Kickstarter refuses to email backers of a zombie to tell them it's a zombie, but will email to lie about it going right on ahead
-
Then he'd have given the money back, right?
You'd certainly think. Unless it was already spent. One thing I've read from people who use KS to fund a print run of the book of a webcomic is that if you haven't done it before, it's easy to drastically underestimate, in particular, shipping costs, both to get the books from China, and then broken out and shipped off to all the backers.
There's not really an excuse for it, but it's happened a bunch. I think that's what happened with the guy I mentioned below. All I know of the story is JWZ mentioning it on his blog a while back.
Right, and that guy's a complete asshole. Are you suggesting that is acceptable behavior?
He absolutely is, and I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. It seems like more of these failures end with the project person slinking away in presumed shame, as opposed to giving all the backers an explicity "fuck you". My point there, I think, was that even though this guy wound up snapping over stress or whatever, he at least didn't go into it planning on defrauding people.
I haven't followed the Goblins KS debacle other than to read Tarol's blog posts.
-
@locallunatic said:
There is no (legal) guarantee of any output whatsoever.
Ugh. I just don't understand all of this crap, and how it is a thing.
I may have been mistaken on that as according to blakey:Kickstarter's terms of service require campaign runners to deliver any rewards they promise.
So maybe there is something there, but normally I back things cause I think it would be cool if they are made or have developed some trust in the creator. So yeah things may not go as planned and I may not get things, but so long as you don't treat it as preordering something it doesn't bite you in the ass.
-
Which is what happens when you hand a shitload of money to someone who has not idea how to run a business. He did not account for shipping in his calculations??
Beats me. Ignorance, I (charitably) assume. People fuck that kind of shit up all the time in the real world, right, or "we'll fix your business" reality TV wouldn't be a thing.
You think crowdfunding is a horrible idea, but I don't see it as any different from someone starting a restaurant and not knowing how to run a business, and failing after 6 months or whatever. I mean, if you think people shouldn't be crowdfunding, then we shouldn't really let just any old idiot try to open a business, either, because it's the same principle.
-
It doesn't matter, we're talking about personal reputation here: he said he'd ship them. If he was out of money, well, tough shit, but you fucking promised and if you need to go into debt to make good on that promise, than so be it! You don't just renege on a promise.
Indeed. And Tarol is trying to complete and ship the Goblins game. But Kickstarter's going out of their way to be unhelpful, by not giving him access to the backer list[1], and by emails like the one mentioned in OP.
Everyone doing crowdfunding from now on needs to make sure that everyone who is important has access to the administrative interface. If Tarol were able to log into the KS, it would be a lot easier to try to make things right for the backers.
(Hmm...it just occurred to me, I wonder if his breakdown or whatever was related to the KS.)
-
See, I'm fine with scamming in Eve, because it's all pixels. Real life however... unacceptable.
-
I just don't understand all of this crap, and how it is a thing.
What happens if a VC backs a company and the company never successfully produces a product? Isn't it kind of expected that most VC-backed projects fail, but people keep backing them because they know winners have the potential to make 'em a lot of money?
We don't (I assume) go after the people behind the company if they fail, not because of fraud, right?
-
Does anyone have a link to where the guy said he was going to burn the copies of anyone who bothered him? I want to see it out of morbid curiosity.
Kickstarter Fail: Artist Raises $51K to Publish Books, Burns Them in Alley
Wicker Park artist John Campbell said he ran out of money to ship books to donors, so he torched them.
-
I mean, he can get access to that stuff, it's just going to cost him the money to file suit against the person who ran the campaign and to issue a subpoena to Kickstarted
-
What if they're scamming PLEX, AUR, or time codes? Those have real life value and real life money was directly used to get them
-
You think crowdfunding is a horrible idea
Meh, not really. I think it is a stupid idea.
but I don't see it as any different from someone starting a restaurant and not knowing how to run a business, and failing after 6 months or whatever.
It isn't any different. Just because a person can make great food does not mean that they can run a business selling great food. Doing something really well, and running a business that does that something are completely different skill sets.
if you think people shouldn't be crowdfunding
I don't really care if people crowdfund something. I just don't think they have right to be surprised or outraged when it all goes to shit. They are handing a crapload of money to someone who has no idea how to handle that money. Just as lottery winners are disproportionately more likely to end up bankrupt, people who have no clue how to run a business are more likely to piss all the money away before completing their goals.
