No More Paypal Payment Protection for Crowdfunding Pledges

[MonsterCrit]

Well, I think Crowdfunding in general needs an overhaul in how they work. I am in favor of it overall, but cancelled/unfinished projects should return the money.

They don't have it anymore. How much blood can you get out of a rock?

Like I said, a lot of reworking needs to be done. Perhaps money shouldn't be given to them until the goal is reached. Then its the project's responsibility to be finished. If you cant pay it back, then don't just cancel it. If this means they have to pay back backers with their own money, that's on them, now isn't it? I don't think backers are the only ones who should be worried about risks from crowdfunding.

Wait... that makes no sense. If they had the money to reach the goal they wouldn't need the kickstarter or crowdfunding...

 

[Saelune]

Well, I think Crowdfunding in general needs an overhaul in how they work. I am in favor of it overall, but cancelled/unfinished projects should return the money.

They don't have it anymore. How much blood can you get out of a rock?

Like I said, a lot of reworking needs to be done. Perhaps money shouldn't be given to them until the goal is reached. Then its the project's responsibility to be finished. If you cant pay it back, then don't just cancel it. If this means they have to pay back backers with their own money, that's on them, now isn't it? I don't think backers are the only ones who should be worried about risks from crowdfunding.

Wait... that makes no sense. If they had the money to reach the goal they wouldn't need the kickstarter or crowdfunding...

Well, sometimes people/companies who don't actually need the money have gone to crowdfunding, though people usually complain about them. Also sometimes people just don't want to risk their own money.

 

[Saelune]

Why are we all attacking Saelune? Holy crap guys, it's just a debate. If it really twists your panties in a bunch that someone disagrees, even for unknown reasons to you, then I got some bad news for you.

As to this whole thing, I actually am agreeing with Saelune at least somewhat. Even AAA publishers have well-structured budgets. If a project just simply can't meet the goals for x reason or reasons, it should simply show on a budget sheet. If a game is failing to develop as the publisher wants, it simply gets shut down and the devs look for another job.

And that's what Saelune is asking for I think. A more strict control and openness as to how this money is getting spent as publishers have it, in this case, all kept track of by a third-party.

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated. One that shows where the money went, and where they were lacking. Who knows, it could lead to more people willing to help finish the project, or atleast let whats been made be somewhat salvageable.

There are a lot of unknowable variables since each project is different (we have focused on video games but there are more than games being crowdfunded) and any number of different issues can arise, sure, but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right? Or if they just gave up and said fuck it.

 

[insanelich]

I persist because it has become this assault on my character. Earlier people disagreeing with me were less aggressive than you. Clearly no ones minds will be changed. I know mine hasn't, even though its literally everyone just arguing against me. That's fine. Ultimately it comes down to I dont care about these people wasting others money going broke. And don't tell me what I can and cannot argue. Just say your point and let me say mine. Maybe I will flounder, maybe not, but its something I'm allowed to do.

Literally everyone is arguing against you and yet you won't consider stopping arguing your point - which, mind you, is entirely wrong. It's turned into an assault onto your character because you raise no valid points. It's like arguing with someone saying "water isn't wet".

Being deliberately obtuse is something you're allowed to do, but so is saying you shouldn't post, because you're not saying anything worth reading.

 

[Saelune]

I persist because it has become this assault on my character. Earlier people disagreeing with me were less aggressive than you. Clearly no ones minds will be changed. I know mine hasn't, even though its literally everyone just arguing against me. That's fine. Ultimately it comes down to I dont care about these people wasting others money going broke. And don't tell me what I can and cannot argue. Just say your point and let me say mine. Maybe I will flounder, maybe not, but its something I'm allowed to do.

Literally everyone is arguing against you and yet you won't consider stopping arguing your point - which, mind you, is entirely wrong. It's turned into an assault onto your character because you raise no valid points. It's like arguing with someone saying "water isn't wet".

Being deliberately obtuse is something you're allowed to do, but so is saying you shouldn't post, because you're not saying anything worth reading.

Now you're just being rude. And I believe we're arguing something more subjective than something that can be "wrong". We aren't arguing the feeling of water, we're arguing if its fair to expect crowdfunding projects to have more responsibility to their backers or not.

 

[insanelich]

]Now you're just being rude. And I believe we're arguing something more subjective than something that can be "wrong". We aren't arguing the feeling of water, we're arguing if its fair to expect crowdfunding projects to have more responsibility to their backers or not.

It's not subjective at all.

Developing videogames costs money. This is a fact. The money is gone once spent. The food it's used to buy is gone once digested. These are also facts.

From these facts is derived the fact that the process always has risks. Most of the time the risk is taken by the publisher / investor for a share of the profits. Crowdfunding allows for the individual consumers to take the risk (read: supply the funds for the development) instead. This specific characteristic is what a lot of people consider the entire point of crowdfunding.

This isn't subjective, you're just trying to muddy the waters to avoid admitting you're wrong.

 

[Saelune]

]Now you're just being rude. And I believe we're arguing something more subjective than something that can be "wrong". We aren't arguing the feeling of water, we're arguing if its fair to expect crowdfunding projects to have more responsibility to their backers or not.

It's not subjective at all.

Developing videogames costs money. This is a fact. The money is gone once spent. The food it's used to buy is gone once digested. These are also facts.

From these facts is derived the fact that the process always has risks. Most of the time the risk is taken by the publisher / investor for a share of the profits. Crowdfunding allows for the individual consumers to take the risk (read: supply the funds for the development) instead. This specific characteristic is what a lot of people consider the entire point of crowdfunding.

This isn't subjective, you're just trying to muddy the waters to avoid admitting you're wrong.

No you're wrong. See, I can do that too.

Sure, the money given to them is gone. Doesn't mean those who wasted it cant be financially punished for wasting it. As I said before, though likely to someone else, I don't feel bad for these projects that are irresponsible with the money given to them. People keep bringing up risks, I say apply the risks to the project runners too.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated. One that shows where the money went, and where they were lacking. Who knows, it could lead to more people willing to help finish the project, or atleast let whats been made be somewhat salvageable.

There are a lot of unknowable variables since each project is different (we have focused on video games but there are more than games being crowdfunded) and any number of different issues can arise, sure, but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right? Or if they just gave up and said fuck it.

To start with, I am not attacking you (I can't speak for anyone else of course). I am asking you to explain your perspective where I perceive it conflicts with reality. For example, I'm of the opinion that it'd be very nice if everyone had access to infinite food, but unless I'm coming forward with plans to build a Star-Trek style replicator my opinion is merely of wishful thinking rather than useful analysis.

1.

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated.

This is of course nice in theory and a goal to strive as much towards as possible, but like many things it crashes into the unyielding wall of reality. Sometimes expenses can't be properly reported due to confidentiality reasons (Which granted can be abused, but there's also legitimate reasons). Even in terms of things not strictly confidential I for one would not be lining up to have my salary broadcast to the world. There's also the added expense of now needing to hire someone to properly document every penny spent. Next there's the issue of liability; who's responsible for fraudulent reporting, kickstarter or the creator? Not to mention that as soon as Fanboy Y sees the creator is using tool X that's going to spark a big rabble rabble rabble and crash the project as armchair generals with no relevant experience think they get to call the shots over the actual project manager who is immersed in the reality of the situation.

The second issue with this is that I'd bet in the vast majority of circumstances the answer is just the highly-unsatisfactory-yet-true 'we underestimated how long this would take to make, and we've run out of money to pay people to work on it.' It's pooooooossible that some people would be willing to contribute to try and push it the rest of the way to the finish but I have a feeling the vast majority of backers are going to the opposite path, demanding that they get their money back out of this apparently-failed venture.

2.

but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right?

Of course I'd be mad, as would most people. The problem is that anger does not break open some rift in reality that refund money floods out of. I'm not saying it's unfair for backers to be mad or feel like it was a waste, or that it wouldn't be justice to get a refund. What I am saying is there is no feasible way for that money to be refunded.

As an aside (To be clear I'm not accusing you of this as real fraud does happen, this is just a random tangential rant against hypothetical people) I'm getting real sick of people who 'earmark' donate to charity because how dare the filthy middlemen touch that money meant for poor starving orphans, as these people seem to have some idea that a large-scale charity doesn't need to pay accountants, the bank fees associated with moving giant sums of money, cargo-shipping, the managers who coordinate all this, and the many other overhead costs that exist in order to get the items from point A to point B successfully (usually across multiple nations' borders which complicates the situation immensely).

 

[Saelune]

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated. One that shows where the money went, and where they were lacking. Who knows, it could lead to more people willing to help finish the project, or atleast let whats been made be somewhat salvageable.

There are a lot of unknowable variables since each project is different (we have focused on video games but there are more than games being crowdfunded) and any number of different issues can arise, sure, but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right? Or if they just gave up and said fuck it.

To start with, I am not attacking you (I can't speak for anyone else of course). I am asking you to explain your perspective where I perceive it conflicts with reality. For example, I'm of the opinion that it'd be very nice if everyone had access to infinite food, but unless I'm coming forward with plans to build a Star-Trek style replicator my opinion is merely of wishful thinking rather than useful analysis.

1.

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated.

This is of course nice in theory and a goal to strive as much towards as possible, but like many things it crashes into the unyielding wall of reality. Sometimes expenses can't be properly reported due to confidentiality reasons (Which granted can be abused, but there's also legitimate reasons). Even in terms of things not strictly confidential I for one would not be lining up to have my salary broadcast to the world. There's also the added expense of now needing to hire someone to properly document every penny spent. Next there's the issue of liability; who's responsible for fraudulent reporting, kickstarter or the creator? Not to mention that as soon as Fanboy Y sees the creator is using tool X that's going to spark a big rabble rabble rabble and crash the project as armchair generals with no relevant experience think they get to call the shots over the actual project manager who is immersed in the reality of the situation.

The second issue with this is that I'd bet in the vast majority of circumstances the answer is just the highly-unsatisfactory-yet-true 'we underestimated how long this would take to make, and we've run out of money to pay people to work on it.' It's pooooooossible that some people would be willing to contribute to try and push it the rest of the way to the finish but I have a feeling the vast majority of backers are going to the opposite path, demanding that they get their money back out of this apparently-failed venture.

2.

but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right?

Of course I'd be mad, as would most people. The problem is that anger does not break open some rift in reality that refund money floods out of. I'm not saying it's unfair for backers to be mad or feel like it was a waste, or that it wouldn't be justice to get a refund. What I am saying is there is no feasible way for that money to be refunded.

As an aside (To be clear I'm not accusing you of this as real fraud does happen, this is just a random tangential rant against hypothetical people) I'm getting real sick of people who 'earmark' donate to charity because how dare the filthy middlemen touch that money meant for poor starving orphans, as these people seem to have some idea that a large-scale charity doesn't need to pay accountants, the bank fees associated with moving giant sums of money, cargo-shipping, the managers who coordinate all this, and the many other overhead costs that exist in order to get the items from point A to point B successfully (usually across multiple nations' borders which complicates the situation immensely).

With the many people against me, I have lacked effort into being clear who is who. I just respond as they come, though looking a bit back, you haven't been one of the nasty ones. This response is certainly more in line with an actual debate.

