The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.
Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?
That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.
I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.
Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.
Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.
You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.
This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.
As a matter of fact it does let this guy off the hook. I feel it shouldn't but it still does. Person A. said "Hey give me some money and I'll try to give you guys some cool stuff." People B. gave the dude some money with no other contract or guarantees. Person A. failed to deliver said cool stuff. Which means People B. have no other recourse to the law and therefore are fucked. A fool and his money are soon parted.
No it doesn't let Appleton off the hook. Seriously, where did that left-hand turn come from?
'I may be a charlatan but it's your fault for believing me... therefore not guilty'... Really? In what twisted world does that make sense?
That's like the Arrested Development argument of "you can't arrest a husband and wife for the same crime".
Did you just skip over my part of the dialogue where I said "I feel it shouldn't"? Until this guy actually ends up in court my statements are completely justified. Regardless of whether I wish them to be or not.
You might want to take a look at the definition of victim blaming and how it's used to excuse or try to mitigate all kinds of shitty behavior.
There is no way, shape or form that I'd ever buy your partial culpability argument when we're talking about a con and the "morons" fleeced in the con.
That you're buying into what is essentially the boiler plate con man's defense is frankly disturbing.
The idiocy that some people exhibit with their money is one thing. You can feel pity for them, laugh at them or whatever. But that's not anywhere near the same ball park of asocial behavior as the con man who preys on them. Stupidity is not a crime. Conning the stupid is.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.
Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?
That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.
I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.
Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.
Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.
You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.
This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.
As a matter of fact it does let this guy off the hook. I feel it shouldn't but it still does. Person A. said "Hey give me some money and I'll try to give you guys some cool stuff." People B. gave the dude some money with no other contract or guarantees. Person A. failed to deliver said cool stuff. Which means People B. have no other recourse to the law and therefore are fucked. A fool and his money are soon parted.
No it doesn't let Appleton off the hook. Seriously, where did that left-hand turn come from?
'I may be a charlatan but it's your fault for believing me... therefore not guilty'... Really? In what twisted world does that make sense?
That's like the Arrested Development argument of "you can't arrest a husband and wife for the same crime".
Did you just skip over my part of the dialogue where I said "I feel it shouldn't"? Until this guy actually ends up in court my statements are completely justified. Regardless of whether I wish them to be or not.
Yeah, I realize I came off a little snarky. It's just that your intuition isn't wrong; crowd funding is coming more under public scrutiny including entities such as the FTC, and legal precedents are being set. It's not such a big bad world after all: people are watching out and speaking up for the right thing.
/2c
"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
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
That amuses me about the US. If a single mother does not pay her debt to the bank or the insurance company, she may go into jail (like it is XIX century England). But if some guy defrauds thousands of people, he gets a TV show. This is like a comedy of absurd.
Accept your "amusement" is not even based upon FACT. It does not happen that way in the U.S. and never has.
He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?
Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.
But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.
Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?
I'm amused that some are actually defending Appleton. It makes more sense now that projects like CoE actually get funding when the biggest fraud from recent years has already been forgotten.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I share @Slapshot1188 's and @Vrika 's idea that this is all just a way to promote his new crypto currency.
Didn't he in fact surface again with a phrase like: 'I made a lot of money with crypto currencies and want to share my new wealth with others.' ?
At this point if someone actually invests any money into his new project I won't even remotely feel sorry for those fools.
The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.
Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?
That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.
I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.
Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.
Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a charlatan that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.
Although I always enjoy a good application of the word "feckless", I have to say that kickstarters do need some sort of regulation. Everybody and their dog is doing kickstarters and gofundme crap because their dog is sick, and fraud is flourishing. Can't fight stupid but I don't think it should be so easy to fleece them either.
As far as kickstarters for business propositions, I think it should be more like stocks, granting an actual stake in the company and it's assets, investments, not gifts. How is kickstarter income taxed anyway? like straight up profits?
Let me see.. so the answer is "Maybe, we don't really know, but dammit all, he should!"
Or put another way.. "Legally? No"
Well, he might be a bad guy for other things, but getting ticked off at people giving him shit when he is giving a refund he is not legally obligated to give.. that is not what I would piss on him about.
All the other things.. yes.. worthy of pissing on him.. this.. not so much.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
That amuses me about the US. If a single mother does not pay her debt to the bank or the insurance company, she may go into jail (like it is XIX century England). But if some guy defrauds thousands of people, he gets a TV show. This is like a comedy of absurd.
The only debts someone can be imprisoned for failing to pay in the USA are taxes and child support.
A creditor even threatening somebody with jail time is in violation of federal law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, to be precise. Furthermore, debtor's prisons have been illlegal since around 1830, IIRC. While it did happen sometimes up to that point, it hasn't in almost 200 years. In fact, America abolished debtor's prisons before most of Europe.
