Talk:Palladium Books

On the Canadian info

Is that really necessary? I mean, Rifts has world books on Africa, Australia, South America and all the other main georgraphical areas of the planet also, but I don't think it woud be a good idea to add a section for each of those also. --TheChin! 15:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that many game universe constructs by other American publishers have those other regions as a matter of course while otherwise largely completely ignoring Canada despite the fact its literally next door. Instead we get silly stereotypes like in Torg where the only mention of Canada is a small article in a world book with a silly character template of a RCMP constable in Red Serge as a regular duty uniform.

Palladium Book is different from the start. And for your information, I never said ANYTHING about worldbooks and that is the point. Instead, Canada plays a major role in Palladium's earth oriented game settings which includes detailed description in the BASIC RULES book which came out first. No other American game publisher does that in their gameworlds with the better ones treating Canada as an afterthought.

Untrue. FASA/GamePro's "Shadowrun" has Canada and Canadian companies as very powerful entities in their game universe. 166.50.201.117 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That set Palladium apart and as a Canadian, I feel that deserves some mention that it treats my country as if it exists. -Kchishol1970

On the other hand, their Robotech RPG made repeated references to the Calgary-Montana border....Silly Dan 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I feel that deserves some mention that it treats my country" 'I feel' and 'my country' are the two big warning flags there. This is personal opinion at worst, and original research at best. NEITHER of which is allowed here. If you feel so strongly, then may I suggest you seek some verifiable source from Palladium or perhaps a Canadium game magazine, online or off, that has an article or a comment similiar to your views. Then paraphrase those here with a proper link. Otherwise, it does not matter how strongly you feel... your OPINIONS no matter how just you think they are are supposed to be no more welcome here then anyone elses. Also I would point out you essentially say that the rest of the game industry 'ignores' your country which is at the least an indirect negative assertion against them and anything like that here MUST be backed up by outside sources. Off the top of my head Twilight 2000, Shadowrun, Warhammer FB/RPG, Werewolf (both WW and GURPS versions), and D20 modern ALL have addressed your country to varying degrees. You are, unfortunatly, not an industry expert and so your opinion of which ones do what amount of justice is unsourced fan opinion mixed with national pride. Great for fan pages. Innappropriate for an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and Munchkinism

I editted the entry rather extensively; despite it being in talk for a while, no one has substantiated the Fair Use violation accusations, nor the "Kevin Seimbeida forbids tape-recording of his statements." I also mitigated the accusations of munchkinism; it doesn't fit with a neutral POV on the subject, and it's a fairly subjective standard.

---Mr. Nexx July 6, 2005 21:29 (UTC)

With regards to Siembieda disallowing the recording of his statements, there may be some circumstantial evidence in an episode of the All Games Considered podcast. Just less than halfway through is a segment with Ben Balestra and someone using the moniker Common Dialog about Palladium's Open House, in which they state Palladium did not allow them to record inside the venue itself. Blinovitch (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Kev has been on more than one podcast and I have personally seen more than one person recording him and his statements on more than one occasion. At the first Open House, there was a person videotaping the whole thing. It is flatly incorrect that he allows none to record him or his words. Subjugator (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Large Edit of 8/7

I didn't mean for it to be, but I just made a rather large edit of the Palladium page (as well as several, smaller edits). Comparing it to Iceberg3k's last edit, I removed several NPOV statements, corrected some formatting, and tightened up the opening and alignment sections, as well as expanding information about their games. I also put Rifts in with their other games; it was mentioned tangentially in the main article, but this gives it a better introduction for the main Rifts page. And corrected some spelling, as well.

And then I went in and made changes to the system section.---Mr. Nexx 06:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Split Article

Does anyone have an opinion they would like to share on whether this article should be split into two articles, one for Palladium Books, and one for the Megaversal System? I feel that this change should be made. This will allow for the further editing of the various specific Palladium games to have a link in the infobox's system section directly to an article about the system that is universal between them all. Asatruer 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a horrid idea, actually.---Mr. Nexx 13:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Going Under?

