© Ami Mizuno, 2008

Evidence: Time Signatures

This portion of the text is designed to point out the direct correlation in the timing of subrosian and sbfriend's posts. Please take into consideration each post's time, length, and content. None of the following has been altered or edited in any way.

sbfriends; 1:11 AM.

“You have a very poor understanding of corporations law.

A company exists to serve itself. As such, a company that is benefiting itself is benefiting it's investors.

One of the most basic priniciples is to avoid conflicts of interest, and here is a prime example of why any company (take Square) wouldn't bend over backwards to help an investor (Sony), when that action would be detrimental to its own business. This action goes against other investors, and is by and large, and to put it simply for your sake, a no-no.

As for suggesting hostile takeovers? Do you even understand the theory behind them, or are you just assuming investors can throw money at a problem, and for other investors to sell off their shares (which, can only happen in certain situations).

You should spend less time caring about trivial issues you know nothing about, and more time off the internet.”

(11 minute differential)

subrosian; 1:22 AM.

“Amy is a freshman CS student, not a business person, her belief about investing, profit, business law, business management, and finance are reflective of that lack of education. That's not to insult her, it's simply a reality than an MBA / MIS / whatever should know: people without formal training / experience in these areas generally say things that make little sense to those with that experience / education.”

(10 minute differential)
subrosian; 1:32 AM.

“I only know what you claim Amy.

*shrugs* if you were lying to me then I do apologize. And I don't troll Amy, accusing people of trolling in your posts, and calling people "ban-dodgers" though is trolling. I'm not reporting it here, of course, I don't think that's a good way to resolve a dispute, and I have no intention of insulting your intelligence, but I would like you to clarify how you're qualified to talk on this issue?

I don't think being able to pull things off Wikipedia is quite the same as being an expert in International Business. As a claimed "software engineer" you'd probably agree with the statement that it takes a few years to really "get" stuff like object-oriented programming, and what all that really "means", no matter how smart you are.

What you're doing here is implying that you, a college freshman, are smarter than the dozens of world-c1ass business executives with years of formal education and decades of experience. I mean, really? That's a rather bold claim.

And of course if you're not a college freshman / were making something up there y'know you're more than welcome to update us with the correct information regarding your background. I of course don't want to be inaccurate about your experience.”

(9 minute differential)
subrosian; 1:41 AM.

“If all it took to be good at International Business was an understanding of basic calculus, or an introductory economics course, half of college students would be billionaires. International distribution of software across multiple platforms, based on predicted returns-on-investments and taking into account risk factors (and a couple dozen other things that are frankly beyond the scope of forum discussion) with no background in business would be near-impossible.

You can study the issues, but at a certain point you have to accept that Square-Enix is an incredibly wealthy company staffed with people who know what they're doing - they don't do something like this on a whim, and it's a bit *grand* for someone who is not an expert in these matters to imply Square-Enix made a "bad decision". Square-Enix did market research, they know their timeline, they know what they're doing.”

(4 minute differential)
subrosian; 1:44 AM.

“You are aware that I have multiple accounts on GameSpot, Amy, aren't you? And that a large network of GameSpotters work and play games together? If you're talking to almost anyone on GS, there's a damn good chance you're talking to me. That's how I know when people are lying, when they say one thing to "subrosian" and another thing to __________ .

Bottom line, I don't feel you're qualified to contest the decision of people who've been doing this job longer than you claim to be alive. It's one thing if you don't *agree* with the decision on moral principle, fine, but to call it a bad business decision is simply absurd.”

(1 minute differential)
sbfriends; 1:45 AM.

“So sad you assume anyone with a new account automatically has an alternate - it's a scary thought any "new" comer could disagree with you, let alone provoke thought (of which there seems to be very little on these forums).

In any case, you dodge the issue. Take it from someone who has actually studied corporations law (albiet one pertaining to Australia - nevertheless concepts are applicable internationally) - a company acting in the detriment of itself is not helping its investors.

So why would they cut revenue streams for an investor? Even if there was a vote on the issue, to avoid a conflict of interest, Sony would either not vote at all or have to make very clear its own position. In either case, how is it beneficial to have a game stay exclusive to one platform? To the company, it's beneficial to it, and it's investors, to expand and create more opportunities for itself.