-
What happens if a VC backs a company and the company never successfully produces a product? Isn't it kind of expected that most VC-backed projects fail, but people keep backing them because they know winners have the potential to make 'em a lot of money?
We don't (I assume) go after the people behind the company if they fail, not because of fraud, right?
I feel like I am being baited here.
-
Timecodes have real life value. PLEX and AUR do not as they cannot be legitimately taken out of the game.
Asking someone to buy a PLEX with cash to give you ISK is strictly disallowed.
-
so long as you don't treat it as preordering something it doesn't bite you in the ass.
If you can look at it as, "I probably just pissed that money away, but it would be an added benefit if I got cool shit from it", then sure. But a lot of people don't. Just look at all the people who are pissing and moaning about those stupid cat ear headphones.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/axent-wear-cat-ear-headphones#comments
Nearly 2,000 comments. The most recent one when I went to the page is from a woman that was delusional enough to think that she would get them in time to be a xmas gift. These are not people with reasonable expectations.
When you signed up for Kickstarter, was there a big flashing screen that said, "YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO PISS YOUR MONEY AWAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE?" There probably should be. ;)
-
When you signed up for Kickstarter, was there a big flashing screen that said, "YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO PISS YOUR MONEY AWAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE?" There probably should be.
Not flashing, but read terms and yeah.
-
-
Fair enough. I've not seen many that actually back a bunch of projects (for sake of argument let's call them more informed users) bitching about things, but it could also be that I don't go looking for it.
-
I mean, he can get access to that stuff, it's just going to cost him the money to file suit against the person who ran the campaign and to issue a subpoena to Kickstarted
Of course if he had the money for that he wouldn't have needed a KS. And the guy may or may not have done a runner--I haven't paid enough attention to see if that's the case.
-
The comic writer isn't the one who ran the Kickstarter.
-
I just don't think they have right to be surprised or outraged when it all goes to shit.
Hah, yeah, I guess KS could theoretically do a better job of communicating that.
It seemed like you had some outrage specifically at the idea of internet crowdfunding.
-
I feel like I am being baited here.
Not really; I was trying to ascertain the envelope of your objection.
It appears not to be what I thought it was.
-
The comic writer isn't the one who ran the Kickstarter
I know. I'm saying that he should have been involved in the running of it, though. The game the KS was supposed to make was entirely based of the comic writer's IP.
If he could log into the KS project admin, he could've sent emails to all the backers telling them what's going on--and warning them not to go to the other guy's website and preorder the game, which it was still possible to do after he disappeared!
-
(for sake of argument let's call them more informed users)
In the investment world, there is a term and qualification that is deemed "sophisticated investor". Sophisticated investors are subject to income and wealth guidelines and are allowed to make very risky investments because they are deemed to have enough income or wealth to be able to withstand the hit of the high potential for loss. Sophisticated investors are more likely to know
they are getting themselves in to and should be less likely to call foul.One of the things that sophisticated investors are allowed to do is invest in pre-IPO companies. The riskiest form of investment. KS and IndieGoGo seem to me to be an end-run around these restrictions (not really, because you are not investing, you are pre-ordering, etc). Now, admittedly, in most cases you are going to lose at most a couple of hundred bucks so it doesn't matter. It also does not fall under the purview of the SEC as there is no promise of economic benefit to campaign funders. They just get a stupid pair of headphones.
But, if they want to be ethical, they should adequately let people know that they are pre-ordering a product that does not yet exist, from a person who has no fucking idea how to run a business, who has an idea that no one else wants to fund through conventional means.
-
Not really; I was trying to ascertain the envelope of your objection. It appears not to be what I thought it was.
@accalia uses VC to bait me sometimes, so I assumed you were also.
VC is a completely different animal to me, for sooooooo many reasons.
-
they should adequately let people know that they are pre-ordering a product that does not yet exist
Only if you are backing a project to print a book/game/product. There are other kinds of projects (art installations, charity like things) and Kickstarter does try to make clear that you are not pre-ordering anything even if the project says they will send you a copy. Note I signed up years ago so they may be less or more clear on this now, but wouldn't know.