I'm having trouble verifying this at the moment, but I'm on Palladium Yahoogroups mailing list, and we just got an e-mail with a plea for help from Kevin Siembieda, saying that the company's been hit from the inside by certain backstabbers and is in serious financial need. I won't edit the article with this info until I can verify it, but I'll post the e-mail here: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onikage725 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you would thing that a big company like Palladium would have insurance against theft, wouldn't they? Why do they need to grab cash donations from fans? It's bad enough that thousands of them are being bilked out of cash to bail out this company but I really don't think that this crap should be incorporated into a serious article in a "neutral" encyclopedia. — A lizard (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'This crap', as you put it, was probably put up because it's a matter of public record, and the contributors had references handy for it. I don't want to belittle your contribution on the article with regards to insurance, but I'm not sure it's the best place for pointing out that no mention has been made about insurance, unless there's been something written elsewhere talking about it. I thought that bit could be written a bit more neutrally, and it smells a little bit like original research. Petronivs (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That none of the public record mention anything so obvious as insurance is equally a matter of public record and thus relevant to the topic. It is worth pointing out that none of the references used in this article mention insurance just like it's worthwhile pointing out other things that are not mentioned in other articles. — A lizard (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Insurance only seems to be mentioned when cases of theft are discussed when it's collected on, especially when there's something notable about the collection. To be completely honest, I can definitely understand an outfit like Palladium not investing in theft insurance, especially to cover that kind of loss. Small businesses have small margins, and they need to cut costs when they can. Not everyone takes out insurance for everything that may happen to their business, especially if they trust their employees. Regardless, I stand by my point that the addition feels slanted as if to cast suspicion upon Palladium, and if it's truly a notable subject, I find it very hard to believe someone hasn't already done research on it. Petronivs (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the foregoing changes any of these very basic facts:

1. The sources cited in this article do not mention insurance at all
2. The sources cited in this article do mention theft of money and that Palladium made appeals to fans for money
3. Insurance would have covered the losses. Thus, it is not a matter of "original research" to point out that the appeals for money from fans would not have been necessary if the goods had been insured. It would be conjecture or speculation to explain why the goods were not insured or that perhaps, an insurance claim was made and Siembieda made an appeal for cash anyway just to gouge his flock of sheep-like fans for money. None of that has been done here, however.

In other words, it is entirely within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies to mention the fact that insurance was never brought up by Palladium in their fan appeals, and very relevant to the topic of the article. — A lizard (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Snipping excessively long post that has by now been linked from within the article itself.)

Yes, it's true. They're in financial trouble. See the links from within the article itself.

--Robotech_Master 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned... those "negative rumors" about Kevin were right. He is a pain in the butt to work with. Heh... I remember people editing those comments out of the Wiki article in the past, because they had no "hard source" to quote out of: but now the leaky ship is sinking, and all the ooze spills out. Karma my friends. Karma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.231.128.68 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a subjective interpretation of the situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onikage725 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If THAT is the attitude of someone who actively participates in the editting and updating of an Online Encyclopedia, than Wikipedia is in danger. 68.175.13.67 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll say I personaly don't know if Kevin is a pain to work with, but Kevin is very open and friendly to talk with people. Even if Kevin is a pain to work with doesn't such a thing would cause the company to go under, especially after 25 years under the same man. I know a big source of negative rumors is from Bill Coffin and those he has convinced to support him. Bill acts like a big writer from what I hear, though some of his books for Palladium are still on their first printings. Bill simply has an axe to grind. 69.212.31.200 22:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Shadow_otm

And other books by Bill are major sellers, and he pretty well carried the PF line for years. I think his relationship with Palladium hurt him badly, but saying that he "simply has an axe to grind" is is dismissive of his concerns. ---Mr. Nexx 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be dismissive of concerns if they were voiced as concerns. I feel as though Bill has more of a personal problem with Kevin due to the fact that he was and how he was fired. No one likes being fired... and some people just take it more personally than others. I do think I have a Coffin book or two... and I really think I like books that Wujeck worked on better, but that's a matter of taste and opinion. 75.10.14.174 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Shadow_otm

I hate to say this, but you said "I feel as though...", anything that begins with that is 100% PoV from then on out. You put forward some fine opinions... but no offense, unless you're someone in the industry and specifically in the company, those can't mean squat here. Like it or not, if the man makes valid complaints, and was in a position within the company to have gained that information, it CAN be linked here and put in the article. At that point all you can do is put up links other sources contradicting him (as most articles do with contraversy like this... roughly equal space to both sides, or links to make sure both sides can be easily accessed by readers), OR make an arguement here for the editors of the pages as a whole to include neither side at all. You cannot simply remove one side of the arguement because you 'Feel' any way towards it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Kevin Siembieda personally, and know him to be a nice person. Your commentary on his use of, "I feel as though...", is hilarious to me, because that's all Bill Coffin has on the subject is his feelings. Should they be ignored as well?Subjugator (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Information Deletion

Note to Annonymous Information Deleters: The full history of all versions of both the main article page and the discussion page (this page) are saved forever.

