1.1 is seriously bugged, but comes it as a surprise...

[worir4]

The problem of injustice in pay and cooperation is much bigger than SQUAD (from which what i can tell is not half as bad as some other companies out there). Unfair pay is not right and should not be shrugged away as 'the norm' however i think this forum is not the place to really discuss it as it is a global issue which SQUAD is an insignificant part of compared to the power of the force some major businesses. 

Such protests, I believe, should be conducted else where and rightly so. Any protest on this forum will do no good. The best we can do is encourage the best out of SQUAD and continue to offer our support by promoting KSP as the a good game in it self and judge cooperate injustices as a totally separate issue.

[waterlubber]

10 minutes ago, worir4 said:

The problem of injustice in pay and cooperation is much bigger than SQUAD (from which what i can tell is not half as bad as some other companies out there). Unfair pay is not right and should not be shrugged away as 'the norm' however i think this forum is not the place to really discuss it as it is a global issue which SQUAD is an insignificant part of compared to the power of the force some major businesses. 

Such protests, I believe, should be conducted else where and rightly so. Any protest on this forum will do no good. The best we can do is encourage the best out of SQUAD and continue to offer our support by promoting KSP as the a good game in it self and judge cooperate injustices as a totally separate issue.

I'd mention the qualities of the game; but include information about the recent scandals.

While Squad isn't alone in this, that doesn't make them innocent, and it should be up to the person's ethics and morals to decide whether or not to support Squad.

Personally, if I were given the option to re-purchase KSP, I might wait myself given as the developers aren't earning the money they deserve. I only buy games to support the developers, artists, and team of the game, not the owner of the company's private yacht.

[Doc_Burgerello]

Since I haven't seen it stated on this thread before (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), I just wanted to point out that, in my experience of lurking on this forum for over a year, all KSP-staff's personal posts have been extremely reasonable and balanced, even when community reactions sometimes invited a less polite response. Both staff and moderators are going to great lengths to ensure a minimum of offense is taken, whilst at the same time allowing/supporting feedback and free speech (e.g. this thread). I find that attitude difficult to reconcile with the work-atmosphere that is being described in the link that started this discussion. That being said, I have no first-hand knowledge on what is really going on behind the scenes, and thus should and shall refrain from commenting further on the relation between Squad and (former) employees. KasperVld said it all.

On 5 mei 2016 at 9:54 AM, KasperVld said:

While I understand everyone would like an official reaction from Squad, it would be highly inappropriate and unprofessional for a company to publicly discuss their former employees.

 

What I do know, is that both I and friends to whom I recommended KSP have never before (or since) found a game that is at the same time so entertaining, informative and boundless as KSP. (With due credits to the impressive modding community of course: kudos!) So my message to the KSP-devs and support (current, past and future): Thank You and consider our purchase of KSP as an acknowledgment of your hard work. Hopefully it is also received by Squad (which is as I understand it not necessarily the same as KSP-staff) as an encouragement to provide you with the right environment to keep on developing this great game in a sustainable way.

Happy landings!

(I couldn't resist delurking )

[Tourist]

I assume all the indignant people here also don't own smart phones.... the materials necessary to make them pretty much fund and drive wars in the Congo. Also the Chinese workers who build them are essentially treated like prisoners.  

Oh, and I think its truly brave they have decided not to wear any clothes which are made in third world countries, sports brands in particular... many many of them use child indentured labor.

This outrage is ridiculous. Crunch management and not paying educated and skilled workers very well is pretty small bikkies when it comes to corporate skulduggery. Welcome to capitalism.  

[waterlubber]

1 hour ago, Tourist said:

I assume all the indignant people here also don't own smart phones.... the materials necessary to make them pretty much fund and drive wars in the Congo. Also the Chinese workers who build them are essentially treated like prisoners.  

Oh, and I think its truly brave they have decided not to wear any clothes which are made in third world countries, sports brands in particular... many many of them use child indentured labor.

