"Defiance Games Plastic SF Marines Up for Order" Topic

If you fish around from the time when WF got taken over there were plenty posts on money owed. I realize you are new to this, but it's not a made up controversy. There are years of history here.

Around the time of the WF takeover, there were a number of people with outstanding orders who were both denied refunds and product by the new management, who claimed that the orders were too old or that messages and order confirmations were missing. This was taken by at least one extremely vocal guy to mean that the previous management had absconded with the money. Of course, I guess what's missing is that, if they had, they'd be in jail right now (and rightly so -- it's called "embezzlement").

Before that, Wargames Factory had the Liberty and Union League wherein people could suggest ideas for sets and then "vote" by preordering sprues at $1 USD each; this was not a direct payment, but a promise to pay $1 USD if and when the set reached 1000 sprues ordered (for the record, there would be 6 or so sprues per box). At 500 sprues ordered, Tim Barry would produce renders and at 1000 the set would be greenlighted for production, at which point the $1 USD/sprue would be asked for (but, given that no financial information was given, could not be demanded).

The upside of this is that WF could gauge interest by getting people to kinda-sorta commit to buy a product and, if they actually sold those $1,000 USD sprues in the form of six-sprue boxes at $19.99 USD each, they should make back the money from the mold.

The downsides were numerous:

1) $1,000 USD didn't even come close to financing a mold. Plastic molds run in the neighborhood of $20,000. USD The $1 USD/sprue, however, was a "good faith" payment, not intended to cover the mold cost.

2) The interest was far greater than they anticipated. Many sets shot up to 1000 very quickly -- the Zombies, WSS Troops, and Shock Troopers were two of these, along with unproduced sets such as Female Zombies, Generic Powered Armor, and the infamous 6mm Death Bots. So much interest meant Tim could not keep up with both rendering these sets and fleshing out the company's core Ancients range. Digital Sculpting is a faster process than traditional minis making, but it's not easy and does require a good deal of effort.

3) Back to that finance thing: the company didn't have the money to produce so many sets quickly. Tony told me once that the business plan had been to get a large number of sets out, meaning they wouldn't have to rely on any one set or a big release to finance the next mold. Attempting to accelerate this process was actually what led to the hostile takeover about a year later.

There were other problems, too. Kristof, above, was one of the ones who paid money for the 6mm Deathbots (and not an insignificant sum, I do believe) and was unable to get a quick and efficient refund. He'd paid through Paypal and that company has an expiration dates on refunds. I do believe the problem was resolved by physically mailing him a check.

The delays, of course, meant that many people paid money for product they wouldn't receive for a long time after the projected release date. Even further, the company had trouble getting things in stock and keeping them that way, especially around the time of Tony Reidy being fired (ironically, unless I am mistaken, though he no longer works for WF he still owns a small share of the company). So people ordered product and weren't sure if it'd EVER be shipped, or if they'd get their money back if it wasn't.

For the record, at least according to Tony Reidy and Howard Whitehouse, the problem with missing orders -- and missing communication in general -- lays squarely on the shoulders of bad software that wasn't routing the messages properly. Unfortunately, I do not know how or if this affected actually paying orders, or why. Another problem was that, during the transition, entirely new people were brought in the sort things out, people who didn't know the wheres and whys of the system they were working on (having tried to sort out someone else's system on a couple of occasions, this is extremely frustrating).

The delays in product can be generally blamed on the fact that the manufacturer is in China. This isn't because they are Chinese or any nonsense like that -- it's because the company's offices, shipping facilities, and staff were literally located on the other side of world and separated from their manufacturer by language. It wasn't easy to oversee the process directly, so something like a poorly cut mold could take a while to resolve (the sample sprue would have to be shipped all the way to the states). A mishipment, as with the Shock Troopers which were put on the wrong boat then delayed in customs, could add months to the delivery date. There were all sorts of little problems that added up to big delays.