The argument you have put forward shows a lack of understanding and education on the subject-matter. So sad anyone can create a thread about anything - I guess that would explain the convolution on these boards.”

(7 minute differential)
subrosian; 1:52 AM.

“You made that post immediately following when I started building the official Too Human hype thread on a private board. That would simply show that you follow my posting history, which I'm well aware of for a number of reasons.

I'm glad you find me so interesting Amy, I find you fascinating, you're better at this game than most, but it's best if you're simply consistent in your stories. There's nothing wrong with being honest about who you are.

I do apologize that this is old, so technically you must be a sophmore by now? With one year of engineering experience under your belt, I still do not think you're exactly qualified to discuss the decisions of companies with projects costing in the hundred million dollar range. If you were Steve Ballmer, maybe, but you're not, and I'm not - we have to look at Square-Enix, a wildly succesful company, and say "they might know how to make money". Maybe, just maybe, they know what they're doing :P

Now, you're entitled to disagree with them on principle - which I'd understand, I disagree with Nintendo on principle, even if I can't argue with their financial success. But what you're doing is saying you know better than a company that has done this since before you claim to have been born, about how to make money in the gaming market. Based on what? Do you believe you have better data than Square-Enix? Do you believe you're a better analyst? Do you think you're a smarter business person than the executive body of Square Enix?”

(3 minute differential)
sbfriends; 1:55 AM.

“Wow, it's funny to see someone so confident about themself, in a thread centered around the notion a company should be detrimental to itself to please investors.

That's what we call irony.”

(2 minute differential)
subrosian; 1:57 AM.

“I thought we were discussing Square-Enix investing in the 360 in the future, based on the NPD? If we were discussing FF XIII, there is a sticky for that. And if you want to disucss the RROD, feel free to create a new topic (but please use something OTHER than blogs in India to prove your claims that the GPU typically gets to "over 100 C in regular usage")

As far as on-topic is concerned, you've yet to answer a simple question:

What makes you more qualified to decide on International Business than Square-Enix? What multi-million dollar software company do you act as CEO for?”

(4 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:01 AM.

“This is all off topic, I had one question:

What makes you more qualified to decide what platforms to invest in than the executive board of Square-Enix?”

(3 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:04 AM.

“I didn't think this topic was about FF XIII or I would not post in it - I thought we were discussing SE investment in the 360 (overall) based on NPD numbers. If it is about FF XIII, let me know now so we can lock it. :)”

(12 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:16 AM.

“May I quote you in the future on that bit of insight? I never knew President Bush had such a controlling hand over Square-Enix!”

(18 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:34 AM.

“I don't know what pains me more, your interpretation of currency exchange or your interpretation of how federal spending works.

Please, for me Amy, one more time:

What qualifies you *specifically* to discuss International Business? And as a follow up now, what qualifies you to discuss Finance?”

(6 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:40 AM.

“Topic: SE shouldn't invest in the 360 because of NPD numbers.

Sub's Question: What makes you more qualified than SE to decide where they should invest their money?

Amy's Answer: President Bush is bad.

Stop avoiding the question Amy - what makes you more qualified than the executive body of SE to make complex international investment decisions?”

(10 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:50 AM.

“Link

And there are dozens upon dozens more articles just like it on the web. During the Great Depression, the movie industry actually took off as people looked for an escape from their problems, and a monetarily expensive substitute was desired for the vacations they could no longer afford. People can't afford a night on the town anymore, but they can afford a "virtual party". Sad, but true, gaming is widely considered to be a recession-resistant industry.

Some analysts have even speculated that the "casual" and "non-traditional" gamer influx will be increased by recession - people looking for a distraction from their woes, and inexpensive substitutes for more expensive amusements. Taking a family of four to Disney costs $260+ in tickets alone - but a new game the kids spend the weekend playing is $50 ~ $60.

The DVD industry and home theater continues its success for the same reason - people who can't afford the $40 at a theater for a family of four to go can instead afford a $10 movie or $4 digital rental.

I would not by any means say, as a gamer, I want a recession, but I think in an era when it takes Nintendo ten minutes to say how much money they made last year, saying "gaming is doomed because Bush hurt the economy" is a silly way of answering my question:

What makes you more qualified than Square-Enix to discuss international investment?”

