Paul Christoforo vs. The World or How to stop worrying and love the internet bomb

valhalla130

ghost whistler wrote:

LordOfTheCheese wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?

Why?

Yes! Why defend your ridiculous claims when you know they are ridiculous?

straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man

THESPOOKY

mcdermott wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

*yawn*

You done yet, buddy?

Ghost whistler has only just begun (to use the word 'tacitly").

Soulshiner

If you want to go into a froth spitting rage, just check out the dead pixel interview...

Kipling217

Kipling217 wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

LordOfTheCheese wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?

Why?

Because you keep bringing it up.

I am going to repost this, because I am still waiting for a response.

mcdermott

I'm going to guess it's a sternly-worded letter to the editor.

kaliyama

ghost whistler wrote:

Silvertiger wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

You're not making any sense.

Dave clearly had a bad customer experience. Is he or is he not allowed to tell anyone about it?

Is it OK if he just tells his friends? What if one of his friends ran a gaming blog? Is he then not allowed to tell that person?

I didn't say that Dave didn't have a bad customer experience nor intimate any such thing. He can quite happily tell people about whatever he likes, but that doesn't excuse choosing to pass on what was sent to him and him alone to whomever he likes. That he can physically do so, because a computer lets him cc it to Mr Penny Arcade, doesn't actually make it morally acceptable.
I woukld also suggest that pretending you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make you look smart; it's pretty facile.

Wow .. just wow .. "He can tell anyone he wants about this abusive service he got .. he just can't send out concrete proof of it happening, that's over the line".
Without a paper trail and a way to prove that this outlandishly ridiculous event occurred it could all be hearsay and slander ... hell yeah I'm going to include the original documents if I'm going to call someone's douchebaggery out. How does that not make sense to you?

YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

He posted the e-mail of the customer service and PR person for a company. That person is public-facing and the e-mail address is one used to communicate with members of the public. When Mike expressly said not to be nasty once it became clear some people were being nasty, I don't know how you can allege he meant the opposite tacitly, unless you are engaging in conspiracy theory.

I also don't see how there's no need to share this information - the only practical recourse the public has from bad customer service is to shine a light on creeps like Christoforo.

bowen

ghost whistler wrote:

bowen wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.

which word?

All of them.

valhalla130

Stop feeding the troll, guys. lol

Cambiata

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

Gosling

The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.

fugacity

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

Smaug6

Gosling wrote:

The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.

I was just saying this exact same thing. Its ridiculous. I almost feel like there can be no calm rational look at whats happening right now because Paul keeps doing ridiculous audacious things. And then everyone just hates him more, undermining any sympathy or rational response to what happened here.

Cambiata

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

???

I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

mr-razzcocks

Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

KalTorak

Khoo made an interesting post about this situation and tracking a viral incident:

http://penny-arcade.com/khoo/viral

lordlundar

And now Paul is trying Extortion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

Cambiata

lordlundar wrote:

And now Paul is trying Extortion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

Yeah, he backed off of that pretty quick. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/nw1vm/ama_the_guy_who_replaced_paul_christoforo_and_is/

UPDATE: Mr. Christoforo has very recently become very forthcoming and helpful regarding a variety of digital assets we requested he return a few days ago (as mentioned above in detail). We thank him for his renewed helpfulness.

RhalloTonny

mr-razzcocks wrote:

Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

I think it really just comes down to what you, personally, would or wouldn't do if you were in Mike's situation. While I think ultimately, Mike was/is in the clear, and actually think Paul deserves what he got (outside of any particular threats to his family that may or may not have happened), I do notice that when I put myself in Mike's shoes, I don't know if I would have done the same thing. Of course, that's just me wondering, not meant as a slight or judgement toward Mike or Dave, of course. It just boils down to personal preference.

Elderlycrawfish

Finished skimming through the reddit AMA, and I can't stop saying that the new PR guy is pretty rad.

I'm thinking of hiring Mr. Chiullan to represent me the next time I upset Mrs. Crawfish.

....I might have to keep him on retainer.

Gosling

lordlundar wrote:

And now Paul is trying Extortion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114994-Ocean-Marketing-Attempts-To-Extort-Former-Client

At this point, he can be weeping in the corner begging it to stop and I personally wouldn't give a damn.

You have the power Mike Please make it stop?

THESPOOKY

RhalloTonny wrote:

mr-razzcocks wrote:

Reading Rhallo's post, i feel a similar way. I think Mike could have shown some restraint and played it a little cooler than he did, after all he knows full well the kind of influence he has, but I have no sympathy for Paul or his company, by the sounds of it his entire operation was a disaster waiting to happen, and he simply will not stop being an idiot, even after it all.

