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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

A company also has an obligation to their current clients and investors, and to their internal integrity. If they receive complaints from any of their stakeholders they are obligated to investigate, and, if warranted, act on them. In this case, they did so.

Yes businesses should be cautious in any investment partnership. This is no different.

Manchu wrote:

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. .

Correct. But if an investor questions why Kickstarter made the decision to drop the project, it supports their decision. People with concerns will look for the argument, and decide if it's acceptable.

In other news, Sodapop has $28158 so far

BrookM wrote:In other news, Sodapop has $28158 so far

That was odd... it was at like 28,458 (or 498)... people dropped some pledges...

This bus needs it own reality show.

Mastiff wrote:A company also has an obligation to their current clients and investors, and to their internal integrity.

I agree completely. My additional statement is that internal integrity is a separate matter from external integrity, a.k.a., reputation. If "internal integrity" meant "following through with our agreements" to Kickstarter then they might pay for their integrity by facing the wrath of people who insist the game is about advocating rape. Since "internal integrity" does not mean that to Kickstarter they have to face the question of whether they are a trustworthy business partner looking ahead.

Mastiff wrote: But if an investor questions why Kickstarter made the decision to drop the project, it supports their decision.

I don't know if I get this. Do you mean that the mere potential for reasonable people to differ about this project is an argument in favor of Kickstarter deciding to drop the project?

Alfndrate wrote:

BrookM wrote:In other news, Sodapop has $28158 so far

That was odd... it was at like 28,458 (or 498)... people dropped some pledges...

It is manually updated total, so it might have been typo. (Or just fabrication, if you believe in tentacle-laced conspiracies.)

adhuin wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:

BrookM wrote:In other news, Sodapop has $28158 so far

That was odd... it was at like 28,458 (or 498)... people dropped some pledges...

It is manually updated total, so it might have been typo. (Or just fabrication, if you believe in tentacle-laced conspiracies.)

It was YOU, wasn't it?

Manchu wrote:

Mastiff wrote:A company also has an obligation to their current clients and investors, and to their internal integrity.

I agree completely. My additional statement is that internal integrity is a separate matter from external integrity, a.k.a., reputation. If "internal integrity" meant "following through with our agreements" to Kickstarter then they might pay for their integrity by facing the wrath of people who insist the game is about advocating rape. Since "internal integrity" does not mean that to Kickstarter they have to face the question of whether they are a trustworthy business partner looking ahead.

Mastiff wrote: But if an investor questions why Kickstarter made the decision to drop the project, it supports their decision.

I don't know if I get this. Do you mean that the mere potential for reasonable people to differ about this project is an argument in favor of Kickstarter deciding to drop the project?

No, this is not a case of mere potential complaints.

When Rush Limbaugh recently called a student a slut because she wanted to testify at a senate hearing on contraception, there was a public outcry and one of the methods of protest was to write to Limbaugh's sponsors, many of whom agreed with the protest and ended their partnership with his radio show. I don't want to go too far on a tangent with this case, but it shows that a company's reputation is based on more than their product or services, but also what they appear to stand for and who they associate with. At that point and time, these sponsors saw Limbaugh's presence as toxic and potentially damaging to their own brand, so dropping the association improved their customer loyalty, whereas keeping the partnership would have hurt their "external integrity" and cost them customers.

If Kickstarter kept the partnership, they would have profited 5% of the investment, and Sodapop would have the funding it wanted. KS had to decide if 5% of this one project (and similar potential projects) was a better deal than 5% of the potential partners (who don't want to be associated with tentacles) they could ultimately lose.

As it turned out, KS gave up the 5%, and Sodapop had sufficient investment which it has now carried over to their own site, PLUS a good deal more publicity for a niche game than they could otherwise afford. The end result is they've done quite well for themselves, and KS has helped define what it stands for and will support in the future.

Kickstarter has not defined itself as of yet, at least to anyone outside of Kickstarter. There is a reasonable argument that Kickstarter canceled the project because of the kind of things Brandon Sheffield wrote about but, as Eric pointed out, no one but Kickstarter knows whether that is true.

A major part of my posts has been that we should judge Kickstarter based on their disavowal of association with Soda Pop, proceeding from the argument that I just mentioned. But that is a separate matter from this instance showing that Kickstarter is an unreliable business partner.

Arguably, the publicity that Soda Pop has gained has not/will not translate into the funding dollars that Kickstarter's services would have provided. We will never know whether or not Soda Pop would have done better on Kickstarter (unless they cannot reach $30,701 in funding, in which case we will know that the answer is "no").

Manchu wrote:Kickstarter has not defined itself as of yet, at least to anyone outside of Kickstarter.

This is exactly how companies get defined though. They had to make a decision to give up their share of the money over what will be seen by some as a moral issue. These days, companies are spending millions to brand themselves as "ethical" partners. KS certainly better defined after this event than before.

Mastiff wrote:KS certainly better defined after this event than before.

No, it isn't. It is actually less well defined.

Before this incident, projects that were approved to start funding were allowed to continue funding.

At this point, we know that projects that were approved may be canceled.

And we actually don't know why they may be canceled, although we may have reasonable suspicions.

Manchu wrote:
And we actually don't know why they may be canceled, although we may have reasonable suspicions.

You're a smart guy. Read that again. You already know the reason.

I agree that my inference that Kickstarter canned Tentacle Bento because they chickened out in the face of what looked to be a moral panic is very reasonable. That doesn't make it a fact.

Remaining silent on the issue is different from Kickstarter coming out and saying "we will not allow projects that X, Y, Z," which is what it would take for Kickstarter to be better defined.

I don't know if it's related to this specific case or not, but the language about Kickstarter not allowing projects which "glorify violence" has disappeared this week, too. That is another example of how Kickstarter has become less well defined.

Mastiff wrote:

Manchu wrote:
And we actually don't know why they may be canceled, although we may have reasonable suspicions.

You're a smart guy. Read that again. You already know the reason.

We will approve your project, but reserve the right to cancel it as soon as somebody somewhere on the internet gets ticked off about it for any possible reason?

Manchu wrote:I agree that my inference that Kickstarter canned Tentacle Bento because they chickened out in the face of what looked to be a moral panic is very reasonable. That doesn't make it a fact.

Remaining silent on the issue is different from Kickstarter coming out and saying "we will not allow projects that X, Y, Z," which is what it would take for Kickstarter to be better defined.

Agreed. They'll need to tighten their approval process, and I'd guess they'll have to make some internal policy changes to better define acceptance criteria over the next few days and weeks. But it'll likely continue to evolve over the years to come, and there will always be unusual cases like this that will be covered under their Terms and Conditions under the general "no projects deemed obscene", with "obscene" being a constantly moving target .

Cheers

What I would really like to see from Kickstarter is a message explicitly about this. But that would invite dialog. And dialog is bad for business.

Manchu wrote:What I would really like to see from Kickstarter is a message explicitly about this. But that would invite dialog. And dialog is bad for business.

Why do you care? Would you get any more closure if some dude posted "Yeah on second thought we don't really approve of fake child rape, see ya" on the Kickstarter blog?

"Fake child rape" is nowhere at issue. But that ridiculous mis-characterization is a great example of why I would like to see Kickstarter talk about this as well as a great example of why Kickstarter is not talking about this.

d-usa wrote:

Mastiff wrote:

Manchu wrote:
And we actually don't know why they may be canceled, although we may have reasonable suspicions.

You're a smart guy. Read that again. You already know the reason.

We will approve your project, but reserve the right to cancel it as soon as somebody somewhere on the internet gets ticked off about it for any possible reason?

Apparently that's cool, if it's a project that one personally doesn't like.

The point that Manchu and I are trying to make is that Kickstarter can't be trusted not to can something that someone, somewhere takes a dislike to, even if it fits their published rules and the complaints don't.

Voltaire.
Pastor Niemöller.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently that's cool, if it's a project that one personally doesn't like.

The point that Manchu and I are trying to make is that Kickstarter can't be trusted not to can something that someone, somewhere takes a dislike to, even if it fits their published rules and the complaints don't.

Voltaire.
Pastor Niemöller.

I remember what Voltaire said. Kickstarter isn't suppressing Sodapop's ideas, they are choosing not to be their method of conveyance. If you support someone's right to utter anti-Semitic diatribes, does that obligate you to say the words yourself? KS chose to remove themselves from the relationship they disagreed with.

Mastiff wrote:If you support someone's right to utter anti-semetic diatribes, does that obligate you to say the words yourself?

If you would not utter them yourself, does that mean you must suppress others from saying them?

Manchu wrote:

Mastiff wrote:If you support someone's right to utter anti-semetic diatribes, does that obligate you to say the words yourself?

If you would not utter them yourself, does that mean you must suppress others from saying them?

Suppressed how? SP has found another venue to operate from. Not providing a forum for something you disagree with is not the same as suppressing it.

Suppressed by having first having Kickstarter disable the ability to search for the project on their site and then canning the project altogether. Soda Pop's Plan B and its hypothetical effectiveness is not at issue. We all understand that Kickstarter is not the government.

