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.

In a parallel line of thinking, I play Kittens in a Blender with my daughters frequently at family time. It's great fun, and we even pick up the blend box, shake it around, and make a blender noise.

We have 2 cats in our house which have continued to live happy and blender free lives despite this.

Mr. Hamilton seems incapable of recognizing that irony and satire can be as simple as a faint nod in the direction of a subjects existance.

biccat wrote:Kickstarter TOS
You shall not, and shall not permit any third party using your account to, take any action, or Submit Content, that:

■is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, tortious, obscene, offensive, profane, or invasive of another's privacy

As of a few days ago, they also had one about not allowing projects that "glorify violence."

And of course there have been projects like this:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stainlessgames/carmageddon-reincarnation

Now they have this posted:

Note that as you go through the site you may find past projects on Kickstarter that conflict with these rules. We’re making tweaks as we learn and grow. Thanks for reading!

Again, I'm not calling them hypocrites because they're learning from what they perceive to be mistakes. What I am saying is that the quotation from their terms of service that you posted doesn't really clarify anything except the broadness of the basis of action they claim. It might as well read: "We'll let you use the site if we let you use the site."

And that's fine as a matter of "rights." Kickstarter is obviously well within its rights to do so. But as I mentioned, this case is not a testament for Kickstarter's reliability as a company.

'd love to play this game with people who have never heard of tentacle rape hentai, especially kids around age 11-14. I want to see if at any point 'rape' even enters their mind as they play it.

Well, seeing as you are a tentacle monster from space trying to outfox schoolgirls by laying traps to capture them and have your way with them........

They may also want to know what one girl is forcing herself on another with a boob grab......

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd love to play this game with people who have never heard of tentacle rape hentai, especially kids around age 11-14. I want to see if at any point 'rape' even enters their mind as they play it.

I doubt it would.

On the other hand, maybe even 11 - 14 year olds "have seen enough hentai to know what happens next" thanks to *chan culture. But that's the point of the game, as far as I can tell. It is a vehicle for satirizing our own reactions as individuals and as a culture to something that makes us uncomfortable and that we don't understand. A much more explicit version of this is the Two Girls One Cup meme that went around a while back. The meme wasn't just the gross-out vid itself but rather the reaction to the vid. No one who participated in that meme did so as a show of support for what was depicted in the video. The idea was to experience and chronicle revulsion. That's why filming other people watching it became so popular. Now, Tentacle Bento is certainly nowhere near Two Girls One Cup, especially in the sense that Tentacle Bento is very careful only to suggest hentai and even then only to people who have already been exposed to it.

The way we react to a thing reveals not only something about that thing but also about us.

Kilkrazy wrote:We need a "reasonable person" test on whether things are offensive.

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Manchu wrote:What I am saying is that the quotation from their terms of service that you quoted doesn't really clarify anything except the broadness of the basis of action they claim. It might as well read: "We'll let you use the site if we let you use the site."

It contradicts the applicability of the "bus analogy". Which was particularly poor for other reasons.

AegisGrimm wrote:

How does it make you feel to be called a "creepy" guy who plays "weird" games?

At age 30, I've gotten over it.

Congratulations for growing up. Now please keep in mind that not everyone who likes these things is totally confident about who they are. As adult gamers who have "made it through," people like you and me should be supporting younger gamers who still have to deal with insecurities about the hobbies they want to pursue because their other peers and potential role models are telling them that those hobbies are "creepy" and "weird" among other things ("juvenile," "waste of time," etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:It contradicts the applicability of the "bus analogy".

At a superficial level, yes -- but I think KK was talking about the way Kickstarter behaves in practice rather than the expansive terms of use that allows them to justify whatever they want to do on a post hoc basis. There have been plenty of examples of other games that could be seen as obscene or offensive being funded through Kickstarter, even ones that are going on right now despite the reverse course on Tentacle Bento.

So to refine the bus analogy a bit, how about if on the back of your bus ticket there's some fine print reading "we reserve the right to kick you off the bus at any time for any reason." If I need to go on a long bus ride, such language would make me feel pretty nervous about my chances of making it -- unless nobody ever actually gets kicked off the bus. So it's pretty shocking when I do in fact get kicked off for wearing, say for example, an Iron Maiden t-shirt when the guy next to me had on a Slayer shirt and the women on the other side of the aisle had on a Dio tshirt, etc, etc.

