No More Paypal Payment Protection for Crowdfunding Pledges

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

@Moltensilver: "You are not a consumer in crowdfunding. You earlier called it a charity,"

You pay to have a product created, then given to you. There's an extra step there since it's not real yet, but the front end and back end of that equation is still paying for a product.
Earlier he said they can start a charity if they just want money. It's NOT a charity since people are spending their money in order to get something in return.

My 2c is that It's funny how the date for this is juuuuuuust before the 18 month after deadline....deadline SC has for it's return policy, which I'm sure will turn into a big deal, and I'm hoping to see something logical come of that.

jallious:
@Moltensilver: "You are not a consumer in crowdfunding. You earlier called it a charity,"

You pay to have a product created, then given to you. There's an extra step there since it's not real yet, but the front end and back end of that equation is still paying for a product.
Earlier he said they can start a charity if they just want money. It's NOT a charity since people are spending their money in order to get something in return.

My 2c is that It's funny how the date for this is juuuuuuust before the 18 month after deadline....deadline SC has for it's return policy, which I'm sure will turn into a big deal, and I'm hoping to see something logical come of that.

Then why is it many kickstarters have a 5-dollar 'no reward but thanks for helping us to our goal' option? Kickstarter is not a store, you are not exchanging money for a product, you are throwing money to the ether in exchange for hope that a product that cannot be created any other way might at some point exist. Hell a lot of charities I've seen have reward incentives as well, either in the form of raffles or 'donate X dollars and you get Y'. This is flat-out stated in Kickstarter's terms of service, and while I tend to skewer heavily pro-consumer most times not reading the agreement is one of the things that is entirely the fault of the person using the service.

Saelune:
Well one, people keep giving me vague unnamed problems and I am supposed to feel bad. Lets ignore the ones who are just trying to con people out of money or atleast have no respect for the people putting their money and faith in them. What about the problems people backing such things face? Shouldn't I not feel bad for them too? I keep getting painted as mean spirited, but I am just on the consumer's side in this.

Well.. We give you generalized examples because you can surely use the power of abstract thought to apply it to scenarios by yourself. Stop being lazy.

And cases where someone is running a scam is few and far between. It is up to the 'investor' to properly research their product before they put money in. Do they have a prototype? Do they have pre production done? How have they determined how much money they need? You research these factors. You're not buying a product. You're investing into one.

As for the consumer, why do they need protecting? Im sure that no one understands your logic here... If 1000 people invest $20 into a project that eventually fails, then why do you expect the person who ran the project to have $20000 to just hand back?

Also. Backers dont face problems. If you're suffering from financial issues, then you simply don't back a crowdfunded campaign. How is that hard to understand?

And if you do back a project but run into money issues, then you can cancel your backing at any point before the campaign has ended.

You have such flawed logic. You apparently fail to see why someone with no money would be unable to pay back large sums of money to large quantities of people, yet you think that consumers will go hungry if they don't have the $5 that they gave to the kickstarter?

You really need to stop fighting this corner. You know that you're so misinformed and wrong at this point. But you're too proud to admit that you're wrong. I even gave you an out. Really shows a lack of character that you didnt take it.

Kibeth41:

Saelune:
Well one, people keep giving me vague unnamed problems and I am supposed to feel bad. Lets ignore the ones who are just trying to con people out of money or atleast have no respect for the people putting their money and faith in them. What about the problems people backing such things face? Shouldn't I not feel bad for them too? I keep getting painted as mean spirited, but I am just on the consumer's side in this.

Well.. We give you generalized examples because you can surely use the power of abstract thought to apply it to scenarios by yourself. Stop being lazy.

And cases where someone is running a scam is few and far between. It is up to the 'investor' to properly research their product before they put money in. Do they have a prototype? Do they have pre production done? How have they determined how much money they need? You research these factors. You're not buying a product. You're investing into one.

As for the consumer, why do they need protecting? Im sure that no one understands your logic here... If 1000 people invest $20 into a project that eventually fails, then why do you expect the person who ran the project to have $20000 to just hand back?

Also. Backers dont face problems. If you're suffering from financial issues, then you simply don't back a crowdfunded campaign. How is that hard to understand?

And if you do back a project but run into money issues, then you can cancel your backing at any point before the campaign has ended.

You have such flawed logic. You apparently fail to see why someone with no money would be unable to pay back large sums of money to large quantities of people, yet you think that consumers will go hungry if they don't have the $5 that they gave to the kickstarter?

