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
Yeah, and you have to be pretty delusional to think that these "contributors" have given away all of their money, 100M+ worth, with no expectation of return.
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.
if you think my stance that wall street is filled with investors and not pledgers and that Kickstarter is not an investment instrument but one that works more similar to donations then you are free to think as you please.
however.
why does it even matter?
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 resembles an "investment," and not a "pledge" not a "donation." A pledge and donation does not come with an expectation of return. An investment does.
So what ?
If the initial terms of the contract are found to be invalid, the contract is declared void and the agreement is terminated. Any remaining funds will need to apportioned to the "investors" on a percentage basis. I doubt that anyone would even receive 25% of their "investment" back if SC was shut down now.
What you can't do is arbitrarily redefine the terms of the contract and then force everyone to comply with the new definition. It don' work like that, at least not where I'm from.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
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
Yeah, and you have to be pretty delusional to think that these "contributors" have given away all of their money, 100M+ worth, with no expectation of return.
/just stop lol
Those definitions say nothing of expecting no return, it's simply the act in giving it's describing. There's a reason KS uses the word pledge in it's documentation.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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 resembles an "investment," and not a "pledge" not a "donation." A pledge and donation does not come with an expectation of return. An investment does.
So what ?
If the initial terms of the contract are found to be invalid, the contract is declared void and the agreement is terminated. Any remaining funds will need to apportioned to the "investors" on a percentage basis. I doubt that anyone would even receive 25% of their "investment" back if SC was shut down now.
What you can't do is arbitrarily redefine the terms of the contract and then force everyone to comply with the new definition. It don' work like that, at least not where I'm from.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
I am not even sure its a contract let alone all that other nonsense.
I have a friend who is a laywer and he he often says he hears people talking about the law without a single clue what they are talking about nor the context of what they are applying it to and often have it all unbearably wrong.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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
Yeah, and you have to be pretty delusional to think that these "contributors" have given away all of their money, 100M+ worth, with no expectation of return.
/just stop lol
Those definitions say nothing of expecting no return, it's simply the act in giving it's describing. There's a reason KS uses the word pledge in it's documentation.
thing is about 99.aMillion of these people who are complaining either didnt donate in the first place or never bothered to ask for a refund of which if they made a good arguement they likely would get one.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
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?
Don't you see though? Because of crowdfunding they have zero accountability. Yes they can be charged with fraud. But the freedom they have is outstanding and they can spin almost anything. For example lets say they ran out of money the first month because someone was overpaid 40 mil for doing a job. There is nothing they can do about it because its covered under employee salary. Then they can sell more ships and claim that they have plenty of money and there is no way to realize they are broke and milking people. This is nearly zero accountability they have right now. Its donated money and so long as it appears to be used for making a game they have freedom to do anything with it. We have no way of telling if the money is being spent wisely or being wasted.
Like I said if they were spending wisely then they could release financials and get more donations from even more people. Or they can leave people in the dark and keep spinning things and keep drawing in the whales because the whales haven't stopped yet. I realize they are privately owned. But right now because they are running on crowdfunding they should be transparent untill they are independant. But like I said even though its wrong it isn't against the law so we will never know exactly how honest or dishonest they have been.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
Yes and I put up more factual definitions, that you left out...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I am 99.aMIllion% sure that if any of you called up a lawyer about this kickstarter question the first question the lawyer would ask is 'have you contacted the developer directly and asked for a refund'?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
I still fail to understand what you are trying to achieve ?
So what if you're an "investor" ?
Do you think that guarantees delivery of the game ? Or anything else ? Do you expect that CIG will be forced to issue share certificates ?
A bona-fide investor is a risk-taker by definition. An investment is not protected from bad management, bad decisions or unforeseen circumstances. Companies go bankrupt, investors lose everything.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
I still fail to understand what you are trying to achieve ?
So what if you're an "investor" ?
