Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm up, I'm awake and wow, a lot happens during forty winks, damn.

el edit.

Edited the title of the thread.

Manchu wrote: Big Post

Really well written post, I agree with pretty much all of that.

Really I think Soda-pop need to find some kind of funding outside of the US and somewhere with a bit less of a iron-shod and opinionated or particular moral compass, perhaps parts of Europe where people tend to be a bit less conservative/serious/prudish about this kind of thing.

I do think that they could probably still get this off the ground as there will be a lot of people who will be upset that Kickstarter have chosen this route, and also the notoriety this will bring.

I had no interest in this project at all, but I do object to what to many will be seen as some guy in a ten gallon hat strutting in and saying "you ain't welcome round these parts", while presumably chasing away a Soda-pop girl with a large tentacle (which is of course exactly what happened! ) It is something that a large chunk of the population probably wouldn't find offensive at all. But, as others have said it is their rules. At the very least, it highlights that there exists the potential for a competitor to Kickstarter to come into the market.

They've set up a new fundraiser on their site: http://girls.sodapopminiatures.com/content/fund-tentacle-bento

edit.

Whoops, already posted a page back, sorreh Cyp!

Manchu wrote:

Kickstarter's decision in this case, as opaque as the motivations currently are, seems to basically undermine it's own purpose and mission ... or at least the value I had perceived in it. Rather than knocking down barriers between creators and consumers, we just found a poor and contrived "remix" of the old ones. Money. And PR. And "taste" as a function of the lowest common denominator. For all of you who were so bent out of shape about SOPA and PIPA, consider this a microcosmic taste of what the internet is really about with or without the government cooperating with the private sector status quo.

^^ This.

The purpose of Kickstarter is ostensibly to facilitate the funding of creative projects that would find it difficult to get off the ground through normal business processes.

Creative works by their nature are often subject to controversy. E.g. Piss Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

If you genuinely want to help fund creative projects you need to be able to take a bit of PR flak, not just your cut of the funding involved.

Kickstarter has fallen at the first hurdle. Their own guidelines say, if you don't like a project, don't back it.

Instead, they have allowed a small but vocal number of arguably excessively prudish people to dictate the site's mission.

This will not stop the game being published. It has certainly damaged Kickstarter's reputation, though.

I certainly shan't be backing any more projects through the site. I only wish I could withdraw funding from the ones I have already backed.

Kickstarter did like the project though, or at least some of their staff did, seeing as they did feature it as one of their top staff picks a few days ago oh-so prominently on their front page, but quickly dropped it due to well, you know as another poster put it nicely..

It is not up to Kickstarter to "like" a project or not.

Users do that.

So the top staff picks are not picked by the staff then?

Manchu wrote:*snip huge wall'o'text*

I think your post might be the second time I've ever exalted a post at this place.

Considering I found TB to be rather disturbing on multiple levels, I cannot help being glad this has happened. It'll be amusing if the bad press leads to the Kickstarter fad fading away, too.

I'm with Manchu on this one. The failure of various online money transfer businesses to abide by any sort of "net neutrality" principle has annoyed me for years. Admittedly Tentacle Bento is no Wikileaks, but it's the same bs.

Pacific wrote:Really I think Soda-pop need to find some kind of funding outside of the US and somewhere with a bit less of a iron-shod and opinionated or particular moral compass, perhaps parts of Europe where people tend to be a bit less conservative/serious/prudish about this kind of thing.

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. There are a few ways to do it, but between the ones with high minimum fees (wire transfer) and the ones that require both ends to start doing business with an unknown middleman just to get the money through, I haven't found any good alternatives.

Manchu, I can agree with most of your post in principle, except this part:

Manchu wrote:Over the course of being a member of this community and other wargaming and roleplaying and video gaming communities, I've come to realize that so-called "geek culture" is extremely conservative and fundamentalist. Our post-modern narrative of the outsider would lead me to expect that outsiders would be open-minded and self-critical ... but no. The lip service is there but nothing more (even in this thread: it should be evident that "I'm not telling people what they should like but if I had the power to shut this down, I would" is a contradiction). It's "geek culture" in this case, what with anime and card games at stake. But the whole internet is characterized by this strange ideological drag show where doudy prudishness dresses up in the fashionable high heels of tolerance.

I've underlined the key part. You seem to have misunderstood what I typed, if that part was directed at me. I assume the rest was NOT directed at me, as you are again responding (as Cyporiean was) about people accusing this game of depicting rape or other sexual acts, which I have not done.

