[Tylinos]

Ken's response to someone else noting how Ken's post doesn't match up with Ben's:

Ken Penders said:

There's Ben's version and my version of what happened back in the day, and no one else was in the room or on the phone when it happened. You aren't exactly what I would consider a neutral party or someone with first-hand knowledge in this instance to state with any authority about my accuracy of events.

I guess this means we can't take Ben's word for things in Pendersland. No questioning Ken's accuracy allowed because we aren't Ken or Ben.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 09 February 2012 - 09:19 PM

[Friend of Sonic]

Thanks to the one who linked the Ben Hurst article. Great read. Does anyone know why Sega had a problem with the two parter "Blast to the Past"?

Also, the story about his friend dying of cancer nearly had me choked up.

[Metal Man88]

The part where he speaks of being self-serving suggests he realized that he waded in too deep on his comments... but naturally he can't admit he made a mistake and so projects being wrong onto everyone else.

Classy!

[Tylinos]

Okay, here's a challenge for you guys because I'm curious about it, but I'm feeling really lazy: Can anyone find any times on his forum where Ken's actually apologized for being wrong about something? I'm sure he's done it at least once, and I've probably read it before, but I really want to see it to reassure myself that he's not that stuck up.

[NeonZephyr]

Does this count?

Quote

First off, to Henryii, I apologize.

Events have been transpiring at an incredible pace these days, and having just returned from a quick trip to the east coast on EXTREMELY short notice, I was more inclined to believe a friend who was looking out after my interests when she pointed out that several postings online appeared to be the work of someone connected with Archie. As she works in the publicity field, this is something she would be familiar with. Considering what I had just experienced, it wasn't paranoia that led me to the opinion I gave voice to, rather it was my unfamiliarity of who you are. In your case, we goofed. I'm sorry.

Still feels kinda weak to me, and he's still playing the victim card here, but he did actually use the words "apologize" and "sorry."

I'll skim a few more threads, but this is the only thing I've noticed so far.

[Tylinos]

Yeah, that's better than nothing.


EDIT: By the way, BobR now claims Ken never backstabbed Ben. Personally, I find it quite odd that despite how Ken has openly stated that people have asked him in the past for his side of the story on the situation over the past decade, this is the first time we've heard anything about Ken never contacting Sega as Ben claimed.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 10 February 2012 - 04:05 PM

[Commando Beta]

I hear Archie filed a motion for summary judgment. I know the case was adjourned to give Archie the opportunity to do so, but Penders have until March 6 to file a response.

This post has been edited by Commando Beta: 10 February 2012 - 05:40 PM

[Lobotomy]

The worst part about all of this is Ken's unwarranted self-importance. He needs to stop thinking he's the shit, because he really, really isn't. He did a bad job writing for a comic book and an even worse job doodling for it.

I'm sure someone's said this already, but he really does have the unnecessary, childish ego of Christian Weston Chandler. And while I DO see his frustration in wanting recognition for the characters he created, he's going about it the wrong way. His behavior is neuroatypical.

This post has been edited by Lobotomy: 10 February 2012 - 06:20 PM

[Ayu Tsukimiya]

Question: When he skips over a question that could make him look bad, does he pretend he didn't read the comments that tell him he ignored them?

[The KKM]

I vote we just repeat the "So, did Ken Penders ask Ben Hurst and Len Janson for their permission or insight in, say, deciding Rotor was gay? Or trying to kill Sally, or roboticizing and "killing off" Lupe (and making her married with kids, and Hispanic)? Did he care that Karl Bollers had written Mina as deciding against joining the Freedom Fighters when he kept writing her as part of the team? Never mind all the crazy stuff done to the SEGA cast. How does that fall under "respecting the creators' rights?"" post until he answers it.

[Tylinos]

Ayu Tsukimiya, on 11 February 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

Question: When he skips over a question that could make him look bad, does he pretend he didn't read the comments that tell him he ignored them?

Usually he just says stuff like "I can't answer your question at this time due to the legal battle," even when the question would have no bearing on the legal battle whatsoever.

The KKM, on 11 February 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

I vote we just repeat the "So, did Ken Penders ask Ben Hurst and Len Janson for their permission or insight in, say, deciding Rotor was gay? Or trying to kill Sally, or roboticizing and "killing off" Lupe (and making her married with kids, and Hispanic)? Did he care that Karl Bollers had written Mina as deciding against joining the Freedom Fighters when he kept writing her as part of the team? Never mind all the crazy stuff done to the SEGA cast. How does that fall under "respecting the creators' rights?"" post until he answers it.

Well, would any of you guys be willing to help with that? If I did it on my own, I'd probably get banned for spamming the board.

EDIT: Looks like Lammy's been reading this topic. Thanks, Lammy.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 11 February 2012 - 10:24 PM

[NeonZephyr]

The best part of "I can't answer that because legalities" is that he's shown to not give a damn about legalities already. There's this little pet project he's advertising before the court issue over it is even near done, as well as the other times he's mentioned how he is in the right and so forth legally, when, if I'm not mistaken, that what this whole case is about.

But, yeah. Penders is hypocritical. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Nothing new there.



Hrmm, that almost makes me tempted to join his forum.

