This may not last long if SVC reverses himself on his stated requirement that Dave C must apologize and promise never to do anything to violate tournament sanction again.
SVC- you wrote:
"However, David Cheng will need to contact us and ask to be re-instated, since he was the one who withdrew and caused the problem. I covered this on on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 11:52."
Yes, this is correct in the circumstance that Paul did not attend the event after all. Instead Paul turned in the requested articles ( a move encouraged and applauded by myself and many others).
According to your (SVC) post on August 11 at 10:51 am, Cof5N would have its sanction restored once the articles were "read and certified as complete and correct". Unless I misunderstood your post this morning that stated Paul was "no longer a problem", that criteria has been met and sanction has been restored.
Does that not also mean that we can discuss the convention on this BBS now? Or are you placing additional requirements on Dave C. before that is allowed?
As per Jean's post this afternoon. We don't get our own dedicated topic, but we are free to post about it in the Conventions News thread. If the sanction is re-applied, then we'll get our own thread back. Just try to be civil and not take any hidden stabs at the ADB staff so we can continue to post the pre-convention buzz and then the battle(bottle?) reports after wards. Personally, I don't mind treading lightly there as long as we can post about it because coverage of Co5N on the ADB BBS can be nothing but a good thing.
I don't know if re-sanctioning is going to happen or not. Up to Dave. But on the SFB BBS, we are able to discuss the event (Yaa!) and just everyone be cool
(In response to postings by Stacy Bartley at 505 PM 9/27/09 and Glenn Hoepfner at 924 PM on 9/27/09)
Stacy and Glenn, I'm sorry that you feel that anyone who was treated badly by ADB or its employees is "petty" because they didn't just suck it up. Or that you can't understand why they would be upset even further because ADB is permitted to tell their side of the story publicly on this board but they are not because the rules of this board prohibit criticism of ADB and its employees.
You're right that this is ADB's board and they should be able to control what is posted here, and that anything harmful to ADB will be removed.
But don't tell me that such actions are taken to protect the customer. After all, all of us, including the angry people, are customers. No, the censorship is solely about protecting the company.
I also have a question for SVC: How does providing a link to the Co5N website "inflict" the discussion board full of "lies and hate" on your customers? I have been all over the website and found no reference to the aforementioned discussion board.
No, the censorship is solely about protecting the company.
I agree with almost all of this, Mike, but I don't think it goes far enough. If he was just deleting posts, banning discussions and banning disagreement I'd agree with you completely. But he also edits posts (his and those of other posters) to make himself "right" and others "wrong." That has nothing to do with protecting the company (and I'm a diehard capitalist, so I'm all for protecting companies). It has far more to do massaging his broken ego.
Maybe he should create an account and set the record straight.
Based on my experience with him, particularly on AOL, this will never happen. If he cannot completely control the conversation (to the point, as stated above, of editing both sides) he will not take part. What I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, is him having some underlings start posting pro-Cole propaganda. What remains to be seen is, if this happens, how well his arguments will stand up when people can respond to them freely.
Let's keep this about what Steve Cole does or doesn't do, rather than what some hypothetical people might hypothetically maybe do or maybe not do in potential support of someone else at an unspecified future time. (If you know what I mean, and I'm not sure that *I* do anymore.)
Hey, David. This is the SFB Open Community, not the "Bash Steve Cole" community. Just because someone doesn't jump on the SVC bash-wagon, or might actually have something good to say about the guy, doesn't mean they're an "underling" or spewing "propaganda".
When it opened, the goal of this BBS was to have open discourse. If you start shouting down anyone with different opinions, then it's not really "open", is it?
If you start shouting down anyone with different opinions
I'm curious: how does posting a comment constitute shouting anyone down? I for one wuld love to hear somebody try to defend him, especially if they weren't spouting the party line. Frankly, I think Mike Johnson pretty much has it right (and for the record I'm not saying that Mike is a Colebot, only that his reasoning is sound).
Jean just shut down the convention topic on the BBS. We have now been called enemies of SFB by Robert Callaway (whoever the hell he is). I posted the last response in the topic before Jean closed it, and I am sure it will be deleted, so here is a copy.
"Enemy" Robert? This is still a game we are talking about, right?
I will be at CO5N. I have been going there for years to play SFB and hang out with my friend, as we enjoy this fantastic game.
I have been playing SFB for more than 20 years. I have spent more than a thousand dollars on SFB and Fed Commander merchandise. I have spent even more on attending many Origins to play in the tournaments there. I have been a subscriber to SFB Online since it first started.
When did I and others like me become enemies, rather than customers/players?
David: "What I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, is him having some underlings start posting pro-Cole propaganda" to me was like holding up a sign that anyone who didn't join the bash-wagon or agree with you must be an "underling" with "Pro-Cole propaganda".
I do business with him. I enjoy the games he's written.
And I have periodically posted here giving some insight into the other side of the discussion. Steve can write his own posts, all I can do is give an opinion based on what I see.
I personally would rather see Co5N embraced as something helping the community. The con is 2 weeks away. The odds that any posts on the SFB BBS are going to get anyone new to come to it are pretty slim.
I've also been pretty up front that I'm going to Co5N to show off my products to a concentrated group of people who might be interested in them.
I thought about posting on the official SFB BBS on this topic but really had no idea whether my posts would be censored, deleted or tampered with.
The realization that I cannot express my point of view on the official SFB BBS due to the possibility of selected editing/deletion (that can change the whole context of a point or view), and the ability to post here uncensored, has led me to the conclusion that there really isn't any reason for me to post anything in the future on the official SFB BBS.
The players whose views I respect and enjoy post the majority of there interesting opinions here and I have no trouble making my own opinion about what is pointless flame-war personal attacks or interesting reading.
On a final note, here is SVC's reply to Mike J -
"The truth is known and your actions only make you like like a peevish three year old liar."
Is this really the level of content that SVC wants us to aspire to???
Oh, and for the record, my original response to Robert was defending the C05N players and pointing out that we are not "bad for the community".
But since Jean's taken steps to clean up his mess, it's not really that important. I don't want to throw more fuel on the fire. The main thing is that C05N players are SFB players and we don't need an "us or them" mentality regarding the con.
I received an e-mail from Jean following my response to Robert Calloway. It was quite nice and to the point. I appreciated the fact that she took the time to e-mail me as well as handling the mess on the BBS, and I told her so in my reply.