Do you think that guarantees delivery of the game ? Or anything else ? Do you expect that CIG will be forced to issue share certificates ?
A bona-fide investor is a risk-taker by definition. An investment is not protected from bad management, bad decisions or unforeseen circumstances. Companies go bankrupt, investors lose everything.
I'm not trying to achieve anything. I just made a point. The question as to "So what if you're an "investor?" has nothing to do with my point that it's an investment. Where you take it from there is beyond the scope of the point made. You can, of course, go there if you wish but it has nothing to do with the point made.
Don't you see though? Because of crowdfunding they have zero accountability. Yes they can be charged with fraud. But the freedom they have is outstanding and they can spin almost anything. For example lets say they ran out of money the first month because someone was overpaid 40 mil for doing a job. There is nothing they can do about it because its covered under employee salary. Then they can sell more ships and claim that they have plenty of money and there is no way to realize they are broke and milking people. This is nearly zero accountability they have right now. Its donated money and so long as it appears to be used for making a game they have freedom to do anything with it. We have no way of telling if the money is being spent wisely or being wasted.
Like I said if they were spending wisely then they could release financials and get more donations from even more people. Or they can leave people in the dark and keep spinning things and keep drawing in the whales because the whales haven't stopped yet. I realize they are privately owned. But right now because they are running on crowdfunding they should be transparent untill they are independant. But like I said even though its wrong it isn't against the law so we will never know exactly how honest or dishonest they have been.
I see your point, that's certainly a downside to crowdfunding. Hence why the best protection lies in oneself right now. That's essentially the age old reference of not putting in what you can not afford to lose.
I'm not opposed to certain ideas I've seen put forth, like a law that states crowdfunded funds should be public record, as well as the idea of accountability in general. I'm just not sure how business law works, whether that would interfere with rights given under the law at present.. IE the choice of being public or private.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For jebus sakes.....Why would you invest money and then crap all over your investment.....Because you haven't invested have you......STFU if you haven't invested.....If you have invested STFU and quit crapping on your investment.....There , did I cover all bases?
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
I still fail to understand what you are trying to achieve ?
So what if you're an "investor" ?
Do you think that guarantees delivery of the game ? Or anything else ? Do you expect that CIG will be forced to issue share certificates ?
A bona-fide investor is a risk-taker by definition. An investment is not protected from bad management, bad decisions or unforeseen circumstances. Companies go bankrupt, investors lose everything.
I'm not trying to achieve anything. I just made a point. The question as to "So what if you're an "investor?" has nothing to do with my point that it's an investment. Where you take it from there is beyond the scope of the point made. You can, of course, go there if you wish but it has nothing to do with the point made.
What ?
So all this arguing is completely pointless, because the actual meaning of "investment" is not important ?!
For jebus sakes.....Why would you invest money and then crap all over your investment.....Because you haven't invested have you......STFU if you haven't invested.....If you have invested STFU and quit crapping on your investment.....There , did I cover all bases?
Congratulations! You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the basis of the dynamic surrounding this whole fiasco. As that is exactly what the majority of the avid CIG/SC supporters are attempting to do with their blind support of CIG/SC. They are attempting to avoid outsiders from crapping all over their investment. It's a natural reaction. If they were not so heavily invested, they would not give a crap. Conversely, those who are not invested in the project are calling CIG out on their perceived indiscretions because there is no risk of losing anything since they are not invested.
For jebus sakes.....Why would you invest money and then crap all over your investment.....Because you haven't invested have you......STFU if you haven't invested.....If you have invested STFU and quit crapping on your investment.....There , did I cover all bases?
if you havent contacted the developer directly (the firm) and asked for your money back then this conversation is pointless
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
For jebus sakes.....Why would you invest money and then crap all over your investment.....Because you haven't invested have you......STFU if you haven't invested.....If you have invested STFU and quit crapping on your investment.....There , did I cover all bases?
