"Open Letter from Tony Reidy of Wargames Factory" Topic

As I said before, whatever else, in business terms no good can come out of this.

I agree with that… and those saying the letter is 'not professional'… my question/argument is for some of the folks implying that 'professional' somehow equates with ethics or honesty or character… being in any way good/or bad except in terms of business.
Such as…

To me, you take your emotions out of the area and treat people as you would expect treatment from another person in the same position.

That, to my mind, is more like personal ethics… 'do unto others.' It might or might not be good business practice depending on the circumstances… it's certainly what I'd want as a customer/patient… but does that make it 'professional'?
If so then a company like Games Workshop fails the test… isn't 'professional'.

Well here is a definition of professionalism that I pulled off the University of Phoenix website:

Meticulous adherence to undeviating courtesy, honesty, and responsibility in one's dealings with customers and associates, plus a level of excellence that goes over and above the commercial considerations and legal requirements.

University of Phoenix…
Do they read their own ad copy?

>>Didn't really have anything to say just wanted to get the 200th post<<

Well, good for you, at least someone has accomplished something with this thread.

Wow. Brave of TMP to publish this. The original post is an open and shut case of libel.
No idea what caused Mr Reidy's colossal lapse of judgement, but it's not really relevant. It would be no defence for TMP in publishing the libel. I can only assume it is different in the US. In Britain, you would be well advised to hire some lawyers. Quickly.

It doesn't seem all that libelous or inflammatory… a mix of opinions and (hopefully) demonstrable facts…
Not accusing the guy of crimes… just poor character.

Venusboys3
Ah, but it's the huge cost of proving it's true (with the additional frisson of excitement that one might lose the case), that makes TMP's behaviour so brave…

Truth is not a defence under British (and Australian) law, that's how. One of the big differences between US law and others.

So, in Britain, if you say 'Bob is a murderer'… it's libelous even if Bob is, in fact, a murderer?
Luck this website isn't based in Britain then.

I find that hard to believe. How could a news organization publish ANYTHING that wasn't positive?

>Ah, but it's the huge cost of proving it's true
>that makes TMP's behaviour so brave…

I somehow have the feeling that Tony might be there to testify for his posting.

Anyway, TMP is not obliged to prove the content of any report they publish more then any newspaper has to. If you get information from a reliable source (especially if its not anonymous), you can publish it. The legal problems lay with Tony if he distorted the facts.

TMP is also not responsible if they publish a wrong report on the availability of goods.

Laws regarding free speech and the freedom of press may differ, however, between legislations. It might be unwise for the editor of this site to travel to China… (or the UK, when SPQRatae is correct on the laws regarding the freedom of press for the UK.

@Cincinnatus, I'm not clear on it either (not being British)… I understand (in the U.S.) that 'defamation of character' is to be avoided unless you have the facts to back up what you say.
If you want to drive the other guy's company out of business by claiming that his hamburgers are made with dog meat, you'd better have proof.
But I'm not clear that this letter crosses over into that sort of thing…

Venusboys3
Well it's tricky to engage with you when you later edit your posts, disrupting the flow.
But for you and artaxerxes: in English libel law, truth *is* a defence. The problem is the law assumes the libel is false. The burden is on the accused to prove it is true. Throw in the high cost of proving the truth, the disruption and time wasted by the case, and the often catastrophic consequences of losing the court case, and you'll begin to see why I think the TMP is most courageous.

Well it's tricky to engage with you when you later edit your posts

Yeah, sorry about that, but I did it before I saw your post… I tend to edit a lot.

Throw in the high cost of proving the truth, the disruption and time wasted by the case, and the often catastrophic consequences of losing the court case, and you'll begin to see why I think the TMP is most courageous.

Except TMP isn't British… so The Editor probably isn't thinking on those terms.

The problem is the law assumes the libel is false.

I can see the sense in that I suppose… if you take the 'libel' as the primary accusation, that needs to be justified… vs. the accusation of 'libel'.

Except TMP isn't British… so The Editor probably isn't thinking on those terms.