Notice: To those who maintain this article. The information you have added regarding Palladium Books current financial difficulties has been deleted, and annonymously, as well. Be aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RainOfSteel (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: And part of the information that was deleted has been restored, but without the hyperlinks originally included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RainOfSteel (talk • contribs) 14:07, 23 April 2006 RainOfSteel (UTC)

If you want it put back, go ahead and put it back. This is a wiki. Anyone can edit. I simply reverted an edit that looked like vandalism. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~, which automatically converts to your username or IP and the time. PurplePlatypus 05:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: the new user NMI, who was the last person to remove this content, has also vandalized my user page, presumably in retaliation for restoring the section (I strongly suspect NMI is one of the same people as the anonymous IPs who have blanked the same content). I am about to report this at AN/I. PurplePlatypus 05:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

rather late update: NMI is one of the moderators for the forums on Palladium Books' official site (and to judge from his continued censorship of this issue on the Palladium forums, almost definitely one or more of the anonymous vandals). To the best of my knowledge he's just a fan volunteer rather than a staff member or a published writer or artist, so the recent vandalism should be seen as the work of enthusiastic and stupid fans rather than damage control by company representatives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.69.157 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 May 2006.

I never thought it was someone directly involved with Palladium; they wanted people to know about the problems they were having. I did suspect he was someone with a bit more than a typical fan level of involvement (and the comment below confirmed that - if he thought we knew each other outside Wikipedia, however laughably mistaken he may have been, there must have been a reason why). PurplePlatypus 14:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I hadnt realized Logan, that I had deleted your user info/profile. For that I do apologize, no harm was meant. As far as the Financial Info that has been deleted before, I have only deleted it once, prior the the new "disputed" label being added to that section. Do I know who else may have deleted the previous postings of the Financial Troubles? Perhaps, but I wont tell. If they wanted you Logan or anyone else to know, then they wouldnt have done so anonymously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NMI (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 April 2006.

My name is not Logan, it's Jeff, and I don't care that it was anonymous, I care that it was vandalism. It is hard to see how the deletion could have been accidental, but whatever you say; I'm cool as long as it doesn't happen again. I'll remove the notice about it from my page, too, since it really wasn't appropriate on my part to put it there. Incidentally, the whole point of the tildes at the end of a talk page comment is that the wiki software automatically turns it into a signature (three tildes makes your name, four the name and date, five just the date); putting nowiki tags around them defeats the whole purpose of typing them in. PurplePlatypus 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stopping the Vandalism

Isn't there someway we can stop the Psychotic Palladium Fan Boys... I mean Anonymous Users from constantly deleting the Financial Troubles Section? Seanr451 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reported it at WP:AN/I#Palladium Books. (BTW, new sections should be put at the bottom of this page, not the top.) PurplePlatypus 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that while I violently disagree with (and have reverted, twice) the repeated blanking of the section, I don't think there's much point in including the links to Bill Coffin and others' criticisms. It's not that I don't believe them (on the contrary, I strongly suspect there is a great deal of truth in them) but they aren't that germane to the current situation. Perhaps a seperate "criticisms" section would be the best place for that, along with the paragraph currently in the intro about the problems with poor editing, etc.

If someone feels it's important to include criticisms and alternate explanations relevant to the current situations, it seems to me the points to run with are things like

1. Most of the stolen items seem to be KS' personal property, not anything that would affect Palladium's cash flow
2. It's possible, even probable, that the "losses" include revenue that KS expected that never materialized due to the various failed deals

But be very careful of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Personally, while I want to punch the thief in the face as badly as anyone, my best guess is that theft is not the main cause of Palladium's current problems, despite what KS says. (I'm not saying KS is lying so much as that I don't trust his perceptions.) But I can't see a way of putting that in the article while staying within the above Wikipedia policies. PurplePlatypus 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the theft; I don't know precisely what Steve Sheiring stole, but whatever was stolen, they were items of value that could have been sold to raise money to keep things afloat. As for the Bill Coffin commentary, please note that he has apologized to Kevin publicly and has admitted wrongdoing in saying what he has said. Subjugator 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV problem

Opinions are never neutral.

As a fan of PB for nearly 20 years, it is very evident that palladium has been having problems over the past decade. Since the cause of these problems is open to debate, and since KS clearly isnt going to take any personal blame, I think the disgruntled voices should be heard.