Manchu wrote:So to refine the bus analogy a bit, how about if on the back of your bus ticket there's some fine print reading "we reserve the right to kick you off the bus at any time for any reason."

How about if you're given a copy of the bus rules before you buy your ticket. One of the rules is "no offensive t-shirts." You're asked if you've read and understood those rules before buying the ticket. You know you're wearing an offensive t-shirt, but other people get on the bus with differently offensive shirts. Mid-way through the trip, someone complains about your shirt and you're thrown off the bus.

You knew the rules going in. You knew you were in violation of the rules. But you chose to accept the risk of being kicked off on the basis that the rule is seldom (if ever) enforced.

Many people exceed the speed limit. Most aren't caught. That's not an argument for invaliditing speed limits, it's an argument based on limited resources and knowledge of rulebreaking. Now if there were some other evidence to suggest that Sodapop was singled out for its rulebreaking, you would have an argument. For example, if the "no offensive t-shirts" rule is only applied to certain races, then it's wrong.

However, I don't think you really believe the argument you're making.

biccat wrote:You know you're wearing an offensive t-shirt

That assumption is not warranted and invalidates the analogy.

But perhaps it's the analogy that's tripping you up. Analogies are only more or less helpful, so let's get back to the actual issue to hand.

A rule that only says "no offensive projects" doesn't tell us anything about what "offensive" means. If other companies are allowed to fund projects that are similar, in one way or another, to your project then it is reasonable to assume that the rules also allow for your project. If your project must be reviewed to make sure it conforms to the guidelines before funding starts and Kickstarter approves it, then you can be even more assured in your reasonable assumption that your project is not "offensive" under the rules. If your project is further singled out by Kickstarter as a "Staff Pick" and touted by them on their front page, then you should be 100% confident that your project has not violated any of Kickstarter's terms of use.

In this case, Soda Pop Miniatures had good grounds to be totally confident that they were within Kickstarter's terms of use. And Kickstarter still pulled the plug, for whatever reason. The key take-away here is that Kickstarter is not a reliable business partner.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:We need a "reasonable person" test on whether things are offensive.

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

That is the obscenity test to be applied to pornography. It is not be applicable to the Kickstarter condition regarding "offensive", since they ban pornography separately.

The "insert credit" complaint was based on the fact that the writer found the game offensive.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:You know you're wearing an offensive t-shirt

That assumption is not warranted and invalidates the analogy.

Exactly. Tentacle Bento may not be offensive in the slightest to me. Why and how would I "know" that it is offensive to you?

Worrying about offending anyone is what has gotten us to this state of heightened political correctness. Depending on where you're from, people have died for your right to be offended.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is the obscenity test to be applied to pornography.

You asked for a test, I gave one. You might not like it, but it's a test.

A better response would have been "that isn't a good test because..."

Manchu wrote:A rule that only says "no offensive projects" doesn't tell us anything about what "offensive" means.

Reasonable people can disagree. I'm sure the Kickstarger group often consults on whether a given project is offensive or whether they're simply taking it a bit rough personally. Likely, they do not consult on every project. I think it is important to remember that they aren't striving to create universal standards with each project but rather apply judgment on a case-by-case basis with a heavy reliance on context: who is involved, what's the history, what's the relationship, etc.

The choices are clear but inflexible and largely inapplicable standards on the one hand or particular, non-precedential decisions on the other. Yes, they give up setting clear across-the-board standards (1) in favor of action that is appropriate to the actual situation and (2) because they expect users to have learned about general civility outside of Kickstarter and to be able to apply that knowledge here.

Also, you're not privvy to those projects that do get pulled. The only ones you see are those that either escape notice or were deemed to be acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Tentacle Bento may not be offensive in the slightest to me. Why and how would I "know" that it is offensive to you?

The author knew that he was referencingn a particularly odious and offensive brand of animation. At the very least, he should've suspected someone might have a problem with it.

puma713 wrote:Worrying about offending anyone is what has gotten us to this state of heightened political correctness. Depending on where you're from, people have died for your right to be offended.

I don't have a right not to be offended. But I (and Kickstarter) have a right to speak out or refuse to deal with those who make offensive material.

I don't think there's really a fine line there.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is the obscenity test to be applied to pornography.

You asked for a test, I gave one. You might not like it, but it's a test.

I asked for a test for "offensive" and you gave me a test for something else.

Perhaps the test for Year 7 Latin might be more appropriate?

I think biccat's starting to take the "devil" part of "devil's advocate" a bit too far!

biccat wrote:Yes, they give up setting clear across-the-board standards (1) in favor of action that is appropriate to the actual situation and (2) because they expect users to have learned about general civility outside of Kickstarter and to be able to apply that knowledge here.

Again, you're having trouble with analogy. (I understand that it's willful and I understand that it's not about Kickstarter, in case you are looking for some acknowledgment.)

Again, since the analogy is not helping you to understand this case, we can certainly drop it in favor of the facts of the case itself: Kickstarter themselves held up Tentacle Bento as a "Staff Pick" on one day and then suspended the project on the next day. Between those days, nothing about Tentacle Bento itself changed. Whether Kickstarter's terms of service are designed to apply universally or on a case-by-case basis is immaterial. We are only dealing with the application of a standard to one case.

This is why the case illustrates Kickstarter's unreliability: not because you don't know whether your project is offensive in the absence of a explicitly ruling that it is but rather because even if Kickstarter explicitly approves and even advertises your project at one point, it might still cancel your project at another point regardless of the fact that nothing about your project has changed.

I think the game looks like silly satire and no acts of sex or rape is mentioned. The only thing that we know happens is the snatched girls become points and the player with the most points wins. What happens next? This mysterious orgy of raping that have people up in arms? A dating sim? Maybe a mind wipe and back to school. Heck I could see firing them into the sun for all the game says 'happens' for them to be points to win the game.

What happens when someone wins in say Monopoly? Are players forced to file Chapter 13? Do they jump out a window because they lost their life savings? Go on welfare; what? Someone got all the money and property to force others into bankruptcy and lose right? Maybe there's a bailout using tax payer dollars for all we know.

What offends people and to what degree can vary greatly so I honestly have to quote George Carlin on this:

Ohhh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things. You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk. Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it. Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that gak all the time. Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny."

I say, "feth you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh? I know what you're going to say. "Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky. Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind." A lot of men talk like that. A lot of men think that way. They think it's the woman's fault. They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, "she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt." These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don't seem fair to me. Don't seem right, but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything.It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.


This game is a satire, and now that I think about it there should be a sequel where the same tentacled aliens go to a Boarding school for men and do the same thing! "Hey they were asking for it. Being all different than us and being worth points."

Manchu wrote:Again, since the analogy is not helping you to understand this case, we can certainly drop it in favor of the facts of the case itself

OK, lets look at the Kickstarter TOS. See the link I provided before. You're not allowed to post "offensive" projects.

Manchu wrote:Kickstarter themselves held up Tentacle Bento as a "Staff Pick" on one day

No, some staff member held it up as their personal choice. Kickstarter staff aren't the final arbiters on the company's positions.

Manchu wrote:and then suspended the project on the next day. Between those days, nothing about Tentacle Bento itself changed.

Irrelevant. Kickstarter's TOS didn't change between those days either. Tentacle Bento was in violation of the rules on Day 1 and was in violation of the rules when it got pulled.

Manchu wrote:Whether Kickstarter's terms of service are designed to apply universally or on a case-by-case basis is immaterial. We are only dealing with the application of a standard to one case.

And you say I have trouble with analogy?

Manchu wrote:This is why the case illustrates Kickstarter's unreliability: not because you don't know whether your project is offensive in the absence of a explicitly ruling that it is but rather because even if Kickstarter explicitly approves and even advertises your project at one point, it might still cancel your project at another point regardless of the fact that nothing about your project has changed.

I don't think I ever agreed with this argument. I wouldn't do business with Kickstarter if I had a project I thought was offensive. But to post an offensive project with the hope that it doesn't get pulled is asking for trouble.

Since there are three MODs jumping on this issue and at least two have made insulting posts, I'll leave this part of the discussion for others.

