(Side-Note)
It's actually funny that all this is coming from Tom doing a harsh review, since that's how Brad and Tom came to know one another.
Tom did a critical review of 'Entrepenuer' (an early Stardock Entertainment title) a few years back, pointing out some flaws in the game that Brad didn't notice. Taking these flaws seriously, Brad went to Tom to get serious feedback from a reviewer that had obviously played the game, so the next time around those flaws could be properly resolved.
(End Side-Note)
Anyways, I can't possibly shed any new light on the matter, but here's an analogy that sums up my views on this...
-Movie Critic 'Billy McDoodle' (not a real critic, I know) get's a bit cameo in a comedy movie "Fun Times 3"
-"Fun Times 3" does well, and the critic and the production house go seperate ways
-Going back to his real job, Billy writes a negative review of another comedy that comes out 6 months later "Silly Willy 2"
-creators of "Silly Willy 2" cry foul since Billy was in a competing movie
Now, I'm neck deep in the sausage factory over here, so I understand that an outside gamer would see my view as inapplicable. But, as a gamer, I can see the difference between a bit part and a leading role.
I met Tom, I think he's nice guy (despite some negative reviews he may have given to games I like), but him writing the manual, as a contractor, in no way links him to the sucess of the product, nor to the failure of other 4x strategy games. His was a bit part, while us in the office (the onces responding to you) were the ones that have the vested interest.
So please, can't we live in an internet where both "Fun Times 3" and "Silly Willy 2" exist, both with their nay-sayers, without conspericy theories running amok 