Guard Frequency Episode 090 | There’s Whiskey In The Jar

Comments

19 responses to “Guard Frequency Episode 090 | There’s Whiskey In The Jar”

1. 

   Ryan

   September 29, 2015

   Derecks lawyer states smart is willing to pay for the audit. Why do I not think he’ll pay for anything more than his own lawyer to look through it.

   Reply
2. 

   bobsled624

   September 29, 2015

   So, I have to say, the more I look into this and (yes, unfortunately) read Mr. Smarts’ missives, I’m thinking that there’s partial blame to throw back to the SC community on this. Mr. Smart does not like how Chris and his senior managers are running the project. Playing devils advocate for the time being, there’s some evidence from former employees to support this, including a former artist’s rant on LinkedIn. I think it’s safe to say that we only see the positive side of CIG and there may be some credence to Mr. Smarts’ grievance. FOUR WORDS LEFT, YES!

   Reply
3. 

   UnderdogSMO

   September 29, 2015

   welp that was embarrassing.

   Reply
4. 

   Astrino

   September 29, 2015

   Love your show guys! I think your idea of creating stockholders to hold CIG accountable is a smart choice. However, company owners are more likely to find other sources of funding over selling off company ownership. That is, after all, why SC was/is a crowdfunded game and not funded by a publisher–it affords creative freedom to CIG that I’m afraid will be lost if the company is forced to take this path.

   Reply
5. 

   Flint Nefario

   September 29, 2015

   Remember the movie Top Gun? How about this quote: “Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane!”? Tony if I ever need a lawyer I’m hiring you because you do tell us what we *should* do but Top Gun would have been a lame movie if Maverick was the type to land his plane.

   To bring it back to SC…. Chris was playing WC and he was about to win but he tried to go for a head on kill on the last ship and died in a blaze of glory. So sorry Tony but I hope Sandi, Ortwin, and Chris fight DS in a battle to the death rather than doing the “what we should do” lawyer thing. I’m fine with my backer dollars going to that fight.

   Reply
6. 

   Evangel

   September 29, 2015

   I think that making CIG a corporation would give the wrong impression. CIG isn’t making Star Citizen to make a profit, but rather because they had a vision of the BDSSME. I backed the Star Citizen project because I wanted the vision they had to become reality, not to see a financial return on my pledge. CIG does tell us indirectly where our money goes. Monthly reports, Module updates, Deep Dives, ATV, Gamescon Demo, etc all tell us exactly where our money has gone.

   Reply
7. 

   Bennu

   September 30, 2015

   Summary: Sigh.
   Full: Loved the STD team! More please! Good point about confirmation bias – I’m biased against DS. Unfortunately, your comments led me to the DS blog and now I’m sad. Sad that I wasted a day being upset about the silly things DS wrote. The only way the Corporation idea makes DS go away is if he gets to be on the board (or his personal axe-carrier) and I won’t vote for that. DS may truly believe what he says, but he still trips my BS filters with all the innuendo, logic failures, and info from “anonymous insiders.”

   Reply
8. 

   Peter

   September 30, 2015

   The drama involved should be downplayed. I’d say let it go to court and be thrown out. It isn’t the first lawsuit that went nowhere and it won’t be the last. Courts decide on facts not grudges and RSI has the right to do whatever it want’s with the money they get. There is no fraud, there is no incompetence and there is already a huge amount of work and results to be displayed.

   The idea that we need a shareholders group is pretty ludicrous imho, you don’t get a share if you guy a game or a beta or a greenlight steam project.

   Reply
9. 

   Matt

   September 30, 2015

   Sorry not kept to 100 words, but couldn’t really scrimp here, so sue me :-).

   As an accountant by trade, it is a requirement (at least in the UK) for all companies over a certain size to be subjected to a full financial audit on their annual financial statements. This type of audit is a requirement under law; Foundry 42 may be too small to have to publish a full break down of their accounts, but they still will have to publish their balance sheet. As part of corporate governance, PLC listed company’s often add to this by producing disclosure packs (which includes these statements as well as commentary) that they publish freely on their website. Presumably CIG is subject to audit in the US as well.

   Rather than having said forensic audit which will run at tens of thousands of dollars, just publish an accounting pack online CIG already pay for vast majority of this anyway. It would cost them an insignificant sum, but it would show rough distribution of spend, bank balance at the yearend etc. Good enough to settle concerned backers, and would show a much more favourable position to any potential investigation, although I’m sure it won’t be sufficient for DS.