You're not amused by facts, you're amused by bullshit.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?
Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.
But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.
Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?
Maybe Vrika is right and no-one is going to get out of bed over it. However, if I took 90k from 667 people and provided nothing tangible in return I would absolutely consider my legal exposure.
"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
He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?
Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.
But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.
Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?
Let me see.. so the answer is "Maybe, we don't really know, but dammit all, he should!"
Or put another way.. "Legally? No"
Well, he might be a bad guy for other things, but getting ticked off at people giving him shit when he is giving a refund he is not legally obligated to give.. that is not what I would piss on him about.
All the other things.. yes.. worthy of pissing on him.. this.. not so much.
There was a storm of threads about this, I understand why you can't be bothered to go back and check it out, I often can't be bothered to read the whole of these threads. It is the pattern of his behaviour that is causing the reaction you see, we have seen him do this so many times before. Anyway he is not doing another game as far as I know, which is the main thing!
The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.
Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?
That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.
I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.
Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.
Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.
You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.
This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.
As a matter of fact it does let this guy off the hook. I feel it shouldn't but it still does. Person A. said "Hey give me some money and I'll try to give you guys some cool stuff." People B. gave the dude some money with no other contract or guarantees. Person A. failed to deliver said cool stuff. Which means People B. have no other recourse to the law and therefore are fucked. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Which is a morally bankrupt way of thinking which the world well with less of.
Is it legal isn't the question, is it right is what has to be asked.
To take people's money and not return it without at least a good faith effort to deliver, especially if one is claiming to be more than well able to afford to do so.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
He looks more like a mythomaniac to me...
Darn it, I had to go look that up. Great word, and I will be looking for ways to weave that into future conversations.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
He looks more like a mythomaniac to me...
Darn it, I had to go look that up. Great word, and I will be looking for ways to weave that into future conversations.
I had to look it up too. In today's political culture in the US, I feel like I should have already known it.
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
He looks more like a mythomaniac to me...
Darn it, I had to go look that up. Great word, and I will be looking for ways to weave that into future conversations.
I bet any political conversation regarding a certain President should do it.
It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.
The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.
Most of the backers used $100 or less. If you were in a situation where you'd have to spent $10 000 to sue a person for your $100, and weren't sure if and when that person has $10 000 to pay back your court costs, would you sue?
The possible gains are too small. People who'd have spare money for suing are normally working adults and most of them don't think it's worth the risk or the time spent to argue in court over what is less than a day's wages to them.
It may seem to you that in the US suing is national pasttime, but that's more in cases where you get physically harmed and can demand absurd compensation, not in a case like this where even if everything goes well you'd only get your refund and court costs.
The problem is that Kickstarter is pretty much the ideal setup to create that situation: small amounts from many people, but not a large enough aggregate total to make class-action lawsuits profitable.
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
If this were his only fiasco, then maybe he'd be defensible. But back while Greed Monger was floundering but at least seemed like it had a chance, he was off ignoring it to start a new kickstarter for some other, unrelated project. If you take money to create a product, you owe it to your backers to do all that you can to create that product, not to get bored after a while and give up so that you can go try to raise money from other people for something else.
It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.
The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.
Most of the backers used $100 or less. If you were in a situation where you'd have to spent $10 000 to sue a person for your $100, and weren't sure if and when that person has $10 000 to pay back your court costs, would you sue?
The possible gains are too small. People who'd have spare money for suing are normally working adults and most of them don't think it's worth the risk or the time spent to argue in court over what is less than a day's wages to them.
It may seem to you that in the US suing is national pasttime, but that's more in cases where you get physically harmed and can demand absurd compensation, not in a case like this where even if everything goes well you'd only get your refund and court costs.
The problem is that Kickstarter is pretty much the ideal setup to create that situation: small amounts from many people, but not a large enough aggregate total to make class-action lawsuits profitable.
You don't just stop there. You take the complaint to the FTC and to state attorney general's office.
It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.
The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.
Most of the backers used $100 or less. If you were in a situation where you'd have to spent $10 000 to sue a person for your $100, and weren't sure if and when that person has $10 000 to pay back your court costs, would you sue?
The possible gains are too small. People who'd have spare money for suing are normally working adults and most of them don't think it's worth the risk or the time spent to argue in court over what is less than a day's wages to them.
It may seem to you that in the US suing is national pasttime, but that's more in cases where you get physically harmed and can demand absurd compensation, not in a case like this where even if everything goes well you'd only get your refund and court costs.
The problem is that Kickstarter is pretty much the ideal setup to create that situation: small amounts from many people, but not a large enough aggregate total to make class-action lawsuits profitable.