I think it really just comes down to what you, personally, would or wouldn't do if you were in Mike's situation. While I think ultimately, Mike was/is in the clear, and actually think Paul deserves what he got (outside of any particular threats to his family that may or may not have happened), I do notice that when I put myself in Mike's shoes, I don't know if I would have done the same thing. Of course, that's just me wondering, not meant as a slight or judgement toward Mike or Dave, of course. It just boils down to personal preference.

A super-fair statement. I have to admit that I probably would've done something worse.

Lanrutcon

bowen wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

bowen wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.

which word?

All of them.

Oh the lols.

Quoted from the new PR guy:

Spoiler:

I'm incorporating a lot of what I want to say about the series of phone conversations I've had with him.

I should preface by saying that I have the sense to leave things at a factual level as much as possible rather than open myself up to claims of defamation, which Paul has routinely thrown around while at once defaming others.

I agree with the notion that one does not negotiate with terrorists, which includes bullies. I say that because I have been strategically pacifying a bully for a couple of days now, and I'm done. Diplomacy has failed.

I've spoken to Paul many, many times over the last few days.

One of the main things that I've learned about him is that he is most concerned about the well-being of his wife and small child, along with his ability to make a living. I can respect and appreciate those things objectively. What I've also learned is that he is partial to protecting those interests without any consideration given to common courtesy or professional engagement.

Every comment regarding N-Control's separation from him was met with complaints to me centered around how N-Control was hurting his family and reputation. He insisted that he did the best thing that ever could have happened to the Avenger and N-Control. It is true that there are some positive vibes coming out of this, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the majority of that has all resulted from the damage control I put in place on N-Control's behalf. If you take his actions and delete me or someone doing what I've been doing, there is no turnaround in the first place, much less the huge upswing in sales he is imagining far off into the future. I categorically reject the notion that he can take credit for any of my work, forever and ever amen.

I played nicer than necessary over the last two days, and gave him a chance to do the right thing (return control of Avenger's email addresses, website, and other assets). The worst thing to do is make demands of someone issuing ultimatums when you want something out of them that they know they can use against you. At every step, I was told by Paul that "I like you and everything, and you're reasonable and just trying to do your job, but if they don't do what I say, things are gonna get ugly."

The first day, I told him that if he chose to speak to the press and speak on behalf of N-Control, that all bets were off. He has done that countless times now, and he's been more than warned, and I honestly believe that he doesn't realize that he's doing it. In that early chat, he told me "don't you fucking threaten me! You don't know who the fuck you're dealing with! I will do things to you that you cannot imagine, they are so fucking bad! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF!"

I think I know exactly what he's capable of: yelling and intimidation, with no real intent to follow through, The great thing about bullies is that when you've dealt with enough of them, you realize they're all configured the same way, generally speaking.

I was extensively bullied as a kid. Paul's methods and personality are very familiar to me. I think it should be pretty obvious that it indeed "got better" for me.

I de-escalated the conversation with techniques that I learned while caring for children. I reassured him that no one was out to get him, and that he just couldn't lash out like that or no one would want to play with him.

I should note that I don't care if he considers any of this condescending, especially considering the patronizing tone he's taken with me in every conversation we've had.

In our conversations, he has compared himself to no less than Howard Stern and Charlie Sheen. He has proclaimed himself to be the biggest thing on the internet, and has repeatedly touted how much power he thinks he now has with the press. He told me tonight "if they fuck with me, I got all these websites all over me. Whatever I tell them to write, they write." He says that he has a TV interview with SPIKE TV next week. I look forward to him telling them what to do and what to edit into their coverage.

Tonight, he reiterated that in unmistakable, forceful terms. His abrupt swings in tone and mood were astoundingly rapid. He told me he would burn the company to the ground and destroy everyone associated with it, including me, he regretted to inform me. "I know you're just a guy doing a job and you don't know any better. I'm gonna ruin your life if I have to."

Most people would have the urge to destroy him after being told that. Of course, that would only need to be said if he hadn't already done such a capable job of that himself. That's the part of the press release I wrote that I think he really didn't get: he needs to stop hurting himself, and consequently his family. He's making everything worse every time he opens his mouth, and for his family's sake, I wish he would stop. I'd be amazed if he can make himself look any worse, but I don't put that past him.

I hope that people stop giving him attention, because they're just feeding the beast. As for me, I'm done speaking with him on the phone.

So please, really: defend Paul some more.

fugacity

Cambiata wrote:

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

???

I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

ElJeffe

This thread has gone full retard.

Please stop being retarded.

Captain Carrot

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

???

I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

Company property is not the same as public.