(5 minute differential)
subrosian; 2:55 AM.

“Well then by all means Amy, continue to talk down to me. Let me make this simpler: post your resume here. Then we will post the resumes of Square-Enix's executives. Whoever has thet most experience in international business wins. Ready? Go!”

(23 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:18 AM.

“I don't think you understand the words you type, Amy.

Your arguments are all over the place - so much so you derail your own thread. My theory is you can't win an argument so you make a plethora of them and never stay to finish it.

Argument: Square Enix should not put a certain game on the 360, because it'll make Sony, as an investor, sad.

Response: From a business perspective (which, anyone with observational skills will note, you appear to know little of) Square Enix will be looking to benefit itself. This, in turn, benefits investors. It's a *very* simple concept - almost scary you don't seem to grasp it. If the business world worked by company A buying shares in company B, to stop B from making decisions that'd affect A, there'd be so many conflicts of interest around that only the bigger corporations would survive. That you assert Square Enix should exist to make Sony profitable at the expense of itself is quite laughable.

"Square-Enix's President and CEO Yoichi Wada may be his own boss; however, he answers to his investors. One of those investors happens to be Sony. As a matter of fact, Sony is the third largest investor in Square-Enix, topping out banks and money market funds. What is ironic is that if Final Fantasy sells copies on the 360, it will actually benefit Sony."

Of course, as an investor Sony has an interest in Square Enix - but that's to see SE become as profitable as it can, not miss opportunities just to make *another* company more money. This is not how the business world works. At all. If SE sells copies of FF on the 360, it benefits SE (which is consequently good for it's investors - it's just frightening to think you could skip straight to "Sony").

"They are giving the 360 lots of love, while ignoring the PS3-- going against the market trends and against the will of their own investors. How is this a smart business decision? Square made a calculated decision that they could sell more on a more popular system-- the 360, but will the 360 still be on top when FFXIII actually releases? If the numbers continue like they have, the answer is no. PS3 is expected to pass 360 in worldwide sales in April, 2009. I'm guessing Sony's current strategy is to pass the 360 in worldwide sales before the release of FFXIII."

First you claim that they're giving the 360 "lots of love, while ignoring the PS3" - but this is pure speculation. From what we've seen, the PS3 version is the lead version - how does this enforce what you're claiming at all? You throw opinion around as fact as though it's an intelligent thing to do.

So apparently supporting a console with a larger install-base is "going against the market trends" too? And the "will" of their investors? An investor invests in a company because they forsee them becoming profitable enough to generate dividends for them - you seem to confuse one company's ambitions with another, again reflecting your own ignorance on corporation law.

You apparently cannot see the smart business decision, but unless Microsoft start buying consoles back *off* consumers (I'm sure a concept you'd have no problems believing) their install-base is simply going to grow. So even if we take your wild conjecture that the PS3 will, at some time around the release of the game, surpass the install base of the 360 - what do you have combined? You have two very large install bases, both of which Square's game will be releasing on. Again, I'm baffled - I'm observing someone who likes to act very smart, and yet cannot see what is beneficial about this - something very very simple.

"These numbers are pathetic. You would want to have a death wish to publish RPGs on the 360. I wonder how Yoichi Wada will answer to his third largest investor, Sony when Final Fantasy XIII, Star Ocean 4, Invinite Undiscovery, and Last Remnant inevitably crashes and burns on the 360. Square-Enix is going against market trends, and they will have to answer to their investors."

And to finish off, you throw out your opinion, again. Why? Is it your intention to kill whatever credibility your thread had to begin with? Or is it purely coincadental? It seems more self-destructive than thought provoking, and disappointing so many people have to waste so much time trying to point out the obvious.

The huge problem with these forums is factions and their tendancies to ignore logic and be blind, rabid fans for large corporations which really don't care about them individually. All threads like this do is perpetuate the notion that it's acceptable to be ignorant, and merely fuels the useage of such immature terms like "lemmings, cows, sheep" -of which people seem to be "ok" with. The concept behind "System wars" does not have to be synonymous with immaturity.”

(8 minute differential)
subrosian; 3:26 AM.