If one wants more factual statements, has anyone counted how many multi-part series (splicers, wormwood, LOTD, china, underseas, triax, and others) are still unfinished. It seems clear that PB pulled the plug on these projects. The gripes from the guys who wrote hundreds of pages of material for PB only to see their vision unfinished is as important to PB's history as any sales figure or criminal investigation could be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoileroftwigs (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning

13:29, 26 April 2006 PurplePlatypus (→Financial troubles - I don't think *including* this is very neutral, it's not clear what it has to do with the current problems, and it's inaccurate (none of them were "co-workers").)

Yes, they were co-workers (Bill Coffin, Steve Conan Trustrum, Jason Vey "The grey Elf"). Their declarations are not neutral, the neutrality is to report their POV along with the others.

cdang|write me 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They were not co-workers, they were freelancers who happened to do some work for Palladium. It's not the same thing and describing it as though it were isn't good for the credibility of that section. PurplePlatypus 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I put a {{NPOV-section}} to point out the problem.

cdang|write me 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added what amounts to the opposing viewpoint. Please clean up as you will. To only give the word of ex-employees or freelancers that might have a grudge against Palladium (justified or no) is hardly neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.60.208.153 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw no POV warning here, so I put one in - my guess is the previous one was removed by a vandal. I agree the section about the disgruntled ex-workers is possibly a bit strong, but these lines below it are 'definitely' biased, and ought to be removed or edited as soon as possible: "Their statements (the former employees and freelancers) seem to be sourgrapes and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Kevin Siembieda is a very nice and generous person, of which several of those "Former employees" tried to take advantage of. The comments made by those few freelancers have really nothing to do with the current situation at all." It may be true that these statements are unreliable, but we can't just say that without any evidence. Kevin Siembieda may well be a nice and generous person, but that's a personal judgement which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Terraxos 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"As long as the links to the disgruntled stay, so shall the statement in bold stay." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.192.10.247 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) -(The guy who put the bold statement in.)

That, sir, is essentially a statement that you will continue to display a complete lack of respect for multiple Wikipedia policies. If you want to discuss your issues rationally, feel free; this is the place to do so. On the other hand, you'll find that ultimatums don't get taken well, either here or for that matter, anywhere else in human society.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree that the statements from Coffin and the others don't belong in that section, and may or may not belong in the article at all, despite that I personally think they are probably largely true. I have pointed this out above. But your methods of trying to achieve this are likely to achieve the opposite of what you want, if anything at all.

By the way, please sign your contributions (to talk pages and the like, not to the article itself) with ~~~~. PurplePlatypus 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I believe that tying the criticisms to the financial difficulties is probably not warranted. All the same, I do believe there should be a separate section for such criticisms to be presented on their own. They are a legitimate point of view about the company, but they are just that--one point of view. Thus, a balancing statement indicating that would be necessary. (I believe the one about there being many employees who have been with the company for 20+ years is sufficient, though; the bold-faced "sour grapes" comment is unnecessary.)

Likewise, I think a link to the recent article about the indicted employee should be put back. The link may be to a RPGnet posting/comment thread, but the article itself was a journalistic report of facts that was published in a print newspaper (and on said print paper's website, which is unfortunately obfuscated by required registration to view, or else it would be a preferable link rather than the RPGnet one), it's not just someone on RPGnet making things up. The article does raise the question as to how Kevin was able to claim $800K to $1.2 million in damages but only be awarded $50,000 in restitution (restitutions, unlike damages awards, tend to be tied pretty closely to the actual amount of claimable loss, even if a payment plan must be set up for the malfeasant), so not including it but including Kevin's $800K to $1.2 million figure would also be one-sided.

--Robotech_Master 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think the "sour grapes" bit is a bit unprofessional. A statement as to the employees still serving after 20+ should do nicely.

The RPGNet thread regrettably can hardly be weighed as unbiased after the official announcement--but the problem is, the same argument could be made for the link on the Palladium forums. If we had a non-pay 3rd party link to the Sheiring article, I think it would solve this rather nicely. As it is, I fear it will continue to be the point of some contention, especially given the acrimonious nature of the relationship between rpg.net and Palladium's fans.

And restitution, especially in a plea bargain case, is rarely tied into any number. There are so many variables between Palladium's estimations, what the DA asked for, what was bargained, assets aside from monetary ones, that it is entirely likely the $850k or higher figure could be a mix of lost sales, lost merchandise, personal theft, court costs, lost work time, etc. It does us little good to go too in-depth in this area.

