trees here might be green, but their hearts are black as black can ever be

Extra Credits has now officially moved to Penny Arcade, with episodes debuting each Wednesday. Today's episode was on pacing, and if you've ever wanted to write anything--whether that's a video game, a roleplay scenario, a movie script, or a novel--you need to watch this video. I'm completely serious. In just a few short minutes, the EC team analyzes pacing, why it works, when it doesn't, how you can break it down, and how you can make it work.

Some notes from this year's Burn: the Dalek Art Car, and the Steampunk Octopus. Enjoy.

I want to start today's rambling journey (which would be continued from part V) with something taken from the official response from the JLU on the Krypton Radio site:

Is the public outrage posted on SL Universe real?

We think some people are genuinely indignant or upset, but we also think they’ve been given a lot of false information in order to enrage them.

In the SL Universe thread as of August 25, we note that an astonishing whopping 1036 posts were made by members of the banned Second Life group, "The Wrong Hands" or the person posting supposedly un-doctored pages from our wiki (and in one case, someone whom we discovered to be impersonating a police officer and who has been trying to phish private information from people within Second Life).

So, note: they're saying that first, all the postings we've been reading are false constructs intended solely to defame the JLU. It's a good stance to take: "It wasn't us! They're smearing our good name!"

But then this:

Was the information actually leaked by a disgruntled JLU member as they claim?

We had originally thought that the information was stolen from our systems by a hacker, who managed to compromise the account of a (now former) JLU member, which was then used to steal the connection credentials necessary to breach our database. Linden Lab notified us that a member account was breached, and that they had detected spyware placed by that account in our in-world headquarters. The chat spy devices (there were two) were active between August 3, 2011, when they was placed, and August 18, when they were removed (about fifteen days).

We now know that an alt of Cheergirl Allen, a Wrong Hands sympathizer, had managed to sneak a mole account into the League and had ready access to the BrainiacWiki over the span of about three month's time. Our records indicate that this account was shared with others who had no legitimate right of access – once again, the content was not "liberated", or "reported", but simply stolen.

So...that seems to pretty well confirm that it was them. Which is it? Either it is their information, or it isn't, and they've claimed both. Also, if you read on in the original link, they're claiming that (once again) it is their information, but that it's been substantially revised and in some cases, outright fabricated. So they're claiming once more that it's not their work.

Guys, chill. Either claim it or deny it; doing both makes you look like fools.

Moving on to the accusation that, at least at one point, Rodney Linden was considered a griefer by the JLU? What? I'm up-front about my frustration and upset with the Lindens, a great deal of the time, but actually calling one a griefer? Guys, even I've never done that. Tone it down.

I had to take a screen capture of this one, I just couldn't believe it actually took place. Starting from a mention about halfway down in the summary thread section I'm now in, came this line:

Zen tries to tell everyone that because PZ is free, and not sold, it shows good faith and a lack of bad intentions. Everyone calls him on this because that statement is STUPID.

I clicked the link, I couldn't not, and I'm also providing visual proof:

(from the media album)

Wau. Just wau. This is completely and utterly insane. So, just to test Zen's hypothesis, here:

1. When a copyright infringer lifts texture UUIDs, re-uploads them into SL, and gives them away at welcome centers and newbie stores, that's okay, because there's no profit being made?
2. When a copyright infringer lifts clothing templates, re-uploads them into SL, and gives them away for free, that's okay, because there's no profit involved?
3. When someone makes an exact duplicate of Britney Spears' face, or Wonder Woman's costume, or a Nike shoe, or a Gucci bag, in SL, that's fine as long as they don't charge for it?

Seriously, that's what he's saying? That it's okay that these info nodes are proliferated across the grid, because they're the good guys, and they're not charging for the system?

Way to massively, massively fail, there.

So let's talk about their 'personal and private' wiki branch. First, it seems to be neither of those things if Miss Mouse's information is accurate. So I checked.

(from the media album)

Is this the JLU official wiki? I don't know enough, nor am I a member of the JLU, to tell if it's the current, 'live' version; but digging into the source code revealed this:

(from the media album)

Is this the actual feed from the JLU's source?

But, in wandering through those pages, I discovered a few things. The only thing I want to mention specifically, though, is this:

Alt Links
(currently being implemented)
The Alt Links Brainiac feature allows us to connect all the alt accounts used by a particular griefer (or other account). A link may be established by any JLU member between any two Second Life identities currently in the database. Each link shall have one of the following possible status values:
Not Present
The link is not present in the database.
None
The link was once present, but was broken by someone
Suspected
That the two identities are one user's alts has not yet been proven, but is highly suspected.
Confirmed
It has been proven that the two identities are alts of one Second Life user.

That phrasing does make me wince, a tad--"used by a particular griefer (or other account)". In essence, that tells me that the Alt-Link feature of the Brainiac server can collate between any two known accounts, anywhere, and decide by some as-yet-unmentioned method (*cough* like IP addresses *cough*) which accounts match up and which don't? Or am I misreading this passage?

Note: I'm not saying positively that I believe the JLU are lifting IP addresses. But the whole thing, including their recent behavior concerning the first and second Bwiki leak situations, has been fishy to an extreme.

(Oh, and this is just too damned funny for words.)

Now, from Aether--who at least sounds rational, if not completely trustworthy--comes this bit:

"Now, on the topic of IP address logging and alt detection I can certainly say we have considered the possibility of doing this in the past, and even made experimental evaluations of other groups' such mechanisms before the Second Life Terms of Service and Community Standards were changed to forbid the sharing of such information in-world. But the truth is that there's very little point to it. I fully believe that if we could do it reliably there would be ways to utilize such information while still remaining in compliance with the disclosure clauses of the Second Life TOS/CS and without undue threat to residents' privacy, despite RedZone's obvious failure in this area. However, there are still some very dissuading practical considerations, which is why we have never, in fact, utilized IP collection from SL in our own systems.

"First, IP collection for alt detection is far too unreliable. NAT, proxies, and the prevelent use of dynamic IP addresses lead to far too many false positives and false negatives alike. The fact is that human interaction and observation is still the surest way of learning about alt accounts, and griefers are usually all too happy to reveal such associations behaviorally; their sheer need for attention almost demands it. Failing that, it's simple enough to catch the next act of griefing, whether or not the griefer is an alt account of a previously banned resident."

I can, weirdly, get behind that. If one of the coders of the PhantomZone project can be trusted at all (which is still up for debate), the fact that he's willing to go on the record as saying "Yeah, we thought about it, it's not a good way to do things, so we don't code it like that" means something, even if it's something small and insignificant. It may not be much--it likely isn't--but it definitely feels more honest to me than anything out of Kalel's mouth or Zen's keyboard.

The problem with that feeling? It only feels like it's more honest; that doesn't say it is. As Anguissette says in a later comment:

"The thing that stands out most to me as the biggest problem with that PR whitewash is that its writer is essentially saying (forgive the paraphrasing but the original wording is so long and inelegant) that they are here to answer questions, but only to particular people in a particular way on a particular subject...that totally makes it sound like they've got lots of things to hide, things that really wouldn't stand up to even mildly intense scrutiny and questioning.

"Also, it strikes me as a little contradictory that one could be demanding that people be civil with their questioning, when one's own statement includes all sorts of insults, including what seem to me to be rather rude and damaging allegations and accusations."

Yeah. She's not wrong.

And one from Miss Dufaux again:

"I'm super confused now, pun sort of intended -- I just read the front page of the Krypton Radio site and there's an article there about Linden Lab removing Power Rangers merchandise from the grid after receiving a notice from Saban Entertainment (copyright holder).

Linden Lab is in something of a no-win position, being obliged to respect the legal rights of intellectual property owners and yet also acknowledging the large role media-inspired sales play in the virtual economy. Savvy media creators often avoid scrutiny-and Linden Lab’s restrictions-by rebranding their wares so as to avoid overt use of copyrighted names or sales images.