This outrage is ridiculous. Crunch management and not paying educated and skilled workers very well is pretty small bikkies when it comes to corporate skulduggery. Welcome to capitalism.  

We know that there's crap going on in third and second-world countries. But we can't do anything about that. Here, we can try to coerce Squad into doing the right thing.

Not to mention that this community have kissed up to Squad for a while, thinking that they were a perfect angel that couldn't do anything wrong, and this was a huge wake-up call to the community. 
These were American developers too, where the cost of living is easily ten times what they were paid.

[Stargate525]

For me it's not even this specific kerfuffle. It's that it's happening EVERY. SINGLE. BLOODY. RELEASE.

It's apparent that Squad isn't learning anything from the PR nightmares they continually release, despite numerous detailed suggestions by the community (I wrote a 1000+ word suggestion set to Rowsdowser during the Resources/Multiplayer debacle, and I know I wasn't the only one he asked regarding it). That's what liquides me off. It shows an appalling lack of respect for their community.

[Fallarnon]

22 hours ago, pxi said:

Not aiming this reply at you personally, but I've seen this argument put forward umpteen times over this whole affair.  I don't agree or disagree with it, but let me offer another possibility:

Is it possible that he felt that being able to attach his name to a highly successful project would be more valuable to him in the long run than the immediate wage he was receiving?

Beyond that I have little perspective to offer on this whole debacle.

That would basically qualify as an alternative form of compensation to which no cash value can be ascribed, and, still doesn't change my point. He still has the ability to attach that name to his resume/CV so that wasn't taken away. As I said, this is an obvious attempt to inspire clickbait articles about how Squad mistreated the guy when, again, he was clearly okay with that wage at the time.

8 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Yes, but let's play the game for a moment. I bought mine pre-release when .18 was the demo (I think I bought ver. 2.2) and I bought it on sale. I paid $3.99 (I had to look it up to make sure). I am sure that there is a small fraction - maybe half at most, that paid the full price for KSP as $40.00.

A quick Internet search plus a scan of Dun & Bradstreet shows that Squad doesn't even make enough income for a rating - or even a listing. I admit I do not know how many people are employed by Squad, but I will be willing to bet it is a lot like the way most Americans run a small business. For example, I helped out a friend of mine with his computer hardware for a company he ran; on paper, I was the CISO -Chief Information Systems Officer and Marketing Director (I designed his graphics for business cards, stationary, etc.) and both were unpaid positions in reality... His wife was listed as the Chief Finance Officer, and his children also had "official" titles, too.

With that said, I still say squad probably has more fish in the fish tank than employees...

 

Don't forget, sales outside of the KSP website are going to be subject to a 30% cut (industry average) going to the marketplace (Steam, Humble Store, GoG, etc.) and anything they took in on their website was hit for merchant processing fees. All of that before taxes and overhead like keeping the lights on, doors open, and employees paid.

7 hours ago, Pax Kerbana said:

Maybe. However if Squad was well managed nobody would be. Is Sqaud did things the right way, not the cheapest way, the game would be done now and they would be working on the next big project, with the owners hoping for a buy out.

Really? Would you care to share your intimate knowledge of game development and the challenges that Squad has faced with the rest of the class that allowed you to come to such a profound conclusion? I mean seriously, what a bunch of unsubstantiable... I can't even.

Game development is far from an exact science, it's really really really easy to sit around and armchair monday-morning quarterback, sitting here with the full benefit of hindsight and, unless I misjudge greatly, not a lick of industry experience to back it up and tell a developer what they should have done when deciding about X situation and wholly another thing to actually be there in the grind of things day to day making the hard decisions. 

4 hours ago, waterlubber said:

I would forgive them. Most people would; we already know what they did.

We do?

3 hours ago, waterlubber said:

I only buy games to support the developers, artists, and team of the game, not the owner of the company's private yacht.

Have you considered the fact that without those owners fronting the money that enabled those developers to do what they did none of it would be possible in the first place? I mean really, this idea that this stuff just happens and the financial burden assumed by the owners is negligible really bugs me. They mad a high risk investment in an idea and it paid off, why shouldn't they get to reap the rewards of this?

18 minutes ago, waterlubber said:

We know that there's crap going on in third and second-world countries. But we can't do anything about that. Here, we can try to coerce Squad into doing the right thing.

Not to mention that this community have kissed up to Squad for a while, thinking that they were a perfect angel that couldn't do anything wrong, and this was a huge wake-up call to the community. 
These were American developers too, where the cost of living is easily ten times what they were paid.

Can't you? What he said about brands like Nike and such, here's a novel idea, don't buy them. You don't need a cell phone, people got along just fine without them for centuries. There are plenty of responsibly sourced and produced products available on the market, sure they cost more but that's the price you pay for ensuring the person who made your shoes was paid a fair wage.

I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts the "American" developers you're referring to, being remote from the actual company, were hired on a contractor basis. If so, they again must have been happy enough with the wage and fringe benefits to put in these hours when it was demanded of them et al.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Fallarnon

[Vanamonde]

Quote

... we already know what they did.

We do? We've heard some claims from one side, which the other side can't easily answer without risking trouble with law and confidentiality. That is hardly a definitive version of events. 

Quote

... this community have kissed up to Squad for a while, thinking that they were a perfect angel that couldn't do anything wrong...  

Which forum have you been reading? 

[Fallarnon]

14 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Which forum have you been reading? 

Quoted for truth.

[regex]

1 hour ago, waterlubber said:

Not to mention that this community have kissed up to Squad for a while, thinking that they were a perfect angel that couldn't do anything wrong

Uh ... Yeah ... I'm just going to, you know, let myself out.

<_<.

>_>

[Pax Kerbana]

1 hour ago, Fallarnon said:

Really? Would you care to share your intimate knowledge of game development and the challenges that Squad has faced with the rest of the class that allowed you to come to such a profound conclusion? I mean seriously, what a bunch of unsubstantiable... I can't even.

Game development is far from an exact science, it's really really really easy to sit around and armchair monday-morning quarterback, sitting here with the full benefit of hindsight and, unless I misjudge greatly, not a lick of industry experience to back it up and tell a developer what they should have done when deciding about X situation and wholly another thing to actually be there in the grind of things day to day making the hard decisions. 

You know the beauty of the Internet? The murky waters allow a herring to challenge a white shark. Or maybe in this case, an ocelot unknowingly calling out a jaguar.

I never professed knowing much about hunting small game. But I do know about hunting. Hunting is fairly universal, you want to eat something, you go and get it. Each prey requires different methods, but the end result is the same, and the methods are similar. Each cat employs different tactics, some are good and some are bad. I am an excellent hunter.

As one hunter to another, I am simply saying Squad is employing bad tactics. You don't like the message so you challenge the messenger. Wrong tactic.

If you want to turn this into a measuring contest, be my guest. What's the average size project you directly manage?

Dont make the mistake of doubling down on game development being unique or "not an exact science." You might be a bigger cat, but based on your preoccupation with intricacies, I doubt it.

[Fallarnon]

15 minutes ago, Pax Kerbana said:

You know the beauty of the Internet? The murky waters allow a herring to challenge a white shark. Or maybe in this case, an ocelot unknowingly calling out a jaguar.

I never professed knowing much about hunting small game. But I do know about hunting. Hunting is fairly universal, you want to eat something, you go and get it. Each prey requires different methods, but the end result is the same, and the methods are similar. Each cat employs different tactics, some are good and some are bad. I am an excellent hunter.

As one hunter to another, I am simply saying Squad is employing bad tactics. You don't like the message so you challenge the messenger. Wrong tactic.

If you want to turn this into a measuring contest, be my guest. What's the average size project you directly manage?

Dont make the mistake of doubling down on game development being unique or "not an exact science." You might be a bigger cat, but based on your preoccupation with intricacies, I doubt it.

I do so love how you danced around actually contradicting my statement without actually presenting any meaningful presentation of 'facts' about your experience (as you say, those same murky waters enable pufferfish to prosper) so I'll go ahead and do the same.

You see, you're the one sitting here making sweeping declarations about what Squad would have accomplished if they had been well managed, completely unsubstantiable claims. Now, you could have been more reserved about it, something lighter like 'KSP would probably be in much better shape today if Squad had been able to employ some Unity experts' is just reasonable sounding and nebulous enough to pass muster, but to just outright declare that it would be done  now if they'd done X? No chance, you're not getting a pass there chief. Bad tactics, sure you can say that, but the objection was to your declaration of the project status in your hypothetical situation without a shred of basis in fact. Such a sweeping statement makes me doubt very highly that you've ever managed a project involving a substantial programming effort. People experienced with software development know better than to make such broad claims.

 

Edit: You know what... this is all academic. As you've so aptly noted it's the internet, you could say you're Bill Gates and I'd have no way to prove it or disprove it. Suffice to say sweeping declarations should be based on fact, not bandied about willy nilly on a whim.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Fallarnon

[Pax Kerbana]

11 minutes ago, Fallarnon said:

I do so love how you danced around actually contradicting my statement without actually presenting any meaningful presentation of 'facts' about your experience (as you say, those same murky waters enable pufferfish to prosper) so I'll go ahead and do the same.

You see, you're the one sitting here making sweeping declarations about what Squad would have accomplished if they had been well managed, completely unsubstantiable claims. Now, you could have been more reserved about it, something lighter like 'KSP would probably be in much better shape today if Squad had been able to employ some Unity experts' is just reasonable sounding and nebulous enough to pass muster, but to just outright declare that it would be done  now if they'd done X? No chance, you're not getting a pass there chief. Bad tactics, sure you can say that, but the objection was to your declaration of the project status in your hypothetical situation without a shred of basis in fact. Such a sweeping statement makes me doubt very highly that you've ever managed a project involving a substantial programming effort.

But you took the hook anyway.

Programming is a part of what I manage, and I agree it isn't easy dealing with the intricacies. But I don't have to deal with the intracies (unless things are going south), because I hire good people who can get the job done right, on time, and on budget. FWIW, programming doesn't even make the top 10 of total difficulty, unless the contractor has no idea what they're doing, in which case it's extremely difficult. Are you saying Squad has no idea what they're doing?

What you have obviously failed to realize is I'm talking about overal management. Not how to code. I don't care about coding. I care about the end result. And a good manager knows how to get the right people, give them the right resources and put them in the right place at the right time.

Do you want to keep going? What's the dollar figure of the average size project for which you are directly responsible? If you want we can break out the percentage for programming.

Or are we not taking about management? Because that's what I'm taking about.

 

 

[Wallygator]

This entire thread could be retitled "The first great forum logical fallacy war". 

Oh sorry, I think that's happened before  so a few more straw soldiers thrown into the trenches won't matter much, so here goes...

1) We love a product? We tend to buy it

2) We love a company? We tend to buy their products and or their stocks in preference to companies we hate

3) We hate a company? Most of the time we tend to avoid buying from them unless forced to do so due to unmitigated needs  like survival  - unless they are making serious profit and pay great dividends

4) Hate a company, but love their products? Hmmm, guess life is full of compromises. 

Oh, before I forget:  regarding the concept of subpar pay and poor treatment of employees... Suck it up, it's not going to change - ever. It's not about squad, they are just a recent distraction  

So then, that's me done... Back to lurking. 

(Cut to scene of straw soldier Michael Cain fumbling with his handgun whilst reloading)

Edited May 11, 2016 by Wallygator
forgot to add an important point...

[T3Kaos]

15 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Yes, but there is a slight difference - Tesco is an established company with lots of capital, assets, and investors. Squad has a - - fan base (that's rather cult-like, if I might add - and yes, I, too, am a Kerbite). Tesco also has to do the PR to retain customer trust, as well as having an administrative staff that includes regularly employed PR experts, legal experts, and others... Squad has... people in management that are also software developers and dreamers. It would be like comparing your local used car salesman that has a corner lot on the outskirts of town that works out of a portable building to the established Ford, Mercedes, Audi, or other named brand dealership that also happens to sell used cars...

Squad may have a lot of great contacts, such as Elon Musk, NASA, ESA, and other space agencies or other even other space industry leaders and even may be involved in educational ventures (educational pricing normally involves a deep discount on the idea that it will lead to future non-educational sales to former students-now-turned-customers, as EA/Maxis did experience with SimCity). However, that does not translate to instant capital (funds) in the bank NOW. Relationships lead to increased FUTURE revenues, much like the endorsement by professional athletes leads to increased sales of Nike or Adidas and those large companies can afford that kind of endorsement-translates-to-future funds because they already have investment capital, tangible assets, and liquid cash on hand, not counting revenue generated off product licensing.

Squad, on the other hand, probably has very liquid cash on hand, beyond equipment - very little assets, and a small amount of investment capital, plus some revenue off product licensing...

Actually, I completely agree. When I first got into this game and became the die-hard Kerbite that I am today I was quite frankly shocked at how cheap this game is. When you compare it to other games which cost far, far more, but offer such far, far less this game is ridiculously cheap. So yes, I would agree that this game should be higher priced and hell, I would pay it if it meant that Squad behaved ethically towards their employees. However before they can do that, they need to stop developing the game for a bit and stabilise at least one release. The 1.1.0 release was a diabolical clusterfrack leading to two near immediate incremental mini-re-releases - what the hell? Stabilise, increase developer salaries, increase game price, release press release providing explanation of behaviour - good to go! Problem solved.

If only life were that simple

[The_Rocketeer]

5 hours ago, Pax Kerbana said:

As one hunter to another, I am simply saying Squad is employing bad tactics.

In these 'murky waters', that doesn't seem to really be doing them much harm.

What I mean is, look at this discussion about how they might or might not have been exploiting their workforce - which I must point out, if true, it despicable, horrifying and totally unacceptable to any right-thinking person regardless of whether it 'happens all the time' or not. You don't stop corruption by accepting it, you stop it by calling it out and stopping it. Now, right here we've got a whole series of self-appointed Champions-of-Squad chiming in, naysaying the critics and apparently trying to make the 'slightly-disappointed' into the 'quite-cross'. These defenders of the faith seem to be gaining the populist vote, judging by raw numbers of 'likes' on their posts (I guess that could just be forum cliques rallying round their members - wouldn't be the first time I'd seen that).

I wouldn't call it 'good tactics', but... well, you can't argue with stupid people.

In my experience flinging muck around and seeing if it sticks is about the only way for normal everyday guys to bring up any point of discord with administrative giants. Now, Squad may not qualify as the latter in economic terms, but in terms of employer-employee relations they sure seem to have acted like one, and based on my impression of their company thus far, it definitely seems like something they aspire to.

Now here's the truth:

If we all just ignored it and moved on, this story would be over, Squad would carry on with whatever they're already doing, and nothing would change at all. Instead, and quite rightly, we're making a bit of noise about it, probing, questioning, stating concern, generally creating the impression through our internet medium that if true then these allegations damage Squad in our esteem. That's not the same thing as stating outright that Squad are an evil satanic demon of a company who should burn in the fires of righteous indignation. What it is, is applying pressure around this issue and asking for the truth, reassurance, a message from Squad that addresses the issue and tells us either that it's all lies, or that if it is true then they're very sorry and this is what they're doing about it. Even if Squad choose to ignore that pressure and hope it goes away, it is still making them think twice about how they treat employees, how they share the wealth that their workers create, and how they deal with their employees concerns before they reach the point of public expression.