We should also consider the ex-employee statements to be weighed in part in relation to the fora in which they were delivered. RPGNet, as noted in its entry (I just checked to verify) has a legacy of unfriendliness to Palladium and Siembieda himself. It could be seen as playing to their audience. (Anonymous) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.48.240.20 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a seperate "criticism" section, not tied directly into the financial trouble section. I also think its really sad that the pro-palladium side is unwilling to allow any contrary views to stand. TheRusty

Sorry for the confusion, I'm not a native English speaker, for me, co-worker meant "who works with" which included free-lancer. I admit my error.

The text as it is is OK for me, as several POV are expressed.

cdang|write me 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the criticisms linked to would be more appropriate in a Kevin Siembieda article, as they are more criticisms of the man, rather than of the company, itself (though, I will admit that they are hard to separate at times). However, I do not see it as being in violation of the NPOV (though I might rearrange things, so the messages were listed below the article in a footnote, by author). ---Mr. Nexx 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Also, the aforementioned negative stories were relayed on RPGnet, which is reputed to have a severe bias [1][2][3][4] against Palladium's games and Mr. Siembieda in particular, and so may be seen as "playing to an audience"."

Honestly, I can't see a reason to have this statement in the article other than to poison the well against the statements of Messrs. Coffin, Trustum, et al. Kevin Siembieda may be a first class jerk or he may be a saint, but it's not encyclopedic to debate the value of statements made about him in the article. Iceberg3k 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This appears to be a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:POINT, as far as I can see. There are multiple problems with it, WP:NPOV chief among them, but that isn't one of them. PurplePlatypus 23:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As it currently is written, the criticism section runs afoul of WP:WEASEL, from the presence of that "one side of the story" line. It's a CRITICISM section, of course it's going to present the opinions of Palladium's critics. Unfortunately, the Palladium boosters are unlikely to allow the section to be rewritten without the weasel words. Iceberg3k 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If the statements of Messrs. Coffin & Co. are "poisoning the well" in the first place, then it is worth noting the biased medium in which they took place. Otherwise, this is coming from a singular POV and will be misunderstood that it took place in an admittedly hostile forum. 131.48.240.20 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Casting aspersion on the motivations of a company's critics is NOT good faith and it is not good form. Re-deleting. Iceberg3k 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As-is, saying that their comments represent "one side of the story" is pushing POV-land. Going ahead after that and essentially saying that they should be disregarded because of the forum in which they were posted goes WAY across the line. Iceberg3k 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, criticism regarding KS have no place on this article in the first place, and should be another entry entirely. If they are going to be on here, it should be noted that the place in which they delivered generally nitpicks, dissects, and is overtly hostile towards the individual in question, as I have shown through said examples. It is not my idea of neutrality to post one side of an argument without any regards to context or medium. Any "line" here is of your own making. Back they go. I'm well open to compromise, however, and if there is a way to paint this in the proper light agreeable to all parties, by all means, I'm receptive. 131.48.240.20 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment regarding RPGnet, besides being based on only a selective reconstruction of RPGnet threads, is VERY POV and does not belong here. It's written for no reason other than to discredit a particular source by poisoning the well against it, and does not belong. Iceberg3k 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the criticism by people (only one of them a former Palladium Writer) on an internet BBS not only poison the well against Palladium, but also the integrity of this article? User: Wall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.81.58 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that, in the criticism section, of the four views that have been linked to (and are in dispute here because of POV), only one of them (Bill Coffin) ever worked for Palladium. The others are Freelance Writers (one was only a one time Rifter contributor), for the sake of accuracy, this should be noted. Saying that they worked for the company, when in fact they never did is erroneous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.140.153.47 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2006 June 13 (UTC)

I disagree. They might not have been employees of Palladium, but if they were commissioned by Palladium to do work, then they did work for Palladium, and had sufficient contact with Palladium (and Siembieda) to have a basis upon which to form their opinions. To dismiss their experience simply because they were contracted instead of permanent is specious. --Robotech_Master 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They weren't commissioned to do work, only one of them was (Bill Coffin), the others submitted their work as "unsolicited." It's a big and very important difference in the publishing world. User:Bass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.82.245 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that most cases of Freelance Writers and Artists don't live near Palladium, and for a number of the current 'employees' the Open House was the first chance for them and Kevin to meet. Just something to remember. 75.10.9.172 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Shadot_otm