The article's tone is pretty soft in regards to the issue of blatant copyright infringement by content creators -- I was surprised, frankly, as I also read in the JLU's mission statement that it 'follows absolutely strict adherence to the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines for our own behavior, as well as a strict moral and ethical code.'

"So I guess I'm finally 'getting' the purpose of JLU: That they are more concerned with griefing, and not so much about copyright infringement? Which would seem to makes sense, based on their use/adaptation of copyrighted DC Comics material.

"This seems really odd to me... and to be honest, makes me question the integrity and intention of the group all the more."

Again, I have to agree, but that, at least, I've said before on this blog, it's not a new concern where the JLU are...well, concerned.

From the next bit of the summary thread:

GLE comes back to reply. He seems to miss the point of what he was told, and overall starts sounding *amazingly* like zFire.(it should be noted for the record that GLE "sounding like" zFire is in the types of things he said-we've heard this stuff before, and not an indication that he has any connection at all with zF.)

So what's the linguistic connection to zFire Xue here? Things like this:

"Alt detection is useful to protect people whose sims are under constant attack from the same two or three people. The sim owners eject and ban the griefers, who instantly create new avatars and come roaring back. Same computer, same IP address, same evil intention, different avatar name. It would be nice if a sim owner could ban a griefer no matter what name he used while attacking."

Very zFire.

"The system never became reliable enough to be able to consistently ban a griefer from a sim no matter what name he used. It was still under evaluation when LL added alts to the disclosure rule."

Also very zFire, though I will grant, GLE knows how to spell words, which zFire never bothered to learn, EVER.

"One of the most interesting aspects of the alt detection discussion was watching how some people reacted so violently to the concept."

Oh, and this one nearly coils brain cells. I want to break that one down. What I think he's saying:

• He was interested in the alt detection discussion, not because he thinks it's a bad thing, but because it was fascinating to watch people get so upset over something he thinks is no big deal.
• It amused him that some people--emphasis mine, but one would assume from the phrasing, people obviously not "rational about these things"--reacted so 'violently' to the concept.

Bet me, he's one of those people who thinks that no one should have undiscovered alts; that the mere fact that someone wants an alt to be hidden is evidence that they're going to do untrustworthy things with it. Presumption of guilt before innocence, in other words.

Back to the main comment, though:

"To them, the concept was wrong for the simple reason that it was wrong, and if you asked for an explanation of why it was wrong, then there was something wrong with you, because obviously you didn't think it was wrong."

Which is very odd coming from him, because by and large, though there were hysterical moments, and lots of them, throughout the entire RedZone debacle, there were also strong cogent points made for why, precisely, alt detection is a bad idea. It was never--at least, in those articles I read, and posted in the blog, plus my own comments--wrong "simply because". Everyone I read, and everything I wrote, pointed to specific reasons why.

"A lady in one of my groups who was pretty much a basic Second Life user was absolutely terrified of alt detection. She had no concept of how it worked, and she didn't oppose it on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy. She was unable to articulate why she thought it was wrong, but she absolutely did not want to be anywhere near anything that might identify any of her alts. It always intrigued me to wonder what she had going on that she was so afraid to have brought out into the open."

And sadly, I called this one. This is the other side of the alt detection argument that is just as specious as the 'it's wrong because it's wrong' argument. Namely: You wouldn't be upset if you didn't have something to hide. Which, though it was stated by a different person entirely, flashes me back to that "doing perversion" line. That presumption that only the guilty want to hide their actions.

All right, I'll grant you, especially with certain politicians (in the US at least), that presumption can--on occasion--be valid. But as a widespread belief, it just doesn't pan out. I'll even give you a good example. Desmond Shang, a man who seems almost incapable of hiding any SL avatar link where his tenants are concerned, still has at least three accounts--all of them known by the Lindens, two of them at least who work closely with the Lindens, or who have in the past--that are alts. He's hiding nothing "untoward", or perverse, or criminal, in the least, by concealing these alt names. Mostly it's a simple issue of contact--there are times he needs to get on the grid--for private consulting purposes, or when directly working with Lindens on a sim/estate issue--where it's just not viable for him to get ten new IMs every three seconds. For that, he has designated alts.

Put plainly, Desmond Shang himself is an alt, of his former main account. The presumption that anyone with an alt wants nothing more than to hide griefing, malfeasance and nefarious, illicit sex acts is inaccurate. It's a wrong belief.

"You have a partial page from the Brainiac wiki showing a conceptual discussion of how Phantom Zone might work some day, and omitting the rest of the discussion where the IP addresses were planned not to be visible, and you call that 'proof.'"

Uh...does GLE know he just admitted that the PhantomZone banlink device was, at least at one point in time, then, collecting IP addresses?

"What you are calling 'proof' does not stand up to close examination."

Neither does yours, GLE.

This seems like a good place to stop for tonight. One more associated entry, and then there will be Deep Thinking involved on whether I want to stay mucking through all this, because it's not going to get any easier.

I used to have a home, now I don't even have a name

Marc Rossmiller invited you to join him on Google+

No. Die.

Moving on--how about an entire page of great fandom cakes? And man, some of these are amazing. Not a cake wreck in the batch.

More Hurricane Irene news: LordKat, an occasional correspondent through That Guy With the Glasses, lives in Staten Island. This is relevant because for the past couple of days, he pointed his webcam out onto his street. (And no, the film's not shown in reverse; the car near the beginning does back up and out of the street because it was blocked.) From a mild drizzle to Atlantis and rising damp in 48 hours. Impressive in a slightly unnerving way.

So yesterday, I mentioned the whole Alyssa Bereznak fiasco, and there's been a couple new points of interest pop up. First, Dork Tower actually put out a strip commemorating the whole controversy, and there was a link at the end to another article. That's where the real interest for me picks up.

See, apparently, Ms. Bereznak, forgetting she worked as a geek blogger, and that her little 'ew Magic he's so gross' post would turn into the shot heard 'round the geek world, changed her blog entry twice over the course of the next day, trying to make herself sound more like a victim, and Finkel more like a bad date that any thinking woman would have fled from. (Which doesn't really fly, either, because Australia's branch of Gizmodo preserved the entire thing so they could rant about her, too. But--interesting side note--even the Australian version of the article has now been edited to take out her copious links to Finkel's Wiki page, YouTube videos, and personal details she gave out that made him seem like the worst form of predatory stalker. Way to stay classy, Alyssa.)

But it gets better. Forbes Magazine thinks she made that post deliberately, just to get page views. There are now parodies. She's been made into both an online Magic: the Gathering card, and an online meme at once. Buzzfeed gathered up the ten best responses to the article and posted those. The Renaissance Dork got involved. Federico lo Giudice calls the whole thing a witchhunt. Dr. Nerdlove calls it a horror story. MovieBob jumped into the fray. The lady behind GeekGirlDiva included a ton of fun links at the bottom of her rant.

And ultimately--whether or not it was linked to this faux pas of epic proportions--Alyssa Bereznak was terminated from her position at Gizmodo.

I think for me, the story's pretty cut and dried: she's a shallow woman with all the depth of character of a lunch tray, and she went out on a date with someone who, to her, fit whatever criteria for "normal" she holds in her head. Who then revealed his geeky side, after, it must be remembered, she revealed that her brother is a gamer. Finkel's likely side of that conversation: "She has a brother who games. I have a gaming hobby. This could be a fun topic." Bereznak's side...is blurrier, because apparently--at least according to everything she's written--she was either deliberately angling to discover nerdy skeletons in his geek closet, or chose Finkel because she knew he was a gamer, and thought it would be a good article? Or maybe she was really that clueless and vapid.

Either way, as others have pointed out, this then shifts the blame to Gizmodo, for deciding to run with the article--because...again, because why? Why would they deliberately do anything that would tarnish further their reputation with their own readers?

Maybe they thought it would be funny, a bit of fluff to fill the day's quota, a light humor piece that their ardent readers would embrace, inhale, and subsequently discard. What they never sawn coming was the fact that most of the online world would rise up against Berezak, including women gamers (more on that in a bit).