She communicated with me via email as well, very professional and took the time to encourage me to continue contributing to the BBS. Too late though as SVC's post convinced me to stop patronizing the ADB BBS. I'll post more here later after he has time to digest my response.
Then I promise I'll get back to more important things, like the playtest report for the TCF!
Posted today, Sept 29th, 9:05 AM EDT.
Let's see how long it stays up there.
Posted in it's entirety here:
= = =
By David Cheng (Davec) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 09:05 am: Edit
OK...
Steve Cole has posted his "in a nutshell" summary, where he gives his version of the Council De-Sanction story. In the spirit of fairness and balance, I call upon Steve and Jean to let me give my side of the story here, for the record, without censorship, so the SFU community can see the whole picture. I will bend over backwards to portray the facts in a fair and moderate manner.
Selections of Steve Cole's various statements here on the BBS:
Quote:
July 22
"We are truly saddened and disappointed that David Cheng has displayed a total lack of the integrity on and for which ADB, Inc., stands. David Cheng's decision does not support his customers or the SFB community, and we cannot remain associated with him."
July 23
"David phoned me and, in a conversation in which he was extremely hostile and confrontational, refused to dis-invite this person, and said he was "fine with dropping the sanction". His players were NOT fine with David dropping the sanction, and to protect the integrity of the tournament system, we had no choice but to cut all contact with David." [...]
"We at ADB, Inc., are deeply saddened by the lack of judgement shown by David Cheng. His deliberate decision to void the sanction of his event did a disservice to his players and our customers. ADB, Inc., cannot support someone who abuses our customers for any reason, and David Cheng had no valid reason for his action. Indeed, David Cheng ignored the wishes of his own players, many of whom contacted him and ADB, Inc., urging him to maintain the sanction of his event."
Sept 28
"The convention organizer diliberately violated the sanction (despite his players emailing him with CCs to me and asking him not to), and demanded that ADB Inc. accept his actions (in effect, allow him to write the rules for tournament sanctions). We declined, and withdrew support for their event."
MY REBUTTAL:
July 22
Is it really a total lack of integrity to work hard, for over seven years now, to take steps to build the SFB tournament at Council to be the largest in the world? Over those seven years, all other SFB tournaments have shrank significantly in size, but Council is poised for record attendance this year. Do you really think it's a lack of integrity that drives me and the other SWA Planning Team members to do this?
July 23
Yeah... I really wish I had the foresight to record the telephone conversation so that I could post it online as an MP3 and let everyone in the SFU community listen to it and decide for themselves if either party was out of line.
Anyway, please know that I in no way acted against the wishes of the majority of the tournament SFB community. Weeks before my phone call to Cole where he officially de-sanctioned the Council SFB tournament, I did a private email survey to the 41 SFB players I considered most likely to attend Council this year. I based this on their attendance at our SFB tournaments in the past five years.
I stated there was a chance that our SFB tournament would not be sanctioned this year, and asked if it would affect their decision to attend. Many said they would prefer to attend a sanctioned tournament, but they would still attend if it was not. One person likely to attend said he would not attend if it was not sanctioned.
Here are the details of the survey:
Original email went out on May 30th to 41 recipients.
* Twelve said the sanction did not matter, and would not affect their decision to attend.
* Six said they would prefer the tournament be sanctioned, but would attend either way. (BTW, many of these comments were more along the lines of "I prefer not to cause trouble with ADB over this", implying that not rocking the boat was more important than the actual Ace Card.)
* One person said he would not play in the tournament if it isn't sanctioned.
* Nineteen discrete respondents (46% response rate; not too bad)
* Twenty-two did not reply with an opinion/vote.
So, Cole is partially correct in his statements that many people wanted to attend a sanctioned tournament. However, he is not stating the facts correctly when he says that our actions (voluntarily acting in such a way that would get us de-sanctioned) defied the wishes of the community. I asked the community directly, and an overwhelming majority said "The sanction does not mean that much to me, and I will attend either way."
Also, part of our thinking was that not being held to the restrictions of a sanctioned tournament would give us freedom to do other interesting things, and perhaps be more attractive to other/new attendees (example: G-Rack Fed is allowed).
However, the bottom line reason, the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", came from Cole's statements that he would remove the sanction from any tournament in which Paul Scott was allowed to participate, as Paul was banned (for reasons outlined in other BBS threads).
Paul expressed interest in attending Council, as he has done in the past. If we acceded to Cole's wishes and banned him, that would be taking revenue out of our cash box. None of the SWA Planning Team thought it was right that Cole's grudge against Scott should affect who and who does not get to attend Council. AND, we had already determined that in losing the sanction, we would only lose one specific attendee. We were also willing to take the risk that our actions might attract other people to attend, giving our attendance a net increase.
Please know, for the record, none of this was done out of any sense of loyalty to Paul Scott. I don't consider Paul a bad guy or anything, but he's only attended Council once, and several folks have said he can come across as a bit pompous, so we didn't feel any particular loyalty to him. But Paul is a guy who just might be the best SFB player in the world, and he wanted to fly all the way from California to attend our con. Why would we want to turn him away?
The final reason we took this action was to make a statement to Steve Cole. As mentioned in other online places, we felt it was time to take a stand against Cole's actions that we feel are driving people away from the SFU community. One of the private discussion comments was this: "Sooner or later, we as a community have to say something about him running off players one at a time." This was not from me, but another SFB player well-regarded in the community.
Sept 28th:
Notice how Steve is contradicting himself here.
On July 23rd, he quotes me (correctly!) as saying we're "fine with dropping the sanction". This is true - I said those exact words, several times! Although I firmly assert that I did not do so in a "hostile" or "confrontational" way, but I won't dwell on that too much.
But on Sept 28th, Steve is saying I "demanded that ADB Inc. accept [my] actions (in effect, allow [me] to write the rules for tournament sanctions)".
Not true! I said repeatedly that we were fine with losing the sanction. I just thought Steve was "cutting off his nose to spite his face" in banning all mention of Co5N from the ADB BBS. Why would Cole not want to let the largest FtF SFB tournament in the world promote itself on the designer's web site?
So...
Lack of integrity? Please judge for yourself.
Lack of judgment? Please judge for yourself.
