Robotech® RPG Tactics™-License lost, the end is near!

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.

**Asterios**

warboss wrote:
Grinch? Nah... more like a benevolent holiday tabletop dictator. As for cruel and unusual punishment, that would be forcing them to put together my remaining models which I wouldn't ever make them do. .

Actually wasn't forcing someone to assemble these minis banned by the Geneva convention ?

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
warboss wrote:
Grinch? Nah... more like a benevolent holiday tabletop dictator. As for cruel and unusual punishment, that would be forcing them to put together my remaining models which I wouldn't ever make them do. .

Actually wasn't forcing someone to assemble these minis banned by the Geneva convention ?

You mean *these* minis?

Mine are done.

**Asterios**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
warboss wrote:
Grinch? Nah... more like a benevolent holiday tabletop dictator. As for cruel and unusual punishment, that would be forcing them to put together my remaining models which I wouldn't ever make them do. .

Actually wasn't forcing someone to assemble these minis banned by the Geneva convention ?

You mean *these* minis?

Mine are done.

thats it ?

**Stormonu**

I had recent breakthrough in my paint skillz and I have been eyeing pulling my models off the shelf and attempting to paint the rest of the Valkyries (haven't even primed the Zents yet).

As far as playing goes, I never bought the models for the game, that was just a side bonus we actually got rules for them (which don't look half bad). Occasionally, my brother asks me when we will play, and I just give him the stink-eye. "I thought you gave up on Battletech after that Clan 3050 campaign," I'll sometimes tease him with.

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:

Spoiler:

img]http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2015/3/16/695940_sm-Rrt%2C%20RRT%20Wave%201%20done.jpg[/img]

Mine are done.

thats it ?

For me? Yes. Most of my $40 split would be Wave 2 minis. Plus the Monster.
____

spoilered

**Asterios**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
warboss wrote:
Grinch? Nah... more like a benevolent holiday tabletop dictator. As for cruel and unusual punishment, that would be forcing them to put together my remaining models which I wouldn't ever make them do. .

Actually wasn't forcing someone to assemble these minis banned by the Geneva convention ?

You mean *these* minis?

Mine are done.

thats it ?

For me? Yes. Most of my $40 split would be Wave 2 minis. Plus the Monster.

well explains why your already done, me I got about 100 models done with a couple hundred more to go.

**JohnHwangDD**

I totally get that. What kinda burns me is the time & effort I spent on building SedWars, RK & RRT minis instead of other stuff, stuff that I might actually play more. Not having to invest massive time in prep makes the ratio of table time vs bench time a lot more attractive!

**Joyboozer**

Why did they use brown plastic colouring? Like seriously, what's wrong with everything grey?

**Stormonu**

Possibly because the non-character guys on the UEDF were in brown Valkyries, as were most of the destroids - with the exception of the Gladiator.

**Conrad Turner**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
warboss wrote:
Grinch? Nah... more like a benevolent holiday tabletop dictator. As for cruel and unusual punishment, that would be forcing them to put together my remaining models which I wouldn't ever make them do. .

Actually wasn't forcing someone to assemble these minis banned by the Geneva convention ?

You mean *these* minis?

Mine are done.

Lucky Git!

I haven't even received mine yet!

[backs off into the corner and cries]

**darkminstrel**

I've been in a round-about email exchange with Kickstarter over the past few days. I outlined my concerns about the status of the project and asked if there was, by their own definition, a breach of the TOS.

Kickstarter the company will not be on our side.

They refuse to say that PB has failed to meet the TOS, probably to cover their bum in case of legal action. I'm afraid my boycott now extends to the Kickstarter site as well now.

**CaulynDarr**

darkminstrel wrote:
I've been in a round-about email exchange with Kickstarter over the past few days. I outlined my concerns about the status of the project and asked if there was, by their own definition, a breach of the TOS.

Kickstarter the company will not be on our side.

They refuse to say that PB has failed to meet the TOS, probably to cover their bum in case of legal action. I'm afraid my boycott now extends to the Kickstarter site as well now.