People keep money too secret. I don't think you need your salary on your nametag, but this idea of not talking about your money is odd to me. Being clear and transparent makes things more...clear. I will use youtube as an example, a lot of youtubers don't like to discuss how much money they make, but due to some who make tons of money, a lot of people think most decently successful youtubers are rather wealthy...then those youtubers claim that's not the case, but if they don't actually disclose it, we cant really know. Sure not everyone understands money (I wont pretend I'm some economic master), but because stupid people are stupid doesn't validate their lack of understanding. (Yes this applies to me aswell, those who think I'm being stupid, maybe I am).

Overreacting fanboys is also rarely a good excuse to not do something.

I think the power of a genuine sorry is underrated. I would much prefer failed projects simply explain that their calculations and all that was a bit off and its hindered the project. It makes losing money given to them a bit easier to bear then just silence and saying its just not happening.

I also understand the concept of "after costs", that non-profit doesn't mean there isn't someone who has to get paid.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Spoiler

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated. One that shows where the money went, and where they were lacking. Who knows, it could lead to more people willing to help finish the project, or atleast let whats been made be somewhat salvageable.

There are a lot of unknowable variables since each project is different (we have focused on video games but there are more than games being crowdfunded) and any number of different issues can arise, sure, but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right? Or if they just gave up and said fuck it.

To start with, I am not attacking you (I can't speak for anyone else of course). I am asking you to explain your perspective where I perceive it conflicts with reality. For example, I'm of the opinion that it'd be very nice if everyone had access to infinite food, but unless I'm coming forward with plans to build a Star-Trek style replicator my opinion is merely of wishful thinking rather than useful analysis.

1.

Maybe I was being a bit stubborn on my first point, but I do feel that transparency is a big help. If they cant give back the money and cannot finish the project, an explanation would be very appreciated.

This is of course nice in theory and a goal to strive as much towards as possible, but like many things it crashes into the unyielding wall of reality. Sometimes expenses can't be properly reported due to confidentiality reasons (Which granted can be abused, but there's also legitimate reasons). Even in terms of things not strictly confidential I for one would not be lining up to have my salary broadcast to the world. There's also the added expense of now needing to hire someone to properly document every penny spent. Next there's the issue of liability; who's responsible for fraudulent reporting, kickstarter or the creator? Not to mention that as soon as Fanboy Y sees the creator is using tool X that's going to spark a big rabble rabble rabble and crash the project as armchair generals with no relevant experience think they get to call the shots over the actual project manager who is immersed in the reality of the situation.

The second issue with this is that I'd bet in the vast majority of circumstances the answer is just the highly-unsatisfactory-yet-true 'we underestimated how long this would take to make, and we've run out of money to pay people to work on it.' It's pooooooossible that some people would be willing to contribute to try and push it the rest of the way to the finish but I have a feeling the vast majority of backers are going to the opposite path, demanding that they get their money back out of this apparently-failed venture.

2.

but even if we are "donating" our money, we deserve some sense of return on it. If you donate to a charity and they blow it on themselves, and not helping the sick or something, youd be mad, right?

Of course I'd be mad, as would most people. The problem is that anger does not break open some rift in reality that refund money floods out of. I'm not saying it's unfair for backers to be mad or feel like it was a waste, or that it wouldn't be justice to get a refund. What I am saying is there is no feasible way for that money to be refunded.

As an aside (To be clear I'm not accusing you of this as real fraud does happen, this is just a random tangential rant against hypothetical people) I'm getting real sick of people who 'earmark' donate to charity because how dare the filthy middlemen touch that money meant for poor starving orphans, as these people seem to have some idea that a large-scale charity doesn't need to pay accountants, the bank fees associated with moving giant sums of money, cargo-shipping, the managers who coordinate all this, and the many other overhead costs that exist in order to get the items from point A to point B successfully (usually across multiple nations' borders which complicates the situation immensely).

With the many people against me, I have lacked effort into being clear who is who. I just respond as they come, though looking a bit back, you haven't been one of the nasty ones. This response is certainly more in line with an actual debate.

People keep money too secret. I don't think you need your salary on your nametag, but this idea of not talking about your money is odd to me. Being clear and transparent makes things more...clear. I will use youtube as an example, a lot of youtubers don't like to discuss how much money they make, but due to some who make tons of money, a lot of people think most decently successful youtubers are rather wealthy...then those youtubers claim that's not the case, but if they don't actually disclose it, we cant really know. Sure not everyone understands money (I wont pretend I'm some economic master), but because stupid people are stupid doesn't validate their lack of understanding. (Yes this applies to me aswell, those who think I'm being stupid, maybe I am).

Overreacting fanboys is also rarely a good excuse to not do something.

I think the power of a genuine sorry is underrated. I would much prefer failed projects simply explain that their calculations and all that was a bit off and its hindered the project. It makes losing money given to them a bit easier to bear then just silence and saying its just not happening.

I also understand the concept of "after costs", that non-profit doesn't mean there isn't someone who has to get paid.

Firstly, thank you for understanding that I'm not personally attacking you.

While the bit about money being too secret is great in a 'perfect world' scenario and it would be great to know from a consumer perspective, it can wreck absolute hell within a project environment, or in business contracts. For example, Timmy and Jimmy both do the same work as salary-paid employees on a project: then, for transparency reasons the boss reveals what everyone is being paid to the backers. The problem is now Timmy and jimmy know what the other is being paid; if they're paid equal then one (or likely both) of them is/are probably going to have a fit because they feel like they do waaay more work than that other slacker. And if they're paid different then the one who's getting paid less (even if they are contributing less) is likely going to have their motivation plummet because they feel like they're being cheated. To expand this to the Youtuber example you gave, if a marketing department hired two different youtubers to promote something but paid them differently because their audiences are of different size and make up, knowing exactly how much can spark off a lot of raw feelings that either the person with the bigger audience is getting ripped off or that the smaller youtuber's work is being devalued or even 'kept down by the big guys', than some nebulous understanding will. And generally having someone peeved at you while asking them to promote your product will end badly.