Disservice to Council's players and customers? Please judge for yourself.
Abusing ADB's customers? Please judge for yourself.
No valid reason for this action? Please judge for yourself.
We now have 36 confirmed attendees for the SFB tournament at this year's Council. This is on top of some "Probable"s, and a bunch of "Maybe"s too. We could very well get 40 or more. This would blow away our previous record of 34. Look at the drop in Origins Gold Hat attendance - down to single digits. Council is growing.
Does this seem like we're dividing the community? Please judge for yourself.
Even though ADB has not sent us any prize support, we still included an ADB advertisement in our pre-reg packet. We would charge other companies $100 for this ad, but ADB gets it free, because we are still trying to generate interest in SFB and FedCom. I'd love to provide a link so you could download it and see for yourself (page 34), but Jean says I'm not allowed!
Even though Stephen V. Cole has repeatedly referred to me in a derogatory way, I myself inserted the ADB ad in hopes that some of the over-400 people who've downloaded the PDF file might see it, get interested, come to the SFB room and use the FREE SFB GAME COUPON that we provide all con registrants, and maybe even end up buying something in the dealers area. Our dealer, Zombie Planet, knows full well that we run the largest SFB tournament in the world, so he usually has a decent selection of SFU stuff at his booth.
Even though Steve Cole banned Paul Scott for years, Paul is running an introductory Federation Commander event at Council.
Do these sound like the actions of people who are out to divide the community? Please judge for yourself.
We just spent a nice bit of money on a big new trophy, the Council Cup (photos coming soon). It lists all the tournament winners since we got rolling back in 2002, and there is space for at least two dozen more names.
We'd love to see you all on October 9-11, competing to get your name engraved on the Council Cup.
If not this year, then next.
Look at it this way: SFB has existed for thirty years, this year. It has been in near-continuous publication, in one form or another, for its entire life. It is the longest-existing game based on the "Star Trek" property, by an amazing margin (it beats most of them by an order of magnitude.) And the Gold Hat tournament at Origins has always been a big part of the SFB tradition. If any part of this goes away, then it's a big loss to ADB's prestige; you're no longer The Oldest SF Game, no longer The Oldest Star Trek Game, no longer The Longest-Running Single Event At Origins, all that goes away. So you can see how ADB would want to keep Origins as The Big SFB Event.
(Which, as a side note, is why we're still seeing new SFB product despite the fact that everyone prefers FC, but that's a subject for another post.)
Nor is it to me. That having been said, I do dislike them intensely.
What I would still like to see from tha ADB camp, however, is a response that didn't include the "our customers cannot think for themselves" line of reasoning.
"Sooner or later, we as a community have to say something about him running off players one at a time."
To me, this is what it all comes down to, and if any part of this is a holy crusade to me, it's this issue.
I've been involved in this game in one way or another since the 80s. I've seen this happen time and again. I've seen lots of people who worked hard to promote the game pushed away by Cole's behavior, myself among them. I perceive this as a chance to stand up to him and tell him that enough is enough.
"From where I sit the issue boiled down to whether the tournament would be sanctioned by ADB. You were told that a specific action would lose that and you did it anyway so I don't see where you have room to carp. Everything else is really extraneous to the issue and probably wouldn't have happened if you had done what was needed to retain your sanction.
Now no one says you need to be sanctioned to have a good tournament or good con. But you can't have it both ways. If you choose to forgo the sanction you can't complain about it. From what I have seen here you've simultaneously said "I don't need no steenkin' sanction" and complained about the injustice of it and enabled others with axes to grind.
Now in the cosmic scheme of things I don't know how important having or NOT having a sanction is. It isn't especially important to me one way or another, but it seems to me that ADB has the right to confer or deny it as they choose. If they say the impulse chart must be read aloud by the Swedish Bikini Team it may or may not be absurd but it's their right.
To me you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You want to be sanctioned you know what you have to do. If you don't want to DO that then you get to live with your own choices - for good OR bad.
If you're truly comfortable with your choice I don't see why you seem to feel the need to defend it.
regards
Stacy"
__________________
Stacy,
Where do you see Dave complaining about the loss of sanction? Because I don't find it anywhere in anything he said.
"Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:59 am: Edit
Nice stated, Stacy.
I'll just say that what you posted goes for me, also. "
______
I guess more than one person is confused. I don't get it myself, as I think Dave repeatedly and clearly said that he was "fine with dropping the sanction." But Stacy and Roger, at least, seem to be reading something different. Not sure why. Anyone else find this unclear?
I think that they can't grasp that someone might like ADB games and want to play them but NOT want to be all chummy with the designers. To them, the whole reason to have SFB tournaments is to eventually go to Origins and play in the Gold Hat tournament, and if your local show isn't sanctioned then it doesn't count for that. Ergo, getting and keeping the sanction is the most important thing, and therefore (they think) that must be what David is griping about.
Also: "You want to be sanctioned you know what you have to do. "
Well, there it is. David DOESN'T want to be sanctioned. His point has been that sanctioning is immaterial to the tournament, and to him personally. What he's pointing out is that the de-sanctioning is not due to anything other than personal pique on SVC's part. He's complaining about the injustice BECAUSE THIS IS UNJUST, not because he wants to get the sanction back.
"From where I sit the issue boiled down to whether the tournament would be sanctioned by ADB. "
Yeah; no. The issue boiled down to SVC using the threat of a de-sanction to compel the SFB community to shun one of its players. This is very ugly behavior and I'm rather glad that there's a place we can discuss it, because when the ADB board is the only game in town, it's too easy for this all to get sent to Sibera and retouched out of the official photographs.
PS it's absolutely classic that nobody here is allowed to post there because it's "disruptive", but they're allowed to rack up post after post talking about what a bunch of bastards we are.
I'm fairly certain that Dave would like C05N to be sanctioned. However, Dave and the committee are unwilling to allow an outside organization(ie. ADB) to dictate who can attend their convention. In a way they are not only sticking up for themselves, but for conventions everywhere.
"To them, the whole reason to have SFB tournaments is to eventually go to Origins and play in the Gold Hat tournament, and if your local show isn't sanctioned then it doesn't count for that."
Being a Rated Ace no longer holds any tournament benefit at Origins and hasn't for a while. Whether CO5N is sanctioned or not has absolutely no impact on Gold Hat participation - SVC knows that.