This is absolutely right and proper, and how the modern world works to bring the shadier aspects of business to light and to bring those responsible to book.

Lastly, to those who are going around challenging those who contribute to this pressure, what exactly is it you're trying to achieve?

[J.Random]

6 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

What I mean is, look at this discussion about how they might or might not have been exploiting their workforce - which I must point out, if true, it despicable, horrifying and totally unacceptable to any right-thinking person regardless of whether it 'happens all the time' or not. You don't stop corruption by accepting it, you stop it by calling it out and stopping it. Now, right here we've got a whole series of self-appointed Champions-of-Squad chiming in, naysaying the critics and apparently trying to make the 'slightly-disappointed' into the 'quite-cross'. These defenders of the faith seem to be gaining the populist vote, judging by raw numbers of 'likes' on their posts (I guess that could just be forum cliques rallying round their members - wouldn't be the first time I'd seen that).

Oh yes. A lot of people try to picture this as if it was this. What's worse is that moderators approve and support such accusations. But that's an offtopic here. It merits for its own thread, maybe, but I don't think it'll live long: it will be closed almost immediately as "uncivil" or something.

[Wheeze]

1 hour ago, J.Random said:

Oh yes. A lot of people try to picture this as if it was this. What's worse is that moderators approve and support such accusations. But that's an offtopic here. It merits for its own thread, maybe, but I don't think it'll live long: it will be closed almost immediately as "uncivil" or something.

Perhaps the moderators know more than we do, they are obviously more often and more closely in contact with Squad employees and may even be under NDA.

[Padishar]

7 minutes ago, Wheeze said:

Perhaps the moderators know more than we do, they are obviously more often and more closely in contact with Squad employees and may even be under NDA.

Oh for pity's sake, take your tin-foil hat off, there's no conspiracy involved...

Quite a few of the messages I've seen about this issue were definitely more pitchforky than disappointed...

Edit: damn, I was trying really hard to avoid posting in any thread related to this issue...  

Edited May 11, 2016 by Padishar

[Wheeze]

44 minutes ago, Padishar said:

Oh for pity's sake, take your tin-foil hat off, there's no conspiracy involved...

The responses from the moderators so far seem to be more levelheaded than most. I'm trying to say that they may know more about the story and there may be some sort of truth in what squad posted.

[Plusck]

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

In these 'murky waters', that doesn't seem to really be doing them much harm.

What I mean is, look at this discussion about how they might or might not have been exploiting their workforce - which I must point out, if true, it despicable, horrifying and totally unacceptable to any right-thinking person regardless of whether it 'happens all the time' or not. You don't stop corruption by accepting it, you stop it by calling it out and stopping it. Now, right here we've got a whole series of self-appointed Champions-of-Squad chiming in, naysaying the critics and apparently trying to make the 'slightly-disappointed' into the 'quite-cross'. These defenders of the faith seem to be gaining the populist vote, judging by raw numbers of 'likes' on their posts (I guess that could just be forum cliques rallying round their members - wouldn't be the first time I'd seen that).

I wouldn't call it 'good tactics', but... well, you can't argue with stupid people.

In my experience flinging muck around and seeing if it sticks is about the only way for normal everyday guys to bring up any point of discord with administrative giants. Now, Squad may not qualify as the latter in economic terms, but in terms of employer-employee relations they sure seem to have acted like one, and based on my impression of their company thus far, it definitely seems like something they aspire to.

Now here's the truth:

If we all just ignored it and moved on, this story would be over, Squad would carry on with whatever they're already doing, and nothing would change at all. Instead, and quite rightly, we're making a bit of noise about it, probing, questioning, stating concern, generally creating the impression through our internet medium that if true then these allegations damage Squad in our esteem. That's not the same thing as stating outright that Squad are an evil satanic demon of a company who should burn in the fires of righteous indignation. What it is, is applying pressure around this issue and asking for the truth, reassurance, a message from Squad that addresses the issue and tells us either that it's all lies, or that if it is true then they're very sorry and this is what they're doing about it. Even if Squad choose to ignore that pressure and hope it goes away, it is still making them think twice about how they treat employees, how they share the wealth that their workers create, and how they deal with their employees concerns before they reach the point of public expression.

This is absolutely right and proper, and how the modern world works to bring the shadier aspects of business to light and to bring those responsible to book.

Lastly, to those who are going around challenging those who contribute to this pressure, what exactly is it you're trying to achieve?

A bit difficult to address all of this in order.

"In my experience flinging muck around and seeing if it sticks is about the only way for normal everyday guys to bring up any point of discord..."

In my view, flinging muck around and seeing if it sticks is an immoral and counter-productive approach which is the bane of our political systems and a cause of misery the world over. It encourages group-think and knee-jerk reactions, and it privileges people that either look nice and sweet enough to trigger a knee-jerk reaction the other way, or who are devious enough to use people's prejudices or ignorance against them, or preferably both.

"Now here's the truth: .... quite rightly, we're making a bit of noise about it"

That is your interpretation of the truth. My interpretation is that a number of people are taking the words of one person (who, rightly or wrongly, has an axe to grind) and applying no critical thinking to what they read. They therefore make a boatload of assumptions, followed by accusations, followed by statements about how they want everybody to know how awful Squad is, even though lots of the parts of the story don't add up.

To take one example, PDtv says that international workers were forced to crunch, but local staff had to keep hours. How do you think this set-up could actually work, in reality? How can a small company keep people on the other side of the world - and in places with much more protective legal systems - under some sort of corporate whip but be unable to do so in their own backyard? If these are indeed "employees", how did social security and tax get paid on those pitiful wages, and how has Squad avoided the massive fines that they would incur in this sort of situation (failure to declare employees, failure to file tax/social security returns, etc.)? If Squad hired an Indian subcontractor with a sweatshop-style arrangement it would be completely believable and utterly condemnable, but that is not at all what is being suggested here. And that means that everybody who lumps this situation into the same category as other "hateful international labor practises" (sp., sp.) is (1) getting drawn in by that flinging-muck knee-jerk reaction thing, and (2) not applying any kind of critical thinking to the question.

And this is why I, and a number of other people, consider this to be pitchfork territory. These are rabble-rousing accusations, and the rabble has been duly roused.

"Now, right here we've got a whole series of self-appointed Champions-of-Squad chiming in, naysaying the critics..."

This I find offensive, since I presume I enter into this category. I don't see many people defending Squad. Virtually all of the people "naysaying the critics" are not defending Squad at all but are instead pointing out that the critics are jumping to conclusions and blindly muck-flinging and basically, being rabble. My personal opinion is that there is nothing in human history that has created more misery and injustice than when people allow themselves to become part of the rabble, and although nobody is going to get lynched in our case (though knowing where Squad is and what being visibly rich can get you, extortion, kidnapping and murder is not entirely beyond the realms of possibility) it's still a distasteful demonstration of that particular human flaw.

"Lastly, to those who are going around challenging those who contribute to this pressure, what exactly is it you're trying to achieve?"

If I can convince one person to put their pitchfork down for a minute and analyse the facts, I'll consider I've done humanity a favour.

[The_Rocketeer]

45 minutes ago, Plusck said:

snip

Plusck, I fully respect your right to interpret your own truths, and to associate yourself with any particular group even if that self-association causes you to feel offended. On the other hand, my remarks weren't directed at any individuals at all, they were deliberately collectivised remarks to make people evaluate what they're saying and why they're saying it.

I don't know where these pitchforks are you're talking about. I don't have one. On the other hand, I don't really have any facts. I think it's a bit sad and pathetic that so many people can get so worked up about stuff that none of us really know anything whatsoever about. The difference is, the ones who say this is bad might actually find out something worth knowing if they keep it up, and the ones who say it isn't bad won't ever find out anything.