   Even he can’t really argue for three reasons:

   One it preserving Backer’s funds, which he states he’s doing it for us anyway.

   Two unless you know what you are looking for; or expect an accounts firm to verify every individual transaction, this has more chance of uncovering something bad anyway.

   Lastly and most importantly, IAASB audits are conducted under something called reasonable assurance basis, whereas any forensic or due diligence engagements are conducted on a limited assurance basis. This is basically a fancy accountant speak of saying a statutory audit carries more weight than a forensic audit as the statutory one requires the auditors to express an expert opinion based upon evidence collected that the accounts are reasonable, true and fair and that the control environment has been tested. By contrast a forensic audit, well that doesn’t need anything and certainly won’t be able to be relied upon in a court of law, which means if submitted it would be conjecture, opinion and a nice sideshow at best.

   Reply
   1. 

      Lennon

      September 30, 2015

      You just didn’t try hard enough. I got that down to 200 words, a saving of almost half (158 — this is why I’m not an accountant :P):

      It’s a requirement under UK law for companies over a certain size to be subjected to a full financial audit annually. CIGUK may be too small, but they’ll have to publish their balance sheet. Company’s often add to this by producing disclosure packs (including these statements and commentaries) available on their website. Instead of forensic accounting, just publish an accounting pack. Low cost and would show rough distribution of spend, yearend bank balance, etc. Enough to settle concerned backers, and a much more favourable position for any potential investigation.
      DS can’t argue because:
      1) It’s preserving Backer’s funds
      2) This has more chance of uncovering something big enough to be a concern
      Finally, IAASB audits are conducted under a “reasonable assurance” basis which is fancy accountant speak saying a statutory audit carries more weight than a forensic audit as it requires auditors to express an expert opinion based upon evidence collected that the accounts are reasonable, true and fair and that the control environment has been tested. By contrast a forensic audit doesn’t need anything and certainly won’t be able to be relied upon in a court of law. It would be conjecture, opinion and a nice sideshow at best.

      Reply
      1. 

         Matt

         September 30, 2015

         😛 numbers my strong suit not words. But I figured if I’m over 100 words I may as well do it properly

         You have however probably over butchered the distinction between the distinct levels of limited and reasonable assurance.

         Thanks all the same Lennon for doing the journalist thing. 🙂

         Reply
10. 

    DAwGia

    September 30, 2015

    Everything out of DS’s mouth is a lie. He is a compulsive/manipulative liar. This was well established in the flame wars back in the 90’s. Anything that puts him in a favorable light is also a lie. When DS keeps mentioning he has money, it strongly leads me to believe that he has no money. When DS says he has a hot wife, it leads me to believe it’s not only not his wife, but either a prostitute or his therapist (especially since he claims she’s a therapist).

    Reply
    1. 

       Justin Lowmaster

       September 30, 2015

       Pretty sure we shouldn’t to drag family (alleged or no) into this. And every man’s wife should be hot, to him, if no one else!

       Reply
11. 

    Ashley Murton

    October 1, 2015

    I didn’t back a corporation, I backed Chris Roberts and I want the company to stay how it was. I believe DS was trying to do what he did before.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100615234804/http://www.requnix.com/?p=208

    That ended up in a settlement.

    I believe if this turns into a corporation he won’t be happy unless he’s a part of it.

    Reply
12. 

    Heremus

    October 1, 2015

    Ahh sh*t … 300 words in 3 Aspects and one conclusional metaphor

    I think about DS as someone who aims with his attentions in direction of chaos (natural chaos). Everytime I read him I become the impression of someone whose trying to tear down a building by ripping out loose bricks wherever he can find them. In the end I think beyond his words are his intentions not good willing. (He isn’t the one who owns the building although he wants to tear it down).

    If we get the financial work of CIG’s few get looked over by the worlds thousands. You get a whole cluster of interpretations, misinterpretations. You have to communicate that and bring again order into the chaos. I think this could dismantle the project completely and it’s once clear vision would dissolve in opinions.

