Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

David Allen vs Derek Smart

As the folks behind Alganon send word to expect the hard launch (that's the opposite of a "soft launch," right?) of their MMORPG on April 28, a delay from their promised April 8 launch. In other Alganon news, an update on Massively from a few days ago noted by Big Download sees David Allen firing back at what he calls Quest Online's Derek Smart's "smear campaign," suggesting legal action may follow: "As many have read on various Internet websites, Mr. Smart has made disparaging remarks concerning my professional work and comments that could lead others to question my loyalty, honesty, and ability to successfully create, build, run, and manage a multi-million dollar MMOG development company; something I have been doing successfully for over four years. Please be aware that Mr. Smart’s comments are false and that I have filed a civil action against him in Maricopa County Superior Court for his defamatory conduct, among other things (Case No. CV2010-010391). I have been advised by my legal counsel to offer no further comment at this time on this matter during the pendency of the litigation."

View
93 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >

73. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 16, 2010, 07:16 The PC Warrior
 
most of his games only get a handful of sales so you do have a big impact. his only claim to fame is being a loudmouth thug on the internet.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 16, 2010, 06:00 Armengar
 
Well, as a small time business owner with 7 employees developing software (including a few contracted projects with game developers - until they recently went into administration...) I can honestly say that I have *never* spoken to anyone in the manner DSmart did (assuming those emails were verbose), I have never spoken to contractors in any such way and would never treat another human being in said fashion.

Quite frankly I will never purchase anything that has a shred of DSmart on it. I am almost ashamed of my BC3k purchase all those years ago. I wish no ill on any man but I will certainly dissuade all of those who ask me for purchasing advice on anything involving you.

I know this will mean nothing to you DSmart, I also know that a handful of sales will impact nothing in your greater picture. But I bet i'm not the only one.
 
Its not the cough that carries you off but the coffin they carry you off in.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 16, 2010, 03:01 Kxmode
 
But there was amiable closure. Don't you like those? I sure do.

Here's the official end credits to this thread. Sorry, but I couldn't secure the rights to Eye of the Tiger for the video. Mr. T was giving me the evil eye.
 
Avatar 18786
 
William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 16, 2010, 02:55 BobBob
 
This site will start to lose a lot of journalistic integrity if it allows itself to be bullied into post removals and censorship.
 
Don't like my post? Submit a complaint
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 16, 2010, 00:14 zirik
 
i leave blues for a few hours and this is what happens. my post gets deleted and smart comes back. must be a bad omen.

oh and btw, i didnt mind if my post was deleted. i dont think blues is a place where labor disputes should be discussed publicly. thats why i made sure none of the email parts were quoted in my post.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 2010, 02:14.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 22:31 Overon
 
@ Overon
You just don't quit, do you?
First, since you're clearly clueless, here, go learn something
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Want to know why Huffman's site is still up, regardless of how many times over the years it has been taken down? He is in CA and they have a statute of limitations on defamation. The day he posts anything new on there, he's done.
Even so, I can still take legal action if I wanted to. I choose not to for the simple fact that I won't get anything for my troubles since he's not worth suing (yes, we had in fact hired a PI several years back and we know everything about him). Going after a guy like that would like me suing my landscaping guy because he broke one of the sprinkler heads on my lawn.
What is the point of spending North of $100K to sue when all I would get is the satisfaction of a site takedown? Any attorney worth his salt will tell you the same thing and save you money in the process.
Especially since his stupid and libelous site is more of an annoyance than anything else. He can't host it anywhere else because it will be taken down, so he has it hosted on his friend's site. So I have to go through no less then four layers to finally get to him. Even the ISP will take down the site if I just ask my attorney to take care of it because their TOS is quite clear about defamation and libel.
http://www.isc.org/about/aup
Plus, he has different things to worry about, now that he has once again been outed and he has a lot more professional eyes oh him.
http://bit.ly/bdpRFa
One day, when he least expects it, Huffman will be in more legal trouble than he can handle. Since the laws have rapidly changed since 1996, I just need to find the time and justify the expense to actually so something about it.
As to the link I posted before, yeah it was the wrong one it looks like, but the correct one is right there on that page.
Again, get a grip. The show is over and you're the only one whose knickers are in a bunch.
This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2010, 21:50.

You contradict yourself. You say that Bill Huffman will be "done" as soon as he posts something new on his site. And then you say you choose not to take legal action. And then you say that one day when he least expects it, he will have more legal trouble than he can handle. You are like Two Face from Batman. "Let me flip a coin to see if I will sue or not sue today."

As to the link I posted before, yeah it was the wrong one it looks like, but the correct one is right there on that page.
I'm glad you realized you pasted the wrong link.
Thank you for posting this link:
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
I did learn a lot from it as you had hoped I would.
Here is a quote that I especially learned a lot from:
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
* a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
* b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
The reason you can't prevail over Bill Huffman has everything to do with the fact that his website has your quotes, from public sources like forums and newsgroups. It's only defamation if it's not true. Your own words are true because you wrote them. As to the rest of the stuff on the site that are not quotes from you, it is all parody and you are no doubt aware that parody is rock solidly covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution. And as you say
Any attorney worth his salt will tell you the same thing and save you money in the process.