However, I was the one who started saying "If it was my site, I'd can this project". I don't think you can in good conscience call THAT statement (the words that I typed, here and on the previous page, not other things that you are responding to) to be a contradiction.

That is the essence of freedom. I can do what I want, no one is going to force me to do anything. Hence, my saying that if it was MY site, I'd shut down the campaign. I also followed it up by saying that I'm sure they'll find another way of funding it (indeed, they have already) so that people who want to can support it.

What's wrong with saying that- can you explain? In my opinion, people are "getting up on their high horse" on both sides of the argument. But certainly, throwing around phrases like "extremely conservative" "fundamentalist" and "prudish" in the paragraph that I quoted are a bit uncalled for, no?

Finally, I am hoping that people are reading what I'm typing. My 3 main points, to reiterate from the last page. I have said nothing beyond this... certainly nothing about "rape" or any other sexual act.

RiTides wrote:To summarize what I've said, in my prior post and this one:
1) I applaud the Kickstarter decision
2) If it was my call, I wouldn't allow such a project to raise funds on my site
3) I think it's difficult to come out and say "I think this game goes too far" sometimes, but that is my personal opinion of this game. Thus my stating 1 and 2 above. I am sure that Soda Pop will find alternative funding opportunities and that people that wish to will be able to buy the game. But I think Kickstarter made the right choice here.

Would you really apply those terms "extremely conservative" "fundamentalist" and "prudish" to me, because of the statements in the quoted text above? Because that is all I've said. I understand that you are responding to many people in one post, and that's why I want to clarify this.

If you are, I would say without hesitation that you are the one who is being intolerant. I'm not forcing my views on anyone, but the very fact that this is a free society means that I can express when I would not support something personally, or allow it to be support on a website that I own (hence supporting it myself, as Kickstarter gets a 10% cut), and that I "think it goes a bit too far". In a post-modern society, as you say, I am just entitled to say I view it this way, as long as I don't force my view on someone else.

As I said before, sometimes it's unpopular to come out and say things like this. Clearly, this is unpopular with some of you. But I think there's a compromise position, and that it is likely what Kickstarter took, between both extremes. Those extremes being "This game supports rape!!!" and the other being "This game is as tame as Pokemon!".

In my opinion, it is neither of those things, but I still would not choose to support it- and thankfully, I can make that choice for myself in this society. I don't have to force my choice on someone else, and I would also resent their forcing their viewpoint on me, or applying adjectives that are clearly reacting to something much stronger against my (in my opinion) very middle-of-the-road position.

My final question- Do you really find it impossible, in a post-modern society, to say "This makes me uncomfortable, I would not personally support it or allow it to be supported through my own website" and yet NOT say that I would go out of my way to keep others from doing so, as I am not forcing my views on them? If I can't say that, then this is not truly a 2-way discussion... I think I am actually quite open-minded and have put a lot of thought into this, so if any of your post was directed at me (as the underlined text seemed to be) I'd appreciate your responding to specifically what I've typed, which involves NO mention of rape or any sexual act of any kind.

Here's to the middle ground, then?? I honestly don't think that I have to be gung-ho in favor of something, to be considered "tolerant". Tolerance doesn't mean I have to give my money to something, or allow it to raise money on my site. If you knew me in person, you would know that I am extremely tolerant (and I met many of the mods in-person at Adepticon). I have homosexual friends and am personally in favor of same-sex unions (since for some reason you brought this up).

So, please, please don't paint anyone who is not completely comfortable with this game with such a large brush. This is a grey area, there are infinite shades, and as long as NEITHER side is throwing out absolutes and judging the other side, I think we can have a productive conversation, and perhaps even sway those "in the middle" (as I am) one way or the other, and learn from one another.

I hope this post comes across as I intend- sincere, and attempting to have a dialogue about what I consider to be an area where absolutes cannot necessarilly be applied, and everyone's "line" will be different. Just because someone has a "line" that is 3 feet further in from someone else on this issue, doesn't mean we have to start calling each other names, or accuse the other person of being intolerant of our line- we just have different lines, and thankfully in this society that's OK.

Finally, I look forward to seeing The Dictator and not being so serious for a bit .

I just funded 50 bucks on the SPM site.

I'm interested in this game. It seems like it's a fun and interesting card game.

Wow shocked i'm really shocked, mostly because kickstarter waited so long before pulling the plug.

I'm thinking they may have deliberately done this to possibly make an example of this project. In other words it didn't mater how naked the girls were or if their was "abduction" of any kind hinted or otherwise they don't want this sort of thing on their website and people need to accept that.

They clearly want to fund only clean projects with clean ideas.

