Well, I've read both of Derek's blogs, and the following is my opinion:
1) What I find shocking is that this "internet warlord" who is trying to make himself sound objective, spends a lot of the time in his articles touting his own games. That level of narcissism really doesn't help whatever validity in their argument a person may have.
2) Derek admits his posts are full out his own opinions. That's his prerogative to do that. But the thing is, if one is going to make insinuations about wrong doing, you have to provide evidence. The "evidence" he has provided is circumstantial at best, twisting facts to suit one's own agenda at worst. I've heard this kind of weak argument before......from a well known Troll ("M") on here. And he couldn't provide any conclusive proof either. Just a lot of claims. He talks about how SC couldn't possibly succeed in being made. And yet, he offers absolutely no evidence to prove that it can't succeed. All he does is say that because HE couldn't succeed then CIG won't succeed either. That's hardly conclusive proof of anything other than the person making such a claim is full of arrogance and narrow mindedness.
3) Derek talks about "we" but doesn't actually state who those in his "we" crowd are. Now for someone who is calling for transparency, I find this kind of odd.
4) Derek's blogs talk about a lot that the world already knew. And whilst some points are curious, none of them are actually damning or conclusive proof of any intent at wrongdoing. In regards to his insinuations about wrongdoing because Sandy and Erin being in an elevated positions, I say "So what?" Sometimes it's good to give people a chance to prove themselves. And $80 million+ in crowdfunding suggests Sandy must be doing something right. I don't care if she's Chris's wife, mother or long distant relation. If a person is doing a job well, then I don't see a problem.
5) On the one hand he claims he wants the game to be made and to succeed, but in the next breathe he claims it won't succeed. He's already declared it to be a failure before any evidence has been presented to prove anything. Without any form of conclusive evidence, it find it difficult to believe his claims OR innocence in his intentions. If anything, the lack of evidence suggests that his intentions are FAR from honourable.
6) I find the news about the FTC involvement in crowdfunding interesting. I do beleive that safeguards are needed to protect backers. That much is true. But that doesn't mean I agree with how Derek is going about all this. **IF** Derek was just trying to champion change for the better, then there are much better ways to do it. I believe that IF there was going to be someone to champion for better safeguards, Derek Smart is NOT the man to do it. His motives are VERY questionable.
In short: Until Derek is FULLY transparent with his own arguments and WHO it is he is apparently workign with on this little crusade of his, then his articles amount to nothing more than conspiracy theories based on lots of opinion, and conjecture and nothing much else.
To be honest, I say CIG should phone the FTC themselves, get them and do an audit and show the world what the REAL truth is.
Of course, I bet it won't stop the conspiracy theorists like Derek Smart from then insinuating that CIG somehow "bought off" the FTC.
Any regulars on Bluesnews care to comment?