Is Lammy a member here? I don't see them on the member list. Well, in any case, thanks mate.

Not a single reply has been made on that thread at all, to the quote or ignoring it. It's almost as if the sheer logic pointed out by it has actually sunk in to some of them.

Wishful thinking, I know, but it's interesting how they jumped on it before when all they noticed was Hurst's name. But, now that the quote itself is plainly visible and impossible to misinterpret in any way (or to claim to be, in any case), not a single person has responded.

Interesting.

This post has been edited by NeonZephyr: 12 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

[Tylinos]

BobR comments on the creator's rights thing:

BobR said:

Apparently it's a misunderstanding of exactly what "creator's right" mean. I will say, it also includes greater knowledge of what constitutes copyright law than he had back then. I'm not going to even try to explain the nuances involved here, as even a lot of lawyers and judges don't understand them properly (not saying that I do, either.) If Archie had a Sonic editor that did his job properly, the storyline would be a lot more coherent between all the writers than it currently is. As it is, we've got a dozen or more writers all heading in different directions, which was no more apparent than the time Ken and Karl were writing on the book at the same time. I can't begin to count the number of times Karl wrote something that threw a monkey wrench into what Ken was planning. And I'm sure there were a number of times that something Ken wrote did the same to Karl. These occurrences were neither planned nor intentional, but merely the result of lack of direction from editorial.

Wow. Way to downplay Ken screwing Karl's work over, Bob. Ken has already said himself that he often didn't even read other writers' work (See: Karl) even when he still worked on the book himself. It's fairly common knowledge that this led to Ken screwing up Karl's work a lot. So go ahead, Bob. Blame the editor, not Ken.

[NeonZephyr]

...Because. You know. Having a little chat with another writer over your characters and plot ideas is so damn hard. I'm not even saying to have a full out pow-wow or whatever. Just shoot them a memo, "hey, I wanted to do this," or go to lunch with them and discuss characterization. I have these types of conversations all the time with my Beta (to see how people who DON'T know everything about the plot are seeing the characters in my various writings), and she doesn't even have any real creative control.

Sure, I guess an editor should keep an eye out for this type of thing, but if the editor isn't doing it right, then stand up and take action yourself. It only takes a 15-20 minute conversation to clear up a lot of these issues. "Oh, Mina decided against being a Freedom Fighter? Okay." That only took, like, 30 seconds. A writer is responsible to craft the best story that he or she can, with the proper characterization and flow of canon as possible. In comics, that means conversing with other writers. Passing the buck just shows that you didn't care about the story itself, just your story and, more likely, the paycheck.

Of all the things Penders has said, admitting to never even glancing at the other writers' works while writing for the book (especially for the main book) has been one of the ones that irks me the most.


You want an example of two writers collaborating and writing something that took a miniscule frame and evolved it into a rich world? Try one of my favorite series. It starts with a book named Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Weis and Hickman collaborated so well, that I couldn't even pick out whose influence was whose. Dragonlance started out a just a campaign setting for Dungeons and Dragons (albeit, with its own world, but it was still a D&D property). It's now evolved to the point that many of the D&D players I've met consider Dragonlance to be it's own universe. It's done so by having writers that work together or at least work to have a basic understanding of the mythos.

And you don't see Weis or Hickman suing Wizards for the rights to Raistlin or Tanis or Tasslehoff. And these characters actually can carry a story by their own merits. They have since 1984.


Just.... I apologize if this seems a little over-ranting. This just has always bugged me, and Bob just pushed it even further.

[Tylinos]

Ken Penders said:

Antarctic Deity said:

There's not one Sonic community in your side.

Another distortion. The more you make these wild assertions, the more your arguments ring hollow. You start to sound like someone with a personal vendetta instead of an honest concern.

The Sonic community is not some big monolithic entity that only has one thought. There are a number of diverging viewpoints, on this board and across the Sonic spectrum. My efforts to protect what's legally mine have the support of people way beyond those posting on Sonic forums. I also have the strong support of fans who do post on those sites, but choose not to get involved in destructive flame wars for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, for the vast number of supporters out there, a few lurking trolls armed with an imaginary gripe or a loud axe to grind tend to overshadow their voices. Unfortunately, that comes with the territory. (I first experienced this when I announced my plans to kill off Sally.)

When few believed the series would last, I believed there was room for growth in the market. I fought to keep the series alive and introduced new characters as part of that effort. Now for the characters and stories I created, I get to test new waters.

Nowhere did I ever say that success was assured. I could cite numerous examples where people thought failure was a foregone conclusion only to see what they thought would be failure turn into stunning success. If everyone could predict the future, we'd all be rich and happy. Life's not like that though. In other words, no pain, no gain.

That's right, we're "a few lurking trolls" compared to his "vast number of supporters". How is it like being in such a world of delusions, Ken?

In all seriousness, what the hell is this man on? As Antarctic Deity says in his reply, "I've actually seen less unanimous dislike of Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)". This is one of the only cases where I've ever seen near unanimous agreement like this. There are almost no supporters speaking out. SOPA is the only thing in recent memory which was like this, and amusingly enough, Ken's sounding a lot like the few supporters of SOPA did in trying to claim the protests against SOPA were overblown and based on lies.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 15 February 2012 - 03:23 AM