Congratulations! You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the basis of the dynamic surrounding this whole fiasco. As that is exactly what the majority of the avid CIG/SC supporters are attempting to do with their blind support of CIG/SC. They are attempting to avoid outsiders from crapping all over their investment. It's a natural reaction. If they were not so heavily invested, they would not give a crap. Conversely, those who are not invested in the project are calling CIG out on their perceived indiscretions because there is no risk of losing anything since they are not invested.
if you have not contacted the developer to ask for your money back then you really have zero ground to stand on here, regardless of your view of what an 'investment' is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Even in Hollywood with notoriously insane numbers of dollars thrown around before projects reach a point where they'd be realistically completed- nobody would stand for this.
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Even in Hollywood with notoriously insane numbers of dollars thrown around before projects reach a point where they'd be realistically completed- nobody would stand for this.
actually the average development time for a game is 3-4 years with some of them lasting 10 years and this is true in the AAA market as well.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Absolutely !
However, in MMORPG's it's happened quite often. It's not even unusual anymore. Won't be the first time and definitely won't be the last time...
It's actually really good to question a project that's raised over 100 million dollars but has not produced a real product in 4 years and still has no definite completion date.
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Even in Hollywood with notoriously insane numbers of dollars thrown around before projects reach a point where they'd be realistically completed- nobody would stand for this.
Question? Yes it's important to question everything before our eyes more or less. Yet do you really call what we typically see on these forums as "questioning" things?
Most of what I see are declarations (as well as insults for not believing them), maybe I'm reading different discussions or something.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'll answer that ... because where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Or someone with a big mouth, a short temper and a smoke grenade ....
Have fun
I pose a host of sincere questions in my post and yet the best you can do is come back with a quick cheap ad hominem attack against your nemesis, DS.
Typical of you CIG supporters.
No you simply rehash a host of pointless insinuations that have not only been talked to death, but continuously disproved by CIG's very actions, and due to none of your foretold disasters coming true. All of your so called "sincere questions" are nothing more than the baseless accusations of the "have you stopped beating your wife" logical fallacy variety. This is the point of the dude's video, and this is the reason why the anti-fan fanatics always fail and usually get removed from these boards. Your intent is not to question but only to incriminate whether any rational proof of criminality exists or not. You are so hell bent on your conspiracy of hate you will attempt to twist even the most picayune detail into a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions. And just like Chicken Little, after putting up with this shit for so long people just start to tune you out. Which is actually a tragedy as there are some very relevant criticisms to how CIG is handling their game development.
Except I haven't "foretold any disasters," "incriminated anyone," nor am i "hell bent on any type of conspiracy of hate in an attempt to twist even the most picayune detail into a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions." And no amount of over-bloated fancy sounding hog wash in an attempt to make yourself sound witty or smart is going to make that true. You obviously don't know me and are simply talking out of your behind. Nothing about what you've said about me above is true. In this very thread I've even mentioned that I have nothing against the game and that I wish it success.
The only point that I have stressed about CIG as it pertains to SC, is one of "transparency and accountability," and it has always been in requested form. I have never made any accusations, predictions or malicious statements toward CIG or SC. You can have an opinion about whether that is necessary or not. What you will not do is come on this forum board and spread lies about what my stance on this matter has been simply because you fall into that blind rabid CIG/SC supporter attack crowd. Rest assured that when you do, I will not hesitate to call you the liar that you apparently aspire to be called with your unfounded and baseless accusations.
Comments
Yeah, and you have to be pretty delusional to think that these "contributors" have given away all of their money, 100M+ worth, with no expectation of return.
/just stop lol
however.
why
does
it
even
matter?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If the initial terms of the contract are found to be invalid, the contract is declared void and the agreement is terminated. Any remaining funds will need to apportioned to the "investors" on a percentage basis. I doubt that anyone would even receive 25% of their "investment" back if SC was shut down now.
What you can't do is arbitrarily redefine the terms of the contract and then force everyone to comply with the new definition. It don' work like that, at least not where I'm from.
