theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 16:06:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.

Oh, so now you don't trust Derek? If so then why do you trust him to accurately represent his legal team? He could be making it all up for all we know, which given his record of trolling would be highly likely.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Sigh. You're deflecting, again. I already said there are lawyers for and against arguments. For the umpteenth time, that's not the point I've made repeatedly. It's not about who's right. It's about the interpretation of the law. Derek hired lawyers to give their thumbs up to his legal points. Whether or not you agree with them, that's another argument.

Derek is a troll who has repeatedly lied to further his trolling campaign against Chris Roberts and CIG. You're trusting him to accurately represent the views of his legal team when we don't even know if they have been contacted... you know, because he's a fucking liar. Yet you're not interested in the legal analysis of an independent tech lawyer willing to go on record with his interpretation? Bizarre.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
The law firm Derek goes to to vet the information in the linked Op-Ed IS independent legal analysis because they have to confirm his legal points as correct otherwise he could get sued. It is you who refuse to acknowledge them because "Lawyer working with Derek = BAD!"

And who gives us that information? Derek, a professional troll and proven liar. And that legal team is employed to represent Derek and his agenda. Independent means having no stake in the matter, which is obviously not an appropriate description for Derek's legal team who are employed to represent his interests. I mean that's a very basic concept. If you don't even understand what independent means then I really don't think we're going to get anywhere here.

As usual you refuse to comment on the legal analysis of independent tech lawyers whilst treating Derek's assertions as gospel. It's frankly pathetic. I mean I'd at least like to see you provide evidence to refute Lior Leser and Leonard French's legal analysis. I'm perfectly willing to consider a different interpretation if it is supported by a lawyer and not a professional troll.

Look, we get it, you hate CIG and take every opportunity to evangelise others to your perspective. I don't have a problem with that. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of the project - delays, P2W, feature creep, business model, broad scope, etc - and I have expressed that on many, many occasions. But I will not stand idly by as you seek to legitimise Derek's trolling campaign, a man who lied about Sandi being racist, doxxed Chris Roberts' children, lied about staff departures and falsely prophecised the demise of the project for about half a decade now.

Derek is a scumbag and, if you're a decent person (and I like to believe that you are), then I would ask you to take a long hard look at yourself and ask why you are choosing to align with him instead of supporting your position through independent evidence. I'm honestly happy to discuss criticism of the project with you but you need to make your own points and support your position with credible evidence.

A "Legion of Derek®" supporter is identical to a tRump supporter. Nothing you say will change their mind.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.

Oh, so now you don't trust Derek? If so then why do you trust him to accurately represent his legal team? He could be making it all up for all we know, which given his record of trolling would be highly likely.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Sigh. You're deflecting, again. I already said there are lawyers for and against arguments. For the umpteenth time, that's not the point I've made repeatedly. It's not about who's right. It's about the interpretation of the law. Derek hired lawyers to give their thumbs up to his legal points. Whether or not you agree with them, that's another argument.

Derek is a troll who has repeatedly lied to further his trolling campaign against Chris Roberts and CIG. You're trusting him to accurately represent the views of his legal team when we don't even know if they have been contacted... you know, because he's a fucking liar. Yet you're not interested in the legal analysis of an independent tech lawyer willing to go on record with his interpretation? Bizarre.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
The law firm Derek goes to to vet the information in the linked Op-Ed IS independent legal analysis because they have to confirm his legal points as correct otherwise he could get sued. It is you who refuse to acknowledge them because "Lawyer working with Derek = BAD!"

And who gives us that information? Derek, a professional troll and proven liar. And that legal team is employed to represent Derek and his agenda. Independent means having no stake in the matter, which is obviously not an appropriate description for Derek's legal team who are employed to represent his interests. I mean that's a very basic concept. If you don't even understand what independent means then I really don't think we're going to get anywhere here.

As usual you refuse to comment on the legal analysis of independent tech lawyers whilst treating Derek's assertions as gospel. It's frankly pathetic. I mean I'd at least like to see you provide evidence to refute Lior Leser and Leonard French's legal analysis. I'm perfectly willing to consider a different interpretation if it is supported by a lawyer and not a professional troll.

Look, we get it, you hate CIG and take every opportunity to evangelise others to your perspective. I don't have a problem with that. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of the project - delays, P2W, feature creep, business model, broad scope, etc - and I have expressed that on many, many occasions. But I will not stand idly by as you seek to legitimise Derek's trolling campaign, a man who lied about Sandi being racist, doxxed Chris Roberts' children, lied about staff departures and falsely prophecised the demise of the project for about half a decade now.

Derek is a scumbag and, if you're a decent person (and I like to believe that you are), then I would ask you to take a long hard look at yourself and ask why you are choosing to align with him instead of supporting your position through independent evidence. I'm honestly happy to discuss criticism of the project with you but you need to make your own points and support your position with credible evidence.

Prez wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 10:49:

There's such a high slant of bias, I find his posts useless.

This is basically where I'm at. I'll admit, I have been a long time admirer of Derek Smart because he is a free spirit who does what he wants, says what he feels, and doesn't tow anyone's line. However, it can't be denied that he has a specific, vested interest in seeing RSI/CIG fail spectacularly - at this point he basically needs to be hoping for their monumental failure so his very adamant and very public declarations don't make him very publically wrong. That makes him about as far from an objective source as you can get.

That's where I'm at. Derek can be very insightful, but here, his obsession makes no sense.

I do find it odd that KXmode is so eager to believe Derek's view, which at best is second-hand from an actual attorney, and at worst something an attorney just reviewed to make sure it wasn't actionable, and writes off all the YouTube videos from actual attorneys (I give no more credence to them than Derek, but think if you had to believe one, the uninvolved actual-attorney would count for more than the guy who is involving himself for emotional reasons and has no law degree [or PhD!])

There's such a high slant of bias, I find his posts useless.

This is basically where I'm at. I'll admit, I have been a long time admirer of Derek Smart because he is a free spirit who does what he wants, says what he feels, and doesn't tow anyone's line. However, it can't be denied that he has a specific, vested interest in seeing RSI/CIG fail spectacularly - at this point he basically needs to be hoping for their monumental failure so his very adamant and very public declarations don't make him very publically wrong. That makes him about as far from an objective source as you can get.

Choobeastia wrote on Aug 21, 2018, 01:23:
So far as his legal analysis, it seems more likely that he sends things to his team of lawyers to make sure that he isn't opening himself up for a lawsuit, than that they are giving him in depth analysis of legal documents having to do with third parties. And he never made a distinction that they were specifically providing a service to analyze the CIG/Crytek documents, just to analyze what he was posting.

This totally.

Derek is not getting them to give legal opinion on this, they are just looking at his post to make sure he cant be sued over it.

Derek opinion is just an opinion …. back up by nothing more than most other ones.

Some of the things he says are good points but just as many are his stupid ramblings.

Kxmode, get past Derek.

I think that there is a fundamental disconnect between you, Kxmode, and theyarecomingforyou. It stems not from theyarecomingforyou being a fanboy, but that he believes Derek to be an unreliable source.

So far as his legal analysis, it seems more likely that he sends things to his team of lawyers to make sure that he isn't opening himself up for a lawsuit, than that they are giving him in depth analysis of legal documents having to do with third parties. And he never made a distinction that they were specifically providing a service to analyze the CIG/Crytek documents, just to analyze what he was posting.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 20:54:
Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.

And who is the one posting?

To which I assume you'll reply that even though it's Derek there's possibly some miniscule grain of truth in there.

To which I say, if you can't tell which is truth (if any) and which is not, what good is any of it? There's such a high slant of bias, I find his posts useless.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:46:
It's also possible for you to cure cancer and colonise Mars... yet what is possible is not what is probable. I don't ask you to take my argument at face value but I certainly expect you to produce independent legal analysis supporting your position, which you have failed to do. Instead we get more bullshit saying 'I trust Derek's legal team' or 'you've got to listen to him because it's the only thing I have supporting my position'.

