Kickstarter Is "Not a Store," Introduces New Rules

[Something Amyss]

Makes sense, although I did put 119 dollers into the OUYA, so I hope that arrives by March (the time they said it would) Considering it blew past it's goal by a LOT!

I'd count on any project like this running late. I'm not saying it'll fail, just that dates like these are usually estimates and often arbitrary.

 

[Phoenix8541]

At any rate, I feel as though this is an honest attempt to protect the money off the investors and to retain the companies credibility in regards to game creation. The more games they "Start" that don't make it to the shelf, will reduce the level of future investors for projects etc... This could lead to an overall reduction in kickstarter's level of effectiveness and would reduce the number of ideas and use of kickstarter as a whole.

 

[rapidoud]

The McDonalds case is somewhat humorous considering my local mcdonalds actually serves me chips that are legally too cold to be served as hot food.

Anyway, Kickstarter has been treated too much as a pre-order machine for 'great games' they don't result in companies going bust due to a lack of sales (or immediate sales in the case of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines), instead of something to fund IDEAS.

That being said, I would expect at least something of a working prototype before funding anything (why I didn't find Planetary Annihilation, it's just nothing. All the people funding it clearly haven't seen SupCom yet think the game will be the best thing ever without knowing a thing about it).

I also tend to fund things I would actually buy (or am actually buying), such as models or new board games.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Please remember that cups of tea and coffee and Mcdonalds require wording on the cup stating that it contains hot water.

The reason for this is because somebody spilt some on themselves and decided to sue the company for not providing such a warning at the time.

I guess what I am getting at is: Never underestimate the limits of human stupidity.

Actually, she didn't sue the company because "the coffe was hot", but because she suffered third degree burns (the worst kind of burns), that it required skin grafts, due to the McDonald's operations manual ordering their coffee to be made dangerously hot, and she won because there were already 700 other compaints of similar injury before her that McDonalds ignored, and because McDonald?s quality assurance manager testified that "McDonald?s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

Then after the lawsuit, McDonalds continued to keep it's dangerous (but pactically cheap) coffee production system, while downplaying it with a technically accurate "coffee is hot, duh!" disclaimer to avoid further lawsuits.

I guess what I am getting at is: Never underestimate corporate evil.

There's a lot relating to that case you left out.

Firstly, yes she did win, but over a course of appeals, McDonald's whittled the original $640,000 that Stella Leibeck was awarded to a much smaller confidential settlement outside of court. This was due to the fact that Leibeck was the one who spilled the coffee on herself when she stuck the coffee in between her legs and decided to mix in her sugar and cream, which is not the fault of McDonald's. Had she mixed her coffee on a flat surface the 3rd degree burns would have been avoided. Yes, that McDonald's location received 700 complaints, but realistically speaking one McDonald's serves way more than 700 people a day. Meaning most people who buy coffee let it cool before consuming it.

Seriously, when people drink something that's as hot as fresh coffee, they stop instantly in reflex. Sticking a coffee between your legs while sitting in your car runs the risk of coffee burns much higher.

Second, in a U.K. case that mirrored the Leibeck v. McDonald's case, the lawsuit was thrown out due to the field judge effectively saying that people generally let their coffee or tea cool down before drinking it as well as either milk or cream that is added significantly cooling the tea/coffee down. Tea and Coffee are made at a temperature that ensures the best flavour. Therefore serving coffee at a lower temperature would lower the quality of the product significantly.

Leibeck won that case with the media behind her. Leibeck also wanted just the hospital charges covered. Her lawyers went for 2.7 million. Corporate evil is one thing, but the greed of lawyers is on another twisted scale.

But all that falls under tort law.

Kickstarter is a much different beast.

P.S. I wonder which idiot is the cause behind strollers coming with the warning, "remove child before folding"?

 

[lacktheknack]

P.S. I wonder which idiot is the cause behind strollers coming with the warning, "remove child before folding"?

Presumably the same one that caused "Do Not Eat This Air Mattress" and "Do Not Leave the Driver's Seat When Driving With Cruise Control".

Another fun one: The grocery store I work at has frozen pies with the warning "Do Not Turn Upside Down" on the bottom.

OT: It's spectacular how many people will throw money at things they don't understand.

 

[FEichinger]

You are not a consumer but an investor so standard consumer rights don't apply. The terms an conditions of Kickstarter only require any remaining money to be refunded. So if a major project fails and they have spent all the money then there is no way of getting it back, unless you can prove deliberate misinformation or fraud. Thats the whole point of the change is to make clear you are taking the risk with your money as an investor. Just like any other investor not all things that you put your money into will pay off, but unlike all other investors you get none of the profits.

Actually, no. Not in the case of rewards. That's the point:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Reward tiers which include the product are thus rewards they cannot fulfill, even though the campaign was successful, simply because the product didn't get produced - for whatever reason.

I'm not saying they're required to refund, if the product isn't produced, per say. I'm saying that, if the product is included in the reward tiers, it opens a loophole for any of the backers to sue the hell out of them for not fulfilling said reward as per th Terms of Use Kickstarter presented.

 

[Filiecs]

-Snip

?people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.?

That article was an interesting read but that one quote in particular interested me.
They said that they ran the tests but didn't actually describe said tests nor did they give the exact statistics of said tests. As opposed to the MIT test with the ball and the bat, it seems like they made a generalization without listing the full information surrounding the tests or admitting that they made a generalization.
What I'm interested in is whether or not there are any outliers. People that performed significantly better or worse on said tests.

The way they stated it leads you to assume that this was the same for everyone, and implies that biases are inescapable. Leading you to forget that the interpretation of the results from the test itself could be biased.