But, if they want to be ethical, they should adequately let people know that they are pre-ordering a product that does not yet exist, from a person who has no fucking idea how to run a business, who has an idea that no one else wants to fund through conventional means.
Most project intros do talk about these things, but there are those that do gloss over it. (also note there are businesses that run Kickstarters as a combination pre-order/instead of a bank loan, but I think they should be put in a special category).
-
VC is a completely different animal to me, for sooooooo many reasons.
Elaboration time:
VC is: "You have a potentially great idea so we are going to provide the business support structure to help you get it to market. You will use our accountants, lawyers, marketing and possibly sales teams. We have a vested interest in getting your product or service to market so that we can get our money back and turn a profit. If this fails, we get all of your IP and your business assets."
Crowdfunding is: "I see a shiny object. I am going to throw money at it. If it fails, I can fuck off."
-
@accalia uses VC to bait me sometimes
well yeah..... you do have a huge button to press when it vomes to VC.
you've wised up and aren't taking the bait nearly so often though. ;-)
-
...and I have a blabbermouth fox to thank for that. ;)
-
well it was starting to get boring always being able to hit that button. is more fun if you're defending it.
;-)
-
They didn't. As I first pointed out they said in the standard copyright action email that they had to take the listing down, but that doing so doesn't prevent the project from moving forward.
You're whole argument revolves around the fact that.
The creator should still be able to move forward with the project (and send any unfulfilled rewards).
Is being interpreted by people as
The creator will move forward with the project (and send any unfulfilled rewards).
And that's not kickstarter's fault.
The problem with that argument is that you can be deceptive while telling the truth if you know how people interpret it.
The correct statement should be.
While the creator should still be able to move forward with the project (and send any unfulfilled rewards), we do not have confirmation whether or not this will occur.
-
When you signed up for Kickstarter, was there a big flashing screen that said, "YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO PISS YOUR MONEY AWAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE?" There probably should be.
Got any stats on that? Which was rhetorical towards you, but seriously, does anyone know of an analysis of kickstarters?
Did that dude make the potato salad?
-
The correct statement should be:
OK, I can see how that one is better phrased. Was having problems coming up with a way to phrase it that would apply equally to either case.
Got an error when trying to post this and then said that it was too close to something I posted, so sorry if doubled.
-
Crowdfunding is: "I see a shiny object. I am going to throw money at it. If it fails, I can fuck off."
It lowers the barrier to entry and the possibility of neat things. Obviously with risk that not everyone appreciates. I think that overall we're better off having it than not.
-
So maybe there is something there,
The point is, since it's part of Kickstarter's terms of service, and the campaign creator agreed to the terms of service, it's a breach of contract for the creator to not deliver and you can sue them in a civil court over it.
It would be nice if Kickstarter themselves had some kind of process for this. But at least they make it possible for backers to take action.
-
If you can look at it as, "I probably just pissed that money away, but it would be an added benefit if I got cool shit from it", then sure. But a lot of people don't.
Why would they, when companies like Pebble are flat-out using Kickstarter as their pre-order channel?
There's a gigantic mixed-message here.
When you signed up for Kickstarter, was there a big flashing screen that said, "YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO PISS YOUR MONEY AWAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE?" There probably should be.
I'd be ok with that.
-
Don't know if there is publicly available data on shipped or no. Generally you could ask backers if they got what was promised them, but there doesn't seem to be a good way to veritably track that. A anecdata point from me is 94 projects backed (less than a handful still running): one years late (though supposedly the book is being edited down now), two not enough taken in to cover shipping (one taken a loan to finish it, other supposedly doing it as money comes in to do it but haven't gotten mine), more than 50% late delivery, one runner.
EDIT: most are board games/comics/RPGs plus a couple tech and art things.
-
Got any stats on that?
#Yes, they got funded, but did they deliver?
Still waiting on your Kickstarter reward? Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Based on a sampling of projects in the Design and Technology categories3:
- Only 25% of projects delivered on time!
- According to Prof. Mollick’s model, after 8 months of delay, 75% of finished products (as opposed to give-aways like t-shirts) will have been delivered.
