I really should get around to reading that article.
Forbes article on SC.
- Thread starter Blind Owl
- Start date
Ill save you the time.
Summary: Chris Roberts bad man, steal money. Sandi is kinky crazy bitch, also steal money. Star Citizen vaporware, backers stupid.
People wern't kidding about them ripping off the DS playbook, were they? I'll have to update some memes....
So on the plus note husband and wife both think alike and who doesn't want a kinky bitch for a wife.
DragonHeart
Space Marshal
Smh, this article's writers are douches. Isn't that exactly why we hate EA and the other big game companies though? Because they only care about profit and not their fans or the final product.
At least CR/CIG do seem to listen to us and have changed the game in various areas to suit the wants of backers. While he's certainly not perfect, I do think Chris wants this to be the best game there is. And while I want to play it already, I'm ok waiting a while longer for a solid product that is constantly evolving.
I def went and left my thoughts on two of their FOUR Facebook posts of this same article (yes... they posted this story 4 times in 24 hours). Like WTF, are they being paid by a competitor or some shit?
Last edited:
I believe you are correct. But my brother and his artist friends are "creatives" and they can't manage money very well either - not saying all creatives are messy. Emotional intelligence is important, but maybe not the top personality trait quality for your CPA.
Who knows... we can only speculate. it is what it is.
One more reason to hope, and I'll keep my fingers crossed for us and CIG that CIG will prove the *beep* opposite to all critics in the end!
After a long dry spell, I am quite confident that SC will be realistically achieved. They will also crack the server meshing puzzle.
After a long dry spell, I am quite confident that SC will be realistically achieved. They will also crack the server meshing puzzle.
Okay I finally read it to counter someone on Spectrum. Montoyas summery is very good 
I like the bit where they write "We spoke to 20 former employees" but then don't cite any of their comments. It could literally have been "Hey former employee, can we get a quote?" and the response could have been "Fuck off, and yes you can quote that." In the whole article there is just one former employee directly quoted, who is Mark Day who was a contractor during 2013 and 2014 - half a decade ago. That doesn't mean Mr. Day didn't have a quote to provide, it just means its about 5 years out of date.
Now, I can't substantiate that claim, but then it's not up to me to substantiate it. It's they who didn't provide the substance in the first place
Also, I couldn't detect the Exclusive bit... can someone point that out for me?
I like the bit where they write "We spoke to 20 former employees" but then don't cite any of their comments. It could literally have been "Hey former employee, can we get a quote?" and the response could have been "Fuck off, and yes you can quote that." In the whole article there is just one former employee directly quoted, who is Mark Day who was a contractor during 2013 and 2014 - half a decade ago. That doesn't mean Mr. Day didn't have a quote to provide, it just means its about 5 years out of date.
Now, I can't substantiate that claim, but then it's not up to me to substantiate it. It's they who didn't provide the substance in the first place
Also, I couldn't detect the Exclusive bit... can someone point that out for me?
Last edited:
Well, another question:
We've been here before when others who shall not be named were baiting the community then turned the communities words around on us to weild as their own weapons:
Q: What protection do we have if our comments are quoted/used out of context by a commercial entity? Is TEST forum a safehaven where they'd need to come ask permission to use our Intellectual Property first like on twitter and other social networks as we hold the copyrights, or can any broadcaster/publisher come along and publish any comments they like, claiming it is a public space?
If they do have to ask permission, my price dependent on agreement to publish is $20k per separate usage (per post and per seperate article), per separate medium (web, video, audio, paper print etc including mediums which have not been invented yet) payable prior to publication with the option of veto of my comment in the article pending review of said finished article prior to publishing - I'll go 50/50 with TEST, so $10k to me, $10k to TEST, so: with the per seperate medium clause if it goes on web and paper print thats $20k to me, $20k to TEST, if they use two posts on two separate mediums that's $40k to me and $40k to TEST.
Easy monthly finance options available on request.
EDIT - Aha, I believe I can answer my own question by reading the Terms Of Use:
We've been here before when others who shall not be named were baiting the community then turned the communities words around on us to weild as their own weapons:
Q: What protection do we have if our comments are quoted/used out of context by a commercial entity? Is TEST forum a safehaven where they'd need to come ask permission to use our Intellectual Property first like on twitter and other social networks as we hold the copyrights, or can any broadcaster/publisher come along and publish any comments they like, claiming it is a public space?
If they do have to ask permission, my price dependent on agreement to publish is $20k per separate usage (per post and per seperate article), per separate medium (web, video, audio, paper print etc including mediums which have not been invented yet) payable prior to publication with the option of veto of my comment in the article pending review of said finished article prior to publishing - I'll go 50/50 with TEST, so $10k to me, $10k to TEST, so: with the per seperate medium clause if it goes on web and paper print thats $20k to me, $20k to TEST, if they use two posts on two separate mediums that's $40k to me and $40k to TEST.
Easy monthly finance options available on request.