Printing technology

Kevin Siembieda has acknowledged (actually boasted, at times) that he doesn't do anything differently now than when he started the company. Additionally, stolen items include the transparencies from numerous books, which by his own words are needed to print more copies. Transparencies are part of the phototypesetting process but not needed for any more modern form of typesetting. Iceberg3k 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been further confirmed by Alex Marciniszyn, who apparently is an editor at PB and someone who still gets along well with KS, just recently in this rpg.net thread somewhere, I think around post 100. He has commented on it a couple of times there, after initially resisting doing so. So I don't mind the first part of the paragraph on printing processes staying. However, the last sentence (recently, and quite correctly, zapped by an anonymous IP starting with 83) is pure editorializing and absolutely, unconditionally not acceptable for Wikipedia. It should stay gone, as it currently is as I write this. PurplePlatypus 03:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, also per Alex M, they're progressing toward a desktop publishing model, although KS' legendary technophobia makes it a slower progression than one would normally like. So I updated the paragraph accordingly. Iceberg3k 15:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow I guess the main question I would have is: Would any of this stuff appear in a REAL encyclopedia? I say just delete the whole article. It's not that deep, folks. And those of you who seem to enjoy or relish other's misfortunes and further wish to rub salt in a wound, should find a better place to specualte than a site thats supposed to be objective. 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.22.142 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Bound

While the statement that "Palladium states..." that they were the first to use perfect binding in the RPG market is strictly correct, as that is their claim,I think this section should be amended to reflect that this statement is in reality, incorrect. Chivalry & Sorcery published by Fantasy Games Unlimited (FGU) in 1977 was, in fact, perfect bound and Palladium didn't even publish their first product until 1981. --Unseelie 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can link a source to this discussion here proving that, you're free to take it out (and should). Or move it to a criticism section. A company claiming they're forerunners when they aren't isn't a healthy thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I take issue with the phrase "sturdy and durable perfect bindings." My father, who is a former librarian and expert on books and bindings, notes that "perfect" binding is in fact anything but sturdy and durable, as the only thing holding the pages into place is glue along its edge, and many many times age and wear results in pages sheeting and flaking out. What it is is cheap. —Robotech_Master 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Read more closely, Robomaster. Palladium doesn't simply have the books glued, but they are also stitched. More expensive, and more durable.-Mr. Nexx 04:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

3 issues, Neutrality, Lawsuits, and Former Employees

First... Some people here are trying to define neutrality at times in a way Wiki's guidelines aren't intending. PoV issues and neutrality in Wiki related to issues from the poster, NOT from a person they are referencing. If a former employee of some standing for example goes to a reputable source and states something, it can be posted here and be neutral. While the employees view is negative they have the background to make it (they worked for the company and in the game industry so count as a professional in the industry being discussed) and if they do so to a source that can legitimatly be linked it's fair game because the poster is only linking what they said and thus remaining personally neutral. Otherwise criticism couldn't exist in wiki, and it exists in normal encyclopedias as well. Go to a normal encyclopedia and look at say Adolf Hitler, or Enron, or something or someone else similiar and you'll see that negative comments aren't always breaching neutrality as long as they can be sourced and don't originate with the article writer but instead from other legitimate, original sources. The important thing is only that you, the writer HERE (just like an encyclopedia writer for a real encyclopedia), who is adding to this page mantain a neutral standpoint. Even when you have something bad to say, it should be said by someone else more credible then just a poster here, and should come from a legitimate source and then linked here, never in your own words unless you are paraphrasing and linking to the original source for the full version.

Second... Palladium and FASA had a go around legally about Battletech and Robotech. Long and short US and Japanese laws had created a legal hassle which ended in Palladium winning a rather decent settlement from my understanding. I'm curious if anyone might know where to find a referable location with information on this classic case from the 1980's.

Try this one. Except Palladium had absolutely zero to do with the case; the parties involved were FASA, Playmates, and Harmony Gold. Palladium was not involved at all. --Robotech_Master 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly... Palladium does have a reputation in the industry for losing/alienating employees. It isn't fun to talk about, but the fact is some of the companies best writers and artists have left and made it clear in various trade publications and sources for public discussion of the roleplaying industry/Palldium in particular the reason they did so was issues with managment (Siembieda yes, but other overarching issues as well). That is relevant to the company, just as it's relevant to talk about issues with companies like say Walmart that have certain reputations for and with their employees. If it is something a company does that is differant then the appreciated norm for it's industry it's fair game to discuss, even if it is just so much as to debunk it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can dig this position...the neutral POV applies to the article instead of to the people quoted within the article. With that said; is any attempt being made to show the perspectives of those who know Kevin and have personal experiences with him? As it is, it sounds as if a few people have a bone to pick with him, and they are getting significant levels of attention, whereas others who think well of him are not. That is the POV problem that I see here. The attention is being paid only to his detractors and not his supporters, and I think that presents a biased POV. Subjugator 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding the perspectives of people who know Mr. Siembieda (or Mr. Coffin or anyone else for that matter) could be very tricking without violating WP:OR. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