Kickstarter's a lot like Uber and AirBnB and all those other seemingly egalitarian web-based services. They're actually anarcho-capitalist enterprises with a crunchy granola flavored exterior. They take something that existed before, and give you the same thing in a less safe but more convenient form. They act like they are "by the people, for the people", but really it's about getting their cut and absconding off before people realize what they got themselves into.

Eventually the government will catch up and hold that if these companies are going to facilitate these transactions, they have some obligation to both parties to see that the TOS is followed

**Asterios**

I just sent this to Kickstarter, as it goes I have come to the conclusion I will not back anything on a site that does not enforce its own rules and will warn anyone I know not to do so too.

I do not feel Palladium has made a good faith effort to complete this project, and I feel Kickstarter has failed to even enforce its own rules, because of this I will no longer back any other project on Kickstarter nor will I endorse any project on Kickstarter, furthermore I will warn any I know to avoid Kickstarter as a possible scam project site, you claim you are not responsible, but you should take responsibility to even enforce your own rules which you have failed to do.

So I claim No Confidence in Kickstarter as a site and will spread that to all I know.

**warboss**

I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest. Kick palladium off so that they can't update anymore (even if they're only useless filler spam)? I agree that Palladium has NOT met their obligations after an almost 3 year delay in reward completion and counting but I don't expect KS to take any action currently. What I expect is for Kickstarter to NOT allow Palladium to kickstart any future projects until they fulfill their existing obligations.

I agree though that this mess of a project has made me very gunshy about backing projects as well. I've only backed one subsequent project at $1.00 CAD since. I firmly believe that KS should make some sort of insurance mandatory at part of their fee structure (increasing it as needed) for new creators or those whose previous efforts were troubled like Palladium. I don't think it'll ever happen though.

**Asterios**

warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest. Kick palladium off so that they can't update anymore (even if they're only useless filler spam)? I agree that Palladium has NOT met their obligations after an almost 3 year delay in reward completion and counting but I don't expect KS to take any action currently. What I expect is for Kickstarter to NOT allow Palladium to kickstart any future projects until they fulfill their existing obligations.

I agree though that this mess of a project has made me very gunshy about backing projects as well. I've only backed one subsequent project at $1.00 CAD since. I firmly believe that KS should make some sort of insurance mandatory at part of their fee structure (increasing it as needed) for new creators or those whose previous efforts were troubled like Palladium. I don't think it'll ever happen though.

well my beef with KickStarter is I would like them to enforce their own rules:

1: They state project creators cannot use the project page to advertise products not associated with the project, which PB has continuously done.

2: They state a project creator is to keep the backers informed which obviously PB has failed to do, nor are they probably ever going to do and KS has done nothing.

and there are many more issues, it is because of this I will not back any other project on Kickstarter and have informed them of such, and considering how they handled all of the other complaints about PB they will probably ignore this one too.

**warboss**

Actually, once folks complained to Kickstarter about Palladium's spam "updates" that were just undisguised sales pitches, they stopped. Of course, it wouldn't be a response Palladium style without a screw up so Palladium chose to stop almost all communication once their spam was outed.

As for your #2 (lol at Forar's previous joke), what would you expect them to do? Their only options are to do nothing (the current plan), ban palladium from posting at all because they don't post enough info (obviously counterintuitive), or prevent them from Kickstarting another project (which Palladium hasn't done so moot at the moment). There really are no other options. Do you want Kickstarter to sue Palladium on our behalf? Send Kickstarter employees to protest in front of Palladium's office? Go on a cyberspace hacking spree in conjunction with anonymous to get our money back? There frankly isn't anything KS can do other than annoy palladium with messages they'll just ignore (like they do with ours). Then there is the issue that it is NOT in KS's best interests to do anything currently either. They currently hold no discernable power over Palladium even if they were inclined to act (which they're not).

**Asterios**

warboss wrote:
Actually, once folks complained to Kickstarter about Palladium's spam "updates" that were just undisguised sales pitches, they stopped. Of course, it wouldn't be a response Palladium style without a screw up so Palladium chose to stop almost all communication once their spam was outed.

As for your #2 (lol at Forar's previous joke), what would you expect them to do? Their only options are to do nothing (the current plan), ban palladium from posting at all because they don't post enough info (obviously counterintuitive), or prevent them from Kickstarting another project (which Palladium hasn't done so moot at the moment). There really are no other options. Do you want Kickstarter to sue Palladium on our behalf? Send Kickstarter employees to protest in front of Palladium's office? Go on a cyberspace hacking spree in conjunction with anonymous to get our money back? There frankly isn't anything KS can do other than annoy palladium with messages they'll just ignore (like they do with ours). Then there is the issue that it is NOT in KS's best interests to do anything currently either. They currently hold no discernable power over Palladium even if they were inclined to act (which they're not).

but KS does send an investigative journalist after another project creator after it went bankrupt, which is funny, KS is trying to say they are doing something, after the fact.

**darkminstrel**

warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest.

I want them to state that Palladium has not followed the Terms of Service as outlined on the Kickstarter.com site. If they were to stand up and show that they are taking a stand against companies mis-using them I would feel more confident. Right now they are clearly in CYA mode, hoping they don't get pulled into another debacle. It's a bad move I think.

**CaulynDarr**

darkminstrel wrote:
warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest.

I want them to state that Palladium has not followed the Terms of Service as outlined on the Kickstarter.com site. If they were to stand up and show that they are taking a stand against companies mis-using them I would feel more confident. Right now they are clearly in CYA mode, hoping they don't get pulled into another debacle. It's a bad move I think.

I don't expect them to do anything. What I expect is at some point Kickstarter will no longer be able to take this hands off approach to facilitating projects. I don't think they can make a project a "staff pick" and then say "too bad" when the project goes pear shaped. Either the market will force it when confidence in their model of crowd funding falls enough, or some legal determination is made that they have a duty to protect backers from bad faith projects. I acknowledge that that is a optimistic prediction, and in reality it's probably going to keep being terrible for backers rights.

**warboss**

darkminstrel wrote:
warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest.

I want them to state that Palladium has not followed the Terms of Service as outlined on the Kickstarter.com site. If they were to stand up and show that they are taking a stand against companies mis-using them I would feel more confident. Right now they are clearly in CYA mode, hoping they don't get pulled into another debacle. It's a bad move I think.

So you just want a statement declaring that? OK, sound reasonable from a consumer perspective and I obviously agree with the sentiment. Playing the Devil's advocate, the problem is that doing so opens them potentially up to libel lawsuits from the crappy delinquent companies that obviously disagree and will claim the damage to their (already bad) reps cost them financially. The only way kickstarter would voluntarily wade into that mess is if the lack of confidence in the crowd funding platform was costing them more money. They only want to bankroll crowd funding, not adjudicate over it.

**Asterios**

warboss wrote:
The only way kickstarter would voluntarily wade into that mess is if the lack of confidence in the crowd funding platform was costing them more money. They only want to bankroll crowd funding, not adjudicate over it.

to which my statement to them, I already told them that because of PB and their antics and KS's refusal to enforce their own rules I would not be using their site anymore nor would i endorse it and would go so far as to warn people away from doing so.

**Smilodon_UP**

CaulynDarr wrote:
darkminstrel wrote:
[..] Kickstarter the company will not be on our side.
They refuse to say that PB has failed to meet the TOS, probably to cover their bum in case of legal action. I'm afraid my boycott now extends to the Kickstarter site as well now.
Kickstarter's a lot like Uber and AirBnB and all those other seemingly egalitarian web-based services. They're actually anarcho-capitalist enterprises with a crunchy granola flavored exterior. They take something that existed before, and give you the same thing in a less safe but more convenient form. They act like they are "by the people, for the people", but really it's about getting their cut and absconding off before people realize what they got themselves into. [..]

Kind of like eBay, Paypal, and Amazon et al really - for the grossest most obvious breeches they can (usually) do wonders if the organization decides something violates their own terms of service.
However, that being said, for the small stuff or less obvious forms of boneheadedness on the part of either a buyer or seller they go into full stall mode if not outright mute knowing that you knowing that is likely to happen ensures 98% of folks won't bother with pursuing an issue in the first place.

Because yeah, they've already gotten their cut, and as with banks quite enjoy that $$$ being just where it is; in their coffers.

warboss wrote:
darkminstrel wrote:
warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you guys expect Kickstarter to do at this point to be honest.
I want them to state that Palladium has not followed the Terms of Service as outlined on the Kickstarter.com site. If they were to stand up and show that they are taking a stand against companies mis-using them I would feel more confident. Right now they are clearly in CYA mode, hoping they don't get pulled into another debacle. It's a bad move I think.
[..] They only want to bankroll crowd funding, not adjudicate over it.

Also playing devil's advocate (at everyone using KS in general), does choosing to be the middle man carry or not carry an accompanying responsibility to those on either side, companies as well as backers, willingly using your services.

_
_
edit: Spelling, it's what separates us from the... SQUIRREL!

**Asterios**

just got this from PB:

Palladium Books says:
Dear Richard Steinberg,
We do apologize, but as Palladium has stated
before, Palladium Books is not offering any
refunds on the RRT Kickstarter Backer rewards.
Palladium has successfully fulfilled shipping
Wave One rewards and is working to continue
developing and then shipping Wave 2 items once they are completed.
Palladium has not claimed that the shipment of
RRT Wave One was meant as "proper compensation"
for the RRT Kickstarter rewards and I am not sure
where you got that form, but it is a false/inaccurate interpretation.
Palladium has stated that the first phase of
Robotech RPG Tactics has successfully shipped and
simply established a monetary value, thus far,
for the rewards that have shipped to Backers who
ordered and have received Wave One of the Robotech RPG Tactics rewards.
Second, there is a distinct difference in backing
a Kickstarter and placing an "order" online to
warrant your citing of the FTC which is being
quoted and cited for online "orders." As a RRT
backer you did not place an order, you placed a
pledge on rewards for a fundraising campaign
specific pledge categories. You have received
part of the pledge rewards via the shipment of
Wave One, while we are continuing to improve and
develop the Wave Two rewards pledge and the game
in which the rewards are to be utilized for. We
have publicly listed these objectives and that we
are working on these improvements in Update #
186.
(https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rrpgt/robotech-rpg-tacticstm/posts/1335688
)
Palladium is continuing to work on RRT
improvements, developing and producing Robotech
RPG Tactics Wave Two in order to fulfill the
Kickstarter, despite delays as itemized in
previous communications and Updates. Palladium
has also stated publicly that it will continuing
to produce and develop publications for its other
RPG gamelines as well. So just because Palladium
has allocated some time to developing and
publishing RPG products doesn't mean that it is
neglecting or ignoring its other obligations and
objectives. We are working diligently on both
fronts, but the level of quality and
manufacturing that is required to handle the
complexity of a miniature game with the
complexity of the high level of detail and
desired poseability for the game pieces is not
the same as you have likened to personal 3-D
printing. There is much more involved.
Thank you,
Charles Walton
RRT Support Team
Palladium Books

**Talizvar**

Well, Kickstarter is in the perfect position I think.

Not responsible if product or "rewards" are sent out or not.
Wait until the target amount of money is hit, take your cut and the creator gets the rest.
Host the site for posting and information.
Really, what could they do to punish?
Only thing I could see is ban a company from use of the KS for new projects but that would be turning away money.

Unless they do the responsible thing and hold all the cash and dole it out in bits as gate targets are met, but that would take too much management and make them part of the process = liability.

Yep, less hands-on the better.
It is a sweet thing they have going.