This is a known problem with manufacturing in China (or, really, any country not your own). This is why large companies which rely on China for their manufacturing maintain full-time, on-site reps to oversee the process and make sure everything is okay. Obviously, a tiny 4-employee business couldn't afford to keep a guy in China year-round. This, in and of itself, meant any problems took a while to resolve.

Also, the company had a lot of problems communicating with the company in general. In the future, Defiance really, REALLY needs to designate someone as a PR rep. I've kinda taken it on myself to do that, but it's on a purely volunteer basis when I find the time (like right now when I'm putting off taking a nap before work).

Anyway, I can go on, but it'll all sound like excuses, and excuses I personally don't have to make since, aside from $29.99 USD + S&H for a box of Marines, I have literally NO financial stake in the company. I'm just trying to provide some semi-solid information.

I really had no idea that the situation was so convoluted. I hope it works out this time as, judging by the amount of posts here and on other forums, the promised product when it arrives (cup half-full)will be very popular.
I can well understand, though people having doubts. Personally I have had several communications with Tony regarding painting the miniatures and his desire to see the product released seems very genuine..

'(apart from the 'morons' (LAF) who pre-ordered the Marines)'

careful mate, I think Bill has a thing about people posting comments to or from other websites….

as for Richard, we can only take your word you had previous accounts and are not in fact another Tony sock puppett account and it's all just pure coincedence you started your account at the start of this month to defend Tony – this happened last time too………

To clarify – LAF = laugh.

Well, I could hunt down posts other accounts, but I didn't post much with them either; I usually browse TMP looking for ideas and Khurasan news (I'm addicted to Khurasan miniatures) and only add the odd comment. I did post some pictures of my work in a thread about painting faces in 15mm minis in the Modern board, but that was months ago. However, I've got a couple of posts kicking around under the name "Xeno RG" -- Xeno Richard Gaulding, Xeno being the generic name I use on forums on the assumption that someone has already taken "Richard."

I could also point you to my RPGNet account where, as Xeno (with a Tau avatar from hilarious 40K fanart) I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 posts. Then there's my facebook page, a MySpace account I haven't touched in years, a LinkedIn account I've never used, and other random stuff.

Plus, I'd imagine Tony Reidy has never played a chopstick walrus at a Korean barbecue place in Atlanta, GA.

Oh, and amusingly, over on the Lead Adventures forum, someone linked a size comparison shot of assorted minis with a Defiance Marine 3D print . . . from my photobucket account, with the link even containing my very own name.

Well, Richard, at least you are a true believer.

You buy into the "unbelievably unlucky" line.
I see horrible mismanagement of a two companies and, more importantly, customers' money.

Most of the miniatures and game companies that we are lucky enough to have around do their thing, don't trick you into investing in it beforehand and give you what you paid for.
There's no playing around involved, no BS, no massive lost orders, no mismanagement of funds that directly effect the customers, no failure to pay workers for a year, no delayed shipments, no selling paid-for preorders to different customers to drum up more funding, no hostile takeover, no airing of dirty laundry, no racist undertones, no sock puppet accounts to post fake support, no lashing out at the community for being unhappy with your behavior.
There is simply producing models, playing games, getting people their stuff.
That's how it should be.
That's not how it was with old WF and with Defiance.
It's not a mystery why people get miffed at companies like this.

That's not how it was with old WF and with Defiance.

…trick you into investing in it beforehand…

no mismanagement of funds that directly effect the customers

no failure to pay workers for a year

"Caesar,"

would you kindly post some proof of these allegations, please? I mean proof that will stand up in a court of law, as in something factual that will prove intent to deceive?

no hostile takeover

I am not familiar with any hostile takeover currently underway at Defiance Games. Can you please provide a link or some source citation for this claim?

Thanks.

Leland R. Erickson

An underfunded startup company is such a bad idea in this economic climate.