not if those people making the comments are individuals within the industry in sources which can be linked here. sure just 'i'm some guy that met him once at a con' isn't good enough, but with something like this if one side wants to dig hard enough i can almsot guarentee you'll find some source commenting on it (actually people here have already mentioned that past and present writers have spoken up on both sides on the record at cons and for online and trade sources... it's just a matter of getting the people who say that to link what the sources they were refering to specifically were)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How would this be a violation of WP:OR any more than applying the criticisms of others who have posted elsewhere? Following that logic, all one has to do is post on another website and then quote themselves (or have someone else quote them) on this website, thereby bypassing the WP:OR. I'm not suggesting that this be done, but that calling it a violation of WP:OR is the same as calling Coffin's experiences a violation of WP:OR as well.

In particular, I know Kevin Siembieda personally, and know him not to be the malignant evil that some portray him as, but a kind and caring human being who is genuinely interested in making his fans happy and spreading good feelings.

To clarify why I think this is a failure of NPOV:

Some see:

...an angry, litigious, micro-managing, taskmaster, that blames others for failures that are partly his fault and takes all of the credit for successes that have credit owed to other people as well.

Others see:

...a friendly, warm hearted, happy man, who works hard to see smiles on the faces of other people, laughs happily at gaming stories, and likes to talk and see his business grow.

What I'm seeing in this article though is a lot of attention paid to the people who see him as angry, with little attention paid to the people who see him as a great guy. There are many posts in the Palladium forums of people talking about what a great guy he is and how people who have met him or know him have had wonderful experiences with him. Why are they not given similar levels of attention?

Also, ultimately it seems that Kevin (and by extension Palladium) tends to engender strong feelings in one direction or another, thereby having two strongly opined camps that vehemently disagree on what they see and believe. I'm less of a fanboy now than I was, and I see that he's just as human as the rest of us, but it is doing Kevin, Wikipedia, and Palladium a disservice by not presenting the strong feelings on both sides of the fence. Subjugator 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Uniformity of footnotes

I've noticed that a bunch of the references in the article are still using the single-bracket direct link to external website style, while others are using the Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles style. I've revised a few of the direct links into citations, but it might be a good idea if people could do the rest, if and as they can get around to it.

Just a thought. --Robotech_Master 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Divorce?

So who wants to write the part about the divorce and Maryanne leaving the company? ;) Worldgate 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

-Not relevant. -Mr. Nexx 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maryanne leaving the company? Only if doing a whole section on current and past employees is in the scope of this article. The divorce? Keep stuff like that on the pages about the involved people. Petronivs 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fansite Whoring

I removed this link as it was also removed from the rifts one.

• Rifts Highway || Palladium RPG Archive - Archive of information on various RPGs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldgate (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of System discussion in Criticisms

I just removed the system discussion in criticisms, and I'm considering editing the other (though mostly for grammar, rather than content). The system complaints were passive-voiced subjective statements; abusable, munchkin, etc., rather than objective complaints about the game as written, rather than the game as some people play it. The entire section suffers from the passive-voiced subjectivity problem, IMO, though the second paragraph is more salvageable. -Mr. Nexx 09:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Compendiums

I added a sentence about the Weapon Compenduims, but someone might prefer it in the section of published material.--Dchmelik (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Counter Arguments to the Criticisms

