I think it's the 'unto death' part some of us have a hard time with. What is there to usefully add at this point? Equally, the same might be said of the various retorts, mine included, so I'm going to try and shut up for a while after this, if at all humanly possible. (As just about the garrulousest of the garrulous, this is no small threat.)
> I believe the balance is level, and do not favor treating Issaries
> with kid gloves and charity, but as the fully responsible business
> entity thatit is.
A very noble sentiment, I'm sure, but one that seems at odds with fiscal realities. While I feel Issaries could and should give some 'comfort' to its donors as to what will happen if the game is a rip-roaring success, and makes Greg, David, etc multi-squillionaires, I do not think it's reasonable to expect them to lash themselves to the mast of _guaranteeing_ (in any reasonable sense) that said donors will be able to 'make back' significant amounts of their donation. If Issaries is required to 'pay back' the bulk of its seed capital over the space of a few years, it isn't exactly going to make its cash-flow projections any healthier. If the climate for a new Gloranthan RPG (or indeed, for an old Gloranthan RPG, to anticipate any such complaint) were as healthy as you seem to think, such measures as stock issues or GTAs would hardly have been necessary in the first place.
But hopefully my pessimism will be unfounded, the game will sell by the truckload, and in three years Issaries will be mailing Havana cigars out to its ecstatic GTA members along with their numerous extra bonus books, such is the level of their largesse. If that _doesn't_ happen, then how to spend the (lesser or non-existent) profits becomes proportionately less of an issue...
> > To disgress from David's point, I had to 'laugh my ass off' (to use a
> > Brianism) at the comment about Visa charges.
> This "Brianism" is news to me...I cannot recall if I've ever used that
> phrase, but I am certain I have not done so on the digest.
Apparently my paraphrase of your self-description of paroxysms of mirth at reading the GTA annoucement (24K messages, Ibid) wasn't too accurate. I can't quite bring myself to believe it was terribly unfair, mind you.
> > [...] given your long-standing disinterest in the entire project.
> Yes, that's why I'm writing all this stuff, I'm totally disinterested in
> it...(???)
You have been for months stated your lack of interest in _participating_ in such a scheme; that you return with a fresh round of slights for the actual plan when it's eventually floated rather reduces the gasp, shock value adhering to your non-involvement. I'm not going to in any way suggest that there's anything _wrong_ with said non-involvement, but I feel that it does somewhat imply waiving some of your carping rights about any future (lack of) developments. What I think annoys many more people is the attitide of ridiculing and scoffing at the whole venture, which compells some of those associating themselves with it (whether gleefully or reluctantly) to retaliate in kind.
> > [Me agreeing with Brian agreeing with me on on-going/open-ended
> > 'premiums'] (I've already said so, mind you, so I can agree
> > with you without it _entirely_ wrecking my self-image.)
> You've alluded to it, true.
Alluded, as in sledgehammer...
> As for the self-image comment, it really surprised me coming from you.
Must have forgotten my 'obvious irony' emoticon, again.
Cry hold!, enough!
Good night and good luck,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail