Proof Intrepid Studio is breaking Kickstarter's rules and why they will probably get away with it

slagathore

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Slapshot1188

Hey I think there are a lot of legitimate concerns about the game... but this isn't one of them

Sovrath

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Is there a reason why they can't back their own projects?

It seems, given the project not only surpassed it's goal but has more than doubled it, that his backing is a mere drop in the bucket.

given the interest, and "yes" the amount of money, I think it would be a simple enough thing for kickstarter to just have him remove his paltry pledge.

Risc1911

Sovrath said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Is there a reason why they can't back their own projects?

It seems, given the project not only surpassed it's goal but has more than doubled it, that his backing is a mere drop in the bucket.

given the interest, and "yes" the amount of money, I think it would be a simple enough thing for kickstarter to just have him remove his paltry pledge.

Because that is how ponzi schemes operate. You make them look "profitable" to get more people to "invest" into them. It's basic scam 101 and is rightfully so not allowed on Kickstarter.

slagathore

This isn't about concerns of the game but of the company and CEO behind it. I think people need to see, especially backers, that the person using their money to lead a multi-million dollar project can't even abide by such a simple rule.

I'm sure Intrepid will see this and Steven will remove his pledge and say "I wasn't aware" so here it is for posterity's sake.

Sovrath

Risc1911 said:

Sovrath said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Is there a reason why they can't back their own projects?

It seems, given the project not only surpassed it's goal but has more than doubled it, that his backing is a mere drop in the bucket.

given the interest, and "yes" the amount of money, I think it would be a simple enough thing for kickstarter to just have him remove his paltry pledge.

Because that is how ponzi schemes operate. You make them look "profitable" to get more people to "invest" into them. It's basic scam 101 and is rightfully so not allowed on Kickstarter.

But wouldn't a true ponzi scheme be more opaque and people couldn't see who was backing them whereas in this case we know he has backed it?

Though I suppose the point does stand if people don't look for themselves.

SpottyGekko

Well, it appears that Steven is a true MMO gamer after all, lol

Don't like the rules or the EULA ? Just ignore them !

Risc1911

Sovrath said:

Risc1911 said:

Sovrath said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Is there a reason why they can't back their own projects?

It seems, given the project not only surpassed it's goal but has more than doubled it, that his backing is a mere drop in the bucket.

given the interest, and "yes" the amount of money, I think it would be a simple enough thing for kickstarter to just have him remove his paltry pledge.

Because that is how ponzi schemes operate. You make them look "profitable" to get more people to "invest" into them. It's basic scam 101 and is rightfully so not allowed on Kickstarter.

But wouldn't a true ponzi scheme be more opaque and people couldn't see who was backing them whereas in this case we know he has backed it?

Though I suppose the point does stand if people don't look for themselves.

No, a good ponzi scheme use widely known people as investors to make the project look legitimate. We don't know how many of those $400+ donations came from alt accounts he made. Only Kickstarter can verify that and if he was careful (BNC, Proxy, VPN) it's almost impossible to prove.

CrazKanuk

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

It's not about that as much as it is that it doesn't actually matter. If his donation were to put the project over the top then they would probably intervene. That's obviously the basis for the rule. In the end, his backing is inconsequential to the success of the project itself. 

blorpykins

Intrepid Studios is incorporated, so what if Steven bought a pledge - I hope to see him in game.  Makes sense that the employees would have to buy their own game access. At least this way, he's getting some backer rewards. haha

Distopia

slagathore said:

This isn't about concerns of the game but of the company and CEO behind it. I think people need to see, especially backers, that the person using their money to lead a multi-million dollar project can't even abide by such a simple rule.

I'm sure Intrepid will see this and Steven will remove his pledge and say "I wasn't aware" so here it is for posterity's sake.

Most users probably would look positively at him backing it with his own money. It's kickstarter that should be notified. 

Jacobin

Its a pretty silly mistake but KS won't do anything since it was on their front feature page and is their golden boy meal ticket at the moment.

