I dont think they are dishonest, I just think they are not competent. and when I say 'they' I really mean the project management of Chris Roberts.
Actually I think thinking they are planning on this is actually giving them more credit then I am when you think about it.
How is Roberts not competent? He has proven himself to be a capable, competent developer period. The majority of info of wrong doing from CSI comes from DS and his "inside sources" which many times have been proven to just be straight up lies and slander.
Just judging Roberts on his career, he is totally capable of producing a game on this scale. While judging DS from his career he knows little of what a good game is, let alone how to market or make one successful.
Just not too sure why people question Roberts management ability when he has decades proving he can do it fine.
why do I get the feeling that you are actually an alternate account belonging to someone else.
Roberts (on this project) is not even a developer, he is at best the project manager and he is not competent as such because he literally never makes any deadline at all whatsoever.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
.... Because they refuse to do this they will always have people who don't believe they have been honest.
Regardless of what CIG do, they will always "have people who don't believe they have been honest".
It's very obvious that many of the participants in SC discussions have already made up their minds regarding the guilt of CIG. They will only accept one verdict, anything else will be rejected as a lie, a cover-up, corporate shenanigans, evidence of the Illuminati, etc.
The criticism will never end, regardless of the outcome of the project.
No matter how good the final product, the serial-critics will dismiss it as "nowhere near what they should have done with $113M budget..."
That is not a logical answer at all. People are accusing me of mishandling funds so I refuse to show them the books because they won't believe it anyways. What a load of crap.... If the books are in order then they have nothing to fear and a lot to gain. The only logical answer is they mishandled funds so they don't want people to know meanwhile they keep spinning the stories and collecting more money and in the end they got a game but the whole time they had to lie and cheat to accomplish it. Yet we will never know if that is true because you won't see the financials that can solve the problem. And it isn't even against the law is the bad part.
.... Because they refuse to do this they will always have people who don't believe they have been honest.
Regardless of what CIG do, they will always "have people who don't believe they have been honest".
It's very obvious that many of the participants in SC discussions have already made up their minds regarding the guilt of CIG. They will only accept one verdict, anything else will be rejected as a lie, a cover-up, corporate shenanigans, evidence of the Illuminati, etc.
The criticism will never end, regardless of the outcome of the project.
No matter how good the final product, the serial-critics will dismiss it as "nowhere near what they should have done with $113M budget..."
That is not a logical answer at all. People are accusing me of mishandling funds so I refuse to show them the books because they won't believe it anyways. What a load of crap.... If the books are in order then they have nothing to fear and a lot to gain. The only logical answer is they mishandled funds so they don't want people to know meanwhile they keep spinning the stories and collecting more money and in the end they got a game but the whole time they had to lie and cheat to accomplish it. Yet we will never know if that is true because you won't see the financials that can solve the problem. And it isn't even against the law is the bad part.
yeah i dont agree with that.
what is to be gain exactly by either side with a 'close inspection of the books'. besides...to be completely blunt about this they HAVE to keep clean 'book' for the IRS, not that its not possible to hide money but it has to be on an Enron kinda level.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
suicide is selfish and cowardly..Its for weak people that honestly shouldnt be here in the first place. Weak people make us all weaker because we have to design societies to account for their incompetence and selfish demands (looking at you LGBT).
...and you dare lecture us on how an adult behaves...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
(very) Basic rules of project management - if you have deadline X you need resources (money and staff) Y in order to release deliverable Z.
If you change/expand Z, you have to change X (delay) and/or Y (crunch.)
They have thus far expanded X and Y and Z drastically multiple times over.
CS is the very example of scope creep and bad project management.
and on this I agree.
That doesnt however make them evil doers that kill babies and put the heads on the spikes nor does it even mean they are not good technically. it just means they are terrible at planning, just like my ma
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The real fault lies with how crowdfunding is currently run, something that is publicly funded (or a set % is publicly funded) should have it's costs/accounts publicly available.
There's been a few crowdfunding projects that have raised money only for the person/company wasting the money on strippers and parties.
I personally, without any any information to back up my opinion, other than personal knowledge of starting/creating companies, think you'll find that alot of money has been wasted by CIG, mainly in creating so many studios, most crowdfunding projects seem to ask for money then make the project with the people they have, recruiting to expand their team depending on funds or as needed.
Only time will tell, and tbh Star Citizen has 2 paths now, succeed and prove the detractors wrong and also prove that massively crowdfunded enterprises can succeed or crash and burn in a spectacular fashion.
Personally I hope they succeed.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
So this thread was created by SC supporters to attack someone else who has a different opinion than them......hmmm
To be fair that's all that guy does for the most part anyway... I don't think he has posted here once without attacking fans of this project. Most of the names he uses for SC fans are pretty much offenses that would get a ban or jailed avatar so I won't repeat them.
Sure one could argue 2 wrongs don't make a right, but this is the internet after all..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The real fault lies with how crowdfunding is currently run, something that is publicly funded (or a set % is publicly funded) should have it's costs/accounts publicly available.
There's been a few crowdfunding projects that have raised money only for the person/company wasting the money on strippers and parties.
I personally, without any any information to back up my opinion, other than personal knowledge of starting/creating companies, think you'll find that alot of money has been wasted by CIG, mainly in creating so many studios, most crowdfunding projects seem to ask for money then make the project with the people they have, recruiting to expand their team depending on funds or as needed.
Only time will tell, and tbh Star Citizen has 2 paths now, succeed and prove the detractors wrong and also prove that massively crowdfunded enterprises can succeed or crash and burn in a spectacular fashion.
Personally I hope they succeed.
I dont agree. and not on logic because your logic makes sense but rather on net output.
I think overall Kickstarter has been an overwhelming success to society as a whole and trying to fix something that is for the most part not broken is rather dangerous. I would hate to be the guy with great intentions to make something great even better and then do neither and end up making it worse.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just to be fair, a prospectus is specifically related to investments, which crowdfunding is not. It's a pledge, which is giving money in good faith that something will be completed. However, if you went to CIG with $10 million, I'm sure they would provide you with a prospectus.
If you really wanted to be fair you wouldn't be attempting to make a differentiation between "investing" and "pledging." In this case that would just be looked at as in a play on word semantics since whether you want to readily admit it or not, the premise is the same. The only difference is whereas in a stock purchase the contributor is expecting financial gain in return, in this case the contributor is expecting a game in return.
What you are doing is making some type of correlation between "donating" and "pledging." The contributors in this instance are not providing a "donation" without an expectation of return. They are "pledging" with a clear expectation of getting a return for that "pledge." That is more accurately deemed an "investment," not a pledge. And if you don't believe that, then watch as all hell breaks loose if no game is released, or even yet, if a shabby game is released that is not consistent with the amount of money "pledged" on this project.
Just to be fair, a prospectus is specifically related to investments, which crowdfunding is not. It's a pledge, which is giving money in good faith that something will be completed. However, if you went to CIG with $10 million, I'm sure they would provide you with a prospectus.
If you really wanted to be fair you wouldn't be attempting to make a differentiation between "investing" and "pledging." .....
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Unless they have something to hide, why wouldn't it?
Edward Snowden:
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you
have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about
free speech because you have nothing to say"
They don't need a detailed explanation of their inner workings. No company gives every single detail about their workings even to shareholders. They do however give a yearly account of what money was spent and what department took that money and how much money is left over and how much money was made. The fact that they have refused to release financials is a big red flag and gives them way too much room to take advantage. If they were honest then they have abosutely nothing to lose. You put CIG in a position where they are not accountable and they clearly are not going to be. At least Blizzard is accountable and all other major gaming companies are also accountable. CIG has zero accountability and probably never will. So if they are doing this with the little power that they have what will they do when they get the game running and start making billions?
A privately held company is a privately held company, of course they're not going to release those things, no private company does unless ordered to in an investigation.
As for there being no accountability, that's what lawsuits, fraud investigation etc.. are for are they not? Even small projects that have brought in .01 (random number chosen) percent of what SC has, have been investigated in cases of crowdfunding failure, why would the case be any different here?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Just to be fair, a prospectus is specifically related to investments, which crowdfunding is not. It's a pledge, which is giving money in good faith that something will be completed. However, if you went to CIG with $10 million, I'm sure they would provide you with a prospectus.
If you really wanted to be fair you wouldn't be attempting to make a differentiation between "investing" and "pledging." .....
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most certainly agree there is a difference. If used in their proper contexts. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a "pledge," is in fact an "investment," and not a "donation" as they are making it seem to mean. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
Just to be fair, a prospectus is specifically related to investments, which crowdfunding is not. It's a pledge, which is giving money in good faith that something will be completed. However, if you went to CIG with $10 million, I'm sure they would provide you with a prospectus.
If you really wanted to be fair you wouldn't be attempting to make a differentiation between "investing" and "pledging." .....
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most definitely agree there is a difference. If used to describe something accurately. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a pledge, is in fact an investment. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
no...absolutely not no. its not an investment. sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What you are doing is making some type of correlation between "donating" and "pledging." The contributors in this instance are not providing a "donation" without an expectation of return. They are "pledging" with a clear expectation of getting a return for that "pledge." That is more accurately deemed an "investment," not a pledge. And if you don't believe that, then watch as all hell breaks loose if no game is released, or even yet, if a shabby game is released that is not consistent with the amount of money "pledged" on this project.
Why all this fuss and bother about retrospectively trying to re-define the conditions of a Kickstarter, or in this case, a private funding campaign ?
It's irrelevant, really, the eventual outcome is the same.
If you invest in a company's shares, and that company goes bankrupt due to bad business decisions or bad planning, the CEO of that company doesn't go to jail. You don't get a "refund" on your investment money.
If a KS-funded game project runs out of money before it produces a game, there can be no refunds. You cannot demand that the managers go to jail because they are "incompetent in business" or because (in your opinion) they "wasted money".
How do you suggest punishing somebody for "overestimating their abilities" ?
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most definitely agree there is a difference. If used to describe something accurately. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a pledge, is in fact an investment. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
no...absolutely not no. its not an investment. sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most definitely agree there is a difference. If used to describe something accurately. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a pledge, is in fact an investment. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
no...absolutely not no. its not an investment. sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
by the definitions you have given its not an fucking investment.
stop it, the 'investment' angle is stupid.
if you tried that shit on wallstreet they likely would beat the shit out of you calling The Market a 'pledge'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
You left some parts of those definitions out..
For instance a donation can also be C: a free contribution
or other meanings of Pledge -
a serious promise or agreement
: a promise to give money
As far as KS goes, I'd say a pledge fits (which is what they call it as well).. As it's a promise to give that money at the end of the KS campaign..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
You left some parts of those definitions out..
For instance a donation can also be C: a free contribution
or other meanings of Pledge -
a serious promise or agreement
: a promise to give money
aka basically a 'pledge' is my promise or agreement that I am giving you money. nothing has to be returned for that
Simple Definition of pledge
: a serious promise or agreement
: a promise to give money
: something that you leave with another person as a way to show that you will keep your promise
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I never understood on SC why people insist on taking the most difficult most bizzare most non-obvious path to criticism when there is a painfully clear path to criticism that doesn't make one look like a fanatic.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most definitely agree there is a difference. If used to describe something accurately. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a pledge, is in fact an investment. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
no...absolutely not no. its not an investment. sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
by the definitions you have given its not an fucking investment.
stop it, the 'investment' angle is stupid.
if you tried that shit on wallstreet they likely would beat the shit out of you calling The Market a 'pledge'
Calm down dude. Your frustrations at being wrong are evident by your hostile response. The definitions are there for all to see. No one said this was a wall street investment. We all know SC isn't selling stocks. They are also not a church asking for a pledge. Point being, what the contributors of funds are doing in this case most closely resemble an "investment," and not a "pledge" nor a "donation." A pledge and/or a donation are not offered with an expectation of return. An investment is. Clearly the "contributors" in this case are expecting a return, hence it is most accurately described as an "investment," not a "pledge" nor a "donation."
ok I had to stop right there because there is most certiantly a difference between those two words in the context of this conversation
I most definitely agree there is a difference. If used to describe something accurately. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a pledge, is in fact an investment. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
no...absolutely not no. its not an investment. sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
I asked you to do a little research, yet you decide to double down on a wrong than do the right thing and do a little research.
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
by the definitions you have given its not an fucking investment.
stop it, the 'investment' angle is stupid.
if you tried that shit on wallstreet they likely would beat the shit out of you calling The Market a 'pledge'
Calm down dude. Your frustrations at being wrong are evident by your hostile response. The definitions are there for all to see. No one said this was a wall street investment. We all know SC isn't selling stocks. They are also not a church asking for a pledge. Point being, what the contributors of funds are doing in this case most closely resemble an "investment," and not a "pledge" nor a "donation." A pledge and/or a donation are not offered with an expectation of return. An investment is. Clearly the "contributors" in this case are expecting a return, hence it is most accurately described as an "investment," not a "pledge" not a "donation."
it may not be a donation I am not addressing that. I am telling you that its not an investment.
more over...who gives a fuck. let it go, there are plenty of reasons to criticize SC this one is a silly one
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I never understood on SC why people insist on taking the most difficult most bizzare most non-obvious path to criticism when there is a painfully clear path to criticism that doesn't make one look like a fanatic.
Bizarre is a pretty accurate word for your twisted stance on this matter.
Comments
Roberts (on this project) is not even a developer, he is at best the project manager and he is not competent as such because he literally never makes any deadline at all whatsoever.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
what is to be gain exactly by either side with a 'close inspection of the books'.
besides...to be completely blunt about this they HAVE to keep clean 'book' for the IRS, not that its not possible to hide money but it has to be on an Enron kinda level.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you change/expand Z, you have to change X (delay) and/or Y (crunch.)