Fortunate that the loophole has been closed then

link

link

PDF link

It's an interesting subject for debate. Every democratic society has to choose where it wants to position its libel laws on the line between absolute freedom of speech at one end, and respect for the truth and protection of an innocent man's reputation at the other.
The US is certainly closer to the absolute freedom of speech end of the line than Britain. A 'publish and be damned' attitude takes a lot less bravery in the US than in the UK.
On the one hand, that makes the US a much more 'out in the open' society, while British libel laws definitely have a chilling effect on publishing decisions. On the other hand, it is much easier to blacken an innocent man's name in the US, or cast doubt on a company/product in a 'no smoke without fire' sort of way than it is in the UK.
No right and wrong balance, I suppose. It's for every society to decide for themselves where they want the balance to fall.

Fortunate that the loophole has been closed then

Indeed, I am not a fan of any legal system that can allow people using "free speech" to accuse me of anything untrue and get away with it.

For example I would hate to be powerless to stop people printing that I am racist, xenophobic, a feces eater, a scum-bag or an American hater for example.

I would like to be able to stop people lying about me and damaging my reputation.
Innocent until proved guilty and all that..

Yeah… it seems like a narrow beam to balance on.
I can see how the British version favors the individuals where, once a thing is said, it sticks to them… regardless of what comes out in the courts.
But I can also see how that setup would be abused by corporations wanting to squelch honest criticism and whistle-blowing.

Strange, because I always took a certain channel of British 'journalism' to be pretty gossipy and 'rumour-mongering'. Even compared to our own 'scandal sheets'. How do they get away with it?

Honest criticism is fine, it is dishonest that causes issues.

Even compared to our own 'scandal sheets'. How do they get away with it?

Many of them don't and are in and out of court all day long..

But I'm getting that in Britain and elsewhere, a company that doesn't like what you said about them, true or not… can take you to court… costing you time and money… and generally discouraging that sort of truth-telling… unless the accuser has deep pockets himself.

Like SPQRatae says:

British libel laws definitely have a chilling effect on publishing decisions.

I could be wrong here, but do you not also have to prove that you knew the statement to be true at the time you made it?

ANYWAY

I'm sort of saddened because WF did make some laudible statements of ethical intent, but those seem to have fallen through.

As far as I can see WF is still in business. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of their sales are not to posters here, and most buyers (like me) just want a reasonable product at a reasonable price delivered reliably. Even though I dont think the quality is very good, I think it is reasonable, ditto price. If they sort these production delays out I cant see why they can't continue.

I'm not a lawyer (very obviously), and SPQRatae can probably clarify this for those of us interested, but I think I understand that the difference in the two systems is a 'public interest' defence, which is much easier to use in the US system.

And I should have expressed myself more clearly in my earlier post: what I meant to convey was my understanding that in British (and Commonwealth) law, the truth is no *necessary* defence.

Many of them don't and are in and out of court all day long…

I imagine the same for our National Enquirer and such… at least at one time. I think they are a lot more careful these days… having lost some big decisions.
Maybe it all balances out…

Venusboys3
Speaking as a former British journalist, you are certainly right that British journalism's culture is more in the gutter than the loftier (and more self-regarding) traditions of US journalism. But they get away with it precisely because it is gossipy and filled with innuendo. You will often see someone famous described as being 'tired and emotional'. You will never see them described as 'drunks who are a professional disgrace and should never be allowed to work again'.
Some papers sail close to the wind, but anything, ANYTHING, that could even remotely be construed as libellous would be run by the in-house lawyers first, before deciding whether to print or edit it. At that point, people will often err on the side of caution, simply because they can't be bothered with the hassle. That is what I meant by a 'chilling effect'.
To give an idea of how tricky it is: there is a famous case where a British paper implied Liberace was gay. Only implied, didn't explicitly state 'Liberace is gay'. He sued for libel. And he won! So even relying on truth as a defence did not work in this case, because the courts considered the truth was not proven. A good lesson for those who think 'true' and 'legally true' are the same thing….
Anyway, I suppose we're getting quite far off topic now. Apologies.

CelticPagan 16 Jan 2011 9:27 a.m. PST
@John the OFM – John, may I suggest you consider making your IP claim known to the new owners? You suggestions to the LaUL were/are, under Tony's original setup, yours. WGF would give credit to those who suggested the items, and you retain ownership of the IP, at least as I read the information.

My "suggestions" were nothing but jumping on the website to join in the rush to suggest un-economic future sprues.
None of the LaUL suggestions were of any benefit to the proposers, as far as I know.
I doubt that I have any proprietary ownership of 1/144 Spitfires, or AWI militia with swappable heads. If I can be proved wrong, I would be interested to see it!

I'm still amazingly disappointed with a lot of people here.

A company owes money to its suppliers (reading Tony's first sentence, he says there are debts) and it seems they offer said suppliers equity in the operation in order to stay in operation. Business doesn't turn around despite what the legacy management says and debts increase and the now majority owner decides to cut his losses and decides to keep the sales part of the business in operation to try and salvage something.

This is basically reading between the lines of Tony's letter, which contains very little information. I'll happily take another position on this if more facts emerge, but it sounds like someone's dreams were not matched by the business reality, or their business skills were not up to scratch.

What it doesn't sound like is evidence of

I wonder if the supplier was someone like Renadra if you would be either so upset, or so ignorant.

So thanks Tony, your amateur theatrics in posting that letter has done a lot to remind me how other manufacturers have done a far better job than WGF in bringing plastic ranges to market, and your parting shot has embroiled us in unnecessary

This Lonnie guy doesn't sound like a great guy, but so far I haven't seen him hide his business incompetence behind accusations about being stabbed in the back and so on.

I'll happily recant this if actual facts are learnt, but I have doubts about that.

Right. 12000 hits?

I'm off to slate Amazon M for bailing out of Atkinswargames still selling the rules and probably still earning a couple of quid a year.

Bad publicity is good publicity

Can you silly people who do not even know what libel or slander is, stop accusing people of libel? You make yourselves look very very foolish.

I worked as a journalist for the better part of two decades and almost all of you who whine "libel!" are so far off the mark, it is embarrassing – for you.

That being said, I am not always right, and if an ACTUAL attorney WHO HAS WON an actual libel case gets on here and reads me the riot act, backed up with facts, I will accept the rebuke and correction.

Otherwise, shut up with the misuse of the term "libel"! Your ravings are not libelous, they are just idiotic.

And I mean that in the most friendly, compassionate, non-judgmental way which the TMP community will now let me get away with. :)

artaxerxes
In British libel law, 'public interest' exists, but it is just one factor of several that make up the 'fair comment' defence, which is often used in cases of libellous *opinion* (truth is a defence when dealing with libellous *facts*).
I'll tread carefully here, because I don't want to be accused of libelling Mr Reidy myself, but: On the basis of his original statement, my honest opinion is that fair comment would not be a defence his lawyers could use were he in Britain….

I'm still amazingly disappointed with a lot of people here.

A company owes money to its suppliers (reading Tony's first sentence, he says there are debts) and it seems they offer said suppliers equity in the operation in order to stay in operation. Business doesn't turn around despite what the legacy management says and debts increase and the now majority owner decides to cut his losses and decides to keep the sales part of the business in operation to try and salvage something…

I wouldn't want to be championing the PRC in a debate about racist attitudes… That aside I read the likely business case the same way.

Thunderstroke
The only person I see here raving is you. I am also a journalist, trained in media law, who has been personally involved in threats of libel cases. I couldn't care less whether you 'accept the rebuke and correction'. If you want me to educate you, then you will have to pay me for my time.
Let's leave it to others to decide which of us knows what he is talking about, shall we?

Howard, Tony and Tim are all good guys, and an example of the things that are great about out hobby. For me, I am glad that I have all the figures I need from the company, as I will not give Wargames Factory any additional monetary support until I knoew that this has been straightened out.

Why are we involved in private business dealings on this? I fill this is inappropriate for a Hobby website.

@SPQRatae – "who has been personally involved in threats of libel cases…"

I am afraid that's not a lot to go on… not enough to require payment for your flame, at least. :)

You also say you are "trained in media law". Are you a lawyer? I am also "trained in media law" as many of us had to be, but I am most definitely NOT a lawyer and never have been. So "trained in media law" does not necessarily carry a lot of weight… yet. :)

Hobby *news* website.

@McWong73: I don't think that the potential issue, if any, would be the supplier's nationality in the ethno-cultural sense, so much as (perhaps) the supplier's nationality in the citizenship sense. There is a difference.