Manchu wrote:Suppressed by having first having Kickstarter disable the ability to search for the project on their site and then canning the project altogether. Soda Pop's Plan B and its hypothetical effectiveness is not at issue. We all understand that Kickstarter is not the government.

Did you ever think that they removed the ability to search for the project on their site while they reviewed it further in detail?

For all we know, Sodapop's proposal to Kickstarter for the game did not match what they actually were aiming to do.

Manchu wrote:Suppressed by having first having Kickstarter disable the ability to search for the project on their site and then canning the project altogether. Soda Pop's Plan B and its hypothetical effectiveness is not at issue. We all understand that Kickstarter is not the government.

Again, that's not suppression, that's stopping their own role as a method of conveyance. Sodapop was free to carry on with their ideas, and did so.

Kanluwen wrote:Did you ever think that they removed the ability to search for the project on their site while they reviewed it further in detail?

That is irrelevant.

Kanluwen wrote:For all we know, Sodapop's proposal to Kickstarter for the game did not match what they actually were aiming to do.

Dakka's own favorite fallacy, blame the victim. As I mentioned to you already, Soda Pop and its investors do not have the burden of explaining Kickstarter's procedures. The "for all we know" line of argument is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mastiff wrote:Again, that's not suppression

Again, yes it is. You might be thinking of censorship rather than suppression.

Manchu wrote:Again, yes it is. You might be thinking of censorship rather than suppression.

This reminds me of the peasant in Holy Grail. "Help me, I'm being suppressed!" . Yeah, I know, he was oppressed...

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Did you ever think that they removed the ability to search for the project on their site while they reviewed it further in detail?

That is irrelevant.

Not to be mean here Manchu, but I think it is. There are a myriad of scenarios where this is beneficial to the company to do such a thing while they review it. It doesn't necessarily have to be solely because they "caved to the pressure" exerted upon them by a morally offended crowd.

Kanluwen wrote:For all we know, Sodapop's proposal to Kickstarter for the game did not match what they actually were aiming to do.

Dakka's own favorite fallacy, blame the victim.

Oh come on. Really, Manchu? I understand you're outraged at Kickstarter because they've broken some implied promise to the masses, but this idea that it's simply "blaming the victim" by presenting an alternative argument is silly.

As I mentioned to you already, Soda Pop and its investors do not have the burden of explaining Kickstarter's procedures. The "for all we know" line of argument is ridiculous.

It's really not. You emailed them, and you got a reply back that Kickstarter makes a policy of not discussing its decisions.

Quite frankly, if I were them-- I would be doing that too. At this point in time: No matter what it really seems that if they release any kind of information as to their decision, it's going to be overshadowed by this line of argument that "A staff member picked it!" or "They approved it, didn't they!".

Mastiff wrote:Yeah, I know, he was oppressed...

Yep, he was. That was the point of that scene. But neither censorship nor oppression are at issue here since we are not talking about state action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote: It doesn't necessarily have to be solely because they "caved to the pressure" exerted upon them by a morally offended crowd.

I'm not saying Kickstarter suppressed the searchability of the project because they "caved to pressute." I'm just saying that they suppressed the project by disallowing searches of it. At that point or at some point thereafter, I believe they did "cave to the pressute" and further suppressed the project by cancelling it.

Kanluwen wrote:but this idea that it's simply "blaming the victim" by presenting an alternative argument is silly

You alternative argument, which is based only on the absence of evidence ("for all we know"), is that Soda Pop Miniatures committed fraud in relation to Kickstarter and therefore deserved to have its project suppressed. This is clearly a case of "blaming the victim."

Kanluwen wrote:Quite frankly, if I were them-- I would be doing that too. At this point in time: No matter what it really seems that if they release any kind of information as to their decision, it's going to be overshadowed by this line of argument that "A staff member picked it!" or "They approved it, didn't they!".

Yes, that is the pain of making controversial decisions -- the consequences might be called into question. As I mentioned above, I can understand Kickstarter being afraid of opening the can of worms that is candid dialog with its customers. But another result of clamming up is not clearing the air and giving the impression that you have no integrity and are unreliable. Given the way that people want to talk about this game ("fake child rape," see above), I can see why they'd rather seem spineless.

Manchu wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Yeah, I know, he was oppressed...

Yep, he was. That was the point of that scene. But neither censorship nor oppression are at issue here since we are not talking about state action.

Nah, I just meant the wording was paraphrased; he actually said Oppressed, whereas i was thinking SUppressed.

My first thought when you claimed Sodapop was a "victim" (as in, dakka blames the...") was to say "think of the children!"

But then I thought that might be too ironic for a game spoofing the r-ape of school-age girls.

shrug.