I've never heard of any underfunded startup company that was ever a good idea even in good economic times, but then again I suspect without even delving into the matter that there's more than one business success story that began as an underfunded startup, so go figure…

Leland R. Erickson

as for Richard, we can only take your word you had previous accounts and are not in fact another Tony sock puppett account and it's all just pure coincedence you started your account at the start of this month to defend Tony – this happened last time too………

Occam's Razor, mate, Occam's Razor.

The simplest answer is on the evidence usually the correct one.

Richard's visage is indeed a frightful one, but it *is* on the preponderance of evidence his *own.*

I'll have that bottle of premium BBQ sauce sitting on my desk before this weekend is over; rest assured it will have your name on it.

Cheers!

Leland R. Erickson

Some people also believe the Earth is flat.

Yeah, I'm True Believer. You can't hear it, but I'm laughing my ass off right.

Some people also believe the Earth is flat.

"Caesar,"

Facts have nothing to do with beliefs. There are opinions and there are facts. I like facts.

Opinions are fun, but facts are better. Opinions are not facts, so I'll keep my own jury out until we get more facts in front of us, then I'd say we can all judge definitively and *rationally* one way or the other.

We're both entitled to our own opinions, "Casear," but never our own facts.

Cheers!

Leland R. Erickson

Here's a fact.
On November 28th 2011 the Marines were advertised as 'available'.
It is now March 4th 2012 and they are not 'available'. therefore they weren't available back then either.

Here's another fact.
The website lists them as 'in stock'. they are not 'in stock'.

Here's an opinion.
I think this was a calculated attempt to get money off people to fund the manufacture. I don't think it worked and the resulting avalanche of excuses just makes the whole situation worse.

Here's another opinion.
Honesty wouldn't hurt Defiance Games, it might even benefit them, but they don't seem to realise this.

And a third opinion for free.
Every other figure manufacturer manages to make figures, advertise figures, sell figures; in that order. Defiance do it differently and that's proved to be a mistake.

Oh, wait, that was a fact too.

'The simplest answer is on the evidence usually the correct one.'

yup, but I think we are going to disagree on what the simplest answer is

anyway, they cannot come out today, I don't have that date in the LAF pool

Well tomorrow will tell the tale…all will be revealed…supposedly.

I can reveal this. Tomorrow will determine whether or not I cancel my pre-order and ask for my money back.

Here's another fact.
The website lists them as 'in stock'. they are not 'in stock'.

And have I denied that fact? No, I haven't.

Here's an opinion.
I think this was a calculated attempt to get money off people to fund the manufacture. I don't think it worked and the resulting avalanche of excuses just makes the whole situation worse.

Are those excuses, or are those also facts? Remember, I'm all about the facts, as opinions are a half pence a dozen. BTW, "Matakishi," have you ever once had another person make a liar out of you by not doing something they'd promised to do, and you had no reason to doubt them at the time they made the promise?

Here's another opinion.
Honesty wouldn't hurt Defiance Games, it might even benefit them, but they don't seem to realise this.

Are they being dishonest? Can you prove their dishonesty point by point in a manner that would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law? Remember my mounting obsession with Fact vs. Opinion? In American jurisprudence unsubstantiated opinions are usually referred to as "hearsay" or "speculation" and are rejected as a matter of course. I appreciate you're not subject to US law IIRC, so your mileage I know may differ…

And a third opinion for free.
Every other figure manufacturer manages to make figures, advertise figures, sell figures; in that order. Defiance do it differently and that's proved to be a mistake.

To varying degrees you are correct. I've been engaged with this hobby and its supporting industry for over 35 years now. One of the things that has struck me about this whole affair is how much vitriol was heaped upon Tony Reidy and Wargames Factory when he started up the company, and before he could even get past, "Hello, we're Wargames Factory and we'd like to produce affordable plastic figures for wargamers to enjoy…"

Oh, wait, that was a fact too."