You can't fight City Hall.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:Yes, they give up setting clear across-the-board standards (1) in favor of action that is appropriate to the actual situation and (2) because they expect users to have learned about general civility outside of Kickstarter and to be able to apply that knowledge here.

Again, you're having trouble with analogy. (I understand that it's willful and I understand that it's not about Kickstarter, in case you are looking for some acknowledgment.)

Again, since the analogy is not helping you to understand this case, we can certainly drop it in favor of the facts of the case itself: Kickstarter themselves held up Tentacle Bento as a "Staff Pick" on one day and then suspended the project on the next day. Between those days, nothing about Tentacle Bento itself changed. Whether Kickstarter's terms of service are designed to apply universally or on a case-by-case basis is immaterial. We are only dealing with the application of a standard to one case.

Not to nitpick, but "Staff Pick" doesn't necessarily mean that all of the Staff voted on it as a shining example of what they like. It could mean that, certainly, but it also could mean that one particular individual liked the project and then others saw it and decided to pull it.

This is why the case illustrates Kickstarter's unreliability: not because you don't know whether your project is offensive in the absence of a explicitly ruling that it is but rather because even if Kickstarter explicitly approves and even advertises your project at one point, it might still cancel your project at another point regardless of the fact that nothing about your project has changed.

If you have to ask yourself "Is my project offensive?", you might very well already be past that line.

For my own part though, I don't disagree with Kickstarter pulling it. I'd like to see them man up to their standards, however, and yank anything and everything else in there which is equivalent to this in terms of potential offensiveness.

Just to show that this wasn't a PR decision rather than a decision of applying restrictions to projects.

biccat wrote:OK, lets look at the Kickstarter TOS. See the link I provided before. You're not allowed to post "offensive" projects.

Again, "offensive" can only be measured by Kickstarter's customers based on Kickstarter's visible actions

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:Kickstarter themselves held up Tentacle Bento as a "Staff Pick" on one day

No, some staff member held it up as their personal choice. Kickstarter staff aren't the final arbiters on the company's positions.

That's a simple question of agency. A Kickstarter employee who is paid to make a "Staff Pick," among other things, is clearly acting as a representative of the company.

biccat wrote:Kickstarter's TOS didn't change between those days either. Tentacle Bento was in violation of the rules on Day 1 and was in violation of the rules when it got pulled.

The TOS didn't change. How Kickstarter decided to apply it, if at all, did change. Tentacle Bento was not in violation of the rules on Day 1, as seen by Kickstarter reviewing and approving it. It was not in violation on Day 2, when Kickstarter singled it out for entirely gratuitous advertisement. But, by dint of inference, it suddenly was in violation on Day 3 when nothing about it had changed.

biccat wrote: I wouldn't do business with Kickstarter if I had a project I thought was offensive. But to post an offensive project with the hope that it doesn't get pulled is asking for trouble.

That is a nonsequitur. Soda Pop did not think its product was offensive. Soda Pop did not try to fund an offensive project via Kickstarter with the hopes that it would not get pulled.

It would be helpful to your understanding of the case if you would distinguish between what you think of the game and what its creators and fans think of it.

Personally I find these mascot characters deeply offensive.

Ever since I read about the Lisa Simpson thing, I can never look at that logo the same...

Kanluwen wrote:Not to nitpick, but "Staff Pick" doesn't necessarily mean that all of the Staff voted on it as a shining example of what they like. It could mean that, certainly, but it also could mean that one particular individual liked the project and then others saw it and decided to pull it.

It's a good question for which we have already have an answer. The employer is not off the hook regarding the employee's actions when those actions are among the things that the employer pays the employee to do.

Kanluwen wrote:If you have to ask yourself "Is my project offensive?", you might very well already be past that line.

Who decides what has to be asked? I think you'll find that your statement explains everything by revealing nothing.

Kanluwen wrote:Just to show that this wasn't a PR decision rather than a decision of applying restrictions to projects.

Avoiding bad PR is fine reason to pull a project. But, as KK has mentioned several times, there is more PR at stake here than the tastefullness of Tentacle Bento. There is also Kickstarter's reputation as a reliable business partner in the market of low-obstacle contact between investors and creators.

Manchu wrote:Who decides what has to be asked?

If you ask a pervert if he considers himself a pervert, then I am sure a lot of them would say "no".