Now let's take this to a larger inter-business scale: ACME corporation has a deal with buyer A to supply them with boxes at a set price. But, ACME also has a deal with buyer B, supplying them with the same number of boxes but at a higher price. Maybe this is because ACME expects more repeat business from A than B, maybe A just had a better negotiator, maybe the ACME was under greater financial stress at the time and needed the sale to A even at a discount, while B bought while ACME was flying high and had so many orders the value of boxes went up. Let's suppose somehow ACME was forced to reveal the entirety of these deals, and B learns they're paying more than A, you now have buyer B who's going to raise a fit that they got ripped off, and demanding that ACME give them back the difference or they'll boycott and try to slander ACME. ACME now has the lose-lose choice of placating B (And that starts a precedent cascade that now everyone who paid more than buyer A expects the same) or praying that B is unsuccessful in convincing other potential clients that they're being ripped off.

So the base conflict here is the consumer/donator's desire to see how the money is being handled vs the company's right to suppress information for the sake of their business running smoothly, and the two have to meet somewhere in the middle for anything to get done. I can absolutely see the argument that a mere inconvenience to a business should take a backseat to any advantage to the consumer, but I think eventually it hits a point a company can't function without certain confidential data (though of course vigilance must be maintained against abuse; I can't remember some specific names but back when the xbox1 was launching Machinima was paid money for their associates to give non-critique coverage, with one of the contract clauses being the pay had to be secret and that is very, very much illegal and bit them in the ass).

As for the fanboys comment you're right in general but the specific situation of crowdfunding warps the context greatly as the fanboys are the most likely to be swayed by emotional impulse and cough up the most money. So, either you reveal before your launch 'we're going to be using the money to buy tool Y to do our project' and have all the tribal-yet-rich whack-jobs refuse to fund on the basis the creator is obviously just too stupid to recognize the great gift from the divine that is tool X and therefore can't be trusted with money. Or, you reveal after the fact 'we spent the money we got from the crowdfunding on tool Y' and have the tribal types raging about how their money was stolen and they want their money back before the project crashes into a wall under the ignorant, buffoonish, poopyheaded leadership of the creator, which leads to the same result as above: take the 'fine we don't want your money approach' setting a refund precedent and sparking off an endless wave of having to return money every time a backer takes the slightest offense by the creator's decisions, or take the 'tough, you signed the Kickstarter terms of services' choice and ignite a wave of people actively harassing and trying to ruin the project, either through dragging their reputation through the mud or more direct harassment.

EDIT: As a general example, look at how people respond to civil servant salaries, and how you have people on both sides reacting to the same number: some saying that they're underpaid and the service can't be adequately provided at such a low cost and some saying that their salaries are a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money. And very, very few people on either side with experience or insight into the cogs of actual management.

 

[Saelune]

TL;DR. I've taken the time to write this out FOR YOUR SAKE. Be a decent human being and take the time to read it.

This is why I don't care what you say anymore. Any decent etiquette of debate is gone since you think my decency as a human is apparently lost cause I disagree with you.

 

[Saelune]

Firstly, thank you for understanding that I'm not personally attacking you.

While the bit about money being too secret is great in a 'perfect world' scenario and it would be great to know from a consumer perspective, it can wreck absolute hell within a project environment, or in business contracts. For example, Timmy and Jimmy both do the same work as salary-paid employees on a project: then, for transparency reasons the boss reveals what everyone is being paid to the backers. The problem is now Timmy and jimmy know what the other is being paid; if they're paid equal then one (or likely both) of them is/are probably going to have a fit because they feel like they do waaay more work than that other slacker. And if they're paid different then the one who's getting paid less (even if they are contributing less) is likely going to have their motivation plummet because they feel like they're being cheated. To expand this to the Youtuber example you gave, if a marketing department hired two different youtubers to promote something but paid them differently because their audiences are of different size and make up, knowing exactly how much can spark off a lot of raw feelings that either the person with the bigger audience is getting ripped off or that the smaller youtuber's work is being devalued or even 'kept down by the big guys', than some nebulous understanding will. And generally having someone peeved at you while asking them to promote your product will end badly.

Now let's take this to a larger inter-business scale: ACME corporation has a deal with buyer A to supply them with boxes at a set price. But, ACME also has a deal with buyer B, supplying them with the same number of boxes but at a higher price. Maybe this is because ACME expects more repeat business from A than B, maybe A just had a better negotiator, maybe the ACME was under greater financial stress at the time and needed the sale to A even at a discount, while B bought while ACME was flying high and had so many orders the value of boxes went up. Let's suppose somehow ACME was forced to reveal the entirety of these deals, and B learns they're paying more than A, you now have buyer B who's going to raise a fit that they got ripped off, and demanding that ACME give them back the difference or they'll boycott and try to slander ACME. ACME now has the lose-lose choice of placating B (And that starts a precedent cascade that now everyone who paid more than buyer A expects the same) or praying that B is unsuccessful in convincing other potential clients that they're being ripped off.

So the base conflict here is the consumer/donator's desire to see how the money is being handled vs the company's right to suppress information for the sake of their business running smoothly, and the two have to meet somewhere in the middle for anything to get done. I can absolutely see the argument that a mere inconvenience to a business should take a backseat to any advantage to the consumer, but I think eventually it hits a point a company can't function without certain confidential data (though of course vigilance must be maintained against abuse; I can't remember some specific names but back when the xbox1 was launching Machinima was paid money for their associates to give non-critique coverage, with one of the contract clauses being the pay had to be secret and that is very, very much illegal and bit them in the ass).