What do people hope to achieve with this attempt at re-defining the meaning of "pledge" ?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I have a friend who is a laywer and he he often says he hears people talking about the law without a single clue what they are talking about nor the context of what they are applying it to and often have it all unbearably wrong.
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
You are making my point.
This would be my question to you people trying to re-define the word "pledge" to fit your argument in support of CIG in regard to what they are doing with SC. I merely provided the factual definitions of each word. You are obviously choosing to dismiss them because they don't fit your argument. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That fact you will not escape.
Like I said if they were spending wisely then they could release financials and get more donations from even more people. Or they can leave people in the dark and keep spinning things and keep drawing in the whales because the whales haven't stopped yet. I realize they are privately owned. But right now because they are running on crowdfunding they should be transparent untill they are independant. But like I said even though its wrong it isn't against the law so we will never know exactly how honest or dishonest they have been.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So what if you're an "investor" ?
Do you think that guarantees delivery of the game ? Or anything else ?
Do you expect that CIG will be forced to issue share certificates ?
A bona-fide investor is a risk-taker by definition. An investment is not protected from bad management, bad decisions or unforeseen circumstances. Companies go bankrupt, investors lose everything.
I'm not trying to achieve anything. I just made a point. The question as to "So what if you're an "investor?" has nothing to do with my point that it's an investment. Where you take it from there is beyond the scope of the point made. You can, of course, go there if you wish but it has nothing to do with the point made.
I'm not opposed to certain ideas I've seen put forth, like a law that states crowdfunded funds should be public record, as well as the idea of accountability in general. I'm just not sure how business law works, whether that would interfere with rights given under the law at present.. IE the choice of being public or private.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So all this arguing is completely pointless, because the actual meaning of "investment" is not important ?!
In that case, why do you even care ?
Are we just making pointless points ?
How did I get involved in this, lol ?
Congratulations! You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the basis of the dynamic surrounding this whole fiasco. As that is exactly what the majority of the avid CIG/SC supporters are attempting to do with their blind support of CIG/SC. They are attempting to avoid outsiders from crapping all over their investment. It's a natural reaction. If they were not so heavily invested, they would not give a crap. Conversely, those who are not invested in the project are calling CIG out on their perceived indiscretions because there is no risk of losing anything since they are not invested.
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
In almost no other industry but video games would this be remotely acceptable.
Even in Hollywood with notoriously insane numbers of dollars thrown around before projects reach a point where they'd be realistically completed- nobody would stand for this.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
However, in MMORPG's it's happened quite often. It's not even unusual anymore. Won't be the first time and definitely won't be the last time...
Most of what I see are declarations (as well as insults for not believing them), maybe I'm reading different discussions or something.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
TIL - AAA Quality Video-Games Take time to make,
CIG is making 2 at the same time. Single-Player Campaign and a MMO.
Except I haven't "foretold any disasters," "incriminated anyone," nor am i "hell bent on any type of conspiracy of hate in an attempt to twist even the most picayune detail into a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions." And no amount of over-bloated fancy sounding hog wash in an attempt to make yourself sound witty or smart is going to make that true. You obviously don't know me and are simply talking out of your behind. Nothing about what you've said about me above is true. In this very thread I've even mentioned that I have nothing against the game and that I wish it success.
The only point that I have stressed about CIG as it pertains to SC, is one of "transparency and accountability," and it has always been in requested form. I have never made any accusations, predictions or malicious statements toward CIG or SC. You can have an opinion about whether that is necessary or not. What you will not do is come on this forum board and spread lies about what my stance on this matter has been simply because you fall into that blind rabid CIG/SC supporter attack crowd. Rest assured that when you do, I will not hesitate to call you the liar that you apparently aspire to be called with your unfounded and baseless accusations.
Someone links a youtube clip and all the fanyboys agree how hard they just owned the haters!