Why have the counter arguments to the criticisms been removed? They remain valid, and if the criticisms are to be posted, so should the counter arguments. The counters are valid and help balance the POV given by the article as a whole. Subjugator (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The arguments I am thinking of include the fact that Palladium is a small organization that does not require a large number of management personnel. The stated lack of dialogue with personnel is also a bit surprising, since all of them work in the office space of the same relatively small building. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the current employees have been with the organization for over twenty years. In the event that no concrete arguments are presented to say why I should not put up the counter-arguments, I shall replace them in the 'criticisms' section within a few days. Subjugator (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of fixing-up, so anything you can do to help bring it up to standards would be greatly appreciated! However as poorly referenced as the article currently is, please make sure that any additions are properly sourced and cited. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A concern that I have is that much of what I know, I know through personal experience, though what I would post is verifiable fact. For example, I know of at least two employees that have been with the company for over twenty years. I know the company is small (< 20 employees). I know that the employees that are there right now like being there. I know that many of the freelancers working there now are quite happy with how things are working. I know all of these things because I know the freelancers, employees, the company, and Kevin Siembieda himself personally. I don't want to violate rules against original research, but on the other hand, most of this is easily verified fact by simply speaking to the people in question. Ultimately, I think my earlier comments about Kevin Siembieda being a polarizing figure in the industry to be correct, as he seems to have strong camps both as detractors and supporters. I don't want to be intellectually dishonest and try and paint everything as roses - there are strong opinions on either side - but I also don't think it's fair to only show the side of criticism and not show the side that disagrees with said criticisms. 98.220.188.25 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about Mr. Siembieda being a polarizing figure, which is why we should be doubly-sure to follow the official Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. This is especially important since challenged material may be removed from the article if it cannot be attributed to reliable, third-party, published sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a weakness of Wikipedia's policy though. I know people who work there that could speak of him. Others, such as Jolly Blackburn (not employed by Palladium) have spoken well of him as well. Technically all that has to happen is for one of them to post of these things on another website, and I can then respond by posting it here. Also, many of the criticisms leveled against the company are from former employees who have an ax to grind. That is hardly a 'reliable' source, and is a lot like asking a politician if his opponent is a good person or not. Further, they are framed in such a way as to be bordering on being factually wrong. For example, the claim that Palladium is too big to be run as it is has serious problems...the problem with that being that they only have eight employees. It goes on and on, but I think the criticisms section should either be balanced or removed. As it is, by leaving ONLY the criticisms in and removing content that points out the fierce loyalty of others is rather unfair and violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter.Subjugator (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Actually, rather than being a weakness, this policy is one of Wikipedia's great strengths as it dramatically reduces the ability of individual editors to insert their own opinions into articles under the guise of being "the truth." Here is a great example that explains the importance of WP:OR and WP:VER:

“ One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia entries is verifiability, not truth.

A good way to look at this distinction is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on physicist Stephen Hawking's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet Hawking, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he told you this in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?

Suppose you were firmly convinced that this new information should be published in Wikipedia, and that to fail to do so would be intellectually dishonest. How would you go about getting it into Wikipedia? For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to contact a reputable news organization – The Times of London, for example – and explain to them what Hawking told you. You might have a tape recording of the conversation that you could let them hear; or perhaps they would interview you. Whatever they chose to do with the information, the story would go through a process similar to peer review before being published: it would be checked by a reporter, an editor, and perhaps by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. Hawking would have an opportunity to respond, as would his publisher, and other members of the academic community would be approached for comment. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. It is this process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the policy of no original research is an important one.

If The Times published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry. However, if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Wikipedia even if you know it to be true.

”

Hopefully this helped explain why "verifiability, not truth" is one of our central mantras. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your position on this, and then point to this article as a point where there has been a failure to properly follow the vetting process. Angry posts on a forum known for its dislike of the company in question by an ex-employee of the company are not anywhere near the same class as being a quote from an article found in The Times of London or any other reputable news organization, so why are they treated as such? This is not content that is subject to peer review, has not been checked by a reporter, an editor, lawyers, and then an editor-in-chief.

I think the criticisms should be removed until such a time as a reliable news source can be found that can confirm the accusations made. Until then, it is simply baseless accusation, as it has NOT passed any vetting process or peer review methodology, and simply remains the opinion of a person who was angry and making negative comments about a given company. Subjugator (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to quibble the details, but the whole reason the media has to do the vetting process in their reports is so they do not get sued for libel/slander. Since the links in question are to Carella, Coffin, etc. in their own words, there is no media involved. Of course that means that Mr. Siembieda could sue these former employees directly if he felt they were lying and/or damaging the reputation of him and/or his company. Certainly a good counter for the message-board criticisms leveled by these former employees would be Mr. Siembieda's own message board posts refuting their claims. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjugator is not a neutral party as he has donated very heavily to palladium and is good friends with Siembieda. He is attempting to rewrite history here to make palladium look like heaven on earth. Ouboros (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not presented myself as a neutral third party, and have openly stated that I am friends with Kevin Siembieda. I have also said that my problem isn't with him being criticized, but it is with there being no presentation of alternative viewpoints. An example from above - he has been said to have too large an organization to function as a sole proprietorship. Funny, but eight people is plenty small enough to operate as a sole proprietorship. I am not trying to rewrite history to make Palladium look like Heaven on earth. What I am trying to do is remove the false impression that Palladium is Hell on earth. It would seem that you appreciate such an impression, which calls into question your own neutrality. Subjugator (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Minion War

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Am trying to find instances of newspapers discussing the company in case recent ones may mention this new event. Ranze (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)