"Facts… are difficult things!" observed John Adams. Are you so certain you took into account *all* of the facts before you reached your judgment? Could it be that you are assigning too much weight to whether or not you choose to believe one thing versus another, and are biased towards a negative outcome as opposed to a positive one?

I ask you this, "Matakishi," with all due respect, as your post content on these fora AFAIK have always been of a very sensible and civil nature, not this sudden outburst of hydrochloric vitriol.

Leland R. Erickson

What's your point Leland?

What's your point Leland?

LOL!! My point should be self-evident. So I ask again, and with all due respect, why the vitriol? Are you absolutely confident that you've enough facts to support your harsh conclusions?

What will you do if Defiance Games turns out to have been telling the truth all along about their ongoing technical snags at the production end, and produces a good quality product as promised?

To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell, consider this: you could be wrong.

Leland R. Erickson

What vitriol?
On-going technical snags? How do they explain 'in stock' and 'available to buy' posted here and elsewhere over three months ago. How is that telling the truth?
You're saying they were available then but they're not now because something happened to change that?
All I'm saying is 'coming soon, watch this space' would have been better than 'they're here, send us your money' given the obvious facts of the matter.
You disagree I take it. I'd be interested in your reasons why as it seems very simple to me so perhaps I'm missing something.

Matakishi, would you like me to ask the Defiance Games people to correct their website? I'll do that right now.

'Matakishi, would you like me to ask the Defiance Games people to correct their website? I'll do that right now.'

I thought you were nothing to do with them?

Good point General Disaster – all the moulds are due to be working today and production starting I believe, at least certainly made and working.

Thanks Richard, good of you to have done that, unfortunately they seem to have ignored you.
Never mind, it's a moot point now with the Marines no doubt rolling off the presses as we speak.
Oorah! and all that.

…Waiting patiently for reviews of PRODUCT, with money at the ready…

Richard's visage is indeed a frightful one, but it *is* on the preponderance of evidence his *own.*

"BlackWidowPilot,"

Would you kindly post some proof of that statement, please? I mean proof that will stand up in a court of law?

By the way, did you have a keyboard custom made with an evil grin key? If not I'd suggest you do so, it would save you a lot of keystrokes.

"BlackWidowPilot,"

I have a name, "porfirio rubirosa." I sign it to everything I write here and elsewhere, and you are free to address me by it without fear of your hair catching fire, or me appearing uninvited in your living room demanding your immortal soul.

Would you kindly post some proof of that statement, please? I mean proof that will stand up in a court of law?

The burden of proof in American jurisprudence is on the accuser. Perhaps we should ask The Editor to be so kind as to use his resources and see if Richard Gaulding's internet bona fides check out or not? Just to be sure that Richard Gaulding is not a "sock puppet?" Will that address your concerns sufficiently as far as Richard Gaulding is concerned?

By the way, did you have a keyboard custom made with an evil grin key? If not I'd suggest you do so, it would save you a lot of keystrokes.

No worries, "porfirio rubirosa," as I am a fast typist! Marvelous tool, the keyboard…

Cheers!

Leland R. Erickson

What vitriol?

Reference your post to Richard Gaulding of March 1, 2012 at 4:04PM PST, and your response to me on March 4, 2012 at 2:34 AM PST. Stop shooting, "Matakishi!" It's only me!

On-going technical snags? How do they explain 'in stock' and 'available to buy' posted here and elsewhere over three months ago. How is that telling the truth?

I agree; they should have changed that the moment they knew there was a delay. Hell, IMHO they never should have said *anything* until they had physical stock in their hands, but that's what one gets for accepting the word of vendors you have no prior reason to doubt rather than being a complete and utter skeptic and waiting to have the habeas corpus actually piled on the table in front of you.

You're saying they were available then but they're not now because something happened to change that?

Argumentum ad absurdum is not a rebuttal, "Matakishi-san."