In short, bad decision-making all around, but also, it's definite and final proof that no one is writing in a vacuum--if it's on the net, anyone can read it, react to it, and lay blame for it, pro or con. Me, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, overall. Stand behind what we say, say what we mean, then--"mean" or not--we're taking responsibility for ourselves. Which Ms. Bereznak clearly did not.

Now, getting back to Susan Arendt's apology to Finkel. It contained this line:

Except humiliating someone by name online to make yourself seem cool is disgusting, unfair, and mean.

Which did make me stop and think, involving the various 'name' fiascos that have hit this blog.

I know, 100% know, no doubt whatsoever, that anyone I have ever mentioned on this blog by name--be that "real" name, Second Life name, online handle, business, blog, whatever--I have done so with no intention of seeming "cool", or making myself seem superior, or even in the right, at all. Humiliation has never been my game, though I will freely accept, nay even embrace, the "mean" part of that statement. Put plainly, that's never been the point.

I have wider goals, sure, and some of them, to long-term readers of the Train Wreck, should be obvious by now. I also have more than my fair share of aggrieved pettiness, and that I'll own too. But I've never sought personal gain by mentioning anyone in an entry.

That having been said, especially after I spent four hours yesterday gutting out any mention of Miss Insect on this blog (by her request), I think it's time for an official change of policy.

Unless it is an estate owner (think people like Desmond Shang), a Linden (I refuse to anonymize Linden-made statements), or a maker of things I want people to be able to find (by mention of proper name, business, or blog), I'm going to do my level best to anonymize anyone I feel the need to directly mention. This may mean blurring of faces, changing of names, changing of locations, because frankly? My former insistence on the authenticity of names being important has dissolved completely. Facing the growing-endless hassle from people who've Googled themselves, and then freak out entirely that I actually (ohthehorror, you'veruinedme, I'mabrokenwoman, youFIEND) mention people on whatever entry it happens to be...yeah, I'm done with it.

[Expansion from the Editrix: I'm also not going to anonymize names and comments pulled from the JIRA, and from the forums. You're on your own lookout, there.]

Also, Mr. Dagger designed a new banner that I quite like, but I'm now pondering a change back to sepia tones for the blog. Why? Because it's a sepia banner. And while I could tint it, I like it the way it is.

But that means finding (or making) a new background, possibly altering the layout slightly, et cetera and so forth, and that will take a few days, depending on how busy I am. Still, expect a new look no more than two weeks away.

while surviving this attack I soon learned how to battle back

Rue has new horns in new color packs! But she's made a teensy error on the blog post, so go to the new Everwilde location, look over that color pack option, then go to Ctrl-Shift-H for the Seraph options. Everything in the Moody Monday boxes are L$55 per pack; the rest retail at her normal, very reasonable price of L$175 per pack.

Solace Beach is asking its current customers and tenants, and interested parties, to comment on a low rating at WOT.com. What WOT does, essentially, is allow the consumer to check--online, or using downloadable tools, on the safety of any website on the net.

Some months back, the site updated with a new version of Joomia. Unbeknownst to any staffers, this particular install had a security flaw, and someone discovered it. There was a hacking incident that brought the website down, replacing it with a phishing program...I can't even remember for what, right now, but it was a minor nightmare. A few hours went by, and the breach was discovered, closed, and Solace Beach has had no further website-hacking problems.

But the damage was done, Solace Beach was listed as a phishing site, and dangerous. Warnings went out. Several major systems blocked the site from accessing their systems, and by extension, their customers, some of whom rent from us.

Ayesha Lytton is asking that, if you have experience with the website, if you'd go to WOT.com and register a favorable rating. One day of being hacked does not a dangerous site make, and since that time, there have been no further problems. All Ayesha wants is for the site to regain the rating it had before the incident, because it's not a phishing site, a hacking site, or dangerous in any way.

Want to know what live-action video gaming looks like? The folks behind BodyCount have you covered.

And Google Translate is going away as of December of this year. I'm torn between Damn, that many people have been abusing the service? and Screw you, you bastards. Honestly not sure which is the more 'truthful' reaction, so to speak. Find your alternatives now, get them hooked in place, and be prepared for a LOT of in-world translation services to break, and break badly.

And now, the ultimate Escapist Post Round-Up! Here's allll the links:

Part I: Wherein you, the faithful readers, read along on the conflict between the Escapist and Extra Credits.

Part II: A couple positive, and several negative, responses to the conflict.
Part III: Ads, scary mesh constructs, and who (so far) has come forward on not getting paid for work done by the Escapist.
Part IV: More on the controversy, along with both the Yahtzee bring-him-to-PAX debacle, and also Yahtzee's bone-deep loathing for Joss Whedon.
Part V: Sex elves and fan rage.
Part VI: The death of Hellboy, strange fan art, hunts in Second Life, weird Disney projects and more fan rage.
Part VII: More from the JIRA That Will Never Die, and more fan rage (along with some direct responses from the actual participants).
Part VIII: Weird captions and even more fan rage.
Part IX: More from the JIRA That Will Not Die, Longbow "shoot-me-I'm-a-target!" costumes, and dear gods, more fan rage.
Part X: More fan rage, and a Meat Loaf song!
Part XI: Cosplay, Minecraft updates, upcoming car engine advances, and more fan rage!
Part XII: Goats, the first link set for the Escapist posts, an explanation of the Monkeysphere, inaccuracies corrected, and strange sidewise threats.
Part XIII: Corsets, bodypaint, and testing understanding so far.
Part XIV: Minecraft, Dwarven songs, goth-blocking, Underworld trailers, and discussion of donations after surgical costs were met.
Part XV: Comics, derailing, music, Escapist staffers, viewers, and trying to make sense of it all.
Part XVI: The West Memphis Three, cost breakdown on air flights and Seattle hotel stays, contracts and T-shirt costs.
Part XVII: Found art, Linden boosting, controversies on the Escapist thread, and more on donating after the fact.
Part XVIII: News on City of Heroes' First Ward, collectibles, literal videos, IP conflicts, and an astounding offer from Daniel Floyd of Extra Credits.
Part XIX: Bad fashion, Jack Harkness, and wrapping up the end of the thread.

Which brings us to now. Nineteen entries, 94 pages gone through, cannot believe I followed the thread out, and you all deserve a gold star if you've actually followed along (or even skimmed for highlights). Where are we at this point?

Well, I'm still waiting for the emails mentioned to be released in a non-Facebook form. (Though, from internal commentary in the 94-page thread, have they actually been released at all? That part's unclear.)

And I'm still looking for mentions from other threads of the emails. (Though in searching, I also found this, which is all sorts of fun to read through.)

So...from here we wait for more news. I'll keep everyone posted on when (or if) the emails ever become public. In the meantime, while I knew of Rule 64, I didn't know of Rule 63, which states that any male comic or video game character must, by default, have a female counterpart. Interesting.

Does the same thing work for female comic/video game characters? Are we ever going to see a Laurence Croft, for instance, or Wonder Man?

(Actually, I take that back--Wonder Man, pride and prince of the Amazons...that just doesn't make any sense.)

now I hold him prisoner in a Washburn jail

I really should know better, and I'm not specifically aiming for controversy, but--the hell, people. Did he just not realize his alpha panels had completely faded to invisibility? Plus, I'm fairly sure that's just how that particular silk set is made, but it also looks like he handily tied his penis in a knot for the photograph. Tch. (Though definitely impressive in a weird way if true.)

Of course, he still looks much better than this lass, because you would have to be as high as she looks to think those outfit bits go together. Is the gold/orange nightmare bit part of a...bodysuit? Maybe? Because I'm confused as to what, exactly, it is. (Also why it seems to be worn over her jeans.)

And apparently, there's now someone in Second Life offering virtual Botox injections and we need them to stop.

In the meantime, if you've ever considered joining the Royal Air Force? You're in good hands, then, with Captain Jack Harkness, poster child for the flyboys on the battlefield. Well, and the flyboys off the battlefield. Well, and the female support staff for the armed forces...Really, he's the poster child for anyone. Just call him.