You really need to stop fighting this corner. You know that you're so misinformed and wrong at this point. But you're too proud to admit that you're wrong. I even gave you an out. Really shows a lack of character that you didnt take it.

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.

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.

Saelune:

lacktheknack:

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...

MonsterCrit:

Saelune:

lacktheknack:

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.

Arnoxthe1:
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.

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.

insanelich:

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.

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.

insanelich:

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.

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).

MoltenSilver:

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.

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:
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.

Actually. He's being brutally honest. And this isn't a subjective argument. It's quite black and white, and you're on the wrong side. Hiding behind ignorance doesn't move something into a grey area, it just means you lack understanding.

It's the same as arguing the earth is round. All facts point to it being round. Densely stating "that is your opinion" does not change the facts.

This is hardly even people attacking you. You're just wrong, and everyone else happened to point it out to you.

I mean, Christ, you were the one who started running your mouth and blabbing that 'the system needs an overhaul' without even knowing basic facts about crowdfunding. You'd think that you'd do even the tiniest bit of research before you started making these statements.

That's why you're in such a minority. The lot of us have done research, we've had first time experience with crowdfunding, we've done a little bit of reading as to how it actually works. Some of us have even been on the business end of things. A couple of us have even had failed projects.

Do yourself a favor. Read.

Go and spend an hour and actually read up on the topic you are blindly arguing about. At most, your opinion will change. At the very least, you'll actually have a couple of valid points to defend your current argument.

At the current point in time. You haven't even tried looking at this from someone else's perspective. Try thinking from the point of view of someone trying to get a project off the ground. The only means they have of determining how much money they need is a fucking spreadsheet and some predictions. It is difficult to predict all of the bumps a project may run into.

It's seriously baffling as to why you would possibly argue this strongly about a subject while being so lazy that you can't be bothered to do any research at all. Why not get a little more educated? Itll be beneficial to yourself, rather than an annoyance to others.

Saelune:

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.

What do you even think a games development process is like?!

Projects dont fail because someone is irresponsible with money. Generally the cost of a game is easy predicted by determining the cost of hardware, software and location, combined with the living cost of each employee.

The monetary issues come in when time management goes to hell, or internal problems arise.

Let's look at examples. Let's pretend we're the devs of Mighty no9 (a Kickstarter game).

We predict we'll need X amount of money because we're hiring as many employees as we think we'll need, and nothing more.

We have enough money for 2 years salary for these employees.

We organize our spreadsheets, set up everyone's salary, we get our development plan down. A critical path is set up.

But what if someone gets ill? We need to pay their sick leave even though they cant work.

What if we run into problems with coding? It may harm the critical path. That'd mean we'll hit a delay, which means we need more money.

What if someone leaves the company? Need to find a new employee at that point.

What if we underestimated the time we need for our asset creation. Sally the character artist may not be able to get 8 characters ready by her deadline, even with all that unpaid overtime she's doing.

What if the hardware breaks? We need to pay to replace it. Computers which are capable of running games dev software are expensive.

What if a console dev kit breaks? Now those are super expensive.

What if we need more employees? That's more money gone. But we need to hit the deadline.

What if we're getting close to launch, and game breaking issues arise?

Just a few of many examples of potential issues. 9/10ths of the time, a dead project is no one's fault, but just comes down to bad luck. You seem to think that after this fact, devs should be reprimanded and forced to declare bankruptcy, for the sake of the few dollars that each backer was generous enough to DONATE to fund the project. For the sake of the backers who are WEALTHY ENOUGH to back projects on Kickstarter.

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.

Kibeth41:

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.

MoltenSilver:

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?

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?

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.

MoltenSilver:

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.

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?

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.

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.

MoltenSilver:

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.

MoltenSilver:

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.

The_Great_Galendo:
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.