    As far as humans are involved you will always have human failure (miss-management, frictions, communications errors, bias) and therefor room for critics. You have also the Pareto Principle which always distorts the clear view on the whole process by not seeing the impact of the small parts doing 80% of the work or vice versa. By all that standard we have also additionally a drastic expansion rate. We can not assume what’s happening inside CIG.Therefor we should not interfere in the process, which never can be 100% efficient and accept and tolerate the human failure.

    In the metaphor of Star Citizen space fight. We the community can only be the fighter pilots battling the waves of critics outside of the Bengal Carrier in order to protect it’s crew and captain Chris Roberts. What happens on the Carrier should not be our concern we have to fight outside and have to trust CR and crew that they will do the right preparations to win this war against DS. Which by the way is battling on his Idris against us OUTSIDE.

    Reply
13. 

    seannewboy

    October 1, 2015

    Loved the show everyone.

    I hope Dip Shite gets his butt handed to him, publicly.

    Reply
14. 

    Tytis Kraiger

    October 3, 2015

    STOP trying to concede to him! As per section 7,3 of the TOS DS as well as anyone else who so chooses, are agreed to a refund and NOTHING more. Yet his breach of section 5 means CIG is not obligated to award said refund and reserve the right to terminate his account and participation of the game and RSI services. Witch they did. Its all right there in the TOS. We ALL are promised nothing more than the development of the game and of a copy of it at release. IF such release happens. STAND YOUR GROUND CIG!

    Reply
15. 

    Tytis Kraiger

    October 3, 2015

    100 words done.. Now I need to rant; Its true we all are subject to know how our contributed monies have been allocated. But doesnt that mean then that we are only allowed to know what our individual contribution’s went to pay for? Thats how I read it. Yet even if we were to demand a full accounting of all monies. As per the terms of service, thats all we are owed! An explanation of where every penny was spent. But I question if thats still applicable given the fact the project has grown and parts of the TOS could be deemed as out of date. I dont want to know though. Given the suspicions of possable services rendered in europe, I look forward to the suprises. Combined with CIG’s astounding releases of “alpha” content we all know other publishing houses would push as finished (DS “game” for example) Im confident Chris will make good his FULL dream come true and be realized on my pc screen.

    I would be overtly put out if CIG was to restructure thier current entity in order to cowtail to Mr. Smarts alogations. Infact Tony, I would/will expect an allocation of shares as it would be deamed worth equal to my particular amount I paid into the corporation. I WOULD expect a piece of that pie with the completed game as the ala mode on the side. As well a new TOS and EULA to agree to.

    What really pisses me off is that ANYONE would push for an allocation of intent or accounts as these privleges are WAVED at the moment anyone hits the “pay” button on the RSI site. Mr DE LA PEÑA has miss spoken. He’s fighting a grey area clearly covered in the TOS under the Pledges section. In fact at the time of Mr Smarts contribution the 18 month period could be deemed already expired. His backing after that time would be, SHOULD be construed as an open contract of faith in CIG to continue its work in production of the game. With the understanding the initial estimated release of product has been eclipsed. Its how I read it to mean as I backed only this year and I know the kickstarter was started in 2013. This is the first time I backed a project. As such I took the time to read the TOS and KNOW what I was forfeiting when i backed. AT MOST CIG should consider renewing its wordage in the TOS as per the steps therein and submit the changes to us backers to review and agree/disagree to. That is the simple solution.

    Being that America is a very litigious country we backers have every right to make a claim against Mr Smart. Right now if we so wish to. Just like him we can do so regardless of our ability to win. For sure I would counter sue on the grounds of his character and his own documented failure to produce a fully functioning product. End of Rant

    Reply
16. 

    Jethro Echo Seven

    October 3, 2015

    The Starcitizen Reddit recently shouted down investigative journalism as clickbait / or DS spam. As a result, downvoters ensure that honest and crucial criticism – the testimony of NINE current and former CIG employees, 6 of whom were thoroughly vetted by the escapist who endured unconscionable and unfair treatment at the hands of CIG including public shaming and humiliating treatment in a toxic environment were largely lost.
    Present and past CIG employees deserve better than needing to report harassment and bullying to a HR department which answers to the alleged perpetrators. I want my game, but don’t want it built on the bones of even one, let alone 9 distressed CIG staff. I want CIG to get its house in order and support employees who have complaints without retaliation and victimization.

    Reference –> https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3nbcci/escapist_star_citizen_podcast_about_crowd_funding/cvmkosi

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.