Because I trust the lawyers and law firms he hires. Not Derek himself.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:46:
Yet again you refuse to acknowledge Derek's repeated false claims and lies about the project, choosing instead to present him as a credible witness. To then claim you are objective is frankly astonishing.

How many ways can I say that's immaterial. You're extrapolating. Stop it.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:46:
For those following this, Crytek has amended their complaint and there is a legal analysis of that over on YouTuber Law. The gist of it is that Crytek is misrepresenting contract law and whilst their claim that CIG is obligated to not promote another engine may survive the Motion to Dismiss it will ultimately be dismissed during discovery or subsequently afterwards.

Sigh. You're deflecting, again. I already said there are lawyers for and against arguments. For the umpteenth time, that's not the point I've made repeatedly. It's not about who's right. It's about the interpretation of the law. Derek hired lawyers to give their thumbs up to his legal points. Whether or not you agree with them, that's another argument.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:46:
I'm sure Kxmode will be able to present a indepedent legal analysis showing the opposite... ha, just kidding. He'll just post more links to Derek's trolling campaign and/or offer to make love to him.

The law firm Derek goes to to vet the information in the linked Op-Ed IS independent legal analysis because they have to confirm his legal points as correct otherwise he could get sued. It is you who refuse to acknowledge them because "Lawyer working with Derek = BAD!"

Kxmode wrote on Aug 20, 2018, 15:00:
theyarecomingforyou ignored that honest assessment. For die-hard backers everything said of the project gets filter through a binary lens of "for us or against us." He forgets that I'm not Derek. See, unlike Derek, it's possible for me to take an objective view of Roberts and Star Citizen, and find it's strengths and weakness.

It's also possible for you to cure cancer and colonise Mars... yet what is possible is not what is probable. I don't ask you to take my argument at face value but I certainly expect you to produce independent legal analysis supporting your position, which you have failed to do. Instead we get more bullshit saying 'I trust Derek's legal team' or 'you've got to listen to him because it's the only thing I have supporting my position'.

Yet again you refuse to acknowledge Derek's repeated false claims and lies about the project, choosing instead to present him as a credible witness. To then claim you are objective is frankly astonishing.

-

For those following this, Crytek has amended their complaint and there is a legal analysis of that over on YouTuber Law. The gist of it is that Crytek is misrepresenting contract law and whilst their claim that CIG is obligated to not promote another engine may survive the Motion to Dismiss it will ultimately be dismissed during discovery or subsequently afterwards.

I'm sure Kxmode will be able to present a indepedent legal analysis showing the opposite... ha, just kidding. He'll just post more links to Derek's trolling campaign and/or offer to make love to him.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 19, 2018, 16:54:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 22:11:

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
He dose not know what he is doing.

I'm pretty sure Chris knows what he's doing. He does have an unbeaten track record of producing favorite classics. Instead, the problem stems from Chris being both the CEO and the Creative Director. In most companies, these positions are separate so that one has to answer to the other. But Chris owns the company, and he's managing the direction of the game, so he doesn't have to respond to anyone. There's no one there to force his hand to say, "Chris, look. We can't do this. We have to place a stick in the ground and wrap up this project and get it shipped." No one is going to tell Chris this. There's no publisher above Chris to tell him this. CIG brings in millions a month, so he has a blank check to do whatever he wishes. That's the fundamental problem. It's less about skill and more about the lack of focus with zero oversight.

Nice summation. This is the key issue. And we've seen before what happens when this is the case: the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

I thought so.

theyarecomingforyou ignored that honest assessment. For die-hard backers everything said of the project gets filter through a binary lens of "for us or against us." He forgets that I'm not Derek. See, unlike Derek, it's possible for me to take an objective view of Roberts and Star Citizen, and find it's strengths and weakness. Conversely, unlike theyarecomingforyou, I can also take an objective view of Derek's Op-Eds and see parts of it that are valid (like how 80% of the Op-Ed linked above consists of legal points that are vetted by Derek's lawyers).

Edit: Minor clarification

This comment was edited on Aug 20, 2018, 23:00.

Having no dog in this fight, as I'm neither a big fan of Crytek or a backer of Star Citizen, I can only say that I don't read nearly as much doom and gloom into this ruling denying the MTD on 4 of the 6 points for CIG/RSI as DS does (Jeez it's acronym hell). I'm nothing more than a curious observer but from where I'm sitting if anyone is strapped for cash it's Crytek. Other than that multiplayer "Hunt" game they don't really seem to have much of a revenue stream currently, and I seem to remember reading about them having continuous troubles making payroll. The contract does state that the agreement is null and void if one party becomes insolvent - not knowing the actual finances of either company beyond what I read in news stories that seems far more likely to happen in Crytek's case to me. I certainly don't believe they are in a better financial position to fight a lengthy court battle than RSI but I could be wrong.

Also, this thread is like the Energizer Bunny.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 22:11:

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
He dose not know what he is doing.

I'm pretty sure Chris knows what he's doing. He does have an unbeaten track record of producing favorite classics. Instead, the problem stems from Chris being both the CEO and the Creative Director. In most companies, these positions are separate so that one has to answer to the other. But Chris owns the company, and he's managing the direction of the game, so he doesn't have to respond to anyone. There's no one there to force his hand to say, "Chris, look. We can't do this. We have to place a stick in the ground and wrap up this project and get it shipped." No one is going to tell Chris this. There's no publisher above Chris to tell him this. CIG brings in millions a month, so he has a blank check to do whatever he wishes. That's the fundamental problem. It's less about skill and more about the lack of focus with zero oversight.

Nice summation. This is the key issue. And we've seen before what happens when this is the case: the Star Wars prequel trilogy.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 21:48:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 18:49:
I approached Derek's post and posited most consist of legal points which he confirmed does get vetted by his legal team. You dismiss ALL of that and stoop to nothing more than playground antics and mud flinging.

Trusting Derek to be objective and truthful about Star Citizen is like trusting Hitler to have a nuanced approach to Jewish relations... you can give him the benefit of the doubt at first but once he's killed a few million Jews perhaps it's time to not take everything he says at face value.

My #4 comment: "Grab a cozy chair and blanket, toss some popcorn in the microwave, and buckle up for a 100+ comment thread that's likely to break Godwin's Law at some point."

Well, now it's official. You invoked Godwin's Law hard! This thread now contains all the essential ingredients to make it the best Star Citizen thread, ever! Congrats for driving it over the cliff!

lol ;)

Yawn. Don't care.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 21:48:
Your deflecting and deflecting hard! Everything I wrote in this thread - and this thread only - relates to the linked Op-Ed Derek published on his website. The vast majority of it contains legal points; I should know because I translated the thing. There was a lot of pushback from many saying, generally speaking, "Derek's not a lawyer, so his legal points are incorrect." That was a valid criticism. However, I repeatedly pointed out that they are not Derek's legal point, but his lawyers' since they verified them as accurate. Derek comes here and fully disclosed the lawyers and law firms that vet his legal points (he didn't have to). He told me on Twitter that his blogs "tend to get the quick legal review because nobody likes to be sued." The fact that you won't acknowledge that lawyers who practice law in the areas of what Derek is discussing have validated his points is a clear case of close-mindedness.

I'm not deflecting. I'm questioning the credibility of that information. You keep trying to build him up as a credible source of legal expertise regarding Star Citizen and I have repeatedly pointed out why that is absurd.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 21:48:
There are lawyers for and against arguments. We call them the prosecution and the defense. But that's not the gist of my comments in this thread. I am saying for the umpteenth time that Derek's Op-Ed piece linked from this thread is mostly a legal review of the receive MTD results between CIG and Crytek (stop deflecting to Derek's entire history; it's immaterial). Regardless of whether you hate the guy or not Derek had his lawyers vet his legal points so that they cannot be dismissed as worthless.

Where are the independent lawyers supporting Crytek's position? Again, Derek Smart is not a credible source of legal expertise. Please share independent legal advise supporting your position.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 21:48:
Really? Are you going there? It's not about acting. It's able lying to people about who she is in relation to Chris Roberts. I agree that "doxing" is loathsome and people should never do it! However, when Derek repeatedly told everyone Sandi is Chris' wife, everyone dismissed Derek as being full of it until the fact that she is Chris' wife became known. Once that happened her role at CIG changed. Her experiences as a marketing director were called into question under allegations of nepotism. Primarily because in her interviews where they asked about her credentials she claimed several qualifications from schools who had no record of her visit.

There was no obligation for them to declare their relationship, nor for her to justify her expertise. She is responsible for coordinating the most successful crowdfunding project in history. I don't care if all she did prior to that was to make sandwiches in a cafe, it's about results and she has more than warranted her position. Meanwhile Derek has attacked her marriage, attacked her children, attacked her professionality by spreading lies about racism, etc. That doesn't sound like something a decent person would do. Derek is obsessed. He is jealous. He is bitter. Yet to you he is a credible source of information about Star Citizen, which speaks very poorly of your judgement and objectivity.

You do realise she isn't paid from money from backers of the game, right? The community team is funded through subscriptions and that's used to pay the team's salaries and produce all the video content promoting the game. She wasn't paid anything to start with and she created her position. It's not nepotism because there was no job or salary - she created her role through her success as community leader. It's just more bullshit criticism to justify Derek's hate campaign against Chris and his family.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 21:48:
Regardless, I will say that clearly, the staggering success of Star Citizen reveals that Sandi does have skills, and she is a great marketing director. But all of that is irrelevant the point I've repeatedly stated ad nauseam.

Whether someone is good at their job is irrelevant to whether they should have that job? Hmmmm, okay.

Drayth wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:21:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
Please watch this video from 2015

And Derek will continue to insist that since she's an actress the whole thing was just an act.

Of course. I wouldn't expect anything more from him.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
HAHHAHAH Brainwashed.

Sandi Gardiner is a liar. She is married to Chris Roberts, also a liar. Their children where in the kickstarter video not due to Derek Smart, but because they put them there.


Derek Smart pointed this out, both that they where married and that their children where in the kickstarter video to show this.


Their children, at a very young age (they did not do it, one of their perents did) had imdb pages (which are open to public viewing) to which Derek pointed.

How does any of that justify Derek harassing their children? Because I would have to say you really are brainwashed if you consider that behaviour acceptable.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
Meanwhile, Chris Roberts decided to change the fact that at the time he started the kickstarter and his in house public crowd funding (by selling internet spaceships … not 'pleadges to a vision') that he was now not going to follow up on his "pledge" he made and if he had not completed the release of the project by a set time (?November 2015?) he would release the finances of the kickstarter and where the money has been spend.

No, the pledge was to release an audit of the funds and the way they were spent if the project were to close down, which hasn't happened. The scope of the game changed when instead of raising $2 million it went on to raise $180 million. If Chris Roberts had made the same game that was originally pledged and just pocketed the rest there would be outrage. The only sensible option was to increase the scope and fidelity of the game but for it to be substantially delayed as a result.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
No, Chris lied, and then changed the Terms Of Conditions.

No, the reality of the situation changed. Delays happen in video games, especially among studios with ambitious titles. There were only a handful of employees when the Kickstarter launched and they've had to rapidly expand to meet the demands of the game. Planets were originally intended to be just textured spheres with a landing zone that you'd get to be going through a transition and now they're procedurally generated and fully explorable. There were going to be a handful of ships that were low fidelity and now there are 120 ships, some over a kilometer long and fully modelled inside and out. The game added first-person combat, which was originally only a stretch goal and now a major part of the game.

Regarding the change to the T&Cs, there's a video here with a legal analysis of them.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
No Publisher wanted to work with Chris Roberts because he is a game design/project manager failure. He dose not know what he is doing.

No publisher would commit to a project like Star Citizen back then because the genre had been effectively dead for a decade and the demand for a AAA space-sim was completely unknown. No publisher back in 2012 would have handed over $180 million to develop the game on the basis that it would only be released when it's ready rather than to meet shareholder expectations. Even now, with all the success it's had, no publisher would touch it because they'd want to place conditions and restrictions on any funding, to force the game to be released even if it's not ready.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
Do you not want the lawsuit to show 'discovery' of where the money, which has come from backers has been spend … what do they have to hide?

No, actually. Game developers are paid high salaries because it is a competitive and skilled profession; studios cost a lot to run. Publishing that information only gives ammunition to trolls when we can see all the money being invested in the development through regular content updated and gameplay previews. If the project were to fail then absolutely I'd demand an audit to see how it was mismanaged and that has already been promised by CIG should it come to that.

I backed the game because of the vision shared by Chris Roberts and my enjoyment of his previous games. Laypeople like myself don't know the complexities of running a studio or whether a particular studio rent or salary is justified or not. Asking us to have an opinion on such matters is a futile and counterproductive exercise. However, I'd be okay for an external audit to give an overview of their business model but the specifics should be kept confidential. But given that the funding has been extremely consistent year to year I don't see any reason for concern at this point. Derek, meanwhile, has been proclaiming that CIG will be out of business in months for the past 4-5 years, so his track record of predictions is laughable.

Kosumo wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:36:
He dose not know what he is doing.

I'm pretty sure Chris knows what he's doing. He does have an unbeaten track record of producing favorite classics. Instead, the problem stems from Chris being both the CEO and the Creative Director. In most companies, these positions are separate so that one has to answer to the other. But Chris owns the company, and he's managing the direction of the game, so he doesn't have to respond to anyone. There's no one there to force his hand to say, "Chris, look. We can't do this. We have to place a stick in the ground and wrap up this project and get it shipped." No one is going to tell Chris this. There's no publisher above Chris to tell him this. CIG brings in millions a month, so he has a blank check to do whatever he wishes. That's the fundamental problem. It's less about skill and more about the lack of focus with zero oversight.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 18:49:
I approached Derek's post and posited most consist of legal points which he confirmed does get vetted by his legal team. You dismiss ALL of that and stoop to nothing more than playground antics and mud flinging.

Trusting Derek to be objective and truthful about Star Citizen is like trusting Hitler to have a nuanced approach to Jewish relations... you can give him the benefit of the doubt at first but once he's killed a few million Jews perhaps it's time to not take everything he says at face value.

My #4 comment: "Grab a cozy chair and blanket, toss some popcorn in the microwave, and buckle up for a 100+ comment thread that's likely to break Godwin's Law at some point."

Well, now it's official. You invoked Godwin's Law hard! This thread now contains all the essential ingredients to make it the best Star Citizen thread, ever! Congrats for driving it over the cliff!

lol

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
Derek has lied about the project from the start and harassed the developers and their families. His behaviour brought Sandi Gardiner to tears and I have no tolerance for Derek or the people that would defend his actions.

Your deflecting and deflecting hard! Everything I wrote in this thread - and this thread only - relates to the linked Op-Ed Derek published on his website. The vast majority of it contains legal points; I should know because I translated the thing. There was a lot of pushback from many saying, generally speaking, "Derek's not a lawyer, so his legal points are incorrect." That was a valid criticism. However, I repeatedly pointed out that they are not Derek's legal point, but his lawyers' since they verified them as accurate. Derek comes here and fully disclosed the lawyers and law firms that vet his legal points (he didn't have to). He told me on Twitter that his blogs "tend to get the quick legal review because nobody likes to be sued." The fact that you won't acknowledge that lawyers who practice law in the areas of what Derek is discussing have validated his points is a clear case of close-mindedness.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
So Derek isn't a troll but merely someone critical of the game's scope and promises made? Bullshit. Don't even try that nonsense here.