So what exactly does make something offensive/perverse/etc, according to you?

Because, and I might be wrong, I am getting the vibe that "something is only offensive/perverse/etc in the mind of the beholder" logic is being used here, which would mean that nothing ever can be truly considered offensive/perverse/etc until the entire world's population unanimously considers something as such.

Btw the answer to the question: whoever has the power of the final say. It has always been that way in the history of mankind.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Not to nitpick, but "Staff Pick" doesn't necessarily mean that all of the Staff voted on it as a shining example of what they like. It could mean that, certainly, but it also could mean that one particular individual liked the project and then others saw it and decided to pull it.

It's a good question for which we have already have an answer. The employer is not off the hook regarding the employee's actions when those actions are among the things that the employer pays the employee to do.

Neither is the employer obligated to continue or uphold the poor decision of the employee.

When an employee of mine takes an action that runs counter to company policy, I can over-ride his decision if I feel it's in the company's best interests. I'd still take responsibility for not having trained or instructed my staff sufficiently. I may need to apologize on the employees behalf. But don't pretend that a decision made by an employee defines company policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Just to show that this wasn't a PR decision rather than a decision of applying restrictions to projects.

Avoiding bad PR is fine reason to pull a project. But, as KK has mentioned several times, there is more PR at stake here than the tastefullness of Tentacle Bento. There is also Kickstarter's reputation as a reliable business partner in the market of low-obstacle contact between investors and creators.

That reputation can be quickly confirmed in five minutes of research, seeing how many projects have been seen through to a successful conclusion. One exception does not make investors nervous. In fact, it's a reminder that Kickstarter is a pioneer, and is still defining its business. What it means is that someone looking to start a project on kickstarter needs to spend another 5 minutes talking to Kickstarter and bringing up their concerns if their project could be seen as offensive. Getting that reassurance from a partner is part of business.

TBD wrote:So what exactly does make something offensive/perverse/etc, according to you?

That's completely beside the point, honestly.

Mastiff wrote:But don't pretend that a decision made by an employee defines company policy.

Sure it does, to the extent of absence of meaninful policy, the consequences of that employee's decision, and that the company must deal with them. If your job at the company is to approve or disapprove of potential business partners then it is YOUR decision that defines the company in that regard. If your job is to pick which projects your business will tout as exceptionally deserving of positive attention then it is YOUR decision that defines the company in that regard. Don't pretend that the company is some kind of being that makes decisions and policies separate from the people who own it and are employed by it. That trick only works in terms of legal liability ... and not always then, as with agency cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mastiff wrote:One exception does not make investors nervous.

I think what you mean is that one "quiet and opaque exception" does not make investors nervous. Otherwise, why pull Tentacle Bento? One case can be important even though it is only one case.

What it means is that someone looking to start a project on kickstarter needs to spend another 5 minutes talking to Kickstarter and bringing up their concerns if their project could be seen as offensive. Getting that reassurance from a partner is part of business.

This is exactly what Kickstarter has refused to provide to Soda Pop Miniatures and to its investors.

Manchu wrote:

Mastiff wrote:One exception does not make investors nervous.

I think what you mean is that one "quiet and opaque exception" does not make investors nervous. Otherwise, why pull Tentacle Bento? One case can be important even though it is only one case.

Nope, I was pretty comfortable with my original statement, thanks.

They've successfully completed over 10,000 projects, having helped raise over $100 million for their partners. http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/2011-the-stats.

2011:

Launched Projects: 27,086
Successful Projects: 11,836
Dollars Pledged: $99,344,382
Rewards Selected: 1,150,461
Total Visitors: 30,590,342
Project Success Rate: 46%

2010:

Launched Projects: 11,130
Successful Projects: 3,910
Dollars Pledged: $27,638,318
Rewards Selected: 322,526
Total Visitors: 8,294,183
Project Success Rate: 43%


They've had one incident where a game of tentacled aliens abducting school girls was rejected. The only people bothered by this are those who feel Kickstarter is obligated to tie their wagon to a questionable project.

Watch the pitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8wXUiXLAkY4#!

Yeah, it's vaguely cute if you choose to see it as satire, but when the creator explains how the tentacled alien "captures poor Cindy, drag her into the classroom, and has ourselves a cram session", well, it kinda stops making fun of being creepy, and wallows in it.