The impact of the loss of sanction is as follows:
- no free prizes from ADB
- no free advertising of the Con/tournament on ADB-owned websites
How much value one places on those elements is a subjective measure.
Yeah, I also share that sentiment. She works for ADB so of course she's going to side with Cole and tout the company line. But she is always considerate and polite. And she'll email you with an explanation for any posts of yours that she's edited or deleted. I think she's a great asset for the ADB BBS as well as their product line as she does lots of editing for ADB as well.
"PS it's absolutely classic that nobody here is allowed to post there because it's "disruptive", but they're allowed to rack up post after post talking about what a bunch of bastards we are."
Yeah but that is just the truth in your case RB :)
Seriously, you're right. Note how they stopped all further discussion of DaveC's post once the confused sycophants had their say. Once again the "record" makes DaveC look as bad as possible.
And to think I was congratulating them in my mind for allowing DaveC's rebuttal to be posted on their board.
Pity they didn't hire someone as Jean much earlier.
Wonder who come up with the idea? Maybe it was just they needed a proofreader and let her also do the policing the board as an afterthought.
After all, I doubt SVC thought: "I got a PR problem here. Maybe it would help hiring someone that could be a friendly face online?" :)
So, basically, Cole decided to de-sanctify the Co5N tournament because it allowed david chen to play after cole had excommunicated him from the SFB universe, and won't allow the Co5N games to be sanctioned until chen is either barred from them or apologizes to cole, is that basically it?
Reminds me of the spirit of this, which I posted in another forum on this board and report here:
Knowing of cole's pettiness and arrogance myself, I am inclined to take Mr. Chen's side and the side of the Co5N in this matter, and salute them, for what it's worth, for not brownlipping cole.
Quick summary:
2009
* Paul Scott was on SVC's Poop List for not writing some articles that he said he would produce for Captain's Log.
* Cole had a stated policy that because of this, Paul Scott could not participate in any Rated Ace Sanctioned Tournaments.
* Paul was welcomed at Council anyway, knowing this. We didn't think we'd lose too many attendees because of it. In fact, we hoped to get a net gain.
* Cole got angry that we didn't care that much about the sanction. So he not only de-sanctioned us, but struck all (well, actually most) mention of the con from the ADB BBS.
* We took the non-sanction freedom to do some experimenting. G-Rack Fed, etc.
** Barry Kirk showed up and did some Omega tournament cruiser testing.
** Our attendance was solid as ever (29). No decline. Notable Council first-timers: Barry, Al Rae, Patrick Hill, Mike Johnson, Ken Burnside, Ron Brimeyer, Jude Hornborg, Tim Linden.
** Paul Scott rolls consistently well with his Photons and wins the Council Cup.
** Paul wrote & submitted the articles, and got un-banned.
** 2010 tournament was still not Ace Card sanctioned.
* Attendance was good too: 27 (Looked it up)
** We continue to pull in 'new' attendees. "Big Ed" Slusarek shook off 15+ years of rust and came in 2nd. Big Bad Bill Schoeller attended Council instead of Origins and won the honor of having his name engraved on the Council Cup.
2011 Update
Ken Kazinski has volunteered to run the SFB tournament. He will follow all Rated Ace Sanction requirements.
And that's where we are right now.
-DC
UPDATE EDITS: I forgot a few important items. Those appear with "**" above.
I may not be the slowest player in the room, but I sure ain't the fastest neither. I'm probably in the bottom 25% or so.
This makes me think about companies like GE that have a policy of firing the bottom 10% of their employee population (as determined by performance reviews) every year.
Do you suggest taking the slowest player each year and performing some kind of public humiliation ritual? Tar and feathering? Or, perhaps a ritual sacrifice to the gaming gods?
"This makes me think about companies like GE that have a policy of firing the bottom 10% of their employee population (as determined by performance reviews) every year."
The guy that works for me worked for GE, and we were just talking about this today.
In practice, it's a horrible policy, because it destroys teamwork
>>Do you suggest taking the slowest player each year and performing some kind of public humiliation ritual? Tar and feathering? Or, perhaps a ritual sacrifice to the gaming gods?>>
I'm pretty sure that Hoju meant "moving slow" in the sense of "I plot speed 4", not "moving slow" in the sense of "It takes me 15 minutes to do my turn 1 allocation"...
You know, that makes total sense now that you've stated the obvious... I can't believe that one slipped right by me. It must be yet another example of my Early Onset Alzheimer's affliction.
If a person has a valid reason to move slowly, what's the problem? Some schmuck has a high warhead plasma torpedo about to hit, so he plots a low speed to dump most engine power into specific reinforcement of the facing shield to neutralize it. This is a problem? Sounds like a tactic to me.
>>If a person has a valid reason to move slowly, what's the problem?>>
This is a reference to shenanagins from years ago regarding a convoluted "solution" to non aggressive play from the Powers that Be. If you missed out on all of that, it isn't really worth explaining again.
A response I posted to SVC regarding Co5N sanction on 9/15/09
SVC- you wrote:
"However, David Cheng will need to contact us and ask to be re-instated, since he was the one who withdrew and caused the problem. I covered this on on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 11:52."
Yes, this is correct in the circumstance that Paul did not attend the event after all. Instead Paul turned in the requested articles ( a move encouraged and applauded by myself and many others).
According to your (SVC) post on August 11 at 10:51 am, Cof5N would have its sanction restored once the articles were "read and certified as complete and correct". Unless I misunderstood your post this morning that stated Paul was "no longer a problem", that criteria has been met and sanction has been restored.
Does that not also mean that we can discuss the convention on this BBS now? Or are you placing additional requirements on Dave C. before that is allowed?
Oh, Council will remain
Oh, Council will remain Conventia Non Grata until/unless Dave crawls, I'm sure.
Council of 5 Nations can now be discussed on the ADB BBS
As per Jean's post this afternoon. We don't get our own dedicated topic, but we are free to post about it in the Conventions News thread. If the sanction is re-applied, then we'll get our own thread back. Just try to be civil and not take any hidden stabs at the ADB staff so we can continue to post the pre-convention buzz and then the battle(bottle?) reports after wards. Personally, I don't mind treading lightly there as long as we can post about it because coverage of Co5N on the ADB BBS can be nothing but a good thing.