“I'm not sbfriends, Amy, I'm as curious who he is as you. You've accused every new poster of being a ban-dodger, everyone who disagrees with you of being a troll, and now you're assuming I'd post under another account here tonight? If I decide to add anything further it'll be as myself.”

(5 minute differential)
subrosian; 3:31 AM.

“Actually it was Sony stock, and it fell 20 points, not 20%. That was, unfortunately, a "news story" spread by someone who didn't know how to read a ticker. Percentage-wise the change was insignificant.

Sony isn't going to go out of business because Square-Enix wants to put three ~ four JRPGs on the 360. Despite what some 360-fanboys would like to believe (and PS3 fanboys as well, judging by the FF XIII petitions) no one game holds *that* much financial sway over the entire generation.”

(4 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:35 AM.

“Whilst it's comforting your mistake me for someone who can actually apply logic to arguments, I'm no one found on these boards. Although I could continue arguing this point, there's little hope you would understand.

As for your "counter-example" - please explain to me how this even pertains to your post? On one hand, company SE has company SY as an investor - you attest company SE must, at its own detriment, do things to make company SY happy - actions that would benefit SY but not SE.

On the other hand, you have a patent infringement case in which Microsoft made a settlement which so happened to include a share in the company.

You've again derailed your own thread by bringing up something completely irrelevant - either you're confused, or simply have nothing to say to my other post. It's so convenient to say "well here's a counter-example, the rest is redundant" - speaks volumes. The rest was very valid (and if you hadn't noticed, I broke down your original post, so there wasn't even that great a link between my points).

Disappointing, but all too expected.

Oh and if you want to talk about "trolling" you should probably note, posting blind conjecture with no intention of backing up your claims is as bad as it gets. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Do you even know where your argument is going, or are you going to go back to American politics?”

(3 minute differential)
subrosian; 3:38 AM.

“Four. Only one of which I actually post on System Wars with though. Amy really crossed a line there. If I was SBfriends, why would I continue to post here as myself? Any mod can do a usemap and see I'm not SBfriends, but it's (of course) impossible for me to prove I'm not him.

I'm not here to troll Amy though, and I don't think it's fair to say SBfriends is either, I'm just genuinely curious why people would think SE is making a bad financial decision by going after more money (developing on all the platforms). I mean, they're developing on Wii, DS, PSP, PS3, and even the iPhone. Why wouldn't they develop on the 360?”

(2 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:40 AM.

“Well now, this is getting even better.

Someone always "right" (well, by your own admition, most of the time) is using that infamous logic to deduce something that is what? Not true? Truly amusing. I guess if this is how right you always are, we no longer have to entertain the idea that you are ever right.

Though I guess it's a brilliant self-defence mechanism - when failing at an argument, try to discredit two people against and class them as one. I'm not even going to bother asking the rationale behind that thought-process.”

(2 minute differential)
subrosian; 3:42 AM.

“Hey Amy, how can you prove "logically" that you're not sbfriends? To me this all sort of seems like a way of not addressing a lot of pretty big questions that have come up, and it's pretty off-topic from your OP. Do you have anything else to add to your theory about how SE investing in the 360 will harm them?”

(4 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:46 AM.

“I guess this shows how futile this thread was.

If you created a thread but had already made your own mind up as to what was "fact" (regardless of what was and was not) what was the point in it? You're obviously not in it for the discussion - that either leaves blatant trolling, or you're confused between fact and opinion. Both are very probable.

Feel free to have a moderator check who I "am" - even then I think you'd claim conspiracy (because it's oh so convenient).

Oh and the reason I type differently? I'm Australian. :)”

(2 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:48 AM.

“Go for it. I look forward to the fallacy.”

(8 minute differential)
sbfriends; 3:56 AM.

“I guess I need another long winded post.

For starters, you cannot prove I am anyone else on these boards, with any amount of logical deductions or "proof" - merely because neither exist. I am no one else on these boards.

Secondly, you've deviated once again from my original post - which you palmed off and didn't address. I'd give you more credit than you deserve (and probably will regret suggesting it because you'll no doubt claim it all along) and claim you're merely doing this to detract from the original point (one which you cannot argue in its infinite stupidity and shear ignorance) but I just don't think that was your intent. You probably do believe I'm someone on these boards.

Guess while you're chasing tails everyone else can see your argument for the farce it was. I hope future threads of yours share the scrutiny in this thread.”