EDIT: As for analysing the facts, who are you to say that other people haven't analysed them just because they've drawn different conclusions? So much of this conversation has run:

KSPfan 1: "Squad were naughty. That's very bad"
KSPfan 2: "Shut up! Analyse the facts"
KSPfan 1: "Interesting facts. This is even worse"
KSPfan 2: "Shup up, you didn't analyse the facts!"

I'm left wondering why so many people are so ready to assume that every other Kerman's an extremist without an analytical neuron in their head.

Edited May 11, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[J.Random]

1 hour ago, Plusck said:

This I find offensive, since I presume I enter into this category.

You presume correctly. Not sure what's so offensive here, because it's a simple fact statement. Example:

On 09.05.2016 at 1:58 PM, rkman said:

I think it goes with the territory of KSP fans that are so dedicated to the game that any criticism of it and its development, is interpreted as being "against".

 

On 09.05.2016 at 2:14 PM, Plusck said:

Hmm. Fixed that for you to avoid bias:

"I think it goes with the territory of KSP fans that are so dedicated to the game that they'll grab their pitchforks at a moment's notice."

"Avoiding bias" by issuing baseless accusations. Aren't you nice?

 

But, again, it's an off-topic for this thread. Although the initial topic is basically dead at this point.

Edited May 11, 2016 by J.Random

[Red Iron Crown]

While it's understood that this topic is contentious, surely we can discuss it without resorting to name-calling, on both sides. No need to accuse people of "raising pitchforks" or "being fanboys".

If your reply to a post is about the character of the person posting it (or group of people with similar views) rather than the content of the post, please don't bother hitting the "Submit Reply" button.

[Plusck]

40 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

& tuck

OK, fair enough. Consider me less directly offended

I'll try to avoid posting in here again, anyway, since I'm only helping to keep it alive. On principle, I'll still disagree with your last sentence: assuming it's bad merely excuses the accuser from backing up his claims : p

And one final thing (which is non-controversial and therefore shouldn't need defending): I get the feeling that many people don't see beyond the employer-employee paradigm when they consider the economy. In reality, a huge share of the economy involves people working without any relationship of subserviance. Even labour laws and tax rules often assume that most of a given industry is essentallly made up of large corporations. They may dominate, and when dealing in commodities they certainly do, but when you enter the realms of more individual goods and services - like indie game development - that employer/employee model is far more nuanced.

 

edit: oops, this needs a response before I retire:

17 minutes ago, J.Random said:

You presume correctly. Not sure what's so offensive here, because it's a simple fact statement. Example:

 

"Avoiding bias" by issuing baseless accusations. Aren't you nice?

 

5 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

While it's understood that this topic is contentious, surely we can discuss it without resorting to name-calling, on both sides. No need to accuse people of "raising pitchforks" or "being fanboys".

If your reply to a post is about the character of the person posting it (or group of people with similar views) rather than the content of the post, please don't bother hitting the "Submit Reply" button.

"Raising pitchforks" is a human trait. Being human, I am by definition susceptible to that trait. Along with other nastier ones.

As for that comment directed to @rkman, you only need to check out these forums to see how it goes both ways. People are so dedicated to the game that they defend it needlessly, or they are so dedicated to the game that they criticise it needlessly. As @The_Rocketeer also demonstrated in his last post with his two fans, with differing takes, they are both still "fans". So yes, it was "avoiding bias" since by definition I too am guilty of grabbing pitchforks at times, and by fixing that quote I included myself along with the rest of you.

And if there is any doubt, I most definitely do not mean to insult the character of anybody in that rabble, other than the fact of being human and therefore infinitely criticable for the weak, blinkered creatures that they are. Now, with just a glint of omniscience in my eye, I will take my moral high horse and canter off into the sunset, stage right ->>>

Edited May 11, 2016 by Plusck