and damned if you don't apparently.

I've tried to post things to add light to the discussion but it appears that I've inadvertently fallen into the trap of just adding more noise. I've tried to publicly reassure you but you are somehow you are "increasingly wary". I won't be posting more to this thread as it doesn't appear to be helping any. My apologies for the noise.

_________________
Robert Goudie
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, direwolf

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.151 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum