I'm in the process of adding files, pics, and links to the new Yahoo site. Let me know if there's anything you guys want to see.

Duroon wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 12:12am:


I'm guessing, and don't quote me on this, that some people didn't feel comfortable posting in the old V&V group, with Jeff & Jack becoming the group's owners and mods. As far as I'm concerned, the more exposure V&V gets, the better. I don't care if it's MHG, FGU, or a guy dressed in a tutu.

Hammer wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 12:35am:


Ballerina Man's powers
1. Heightened Agility
2. Heightened Charisma 

The reason for the new yahoo group is exactly on the mark from what DSumner said.
Stop reading right here if you really don't care and if you want to dismiss what's going on around you.

---------------

This is long, but I'm sorry, I felt it had to be written. I'm tired of the subterfuge and confusion being sewn by loyalties being given blindly and reinforced because of sympathies not deserved.

The old yahoo group now has the limitation of only promoting V&V if it comes from Monkey House due to the inclusion of Jeff and Jack in its ownership. People actually on that forum have expressed their discomfort with that, and some posts that are 'controversial' don't even make it to the mailing list. Very Gestappo moderating actions going on there...

And, like some opinions here and there that may be acceptable. I find it not so much.

I GOT BANNED FOR ANNOUNCING FGU PRODUCTS THERE, and even though at the time I posted them, Jeff and Jack were only moderators... Imaginos was the owner still, I communicated with the moderators... the person acknowleged that they knew this was crossing the line and they reinstated me. I was banned again immediately: AGAIN BY JEFF...

I raised alarms about it in a classy and just fashion; instead of being allowed to return and the forum remaining a neutral place of integrity, Jeff and Jack became owners, the remaining moderators became complicit in MHG's ownership and blocking FGU advertising  and now here we are today.
It's cool, I'm trying to forgive that notion, it's hard when people don't take your word and look inside their own conscious to know you're right. It's even worse when you sense they do, but do nothing.
Sound like a conspiracy? Sound like someone was threatened?

That forum was supposed to be open to anyone talking about V&V. PERIOD.
The new forum is just that.
It also does not recognize MHG's claims of administration rights to the V&V trademark based solely on their say so and filing for a TM this year. The difference is that if you want to talk about 2.1 rules there: you can.
You want to talk about The Crisis at Crusaders Citadel, again, you can.... Oil pressure, whatever... go for it.
It's a Yahoo site. FGU has a website for releases and announcements in an official capacity.

FGU, regardless whether anyone here is happy about the situation of how much FGU supported/didn't support V&V, has consistently used and administered the trademark by legal agreement for nearly 33 years. The statute of limitations for any disagreement disappeared long ago.
The property is NOT creator-owned. It never has been. I don't expect anyone here other than the writers and contributors to V&V in an official capacity through FGU to understand.
I don't see anyone else from that group, which includes myself, Bill Willingham, Dr. Dedman, Stefan Jones, Troy Christensen, Ken Cliffe, Pat Zircher, The Wieck Brothers, etc... standing up and crying foul against FGU for any reason all these years. And FGU hasn't changed their address ~ ever. For the MHG guys, this is undeniably personal and has turned this potentially beautiful revival which was started
-by fans-
-through FGU-
into an ugly quagmire of he said she said...

I'm tired of fan boys using what ever convenient arguments to support the supposed legality of what MHG is doing. They're not doing this out of any sense of loyalty to you... what a crock. And legal??? Brent Rose, their LAWYER, can't even seem to tell guys who are dying to believe him the truth...

Where was that loyalty 5 years ago when that competing product that borrowed heavily on V&V called Living Legends came out? I personally thought it was crap. And apparently by its sales and support, so did the bulk of the market.

----

There was a time and place < to clarify: This year just before the sudden appearance of MHG >where Jeff was offered to return in whatever capacity he wanted and he turned it down. Who cares the why, the fact is that was his legal opportunity to participate in the revival and he turned it down to spite FGU and rushed out to get his lawyer, who without all the facts advised his clients that it was okay to reneg on their contract with FGU.

You didn't hear anything about MHG until the middle of June this year...
Just six weeks earlier, Jeff was on the forums crying foul, preaching his hate and since no one spoke up to back up the people calling him out on shenanigans, people believed him...
And then POOF!!!!
Hey everyone!
We got our rights back!!!
We're getting the band back together!!!

WHAT A JOKE.

The fact that you all have played into his hands by acknowledging their TM administration with the permissions in the header is funny.
Where is your letter to FGU asking to use their trademark?
Where was the court order that showed you that the TM has been granted to Monkey House Games????
A link???
ANYTHING????

Like I have said before: When MHG shows that they indeed are the legal holders of trademark administration AND Scott tells me it's true (.... He has no reason to lie to me, in real life he's a teacher of history and economics and not a millionaire... a lot to lose for him family and career-wise for breaking the law), I like everyone else will play by the rules that MHG sets.

Until then, we need places like the new Yahoo group where people can be fans like we used to be, instead of under the boot of MHG, who right now are simply usurpers of the game you love regardless their hands in originating the material.

I feel bad for guys like Dave Woodrum, who finally got to have something published because he was at the right place at the right time and really did it right to support the game. He has one of those contracts from FGU.
I'll tell him right now, his contract looks like mine.
And ours looks like Jeff and Jack's.
FGU didn't break their agreement.
Integrity is supposed to mean something.