Cambiata

Captain Carrot wrote:

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

fugacity wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

This post copyright the company I'm posting it from despite that being the most stupid thing ever seriously this is dumb stop it and go eat a dick.

???

I guess I don't know you well enough to tell what your intent is here, so I'll just shrug.

Sorry, if this was spoken I think the satirical intent would be clear. I wasn't trying to insult you but those who would attach 10 lines of copyright boilerplate to their every email (or companies where the mail server does this) in some attempt to make every email correspondence with them company property. Cause screw that. GW may have been able to counter your argument with this approach but it's also BS, just hard to counter BS.

Company property is not the same as public.

I think that's what he's saying, that because so many corporate emails are appended with "This belongs to [huge corporation] and may not be reproduced" that means that they aren't public.

However, the times I've sent emails to customers, or as a customer recieved emails from executives I was complaining to, I never saw a "this email belongs to the corp. and cannot be reproduced." Messages like that are on internal emails a lot, but NOT on emails that go out to customers. Because, again, customer service representatives, from the lowest to the highest, are perfectly aware that what they say to a customer is already public.

Those that aren't complete muppets also treat internal emails as if they will be viewed by anyone... because if you act like a douche to another department, and then you're VP ends up seeing it, then you look like someone they no longer wish to employ. That's not to say that some people don't still stick their foot in their mouth internally - people think they can be more candid with internals. But no one considers an email to a customer anything other than public fodder which can be reproduced anywhere. This is a matter of self-preservation, both for the company but more importantly for the person who's sending the email.

devCharles

bowen wrote:

devCharles wrote:

It's so rare to see people's ineptness actually come back to bite them in the ass in the business world with regards to marketing. You usually have to go so far, be so stupid to not be able to explain away your own foolish decisions in something that is supposed to appeal to people in a subjective manner. Personally, I'm just glad that somebody is actually being held responsible for their clearly terrible approach to doing business. That soapbox Mike has is substantial, and it's always great to see when he uses it for good (on top of child's play of course.)

Well, to be honest, most non-sociopaths will actually apologize because they realize they wronged someone.

Well, when a sociopath does it it's different because they do no wrong, and fuck you I'm not apologizing. He'll apologize eventually, but he won't mean it.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree that this guy might have sociopathic tendencies, but I've seen this style of business before, and sometimes it's a calculated way people just are set in doing business. I've seen it a lot in my work, which, granted, is personal and not backed up in statistical formulation, but has largely shaped my feelings towards customer relations. People are told that you need to do x, y, or z in a certain brand of business, and if it's engrained strongly, you'll have people believing it's god's own truth. You see it in some marketing outfits, unfortunately, where bravado is seen as more important than speaking honestly to customers. This dude may be a sociopath or perhaps just a moron (maybe both,) but I've seen this kind of braggadocio approach before as an approach some marketing firms take from a calculated standpoint.

bowen

Cambiata wrote:

I think that's what he's saying, that because so many corporate emails are appended with "This belongs to [huge corporation] and may not be reproduced" that means that they aren't public.

However, the times I've sent emails to customers, or as a customer recieved emails from executives I was complaining to, I never saw a "this email belongs to the corp. and cannot be reproduced." Messages like that are on internal emails a lot, but NOT on emails that go out to customers. Because, again, customer service representatives, from the lowest to the highest, are perfectly aware that what they say to a customer is already public.

Those that aren't complete muppets also treat internal emails as if they will be viewed by anyone... because if you act like a douche to another department, and then you're VP ends up seeing it, then you look like someone they no longer wish to employ. That's not to say that some people don't still stick their foot in their mouth internally - people think they can be more candid with internals. But no one considers an email to a customer anything other than public fodder which can be reproduced anywhere. This is a matter of self-preservation, both for the company but more importantly for the person who's sending the email.

Just because they put that stuff there doesn't mean anything. You could have a legal document that someone could sign away their bill of rights, but it's not legal at all.

Those "This belongs to XYZ" is basically "If I sent this to you by accident (wrong recipient) you can't use this information and if you do, you risk a lawsuit." Now... if a party involved in the conversation decides to share it, that's another thing entirely.

ghost whistler

matt has a problem wrote:

The only reason Dave forwarded Mike the email in the first place was Paul's claim that they would be at PAX. And knowing Penny Arcade's history of being extremely straight with its fanbase, Dave knew this wasn't the kind of person Mike would want to have at PAX.

There are probably quite a few people attending PAX that others would rather weren't there. He can ban whomever he likes, but frankly I find it pretty short sighted. Especially as Krahulik has gone out of his way to deliberately wind him up.
Forwarding the email is one thing, plastering it over the internet is quite another.

ghost whistler

valhalla130 wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

LordOfTheCheese wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?