Derek how magnanimous of you not to take legal action against Flame War Follies and Bill Huffman. Hiring a private investigator to learn everything about him is a stroke of insanity. Why not just hire a mobster to break his legs like in The Sopranos. No one will ever know. That will teach him. Maybe break his fingers so he can't type on his keyboard. You sir are a piece of work. What made you into this litigious angry monster? The irony of this is that you don't seem to realize that your own words are painting a damning picture of Derek Smart.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2010, 22:39.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 22:20 nin
 
11. Blue start writing about himself in the third-person.


"No tv and no beer make Blue something something?"
 
https://soundcloud.com/trentreznorandatticusross/sets/before-the-flood-soundtrack-1
https://dancewiththedead.bandcamp.com/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 22:19 Pankin
 
I believe in order to recover damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must show that 1) the defendant was making factual claims (as opposed to opinions) and 2) the claims are false.

That follies.werewolves site says many things about Derek but the main thing it says is that Derek acquired his Ph.D. at a degree mill.

There are other considerations like the fact that Derek is a public figure. According to Wikipedia, a public figure must prove 5 things to win a libel case.

1)The plaintiff must prove that the information was published
That's fairly obvious.

2)the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified
ditto

3)the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation
no doubt, this is true as well.

4)the defendant is at fault
yes, that nutty guy definitely did it.

5)the published information is false
no comment

hee hee!
 
Avatar 55260
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 22:06  Blue 
 
I modified #6 because I asked zirik via the forum, not you. So I removed #7 since I didn't ask you, then you couldn't have ignored my request (since no such request ever existed to begin with).

Hmm, that is actually correct, I apologize for the mischaracterization. I did indeed mistake your request here that the post be removed for a request made to me directly.

Guess I was just too eager to show how defiantly independent I am.
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 21:48  dsmart 
 
Blue, I think you got that wrong.

I modified #6 because I asked zirik via the forum, not you. So I removed #7 since I didn't ask you, then you couldn't have ignored my request (since no such request ever existed to begin with).

Not really, this is more accurate:
1. Kxmode posts email correspondences between himself and Derek.
2. Zirik quotes a part of Kxmode's post.
3. Derek writes me complaining about Kxmode's post.
4. I do a little research suggesting Kxmode is potentially at legal risk for posting that.
5. I delete the post and inform Kxmode why, and he agrees with my reasoning.
6. Derek asks zirik to remove his post
7. *****
8. Kxmode asks that zirik's post be removed.
9. Blue deletes zirik's post.
10 Overon implies that Blue and Kxmode have been bullied.
11. Blue start writing about himself in the third-person.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 21:43  dsmart 
 
@ Overon

You just don't quit, do you?

First, since you're clearly clueless, here, go learn something

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

Want to know why Huffman's site is still up, regardless of how many times over the years it has been taken down? He is in CA and they have a statute of limitations on defamation. The day he posts anything new on there, he's done.

Even so, I can still take legal action if I wanted to. I choose not to for the simple fact that I won't get anything for my troubles since he's not worth suing (yes, we had in fact hired a PI several years back and we know everything about him). Going after a guy like that would like me suing my landscaping guy because he broke one of the sprinkler heads on my lawn.

What is the point of spending North of $100K to sue when all I would get is the satisfaction of a site takedown? Any attorney worth his salt will tell you the same thing and save you money in the process.

Especially since his stupid and libelous site is more of an annoyance than anything else. He can't host it anywhere else because it will be taken down, so he has it hosted on his friend's site. So I have to go through no less then four layers to finally get to him. Even the ISP will take down the site if I just ask my attorney to take care of it because their TOS is quite clear about defamation and libel.

http://www.isc.org/about/aup

Plus, he has different things to worry about, now that he has once again been outed and he has a lot more professional eyes oh him.

http://bit.ly/bdpRFa

One day, when he least expects it, Huffman will be in more legal trouble than he can handle. Since the laws have rapidly changed since 1996, I just need to find the time and justify the expense to actually so something about it.

As to the link I posted before, yeah it was the wrong one it looks like, but the correct one is right there on that page.

Again, get a grip. The show is over and you're the only one whose knickers are in a bunch.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2010, 21:50.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 21:35  Blue 
 
Let me see if I got my chain of events right:
Not really, this is more accurate:
1. Kxmode posts email correspondences between himself and Derek.
2. Zirik quotes a part of Kxmode's post.
3. Derek writes me complaining about Kxmode's post.
4. I do a little research suggesting Kxmode is potentially at legal risk for posting that.
5. I delete the post and inform Kxmode why, and he agrees with my reasoning.
6. Derek asks that zirik's post be removed.
7. Blue ignores Derek's request.
8. Kxmode asks that zirik's post be removed.
9. Blue deletes zirik's post.
10 Overon implies that Blue and Kxmode have been bullied.
11. Blue start writing about himself in the third-person.
 