Back to the Escapist.

affabletoaster: When James said that the Escapist could put him at the bottom of the pile, that was his unprofessional move. Professionals get paid, end of story. What he was doing was being Nice, and it ended up exacerbating an issue that any professional should never have to deal with: not getting paid.

What bothers me is when people here and elsewhere conflate being "professional" with "keeping your mouth shut and smiling no matter how you are being treated, even if that treatment undermines the very core of your profession." We have seen other content providers quietly leave this site, "professionally," one might say, and only now are we getting hints that the Escapist has made a habit of not paying its content providers in a timely fashion.

zephae in response to Daniel Floyd, earlier in the thread: You know, the more I read your posts, the more I see why you're the voice of EC. Being one step removed from the what would appear to be the most contentious issue and seemingly not having personal issues swirl around you, I think it would've been a lot better to have you, instead of James, do the messaging to the community. Perhaps the whole drama storm could've been avoided if the person making the statements was also not the most intimately involved in the whole process. I'm very glad to see you step up on the issue of refunds, though - it underscores to me the respect and consideration you have for your following.

magicmonkeybars: You'll forgive my laughter then when this goes to court and The Escapist gets its fair share of the donated money...

krellen in response: Don't hold your breath; Mr. Marcis has withdrawn all claims to it already.

Though I do believe he meant "Macris", but the point stands.

Da_Vane: The problem here is that only one side uses the term 'joint effort' and that is the Escapist. They are the ones who had been claiming they were also involved. A link means nothing, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone expected people to be so generous.

In a court of law, ALL of the money actually belongs to Allison. That's who people were donating to - and any intention otherwise would be considered fraud. The Escapist helped support this, but they hold no claims to anything - they willingly donated their time and effort to help Allison.

It is therefore up to Allison to decide who should and shouldn't get the money that is left over. Presumably, Allison has elected to give the excess funds to James and the Indie Game Fund, otherwise James wouldn't be able to hold any claim to the excess money, and could face criminal charges should he do so.

That said, if Allison made James her agent during this affair, then James does have a right to do whatever he pleases with the money in Allison's best interests, and if she has agreed then nobody else really gets a say in the matter.

The Big Robb: The site is covered in ads, there is defiantly a large volume of traffic here, but the content providers that produce the traffic aren't being compensated. If they aren't paying anybody, where's all the money going?

Also, if they're paying everyone weeks or months after they're supposed to, wouldn't that lead to a case of them owing everyone a ridiculous amount of money in the long term? If they can't pay them now, how are they going to pay off the huge debts in the future?

I know it's kind of off topic, but this is an important point in all this, If The Escapist can never pay back the content providers, it's likely that more issues similar to this will happen again.

Glass Joe the Champ on the 14th, close to the end of the thread: Hm, it's worth noting that this thread now has more comments than the Huffington Posts's headline story about Congress passing the debt ceiling bill.

Congratulations: video games are now more important than politics.

Wasn't that always the case?

TypeSD: Seriously, aside from EC, where is there in-depth discussion of stuff going on ~_~

And in a brilliant rejoinder to that, a sysadmin from Escapist, Kross, said: Not all of our content is in picture form.

Which is a damned good point. (Though my immediate retort: are all of them getting paid?)

And finally, we reach the end of the thread. Couple last comments to tie things up.

n00beffect: So, what's the conclusion so far?

And arealperson in reply: The Extra Credits team left, The Escapist and certain contributors are badly in debt, but everyone is just gonna keep on truckin'.

What I'm curious about is the official status of the IP and how that was/has-yet-to-be arranged.

And that's where things stand. Next up: wrapping up all the links in this derailing of the wreck, followed by any mention I can track down of those supposed emails.

I got people underneath my bed

A first glimpse at First Ward, the new Praetorian zone for City of Heroes. It keeps looking impressive--dangerous, feral, destroyed, and intriguing.

(By the way, if you ever wanted to get into City of Heroes, now may be your time--for $1.99, or 1,49€, or £1.29, depending on local equivalents, you can buy in to City of Heroes and get a month of free game play. Keep in mind this offer is for new players, not returning ones; still, it's pretty stellar.)

In other news, Figumate's designer, Yoji Shinkawa, has designed a set of the most twee Metal Gear Solid figures ever made. But this is where the story gets odd--there's a group of cosplayers out there who wanted to make the "sweet" versions their reality. Life is strange; cosplay is stranger.

Meanwhile, back at the Escapist...

dday4you: stay awesome everyone :)


Um. Okay, thanks! Not really sure what that's in relation to, frankly...

Purple Moose: On the ethics of the situation, I am personally of the subjective opinion that the background to this whole Indie Game Fund thing is very shaky and we are a very long, long way from OK. I was extremely wary of this whole thing from the beginning, when the donation was first announced. It seemed to me that sticking a very personal, very heartfelt plea straight in front of a video made under a business contract (albeit one that wasn't being honoured at the time by one of the parties, but I didn't know that then) was muddling things up and bluring what should be very clear lines. I felt that this was a very grey area and could very easily lead to, well, clusterfuck situations like the one we now find ourselves in. It also seemed to me that James was well aware this was a grey area when he started his appeal with something along the lines of "normally I would never do this, but I really don't have anywhere else to turn." So I, personally, while wishing Alison all the best decided I wasn't comfortable donating myself and was going to steer well clear of the whole thing. Call me a heartless bastard if you like, I've been called worse, but that was how I saw things. This may be why the first I heard of this Indie Game Fund was when I came across the front page of this thread.

I also don't think that it's enough to say that 'The Fund is going to be a non-profit organisation, so that's OK.' There are a hell of a lot of questions still unanswered. Right, the Fund itself isn't going to be making any profit, but what about the Indie firms signing up to have their titles published using money from this fund? Are they required to turn over all the profits from this too? Seems a little unfair, after all their hard work and if they end up with a smash hit on their hands, they're not allowed to enjoy any profits from it. Isn't this restriction going to turn a lot of them away? And if they are allowed to keep the profits, well then James might not be making any money directly but I imagine he has a lot of friends in the indie community and does consulting work for a lot of them, and that's one HELL of a conflict of interest right there. Should James be banned from consulting from the firms getting funds from the Fund? Might that not also drive developers away who were looking to benefit from his expertise? Maybe he should consult for free, but then that's one hell on an unfair incentive to work with the fund, he'd have to offer his consulting services to everyone else for free as well, and seeing as he's stated he won't take any money from the fund himself then how would he make a living?

Kopikatsu: To all the people waiting for them to post a new episode on Youtube: They can't. The Escapist still owns the IP, so Extra Credits is dead in the water unless they can somehow get it back.

This was the response:

UnJammerSully: I have no idea why people keep saying that...

...along with embedding the latest episode of Extra Credits. While, yes, we appreciate the sarcasm involved, methinks the point of the previous comment may have been missed. That's okay, though, there's further commentary.

Kopikatsu: That just means Extra Credits is in deep legal shit.

The Escapist owning the IP means that they own Extra Credits. They own everything to do with it.

The fact that the EC crew has moved Extra Credits to Youtube despite The Escapist owning the IP means that they've opened themselves to a legal shitstorm. Basically, they'd better pray that Alex is merciful and doesn't call his lawyers.

Put bluntly.

Ghostkai: Patiently awaiting Mr. Crowshaw to ride in on a flaming tripple-cunted hooker with the lightning-shuriken gun of destiny and end this madness.

With Branston Pickle...

I would apologize, but that was so stunningly, impressively obscene it begged requoting. And thus.

But there was (at least) one comment remaining.

Kopikatsu: I honestly think that Yahtzee will remain aloof and only mention his feelings on the matter in passing after the situation is defused.

Unfortunately, I do too.

Glass Joe the Champ: I'm a bit confused. The videos here are still up, but the new episode on youtube is still called Extra Credits. Who has the right to the IP right now?

I think we're all there. Obviously Extra Credits think they own the IP. The Escapist previously indicated they retained rights to the IP. Simply making more shows using the same name is not an indication of IP ownership, just that they can (until legally ordered to cease) make more shows using the name--in the sense of actual speaking/programming, not legality.

But as of now--the 20th of August--we still don't know who owns IP, and I personally suspect neither does the Extra Credits team.

kyosai7: When you put a project up on Rockethub, you CAN'T put a cap on donations, and you CAN'T end it prematurely. You are REQUIRED to let the deadline come, and then do what you want with the money. EC Expected a good month to build up the funds to help with Allison's injury. They got all they needed and more in SIX HOURS. And the money KEPT COMING. Should they have shut the fund down? Probably, yeah. But they couldn't. Rockethub doesn't allow that. What do you do when you only needed so much, and people are giving you literally 10x the amount, and aren't stopping? That's when the Indie Fund came up, as, as I understand it, EC was just expecting to get their checks from Escapist later on.

It is an intriguing point. Once funded, the fund must entirely close before dispersal of funds raised? Or funds can be assumed to be there and drawn against? Which makes the Escapist's claim of the funds odd, to say the least.

Uszi then asked: Any word on when the emails are being published? Or is that still some unmentioned time in the future.

I want to know that, too. Because as of yesterday, the 19th, the email transcripts still weren't up.

Fiz_The_Toaster: Ok, so they didn't properly read their contract and they went to the internet to let everyone know what happened and what's going on?

Just...COME ON!!

Really? You honestly didn't want a dramatic circus but you guys talked about it on the INTERNET, what did you guys think was gonna happen? Massive amounts of rainbows, glitter, and unicorns of understanding and civility?

*coughs*

(from the media album)

Alas. We move on.

Skylants: When do we get to see those emails?

Still waiting. But in response to that...

TypeSD: When I can put them up.

Um. Still not up. This is bad. But there is another comment from him in response to a tipped word from Matt Wiggins of Loading Ready Run fame.

TypeSD: My take on it

They got a surplus

They proposed the indie game fund

Everyone went along with it. (Seriously, find me an opponent)

Themis Media heard about it

Escapist is struggling with cash.

Logical conclusion is the current storm.

Pretty much, that sums up my understanding of the situation, too, until (and unless) corrected by more meaningful explanations from either side.

Getting down to side points...namely, swag.

evilneko: Ahem. There was no payment for the shirts because the shirts did not cost Escapist a dime.

This is patently untrue. Posit: the Escapist donated prizes they had on hand, that were already in stock (putting aside the Publisher's Club memberships, which are entirely ethereal, hence, 'costing' nothing at the outset, but showing a defined cost after application of the club membership; we're just talking physical goods), thus, as most of us define such, they didn't cost anything additionally to provide.

But that doesn't mean they didn't cost anything. Shirts have to be printed, print houses have to be paid, designers had to design and receive renumeration for their work, and beyond all of that, the shirts had to be made in the first place for the Escapist to buy. None of it came free.

I think it's extraordinarily disingenuous to hold the line at "it cost them nothing". Because it cost them. (At this point, a ton of public opinion, club renewals, and legal fees, but let's set that aside, too.) Just dealing with the shirts, on their own, exclusive of other benefits: they had a cost, and the Escapist expected (not entirely without merit) to be repaid for what they cost.

Therumancer: As far as the latter point goes, I'd still like to hear what Allison has to say about this. James Vs. The Escapist is well and good, but she was still the "face" the money was collected for, even after the goal had been met. As far as I see things, it's her money, people were basically donating money for her medical treatment, and after meeting the goal that money presumably being intended to help her recovery and so on as no other purpose had been stated.

krellen: What if Allison opted to use the money to create a fund to sponsor independent game development?

Excellent point.

FalloutJack: And effectively, because the team discussed and went with the idea as a whole, she did just that.

Game and match.

And as much as I don't want to see a run on the funds...

krellen: If you don't like what Extra Credits is doing with your donation, contact them; Mr. Floyd is willing to get you your money back.

Which, genuine or not, kind of puts this whole thing to bed, dunnit? The fans helped him raise the funds; beyond the cost of Allison's surgery (which has already been done in anticipation of those funds being released), he's willing to give the money back.

This is not the bad guy.

Of course, there's always another side to this particular coin.

grimner: And according to RocketHub terms of service (http://www.rockethub.com/terms_of_use) there are no refunds as a rule:

"We will not reinstate any deducted RocketFuel except in limited circumstances at our sole and absolute discretion after investigation."

Which stands to say that people should be responsible of how and what they donate.

FalloutJack asked TypeSD to drag the mention above to the front of this elongated thread; TypeSD's response?

Buddy, I'm so far ahead of you it's like I've stuck you in a time-dilation field and buggered off through the Stargate.

Hee.

coolkirb tossed this in:


Hee pt. II.

And Sylocat had some pertinent advice for us all: Take a deep breath. Turn off your computer. Go outside. Get some sunshine and enjoy the fresh air (or hear the crickets chirp or whatever, depending on where you live and what time it is). Take a walk around the block or go to a park or something.

The internet will still be here when you get back.

It's so true.

*takes a deep breath and--* Ooh, wait, new info!

antman9000: i just checked the rockethub site, to see if the donations had gone down at all since yesterday, and it has in fact gone up $1,000.

That's...kind of staggering.

But in the background, attacks on Allison Theus had started. They culminated in this startling remark.

rhodo: She evidently wasn't so poor, since she -could- afford a computer, among other things?

I still see the whole thing as fishy. We're not talking a poor homeless individual. We're talking a normal person like me and you, who got the money only because 1) she has boobs; 2)she makes a webcomic.
When I think of all the other people who may REALLY desperately need money for a much worse surgery their whole life may depend upon.... and these people don't get money only because they aren't a female comic book author on the internet... well, I feel pissed.

TypeSD replied: I really don't think "because she's a woman" was in the minds of anyone when they donated. That's just insulting to Extra Credits, Allison herself as well as all the fans who donated.

Ammutseba replied: What kind of computer do you have that could possibly cost the same amount money as an arm surgery?

Carsus Tyrell replied: Cause computers are really expensive and surgery in the US is dirt cheap right? Oh wait...

So basically what you're saying is people in wealthy countries are exempt from help because they're not poor or unfortunate enough? I think I have to echo the sentiments of my fellow Escapist and say don't be a dick. I thought you were just being a bitter cynic with your first post, thank you for confirming it with your second. Also nice dose of misogyny there too, I bet you're a real charmer.

And Andy of Comix Inc replied: SHE WAS GOING TO LOSE HER ARM. When I give blood, is it all going to poor African children with AIDS? When I'm an organ donor, how much of that really goes to "the poor"? Just because it's a charity doesn't mean it can't go to "normal" people. And, keep in mind the current healthcare climate in the United States (i.e., abysmal). To say this was a con is senseless and degrading.

I really don't like you. I give to charities all the time - Child's Play, Red Cross, Beyond Blue, what have you. They help "normal" people who are underprivileged. I'd say saving a young artist's career is a pretty noble cause, with the overflowing money going to help people get into the punishingly cruel entertainment industry. It's not going to starving kids or homeless people, but neither are other charities equally concerning issues. It's like saying it's not worth treating depression because the people with that depression have a roof over their head and access to clean water and food. So? It's still a troubling issue worthy of human action.

LadyRhian replied: And to Rhodo, whence comes all this false concern for the poor over Allison Theus? It's not your decision where other people spend their money, anymore than it is their concern where you spend yours. If you feel that strongly about helping the poor and indigent, go and do it already- start a RocketHub project and solicit donations. Heck, sell your computer and use that money if you feel so strongly about it. But stop the concern-trolling. It's stupid and just makes you look like a jerk of the highest order.

And furthermore, the Rockethub donation fund is still up because they set it to run until 8/31. There *is* no way to close it down until the event has run its course, even if you reached or exceeded your goal for fundraising. It's still up and still open, and you can still make a donation until it ends on 8/31. Stop talking out of your nether regions.

mysecondlife: I find it funny how the rocket hub's money rose about $400 since I checked last night.

It's almost like people want to see the Indie Game Fund happen.

And now we are on the 12th, and we are also on page 83, and that is a good place to stop and go to bed!

and I cut me a switch from a long branch elbow

Have I mentioned Nick Sayers yet? He's made an amazing amount of them, and they're all done using found objects, not objects created for the art. Detailed, whimsical, and massively creative.

(My favorites, of course, are the stitched card sphere, the measuring tape sphere, and the one based on bike wheel reflectors.)

Go Oz! There's hope for the Lindens yet.

And back to the grind...I mean, the Escapist thread.

I'm going to eliminate a lot of the controversy that BROUGHT us to this point (at least, in preservation-capture mode), but halfway down page 63, there was a question.

TypeSD: Can someone tell me what the hell I'm being accused of? I am not James from Extra Credits. I'm a jumped up Aussie with a love for the Escapist and Extra Credits.

Hagi responded: I'm fairly certain, although not entirely, that zvate would like you to add in the parts that Alexander omitted from my post which Alexander quoted which you quoted. If that makes any sense?

Maybe. There was also an implication from zvate that indicated he was upset because TypeSD, who uses a Jack O'Neill user icon, was in fact James Portnow from Extra Credits, and...that's just a baffling level of stupid, there.

How'ver, I can't find the original reply, and at this point, really don't care, but if you care to follow the logic, we have a lovely run-down from Hagi:

What I think it means:
- TypeSD's avatar has the name Jack.
- TypeSD seems to be mostly supporting EC, not TE.
- TypeSD quoted directly from Alexander, not taking into account that Alexander only quoted half my post.
- zvate feels that TypeSD should've added in the part of my post that Alexander omitted in order to fairly represent both sides since TypeSD seems to be supporting EC.
- zvate feels that TypeSD not doing this implies that his OP is compromised and giving an unfair recollection of events in favor of EC.

So, there you have it.

Meanwhile, there was another back-and-forth interchange that I came across while searching for zvate's reply. This one started on page 58:

Ramzal: And do all the people who've donated agree with you? Or for that matter, do all the people who voted and did NOT pick that option agree with you? Every single last one of them? And what about the people who went over the donation goal before the poll went up agree as well? If not then there is a flaw to your logic.

To which this was Kian2's reply: Yes, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT DONATED AGREED.

You know how you can be sure of that? Because if they hadn't agreed, they wouldn't have donated.

YOU CANNOT DONATE WITHOUT SEEING THE AMOUNT ALREADY DONATED.

If you donated before they hit their required funds, then you can be certain that the money will go to help Allyson. She alrady got the operation, in fact, and will not face any needs in the coming months until she is fully recovered. Exactly what the fundaraiser was for.

If you donated after they hit their mark, but before you were certain what the money would be spent on, then you are implicitly agreeing to have that money go towards whatever cause they choose to spend it on, regardless of your opinion. No one was forcing you to donate, they had already made it clear that they had all they needed.

If you donated after they decided on the cause, then you obviously must agree with the destination. Why donate otherwise?

As for research, the current situation is a matter of who said what, but there's a wealth of historical data to educate yourself and form a more informed opinion. There's the Extra Credits episodes where they talk about the fundraiser, and how they already have the money they need and are deciding what to do with the surpluss.

There's the RocketHub page. Have you actually gone there, and seen how RocketHub works?

There's their Facebook and Twitter posts where they discussed the destination of the funds. Have you gone back to look at them?

That's all free, open, unalterable evidence of the events leading up to this. If you didn't feel inclined to donate, don't hold it against them that they didn't go to more effort to educate the people who didn't care. Those who cared enough to donate and keep up with the issue were kept up to date.

I didn't quote the entirety of Kian's response (that's here if you really want to read it all), but this bit? Sheer perfection, and yes--very well reasoned, indeed.

Of course, as of August 11th, tempers are starting to fray. I present Exhibit A, TypeSD's response to zvate:

It does not. Zvate, link me to what you want added, tell me where you want it put. We'll go from there.

Also don't jump to idiotic conclusions which display a lack of knowledge and sense.

Right.

zvate: Alright, my bad. I'm glad my worst mistakes happen online and not off.... Anyway please include full quotations in your initial post as the partials tend to distort the meaning. I realize that such may demean relevancy but I think its important...

Owyn_Merrilin in response: You don't seem to have spent much time on the forums, so it's understandable that you don't know this, but it was actually Archon who omitted portions of Hagi's quote. The quote system here allows you to edit the text of what you're quoting, partially to allow you to get to the parts that apply to you, and Archon did that. When TypeSD quoted Archon in turn, the parts that Archon had edited out stayed edited out. It's actually a completely fair representation of events, since it was supposed to show Archon's response, not Hagi's question.

(By the way, in case you didn't know, Archon is Alexander Macris' screen name, which is why anything he says is relevant to the thread.)

And zvate's reply in turn: with the re-quotes.... I don't know, maybe it is too hard and I just saw something weird too late night... anyway, sorry for the initial misjump of bile...

I guess that's that.

So this one's kind of short--aheh--but I am trying to speed this unfortunate obsession along, so here you go. At some point in the next couple of days, oh, six, seven posts from now, I'll do another round-up of links, because the gods forbid, we wouldn't want anyone to get lost, now.

Gods, I need a hobby.

Besides this one.

And Second Life.

And all my other hobbies...

I filled me a sachel full of old pig corn

This is far more real life, and real politics, than I usually cover, but I feel it's worth a mention: the West Memphis Three are finally off death row.

Sort of.

What does that mean? Well, if you don't know anything about the West Memphis Three, these boys--well, hells, they're not boys anymore, that's the deeper tragedy--were arrested for the slaying of three Boy Scouts in Arkansas in 1994. Though there was evidence to suggest another party did the killing, this was overruled in terms of the things the Arkansas police knew: that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. wore black, were presumed to be Satanic worshippers (they were pagan, not Satanists), and had been arrested for shoplifting and vandalism prior to this event.

Because of the disturbing aspects of the case (the boys in question were eight years old, were tortured either before or after their murder, and there was evidence of rape), the three young men were bound over for trial, convicted, and Echols, at least, was sent to death row. (Even though evidence, suppressed at the time, surfaced that Terry Hobbs had killed the three boys.)

As Echols came in under conviction of child murder and raped, he was immediately seized as a toy by the inmates; after repeated rapes, he was moved to solitary confinement, where he has spent the bulk of his prison time since that date. Baldwin was sentenced to life imprisonment as an accessory, and Misskelley separated from the trial, hoping to get a better deal, but was also sentenced to life imprisonment.

This is where the Alford plea comes in. A little-used legal procedure, it dictates that the accused is in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to result in a guilty verdict, while asserting innocence. It's not well-known, even by most lawyers, and it's a tribute to the minds behind their legal team that discovered it at all. I don't know if it was attempted, and then abandoned, previously to this, or if it was ever attempted at all, but I do know this--if it had not been for the state suddenly moving, after over a decade, to actually execute Echols, none of this would have happened.

But after over fifteen years in solitary confinement, Echols, and his two compatriots are now free. Still under burden of the guilty verdict in Arkansas, and under ten years' probation from that state, but finally, they're not trapped in their cells, wondering when the axe will fall. It's a dark victory, to be sure, but it's a victory nonetheless.

Now, back to the Escapist.

Nuke_em_05 from page 47: Escapist: If you're going to get into a contract, make sure you can meet your end of the agreement.

EC: If you are in a contract, don't meet your end if they aren't meeting theirs.

Contracts are legal business documents. You don't enter contracts "as friends" on "good faith". You enter a contract knowing your obligations and what you are due, and expect it.

I know James was "only trying to help out" the Escapist by saying "no worries" on payments, but what he should have done is said: "pay up, renegotiate, or back out". Right away.

As for the RocketHub business, there has clearly been tons of miss-communication and assumptions.

From what I read here, the Escapist has no say as to what the funds go to, at all. They did not "donate" publisher's club memberships or t-shirts, they expected to be reimbursed for cost.

For the Publisher's Club memberships, the first 50 (with a $15 donation), actually cost the effort $5 each (they got $15, but owed Escapist $20), so the first 50 actually cost the charity $250.

Hopefully the T-Shirts cost less than $20 to produce. If the statements are correct, however, the 1754 shirts over a stated $36,450.00 works out to $20.78 per shirt (actually sounds about right, to be honest), which means the $20.00 donation left EC losing $0.78 per shirt.

241 of the $50.00 donation publisher's club subscriptions would gross $12,050 for the charity, but cost $4,820 to reimburse the Escapist, leaving $7230 for the charity.

So, that's a total of $5,070 owed to the Escapist on that issue (T-Shirts aside).

All the details are fuzzy, though, communication is key, folks.

For future reference, if you are doing an auction or sale for a charity, there are two ways to do it:
1. Have the items donated and sell them below cost/retail (100% profit)
2. Buy the items and sell them above cost with the "doing good deed" be an incentive to purchase through the charity and spend more. Or buy at cost and sell at retail so the purchase incentive is the profits go to charity, while not spending more than retail.

It looks like EC took option 2 and did it wrong.

Scrumpmonkey:

(from the media album)

Hee.

SpaceGhost2K, some hours later (yes, still on the 10th): There are only two people related to The Escapist that I have had any personal involvement with, and even that was on a very limited basis: James Portnow and Susan Arendt. Even with my limited contact with these two people, I can tell you that I'd trust either of them with the keys to my car. I'm not sure how Susan got dragged into this. I saw her name mentioned a couple of pages back, being compared to someone else or something. I don't care. All I know is that if there are shenanigans going on, I refuse to believe she played any part in them.

Having read the point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint posts by the two parties, the fault seems pretty clearly to me to rest on the shoulders of The Escapist. The contract was: EC makes content, TE pays them. EC fulfilled their part of the contract for one year. TE fulfilled their part for one month. After that month, I don't see how that contract could still be considered legally binding. TE had violated the terms of the contract. Period.

It's also clear that TE donated nothing toward the fundraising effort. Did they donate cash? They've not said so. Did they donate goods? No, they were to be paid for the t-shirts that were "donated", although they did agree not to make a profit on them. Did they donate services? Yes, and no. They agreed to donate Publisher Club Memberships, but those are intangible items like donating horse armor. They're not "out" anything. I've read comparisons that point me to the EC video on "piracy" but that doesn't apply here. They are not out the cost of a Pub Club membership if they give it to me, because I wouldn't use it.

Lastly, I read that one site said they would not allow the fund raising effort because they didn't do charity. That means this effort was recognized as a charity. It was created to fund one charitable effort: fixing Allison's arm. The funds that were left over were going to be put toward a second charitable effort: an indie incubation project, from which no one at TE or EC would receive any money. How TE ever came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to use those charity funds for the non-charity purpose of paying the money they owed to EC for services rendered is beyond me.

And with that, we reach page 55, and a comment from someone that corrected something I'd believed from the first few posts on this topic.

bob1052: It wasn't just [to] get Yahtzee to PAX.

A quick google search taking the first link

http://www.airfaresflights.com.au/flights/Sydney/Seattle-SEA/

Sydney to Seattle
United Airlines Economy flight.
Listed 11/08/2011
09/09/11
14/09/11
fr $1547*

For a round trip it would cost $1547. Obviously this is not how much it cost back then but I doubt it would be off by more than 10 times.

What they wanted to do was get Yahtzee to PAX, as well as a large number of their other employees, and then instead of Yahtzee signing various things at a booth or anything, they wanted to rent out a convention hall to have a party that only people who gave $100 or more could attend.

I'm not sure how to not see it as a working vacation.

Huh. Okay, I did not know that. That puts the Escapist's "fundraising" drive to get Croshaw to Seattle in a much less favorable light. Plus, at the time of this writing, that price had dropped to $1538.

Uszi responded to this, of course: Suffice to say that the cost was not to fly Yahtzee economy, they intended to fly him business class. They are also going to pay him for attending, since he would technically be working and not going on vacation. The additional cost was to fully cater an event including a bar for the people who contributed $100 or more, hence why it was 21+.

Which is all well and good, save for the part where they wanted to raise $20,000 for the total cost of getting him from Sydney to Seattle, and then charge folks extra--in point of fact, double the cost of their PAX three-day pass in the first place--just to have a chance of getting in (not a definite, pay your C-note, you're in deal). If we go by the first link given through the same service, that raises the total cost of a first-class ticket to $6168. That leaves $13,832 free for a suite at one of the seven hotels around the convention center. Let's be generous and--even though no hotel suites are available at this time--book him in an imaginary suite at the Alexis, near the center. They average $418 per night; let's be generous again and book him for a full week. That's $2926. Let's be more generous and toss him $1000 for food, and another $1000 for personal spending funds. $4926 plus $6168 is $11,094, so where's the other $8906 going to go?

FINALLY we get to August 11th, and we start that day off with a personal message from the one who started this thread in the first place.

TypeSD: Ok, here's the skinny. Enough with the personal attacks.

Also, stay the hell on point.

Until the email exchange is published, hopefully sometime today, we'll not be clear on anything. so far it's just I said, he assumed, he said, I assumed, going on.

Save...the emails still haven't been published. Not looking good.

Kian2: Since you haven't been to RocketHub, you might also not know that RocketHub is not strictly speaking a charity site. It's a crowdfunding site. People don't just give out of the kindness of their hearts. They are offered incentives. The cheapest donation (a dollar) gets you mentioned in the credits of an episode. There is cooler stuff offered for heftier donations. Two people put up $5000, which gets them a week with James, for them to decide how to spend (help with advice, game design, or just hang out?).

From this perspective, besides the advertised goal, you get a bunch of goodies with your donation. So even if they spend the money in a way you find objectionable, you are also getting your money's worth in goodies. This is what the offers they mention are, and which they suggested as the main draw to continue donating.

Which handily covers 99.9% of the cases you are so concerned about. They said you could get goodies for your donation even after they had all the money they needed. Can you imagine the outcry if people only heard about the drive after it was over, and couldn't even get a chance to get the goodies? In fact, rewatching the episode, the way they originally framed it is "Buying an extra show for a dollar and helping Allyson [sic] out while you're at it."

If they get the goodies, then the money spent is going towards what they wanted. If someone tells you 'I have all the money I need, but I have some goodies left over you can get if you donate I guess', and you donate, you have to be aware that they are going to be deciding what to do with the money left over.

Which leaves, I suppose, the people who donated between them reaching their goal and their first official announcement. We are, of course, talking about a window that is less than 24 hours. They set up the fund on June 29, and the banners would have gone a bit after that. They raised the 15k they had set out to get on that same day, before the bulk of the community even heard about it. They reached 25k in six hours, and in the time it took them to ammend the video it had continued to grow.

Now, this was obviously in response to someone, that I'm not bothering to quote--you can look it up if you like, I'm just trying to get through this--and I'll also say that the episode itself, past that initial announcement and the link, is actually a pretty good take on race in games. But this particular quote I wanted to draw attention to, because--disregarding the "they're being dicks" reactions post this mention, this was a charity run. Think in terms of SLRFL here--it takes the folks behind the Relay nearly half a year of plodding forward to raise these kinds of funds.

The Escapist community, with only a handful of previous mentions, raised the cost for Allison Theus' surgery in six. hours.

That, as Daniel Floyd said, is insane. Also incredibly cool, because that means a bunch of gamers, who have more than enough reasons to pay out for other things, among them, other charities, saw the plight of a fellow gamer and artist who would literally lose what she knew how to do in this world if not operated on. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. And, because of the way the injury was evaluated by her insurance company (and this is the US, so it doesn't matter which insurance company she has, they're all bastards on this), having it declared a "pre-existing condition" meant that not only wouldn't they fund the surgery, but they wouldn't fund any physical therapy afterwards.

