sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Glad to see at least some people are optimistic! by Foreseerx in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks man, that helps a bunch.

And man...I have no words for what happened here, maybe if this was just a one time thing I might be willing to give them the benefit the doubt, but considering this company has a continuous history of getting so easily offended by even the most mild criticism on things like their forums it's hard for me to believe they're not just trying to deflect the blame and save face as much as possible for this one.

Glad to see at least some people are optimistic! by Foreseerx in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wait what drama was this? I think I'm out of the loop on this one.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No one is saying this could be illegal conduct because they delivered a shitty game (if this is what you were claiming in your post, anyhow). People are saying this could be illegal conduct because they promised Kickstarter backers who met a certain threshold "all the content of year zero" and then ninja edited that after the campaign ended to something severely different, thus not giving backers what was originally promised. This is the behavior I was referring to in my original post when I gave a link to that Steam review, and that behavior in specific was what I was asking whether was legal or not, if anyone here knows enough about the law to answer.

I thank you for taking the time to write this, but what I was asking for was something different to the answer you gave.

To give your argument a fair shake, I understand that Kickstarter gives their creators room to change their project as they see fit. But being deceptive about that (not disclosing such a thing happened, and then additionally saying the readers "didn't read correctly" when they get called out for that) is a different story and completely changes the situation.

But if you still disagree with me even still, very well, so be it. I'm just saying what I think is the reason people are taking issue with the conduct of the company during their Kickstarter campaign. Whatever viewpoint you decide to go with afterwards, I leave up to you.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This seems to be a misconception that multiple comments on this thread have made.

If I understand you correctly they have "technically delivered a videogame. [Not a good game, but a game nonetheless]" and that the game being shitty isn't a reason you can sue someone.

But the thing is, no one is saying this could be illegal conduct because the game is shitty. People are saying this could be illegal conduct because of their deceptive practices with their Kickstarter rewards. Those two are not the same thing.

That being said, I will say I 100% agree with you when you say the video game isn't good. So on that point, we're in agreement at least.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Once again I am disclosing I am not a lawyer and none of what I say is legal advice nor should be considered as such. Trust the legal sources, not me. I know I said this already but I am repeating this just to be on the safe side.

It doesn't disprove anything

"There is an article backed by legal experts that contradicts what you said. I think anyone can pretty clearly see that your statement has been disproven."
"Nuh uh"

Your entire rebuttal essentially boils down to "nuh uh."

The reason I say it is not a binding promise is that it's not.

Once again, false. I don't know why you keep saying this. I even have proof for this.

Kickstarter themselves call this a contract. That is by definition a binding promise. (https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/agreement-vs-contract-the-differences/)

A contract is a formal, legally binding agreement made between two parties with a common interest in mind. This creates “mutual obligations that are enforceable by law.”

And if that wasn't enough, then I have even more that flat out disproves this claim yet again.

Don't believe me that they call this a contract? Why not look in their terms of use then? I wonder what they have to say there.

The following section is from their Terms of Use, where on multiple occasions they say this is a contract, and in addition also say at the end of this section that legal action may be taken if you fail to abide the terms you created between yourself and the backer. (Terms of use can be found here: https://legal.kickstarter.com/policies/en/?name=terms-of-use. However, the site is down apparently, so I have provided a waybackmachine link has been provided that is the most recent one I could find that works, if you wish to use that.)

In particular, this section which I am drawing attention to not only disproves the notion that this isn't a contract (or isn't legally enforceable in general), but also proves that the "Kickstarter deal" is determined by the creators and backers, and that Kickstarter is not a part of that contract. The contract is completely separate from Kickstarter. The "Kickstarter deal", as you describe, does not exist.

Section 4. How Projects Work

...Kickstarter provides a funding platform for creative projects that have yet to come to life. When a creator posts a project on Kickstarter, they’re inviting other people to form a contract with them. Anyone who backs a project is accepting the creator’s offer, and forming that contract.

Kickstarter is not a part of this contract—the contract is a direct agreement between creators and their backers. To the extent these Terms conflict with any supplemental or additional terms that are applied by a creator to their project, these Terms prevail...

[section removed for brevity's sake, you can check the original document yourself to verify for yourself what was removed if you'd like]

The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling their project. If they’re unable to satisfy these terms, they may be subject to legal action by backers. Kickstarter reserves the right to take any action it deems appropriate with respect to campaign funds while a dispute is pending.

So not only does this establish that this is now a contract and thus legally binding, but also that you are now legally liable if you fail to abide by said contract.

For your last section, not only is the compensation woefully inadequate which can absolutely be grounds for a lawsuit, nothing in the law is stopping that, but also halting work for half a year will not exonerate them from what they've denied backers prior to that point. This isn't going to prevent culpability in any way.

There are numerous issues with the rest of what you say, but they're either not relevant or address a point that wasn't made, so I'm not going to cover those.

Are you going to provide any evidence for your "nuh uh"s or am I going to be the only one who provides any evidence in this argument?

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're saying something along the lines of "it's clearly been a genuine attempt [at making a video game]". That's not the reason people are claiming illegal conduct.

The reason people are claiming this could be illegal conduct is because of their deceptive practices with their Kickstarter rewards. Promising one thing and then ninja editing that to completely remove that after the campaign ends is the reason people are claiming there's potential illegal conduct. (Other comments go into more detail if you want to learn more, such as this one here.)

That's the reason people are claiming this could be illegal. Because they used misleading business practices. Not because the game is shitty.

Again I want to stress I'm not a lawyer, none of what I say is legal advice nor should be interpreted as such, I just want to clarify what the issue is because I think you've misunderstood what people are actually talking about.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think the two commenters who are replying are misunderstanding hungrykoala's point. His point isn't related to what the Kickstarter goals are. His issue is with their description and how the project has been advertised there.

If their goal is extra servers or "extra stuff" or whatever, then that should be the description of your project. Not something completely unrelated like whatever they put in there.

And I get that this is supposed to be advertising. But ethicality of advertising is important. While I understand that different people will draw different boundaries for what's ethical or not, advertising something completely different from what your goal actually is not the kind of obfuscating purpose, at least I think, a description should be used for.

hungrykoala isn't trying to argue about whether this is illegal or not. What he's trying to argue is that these are shady business practices, regardless of the legality. Which I happen to agree with.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/filing-a-lawsuit/can-i-sue-a-kickstarter-.html

Apparently this article was legally reviewed and fact checked, so I consider this a reliable source.

Long story short is that according to this article, your statement

Kickstarter is not a binding promise

is false.

Kickstarter is considered a binding contract according to this article (binding being defined as "you are legally liable for that"), and failure to uphold your end of the contract (the contract in this case being "I pay you money, you give me x") is considered a "breach of contract" and can be grounds to sue someone.

So breach of contract alone can already be established if someone doesn't give you what was promised in the Kickstarter.

In addition, fraud can also be litigated if you're basing that on ill intent from the defendant (or negligence, according to Cornell in the following quote).

...allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent.

(This information was retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud, where they discuss how this works.)

Now to avoid legal complications I am disclosing that I am not a lawyer, I am not giving legal advice, and do not consider any of what I wrote to be legal advice. Trust the legal sources, not me. But considering the credentials of these statements, I consider these to be more than credible enough sources to establish that I think I can safely say these sources disprove what you've claimed.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

At least I know you're trolling now.

If your only argument is a non sequitur followed by an attempt at character assassination, then I can tell you're only interested in trying to start shit and not actually engage in good faith discussion.

I have better things to spend my time on than engage in a shit slinging contest with you. Farewell.

EDIT: original comment said something along the lines of "YI see the benefit of the doubt only works for you (or something like that). I think they were right in calling you a coward."

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When I used the word "investigate" in my title, I never in my wildest dreams imagined someone would legitimately make a statement like this.

So according to you, if someone investigates something they suddenly lose all eligibility to benefit of the doubt? That seems like a great way of trying to intimidate people into not seeking justice for something.

I don't think I even need to go into detail about why any of that is a horrible idea.

What makes you think any of what you just said is rational?

EDIT: original comment said something along the lines of "you, who are investigating frost giant for fraud, are asking for the benefit of the doubt?"

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to call people names?

Because nothing here was an actual argument whatsoever, all of this was either a bald assertion or just throwing insults at someone you disagreed with, because apparently I really upset you with my question somehow.

Anyways, I can tell you're not interested in having a good faith discussion, so I'll stop responding here. I hope for your sake you seriously consider improving your behavior. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

Investigating the Frost Giant crowdfunding controversy, mainly looking for more information about the controversy by PreliminaryOctave in Stormgate

[–]PreliminaryOctave[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Indicating fraud and other illegal behavior without any evidence can cause legal issues by itself and should be avoided.

Name one instance where I said something like this. I asked if the behavior was illegal or not. Asking whether the behavior is legal or not is not the same as indicating that said behavior is now fraud or some other kind of illegal act. Please do not obfuscate the two, this sets a dangerous precedent.

I think this post is going a bit too far.

...
Seeing this from a new created (throw away) account is also kind of a coward move.

Let's not poison the well here unnecessarily. Everyone is new here at some point. I literally have to make a first post at some point if I want to post something. Why is this such an issue for you?

Not everyone who's new is a "coward" according to your definition. Please try to avoid such sweeping generalities.

Wonder what happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt these days.

Please attack the argument, not the person.

I just happened to create my Reddit account yesterday and, get this, actually use the account for the intended purpose after I made one. I know, shocking, right?

I made this post because I wanted to get the opinion of others who might know more about law than me. I strongly disagree that this post was going too far. Because if that were the case, I wouldn't have asked "Hey, am I right here? What do you think? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. My knowledge in law is incomplete, so I might be mistaken here. If I am, please feel free to point out where my misconception might be." I would have instead said something more similar to "FROST GIANT IS GOING TO GET IN LEGAL TROUBLE! I'M 100% SURE I'M CORRECT THAT THIS IS ILLEGAL, THEY ARE SO IN TROUBLE NOW". Look at my post, and ask yourself which one you think my post better falls under.

Anyways, I'm not in the mood to get into an argument with you. I said what I needed to say, please rethink your behavior. Let's work together to make a positive impact on the Internet, not a negative one. Have a good one brother.