Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

All sorts of shit

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The most you've accused her of, ironically, is having a good handle on PR. (You're simultaneously saying she should avoid feeding the trolls, but that... feeding the trolls is an effective business tactic?)

She is delivering what she promised to deliver. It's that simple. Not a scammer.

Also, Max, have you watched the videos she's done, yet? They are actually alright, and they DO talk about contrasting situations (where appropriate). Overall, adding in more time about "exceptions" isn't really relevant to the trope at hand in most circumstances, though.

[Max White]

Well I've watched the 'Damsel in distress' one, is there currently any more after that?
Basically she found the most extreme example of a game refitting changing the female protagonist out for a male, said 'This is why the damsel in distress trope is bad!' and then continued to list on examples of this trope.
Except it is a story telling element and isn't intrinsically sexist. Yes, when used as a crutch in the games industry has been for too long it is, but that doesn't mean every example of it is going to be sexist. You can take the most extreme example you can find and use it to generalize a plot element.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

The most you've accused her of, ironically, is having a good handle on PR. (You're simultaneously saying she should avoid feeding the trolls, but that... feeding the trolls is an effective business tactic?)

There are plenty of effective business tactics that are immoral. Using trolls to make yourself more popular or oppressed-looking is one of them.

[Scelly9]

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

How. Is. That. Her. Fault.

[GlyphGryph]

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

Oh god, are you seriously one of those people? That isn't how kickstarter works. It doesn't need to be spent on the project. She never stated she'd spend every last dime on the project, and she doesn't need to. She made no promise that she would, and it's CERTAINLY not implied by the kickstarter model. There's is nothing scammy about that in the slightest.

It's called a profit. If you have a good enough idea, and you get enough support for it, then you turn a profit. For a kickstarter, there's an obligation to deliver, while in normal business there is a delivery first, but that's the only exception. Now, some projects may expect to make a bunch of money after the project from future sales, and they'll often promise to dedicate every single donation towards making the project better - that's fine! This wasn't one of those projects.

If someone makes a video, and gets a fuckton of youtube views unexpectedly, making a ton of money off of it, are they then obligated to somehow invest that money back into youtube? Fuck no. That would be hilariously stupid.

The only promise implied by a kickstarter is that you will deliver what you said you will deliver. That's it. The existence of entitled, spoiled brats who stupidly throw their money away as some sort of attempted guilt trip to make someone else do what they want because I PUT MONEY IN NOW I OWN YOU does NOT influence whether or not something is a scam, or whether the person has any obligation to do what you want. They put out their terms, the backers gave their money under those terms, they don't get to magically dictate additional terms after-the-fact.

Now THAT would be a scam, and morally reprehensible one at that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

How. Is. That. Her. Fault.

She accepted the money in full, knowing there was no way to spend it all on a video series. She could have accepted an appropriate fraction, or donated the excess to some worthy cause (and with her given reasons for the series, I'm sure one could be found). Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

Anything but taking it and doing nothing for a year, followed by nobody ever hearing about that part of the money ever again because it is hers now.

[Scelly9]

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

How. Is. That. Her. Fault.

Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

How do you know she won't?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How do you know she won't?

Because it has been well over a year. Because she's said nothing to indicate that at all. Because this is a scam and may have always been a scam, and everyone is either too blinded by her handle on the situation or too embarrassed to admit that.

[Vector]

I think we have different definitions of scam, which is fine, but I'm honestly curious (in case I'm ever in this sort of situation)--what do you think the right thing would have been for her to do?

[alexandertnt]

She accepted the money in full, knowing there was no way to spend it all on a video series. She could have accepted an appropriate fraction, or donated the excess to some worthy cause (and with her given reasons for the series, I'm sure one could be found). Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

She is under no obligation whatsoever to. She could if she wanted to, but doesnt have to at all and it is not a requirement to fulfill the promises she has made, the promises that people have given her the money for.

You are trying to manufacture fraud out of something that just isnt.

[Max White]

I think we have different definitions of scam, which is fine, but I'm honestly curious (in case I'm ever in this sort of situation)--what do you think the right thing would have been for her to do?

Actually I think we have already been over that...

She could have accepted an appropriate fraction, or donated the excess to some worthy cause (and with her given reasons for the series, I'm sure one could be found). Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

Anything but taking it and doing nothing for a year, followed by nobody ever hearing about that part of the money ever again because it is hers now.

Myself? I don't care about the money of people who saw the 6,000 goal, and knew that she was already over that. I care about the content of these videos.

She is under no obligation whatsoever to. She could if she wanted to, but doesnt have to at all and it is not a requirement to fulfill the promises she has made, the promises that people have given her the money for.

You are trying to manufacture fraud out of something that just isnt.

Well... Lets be honest here, if you are trying to claim moral high ground, you don't pocket that amount of money, even if you can.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think we have different definitions of scam, which is fine, but I'm honestly curious (in case I'm ever in this sort of situation)--what do you think the right thing would have been for her to do?

She could have accepted an appropriate fraction, or donated the excess to some worthy cause (and with her given reasons for the series, I'm sure one could be found). Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

Anything but taking it and doing nothing for a year, followed by nobody ever hearing about that part of the money ever again because it is hers now.

Or Stretch Goals. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you start a Kickstarter, and you get a giant boatload of money compared to your goal, you have a moral obligation and should have a legal obligation to invest that in Stretch Goals or do something like listed above, to prevent scenarios like this one from happening.

[Putnam]

I'm sorry, but no. If you deliver what was promised, it's not a scam. It's that simple.

Where was the fraud here? There deceit?

The fraud is in the money not being used for the project, that will never be used for the project, that is now hers to use however she wants.

As in most of the money. Probably 9/10ths of it.

How. Is. That. Her. Fault.

She accepted the money in full, knowing there was no way to spend it all on a video series. She could have accepted an appropriate fraction, or donated the excess to some worthy cause (and with her given reasons for the series, I'm sure one could be found). Or put it towards another, more ambitious project of her own in the same vein as this one.

Anything but taking it and doing nothing for a year, followed by nobody ever hearing about that part of the money ever again because it is hers now.

http://xkcd.com/871/

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This isn't an act of charity, it's crowdfunding.

[Descan]

I don't know about you, but to me, scam doesn't mean "Turn an (unexpected/expected) profit", nor does it mean "capitalize on publicity from trolls", or "ask for a small amount (I don't exactly know where Anita lives, but 6k doesn't sound like much of an income to work on something full time) and recieve 2650 percent greater support".

It could mean "deceit on what final product is". Doesn't fit here, she said she'd put out a video series on tropes and women and she's doing that.

It could mean "Did not deliver final product at all". Again, she's doing that.

It could mean "product not of quality promised". That's a more personal opinion, but I think they're relatively well put together so far.

And, I'll even give you "backers feel they've been decieved". You are the only person I've seen who feels this was scammy. I don't think you backed it, either. I've not seen anyone else, backer or otherwise (though obviously since they're the ones who put the money toward it, the backers opinion matters more) feel like they've been deceived.