All I'm saying is 'coming soon, watch this space' would have been better than 'they're here, send us your money' given the obvious facts of the matter.

I agree. Steady! Hold onto something, "Matakishi-san!"

You disagree I take it. I'd be interested in your reasons why as it seems very simple to me so perhaps I'm missing something.

I disagree with jumping to conclusions, assuming the worst without sufficient empirical proof, and general snarkiness done more for its own sake and to vent one's spleen just because the anonymity of an internet screen name gives some the illusion of being without personal responsibility to extend minimal human courtesies to people geographically distant.

My jury is still out on Tony Reidy and Defiance Games. I'm willing to wait to see how the whole thing shakes out in the end. I can say that it is not over yet, and the thing must run its course.

Until then, I'll stick to making crazy things out of recyclables when I find the time, engage in repartee with fellow hobbyists when I can spare the time, and get the Hell back to my homework like a good boy.

Oh, and use my favorite TMP emoticon whenever appropriate, for the simple reason that it sums up so well my own outlook on matters:

Cheers!

Leland R. Erickson

Your passive aggressive unpleasantness is tiresome. Why can't you just answer people normally?
I'm happy you agree with me, clearly since you do, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

I'm happy you agree with me, clearly since you do, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

No, I'm challenging people's worst assumptions on this matter, and making a sincere effort to do so with some logic and by sticking to facts, and not jumping to conclusions.

You, sir or madame, now accuse me of being "passive aggressive," which is an assumption of my intent. This is precisely my point, and I have to thank you for proving it.

Cheers!

Leland R. Erickson

Wasn't there supposed to be some big announcement on these, today?

Still time, they work on USA time (not sure which one).

I have a name, "porfirio rubirosa."

One would hope, but you also have a screen name, "BlackWidowPilot." If you want to be called something else, suggestion -- change your screen name.

Perhaps to "EvilGrinny."

In any event, you hung quotes around Casear's and Matakishi's screen names in your responses, so it's obvious that's how you'd like to be addressed as well.

The burden of proof in American jurisprudence is on the accuser.

Typical amateur mistake, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion to shift a decision away from the default position, not on the accuser. So for instance if a defendant asserts an affirmative defence, it's their burden to prove it, as the default position is that if you've been proven to have killed someone (for instance), it was wrongful. So if you need to justify the killing, you have the burden of proof and you are certainly not the accuser.

Anyway, your own medicine didn't taste so good, I gather? Because after all I was just paraphrasing one of your own challenges to someone else's assertions, going on about "burdens of proof" (as if that matters in an internet discussion).

No worries, "porfirio rubirosa," as I am a fast typist!

Yes, that much is abundantly clear.

Still, you should look into getting that custom key. Since you use the evil grin smiley at the end of virtually every sentence, it would come in handy.

Total kool aid slugger :)

In any event, you hung quotes around Casear's and Matakishi's screen names in your responses, so it's obvious that's how you'd like to be addressed as well.

Because they're *fictitious* names, not your actual names (which you decline to use). Did I err somehow grammatically in doing so? Did I violate some tenet of "Netiquette" in doing so? Sounds like you're still assuming a great deal about my intentions, "porfirio rubirosa."

Typical amateur mistake, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion to shift a decision away from the default position, not on the accuser. So for instance if a defendant asserts an affirmative defence, it's their burden to prove it, as the default position is that if you've been proven to have killed someone (for instance), it was wrongful. So if you need to justify the killing, you have the burden of proof and you are certainly not the accuser.

Apples and bowling balls. Tony Reidy hasn't killed anyone, and he's not the one who has leveled the accusations of deliberate deception at others. The original accusation is that Tony Reidy has engaged in a deliberate deception to commit fraud. The burden of proof is on those who made that accusation.

Anyway, your own medicine didn't taste so good, I gather? Because after all I was just paraphrasing one of your own challenges to someone else's assertions, going on about "burdens of proof" (as if that matters in an internet discussion).