Why?

Yes! Why defend your ridiculous claims when you know they are ridiculous?

straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man

Don't keep throwing them at me then.

ghost whistler

Kipling217 wrote:

Kipling217 wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

LordOfTheCheese wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

Care to tell us the proper channel to warn others about terrible business practices then?

Why?

Because you keep bringing it up.

I am going to repost this, because I am still waiting for a response.

I don't keep mentioning it at all. It's irrelevant how, it isn't the issue. The issue is plastering someone's private messages over the internet. Arguing that it's somehow fair warning to others out there is absurd. You want to complain about his behaviour as a business report him to the authorities so he can't do business anymore. If you don't have a version of the Trading Standards Office in the colonies get one.

ghost whistler

kaliyama wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

Silvertiger wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

You're not making any sense.

Dave clearly had a bad customer experience. Is he or is he not allowed to tell anyone about it?

Is it OK if he just tells his friends? What if one of his friends ran a gaming blog? Is he then not allowed to tell that person?

I didn't say that Dave didn't have a bad customer experience nor intimate any such thing. He can quite happily tell people about whatever he likes, but that doesn't excuse choosing to pass on what was sent to him and him alone to whomever he likes. That he can physically do so, because a computer lets him cc it to Mr Penny Arcade, doesn't actually make it morally acceptable.
I woukld also suggest that pretending you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't make you look smart; it's pretty facile.

Wow .. just wow .. "He can tell anyone he wants about this abusive service he got .. he just can't send out concrete proof of it happening, that's over the line".
Without a paper trail and a way to prove that this outlandishly ridiculous event occurred it could all be hearsay and slander ... hell yeah I'm going to include the original documents if I'm going to call someone's douchebaggery out. How does that not make sense to you?

YOu seem intent on missing the point: we aren't talking about providing proof that Paul is a poor businessman. We are talking about Krahulik tacitly, if nothing else, encouraging the internet, through his influence, to behave in a vindictive nasty fashion. Deciding to post that information publicly and thus cause that to happen is poor form.
There was no need to share this information; dressing this up as some kind of consumer rights public service is really rather shallow and disingenuous.

He posted the e-mail of the customer service and PR person for a company. That person is public-facing and the e-mail address is one used to communicate with members of the public. When Mike expressly said not to be nasty once it became clear some people were being nasty, I don't know how you can allege he meant the opposite tacitly, unless you are engaging in conspiracy theory.

I also don't see how there's no need to share this information - the only practical recourse the public has from bad customer service is to shine a light on creeps like Christoforo.

Then Mike knows fuck all about the internet. If he thinks a feeble 'dont be mean' request is going to have any effect after posting all this online then he's incredibly naive. Let's not kid ourselves here. Especially given his 'I was bullied as a kid' diatribe. Whether you were bullied as a kid is irrelevant.

ghost whistler

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

ghost whistler

Gosling wrote:

The thing that fascinates me more than anything else about the moral end of this is the constant state of flux, of vascillation going on. There will be this questioning of whether the response to Paul is right and moral, people will want to call off the dogs, and then they'll find out about the latest thing Paul did and go 'okay, I take it back', at least for a little while until people start questioning themselves again, and this cycle just keeps going on and on and on.

the moral end of this is not in a constant state of flux. Anyone that's having a hard time understanding the rights and wrongs of this probably shouldn't be on the internet.

oldmanken

ghost whistler wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

Legal correspondence is protected differently than standard business correspondence... not really a fair comparison.

Cambiata

ghost whistler wrote:

Cambiata wrote:

To repeat: Anytime you send an email from a corporate address, it is public. Every professional who works with customers through email knows this already.

So if you were engaged in a messy divorce and i got hold of emails between you and your lawyer, I could post them on the interweb? No matter if they contain, for example, the names of your kids or whatever other info might be deemed sensitive if not illegal to show to the world? That would be ok, because it's legal?

You understand what privledge is, right? Privlege is a specific legal right extended to lawyers. Not everyone has privledge. Certainly customer service reps do not, lols.

Good lord, hon, you don't OK over there? Having an aneurism, maybe? I haven't seen a defense this lame since Christoforo declared that it was Mike Krahulik's fault that he took a swing at him.

ghost whistler

Lanrutcon wrote:

bowen wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

bowen wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

KalTorak wrote:

This was. a "proper legal channel."

It was legal, it was not proper.

That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.

which word?

All of them.

Oh the lols.

Quoted from the new PR guy:

Spoiler:

I'm incorporating a lot of what I want to say about the series of phone conversations I've had with him.