(15 minute differential)
sbfriends; 4:11 AM.

“You're now using intermittent updates to prove two identities? Uh oh - guess that means a lot of people are a lot of other people on the internet. :(

Furthemore, why would I continually sign in and out of accounts? Why wouldn't I have two browsers up at once? Or stay in one until I needed to post in another? You didn't really think this through, did you. Which is sad, because I didn't have to contribute much thought into the concept. Funny thing is, you're really falling for this whole "I'm someone else" thing - hook, line and sinker, aren't you?

Your logic is hilarious - going by the amount of time you dedicate to this board, I can only assume you're going to be severely embarrassed when you realise I am not subrosian, or anyone else on this forum.

Do I take this as the admition you cannot address my points? Or for that matter, anyone elses?”

(8 minute differential)
sbfriends; 4:19 AM.

“Ignorance will not save you, nor your argument :)

Ironically the more you try to discredit me, the more people see you, and your argument for what it was. Funny how you'd rather chase after two people than address the issues you yourself originally brought up. I can only assume you only ever intended to start a flamewar.

Furthemore, I assert that you are subrosian. That is fact. (wow I can do it too! Facts are fun!)”

(12 minute differential)
sbfriends; 4:31 AM.

“Uhh what? If this was a court of law, your argument would have been thrown out along time a go for pure stupidity. I wouldn't need an alibi because they wouldn't be relying on evidence as weak as activity logs. They would simply do an IP check and go "hey wow, he's in two places at once!" - of course you'd probably appeal, claiming the court, judge and jury were all in on some mass conspiracy to discredit you, but that really isn't that hard - more something you do yourself ;)

You ask where support against your argument went. I'm surprised you can't see yourself - when you derail a thread, people typically stop arguing a point, because you've pushed the argument back so many pages and typically many people skip to the end. But I'll give you someone to address - Blackbond has been actually staying on topic. Why don't you give him a go?

Or, alternatively you can try addressing my own post. Or hey - get a mod in and get them to check, what do I care? Pity you're too deluded to stay on track, you might even have applied some of that logic you pride yourself on.

Y'know I do believe I asked you why would I bother logging in/out and why wouldn't I just have two windows opened - now it seems to be what you're using. You really should have given it more thought before you started to make accusations - just goes to show you decided it was fact before you worked out how, or developed any form of reasoning.

You are indeed deluded, it's not "fact" I'm anyone on this board, and if you accept circumstantial "evidence" as proof enough I'm someone I quite clearly am not, then it's not hard to see how you could create such a pathetic thread. You can keep ignoring the original point - people reading certainly won't forget it ;)

And please, "if the time fits" is not, by any standard, any rational court of law, proof of anything. Sure, it might help if you had two identical IP's - but you've got nothing. And how can I be subrosian when I've already made it fact that you are?”

(16 minute differential)
sbfriends; 2:47 AM.

“Eegads! Master of activity reports can't even see he has been on infrequently! You know him better than I yet I can still see this.

Oh wait - apparently he has to get the last word in - I feel sorry for whoever posts last on this thread. I guess THEY are subrosian! No wait, they can't be, I've already decided you are. Again, that's fact I decided earlier. Sorry.

People have to be held accountable for stupidity - I guess there's just a lot to account for with Amy.”

(3 minute differential)
sbfriends; 2:50 AM.

“For the sake of bringing this thread back on topic.”

(8 minute differential)
sbfriends; 2:58 AM.

“2. It isn't defensive. But I've read enough to know how ignorant she can be.

3. If she's going to make claims, she might want to do research regarding the topic at hand. Or simply accept that people know more than she does, and accept when she made a false-claim (or pointless thread).

4. Saying logic escapes her is not a personal attack if it does. And guess what? It sure looks like it. Then it becomes more of an observation.

5. No.

Now, if you want to talk about this stuff, feel free to PM me, but otherwise there's a topic at hand...“

All rights reserved. This document may not be copied, distributed, and/or modified under any circumstances except for personal, private use. It may not be placed on any web site or otherwise distributed publicly without advance written permission. Use of this document on any other web site or as a part of any public display is strictly prohibited, and a violation of copyright.

Shine Aqua Illusion