Doesn't matter to whom? Doesn't matter according to whom?

Enlighten me.

Leland R. Erickson

Total kool aid slugger :)

Except that I for one don't imbibe that beverage in any form, "Matakishi."

Like I said before, there are facts, and there are opinions. This thing will run its course, and in the end, we'll know for sure which of us was right, and which of us had best have a good supply of their favorite condiment on hand for the crow they'll be dining on, be it you, or, yes, even me.

We shall see. You simply have chosen to reach your conclusion and call for Tony Reidy's proverbial head on a platter based upon what you believe you know for sure, any information calling that conclusion into question be damned. I for one don't believe that the information we have allows us to reach conclusion by any stretch just yet, and we should hold off a bit longer before we break out the torches and pitchforks.

Leland R. Erickson

Firstly, for all you know, Caesar is my real name.

Secondly, Leland may be an elaborate construction of some guy named Eli or Raphael, for all we know.

Trying to make an issue out of screen names is a waste of time, "Leland".

It's now night time in Boston. Still no big announcement?

Firstly, for all you know, Caesar is my real name.

Is it your given name, or a screen name? I try and follow an old African proverb about addressing people, "It's not what you call me that's important, it's what I'll answer to." So I'd rather address you in a manner that at least conveys a minimum level of courtesy and respect.

I *will* freely challenge your arguments and assertions if I take issue with them, but I do try and follow the TMP Rules of the House about courtesy when I do, even if we're on polar opposites of the matter.

Secondly, Leland may be an elaborate construction of some guy named Eli or Raphael, for all we know.

Well, if you think that my name is bogus, and that I'm a "sock puppet" for someone, then by all means report me to The Editor and ask him to sort me out, as I've got it coming to me in no uncertain terms.

Trying to make an issue out of screen names is a waste of time, "Leland".

The issue vice the names is one of courtesy. I try and maintain a minimal level of courtesy as I operate under the assumption (I know, a risky venture) that we're all here to have fun more than anything else talking about our mutual hobby, so why spoil that fun with petty bad manners? Now I realize every now and again someone will show up with a different agenda, but that's on them.

It's now night time in Boston. Still no big announcement?

None that I'm aware of. As Mr. Spock once observed, "They are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond." So we'll see sooner or later if this is (A) a big, evil scam or (B) the end result of overoptimism and technical snags as we've been repeatedly told.

I'm still betting on the later.

Leland R. Erickson

I'm gonna bet, offhand, that there's no big announcement because there's nothing to announce. Well, there is, but I can't say what right now (it's a secret, but a good one).

By the way, Matakishi, I forgot to e-mail Tony last night -- work stuff got in the way -- but just did. It's 11:00 pm on his time zone so he's probably asleep right now. I, on the other hand, am going to be up a long, long time doing homework.

You know, I still haven't gotten a good answer as to why Matakishi et al hate Tony Reidy so much.

Hey…guess what….JUST MAKE THE MINIATURES… LOL Then all the problems should go away. :)

Hi Guys – just got Richard's email….or is it an email I sent to myself? Hmmm??? Just kidding. I love TMP.

I just heard the bit about the "in stock" bit being a big problem for someone. I hadn't noticed it before. I just checked it out and it's a function of the store software. If we want to allow for pre-orders it has to be "in stock". Sorry if that is misleading in anyway…I figured the big "PRE-ORDER" notice next to it would work.

Also just posted up an announcement about where we are in tooling for the Marines – and a bit of a surprise in that the Bugs have their test shots already! News is here: facebook.com/DefianceGames

I'll have more on the Bugs and some pics of the plastic tomorrow when I can take some better pics.

Thanks again,
Tony

Tony Reidy
Defiance Games
defiancegames.com
Find us on Facebook: facebook.com/DefianceGames

So, can we end the bizarre hate-on now?