In six hours Allison Theus had those funds. In one-fourth of one day she had her life goal confirmed, and could go ahead with the surgery to save her arm. That kind of turnaround is unheard of in charitable work, and while the swag may have been part of why people donated, that wasn't the main reason.

More on the next entry.

somebody feels the knife and somebody calls the cops

From the SL Freebie Hunters blog, because Shadow recently switched from Phoenix (v.1-based) to Firestorm (v.2-based):

In all seriousness, tho, folks - I had been dreading making the switch, and I was pleasantly surprised that it was not as painful as I had feared. Certain elements blow, and blow badly, but overall I am finding that it loads much faster for me and puts less of a load on my computer than Phoenix did. Almost enough to compensate for the annoying things...such as light settings that don't hold from session to session, or losing all the changes to tabs and whatnot when I crash, oh, and lets not forget the apparent need to change all the icon images so that things in inventory take longer to figure out....not that I am complaining (overly much), Firestorm developers - I think you guys did a great job in trying to make V2 better.

Keeping in mind that I still can't use Firestorm, what I've heard from folks (with the exception of Fawkes, for whom using Firestorm is akin to asking a large, gruff man with dental problems to lean in close and pull out his fingernails slowly with a pair of rusty pliers) tends to reflect this: the structure itself of viewer 2 hurts people, but the Firestorm wrappings make it nearly bearable...save for all the nonsense in new places, the changes that make no sense, and the icon shifts.

Basically, outside of a few staunch adherents (Fawkes, some estate owners, most educators, and nearly all newcomer instructors among them), everyone I've spoken with about v.2 loathes it with the sort of shuddering disregard seen in staunch feminists towards pornography, or millenarian cultists towards anyone not in their particular cult. And I think most of us know now why that is: the Lindens contracted out, to a company who'd never played Second Life before, and didn't particularly care to learn. They put things where they felt they should go, changed things because they could, and held out their hands to get paid at the end of things, and rather than arguing, the Lindens simply paid.

And, despite many protests, both in and out of world, the Lindens aren't budging on this. So what's our best option to cope with this monstrosity being forced down our throats?

My initial choice was to try to adapt. That failed miserably. So I jumped to CoolVL, since I can't use most of the alternatives (and that's not won't, that's literally can't). Only now CoolVL is showing the strain. Namely:

• at least one friend of mine who I convinced to use CoolVL has been unable to load her inventory fully past that date;
• Alpha layers sometimes work, but usually don't;
• on occasion after typing things on the chat bar, I cannot move unless I hit Escape to minimize the bar, and then I can only move with the W-A-S-D keys;
• and there's one terrifying (literally) glitch that occurs in the Search function that I keep meaning to list on the CoolVL forums, but even there, I'm afraid that if it gets out, there's going to be a run on CoolVL by some really bad types we don't want to use CoolVL (and yeah, totally not kidding on that one; it's BAD)

I'm hoping that these problems will resolve themselves as Henri Beauchamp applies patches, but they're enough to get me to drop by the Imprudence blog again, and wait impatiently for an update there.

And back to the Escapist; at some point, gods willing, we will travel beyond the 10th!

knight steel:

Replace the word music with gaming.
We didn't donate for this drama we just wanted Alison to get well.
Can we get all the pride and butt hurt out of the way.
All this was due to miscommunication and both parties are at fault.
Is their [sic] no way you can simply talk this out.
How about you pay for Alison surgery [if you haven't already]
Keep the pay they owe you and then give the escapist the money they want.
And if there any money left over give it to someplace like the red shield.
Please we love you both and don't want you to fight ^_^.

(Also, I should add a note on that--at the time of this writing, YouTubeVEVO seemed to be down, so I grabbed the acoustic version of the song. The original JessieJVEVO piece was linked in the forums, but wasn't loading for me.)

GoddyofAus: Wow, I've walked into a fire here.

Escapist, what the fuck is your problem? You went after Allisons donation money? Seriously? Have you sunk that low?

I would much like to hear Yahtzee's opinion of all this, but it's likely he's not willing to put his word in for fear of being sacked.

(Quoted solely because I really doubt we'll hear anything from Croshaw about this situation.)

xXSnowyXx:

From media

Jabberwock zeno: So, can somone post the emails in a place where people without a facebook can read them?

And in response to that, TypeSD said: They'll go up here.

So I spawned a new window, and...didn't find anything. At all. So I'll keep you posted for when those emails surface...which still isn't now. Disappointing.

On the plus side, that brings us to page 40! ...of 94. Ohgodsthisiseatingmyblog...

Uszi:

(from the media album)

For.I.Am.Mad: quoted Uszi and added this:

(from the media album)

Uszi came back a bit later and linked the Meet Yahtzee at PAX forum thread, for which this was the quotable gem for me:

de5gravity: I'd like to repost here a message from the rockethub comment page which I feel reflects my opinion completely.

"Frankly, it looks to me like you're jumping on the bandwagon of Extra Credits' success in gaining a huge donation for its artist's vital surgery. That was a good cause: there's no reason why a young woman should have to suffer when her fans could combine funds to help her. This seems rather ignoble by comparison. Don't get me wrong: I have donated to people trying to get to PAX in the past (namely, a very talented bunch of Mass Effect cosplayers who, following that exposure, have been hired by Bioware for physical special effects). But people like those are hardly in the same league in terms of money and available resources. Can Yahtzee really not afford to pay for himself - or can the Escapist not afford to send him by itself? Even if not, are we expected to believe that $20,000 is the sum required to send him? Ultimately, no one is forcing anyone to contribute. I get that. People will give if they want to, and won't if they don't. But I can't help feeling that the Escapist is trying to replicate the success of a noble endeavour simply to save themselves money on a normal expense. On the other hand, one last thought occurs to me. I recall that some rewards for making donations to the Extra Credits RocketHub page were Publisher's Club memberships. If these were donated by the Escapist to help Allison, then that reflects very well on the website - though I do wonder, if that incentive made many people donate for Allison's surgery, why isn't it repeated here? The rewards on offer for donations here are rather paltry by comparison to those for the Extra Credits initiative. Not that such things should ultimately be the main motivating factor in cases where a good charitable cause is the main purpose... But since this doesn't seem to be the case quite so much here, one would almost think that further incentives would be in order. Most puzzling. Well, ultimately, I can't claim to understand this move. All I can say is that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This does not, of course, reflect badly on anyone who chooses to donate, as each person is free to do with their money as they wish. By Siobhan Mooney"

But trust me, for the supremely interested, there's a lot of good "WTF, Escapist?" moments in that thread.

How'ver, back to August 10th! ...again. But wait--porn was detected (No, seriously--it was modded out nearly immediately, but caused some hue and cry over why it was posted in the first place)! Which caused quite a bit of controversy on its own, until Uszi posted this in response:

(from the main blog's album)

Yeah, pretty much. And the thread remained derailed for about a third of a page. Kudos to all the Escapist commenters, though, for pulling it back from what would have been, elsewhere, a complete loss of structural cohesion.

I picked up again nearly at the bottom of page 47, though, because of a Critical Miss comic someone posted.

Owyn_Merrilin: While reading the thread, I remembered a certain Critical Miss comic:

(from the media album; Copyright, All Rights Reserved, Cory Rydell and Grey Carter of Critical Miss)

I always thought Sharon was a thinly veiled parody of Susan, but this situation, coupled with this comic, pretty much confirms that if Sharon wasn't based on Susan, she was based on one of the other big wigs at Themis. Last night I was willing to hear what TE had to say, and I'm still willing to look at the e-mails when they get released, but this just isn't looking good for TE -- especially not after ECs rebuttal.

Wau. So I went looking.



This is the clearest image I was able to find, and--outside of the hair color--the hair style is dead on, so I may tend to agree, at least tenuously, that Sharon's character is at least influenced by Susan Arendt.

Which makes this Critical Miss comic extraordinarily relevant, if bitchy.

And--especially with all the graphics--that's about as long as I want this entry to get--more later. Unfortunately.