You don't just stop there. You take the complaint to the FTC and to state attorney general's office.
The fundamental problem is that if the effort to get a refund exceeds the value of the refund, most people won't bother. If you're a scammer, you want to get into the situation where your victims don't find it worth the effort to pursue you.
The title would be "Found for Jean-Luc Picard's Retirement"
I would promise nothing. No fancy new item, no amazing game, nothing. Backers just found me.
If eventually we reach $500.000, I would eventually send a dedicated photo of my humble self to all backers. And at $1.000.000 they will all get a copy of the great Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing".
The title would be "Found for Jean-Luc Picard's Retirement"
I would promise nothing. No fancy new item, no amazing game, nothing. Backers just found me.
If eventually we reach $500.000, I would eventually send a dedicated photo of my humble self to all backers. And at $1.000.000 they will all get a copy of the great Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing".
Sounds like a plan.
Hey, I hear spaceships sell very well.
At $1.5M you could send backers a framed photo of the Enterprise, your choice of which model of course.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The title would be "Found for Jean-Luc Picard's Retirement"
I would promise nothing. No fancy new item, no amazing game, nothing. Backers just found me.
If eventually we reach $500.000, I would eventually send a dedicated photo of my humble self to all backers. And at $1.000.000 they will all get a copy of the great Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing".
I think his posts are pretty reasonable all things considered. And the fact that he still communicates with people means something. Hes just not a good business man (yet) and maybe never, ambitious but not very good at running his projects.
He looks more like a mythomaniac to me...
Darn it, I had to go look that up. Great word, and I will be looking for ways to weave that into future conversations.
I had to look it up too. In today's political culture in the US, I feel like I should have already known it.
I think you will find there is an element of that in any politician, bought on by a concern for their "legacy". I don't blame them for it, it rather goes with the job.
Comments
There is no way, shape or form that I'd ever buy your partial culpability argument when we're talking about a con and the "morons" fleeced in the con.
That you're buying into what is essentially the boiler plate con man's defense is frankly disturbing.
The idiocy that some people exhibit with their money is one thing. You can feel pity for them, laugh at them or whatever. But that's not anywhere near the same ball park of asocial behavior as the con man who preys on them. Stupidity is not a crime. Conning the stupid is.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
/2c
"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
Let's party like it is 1863!
It makes more sense now that projects like CoE actually get funding when the biggest fraud from recent years has already been forgotten.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I share @Slapshot1188 's and @Vrika 's idea that this is all just a way to promote his new crypto currency.
Didn't he in fact surface again with a phrase like: 'I made a lot of money with crypto currencies and want to share my new wealth with others.' ?
At this point if someone actually invests any money into his new project I won't even remotely feel sorry for those fools.
Although I always enjoy a good application of the word "feckless", I have to say that kickstarters do need some sort of regulation. Everybody and their dog is doing kickstarters and gofundme crap because their dog is sick, and fraud is flourishing. Can't fight stupid but I don't think it should be so easy to fleece them either.
As far as kickstarters for business propositions, I think it should be more like stocks, granting an actual stake in the company and it's assets, investments, not gifts. How is kickstarter income taxed anyway? like straight up profits?
Or put another way.. "Legally? No"
Well, he might be a bad guy for other things, but getting ticked off at people giving him shit when he is giving a refund he is not legally obligated to give.. that is not what I would piss on him about.
All the other things.. yes.. worthy of pissing on him.. this.. not so much.
A creditor even threatening somebody with jail time is in violation of federal law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, to be precise. Furthermore, debtor's prisons have been illlegal since around 1830, IIRC. While it did happen sometimes up to that point, it hasn't in almost 200 years. In fact, America abolished debtor's prisons before most of Europe.
You're not amused by facts, you're amused by bullshit.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
"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
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There was a storm of threads about this, I understand why you can't be bothered to go back and check it out, I often can't be bothered to read the whole of these threads. It is the pattern of his behaviour that is causing the reaction you see, we have seen him do this so many times before. Anyway he is not doing another game as far as I know, which is the main thing!
Is it legal isn't the question, is it right is what has to be asked.
To take people's money and not return it without at least a good faith effort to deliver, especially if one is claiming to be more than well able to afford to do so.
Too busy just doesn't cut it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You take the complaint to the FTC and to state attorney general's office.
I would found you!
Hey, I hear spaceships sell very well.
At $1.5M you could send backers a framed photo of the Enterprise, your choice of which model of course.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zackdangerbrown/potato-salad
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I think you will find there is an element of that in any politician, bought on by a concern for their "legacy". I don't blame them for it, it rather goes with the job.