It would make perfect sense for an MLM guy to make large donations on alt accounts to get the hype train rolling.

slagathore

CrazKanuk said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

It's not about that as much as it is that it doesn't actually matter. If his donation were to put the project over the top then they would probably intervene. That's obviously the basis for the rule. In the end, his backing is inconsequential to the success of the project itself. 

That logic is very flawed in my opinion. That is like saying you shouldn't be held accountable because you were just one of a thousand people that stole something from a store.

Also, I stated below my original post that its the fact we have someone people are throwing millions of dollars at to lead a multi-million dollar project and he can't even follow the simplest of rules and he'll get away with it.

blorpykins said:

Intrepid Studios is incorporated, so what if Steven bought a pledge - I hope to see him in game.  Makes sense that the employees would have to buy their own game access. At least this way, he's getting some backer rewards. haha

If you're a principal of the corp that is posting the project, it is the same thing as backing your own project.

Jacobin said:

Its a pretty silly mistake but KS won't do anything since it was on their front feature page and is their golden boy meal ticket at the moment.

It would make perfect sense for an MLM guy to make large donations on alt accounts to get the hype train rolling.

And this is the most annoying part. I'm not sure if I'm upset with Kickstarter for allowing it, at Steven for all the shadiness surrounding him, or the backers that keep throwing money at these designs and ideas that only exist thanks to staged scenes and some fancy artwork. When we keep backing these over-promised projects it just tells to other developer wannabes that there is a well of unending means they can tap into.

Sovrath

Risc1911 said:

Sovrath said:

Risc1911 said:

Sovrath said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

Is there a reason why they can't back their own projects?

It seems, given the project not only surpassed it's goal but has more than doubled it, that his backing is a mere drop in the bucket.

given the interest, and "yes" the amount of money, I think it would be a simple enough thing for kickstarter to just have him remove his paltry pledge.

Because that is how ponzi schemes operate. You make them look "profitable" to get more people to "invest" into them. It's basic scam 101 and is rightfully so not allowed on Kickstarter.

But wouldn't a true ponzi scheme be more opaque and people couldn't see who was backing them whereas in this case we know he has backed it?

Though I suppose the point does stand if people don't look for themselves.

No, a good ponzi scheme use widely known people as investors to make the project look legitimate. We don't know how many of those $400+ donations came from alt accounts he made. Only Kickstarter can verify that and if he was careful (BNC, Proxy, VPN) it's almost impossible to prove.

There is a difference between using widely known people and having the very person who is part of the project throwing in some money.

If say, Arnold Schwarzenegger was backing it along with other big hollywood stars  I would see your point but clearly it's one of the developers (is he really widely known?) who threw in a thousand bucks or so.

I'm not saying that Kickstarter shouldn't address this but this doesn't really feel that alarming.

Anireth

A lot depends on the actual rules/contract. Most things i found are just a guide/FAQ, and doesn't exactly clarify who exactly is not allowed to back their project, if it's natual person, company, kickstarter profile etc.

For giveaways etc. it's usually employees and families of the companies involved at least though, so i'd imagine it's something similar.

blorpykins

If this is all you guys can dig up you should watch this... Richard Garriott (aka: Lord British) admits on video he had no idea what he was going to make when he launched a kickstarter for Shroud of the Avatar.  He admits in this video he ran the kickstarter to make a million dollars so he could buy enough time to figure out what to do.

Start watching around time 41:00 - these industry veterans standing around laughing and cangratulating each other on a successful kickstarter should be illegal - they make the team at AoC look like saints.

deveilblad

Torval said:

slagathore said:

blorpykins said:

Intrepid Studios is incorporated, so what if Steven bought a pledge - I hope to see him in game.  Makes sense that the employees would have to buy their own game access. At least this way, he's getting some backer rewards. haha

If you're a principal of the corp that is posting the project, it is the same thing as backing your own project.

Did you make that up or is it in their rules. Intrepid is the project poster. Intrepid hasn't donated.

This is what matters.

Intrepid is the project poster, not that random whoever dude.