In closing, I know this is going to draw ire from some.
I wish it wouldn't.
I wish that none of this had happened.
I wish it were simple for everyone to see.
But some people don't really want to see it.

The truth may not be what you want to see, but that doesn't make it less the truth.
Gut check.

Ranger wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:


The new stuff from FGU looks good, IMV. I can't really judge MHG yet because Oil Pressure was a "strawberry shortcake" silli-athon and Hostile Takeover was recycled from Living Legends, not a new product.

I read how the previous yahoo group was now MHG only, so a new group makes sense. That's one reason I asked when I first joined if it was okay to talk about non-MHG products here (because I know of posts being deleted on the original yahoo board).

This forum has no official stance.  Its an outgrowth of my shitty memory.  I needed a place to keep the campaign notes organised, and a forum was the best way to do that so that my players could all have access. 
   Everyone joining and posting is a bonus.   But as owner of this place, I take, nor wish to take, no position on  what is going on.

To tell the truth,  I am glad Jeff posted here, as I think its pretty cool, but if Scott Bizar or Bill Willingham posted here, they would also be welcome.  As would Stan Lee or anyone for that matter. 

  So argue about the legal ramifcations  that we are at best third parties too, or just post some cool stats, it doesn't matter to me.   We are all adults, we can ignore posts and posters we don't like, and we can comment on things we like.

So I don't delete any posts, edit ( except with permission to fix typos) or do any heavy mod action.  So post away,   I tend not to read the FGU vs MHG posts anyway.   I am just not interested.   If FGU "Wins" or MHG "WINS"  I still have to get up a 5 am tomorrow and go to work.

John wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 8:19pm:



You have to get up at 5 AM. Now that's truly unjust!

Discuss this:


http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_namei...

The legal entity Fantasy Games Unlimited Inc of the state of New York has been DEAD since, September 25, 1991. What "Disolved by Proclamation" means is that the state of New York shut it down for failure to pay its taxes.

Allen

Ultra Malcolm wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:


can you find anything that indicates that it was reincorporated? and could it even BE reincorporated if it owed taxes?

And what happens to that supposed contract that was signed with a company that, according to this, no longer exists?

I have no clue..I am not a lawyer I just found this info and am passing it along.

Allen

Cool!

Wasn't 1991 several years after they moved to Arizona?

mw

Ultra Malcolm wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 9:36pm:


Our lawyer advised us not to publicly discuss the details of our case.

That doesn't mean our case doesn't have merit, of course: only that we never explained ourselves.

But we wouldn't have re-released V&V if we'd had any serious doubts about our right to do so.

-Jeff Dee
Monkey House Games

Ultra Malcolm wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 10:22pm:


If you lost something you loved because someone wouldn't let you have it and at that time thought you'd never get it back, don't you think you might get a bit hacked off about it once in a while? Jeff is a human being like all of us. I have said plenty of things on message boards that I later wish I had not. It happens.

Allen

Allen Shock wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

I don't know who lost what. Until the details of the dispute are disclosed. But if I created a game in 1979, and fans wanted to more about those original rules (instead of the 2010 rules), I'd respond that I was happy they were still interested in the 1.0 version that I created--not question why they were interested in the "crusty" game. That's the kind of snarkiness that gets me. It sounds opportunistic. Like--don't go see my old movies, see only my new movies. Jeff Dee's art is fine. But he's hurt the feelings of a lot of people I know online. I don't have any ill will against him, but I don't automatically take his side.

As much, again, as I really do not want to put my voice into the heat of things, I have to agree with Allen on his last post. I wish no one disrespect or any disrespect to their freedom of voice or opinions, but I have to agree that "yes, sometimes you say things that are less than PR friendly because you've given up something you are dear true and it does suck". Granted, yes, I also understand that such is the nature of business, but it still sucks.
I can relate to some of my own past work in the table top, paper and dice gaming business. There was one past project that I worked on, that I dreamed up the idea for, that I did a significant portion of the writing on, only to have the main core rule set replaced by another design (it was OGL so the publisher could easily do that) and then to add the worst insult to injury of all, the publisher change the title name of the book because a third party entity that the publisher hired to do the fancy layout and final edit review didn't like the name that I gave the book that I mostly wrote myself and thought his (which I didn't care for personally... and still don't to this day) sounded much better... and the publisher went with his advice, this third party paid person, over mine.
Did I deal with it and go on, yes, but does it suck to this day... yes, it does. I've even had family and fans ask me why the heck I decided to call the book what it is called and I said "I didn't", and then had to explain that a paid third party assigned to do a totally different job got to rename my book for me.

So, I understand personally the pain that Jeff goes through and how it may have colorized his posts in the past. Is that taking sides, no, I don't see it as such. But it is an empathy that as a fellow game designer I truly understand... and I'm not going to deny that.

(and no, out of professional courtesy I will never reveal which book it was, or even which publisher it was for, so don't ask)

Ultra Malcolm wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:


My point was that he stole the words that MHG wrote verbatim rather than come up with his own AND the company that they signed the contract was was NOT the company that applied for the trademark because it CAN'T.

How exactly that relates to the continued validity of that contract is not something I can address, me not being a lawyer and all.

Allen

Could you explain to me what  Pathfinder is, what OGL is and such.    The last D&D system I was remotely interested is was AD&D Second Edition.

John wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 11:32pm:


Pathfinder is a gaming system published by Paizo, that expands on D&D 3.5. OGL = Open Gaming License. It basically allows 3rd parties to publish products for other games, as long as they agree to the terms set forth in the license.