What Marcus said. That's
What Marcus said. That's great news.
Yeah, re-sanctioning remains to be seen
I don't know if re-sanctioning is going to happen or not. Up to Dave. But on the SFB BBS, we are able to discuss the event (Yaa!) and just everyone be cool
Potential delete posted today on the BBS
(In response to postings by Stacy Bartley at 505 PM 9/27/09 and Glenn Hoepfner at 924 PM on 9/27/09)
Stacy and Glenn, I'm sorry that you feel that anyone who was treated badly by ADB or its employees is "petty" because they didn't just suck it up. Or that you can't understand why they would be upset even further because ADB is permitted to tell their side of the story publicly on this board but they are not because the rules of this board prohibit criticism of ADB and its employees.
You're right that this is ADB's board and they should be able to control what is posted here, and that anything harmful to ADB will be removed.
But don't tell me that such actions are taken to protect the customer. After all, all of us, including the angry people, are customers. No, the censorship is solely about protecting the company.
Another potential delete
I also have a question for SVC: How does providing a link to the Co5N website "inflict" the discussion board full of "lies and hate" on your customers? I have been all over the website and found no reference to the aforementioned discussion board.
Would be nice to know...
Which bits here are lies, and which arent.
Maybe he should create an account and set the record straight.
I assume, unlike his board, it would remain untouched, unedited, undeleted.
Well, he is conservative.
Well, he is conservative. Hyperbole comes natural to him:D
-Ducks and run away!-
Mostly, yeah
No, the censorship is solely about protecting the company.
I agree with almost all of this, Mike, but I don't think it goes far enough. If he was just deleting posts, banning discussions and banning disagreement I'd agree with you completely. But he also edits posts (his and those of other posters) to make himself "right" and others "wrong." That has nothing to do with protecting the company (and I'm a diehard capitalist, so I'm all for protecting companies). It has far more to do massaging his broken ego.
Won't happen
Maybe he should create an account and set the record straight.
Based on my experience with him, particularly on AOL, this will never happen. If he cannot completely control the conversation (to the point, as stated above, of editing both sides) he will not take part. What I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, is him having some underlings start posting pro-Cole propaganda. What remains to be seen is, if this happens, how well his arguments will stand up when people can respond to them freely.
Don't start that.
Let's keep this about what Steve Cole does or doesn't do, rather than what some hypothetical people might hypothetically maybe do or maybe not do in potential support of someone else at an unspecified future time. (If you know what I mean, and I'm not sure that *I* do anymore.)
Hey, David. This is the SFB
Hey, David. This is the SFB Open Community, not the "Bash Steve Cole" community. Just because someone doesn't jump on the SVC bash-wagon, or might actually have something good to say about the guy, doesn't mean they're an "underling" or spewing "propaganda".
When it opened, the goal of this BBS was to have open discourse. If you start shouting down anyone with different opinions, then it's not really "open", is it?
Hey, Purple Drazi
If you start shouting down anyone with different opinions
I'm curious: how does posting a comment constitute shouting anyone down? I for one wuld love to hear somebody try to defend him, especially if they weren't spouting the party line. Frankly, I think Mike Johnson pretty much has it right (and for the record I'm not saying that Mike is a Colebot, only that his reasoning is sound).
Convention topic closed
Jean just shut down the convention topic on the BBS. We have now been called enemies of SFB by Robert Callaway (whoever the hell he is). I posted the last response in the topic before Jean closed it, and I am sure it will be deleted, so here is a copy.
"Enemy" Robert? This is still a game we are talking about, right?
I will be at CO5N. I have been going there for years to play SFB and hang out with my friend, as we enjoy this fantastic game.
I have been playing SFB for more than 20 years. I have spent more than a thousand dollars on SFB and Fed Commander merchandise. I have spent even more on attending many Origins to play in the tournaments there. I have been a subscriber to SFB Online since it first started.
When did I and others like me become enemies, rather than customers/players?
David: "What I wouldn't be
David: "What I wouldn't be surprised to see, however, is him having some underlings start posting pro-Cole propaganda" to me was like holding up a sign that anyone who didn't join the bash-wagon or agree with you must be an "underling" with "Pro-Cole propaganda".
This mess is not a holy crusade to everyone here.
SVC is a friend of mine.
I do business with him. I enjoy the games he's written.
And I have periodically posted here giving some insight into the other side of the discussion. Steve can write his own posts, all I can do is give an opinion based on what I see.
I personally would rather see Co5N embraced as something helping the community. The con is 2 weeks away. The odds that any posts on the SFB BBS are going to get anyone new to come to it are pretty slim.
I've also been pretty up front that I'm going to Co5N to show off my products to a concentrated group of people who might be interested in them.
Censorship and Realization
I thought about posting on the official SFB BBS on this topic but really had no idea whether my posts would be censored, deleted or tampered with.
The realization that I cannot express my point of view on the official SFB BBS due to the possibility of selected editing/deletion (that can change the whole context of a point or view), and the ability to post here uncensored, has led me to the conclusion that there really isn't any reason for me to post anything in the future on the official SFB BBS.
The players whose views I respect and enjoy post the majority of there interesting opinions here and I have no trouble making my own opinion about what is pointless flame-war personal attacks or interesting reading.
On a final note, here is SVC's reply to Mike J -
"The truth is known and your actions only make you like like a peevish three year old liar."
Is this really the level of content that SVC wants us to aspire to???
Oh, and for the record, my
Oh, and for the record, my original response to Robert was defending the C05N players and pointing out that we are not "bad for the community".
But since Jean's taken steps to clean up his mess, it's not really that important. I don't want to throw more fuel on the fire. The main thing is that C05N players are SFB players and we don't need an "us or them" mentality regarding the con.
E-mail from Jean
I received an e-mail from Jean following my response to Robert Calloway. It was quite nice and to the point. I appreciated the fact that she took the time to e-mail me as well as handling the mess on the BBS, and I told her so in my reply.
Yeah, Jean is a gem
She communicated with me via email as well, very professional and took the time to encourage me to continue contributing to the BBS. Too late though as SVC's post convinced me to stop patronizing the ADB BBS. I'll post more here later after he has time to digest my response.
Then I promise I'll get back to more important things, like the playtest report for the TCF!
Playtesting the TCF...
"Then I promise I'll get back to more important things, like the playtest report for the TCF!"