As for the fanboys comment you're right in general but the specific situation of crowdfunding warps the context greatly as the fanboys are the most likely to be swayed by emotional impulse and cough up the most money. So, either you reveal before your launch 'we're going to be using the money to buy tool Y to do our project' and have all the tribal-yet-rich whack-jobs refuse to fund on the basis the creator is obviously just too stupid to recognize the great gift from the divine that is tool X and therefore can't be trusted with money. Or, you reveal after the fact 'we spent the money we got from the crowdfunding on tool Y' and have the tribal types raging about how their money was stolen and they want their money back before the project crashes into a wall under the ignorant, buffoonish, poopyheaded leadership of the creator, which leads to the same result as above: take the 'fine we don't want your money approach' setting a refund precedent and sparking off an endless wave of having to return money every time a backer takes the slightest offense by the creator's decisions, or take the 'tough, you signed the Kickstarter terms of services' choice and ignite a wave of people actively harassing and trying to ruin the project, either through dragging their reputation through the mud or more direct harassment.

EDIT: As a general example, look at how people respond to civil servant salaries, and how you have people on both sides reacting to the same number: some saying that they're underpaid and the service can't be adequately provided at such a low cost and some saying that their salaries are a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money. And very, very few people on either side with experience or insight into the cogs of actual management.

But I don't think that its unfair to expect business to be...fair. No, not everyone will react reasonably, but again I don't think that makes it ok to appease their irrationality. Two people doing the same job should be paid the same. If one of them is doing less, due to being a poorer worker, and they thus get paid less because of it, or the other person does more and gets paid more, well that seems fair to me.

I also remember when it was discussed how much it cost to make a 3DS, and some people were bothered that it cost however much to buy it when it "only" cost however much in materials. Mostly cause it didn't take into account the cost of the machines, tech, and even R&D to make it, plus businesses can charge more for a product if its worth it. Would be cheaper to stay home and eat, but then I have to make it myself afterall.

I know money is a big deal, certainly an extremely devicive topic (as this whole experience shows) but there will always be people who overreact and underreact, but that shouldn't allow bad or unfair business exist just to keep people calm and seemingly happy.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Spoiler

Firstly, thank you for understanding that I'm not personally attacking you.

While the bit about money being too secret is great in a 'perfect world' scenario and it would be great to know from a consumer perspective, it can wreck absolute hell within a project environment, or in business contracts. For example, Timmy and Jimmy both do the same work as salary-paid employees on a project: then, for transparency reasons the boss reveals what everyone is being paid to the backers. The problem is now Timmy and jimmy know what the other is being paid; if they're paid equal then one (or likely both) of them is/are probably going to have a fit because they feel like they do waaay more work than that other slacker. And if they're paid different then the one who's getting paid less (even if they are contributing less) is likely going to have their motivation plummet because they feel like they're being cheated. To expand this to the Youtuber example you gave, if a marketing department hired two different youtubers to promote something but paid them differently because their audiences are of different size and make up, knowing exactly how much can spark off a lot of raw feelings that either the person with the bigger audience is getting ripped off or that the smaller youtuber's work is being devalued or even 'kept down by the big guys', than some nebulous understanding will. And generally having someone peeved at you while asking them to promote your product will end badly.

Now let's take this to a larger inter-business scale: ACME corporation has a deal with buyer A to supply them with boxes at a set price. But, ACME also has a deal with buyer B, supplying them with the same number of boxes but at a higher price. Maybe this is because ACME expects more repeat business from A than B, maybe A just had a better negotiator, maybe the ACME was under greater financial stress at the time and needed the sale to A even at a discount, while B bought while ACME was flying high and had so many orders the value of boxes went up. Let's suppose somehow ACME was forced to reveal the entirety of these deals, and B learns they're paying more than A, you now have buyer B who's going to raise a fit that they got ripped off, and demanding that ACME give them back the difference or they'll boycott and try to slander ACME. ACME now has the lose-lose choice of placating B (And that starts a precedent cascade that now everyone who paid more than buyer A expects the same) or praying that B is unsuccessful in convincing other potential clients that they're being ripped off.

So the base conflict here is the consumer/donator's desire to see how the money is being handled vs the company's right to suppress information for the sake of their business running smoothly, and the two have to meet somewhere in the middle for anything to get done. I can absolutely see the argument that a mere inconvenience to a business should take a backseat to any advantage to the consumer, but I think eventually it hits a point a company can't function without certain confidential data (though of course vigilance must be maintained against abuse; I can't remember some specific names but back when the xbox1 was launching Machinima was paid money for their associates to give non-critique coverage, with one of the contract clauses being the pay had to be secret and that is very, very much illegal and bit them in the ass).

As for the fanboys comment you're right in general but the specific situation of crowdfunding warps the context greatly as the fanboys are the most likely to be swayed by emotional impulse and cough up the most money. So, either you reveal before your launch 'we're going to be using the money to buy tool Y to do our project' and have all the tribal-yet-rich whack-jobs refuse to fund on the basis the creator is obviously just too stupid to recognize the great gift from the divine that is tool X and therefore can't be trusted with money. Or, you reveal after the fact 'we spent the money we got from the crowdfunding on tool Y' and have the tribal types raging about how their money was stolen and they want their money back before the project crashes into a wall under the ignorant, buffoonish, poopyheaded leadership of the creator, which leads to the same result as above: take the 'fine we don't want your money approach' setting a refund precedent and sparking off an endless wave of having to return money every time a backer takes the slightest offense by the creator's decisions, or take the 'tough, you signed the Kickstarter terms of services' choice and ignite a wave of people actively harassing and trying to ruin the project, either through dragging their reputation through the mud or more direct harassment.