Thomas2006

CrazKanuk said:

slagathore said:

Other projects have been shut down because the project owner donated to their own project so AOC shouldn't be any different, but I'm sure Kickstarter will look the other way considering the amount of money they would be denying themselves.

It's not about that as much as it is that it doesn't actually matter. If his donation were to put the project over the top then they would probably intervene. That's obviously the basis for the rule. In the end, his backing is inconsequential to the success of the project itself. 

It doesn't matter?  What if his initial large investment is what drew people in to pledge to start with.  

So if I put up a kickstarter project then make a very large pledge to it to push it up close to that breaking point do you not think websites (like this one and others like it) see that its close to completion and then thus cover it even more. Not to mention that I am sure a fair number of people pledge only after they see that there is interest in the project. By make a large pledge you have generated artifical interest in the project right there by making it appear like its more popular then it is.

Kickstarter needs to step in or remove that rule all together.  If they don't then its good to know that one could make large fake or otherwise pledges to there own project to generate fake hype.

Kaneth

I find it very interesting that so much effort has gone into attempt de-legitimize the KS project, based upon Steven Sharif himself. I do know that he and his guild in Archeage pissed off a lot of other larger guilds in that game. Makes you wonder if this isn't part of some concerted effort among some of the members of those other guilds in an attempt to defame Steven and somehow "get back" at him.

Talonsin

I think the issue is with Kickstarter.  Why do they enforce the rules for one group but not the other?  Why have rules if you do not enforce them?

slagathore

Kaneth said:

I find it very interesting that so much effort has gone into attempt de-legitimize the KS project, based upon Steven Sharif himself. I do know that he and his guild in Archeage pissed off a lot of other larger guilds in that game. Makes you wonder if this isn't part of some concerted effort among some of the members of those other guilds in an attempt to defame Steven and somehow "get back" at him.

Would you like a tinfoil hat with your cup of conspiracy theory? I have never played Archage and would care less if someone got the better of me in a video game.

This is about a campaign that should be shut down or it's a slap in the face to all the other KS projects that have been shut down for the exact same violation.

slagathore

Torval said:

It's a poor assumption to make that a rule has been violated. That hasn't been proven it's just the opinion of someone with an axe to grind.

If KS didn't approve of this I suspect the most that would happen is for the pledge to be removed. There is more than enough funding without a singular pledge for the KS to meet success goals. Remember, KS makes money from this so it's in their best interest to see projects fund. They're not going to cancel any legit project over this especially when the project isn't in the donators name.

How is it an assumption?  Go look for yourself and you will find the same pages I posted.  Steven Sharif is a principle of Intrepid Studios Inc.

I will again refer to my post above that your logic also says it is okay to steal one candy bar from a store because you were just one of 11,000 people to do it. That doesn't make it right.

I agree that it is in the best interest of KS to have campaigns successfully fund; that is how they make their money. But it can be viewed as selling out if you don't enforce your rules equally without regard to how much the campaign is making.

Vasel

Seems like a long way to look for negative news about this project.

Kyleran

Any idea how big his pledge was? If small no big deal, if 100KW+ then it is an issue and an attempt to paint the effort in a positive light, especially if it occurred before the project funded.

slagathore

Kyleran said:

Any idea how big his pledge was? If small no big deal, if 100KW+ then it is an issue and an attempt to paint the effort in a positive light, especially if it occurred before the project funded.

No idea but it keeps coming back to the size of his pledge compared to the overall amount. That is not my point.

They hit their goal in 12 hours. If he pledged before they hit, that is highly suspicious. If he pledged after they hit, why bother? Regardless, as a principle of the company, he is not allowed to pledge. Other campaigns have been shut down for this so why not this one?

Kryn

Who cares.  Only fools back these things at this point in the crowd funding history.  Let them be parted with their money...I just don't care.  Hell, I been thinking of crowdfunding something myself...just for some extra cash.  I will say it again.  People go into a casino knowing full well the odds of losing their money.  This is the same type of thing. 

Its their money and doesn't bother me if they lose it...period.  The more of this stuff that goes on I find myself actually cheering for the company to scam people.  Fools, all of them and in my eyes, deserve what they get.