I'm gonna bet, offhand, that there's no big announcement because there's nothing to announce. Well, there is, but I can't say what right now (it's a secret, but a good one).

You were not kidding Richard – I received my 'secret release' today, and boy, it's a big one! You should have told everyone what Defiance Games were up to and then this whole thread could have been stopped way earlier!

So, for all you doubters – here is my review of the Brand New, Top Secret, Defiance Games 28mm Stealth-Mode Predators!!!!! (Boom Kish!)

Here are some pictures of the Product!

Here's the first one – Stealthed Predator
>
>
>
>
>

And the Next – Stealthed Predator in Tree
>
>
>
>
>
>

And lastly – Stealthed Predator on toilet reading a book

>
>
>
>
>

They are made of some sort of new, Ultra-light-weight material, take literally no time at all to stick together, and are the very best Stealthed Predators I have never seen!

Pat

Defiance Games 05 Mar 2012 8:43 p.m. PST:

I just heard the bit about the "in stock" bit being a big problem for someone

I would say that it's mostly a problem for you… But I suppose if the software doesn't serve then it can't be helped – other than by changing the software, obviously, which is probably a prohibitively expensive idea vs. your resources.

I'd be worried that the comment about 'in stock' being on the website, but the figures not being available other than a pre-order, now has been mentioned on various forums since the 'USMC Marines now available' news article many times since November, and Tony is only just aware of it?

Tony told me once that the business plan had been to get a large number of sets out, meaning they wouldn't have to rely on any one set or a big release to finance the next mold. Attempting to accelerate this process was actually what led to the hostile takeover about a year later.

Any one one to explain to a simple guy like myself how the above failed business model differs from the current Defiance model where they hope to release 8 sets a month or some such, yet can't one out the door?

"Leland?" Richard? Feel like taking on that challenge of Faith?

So, can we end the bizarre hate-on now?

Yes, please.

BTW, I'm a real person and not a Tony Reid Sock Puppet…

I don't think anyone has used the term hate or said they hate tony, Defiance or any of those involved. It's not a hate-on at all. More a running joke now.

"The issue vice the names is one of courtesy."

Leland, if that is the case, then it is more courteous to address users by their screen name than to place that name in quotations. But I recall having another exchange with you some years ago where you brought up the anonymity thing and this is a non-issue. Honestly, anyone can call themselves anything on the internet and even claim to have a 'real name' that's completely false. I've run into that before. Call people what they want to be called here. That's all.

I have a really hard time believing that Tony didn't know his own website lists the miniatures as Available and In Stock. It's your company, Tony. Take some responsibility for it.
If I consistently failed to produce at work and offered up a non-stop string of excuses, I'd be out of a job.
Just make the models.

Apples and bowling balls. Tony Reidy hasn't killed anyone, and he's not the one who has leveled the accusations of deliberate deception at others. The original accusation is that Tony Reidy has engaged in a deliberate deception to commit fraud. The burden of proof is on those who made that accusation.

Looks like you're trying to keep too many balls in the air at the same time in this thread, "BlackWidowPilot," as you've missed the context of our exchange. You've more than once played Clarence Darrow in this thread, bringing up burdens of proof, but then, when it happens to support your apparent needs, you took on face value (literally) the posting of a human face as proof that the poster was not Tony.

And just to reinforce what I wrote before, anyone who would assert there is a "burden of proof" in an internet forum debate immediately loses on general principle. "As if it matters" indeed.

I do find your apparent need to support Defiance to be rather poignant, however. Do carry on, the pathos of it all is quite touching. Most of us though can't help but have our opinions coloured by years of shenanigans and disappointed customer experiences. Is the cherished potential, that new toys will be made, really that important?

Really, Matakishi's comment about your being argumentative for the sake of it -- presumably out of bordeom? -- seems to have been proven here. First you assert that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and when you're proven wrong on that, without skipping a beat you happily jump to the next line of argument, that it's apples and bowling balls.