There are honest and dishonest (business-)people everywhere, but the PRC's socio-political system is such that it tends to foster business, academic, and administrative behaviour that other systems and societies may be somewhat more successful at discouraging.

This is not to see that Wargames Factory's PRC business partners are dishonest, because I really have no idea.

In fact, the contact's name looks more like one from HK anyway, so the PRC angle may be irrelevant.

Thanks SPQRatae, for your relatively patient clarifications.

"The problem is the law assumes the libel is false. The burden is on the accused to prove it is true. "

Guilty until proven innocent? Javert himself would no doubt approve of such a system.

Leland R. Erickson

Bonus question: Why would Tony Reidy lie about this sad affair? What would he stand to gain? IMHO this affair does not pass the smell test, and the continued silence of Lonnie Mullins and his new manager(s) speaks more against their actions and in support of Tony's allegations than it does against them. Tony would risk losing so much more than he could gain were he lying, and IMHO this is obvious to the likes of Ray Charles (ie., a dead blind man).

"Why are we involved in private business dealings on this? I fill this is inappropriate for a Hobby website."

Um, perhaps we're involved as much as each of us are as this affects us all as *consumers?*

Just sayin'…

Leland R. Erickson

Leland,
Tony is certainly under a lot of stress at the moment and it may be that he is mistaken about the roles that were played or what exactly happened (not saying this happened but it is possible). So it isn't necessarily a question of lying.

Now it is very likely that no matter what the truth is that we will not hear from Lonnie because I think it very likely that his bosses told him to keep it quiet.

This is a reasonable and possible explanation that does not have anyone lying. Again I don't know what the truth is but since we do not know the complete story it is a little hard to tell with any certainty.

"Wyatt, Do you mean the Opium Wars?"

That was the ultimate result, if I recall correctly. But I was referring to the situation leading up to it where each power had their areas of influence and the governors (for lack of a better term) of those regions were happier to take orders from the foreign devils rather than from Beijing.

The coastal areas are becoming more and more divorced from the inner provinces. The vast majority of the population lives within 1000 miles of the coast. What's holding things together is largely because economic power devolves ultimately to the senior leadership of the PLA. Should that change, China may fragment. And, coincidentally, one of things that may do that is the fact that China is replicating 1980's Japan in burying a lot of bad debt (approx 6-9 Billion). There are a few events on the horizon which may cause those chickens to come home to roost.

Wyatt

"The problem is the law assumes the libel is false. The burden is on the accused to prove it is true. "

Guilty until proven innocent?

If the police accuse Bob of murder the courts default stance is that he is innocent until the police prove him guilty.

If Johnny Newspaper Editor decides to accuse Bob of murder and the law assumes libel is true then the courts default stance would be that Bob is guilty until proven innocent.

The whole point of libel/slander is that accused is in fact the accuser.

But, if the newspaper editor is simply reporting that the police charged someone with murder, then there'd be no libel, even if the charges turned out to be false. The truth is a defense to libel. It would be true, in this example, that the police charged the person with murder. So, too, is it in this case. The editor is simply reporting something.

Besides, the people named would have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statements were untrue, and not merely an expression of opinion.

Cold Warrior put it well in his first post--Free market capitalism is nasty and if due to various reasons you lose control of your company (baby) to someone else then that is the world we live in sadly….

Tony mightbe a nice honest guy but business is business and that is how his Chinese partner probably see's it…

and cheers to Tony – next time I hope he chooses his partners more carefully and I'll be looking to buy from him again.

I am sure someone said this, but it bears saying again. Let's not take one Chinese business person and generalize this person's misdeeds to an entire country's worth of people shall we?

I mean, BP poisons the Pacific but nobody is saying all British people are evil, polluting, money-grubbing, lax-safety-type who don't bat an eye when their employees die, jerks are we? Shell is the same way, and nobody would generalize their evil, selfish, anti-human, money-is-all-important attitude towards all people from the US would they?

Thanks
n

Um, yeah, they say that all the time. Where have you been?

Woot! page 6.

Hessecassel wrote "Screw the Chinese"

Hey! That's not right. I'm Chinese. I didn't have anything to do with this, so I don't see why I should be blamed. I'n fact, the last time I spoke with Tony I had the record for the most figures purchased from WF at one time. I totally support Tony and Howard and love their product. If nothing else I hope they move on and create an even better company.