More Ph-G should fix it :)
DC's Rebuttal to Cole
Posted today, Sept 29th, 9:05 AM EDT.
Let's see how long it stays up there.
Posted in it's entirety here:
= = =
By David Cheng (Davec) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 09:05 am: Edit
OK...
Steve Cole has posted his "in a nutshell" summary, where he gives his version of the Council De-Sanction story. In the spirit of fairness and balance, I call upon Steve and Jean to let me give my side of the story here, for the record, without censorship, so the SFU community can see the whole picture. I will bend over backwards to portray the facts in a fair and moderate manner.
Selections of Steve Cole's various statements here on the BBS:
Quote:
July 22
"We are truly saddened and disappointed that David Cheng has displayed a total lack of the integrity on and for which ADB, Inc., stands. David Cheng's decision does not support his customers or the SFB community, and we cannot remain associated with him."
July 23
"David phoned me and, in a conversation in which he was extremely hostile and confrontational, refused to dis-invite this person, and said he was "fine with dropping the sanction". His players were NOT fine with David dropping the sanction, and to protect the integrity of the tournament system, we had no choice but to cut all contact with David." [...]
"We at ADB, Inc., are deeply saddened by the lack of judgement shown by David Cheng. His deliberate decision to void the sanction of his event did a disservice to his players and our customers. ADB, Inc., cannot support someone who abuses our customers for any reason, and David Cheng had no valid reason for his action. Indeed, David Cheng ignored the wishes of his own players, many of whom contacted him and ADB, Inc., urging him to maintain the sanction of his event."
Sept 28
"The convention organizer diliberately violated the sanction (despite his players emailing him with CCs to me and asking him not to), and demanded that ADB Inc. accept his actions (in effect, allow him to write the rules for tournament sanctions). We declined, and withdrew support for their event."
MY REBUTTAL:
July 22
Is it really a total lack of integrity to work hard, for over seven years now, to take steps to build the SFB tournament at Council to be the largest in the world? Over those seven years, all other SFB tournaments have shrank significantly in size, but Council is poised for record attendance this year. Do you really think it's a lack of integrity that drives me and the other SWA Planning Team members to do this?
July 23
Yeah... I really wish I had the foresight to record the telephone conversation so that I could post it online as an MP3 and let everyone in the SFU community listen to it and decide for themselves if either party was out of line.
Anyway, please know that I in no way acted against the wishes of the majority of the tournament SFB community. Weeks before my phone call to Cole where he officially de-sanctioned the Council SFB tournament, I did a private email survey to the 41 SFB players I considered most likely to attend Council this year. I based this on their attendance at our SFB tournaments in the past five years.
I stated there was a chance that our SFB tournament would not be sanctioned this year, and asked if it would affect their decision to attend. Many said they would prefer to attend a sanctioned tournament, but they would still attend if it was not. One person likely to attend said he would not attend if it was not sanctioned.
Here are the details of the survey:
Original email went out on May 30th to 41 recipients.
* Twelve said the sanction did not matter, and would not affect their decision to attend.
* Six said they would prefer the tournament be sanctioned, but would attend either way. (BTW, many of these comments were more along the lines of "I prefer not to cause trouble with ADB over this", implying that not rocking the boat was more important than the actual Ace Card.)
* One person said he would not play in the tournament if it isn't sanctioned.
* Nineteen discrete respondents (46% response rate; not too bad)
* Twenty-two did not reply with an opinion/vote.
So, Cole is partially correct in his statements that many people wanted to attend a sanctioned tournament. However, he is not stating the facts correctly when he says that our actions (voluntarily acting in such a way that would get us de-sanctioned) defied the wishes of the community. I asked the community directly, and an overwhelming majority said "The sanction does not mean that much to me, and I will attend either way."
Also, part of our thinking was that not being held to the restrictions of a sanctioned tournament would give us freedom to do other interesting things, and perhaps be more attractive to other/new attendees (example: G-Rack Fed is allowed).
However, the bottom line reason, the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", came from Cole's statements that he would remove the sanction from any tournament in which Paul Scott was allowed to participate, as Paul was banned (for reasons outlined in other BBS threads).
Paul expressed interest in attending Council, as he has done in the past. If we acceded to Cole's wishes and banned him, that would be taking revenue out of our cash box. None of the SWA Planning Team thought it was right that Cole's grudge against Scott should affect who and who does not get to attend Council. AND, we had already determined that in losing the sanction, we would only lose one specific attendee. We were also willing to take the risk that our actions might attract other people to attend, giving our attendance a net increase.
Please know, for the record, none of this was done out of any sense of loyalty to Paul Scott. I don't consider Paul a bad guy or anything, but he's only attended Council once, and several folks have said he can come across as a bit pompous, so we didn't feel any particular loyalty to him. But Paul is a guy who just might be the best SFB player in the world, and he wanted to fly all the way from California to attend our con. Why would we want to turn him away?
The final reason we took this action was to make a statement to Steve Cole. As mentioned in other online places, we felt it was time to take a stand against Cole's actions that we feel are driving people away from the SFU community. One of the private discussion comments was this: "Sooner or later, we as a community have to say something about him running off players one at a time." This was not from me, but another SFB player well-regarded in the community.
Sept 28th:
Notice how Steve is contradicting himself here.
On July 23rd, he quotes me (correctly!) as saying we're "fine with dropping the sanction". This is true - I said those exact words, several times! Although I firmly assert that I did not do so in a "hostile" or "confrontational" way, but I won't dwell on that too much.
But on Sept 28th, Steve is saying I "demanded that ADB Inc. accept [my] actions (in effect, allow [me] to write the rules for tournament sanctions)".
Not true! I said repeatedly that we were fine with losing the sanction. I just thought Steve was "cutting off his nose to spite his face" in banning all mention of Co5N from the ADB BBS. Why would Cole not want to let the largest FtF SFB tournament in the world promote itself on the designer's web site?
So...
Lack of integrity? Please judge for yourself.
Lack of judgment? Please judge for yourself.
Disservice to Council's players and customers? Please judge for yourself.
Abusing ADB's customers? Please judge for yourself.
No valid reason for this action? Please judge for yourself.
We now have 36 confirmed attendees for the SFB tournament at this year's Council. This is on top of some "Probable"s, and a bunch of "Maybe"s too. We could very well get 40 or more. This would blow away our previous record of 34. Look at the drop in Origins Gold Hat attendance - down to single digits. Council is growing.
Does this seem like we're dividing the community? Please judge for yourself.
Even though ADB has not sent us any prize support, we still included an ADB advertisement in our pre-reg packet. We would charge other companies $100 for this ad, but ADB gets it free, because we are still trying to generate interest in SFB and FedCom. I'd love to provide a link so you could download it and see for yourself (page 34), but Jean says I'm not allowed!
Even though Stephen V. Cole has repeatedly referred to me in a derogatory way, I myself inserted the ADB ad in hopes that some of the over-400 people who've downloaded the PDF file might see it, get interested, come to the SFB room and use the FREE SFB GAME COUPON that we provide all con registrants, and maybe even end up buying something in the dealers area. Our dealer, Zombie Planet, knows full well that we run the largest SFB tournament in the world, so he usually has a decent selection of SFU stuff at his booth.
Even though Steve Cole banned Paul Scott for years, Paul is running an introductory Federation Commander event at Council.
Do these sound like the actions of people who are out to divide the community? Please judge for yourself.
We just spent a nice bit of money on a big new trophy, the Council Cup (photos coming soon). It lists all the tournament winners since we got rolling back in 2002, and there is space for at least two dozen more names.
We'd love to see you all on October 9-11, competing to get your name engraved on the Council Cup.
If not this year, then next.
-Dave Cheng
CofN is against the desired tradition
Look at it this way: SFB has existed for thirty years, this year. It has been in near-continuous publication, in one form or another, for its entire life. It is the longest-existing game based on the "Star Trek" property, by an amazing margin (it beats most of them by an order of magnitude.) And the Gold Hat tournament at Origins has always been a big part of the SFB tradition. If any part of this goes away, then it's a big loss to ADB's prestige; you're no longer The Oldest SF Game, no longer The Oldest Star Trek Game, no longer The Longest-Running Single Event At Origins, all that goes away. So you can see how ADB would want to keep Origins as The Big SFB Event.
(Which, as a side note, is why we're still seeing new SFB product despite the fact that everyone prefers FC, but that's a subject for another post.)
I'll buy that
This mess is not a holy crusade to everyone here.
Nor is it to me. That having been said, I do dislike them intensely.
What I would still like to see from tha ADB camp, however, is a response that didn't include the "our customers cannot think for themselves" line of reasoning.
This is the issue
"Sooner or later, we as a community have to say something about him running off players one at a time."
To me, this is what it all comes down to, and if any part of this is a holy crusade to me, it's this issue.
I've been involved in this game in one way or another since the 80s. I've seen this happen time and again. I've seen lots of people who worked hard to promote the game pushed away by Cole's behavior, myself among them. I perceive this as a chance to stand up to him and tell him that enough is enough.
From The Other Boards - Stacy Brain Bartly
"From where I sit the issue boiled down to whether the tournament would be sanctioned by ADB. You were told that a specific action would lose that and you did it anyway so I don't see where you have room to carp. Everything else is really extraneous to the issue and probably wouldn't have happened if you had done what was needed to retain your sanction.
Now no one says you need to be sanctioned to have a good tournament or good con. But you can't have it both ways. If you choose to forgo the sanction you can't complain about it. From what I have seen here you've simultaneously said "I don't need no steenkin' sanction" and complained about the injustice of it and enabled others with axes to grind.
Now in the cosmic scheme of things I don't know how important having or NOT having a sanction is. It isn't especially important to me one way or another, but it seems to me that ADB has the right to confer or deny it as they choose. If they say the impulse chart must be read aloud by the Swedish Bikini Team it may or may not be absurd but it's their right.
To me you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You want to be sanctioned you know what you have to do. If you don't want to DO that then you get to live with your own choices - for good OR bad.
If you're truly comfortable with your choice I don't see why you seem to feel the need to defend it.
regards
Stacy"
__________________
Stacy,
Where do you see Dave complaining about the loss of sanction? Because I don't find it anywhere in anything he said.
And now Roger too
"Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:59 am: Edit
Nice stated, Stacy.
I'll just say that what you posted goes for me, also. "
______
I guess more than one person is confused. I don't get it myself, as I think Dave repeatedly and clearly said that he was "fine with dropping the sanction." But Stacy and Roger, at least, seem to be reading something different. Not sure why. Anyone else find this unclear?
Liking ADB is not the same thing as liking SVC.
I think that they can't grasp that someone might like ADB games and want to play them but NOT want to be all chummy with the designers. To them, the whole reason to have SFB tournaments is to eventually go to Origins and play in the Gold Hat tournament, and if your local show isn't sanctioned then it doesn't count for that. Ergo, getting and keeping the sanction is the most important thing, and therefore (they think) that must be what David is griping about.
Also: "You want to be sanctioned you know what you have to do. "
Well, there it is. David DOESN'T want to be sanctioned. His point has been that sanctioning is immaterial to the tournament, and to him personally. What he's pointing out is that the de-sanctioning is not due to anything other than personal pique on SVC's part. He's complaining about the injustice BECAUSE THIS IS UNJUST, not because he wants to get the sanction back.
"From where I sit the issue boiled down to whether the tournament would be sanctioned by ADB. "
Yeah; no. The issue boiled down to SVC using the threat of a de-sanction to compel the SFB community to shun one of its players. This is very ugly behavior and I'm rather glad that there's a place we can discuss it, because when the ADB board is the only game in town, it's too easy for this all to get sent to Sibera and retouched out of the official photographs.
PS it's absolutely classic that nobody here is allowed to post there because it's "disruptive", but they're allowed to rack up post after post talking about what a bunch of bastards we are.
I'm fairly certain that Dave
I'm fairly certain that Dave would like C05N to be sanctioned. However, Dave and the committee are unwilling to allow an outside organization(ie. ADB) to dictate who can attend their convention. In a way they are not only sticking up for themselves, but for conventions everywhere.
re: Origins
"To them, the whole reason to have SFB tournaments is to eventually go to Origins and play in the Gold Hat tournament, and if your local show isn't sanctioned then it doesn't count for that."
Being a Rated Ace no longer holds any tournament benefit at Origins and hasn't for a while. Whether CO5N is sanctioned or not has absolutely no impact on Gold Hat participation - SVC knows that.