Call me crazy, I think investors and people looking to fund their dreams will look at the success rate overall, rather than the failure rate of hentai "spoofs".

Mastiff wrote:The only people bothered by this are those who feel Kickstarter is obligated to tie their wagon to a questionable project.

Anyone who wants to do business with Kickstarter should be concerned. The issue is not one of Kickstarter being obliged to approve any project but rather of Kickstarter being obliged, as a matter of good faith, to allow a project they have already approved and even singled out for praise to continue. Businesses should understand that this case shows how Kickstarter's past behavior is not necessarily relevant to Kickstarter's future behavior.

Mastiff wrote:Yeah, it's vaguely cute if you choose to see it as satire, but when the creator explains how the tentacled alien "captures poor Cindy, drag her into the classroom, and has ourselves a cram session", well, it kinda stops making fun of being creepy, and wallows in it.

That's an argument not a fact. It's an argument that many people have made but I hope that I have shown in this thread (and hopefully on Kotaku and Insert Credit as well) that it's based on the confusion between politics and taste. In a nutshell, your ability to rationalize a thing one way or another (in this case, as "creepy" or as "harmless") does not actually mean that you understand that thing. It is my contention that Mr. Sheffield's comments substitutes a rationalization, notable for being extremely hostile, for understanding. I would say most other folks' comments to the effect of the game being "creepy" is not even a rationalization but rather just a sentiment/reaction.

What's the approval process like? Is it "you want to do this, but can't get the money elsewhere? Okay--you're in!" or do they actually look in-depth at it?

The argument goes both ways, Manchu.

I should also add that this is not dissimilar to the conspiracy theories that get posted up here on Dakka whenever GW showcases an army on their site which uses third party bits/bases or conversions from other armies. People immediately start pointing at it as "GW is trying to claim someone else's IP as their own! Sue! Sue!", when it's the web guy sorting through photos on their Flickr feed.

Soda Pop Miniatures and its investors do not carry the burden of explaining Kickstarter's approval process. Kickstarter agreed to do business with Soda Pop and then reneged and also declined to explain to either Soda Pop or its investors why it did so. Absent further explanation by Kickstarter, this is purely an example of bad faith on Kickstarter's part.

Kilkrazy wrote:I buy a bus and set up a company that advertises it will take passengers from A to B as long as they don't bring any pets or smelly foods on the bus. Also, no conversation is allowed on the bus. The ticket is to be paid at the end of the journey.

Someone comes to the bus stop. I check him for pets and smelly foods. He's clean, so I let him board.

Half way through the journey, some other passengers start to complain that they don't like the design of this passenger's T shirt.

I kick him off the bus, but that's all right because I haven't charged for a ticket and he can probably get a lift the rest of the way. That's not my problem, and I can do what I like with my bus because it's my bus.

Manchu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That's not my problem, and I can do what I like with my bus because it's my bus.

That's a good analogy. The next scene is the guy who got kicked off the bus telling everyone he knows that the bus is an unreliable means of conveyance. Of course, some of them will insist that the story is actually about the t-shirt.

It's not a good analogy at all.
For the sake of this post, I'll presume that KS caved to the complaints of those who were offended.

A good analogy would be is another of KK's rules was "No offensive shirts" and, when they guy go on, he decided the shirt was okay. Maybe the shirt had a confederate "stars and bars" image on it. Since, in KK's opinion, there's nothing inherently wrong with the image, only what some people do it it, he lets it on.
THEN, his other passengers start complaining about the shirt & KK changes his mind.

Now, it's a good analogy. Making the reason he was kicked off have absolutely nothing to do with the rules of the bus -even tangentially- makes it a poor analogy."

Kilkrazy wrote:That's not my problem, and I can do what I like with my bus because it's my bus.

I agree - even if I don't like it.
Eric

There's really no need for analogies, actually.

Manchu wrote:Soda Pop Miniatures and its investors do not carry the burden of explaining Kickstarter's approval process. Kickstarter agreed to do business with Soda Pop and then reneged and also declined to explain to either Soda Pop or its investors why it did so. Absent further explanation by Kickstarter, this is purely an example of bad faith on Kickstarter's part.