I should preface by saying that I have the sense to leave things at a factual level as much as possible rather than open myself up to claims of defamation, which Paul has routinely thrown around while at once defaming others.

I agree with the notion that one does not negotiate with terrorists, which includes bullies. I say that because I have been strategically pacifying a bully for a couple of days now, and I'm done. Diplomacy has failed.

I've spoken to Paul many, many times over the last few days.

One of the main things that I've learned about him is that he is most concerned about the well-being of his wife and small child, along with his ability to make a living. I can respect and appreciate those things objectively. What I've also learned is that he is partial to protecting those interests without any consideration given to common courtesy or professional engagement.

Every comment regarding N-Control's separation from him was met with complaints to me centered around how N-Control was hurting his family and reputation. He insisted that he did the best thing that ever could have happened to the Avenger and N-Control. It is true that there are some positive vibes coming out of this, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the majority of that has all resulted from the damage control I put in place on N-Control's behalf. If you take his actions and delete me or someone doing what I've been doing, there is no turnaround in the first place, much less the huge upswing in sales he is imagining far off into the future. I categorically reject the notion that he can take credit for any of my work, forever and ever amen.

I played nicer than necessary over the last two days, and gave him a chance to do the right thing (return control of Avenger's email addresses, website, and other assets). The worst thing to do is make demands of someone issuing ultimatums when you want something out of them that they know they can use against you. At every step, I was told by Paul that "I like you and everything, and you're reasonable and just trying to do your job, but if they don't do what I say, things are gonna get ugly."

The first day, I told him that if he chose to speak to the press and speak on behalf of N-Control, that all bets were off. He has done that countless times now, and he's been more than warned, and I honestly believe that he doesn't realize that he's doing it. In that early chat, he told me "don't you fucking threaten me! You don't know who the fuck you're dealing with! I will do things to you that you cannot imagine, they are so fucking bad! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF!"

I think I know exactly what he's capable of: yelling and intimidation, with no real intent to follow through, The great thing about bullies is that when you've dealt with enough of them, you realize they're all configured the same way, generally speaking.

I was extensively bullied as a kid. Paul's methods and personality are very familiar to me. I think it should be pretty obvious that it indeed "got better" for me.

I de-escalated the conversation with techniques that I learned while caring for children. I reassured him that no one was out to get him, and that he just couldn't lash out like that or no one would want to play with him.

I should note that I don't care if he considers any of this condescending, especially considering the patronizing tone he's taken with me in every conversation we've had.

In our conversations, he has compared himself to no less than Howard Stern and Charlie Sheen. He has proclaimed himself to be the biggest thing on the internet, and has repeatedly touted how much power he thinks he now has with the press. He told me tonight "if they fuck with me, I got all these websites all over me. Whatever I tell them to write, they write." He says that he has a TV interview with SPIKE TV next week. I look forward to him telling them what to do and what to edit into their coverage.

Tonight, he reiterated that in unmistakable, forceful terms. His abrupt swings in tone and mood were astoundingly rapid. He told me he would burn the company to the ground and destroy everyone associated with it, including me, he regretted to inform me. "I know you're just a guy doing a job and you don't know any better. I'm gonna ruin your life if I have to."

Most people would have the urge to destroy him after being told that. Of course, that would only need to be said if he hadn't already done such a capable job of that himself. That's the part of the press release I wrote that I think he really didn't get: he needs to stop hurting himself, and consequently his family. He's making everything worse every time he opens his mouth, and for his family's sake, I wish he would stop. I'd be amazed if he can make himself look any worse, but I don't put that past him.

I hope that people stop giving him attention, because they're just feeding the beast. As for me, I'm done speaking with him on the phone.

So please, really: defend Paul some more.

I haven't once defended Paul. Please accurately demonstrate where you think I have.

Nova_C

ghost whistler wrote:

Anyone that's having a hard time understanding the rights and wrongs of this probably shouldn't be on the internet.

So you're gonna cancel your subscription with your ISP then?

We're all still waiting for you to explain how a conversation between a company rep and a customer is private. No personal information of either party was contained within, or posted to PA's front page. The entire contents were for all intents and purposes the official position of Ocean Marketing on customer complaints. That's not a private conversation.

KalTorak

You're doing nothing but sputtering about how everyone's conduct is wrong without a single thing to back it up other than "I don't like it." Your analogies are off-base and you change your argument* practically mid-sentence. I don't know if you're a troll or just willfully ignoring everyone else's points, but either way you're obviously not interested in having a good-faith discussion.


*generous usage of the word

valhalla130

This is why we can't have nice things. Someone always has to come and shit over everything.