Re-read the article from the perspective of someone thinking "I have a spare $1,000,000 I need to get invested." Does that article make you want to invest, or think twice about CIG? That's its purpose. You throw enough of that kind of news around, some of it is bound to stick. CIG is going to attract negative attention from magazines like Forbes right now, because they are an outsider trying to attract the next round of funding.The saddest part is I don't think they had a point to prove with it in the first place?
Sniff....sniff...what is that smell? It's the smell of wanting to have it both ways! Nice, Forbes...Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but theres some articles that Forbes did and also has reposted on their website from Quora which make the other article funny as wet beer-farts in a car (did I just poop myself . . .oh god did that smell just come out of me?!). Check em out.
"Why have video game budgets skyrocketed in recent years?" -posted Oct 31, 2016: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/31/why-have-video-game-budgets-skyrocketed-in-recent-years/#57ff7fd13ea5
"Why do AAA games take so long to make?" -posted Dec 1, 2016: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/01/why-do-aaa-games-take-so-long-to-make/#2cc03d1d6223
And one article by Forbes own Erik Kain, Senior Contributor on "Video games should be more expensive" -posted Apr 24, 2015: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/video-games-should-be-more-expensive/#11afb4136eb9
Hmm. . . something doesn't smell right in the land of Forbes, and I'd wager its not the beer-farts.
The guy Night Train123 in your comment section seems so much like that failed programmer DS. His arguments in support of the article is so frivolous and yet he like to continue to argue. Guys a retard.
I think you are correct. They issued a temporary one then said nope, no restraining order for you!Hang about...
I just watched the video again.
So as you may appreciate I don't have any experience in restraining orders so my comprehension of the following may be wrong...
What I see is: Restraining order applied for, temporary granted because you'd be stupid not to have a placeholder to cover the requester in case it's actually needed. Hearing occurs over the course of time time, temporary is refreshed a couple of times because as stated you'd be stupid not to. Once hearing is complete, restraining order found not to be required and temporary placeholder is removed.
So... There wasn't actually a restraining order? Or am I misunderstanding something?
I don't want to dig into their lives, i'm just trying to work out if there was actually a restraining order? And what does "without prejudice" mean?