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.

Mastiff wrote:Nah, I just meant ...

I don't think you understand the popular culture you are referencing but I suppose that is really beside the point. The point is that suppression doesn't require government action.

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?

You're pretty close. Read the terms and conditions, They do reserve the right to cancel it. It's pretty clear. In return, the start-up gets to use the site and Kickstarter's marketing and promotions machine, without collateral or payment of any kind. There is zero risk to the start-up, but there is a small risk to Kickstarter. Even if the startup makes the goal, the 5% payment is coming from their supporters, NOT from the start-up's capital.

So how exactly are start-ups getting a bad deal?

Manchu wrote:

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 pressure" and further suppressed the project by cancelling it.

I really think that this idea of it being "suppression" or "censorship" is a bit much. It was damage control, pure and simple. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were not trying to suppress more information from getting out there--but for an Internet saavy organization like Kickstarter, they must have known that simply removing the search results from their search engine would have done nothing to prevent those who wanted to find the project from finding it. Disabling it from showing on the site's "Staff's Pick" is more likely why we saw it removed from the site's search engine.

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."

"Fraud" is not the same thing in my eyes, necessarily, as "misrepresenting" a project.
If I were to come to you for funding for a "revolutionary invention which will enable the quick delivery of food from vendor to customer", and make it vague in its wording to get your support for a project of attaching a zipline with a return system to food in a vending machine, I haven't committed fraud in any way, shape, or form. I've just misrepresented the facts to get your support for my project.

If you then go and look at it in-depth while it is still in the early proposal timeframe--you might see things don't add up entirely. As things go on, however--the likelihood of crossing the line from simple fudging of the goals to outright lying becomes higher and higher.

There's another possible argument inherent within the idea of "misrepresenting" the project in that you could have come to them before finessing the idea out fully and the end project looks nothing like the original presentation.

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.

Well, that and people might draw the wrong inference from the controversial decision before you have a chance to make a statement. Public relations isn't just about communication, it's about timing. Make your statement too early and it seems rushed, make it too late and it seems petty or spiteful at someone else.

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.

Another reason is because no matter what, people would likely have already made their own opinions on them and no amount of candid dialogue would change it.

Manchu wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Nah, I just meant ...

I don't think you understand the popular culture you are referencing but I suppose that is really beside the point. The point is that suppression doesn't require government action.

sigh. Where did the government come in? It's the amusing because the peasant goes off on a tirade on his oppressed state which is only tangentially related to the actual situation. Funny. Haha?

I still question if you understand "suppression".

If Kickstarter was "suppressing" Soda Pop, they might take down the page, and not provide links to the Sodapop site so people A) know the project was cancelled, and B) can continue to pledge money to the project.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1189988320/tentacle-bento-by-soda-pop-miniatures

"Suppression" doesn't usually involve helping the "suppressed's" interested audience to find the speaker being "suppressed".

Mastiff wrote:So how exactly are start-ups getting a bad deal?

As you pointed out, they're usually not. The reservation of the right to cancel doesn't mean a lot to a customer if it has never been invoked. Now that it has been invoked, and with no clarification of why, it has suddenly become a bigger deal. It's especially a big deal when you consider that canceling a project is contrary to the very service Kickstarter offers, namely reducing the amount of third-party interference between creators and investors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mastiff wrote:Where did the government come in? It's the amusing because the peasant goes off on a tirade on his oppressed state which is only tangentially related to the actual situation. Funny. Haha?

The scene is a contrast between our expectations of the middle ages (King Arthur) and contemporary democratic values (Dennis, the peasant). A medieval king could punch peasants in the face whenever he wanted but an official in modern times who tried that sort of thing would be a tyrant and a criminal. The scene is not about how Dennis the Peasant is overreacting to someone physically assaulting him. Being arbitrarily physically assaulted by an authority figure is literally oppression. Notice how the scene ends with Arthur actually retreating while bitterly complaining "bloody peasant!"

So the scene really doesn't speak to the situation at hand in any fashion and being reminded of it probably indicates that you are confused about this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:I really think that this idea of it being "suppression" or "censorship" is a bit much. It was damage control, pure and simple.

Don't put words into my mouth. I am not equating suppression with censorship. I agree this was a matter of damage control. The form of the damage control was suppression.

Kanluwen wrote:"Fraud" is not the same thing in my eyes, necessarily, as "misrepresenting" a project.

This distinction simply invalidates your already baseless accusation. If Soda Pop did not seriously deceive Kickstarter then Kickstarter does not have the reason of being deceived to suppress Soda Pop's project.

Kanluwen wrote:Another reason is because no matter what, people would likely have already made their own opinions on them and no amount of candid dialogue would change it.

I deeply disagree with that. If you believe that, then what is a discussion forum to you -- just a soapbox to yell from? I think dialog definitely has the potential to change us. In fact, I think that is exactly what Tentacle Bento is really about, as I posted earlier. Your post that I am quoting, for example, has prompted me to look at this situation in a slightly different way: it seems to me that there is a conflict here between people who are more open to dialog and people who are less open to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mastiff wrote:"Suppression" doesn't usually involve helping the "suppressed's" interested audience to find the speaker being "suppressed".

If you have the power to make someone stop doing something and you exercise it this is called "suppression." It's really as simple as that.

I don't agree with KS dropping the line, but I have to think all this controversy is probably good for Tentacle Bento.

Has KS ever said why they dropped it or is it still "We do not comment on yadda yadda yadda"?

Ahtman wrote:Has KS ever said why they dropped it or is it still "We do not comment on yadda yadda yadda"?

No statement to investors or to Soda Pop as of yet. I have asked White Wolf about this and they said they would contact Kickstarter but they have not gotten back to me yet.

Does it affect the conversation that KS would make money off allowing the game to be sold on their site? You could thus say they were supporting / partnering with TB, and decided not to later, exercising the clause in their TOS about obscene things.

No matter what, agreed it'd be best if they explained why. Posted from movie theater waiting for it to start

There are a couple of ways they could have looked at it.

They could have weighed whatever amount of creators and investors might refuse to use their site if they allowed the project to continue on the one hand against 5% of whatever Soda Pop raised plus whatever amount of creators and investors might refuse to use their site if they suppressed the project on the other hand.

In that case, it seems to me that the 5% return (about $1,500 at time of suppression.) would not be a big concern by comparison to what else was on the scales.

They also could have weighed their own values against the values, supporting and opposing Tentacle Bento, of their potential client creators and investors.

And in that case, the 5% return is not even an issue.

I suppose there are other ways you could analyze the decision. I don't think that any of them give a prominent place to Kickstarter foregoing its 5% cut.

I meant the fact that they were thus "supporting" the game in a sense, profiting off of it- they are making a business relationship with the game, and decided to end that relationship based on the clause in their TOS?

I think they obviously did not want to be caught up with the position of defending "fake child rape" being forced on them. Even though they would be 100% correct, the fighting the good fight might make them look worse to some than it would make them look tolerant to others. At I think that's a good evaluation: it's always easier to misunderstand a thing rather than to understand it.

I am 12 and what is this.

daedalus wrote:I am 12 and what is this.

Careful now... someone got banned from their SWTOR account for making that joke on the game's forums for violating their TOS (namely the age requirement as the mods weren't in on the meme).

Nah, we are more likely to crack down exactly because there are 12 year olds on the forum. I advise everyone to bear that in mind as they discuss this thread...

MajorTom11 wrote:Nah, we are more likely to crack down exactly because there are 12 year olds on the forum. I advise everyone to bear that in mind as they discuss this thread...

I sure hope you're not saying that you know for certain that people under the age of 13 have accounts on this website. Because I'm pretty sure this site is registered in the U.S., and that would likely be a direct violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Many parents read the site with their kids, whom they share the hobby with.

And many, many times more people (including some children) read the site than just the people who have accounts.

Exactly, you don't need an account to view the site. And we are a site about toy soldier games that many youngsters play, so no matter what, we prefer a family friendly atmosphere.

MajorTom11 wrote:Exactly, you don't need an account to view the site. And we are a site about toy soldier games that many youngsters play, so no matter what, we prefer a family friendly atmosphere.

I was also under the impression that it's not illegal to register for an account at that age either, just that it requires parental consent. You never know what disgusting things you'll stumble onto dakka (like a FINECAST miscast thread!).

Azieru wrote:

MajorTom11 wrote:Nah, we are more likely to crack down exactly because there are 12 year olds on the forum. I advise everyone to bear that in mind as they discuss this thread...

I sure hope you're not saying that you know for certain that people under the age of 13 have accounts on this website. Because I'm pretty sure this site is registered in the U.S., and that would likely be a direct violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The site does not collect any verifiable information except for a email address.

warboss wrote:

daedalus wrote:I am 12 and what is this.

Careful now... someone got banned from their SWTOR account for making that joke on the game's forums for violating their TOS (namely the age requirement as the mods weren't in on the meme).

It's part of the beauty of belonging to an independent site capable of exercising individual judgement and not one owned by a massive corporation maintained by humorless marketing drones.

Well, thread successfully derailed.

I shall close it now and suggest that if people want to further the discussion, they take it up in the Dakka Discussions forum.