I feel like it would be best if they posted the raw statistics themselves as opposed to making a generalizing statement.

This already sounds to me like a debate that is going to have scientists and philosophers arguing over for years to come.

Also, what would be interesting to look into would be figuring out whether or not people who are aware of their own biases able to deal with and correct mistakes that they are called out on better that those who aren't as aware?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well they do desperately need to establish some standards, and most of all a legal team that can go after people who don't deliver (no they haven't got anything like that in place now).

 

[risenbone]

This is what confuses me about the whole kick starters thing. They call it an investment but your not really getting the traditional reward of investing (a share in the profits/company). For the most part your getting a pre-order with some kind of swag bonus. So to me it seems to operate as more of a store front for ideas rather than any kind of investment and thats why I stay clear of it. Well apart from I don't have any money to waste on other peoples dreams I have enough of a problem affording my own and my wifes dreams.

 

[Entitled]

Well they do desperately need to establish some standards, and most of all a legal team that can go after people who don't deliver (no they haven't got anything like that in place now).

I don't think that Kickstarter needs to directly go after people who don't deliver. If any user wants to sue, they are free to do, but Kickstarter should only be the channel throgh which creators interact with audieces, but shouldn't make it's own judgements about the results.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So, in an effort to protect stupid people, companies that actually CAN deliver finished goods in a reliable fashion to individuals willing to fund for them are getting punished.

Thanks KS. Thanks for nothing.

I'm so glad this came after I funded the Reaper Bones KS. From the sounds of it, their KS wouldn't be allowed under the new rules (since it hinged on delivering finished products).

Ah well, so much for brief Kickstarter addiction. I ONLY fund for a finished product (and only give money to companies reliable enough to produce them such as Reaper or Obsidian), so KS won't be getting their cut from me anymore under these new rules.

 

[UnSub]

None of these changes are particularly strong extra protections for pledgers.

 

[Albino Boo]

You are not a consumer but an investor so standard consumer rights don't apply. The terms an conditions of Kickstarter only require any remaining money to be refunded. So if a major project fails and they have spent all the money then there is no way of getting it back, unless you can prove deliberate misinformation or fraud. Thats the whole point of the change is to make clear you are taking the risk with your money as an investor. Just like any other investor not all things that you put your money into will pay off, but unlike all other investors you get none of the profits.

Actually, no. Not in the case of rewards. That's the point:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Reward tiers which include the product are thus rewards they cannot fulfill, even though the campaign was successful, simply because the product didn't get produced - for whatever reason.

I'm not saying they're required to refund, if the product isn't produced, per say. I'm saying that, if the product is included in the reward tiers, it opens a loophole for any of the backers to sue the hell out of them for not fulfilling said reward as per th Terms of Use Kickstarter presented.

How are they going refund when they spent the money. These are limed liability companies, if there is no money in the company that's if you can't anything back. People don't work for free the power company doesn't keep the lights on for nothing and you have pay rent and taxes.

 

[Something Amyss]

That pisses me off, and I'm not sure if it's because I've only ever heard that story with the perspective of the woman being stupid and entitled, or because I didn't even bother to look up whether it was true or not. Well I can be pissed because of both, I suppose.

Good on you for admitting it, though.

 

[FEichinger]

How are they going refund when they spent the money. These are limed liability companies, if there is no money in the company that's if you can't anything back. People don't work for free the power company doesn't keep the lights on for nothing and you have pay rent and taxes.

Common sense tells you that, of course.
Legally speaking however, they have to fulfill the rewards, or hand out refunds for them, as that's the ToU they agreed to when submitting their project.
Do I believe it makes sense to sue them over it? No.
Do I believe it's possible? Definitely.
Do I believe it will actually suceed? Maybe.

As I said: It's a can of worms noone should want to open.

 

[BrotherRool]

-Snip

?people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.?

That article was an interesting read but that one quote in particular interested me.
They said that they ran the tests but didn't actually describe said tests nor did they give the exact statistics of said tests. As opposed to the MIT test with the ball and the bat, it seems like they made a generalization without listing the full information surrounding the tests or admitting that they made a generalization.
What I'm interested in is whether or not there are any outliers. People that performed significantly better or worse on said tests.

The way they stated it leads you to assume that this was the same for everyone, and implies that biases are inescapable. Leading you to forget that the interpretation of the results from the test itself could be biased.

I feel like it would be best if they posted the raw statistics themselves as opposed to making a generalizing statement.

This already sounds to me like a debate that is going to have scientists and philosophers arguing over for years to come.

Also, what would be interesting to look into would be figuring out whether or not people who are aware of their own biases able to deal with and correct mistakes that they are called out on better that those who aren't as aware?

He won a nobel prize in economics for his research on this, despite being a psychologist. It's fair enough to assume that his research was fairly thorough. The article was just a little glimpse of the work that he'd done and a bit of promo for his book It should be fairly reliable.

I believe though, that there are people who can recognise their bias and learn from it, but the point is that if you are one of those people, you will be unable to tell, because everyone, including the people who can't learn, think they do.

I think he suggested that the research was that people once made aware of their biases, actually often performed worse at the task.

It's really interesting stuff, I want to buy his book and when I've done economics experiments for people a lot of those questions in the article are often repeated (I don't tend to fall for them because whenever I do an experiment I'm hyper suspicious of trick questions and force myself to think slow on all of them, which is definitely some bias they probably don't account for)

 

[duchaked]

the few projects that interested me enough to back (and that I caught in time :{ missed a few good ones) were ones that I actually believed to be worth throwing money at lol

the promised rewards are a nice touch, and may reasonably boost my amount given a little but definitely not the main factor. while somewhat understandable, these new rules might be a bit overkill?