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 20:56 Overon
 

For the record, zirik's post was removed at the request of Kxmode, and since it was quoting him, I felt it was proper to comply.
Let me see if I got my chain of events right:
1. KXmode posts email correspondences between Derek and KXMode that show Derek in a negative light.

2. Zirik quotes a part of KXModes post without actually quoting Derek's emails that show Dereke in a negative light.

3. Derek quotes some legal stuff as a subtle threat of litigation againt KXMode, which is not so subtle given his history of litigation.

4. Derek quotes some legal stuff again as a subtle threat of litigation against Bluesnews, which is not so subtle given his history of litigation.

5. KXMode agrees to have his post removed to avoid any potential for litigation by Derek.

6. Derek asks Zirik's post to be removed.

7. Blue removes Zirik's post stating that it was rmoved at KXMode's request.

If Derek threatened litigation against me, I too would ask that all my posts that are in any way negative towards him be removed.

I don't blame Blue and I don't blame KXMode.

Nice job Derek. You win. Good luck in CV2010-010391.

P.S. Too bad that flame war follies website it still up:
http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/
Derek were you aware that Bill Huffman from the above site is asking for and I quote:
New Plea (March 10, 2010), information on Derek Smart business dealings is wanted. Have you ever had
business dealings with Mr. Smart? Please Email: Bill Huffman (bhuffma1@san.rr.com)
Why haven't you found a way to silence that Bill Huffman guy and the website he's a part of? That guy has been a thorn in your side for years. When you google "derek smart" that website is 4th link you see.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 15, 2010, 20:33 The PC Warrior
 
dsmart wrote on Apr 15, 2010, 20:08:
@ Overon

You clearly have no clue wtf you're talking about and as usual, you're pissing up the wrong flag pole.

Go ahead, show me where the employer/employee rule even applies here, let alone whistleblower protection.

As always, you're clearly clueless. I guess anything that affords you the luxury of taking a stab - no matter how ridiculous or stupid - is open season. Get a grip.

please go back to your permanent vacation you rude little bully. you dont have even a sliver of class.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 20:32 Overon
 
Derek says:
And now more than ever, new rulings such as this recent one, make it that much more clearer. Defamation and copyright infringement are not a Free Speech right.
http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/apex_technology_v_doe_may_a_co.html
Derek you are incredibly sloppy with your link. Are you sure you wanted to refer to that link to support your comments? I actually took the time to read what was said on the link you provided. That link actually does not support your claim that "Defamation and copyright infringement are not a Free Speech right" What's more, that link mentions nothing about copyright infringement at all. I'm hoping you must just screwed up with the link. I won't assume that you thought you were being clever.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2010, 21:05.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: removed Apr 15, 2010, 20:30  Blue 
 
For the record, zirik's post was removed at the request of Kxmode, and since it was quoting him, I felt it was proper to comply.  
Avatar 2
 
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 15, 2010, 20:18 Overon
 
I am not a fan of Derek asking for Zirk's post to be removed.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 15, 2010, 20:16 Kxmode
 
Guys, come on. I'm cool with things. I squared things with Derek via email, so it's all kosher. Let's all be friends here! Hug  
Avatar 18786
 
William Shakespeare's "Star Wars" Act I, Scene 1: Aboard the rebel ship. / Enter C-3PO and R2-D2. / C-3PO: "Now is the summer of our happiness / Made winter by this sudden, fierce attack!" / R2-D2 — Beep beep, Beep, beep, meep, squeak, beep, whee!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 15, 2010, 20:08  dsmart 
 
@ Overon

You clearly have no clue wtf you're talking about and as usual, you're pissing up the wrong flag pole.

Go ahead, show me where the employer/employee rule even applies here, let alone whistleblower protection.

As always, you're clearly clueless. I guess anything that affords you the luxury of taking a stab - no matter how ridiculous or stupid - is open season. Get a grip.
 
Avatar 9141
 
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: David Allen vs Derek Smart Apr 15, 2010, 19:43 Overon
 
Derek you ask for Zirik to remove his post? Why? Are you going to claim that the his post is protected by an NDA? His post contains nothing of your conversation with Kxmode over email at all. Are you going to threaten Blue or Zirik with your teams of lawyers?

I hope you are joking. Next thing all employers will start threatening their former employees/contractors because of what negative things they say about the company they were formerly employed or contracted by.

In the USA we still have a right to criticize our employer. It's madness to think otherwise. As you are probably aware of the truth is an absolute defense against defamation. If it's true that KXMode did not get paid and he has the emails that show how you brutishly responded to him, then Zirik quote stands on solid ground against any potential allegations of defamation.

This the Internet: people post comments about products or services and other people. Is that defamation too? If everyone threatened legal action in the age of the internet, the courts would have nothing but defamation suits to handle. Why don't companies start suing people for their negative reviews of products or services? People post emails and even record conversations between customer support over various issues product or services on websites like consumerist.org all the time. By your logic consumerist.org should have been sued to oblivion by now.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 2010, 20:17.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo