Change publishers

[Icemania]

Kayoz, I would be happy to engage in further discussion as I have to lot to say in response. However, this is contingent on your agreement to tone down the language, specifically please avoid language such as “bull” and “lie”. We should try to understand each other’s point of view and perhaps try to reflect that in our future dialog.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
..please avoid language such as “bull” and “lie”.

I don't see what problem you might have with "lie" - It's a common word in the English language. I have used it correctly and appropriately. I never made any speculation on Matrix contracts which was not illustrative to counter your claims. Not within this or any recent threads, in any case. If I did, then by all means point to the post. Otherwise, I contend that the word usage is correct and appropriate. It's a lie, so it's right to call it a lie.

As to "bull" - this isn't profanity. You might not be fond of the word, but you'll be hard pressed to find "bull" in many profanity filters. But if you don't like what might be considered "harsh" language - then don't make offensive statements. Don't lie.

But back to the source complaint:
I complained about your false claims about my statements - and I'll note that you have not addressed the complaint.

[Icemania]

My response is ready to send (although it would have to wait for when I have more time available). I could equally say your statement on buying widgets is a lie, since I have not once stated that the contract experience I have is for Widgets, indeed funnily enough they are all Service focused. But if you cannot agree to be civil, I'm out.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
I could equally say your statement on buying widgets is a lie, since I have not once stated that the contract experience I have is for Widgets

Nope. You can't. That would be yet another lie. I wrote "It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets.". Where's the lie? It's an interpretation of your line of logic. I didn't fabricate statements which you never wrote. You, on the other hand, did.

I didn't speculate as to the Matrix-CodeForce contract. You did. Not me. Any references I made were clearly illustrative and to the negative (ie: to invalidate your argument). I was and always have been very explicit in my position that I do not know any details of Matrix business dealings. If I've made wild speculations as to what they might be - then by all means show where I've written such and I'll post a full apology/retraction.

Let us be perfectly clear - this is your wrong, not mine. If you want to run off in a huff because you've been caught in a lie, then that's your right. Don't let the (albeit virtual) door hit you on the way out.

[Icemania]

Rather predictably Kayoz has continued and I'm back to continue the debate anyway.

First topic

ORIGINAL: Icemania
My contention is based on the premise that Matrix marketing performance is poor.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
We addressed this - and I asked you to present some quantification to support your assertion. You have failed to supply a single number and are once again making wild speculations.

If you have some basis to your complaint about Matrix marketing - then by all means present it. But do so with something more substantial than wild speculation and your personal feelings on the matter.

You know full well that neither of us can provide anything other than the back of a fag packet. But hold on a moment ... wasn't there another thread for this topic? Hmm ...

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
It might also go some way to explain why DW is generally so poorly marketed.

I'm sorry, did you just say Poor? Does Poor = Reasonable?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
My position is:

1. Matrix needs to improve it's marketing. Improvements to "social media marketing" seem to offer the greatest return on their investment - which thus far has been near zero.
2. Matrix needs to improve its release-day quality.
3. Matrix needs to be more open in documenting game mechanics, so that the community can identify flaws/exploits for removal in future patches.

If you have a specific retort to those 3 points, please chime in.

I agree with that other Kayoz, so indeed, please chime in.



Next topic

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Nope. You can't. That would be yet another lie. I wrote "It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets.". Where's the lie? It's an interpretation of your line of logic. I didn't fabricate statements which you never wrote. You, on the other hand, did.

You have made a selective quotation (the part you have quoted I agree with).

What you actually said in full was ...

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
This isn't buying widgets. It's far closer to the relationship between an author and a book publisher than it is to Company-X supplying Company-Y with widgets. You have a very similar business relationship and yet you oddly refuse to use it. Hrm... why's that? Perhaps... because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?

Which was a direct response to:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...it is normal practice to engage in a competitive selective process...

Every one of the many Contracts that I have been responsible for is focused on Services and a number of them include significant Software Development making my examples directly relevant. Widgets has no relevance at all to my original statement which remains perfectly valid based on direct experience. All of them have fixed terms, with limited options to extend, regardless of what type of Contract it is. After expiry, primarily depending on past performance (but could also relate to other changes in circumstance/market) this would then either lead to a decision to sole source and develop a new agreement or to engage in competitive selection.

Now the relevant part that you failed to quote was "because you know full well that if you look at a similar contractual relationship, your examples don't work?". You are putting words in my mouth Kayoz i.e. doing exactly what you said you did not do ... fabricating. My examples do work.

I look forward to your apology as promised.

Next topic

ORIGINAL: Icemania
From my point of view, you are speculating that they have a long-term agreement that covers Distant Worlds 2.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I never suggested that I have that knowledge. The most I ever did was shoot down your speculations on what their contract might be. Any speculation I made was to illustrate that your contractual divination can very easily be wrong.

If I did make any guesses on what their contract might be that wasn't illustrative to show the fallacy in your argument, then point to the post where I wrote such. Otherwise, I call it a lie.

You have raised serious issues around trust, morality and loyalty associated with my previous post. The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement. As I have highlighted, there is no breach of trust and loyalty if the relationship is reviewed at a previously mutually agreed time in a way that ensure fair dealings. I have never suggested they break an existing agreement, where your comments on trust and loyalty would be perfectly valid.

It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest the agreement has a fixed term based on personal experience I have outlined. To claim I have lied when I have openly stated that I am not sure is ridiculous, refer below.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
However, if that agreement is focused on Distant Worlds 1, with no agreement in place for Distant Worlds 2

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Of course we don’t know the details Kayoz

What I am suggesting is very simple. Evaluate options at the end of the agreed contract period without a predicated conclusion either way. This ensures existing agreements are fully honoured and fair dealings for all.

I’ll admit I falsely assumed you believed there was long-term agreement. Again, I was trying to make sense of what you were saying with trust and loyalty, and was assuming you understood the difference between an agreement in process and an agreement that has expired.

You need to reflect on what you have said. What you have done is jump to a wildly inappropriate conclusion.

I look forward to your apology as promised.

Next topic

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I have asserted that Matrix has managed to carve out a niche for itself - this suggests that the Matrix directors have some reasonable business acumen. Also, I asserted that Erik is motivated by profit and can be expected to make decisions which will benefit him. Well, that's the core of my argument. If you have disagreement with either of those assertions, then by all means shoot down my assertions by pointing out the flaws in my logic.

I would be happy to point out a flaw. Of course Matrix is motivated by profit and will make the best decisions they can. The flaw is that all of us have strengths and weaknesses in our capabilities. Matrix appear to have a strength in supporting Development but a weakness in Marketing e.g. their Marketing Strategy for Distant Worlds is identical to what they apply to War Strategy Games generally, a point you have also agreed with elsewhere.

[DevildogFF]

I've always like you, Ice....

Now I understand better *why* I like you.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
First topic[/b]

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
It might also go some way to explain why DW is generally so poorly marketed.

You're quoting a 4-month old post? People change their opinions and positions with time. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find threads where I anxiously awaited the release of Daikatana.

Clearly, I changed my mind some time in the last 4 months. I'm not sure when or why. But I'm sure you'll dredge through 4 months of forum chatter to try to find an answer. Have fun. I personally don't care.

Nice try, but irrelevant.

ORIGINAL: Icemania

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
1. Matrix needs to improve it's marketing. Improvements to "social media marketing" seem to offer the greatest return on their investment - which thus far has been near zero.
2. Matrix needs to improve its release-day quality.
3. Matrix needs to be more open in documenting game mechanics, so that the community can identify flaws/exploits for removal in future patches.

If you have a specific retort to those 3 points, please chime in.

And a post that's 8 months old. Are you going to start digging through old dial-up BBS posts next?

People change their opinions over time. Or did you not realize that?

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Next topic
You have made a selective quotation (the part you have quoted I agree with).

*snip irrelevant text*
Nothing to do with your allegation that I lied about widgets. The body of text associated with this topic is entirely irrelevant to your claim of lying.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
You have raised serious issues around trust, morality and loyalty associated with my previous post. The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement.

No. There is no requirement. Many authors publish multiple books by the same publisher and work exclusively with editors that they trust. Any contract is book-to-book, and eyebrows are raised when an author is poached by another publisher. That's one common and easy to understand example that "makes sense" to anyone and does not require a long-term agreement.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
As I have highlighted, there is no breach of trust and loyalty if the relationship is reviewed at a previously mutually agreed time in a way that ensure fair dealings.

You seem to have missed my objection, despite my efforts - and fail to understand - that this is of concern to Matrix and CodeForce alone. If they want to re-negotiate their contract, then that's their business. It's not for you to comment on an affair in which you have no standing.

Example: If I tell some bird that her bloke isn't good enough for her, I'd probably get slapped. Since you're not a "close friend" of either Matrix or CodeForce - the bird example is one of a complete stranger (or perhaps someone whom she recognizes from the tram) commenting on her personal affairs. In the absence of clear wrongdoing by one side and/or proof of bad faith - you're being a busybody sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

It's for Matrix and CodeForce to decide. Not you. Not me. Not the bloke down at the pub. Them and them alone. None of your business. After stating this multiple times in this thread, is this finally clear enough for you to understand?

ORIGINAL: Icemania
I have never suggested they break an existing agreement

No, you didn't. Irrelevant, since I never suggested that you made such a suggestion. You didn't suggest that you're stalked by a 6-foot invisible, purple bunny rabbit. Are you going to recite that non-suggestion as well? If you did make such a suggestion, do you think I'd fail to call you on it?

ORIGINAL: Icemania
What I am suggesting is very simple. Evaluate options at the end of the agreed contract period without a predicated conclusion either way. This ensures existing agreements are fully honoured and fair dealings for all.

I trust that Elliot isn't a complete financial fool and knows enough to give himself sufficient wiggle-room in a contract. I'm not going to try to give him contract negotiation advice - on contracts I've never seen and on a matter which is none of my business.

Are you seeing a pattern here? None of my/your business. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

ORIGINAL: Icemania
..the difference between an agreement in process and an agreement that has expired.

Again, that has no bearing. Perhaps you can only understand "loyalty" and "trust" within the parameters of a binding contract. Some might argue that it's a sign of sociopathy - but psychology isn't an area of interest to me. Suffice to say - nothing in my post refuting the calls for Elliot to dump Matrix even hinted at a contract.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Next topic
I would be happy to point out a flaw. Of course Matrix is motivated by profit and will make the best decisions they can. The flaw is that all of us have strengths and weaknesses in our capabilities. Matrix appear to have a strength in supporting Development but a weakness in Marketing.

No comment. Because I can't. I don't know what resources Erik has available to him. I don't know DW's market potential. I don't know what Matrix's marketing efforts consisted of. I don't have sufficient facts to comment. And not to belabor the point, but neither do you.

If CodeForce is being ill served by Matrix, then it's for Elliot, and Elliot alone, to address the issue.

Oh, I'll submit to temptation and speculate a tad on what Elliot is doing.

<wild_speculation>
Now, if Elliot actually felt that Matrix was doing a poor job at marketing DW, there are avenues open to him. He could keep a developer blog. He could beat on some email boxes and get some interviews. He could write articles for game dev sites on his experiences. He could - egads - set up and update a social media channel. Has he done any of these? Well, a quick glance at the CodeForce web site will leave you (astonishingly enough) less informed about his game than Matrix's page for DW. And for interviews - I've only run across one. Social media? None that I can find - not on Facebook, no Twitter channel. Nothing.

What can I conclude from his lack of activity in promoting DW himself? Well, either he has a contract with Matrix that's tighter than Miley Cyrus' g-string... or he's content with what they're doing and doesn't deem it worthy of his time to beat the proverbial drum. Since the former is illogical and non-conducive to Matrix's goal (sales, profit), I think I can safely eliminate that. So we have only the latter. He's happy and we should leave him and his business decisions alone. If he has a gripe with Matrix and calls for support, I'll surely give him all I can - but in the meantime, it's none of my business.
</wild_speculation>

[Tcby]

Kayoz,
I read this discussion from the beginning. I have seen good arguments on both sides, and do not have a strong opinion either way, any more. When I first got into this game I thought the matrix marketing was poor. I only discovered this game after lengthy, exhaustive research into the genre. Now I'm not sure what to think about the whole issue.

What I do know is that your tone and penchant for insults are very, very unpleasant to read. Even when you make a point I agree with, I find myself annoyed.

Comments like these:

Perhaps you can only understand "loyalty" and "trust" within the parameters of a binding contract. Some might argue that it's a sign of sociopathy - but psychology isn't an area of interest to me.

...are juvenile.

[Cauldyth]

[>:]

[Icemania]

You do not understand the basics of trust/loyalty in Contracts. As I have said before, trust/loyalty are still relevant when considering options at expiry, but there are many others factors that need to be considered. Performance is a critical one. Similarly, with the papers you quoted previously, to anybody with experience in Contract Management, they do nothing more than state the obvious. I invest a huge amount of time in building trust and maintaining the psychological contract. They have no relevance to counter-arguing my position, they do not any way imply that just because there is trust, the same business relationship must be blindly retained, and new contracts written indefinitely in the future. For the majority of agreements that I’m responsible for, the relationship continues. But this is not always the right decision and again ongoing poor performance on a critical KPI would be a legitimate reason to re-evaluate the status quo at the appropriate junction. In short, your accusations on trust/loyalty are completely without basis, demonstrate a lack of competence in the subject, and do not provide a vehicle to have a constructive discussion.

Your 4-8 month old post response was expected. It’s an extraordinarily weak retort to say you don’t care why your position has changed. What difference has there been in the Matrix Marketing Strategy for Distant Worlds in that time? Because as far as I can tell, at least as of today there has been no material change. Note the word material Kayoz. I would be very supportive of material changes from Matrix.

You continue to object to the fact that I’m speculating and state this is none of our business. All you are doing is stating the obvious … of course we are speculating! How many times do I need to agree I’m speculating! But this is a forum, and last I checked we have freedom of speech, so I’m going to continue to speculate regardless of your completely inappropriate open hostility e.g. bull, lie, amoral, sociopath and so on. Somebody needs to stand-up to you Kayoz, without resorting to the same appalling behaviour in response. A forum bully you are. And unfortunately it seems this is being allowed by the Moderators.

Fundamentally, the difference between our positions is that you consider Matrix performance good enough to justify an ongoing arrangement. While I am concerned about marketing performance and propose that at the right time and in the right way there is a review of the status quo. See … this can expressed without being juvenile.

I have had pretty much the same speculation that you finished with and I suspect you might be more or less right. However, this doesn’t mean that I have to agree that this is the right path for the reasons I’ve already outlined.

[Gareth_Bryne]

This is so funny, it isn't funny anymore. Kayoz defending the status quo, and somebody wanting something that usually boils down to two things:

More marketing
Lesser price

And then the discussion boils down to two other things:

Elliot has a right to his actions (Kayoz is right)
The community has a right to discuss Elliot's actions and inactions (The other person is right)

In my opinion, while I was also dissatisfied with the lack of marketing, the situation was mitigated somewhat, in part by Matrix, in part by the community itself (a very important point). As for the price, don't get me wrong - Distant Worlds is very high priced, but the price has been optimized over time, and more to the point, the gameplay is unique. ES may offer multiplayer and several interesting concepts, but the rest of the competition doesn't even come close. So Distant Worlds is in fact a monopolist, a monopolist due to quality above all. So spread the word about it and hope that one day, preferably before DW2 [:)], the situation will change. And while you're at it, agree to disagree here and bombard Matrix's office email with your marketing optimization plans [:D]!

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...do not any way imply that just because there is trust, the same business relationship must be blindly retained

Where did I suggest that? It's Elliot and Erik's business. Not mine. If either of them felt the relationship required re-evaluation then it would be in their interest - nay their duty (Elliot to his (assumed) family and Erik to his corporation) - to revisit the terms of the contract. Their choice. Their responsibility. Their business. Not yours or mine.

There is no identifiable wrongdoing on either side (or not that anyone has presented). So it's inappropriate for anyone to suggest that one side is getting the short end of the deal and should find a way to wriggle out of or otherwise terminate the arrangement. It is, as I see it, actually immoral. That sort of suggestion is encouraging actions which can easily be harmful to the other side (edit/correction: either side may be harmed). And here's the tricky bit you seem to miss again and again - harm to a party that has done no wrong and quite possibly a great deal of good. You might be comfortable with such a harmful action being provoked by your catcalls - but I am not.

I did not suggest that Elliot consider himself morally bound to Matrix. I merely take the stance that to suggest potentially harmful actions; to goad someone into taking actions that may harm another without any evidence of the harm being defensive (ie: in response to harm received) - is unjustified and amoral. Perhaps if I spell it out in explicit and easy to understand words, you'll finally get it.

And for someone claiming experience in contract management, it's passing strange that you repeatedly miss my core argument.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
And unfortunately it seems this is being allowed by the Moderators.

I merely pointed out that some might consider the inability to consider emotional issues outside the context of profit/loss (or in this case a binding contract) - might be considered sociopathic behaviour. Perhaps you don't like it - but that is a (some would say "the") defining characteristic of sociopaths. If you don't like people to draw conclusions from your inability to acknowledge "loyalty" and "trust" outside of a contractual relationship - then perhaps you shouldn't make statements which are disturbingly sociopathic in nature.

"The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement.". Loyalty and trust just don't makes sense to you outside of a contract. Your words, not mine.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Your 4-8 month old post response was expected.

So why did you bother bringing it up? You knew I'd dismiss it and consider it irrelevant, yet you wasted the space on the forums with a knowingly pointless quote?

At some point I re-examined my position and determined that I shouldn't criticize Matrix without clear evidence that they're bollocksing it up. I can't imagine it's any fun for Erik to be constantly second-guessed by a community that lacks the facts that led him to his decisions.

But why and when did I switch my stance? What triggered it? I don't know. I don't particularly care. Perhaps it's important enough to you to waste the mental energy on. But not me.

ORIGINAL: Icemania
However, this doesn’t mean that I have to agree that this is the right path for the reasons I’ve already outlined

How can we possibly agree on a path when I pretty much cross my arms, shake my head and say - ad nauseum - "None of my business"? If there's a path to be taken, it's for Elliot and Erik (et al) to decide. Not me. Since I've been repeatedly and abundantly clear that it is none of my business and any such path decision is entirely in the hands of them to make... then how, with your claimed experience in contract management, we possibly agree?

And in closing, here's the bit which characterizes our entire debate:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
...you consider Matrix performance good enough to justify an ongoing arrangement...

What?!? I repeated it like a mantra - in bold mind you - over and over again and you STILL don't get it? I/we don't know. It's none of my/our business. How many times do I need to repeat it before you can finally understand this concept? Why do you insist on attributing a stance to me, (good enough) on an issue that I pointedly refuse to take a position on (Matrix-CodeForce relationship)? How many times to I have to repeat myself?

In my one bit of wild speculation - conveniently tagged as such and explicitly identified as essentially a bit of worthless guesswork which I won't put any importance on - I closed with the words "none of my business".

None of my/your business. Is this really so hard for you to understand? Are you so ignorant that you can't understand it, or are you trying to start a flame war by going full retard on me? If it's the latter, then just come out and say it.

Erik has stated - clearly and repeatedly - that it is in his interest and has every intention of making DW as successful as he can. Constantly second-guessing his actions, with speculations based on complete ignorance, is disrespectful and rude. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what else to say on the matter.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne
Kayoz defending the status quo

No, I'm not.

It's none of my business. I'm neither defending nor attacking the status quo (that being Matrix and CodeForce's business relationship). Maintaining or changing their relationship is entirely their decision. I take neither a pro or anti status-quo stance.

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne
The community has a right to discuss Elliot's actions and inactions (The other person is right)

On issues like bugs, design decisions and game balance - then absolutely, yes. If I've been lax in my criticism of Elliot's decision to use C# and his only touching on multi-threading as an afterthought, I do apologize. I felt I'd raked him over the coals quite enough.

But where his business decisions are concerned, I'm less willing to criticize or comment than some.

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne
Distant Worlds is in fact a monopolist, a monopolist due to quality above all.

More apathy, I think. Most game publishers won't touch a game unless it's a copy of something that's already successful and on the market. They seem to recoil in horror from any suggestion of innovation or creativity. Got a proposal for yet another 1st person shooter based on [fill in the blank] War? Bob's your uncle and they're shoving a contract across the table before the ink has dried. Something new and innovative? Make sure to give the secretary your visitor's pass when you leave. Oh, and take your proposal with you - our recycling bin is full.

If Matrix has a monopoly - then it's only because mainstream publishers (EA, Activision, etc) treat innovation like religious institutions do heresy. I can't imagine Elliot was greeted with open arms and enthusiasm when he brought an incomplete DW (ie: in need of funding) to other publishers.

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne
agree to disagree here and bombard Matrix's office email with your marketing optimization plans [:D]!

No problems with that. I seem to remember Erik actively soliciting suggestions for sites, bloggers and the such that he might approach to market DW. He's been consistently open to and appreciative of constructive criticism. I'd guess he'd welcome a flood of suggestions to his inbox.

[Icemania]

Once again I'll refrain from using the sort of inappropriate language you are choosing in your responses but I will continue to call you out accordingly.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
.. should find a way to wriggle out of or otherwise terminate the arrangement. It is, as I see it, actually immoral.

Again you are fabricating something I did not say and then using your own fabrication to inappropriately claim immorality.

As I have said before, I'm not suggesting wriggling out or termination. That's just ridiculous! Under these circumstances I would indeed agree with you.

As I have said before, I'm suggesting that options are considered at the end of an contract, and that the evaluation considers many factors including the past relationship i.e. including trust.

Apology accepted.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I merely take the stance that to suggest potentially harmful actions; to goad someone into taking actions that may harm another without any evidence of the harm being defensive (ie: in response to harm received) - is unjustified and amoral. Perhaps if I spell it out in explicit and easy to understand words, you'll finally get it.

As I have said before, I am suggesting consideration of options at the end of a contract period. It may or may not be the case that Matrix remains the correct choice.

My suggestion to consider options is justified because I consider Matrix Marketing performance poor. If you do not agree because you have changed your mind for no reason all I can do is laugh at the depth of your logic and the irony in your Christopher Hitchens quote.

As I have said before, the evaluation of options should be happening at a mutually agreed time and should be using a fair evaluation methodology that considers all factors including the past relationship. I have been involved in this dozens of times, on both sides of the fence, and not once has there has a suggestion of amoral behaviour when there is a change. Only you Kayoz. This is your misunderstanding. You seem to think this is amoral when it is not.

Indeed it can be done with significant grace. One of many examples come to mind. For a world first new technology, I was essentially the Publisher, and actually encouraged and helped the other party to consider other options after the original agreement expired. We had received far more than expected from the original agreement and their future products were clearly growing beyond our Core Business. Even now we both stay in touch from time to time to explore ideas where we might work together again someday. This is highly relevant, as the Matrix focus is War Strategy, and as you have previously agreed (unless you have changed your mind without evidence again) they do not adapt their Marketing Strategy. Why can't this also be done with grace if Matrix have no interest in adapting?

Once again you have jumped to conclusions, demonstrated your lack of competence, resorted to inappropriate behaviour in describing me as amoral and with your "spell it out" material.

By the way, how can you claim Marketing is "Reasonable" "without clear evidence"? By your own logic, shouldn't you be neutral Kayoz?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I merely pointed out that some might consider the inability to consider emotional issues outside the context of profit/loss (or in this case a binding contract) - might be considered sociopathic behaviour. Perhaps you don't like it - but that is a (some would say "the") defining characteristic of sociopaths. If you don't like people to draw conclusions from your inability to acknowledge "loyalty" and "trust" outside of a contractual relationship - then perhaps you shouldn't make statements which are disturbingly sociopathic in nature.

"The only way your comments on trust and loyalty make any sense is if you think there is a long-term agreement.". Loyalty and trust just don't makes sense to you outside of a contract. Your words, not mine.

Again you are fabricating something I did not say and then using your own fabrication to inappropriately claim sociopathic behaviour.

As I have said before, outside of a contract, trust and loyalty are one of many factors that need to be considered.

Many factors Kayoz. Loyalty and trust are just one of them. Your own failures to listen to what I am repeatedly saying defeats your entire argument.

And as you already know, but failed to mention, what I was doing was trying to make sense of your accusation i.e. trying to put myself in your shoes in writing it, which requires exploration across boundaries. And I have already highlighted how wrong that accusation is.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
What?!? I repeated it like a mantra - in bold mind you - over and over again and you STILL don't get it? I/we don't know. It's none of my/our business. How many times do I need to repeat it before you can finally understand this concept? Why do you insist on attributing a stance to me, (good enough) on an issue that I pointedly refuse to take a position on (Matrix-CodeForce relationship)? How many times to I have to repeat myself?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'm neither defending nor attacking the status quo (that being Matrix and CodeForce's business relationship). Maintaining or changing their relationship is entirely their decision. I take neither a pro or anti status-quo stance.

Given the strength of your words here, let's go and check what you actually wrote shall we Kayoz?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Furthermore, perhaps I'm reading too much into the Matrix-CodeForce relationship, but it seems to be one that works.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
It's a combination that works and rewards both participants.

That's not a completely contradictory untagged speculation is it Kayoz?

Let me guess. 2 days or so have passed and you changed your mind ... Speculation is now okay and now you are neutral when previously you expressed a position.

If I was Kayoz ... what words do you think I would be using?

In case anybody is wondering, yes, I have the popcorn. Plenty more in the pantry.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Gareth_Bryne
Elliot has a right to his actions (Kayoz is right)

Err ... no kidding. I think we might all be right on that one!

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: DevildogFF

I've always like you, Ice....

Now I understand better *why* I like you.

Cheers DevildogFF.

It's good practice to avoid rising to the bait and responding the way Kayoz does ... plenty of difficult people around.

[Icemania]

And here is some popcorn for you as well Kayoz

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
I think Matrix own the IP so no DW from anybody else.Elloit could still make another 4x game but not with DW in the title.

Good one.

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
...

Welcome to the forum Gregorovitch55.

Not all of us are as friendly as Kayoz.

[;)]

[Rising-Sun]

Take it easy ol' timers, we dont want another tread hi-jacked again.