EDIT: As a general example, look at how people respond to civil servant salaries, and how you have people on both sides reacting to the same number: some saying that they're underpaid and the service can't be adequately provided at such a low cost and some saying that their salaries are a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money. And very, very few people on either side with experience or insight into the cogs of actual management.

But I don't think that its unfair to expect business to be...fair. No, not everyone will react reasonably, but again I don't think that makes it ok to appease their irrationality. Two people doing the same job should be paid the same. If one of them is doing less, due to being a poorer worker, and they thus get paid less because of it, or the other person does more and gets paid more, well that seems fair to me.

I also remember when it was discussed how much it cost to make a 3DS, and some people were bothered that it cost however much to buy it when it "only" cost however much in materials. Mostly cause it didn't take into account the cost of the machines, tech, and even R&D to make it, plus businesses can charge more for a product if its worth it. Would be cheaper to stay home and eat, but then I have to make it myself afterall.

I know money is a big deal, certainly an extremely devicive topic (as this whole experience shows) but there will always be people who overreact and underreact, but that shouldn't allow bad or unfair business exist just to keep people calm and seemingly happy.

Define 'fair'. For example: Two people have the same job description, and both of them put in the same hours and the same effort, but one has been doing this job a few months longer. What is 'fair' there? The person with seniority would argue that he does the job intangibly better because of valuable experience and is more emotionally invested in the company while that other guy might flake off at any moment. The newer person would argue that they're doing the exact same work, there's no measurement that detects their results are different, and thus they should be paid the same.

Or, what if the company contracted one person, but then contracted someone else for the same task at a much higher salary, what's 'fair' there? Is the company unfair for paying someone a higher salary for the same position? Is the incoming individual unfair for wanting a higher pay? Is the existing worker unfair because now they want to break a contract they fully agreed to?

While this example talks about individuals and you said corporations I feel like the similarities persist: corporations are just hives of interpersonal working relationships spread over a exponentially growing size.

In the 'two employees paid differently example' how do you judge if they are or aren't giving an equal contribution? Neither has the ability to objectively see the big picture, and ultimately both are going to say they're the one who does more work, and that they're the one getting screwed; which one is right and how do you determine that? Even if you could how do you compensate for that? Even if you could measure it I've never met a human being that would accept 'well this chart shows why you deserve less money, get back to work' with cold objectivity; at best they're going to feel pointless and from there on give the kind of effort that would embarrass a panda and at worst they're going to feel cheated and someone's going to find all the company's passwords have been changed while the boss detects a faint smell of urine in his coffee.
This isn't about refusing to bow to irrationality, this is having to navigate the very real problems that the people in the chain, whether it be the purse-holder(backer/publisher), the punchclock employee, the project lead, the potential customer, and anyone in-between could explode at any moment for whatever reason they feel offended by, and the chain can't just continue on as if nothing happened when a link in has been ruptured apart. This is muddied even further as in some cases they're probably right to feel offended (A worker believing their employer is cheating their benefits, a publisher believing their developer embezzled funds, a developer believing the publisher is abusing their contract and financial weight for extortion, a customer who believes they've been cheated by dodgy marketing, and so on endlessly but the most important word in there is 'believe', not 'know').

To look at an example conflict of how hard it can be to sort out what's fair: lets say a company sells a game, and a youtuber reviews it. The review is very negative. Ok, no problem so far, access to critique is absolutely a right of the consumer.
But, let's suppose that the company retaliates, and accuses the youtuber of lying about their product, and in this hypothetical their accusation is not without merit. Who's fairness trumps what in this situation? Does the media have the right to say anything in the name of stopping corporate interference in critique, with corporations allowed no recourse but their own statement?(that isn't even guaranteed to reach anybody at that, I mean what % of people does the average retraction in a news story reach compared to how many read the original story? I'm guessing nowhere close to all). Does the corporation have the right to prevent lies from being spread about their product, even if part of the disputed review is legitimate? Who is it that can fairly determine whether the statements are true or false? And going to the root, the consumer: is it fair for the consumer to have access to any statement about the product but also the onus of having to sort out the lies from the truth on all sides, or is it fair to the consumer that they should be able to trust that anything they are told about a product is unquestionably truthful?

 

[Saulkar]

Oh, this is a convenient coincidence. A company I used to work for that was funded by kickstarter had someone embezzle money and kill the project, as near as I can tell. They might have managed to secure enough money to finish the backer rewards but the technology looks like it was all released as open source for everyone.

I wonder what that means for all of the 3D schematics I drew up for patents, do I even still have those? The hell am I supposed to do with them?

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

I don't really like how this comment section has devolved into "everyone against Saelune", especially since I think that his fundamental idea -- that the crowdfunding process should be reworked -- seems like a good one. For instance, here's a couple possible suggestions for improvement:

1) Make it so that crowdfunding efforts that succeed well beyond their initial goal don't get all the money up front. For instance, if someone's making a video game and claims to need $100,000 for development but raises $5 million instead, maybe only give them half a million to start with. Assuming their original claim was anywhere near the right ballpark, they should be able to complete a working prototype on that alone with plenty to spare. If they run out of money they should be able to go back to the backers and petition for another half million; but then they'd have some explaining to do about why their previous half million wasn't enough.