Oh, I know a few people who wanted this. I admit the project was a little wierd even for me but I'd have given it a go. I'd like to see it hit the market anyway.

ceorron wrote:They clearly want to fund only clean projects with clean ideas.

What an upright citizen you are. Truly, your moral compass is a beacon that we all should follow; and I'm glad to have people like you on Kickstarter.

Sarcasm doesn't help further the discussion, Ouze!

BrookM wrote:So the top staff picks are not picked by the staff then?

What I mean is, when I go to Waterstones, a chain of booksellers in the UK, there are Staff Picks shelf talkers that let the staff give their views on why one book or another is a good read. These can be a good way of directing visitors to pick up a title they might have ignored from the cover design.

That doesn't mean the staff have the right to accept or to ban a book in the shop because they like or don't like it.

Forget it, a meaningful discussion takes a back seat to rabble-rousing every time. The most important thing seems to be driving more wedges into the community and attacking other posters with accusations of fundamentalism and prudishness.

RiTides, I understand what you are saying, and I am in a similar place regarding this project. This isn't something that can be broken down to bumper stickers, so I think there may be some needless polarization in some other posts we are seeing here.

Personally, I am not really comfortable with this project, and have really been thinking about why...

A few have mentioned that this is parody. It is not. Parody requires humor, mockery, ridicule, as in the jester revealing hubris and showing it for what it is. I think if this project was true parody, it wouldn't evoke discomfort so strongly, for me at least.

I am perfectly aware this game, on the surface, is innocent. It makes me uncomfortable, though, because it is walking that wink-wink line. We all know what it is hinting around, giving nods to. The whole idea of "tentacle rape" is so alien (literally) that it evokes a deep, almost Lovecraftian horror and revulsion to me. I am so repulsed by it, even this product, which yes, is innocent on the surface, is too close for my comfort.

I get that others, with a different social/ cultural norm, may not feel that way. And that is fine. I am in no way judging what other people like. But i would hope they would allow me the same courtesy.

Now, as for kickstarter. I don't think they should have pulled it. Why? Because their mission is to help stuff get funded and move forward, that otherwise would not. I am not able to reconcile that mission with pulling this project.

I think, instead, they should have put some sort of disclaimer on the page, maybe play the "its ok to not like things" song.

And, ok, so maybe kickstarter took another look and decided this project was not appropriate. That is fine, they are allowed to operate their business as they see fit. But they really need to give some sort of explanation. Otherwise, it appears extremely hypocritical... A fundamental betrayal of the entire premise of kickstarter. And they become exactly that which they abhor, the pigs run the farm, etc...

Agamemnon2 wrote:Forget it, a meaningful discussion takes a back seat to rabble-rousing every time. The most important thing seems to be driving more wedges into the community and attacking other posters with accusations of fundamentalism and prudishness.

And yet the blade doesn't cut the other way; in that presuming people who support the project are "unclean" in some way? It doesn't "drive a wedge into the community" to imply that if you support the project you're an immoral pervert?

I thought it was a tasteless project and I had no interest in it, but it didn't take anything away from me that people who did like it had the option to fund it.

I'm not seeing posters on this forum making the kind of statements you describe, just Manchu fighting strawmen in an unsightly way.

Kilkrazy wrote:What I mean is, when I go to Waterstones, a chain of booksellers in the UK, there are Staff Picks shelf talkers that let the staff give their views on why one book or another is a good read. These can be a good way of directing visitors to pick up a title they might have ignored from the cover design.

That doesn't mean the staff have the right to accept or to ban a book in the shop because they like or don't like it.

No, but the owner of the shop has the right to accept a book or not. They can choose what to sell or not sell. If you don't like their choices then don't visit the bookstore.

ceorron wrote:Wow shocked i'm really shocked, mostly because kickstarter waited so long before pulling the plug.

I'm thinking they may have deliberately done this to possibly make an example of this project. In other words it didn't mater how naked the girls were or if their was "abduction" of any kind hinted or otherwise they don't want this sort of thing on their website and people need to accept that.

They clearly want to fund only clean projects with clean ideas.

Again, you should probably look at the links Cyp posted a page back. Kickstarter has let people and is continuing to let people fund "unclean projects" when you look at the remakes of Leisure Suit Larry and the Smut Peddler. In fact, there is no shortage of projects on kickstarter that depict sexual acts, literally depicting them, not depicting some off camera possability. In fact, if you search Kickstarter right now for the terms, "sex", "erotic", and even "pron" you'll find content that many would consider just as bad as Tentacle Bento, if not worse.

Yes, I do have a problem with this kind of thing:

RiTides wrote:If I owned Kickstarter, I would've canned this project. I applaud their decision.

I understand some people are upset by it, but to me it was the right call.

I'm not forcing my viewpoint on anyone- however, I'd like to think I have just as much right to express it here as anyone who thinks this game is an awesome idea.

Because "I'm not forcing my viewpoint on anyone" and "if I owned Kickstarter, I would've canned this project" should be read together in order to actually understand your perspective. In other words, you're not forcing your opinion on any one else only because you can't. But if you did have the power to do so, you would force your opinion on others -- at least insofar as you had the power to do so. If you owned Kickstarter, RiTides, you would use that ownership to suspend projects that you think are "inappropriate." I get that you're not saying "if I was in Congress, I'd make it illegal" but that's not a rehabilitation, especially in the case of Kickstarter, the value of which (as I pointed out) is that it's a form of funding that doesn't filter creativity. Saying "take that somewhere else if you want to do it" is not openness and tolerance in this case. On the other hand, simply saying that you don't support something is obviously not intolerance. But that's not what you're saying; you're saying "I don't support it and if I had the power to do it I wouldn't let you support it here, either."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you don't like their choices then don't visit the bookstore.

I think you'll find KK already said that he won't be using Kickstarter anymore. "Like it or get out" is not really an argument so much as a threat.

RiTides wrote:I assume the rest was NOT directed at me, as you are again responding (as Cyporiean was) about people accusing this game of depicting rape or other sexual acts, which I have not done.

So what exactly is your problem with the project? As questionable the "it's rape!" arguments are, they're are least presented to support one's objection. You on the other hand have not presented, at least as far as I can tell, any meaningful justification other than "it goes too far".


Generally speaking, I find the fact they decided to can the project now, rather than reject it entirely from the get go the biggest problem here. They thought it was okay, but now they think it's not? That stinks and what it stinks of is angry, self righteous citizens writing equally angry letters to the Sunday newspaper about kids having no moral compass these days.

Gymnogyps wrote:
I am perfectly aware this game, on the surface, is innocent. It makes me uncomfortable, though, because it is walking that wink-wink line. We all know what it is hinting around, giving nods to. The whole idea of "tentacle rape" is so alien (literally) that it evokes a deep, almost Lovecraftian horror and revulsion to me. I am so repulsed by it, even this product, which yes, is innocent on the surface, is too close for my comfort.

I.

I don't know really, I just think it's funny! Does that make me an odd person for thinking that? I think It's so far removed from the realms of reality that I don't know how it can be viewed in any other way.

On the other hand, I really dislike the way that some places in Europe think nothing of showing bullet ridden bodies and train-crash victims in their newspapers. Now that, as you say, turns my stomach. But, perhaps it is different for each of us, and I'm sure some people could quite happily look at those kind of photos while munching on a sandwich.

But yes, as others have said there seems to be a bit more picking and choosing going on at Kickstarter. I think they should, in the interests of impartiality in the general perception of their company, either allow everything, or else disallow anything that someone might find unsuitable or distasteful.

Pacific wrote:I don't know really, I just think it's funny! Does that make me an odd person for thinking that?

Dunno. Do you feel revulsion at the thought of an entire planet, inhabited by millions of innocent human beings, being nuked from orbit with fire and ire, by the combined forces of Inquisition and Imperial Navy?

In other words, do you find implied genocide as revolting as implied tentacle rape?

How are some people able to even look at 40k is beyond me.

Manchu wrote:But that's not what you're saying; you're saying "I don't support it and if I had the power to do it I wouldn't let you support it here, either."

And you're saying you don't support Kickstarter's decision to ban the project, and if you had the power to do it, you wouldn't let Kickstarter ban the project either."

Both are wrong.

I find your allusion to SOPA and PIPA (in your earlier post) particularly amusing scare-mongering.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:If you don't like their choices then don't visit the bookstore.

I think you'll find KK already said that he won't be using Kickstarter anymore. "Like it or get out" is not really an argument so much as a threat.

No, it's a counter-argument. Kilkrazy said "That doesn't mean the staff have the right to accept or to ban a book in the shop because they like or don't like it." That is an argument that companies such as kickstarter, doesn't "have the right to accept or ban a book in the shop." That is wrong. Insofar as he was making an argument that they shouldn't have such a right, I was providing a counter argument.

I doubt it got canceled because people at Kickstarter didn't like it, it got canceled because there was negative press about it and Kickstarter didn't want to look bad.

Providing a 'counter-argument' or just playing Devil's Advocate?

So far, we've done OK in here in terms of keeping things relatively civil.

Let's all try to keep that going, please!