None of my comments addresses any of that. I'm only discussing the legal points Derek made in the Op-Ed linked from this thread. I took the time to clean it up and make more palatable for the Blues News community. It contains legitimate points that are verified by a law firm as correct.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
People have posted links to independent lawyers like Lior Leser and Leonard French who agree that Crytek is misrepresenting basic contractual clauses and concealing importance information from the court. They have looked at the lawsuit and said it is unlikely to succeed. Yet rather than consider their legal opinions you persistently try to claim that Derek Smart, a known liar and troll, has consulted with his legal team and has the definitive position on the matter.

There are lawyers for and against arguments. We call them the prosecution and the defense. But that's not the gist of my comments in this thread. I am saying for the umpteenth time that Derek's Op-Ed piece linked from this thread is mostly a legal review of the receive MTD results between CIG and Crytek (stop deflecting to Derek's entire history; it's immaterial). Regardless of whether you hate the guy or not Derek had his lawyers vet his legal points so that they cannot be dismissed as worthless.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
Please watch this video from 2015 with Sandi Gardiner, who was brought to tears by the campaign of harassment that Derek unleashed on her. Look at the emotional impact his actions have on other people. I spoke to Sandi shortly after that speech about Derek and she gave me an insight into his campaign of hate against her, her family and CIG. I will always stand up to bullies like Derek. I have no interest in being respectful towards Derek Smart when his hateful actions have had a devastating personal impact on those targeted, nor those that would try to legitimise him. I absolutely will call you out on your bullshit.

Really? Are you going there? It's not about acting. It's able lying to people about who she is in relation to Chris Roberts. I agree that "doxing" is loathsome and people should never do it! However, when Derek repeatedly told everyone Sandi is Chris' wife, everyone dismissed Derek as being full of it until the fact that she is Chris' wife became known. Once that happened her role at CIG changed. Her experiences as a marketing director were called into question under allegations of nepotism. Primarily because in her interviews where they asked about her credentials she claimed several qualifications from schools who had no record of her visit.

It's possible Chris knew that even without the credentials she would be perfect for the job. But the fact that they hid it from backers reeks of dishonesty.

Regardless, I will say that clearly, the staggering success of Star Citizen reveals that Sandi does have skills, and she is a great marketing director. But all of that is irrelevant the point I've repeatedly stated ad nauseam.

The Legion Of Derek™ is back. except where it was briefly shunned in post 75, giggle
sigh

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
Please watch this video from 2015 with Sandi Gardiner, who was brought to tears by the campaign of harassment that Derek unleashed on her. Look at the emotional impact his actions have on other people. I spoke to Sandi shortly after that speech about Derek and she gave me an insight into his campaign of hate against her, her family and CIG. I will always stand up to bullies like Derek. I have no interest in being respectful towards Derek Smart when his hateful actions have had a devastating personal impact on those targeted, nor those that would try to legitimise him. I absolutely will call you out on your bullshit.

HAHHAHAH Brainwashed.

Sandi Gardiner is a liar. She is married to Chris Roberts, also a liar. Their children where in the kickstarter video not due to Derek Smart, but because they put them there.


Derek Smart pointed this out, both that they where married and that their children where in the kickstarter video to show this.


Their children, at a very young age (they did not do it, one of their perents did) had imdb pages (which are open to public viewing) to which Derek pointed.


Meanwhile, Chris Roberts decided to change the fact that at the time he started the kickstarter and his in house public crowd funding (by selling internet spaceships … not 'pleadges to a vision') that he was now not going to follow up on his "pledge" he made and if he had not completed the release of the project by a set time (?November 2015?) he would release the finances of the kickstarter and where the money has been spend.


No, Chris lied, and then changed the Terms Of Conditions.

Do you not want the lawsuit to show 'discovery' of where the money, which has come from backers has been spend … what do they have to hide?







No Publisher wanted to work with Chris Roberts because he is a game design/project manager failure. He dose not know what he is doing.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Aug 18, 2018, 20:03:
Please watch this video from 2015

And Derek will continue to insist that since she's an actress the whole thing was just an act.