2) Require/allow projects to submit a timeline/road map that breaks their project into stages and says how much money each stage will take. For instance, you might have steps like "Initial design - 3 months, $50,000, 10% of total budget", "Working prototype - 6 months, $100,000, 20% of total budget", and "Mass production - 9 months, $350,000, 70% of total budget". Then only release the money for a stage of the project when the previous stage has been declared completed. That way if, after three months and 10% of the total budget, the project has neither a plausible design nor the prospect of getting one soon, backers could pull the plug and salvage 90% of their "invested" capital.

While the bit about money being too secret is great in a 'perfect world' scenario and it would be great to know from a consumer perspective, it can wreck absolute hell within a project environment, or in business contracts. For example, Timmy and Jimmy both do the same work as salary-paid employees on a project: then, for transparency reasons the boss reveals what everyone is being paid to the backers. The problem is now Timmy and jimmy know what the other is being paid; if they're paid equal then one (or likely both) of them is/are probably going to have a fit because they feel like they do waaay more work than that other slacker. And if they're paid different then the one who's getting paid less (even if they are contributing less) is likely going to have their motivation plummet because they feel like they're being cheated.

I'm also going to call this out somewhat because I know from personal experience that this doesn't really work out that way in practice. My current employer is one where everyone's salary, from the president's down to the janitors', is a matter of public record, and all these problems...just don't crop up. Maybe my little microcosm isn't representative of the world as a whole, but I find your argument to be reasonable in theory but not the way things work in practice. Where I work most people neither know nor care exactly how much other people are making; it's not like knowing is going to change either your salary or theirs, so most people don't even bother to look it up.

Now let's take this to a larger inter-business scale: ACME corporation has a deal with buyer A to supply them with boxes at a set price. But, ACME also has a deal with buyer B, supplying them with the same number of boxes but at a higher price. Maybe this is because ACME expects more repeat business from A than B, maybe A just had a better negotiator, maybe the ACME was under greater financial stress at the time and needed the sale to A even at a discount, while B bought while ACME was flying high and had so many orders the value of boxes went up. Let's suppose somehow ACME was forced to reveal the entirety of these deals, and B learns they're paying more than A, you now have buyer B who's going to raise a fit that they got ripped off, and demanding that ACME give them back the difference or they'll boycott and try to slander ACME. ACME now has the lose-lose choice of placating B (And that starts a precedent cascade that now everyone who paid more than buyer A expects the same) or praying that B is unsuccessful in convincing other potential clients that they're being ripped off.

The same logic applies here. Again, where I work, the budget is also a matter of public record. I'm not an immediate part of the budgeting process, but I've never heard of a company complaining that they got paid a different amount than another company for the same work. Much like the employees, I doubt the companies care, other than in a "we should know this for next time" sense. All large jobs go out to bid; if a different company got a higher/lower bid than you, well, tough luck. Maybe you should bid more/less competitively next time.

 

[Saelune]

Oh, this is a convenient coincidence. A company I used to work for that was funded by kickstarter had someone embezzle money and kill the project, as near as I can tell. They might have managed to secure enough money to finish the backer rewards but the technology looks like it was all released as open source for everyone.

I wonder what that means for all of the 3D schematics I drew up for patents, do I even still have those? The hell am I supposed to do with them?

Since a lot of people have focused on me wanting the failed project to pay back, I would elaborate that in this such case, the embezzler(s) should be the one to pay, (and possibly go to jail) not everyone else in the project who essentially got punished for this other persons bad deeds.

 

[MoltenSilver]

I don't really like how this comment section has devolved into "everyone against Saelune", especially since I think that his fundamental idea -- that the crowdfunding process should be reworked -- seems like a good one. For instance, here's a couple possible suggestions for improvement:

1) Make it so that crowdfunding efforts that succeed well beyond their initial goal don't get all the money up front. For instance, if someone's making a video game and claims to need $100,000 for development but raises $5 million instead, maybe only give them half a million to start with. Assuming their original claim was anywhere near the right ballpark, they should be able to complete a working prototype on that alone with plenty to spare. If they run out of money they should be able to go back to the backers and petition for another half million; but then they'd have some explaining to do about why their previous half million wasn't enough.

2) Require/allow projects to submit a timeline/road map that breaks their project into stages and says how much money each stage will take. For instance, you might have steps like "Initial design - 3 months, $50,000, 10% of total budget", "Working prototype - 6 months, $100,000, 20% of total budget", and "Mass production - 9 months, $350,000, 70% of total budget". Then only release the money for a stage of the project when the previous stage has been declared completed. That way if, after three months and 10% of the total budget, the project has neither a plausible design nor the prospect of getting one soon, backers could pull the plug and salvage 90% of their "invested" capital.

While the bit about money being too secret is great in a 'perfect world' scenario and it would be great to know from a consumer perspective, it can wreck absolute hell within a project environment, or in business contracts. For example, Timmy and Jimmy both do the same work as salary-paid employees on a project: then, for transparency reasons the boss reveals what everyone is being paid to the backers. The problem is now Timmy and jimmy know what the other is being paid; if they're paid equal then one (or likely both) of them is/are probably going to have a fit because they feel like they do waaay more work than that other slacker. And if they're paid different then the one who's getting paid less (even if they are contributing less) is likely going to have their motivation plummet because they feel like they're being cheated.

I'm also going to call this out somewhat because I know from personal experience that this doesn't really work out that way in practice. My current employer is one where everyone's salary, from the president's down to the janitors', is a matter of public record, and all these problems...just don't crop up. Maybe my little microcosm isn't representative of the world as a whole, but I find your argument to be reasonable in theory but not the way things work in practice. Where I work most people neither know nor care exactly how much other people are making; it's not like knowing is going to change either your salary or theirs, so most people don't even bother to look it up.

Now let's take this to a larger inter-business scale: ACME corporation has a deal with buyer A to supply them with boxes at a set price. But, ACME also has a deal with buyer B, supplying them with the same number of boxes but at a higher price. Maybe this is because ACME expects more repeat business from A than B, maybe A just had a better negotiator, maybe the ACME was under greater financial stress at the time and needed the sale to A even at a discount, while B bought while ACME was flying high and had so many orders the value of boxes went up. Let's suppose somehow ACME was forced to reveal the entirety of these deals, and B learns they're paying more than A, you now have buyer B who's going to raise a fit that they got ripped off, and demanding that ACME give them back the difference or they'll boycott and try to slander ACME. ACME now has the lose-lose choice of placating B (And that starts a precedent cascade that now everyone who paid more than buyer A expects the same) or praying that B is unsuccessful in convincing other potential clients that they're being ripped off.

The same logic applies here. Again, where I work, the budget is also a matter of public record. I'm not an immediate part of the budgeting process, but I've never heard of a company complaining that they got paid a different amount than another company for the same work. Much like the employees, I doubt the companies care, other than in a "we should know this for next time" sense. All large jobs go out to bid; if a different company got a higher/lower bid than you, well, tough luck. Maybe you should bid more/less competitively next time.

Can I move where you live? It sounds much nicer than my community. I've never had a coworker in my life who didn't smell blood in the water the second they got a mere rumor someone else was getting 'more than they're worth', and I still point the civic servants debates as my proof-of-concept that this happens on a grander scale. I can't say which of us is the anomaly as both of us only have our own personal experiences.

EDIT: To give a more specific example, my mother is part of my province's pharmacist and medical technician union. Despite also being medical professionals, the nurses have their own union, and doctors their own, and so on. The minute the government budges and gives an inch to one union, well to hear the other unions talk you'd think there were blood rituals and pacts with satan involved.

If you wish a different example of how corporations require keeping confidential data to function then I will provide more:
1. Trade Secrets: trade secrets are what a large amount of NDA agreements are signed to protect. these are intellectual properties, such as recipes (only a tiny handful of people in the world know the exact formula of CocaCola for example), that can be very very difficult to patent/trademark/copyright or pursue forgery etc but then in turn do not receive the same legal protection patents do. As a result secrecy is the only tool to maintain the integrity of their product.
2. Commitment: (I'm going to crutch heavily on movies/videogames on this one due to being the easiest to demonstrate but it is obviously not exclusive to them) As is, producers choose the timetable to announce their projects, whether they want to announce something the day it launches or at the moment of the first pre-production meeting. This is a critical decision to a producer because, as we've just seen with Lionhead, work on a project can smash to a halt at any moment. If a producer had to disclose they were spending money because they're working on a sequel to their last game, then later had to announce they decided to cancel the project, that action will hurt the reputation of the company and antagonize the market, even though the result is functionally the same as never having announced they were working on it in the first place.

And Saelune is not being 'ganged up on', multiple people disagreed with their post, and disagreed in different ways. Unless you are accusing there is some sort of coordinated attack conspiracy.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

EDIT: To give a more specific example, my mother is part of my province's pharmacist and medical technician union. Despite also being medical professionals, the nurses have their own union, and doctors their own, and so on. The minute the government budges and gives an inch to one union, well to hear the other unions talk you'd think there were blood rituals and pacts with satan involved.

Oh, yeah, this totally happens. There's only two unions where I work, but if one union gets a 3% raise the other generally gets a 3% raise as well, unless there are extenuating circumstances. That being said, the unions are pretty close and generally work together to try to wring concessions from the administration, who'd never give anyone a cent could they manage it (other than themselves, for some reason).

But that's on a union-wide basis. Knowing how much a particular person makes seems a different question altogether, and at least in my experience, not a particularly divisive one. It might help, though, that everyone (within a union) is on the same salary schedule. Different people are at different places according to education and experience, but it's pretty clear how to move up: get more education or work here longer.

If you wish a different example of how corporations require keeping confidential data to function then I will provide more:
1. Trade Secrets: trade secrets are what a large amount of NDA agreements are signed to protect. these are intellectual properties, such as recipes (only a tiny handful of people in the world know the exact formula of CocaCola for example), that can be very very difficult to patent/trademark/copyright or pursue forgery etc but then in turn do not receive the same legal protection patents do. As a result secrecy is the only tool to maintain the integrity of their product.
2. Commitment: (I'm going to crutch heavily on movies/videogames on this one due to being the easiest to demonstrate but it is obviously not exclusive to them) As is, producers choose the timetable to announce their projects, whether they want to announce something the day it launches or at the moment of the first pre-production meeting. This is a critical decision to a producer because, as we've just seen with Lionhead, work on a project can smash to a halt at any moment. If a producer had to disclose they were spending money because they're working on a sequel to their last game, then later had to announce they decided to cancel the project, that action will hurt the reputation of the company and antagonize the market, even though the result is functionally the same as never having announced they were working on it in the first place.

But neither of these are really a concern to crowdfunded projects. No one's suggesting that any project be forced to reveal its trade secrets (if it has any, which I'm guessing like 99% probably don't). And the very act of using a crowdfunding platform is in and of itself a public announcement of commitment to a particular project.

And Saelune is not being 'ganged up on', multiple people disagreed with their post, and disagreed in different ways. Unless you are accusing there is some sort of coordinated attack conspiracy.

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I just think it's kind of a shame that everyone's saying "No, no, you can't do this" and no one's saying "Here's some ideas of ways to improve the process." Again, I think Saelune's fundamental idea -- that the crowdfunding process can be improved -- is meritorious and deserving of debate. I just wish there was more debate about it, rather than arguing over one or two particular points.