EDIT - Aha, I believe I can answer my own question by reading the Terms Of Use:
As long as that means what I think it means, jolly good chaps!
Last edited:
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
If I may play philosopher for a moment (my trained profession), the reason journalism has changed from pretending objectivity and actually seeking it, to pretending objectivity and completely abandoning it, is the rise of the Post-Modernist world view. When you deny the very nature of objective truth, and believe it is only one's perspective that matters, then those who hold opposing viewpoints are demonized and then ensues conflict that is inherently incompatible with any sort of "civilized" society and civilization itself. Demonization of an opponent on the battlefield, in order to kill; makes perfectly good sense and is necessary for good men to do horrible things. Demonization of a political opponent in order to win your side of a philosophical conflict is necessarily doomed to failure. It cannot succeed in finding a positive outcome because it abandoned the rules of civilization from the start.
So for example, when Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals and instructed his protege's like Barack Obama, to never allow a political opponent to speak unhindered, what he was saying was that the notion of civilized society to treat opponents respectfully was out of date and should no longer be followed. Just kill the enemy. No Rules for Radicals. "Ridicule is man's most powerful weapon." etc. What Alinsky did not and could not have guessed though, was that people would pick up this rhetorical technique (speaking over an opponent in debate) and apply it in interpersonal relationships. That teaching is what leads people to speak over one another they believe with justification, on every occasion where the topic is political. Understanding your politics is not necessary. Zeal is all that is needed and the more ignorant one is of their own position and the topic at hand, the easier and more necessary it is to manufacture zeal in the place of understanding.
This is an unprecedented time we live in, where people have no concern for objective truth. Western Civilization has never sunk so low. It was close during the 30's, when the Nazis came to power, but it was not nearly as bad as it is today. Our future is dire indeed, for we have laid aside the restraints of civil society and therein lies pain, suffering and death.
Cheerful, what?
Mark Day runs voidAlpha which is a company contracted back in the beginning to design some environmental landing zone concepts like Terra landing zone. This was before Star Citizen had its own in-house staff.
Here is some of Mark Day's work:
Thank You, Glorious Leader!Mark Day runs voidAlpha which is a company contracted back in the beginning to design some environmental landing zone concepts like Terra landing zone. This was before Star Citizen had its own in-house staff.
Here is some of Mark Day's work:
Was the old background of TEST Squadron forum one of his companies works? It used to be a landing zone with some hornets and 300i's on it?
I feel that you make some very insightful & deep points there @Shadow Reaper . In fact, if we were hypothetically on a boat over water with the depth of the water matching the depth of your thinking on this subject, then I'd be hoping there isn't a hidden sleeping Megalodon underneath us that is about to wake up rather hungry.
Reading this was incredible! have you written more on this topic? I am serious, I want to read more! Fantastic and intelligent writing. A bit all or nothing at the end, which is an inherent flaw, as it's not across the board for everyone. For example, I have a concern for objective truth, and I would believe many do. I do believe though we have tuff times ahead, based on historical cycles (wheels within wheels) for example
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
That's very kind of you to say, but I am way too busy with other things to write, and I'm not really as expert as it may seem. If you want to study post-modernism, I suggest watch a few YouTube vids of Steven Hicks and Jordan Peterson. They're both quite good though Peterson gets drawn off topic a bit easily. He is however more accessible than Hicks.
In general, what Peterson says about post-modernism having been totally discredited by the 70's is quite true, and you can see this reflected in culture. In the original Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the embodiment of 60's Cultural Relativism, or the notion that values are merely cultural constructs with no absolute basis. If you believed this, what you came up with was the notion that we've no right to judge the Nazis as evil, which no one was by the 70's willing to say. Post-modernism had shrunk back again.
By the 1980s, all Relativism was so out of style, that in Star Trek Next Generation we see Wesley constantly showing how the Prime Directive is wrong, a cheat, a failure to think, a failure to grapple with reality as it is, and he makes the most powerful arguments that Star Fleet has grown decadent and immoral in its inability to make moral judgements. So much change in a single franchise in just a few years!
Now StarTrek has swung back, and is full of perversion as the norm, betrayals, Star Fleet High Command sleeping with each other, lying and murdering each other. All the old has passed away, including the wide-eyed idealism of the young Roddenbury. And that is the natural result of what happens when you return to the vomit, which is the failure to believe in objective truth, that morality matters, that not all things are relative and right and wrong are among those things.
You cannot have objective reporting in a word that does not believe in objective truth, so this leads to a terrible, self-sustaining cycle. And yes, just as you say, this is all cyclical. We saw this same thing in ancient Israel during the period of The Judges. We saw it in the fall of the Roman Empire. Decadence preceeds destruction. We have not see the kind of destruction that is coming in 1,500 years, but make no mistake, it is coming. Only gross suffering cures self imposed delusion like what we see today.