They have thus far expanded X and Y and Z drastically multiple times over.
CS is the very example of scope creep and bad project management.
...and you dare lecture us on how an adult behaves...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
That doesnt however make them evil doers that kill babies and put the heads on the spikes nor does it even mean they are not good technically. it just means they are terrible at planning, just like my ma
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There's been a few crowdfunding projects that have raised money only for the person/company wasting the money on strippers and parties.
I personally, without any any information to back up my opinion, other than personal knowledge of starting/creating companies, think you'll find that alot of money has been wasted by CIG, mainly in creating so many studios, most crowdfunding projects seem to ask for money then make the project with the people they have, recruiting to expand their team depending on funds or as needed.
Only time will tell, and tbh Star Citizen has 2 paths now, succeed and prove the detractors wrong and also prove that massively crowdfunded enterprises can succeed or crash and burn in a spectacular fashion.
Personally I hope they succeed.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Have fun
Sure one could argue 2 wrongs don't make a right, but this is the internet after all..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think overall Kickstarter has been an overwhelming success to society as a whole and trying to fix something that is for the most part not broken is rather dangerous. I would hate to be the guy with great intentions to make something great even better and then do neither and end up making it worse.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you really wanted to be fair you wouldn't be attempting to make a differentiation between "investing" and "pledging." In this case that would just be looked at as in a play on word semantics since whether you want to readily admit it or not, the premise is the same. The only difference is whereas in a stock purchase the contributor is expecting financial gain in return, in this case the contributor is expecting a game in return.
What you are doing is making some type of correlation between "donating" and "pledging." The contributors in this instance are not providing a "donation" without an expectation of return. They are "pledging" with a clear expectation of getting a return for that "pledge." That is more accurately deemed an "investment," not a pledge. And if you don't believe that, then watch as all hell breaks loose if no game is released, or even yet, if a shabby game is released that is not consistent with the amount of money "pledged" on this project.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Have fun
As for there being no accountability, that's what lawsuits, fraud investigation etc.. are for are they not? Even small projects that have brought in .01 (random number chosen) percent of what SC has, have been investigated in cases of crowdfunding failure, why would the case be any different here?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I most certainly agree there is a difference. If used in their proper contexts. My point is that in this instance what they are describing as a "pledge," is in fact an "investment," and not a "donation" as they are making it seem to mean. I would copy/paste the definition of the three words in this post to make the point. However, I do not think it necessary as I believe everyone in this thread is smart enough to know the difference, or at least adult and capable enough to research the difference themselves.
sorry...no.
In fact its called a pledge for a reason. a Kickstarter is NOT a promise, its an intent.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's irrelevant, really, the eventual outcome is the same.
If you invest in a company's shares, and that company goes bankrupt due to bad business decisions or bad planning, the CEO of that company doesn't go to jail. You don't get a "refund" on your investment money.
If a KS-funded game project runs out of money before it produces a game, there can be no refunds. You cannot demand that the managers go to jail because they are "incompetent in business" or because (in your opinion) they "wasted money".
How do you suggest punishing somebody for "overestimating their abilities" ?
Donation = something that is given to charity, especially a sum of money.
Pledge = a solemn promise or undertaking. Given as security on a loan. A thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.
Investiment = the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Which on of the above, pray tell, most closely describes the contribution by people in the SC scenario. Just because they opt to call it a "pledge" for their own benefit does not make it so.
stop it, the 'investment' angle is stupid.
if you tried that shit on wallstreet they likely would beat the shit out of you calling The Market a 'pledge'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For instance a donation can also be C: a free contribution
or other meanings of Pledge -
a serious promise or agreement
: a promise to give money
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Simple Definition of pledge
: a serious promise or agreement
: a promise to give money
: something that you leave with another person as a way to show that you will keep your promise
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Calm down dude. Your frustrations at being wrong are evident by your hostile response. The definitions are there for all to see. No one said this was a wall street investment. We all know SC isn't selling stocks. They are also not a church asking for a pledge. Point being, what the contributors of funds are doing in this case most closely resemble an "investment," and not a "pledge" nor a "donation." A pledge and/or a donation are not offered with an expectation of return. An investment is. Clearly the "contributors" in this case are expecting a return, hence it is most accurately described as an "investment," not a "pledge" nor a "donation."
more over...who gives a fuck. let it go, there are plenty of reasons to criticize SC this one is a silly one
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Bizarre is a pretty accurate word for your twisted stance on this matter.