Everyone wants crowdfunding to be better, just like every developer wants their game to be hailed as an artistic masterpiece, and every publisher wants their game to make all the money on Earth, just like, well, everyone wants everything to be better; the problem is there frequently isn't an 'everyone wins' scenario to many problems and that's before we get into the fact everyone has a different idea of what 'better' means. I was not critiquing the general concept that it would be nice if crowdfunding afforded more protection to the people who support it, I was critiquing the specific suggestions given as I felt they did not properly reflect for the economic realities of the situation. I do not understand how doing that could be conflated as 'attacking' or 'ganging up on'. To give a very hyperbolic and simplistic example: my Grandmother is very tech/internet illiterate and not the best at spotting scams to start with. If one day she told me a Nigerian Prince had contacted her and offered to split his money with her for helping with the bank fees I don't feel explaining why that will not work to her is 'attacking' her, nor would I consider it 'ganging up on' her if every member of my family repeats the same thing to her. It doesn't mean my hypothetical grandmother is stupid, it just means it's an area of knowledge she doesn't understand. And to extend the metaphor, if she hypothetically turned around and asked 'well, what's your better idea for making a million dollars??' that doesn't disarm the prior arguments. On the contrary, if I was about to risk my life savings in an obviously economically nonviable venture I would actively HOPE someone would explain to me why what I'm about to do isn't realistic.

Saelune:
since I'm apparently in the minority,

Well, count me as a supporter, because you are absolutely correct. The developers who obtain their funding through Kickstarter and fail to deliver on their promises without good reason should be considered financially and probably legally liable to the greatest extent possible. If that means completely draining the developer's bank accounts so be it, that's called punishment for failure, not being heartless. In fact, it should be considered fraud if deliberate or at least criminal negligence if not to do so without good reason given. Even if they do deliver on their promises any amount that exceeds the amount requested or required to fund each goal should be given back rather than kept. Also no, "it cost me more than I thought it probably would" does not constitute good reason, nor "I had problems that made things cost more than I would have and take longer", the initial asking price should have enough leeway to take those into account in the first place. If this was the case or especially was always the case we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of projects dead in the water that never delivered that we do now because developers using Kickstarter would make damned sure they knew what their projects would cost and how long it was going to take even accounting for unforeseen events that could change that before even putting it up.

As it is there is nothing remotely resembling a guarantee that a project that is successfully funded is completed. Such a situation is ripe for abuse.

So I have been summoned again. Anyways, I have had time to think about it, and here is how I personally think Crowdfunding should work.

One, people keep saying charity and stuff, but really its a different kind of loan. We should be considered investors. When you get a loan from a bank, you are expected to pay it back, with interest. With someone funding it, like a game (since our focus has been game developers more than any other potential crowdfund project), ie a publisher, they pay for the game but may expect to have creative influence, and they too expect to get paid back in profit. The difference with crowdfunding is there isn't someone making changes to your project, and you don't have to pay interest, and likely they have to buy the product themselves aswell. Its not a charity, and it should not be. People are paying for a product, and I think backers deserve a return, one way or another.

Both bank loans and publishers have risks of failure, as does crowdfunding. The project runners should take careful consideration for all potential costs, and likely should set a goal with some legroom.

They set the goal, and either A: Enough people like the idea that it reaches its goal, the project gets the money and should be able to finish it. Then the backers now have the ability to buy the product. Or B: People don't like it, doesn't make its goal, everyone who did fund some of it gets their money back, the project gets nothing.

Should they get excessive funds, I -don't- think they should be punished for it. This is where I am actually on the project's side. It shouldn't be held against you that people actually like your idea. All they should be expected to do is fulfill their original goal. Obviously this just means they have way more legroom to work. If they finish and want to add more, good for them. If not, then I think they should get to keep the money, though perhaps give backers the product for free, since you don't need as much profit.

If the project just falls through, that's unfortunate, but you should have planned better. Why it failed may be important, but a bank isn't going to care that your project failed, and expect to get paid regardless. People who keep saying "but the money is gone" need to understand the concept of being "in debt".

Projects should also be clear and open with how things are going. A publisher doesn't just give money and not keep tabs. Plus this may allow issues to be better avoided. A full plan beyond idea should probably be part of the pitch atleast, so people can judge for themselves if they trust the project to succeed. A bank giving a loan to a start up business is likely to want to know you have a decent enough plan, perhaps a location picked out, proper licenses or whatever.

In the case of people scamming or embezzling, or shady things, well obviously they definatly need to pay back, and possibly be arrested. Fraud is fraud. If some people ruin a project for others, in the case of multiple people working on it, only those doing the illegal stuff should be punished such as in Saulkar's case.

I hope this more clearly and fairly expresses my opinion on this, and if anyone has any issue with all or some of this, that we can continue proper and thoughtful debate. I'm not a money expert, I just think people need to be open and fair, and not trying to scam each other nor should faulty practices not be fixed. I do like the idea of the community more directly getting to decide what gets made, but I think it needs some work before all the kinks are hammered out.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.