In general, what Peterson says about post-modernism having been totally discredited by the 70's is quite true, and you can see this reflected in culture. In the original Star Trek, the Prime Directive is the embodiment of 60's Cultural Relativism, or the notion that values are merely cultural constructs with no absolute basis. If you believed this, what you came up with was the notion that we've no right to judge the Nazis as evil, which no one was by the 70's willing to say. Post-modernism had shrunk back again.
By the 1980s, all Relativism was so out of style, that in Star Trek Next Generation we see Wesley constantly showing how the Prime Directive is wrong, a cheat, a failure to think, a failure to grapple with reality as it is, and he makes the most powerful arguments that Star Fleet has grown decadent and immoral in its inability to make moral judgements. So much change in a single franchise in just a few years!
Now StarTrek has swung back, and is full of perversion as the norm, betrayals, Star Fleet High Command sleeping with each other, lying and murdering each other. All the old has passed away, including the wide-eyed idealism of the young Roddenbury. And that is the natural result of what happens when you return to the vomit, which is the failure to believe in objective truth, that morality matters, that not all things are relative and right and wrong are among those things.
You cannot have objective reporting in a word that does not believe in objective truth, so this leads to a terrible, self-sustaining cycle. And yes, just as you say, this is all cyclical. We saw this same thing in ancient Israel during the period of The Judges. We saw it in the fall of the Roman Empire. Decadence preceeds destruction. We have not see the kind of destruction that is coming in 1,500 years, but make no mistake, it is coming. Only gross suffering cures self imposed delusion like what we see today.
It is an interesting argument about what is and is not objective truth and morality as a whole. History is littered with corpses of those slain by others who twisted morality and objective truth to their own purpose.
My question has always been how to does one go about codifying morality especially in society that is diverse and not uniform in its beliefs.
My question has always been how to does one go about codifying morality especially in society that is diverse and not uniform in its beliefs.
Regarding the article, I try to stay away from name brand news. Forbes is one of those. They used to be a trusted name in business, but now are little more than over dramatic click bait. This article is no exception.
There is a statement I heard a long time back, "the first million is suspect". That has held true to the people I have met and know. Dig into any self made multi millionaire and you will find dirt. Some times it is some shady deals. Some times it is some ugly drama. Some times they screwed their way to the top. Some times they screwed someone up. Some times it is deviance. Some times it is straight up criminal acts. The point is, normal people don't just stumble their way to riches. They either are born with it or they have to claw it, tooth and nail, from this world. Most of the time, they have to engage in some questionable morals and ethics along the way.
So to say that CR has issues, is a bit of a "well duh" moment. Everyone has problems. Most everyone has pulled some bullshit in their past. Most of us have had at least one crazy ex. Some of us have been that crazy ex, especially when looking back at the late teens/early 20's. Hell, if my wife were to ever become an ex, good god... I love her but that woman scares me some times.
Everything else in the article was just plain suspicion. There were a ton of accusations and very little fact. There were unqualified opinions and uncorroborated statements. Honestly, I would be willing to bet that the authors were (or are) backers and are just disgruntled with the whole thing. Either way it felt like they had an opinion before they even put pen to paper. The whole thing smacked of confirmation bias.
On the subject of this thread though, it has been an amazing read. It's a perfect example of why I often find myself here. I have never seen a forum so full of great conversations. It runs the spectrum from thought provoking and opinion challenging to dirty humor and deep belly laughter. You all preserve my hope in the human race (what little I have left). Places like Forbes kills it and you all help bring it back.
There is a statement I heard a long time back, "the first million is suspect". That has held true to the people I have met and know. Dig into any self made multi millionaire and you will find dirt. Some times it is some shady deals. Some times it is some ugly drama. Some times they screwed their way to the top. Some times they screwed someone up. Some times it is deviance. Some times it is straight up criminal acts. The point is, normal people don't just stumble their way to riches. They either are born with it or they have to claw it, tooth and nail, from this world. Most of the time, they have to engage in some questionable morals and ethics along the way.
So to say that CR has issues, is a bit of a "well duh" moment. Everyone has problems. Most everyone has pulled some bullshit in their past. Most of us have had at least one crazy ex. Some of us have been that crazy ex, especially when looking back at the late teens/early 20's. Hell, if my wife were to ever become an ex, good god... I love her but that woman scares me some times.
Everything else in the article was just plain suspicion. There were a ton of accusations and very little fact. There were unqualified opinions and uncorroborated statements. Honestly, I would be willing to bet that the authors were (or are) backers and are just disgruntled with the whole thing. Either way it felt like they had an opinion before they even put pen to paper. The whole thing smacked of confirmation bias.
On the subject of this thread though, it has been an amazing read. It's a perfect example of why I often find myself here. I have never seen a forum so full of great conversations. It runs the spectrum from thought provoking and opinion challenging to dirty humor and deep belly laughter. You all preserve my hope in the human race (what little I have left). Places like Forbes kills it and you all help bring it back.
Well that's a new condition I might try for this weekend.
"Honey, I'm just steppin' out to get a personal kegger.."
I just knew there something about her that I might like. She just has a way about her.