The impact of the loss of sanction is as follows:
- no free prizes from ADB
- no free advertising of the Con/tournament on ADB-owned websites
How much value one places on those elements is a subjective measure.
RE: Yeah, Jean is a gem
Yeah, I also share that sentiment. She works for ADB so of course she's going to side with Cole and tout the company line. But she is always considerate and polite. And she'll email you with an explanation for any posts of yours that she's edited or deleted. I think she's a great asset for the ADB BBS as well as their product line as she does lots of editing for ADB as well.
Robotbastard said:
"PS it's absolutely classic that nobody here is allowed to post there because it's "disruptive", but they're allowed to rack up post after post talking about what a bunch of bastards we are."
Yeah but that is just the truth in your case RB :)
Seriously, you're right. Note how they stopped all further discussion of DaveC's post once the confused sycophants had their say. Once again the "record" makes DaveC look as bad as possible.
And to think I was congratulating them in my mind for allowing DaveC's rebuttal to be posted on their board.
Pity they didn't hire someone
Pity they didn't hire someone as Jean much earlier.
Wonder who come up with the idea? Maybe it was just they needed a proofreader and let her also do the policing the board as an afterthought.
After all, I doubt SVC thought: "I got a PR problem here. Maybe it would help hiring someone that could be a friendly face online?" :)
I *think* Jean is a BBS volunteer.
She does get paid for proofreading.
So, basically, Cole decided
So, basically, Cole decided to de-sanctify the Co5N tournament because it allowed david chen to play after cole had excommunicated him from the SFB universe, and won't allow the Co5N games to be sanctioned until chen is either barred from them or apologizes to cole, is that basically it?
Reminds me of the spirit of this, which I posted in another forum on this board and report here:
http://api.ning.com/files/pwjIyh0C7XCCbiu5Cx25HJ6ik2T5UYV7zjbL9pq7vlU43W...
Knowing of cole's pettiness and arrogance myself, I am inclined to take Mr. Chen's side and the side of the Co5N in this matter, and salute them, for what it's worth, for not brownlipping cole.
Not quite right
Quick summary:
2009
* Paul Scott was on SVC's Poop List for not writing some articles that he said he would produce for Captain's Log.
* Cole had a stated policy that because of this, Paul Scott could not participate in any Rated Ace Sanctioned Tournaments.
* Paul was welcomed at Council anyway, knowing this. We didn't think we'd lose too many attendees because of it. In fact, we hoped to get a net gain.
* Cole got angry that we didn't care that much about the sanction. So he not only de-sanctioned us, but struck all (well, actually most) mention of the con from the ADB BBS.
* We took the non-sanction freedom to do some experimenting. G-Rack Fed, etc.
** Barry Kirk showed up and did some Omega tournament cruiser testing.
** Our attendance was solid as ever (29). No decline. Notable Council first-timers: Barry, Al Rae, Patrick Hill, Mike Johnson, Ken Burnside, Ron Brimeyer, Jude Hornborg, Tim Linden.
** Paul Scott rolls consistently well with his Photons and wins the Council Cup.
** Paul wrote & submitted the articles, and got un-banned.
** 2010 tournament was still not Ace Card sanctioned.
* Attendance was good too: 27 (Looked it up)
** We continue to pull in 'new' attendees. "Big Ed" Slusarek shook off 15+ years of rust and came in 2nd. Big Bad Bill Schoeller attended Council instead of Origins and won the honor of having his name engraved on the Council Cup.
2011 Update
Ken Kazinski has volunteered to run the SFB tournament. He will follow all Rated Ace Sanction requirements.
And that's where we are right now.
-DC
UPDATE EDITS: I forgot a few important items. Those appear with "**" above.
ALL Rated Ace Sanction Requirements?
Including punishing people for moving slow?
:)
I resemble that remark!
I may not be the slowest player in the room, but I sure ain't the fastest neither. I'm probably in the bottom 25% or so.
This makes me think about companies like GE that have a policy of firing the bottom 10% of their employee population (as determined by performance reviews) every year.
Do you suggest taking the slowest player each year and performing some kind of public humiliation ritual? Tar and feathering? Or, perhaps a ritual sacrifice to the gaming gods?
-DC
Dave - we make them play
Campaign for North Africa. And they are never heard from again.
GE
"This makes me think about companies like GE that have a policy of firing the bottom 10% of their employee population (as determined by performance reviews) every year."
The guy that works for me worked for GE, and we were just talking about this today.
In practice, it's a horrible policy, because it destroys teamwork
Yes.
If that is a stated policy, it is stupid.
I don't necessarily disagree with the concept behind it though.
Dave wrote:
>>Do you suggest taking the slowest player each year and performing some kind of public humiliation ritual? Tar and feathering? Or, perhaps a ritual sacrifice to the gaming gods?>>
I'm pretty sure that Hoju meant "moving slow" in the sense of "I plot speed 4", not "moving slow" in the sense of "It takes me 15 minutes to do my turn 1 allocation"...
Doh!
You know, that makes total sense now that you've stated the obvious... I can't believe that one slipped right by me. It must be yet another example of my Early Onset Alzheimer's affliction.
If a person has a valid
If a person has a valid reason to move slowly, what's the problem? Some schmuck has a high warhead plasma torpedo about to hit, so he plots a low speed to dump most engine power into specific reinforcement of the facing shield to neutralize it. This is a problem? Sounds like a tactic to me.
Orion Rogue wrote:
>>If a person has a valid reason to move slowly, what's the problem?>>
This is a reference to shenanagins from years ago regarding a convoluted "solution" to non aggressive play from the Powers that Be. If you missed out on all of that, it isn't really worth explaining again.
Peter is being overly polite.
If you missed out on all of that, it isn't really worth explaining again.
If you missed out on it, be grateful for your ignorance. The Vodka. Eeet Does NOTHING!" :)
bakija and DC
Both would be right. Very slow movement with a huge brick (or 2) ala Jason's victory at Origins which caused all that outrage.
And also people who use every last minute given, to make their decisions.
2 things which annoy me :)
Well, I guess I missed a real
Well, I guess I missed a real kerfuffle then.
Seriously, some guys have to move slow at times. A fed overloading the photons is just one good example.
But I guess all this has been said already, so I suppose there's nothing I can add to it.