I think the best thing they could do is force a rather iron-clad agreement on acceptable delays and firming up what "best effort" is and make it truly a deliverable agreement, not "investment".
This is the area where KS is weaseling their way out of things: ensuring a proper contract is drawn holding legal liability to the backers for getting projects done or a refund sent or some provision for a "bankruptcy" type condition if the funds were spent on tooling an fell short. Also things like the project being bought-out from external investment is another thing to look at.

Kickstarter IS a store as far as rewards are concerned, legally I have seen nothing that proves different.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey, just noticed in that letter to Asterios that Charles Walton wrote it.
He is a "freelance illustrator" for PB.
Kevin's hands must be hurting, my BBB letters were all from him.

**Merijeek**

Schroedinger's purchasing/crowdfunding platform.

**Talizvar**

As to boycotting Kickstarter, I am thinking about it.
They are making some moves to appear more "responsible" but they are the ones holding the "agreement" of what is committed to for a successfully funded project.
They need to weasel less and focus on the up-front agreement and then hand over the signed documents if things fail badly and FTC or legal involvement sets in.
I would say if they firm that up I may come back to KS but never the PB... bridges burned, salted earth...

**Asterios**

Talizvar wrote:

Hey, just noticed in that letter to Asterios that Charles Walton wrote it.
He is a "freelance illustrator" for PB.
Kevin's hands must be hurting, my BBB letters were all from him.

Charles is now the free voice for Palladium since Jeff Quit/fired from them.

**Smilodon_UP**

Talizvar wrote:
[..] Hey, just noticed in that letter to Asterios that Charles Walton wrote it.
He is a "freelance illustrator" for PB.
Kevin's hands must be hurting, my BBB letters were all from him.

Or, at least factually, his name is the one appended to it.
But, given the noticeably low amount of spelling/grammatical errors without an accompanying plethora of ™s, ®s, & the like, it might actually not have been the Siembieda-san.....

After all, other empires do find folks willing to provide staffing - even if they have to clone them. (Results may vary, however.)

_
_

**Stormonu**

I think KS shouldn't get their cut until the project completes. I'd love how to see that would change their stance on late or non-productive KS's.

**warboss**

Talizvar wrote:
Well, Kickstarter is in the perfect position I think.

Not responsible if product or "rewards" are sent out or not.
Wait until the target amount of money is hit, take your cut and the creator gets the rest.
Host the site for posting and information.
Really, what could they do to punish?
Only thing I could see is ban a company from use of the KS for new projects but that would be turning away money.

That's what I've been saying. They really can't do anything in our case even if they wanted to beyond barring Palladium from further crowdfunding until they make good on their massively delayed existing project... but they won't because they don't want to scare off creators to alternate platforms who have even less fake protection. All I'd expect from them in the future would be to change their TOS for creators to include iron clad clauses that classify when a project has NOT met it's goals... something like if you haven't fulfilled 80% of the rewards (BOTH in terms of monetary value as charged at funding as well as in simple number of separately funded or separately purchaseable rewards and in terms of the number of backers receiving them) within 200% of your delivery estimate, you agree that you have NOT met your obligations and MUST offer proportional refunds to backers. Kickstarter couldn't force creators to actually do it but by making them agree to terms like that (and that's just off the top of my head and not all inclusive obviously) then it could at least be used against them both in court as well as BBB and FTC type filings. They couldn't morally try to weasel out of fulfilling rewards within 10 years just because of the presence of the word "estimate" like Palladium is attempting to do when they had to sign an agreement ahead of time explicitly stating what the failure conditions were. Knowing that they couldn't do something as sleazy as Palladium would encourage most (but not all of course) creators to give more accurate estimates with bigger buffers to safeguard themselves from liability.

That doesn't require any extra effort on the part of KS as they're not liable to enforce it but at least it gives backers something much more ironclad to present as evidence. As it stands right now, KS is in the enviable position of being responsible for nothing ultimately but getting a cut of everything right off the top.