- The larger the project, the more likely it will be delayed and the longer it will be delayed.
-
OK, I can see how that one is better phrased.
There's also this ambiguity. I didn't notice this until I visited the page.
Because the project already ended successfully
"The project" is the funding project.
Kickstarter returns your funding if the project doesn't mean the funding goals.
However, the reader may infer that "the project" is the actual coding project, the final game product.
So, what Kickstarter is saying is that "we've already handed over your money to the creator because the funding level was met."
They need to clear up that ambiguity too.
They should have said.
Because the funding project already ended successfully
So what they have here is the creator of the game, having the IP to the game. And the creator of the concept IP, having the IP to the story and characters and such. Have a disagreement.
That disagreement being the creator of the game having bailed.
But Kickstarter has labeled this an IP disagreement, because they could get away with doing so.
So, not only do they have two ambiguous statements, the very basis for the reason is deceptive.
-
Did that dude make the potato salad?
As a matter of fact, he did. One of the bloggers I read chipped in at the "I will read your name out loud" level, and posted a link into a Youtube video where his name was (supposedly) read. (I didn't bother listening, so it could have been an elaborate ruse.)
-
So what they have here is the creator of the game, having the IP to the game. And the creator of the concept IP, having the IP to the story and characters and such. Have a disagreement.
That disagreement being the creator of the game having bailed.
Not that this detracts from your point, but I don't think that's an entirely accurate summation of this particular instance.
-
I'm working backwards from the fact that KS says this is an IP disagreement.
They can show that the two partners own different aspects of the IP, and thus can twist it into an IP dispute, when it would be more like a failure to fulfill contract dispute.
But the first can give the impression that the dispute can be resolved. So I would say they purposefully chose this way to present the dispute.
-
Oh shit, right. The Pictures for Sad Children guy.
I am ashamed to admit I actually liked that jerkwad's comics. So glad I never gave him any money.
-
I'm working backwards from the fact that KS says this is an IP disagreement.
Fair enough. I think they're wrong, though. "Backer vanished with the money" isn't what I would call "an IP dispute".
-
So glad I never gave him any money.
I think it would be mildly entertaining if he got beat up a few times.
Oh, not horribly or anything--no kneecapping. Just a few people explaining their displeasure with fists.
-
We don't have enough information to know whether the IP disagreement is even relevant here. For all we know, it's from Marvel Comics based on a Google search for "Green Goblin".
The only reason it's "relevant" is that Kickstarter previously said it wasn't able to email all backers and it turns out-- OH WAIT they lied about that.
-
OH WAIT they lied about that.
and left the communication purposefully ambiguous as to make it seem that their removal wasn't hinged on the ability of the backer to produce the rewards.
Even if it were an IP disagreement, the fact of the matter is that even that WOULD hinder someone from producing awards.
KS is basically saying, project complete, we handed over money, our hands are clean.
Which in essence is true.
But they're doing it in a way to preserve their reputation.
Does the backer even have the list of contributors so he can inform them personally.
If not, this is a major act of negligence.
-
For all we know, it's from Marvel Comics based on a Google search for "Green Goblin".
Nope, it's from Tarol Hunt the comic's artist based on "is this the only fucking way I can get you shits to take this the hell down?"https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/goblins-alternate-realities-submitted-by-goblins
-
Now I know.
-
Wait, someone said he partnered with the game company,
But by this page, it seems to be the game company started this project that Tarol discovered and said, "No, he doesn't have the rights to do this."
Which is true?
-
Got any stats on that? Which was rhetorical towards you, but seriously, does anyone know of an analysis of kickstarters?
I would be interested to see them also, if they are out there. Just what percentage of them go to shit?
Did that dude make the potato salad?
The better question is, what sort of bullshit can I pop up on Kickstarter that would duplicate those results? That is what I want to know.
-
Wait, someone said he partnered with the game company,
He appeared in the intro video, so I hope to shit he partnered. Maybe he was at gunpoint.
*sweat dripping down forehead*
"As a famous creator of this web comic, I wholly endorse this collectible card ga--help me!-- game and I can say with confidence that my hands are NOT tied when it comes to supporting... no, I didn't say 'help me'. I said 'give money to the project.' Really, I--" *video cuts-off*
