Scam

General ACKS Forums Dwimmermount
101

My understanding is that the cartography for at least up to level 5 has been around for a long time. One unknown in future projections is how fast Tim can produce more; this should be simple to extrapolate from his past work but I haven't talked to him about it yet. There's also a lot of art in the hopper, I'll post some in future updates and make a summary of where we stand with that one of my own upcoming goals.

Level 6A is available for download now, ahead of schedule. Unbiased opinions about whether it maintains the quality of other levels that took longer to arrive are very valuable.

102

And those are good points. I don’t doubt that the first 5 levels were mapped in April. But, even if only the bottom two levels were unconceived in April, my point still holds about the timing. Come up with two levels de novo in two months, while simultaneously editing the whole and getting it ready for publication? Impossible.

but I really am not interested in piling on at this point. I only wrote the first part of my post to rebut what seems to me to be a pretty selective reading made by some previous posters, namely (and to paraphrase) that the creative process is arduous, and backers shouldn’t have been surprised that the process took longer than anticipated. I actually do think backers have good reason to be annoyed.

But, as I said, the best approach now it to put that annoyance aside and work to get the best final product. And the way to do that is, paradoxically, to let JM work in whateever way that will produce the best possible Dwimmermount. Sure, I think a bit of healthy pressure is going to be good for him. But, as I said on the KS page, it would compound the original mistake if JM were to rush something out merely make a new delivery date.

Tavis - you have done a great job in explaining, post facto, what’s going on and where the project is going from here. So, ultimately I am encouraged by your transparency and relentless optimism. I actually WANT to see a good Dwimmermount, and think that your efforts will help ensure that it appears. So, although it may not have seemed to be the case, I intended my first post to be encouraging and not, or at least not merely, critical.

103

and let me add that I, for one, really like Tim’s completed maps. They are fine works, and help build confidence in the project. Nicely done!

104

I took some time to think about the issues people are having with the delays, and while I had thought that this was an unfinished product when I contributed to this kickstarter (due to having read the Dwimmermount entries on James’ blog) I realize not everyone has read James’ blog and even those who have may not have considered that possibility. One thing I noticed is that I don’t think that anyone even bothered to ask this question: How close to completion is this project? (If someone did ask this please let me know what you were told.)

It’s easy to complain and claim that none of us should have any risk, and that the author is solely to blame, but when none of us backers ask that simple question and instead they just assume that everything is nearly done, than I feel that we as backers have to accept some responsibility as well.

The thing that is bothering me about this whole thread is that no one is willing to accept that without asking that question, we are responsible as well, because we backed this project without knowing for sure, how close it was to completion so I think we have a right to be annoyed with the situation, but if anyone wants to blame the author or Autarch that person/people should also blame themselves as well for not asking about the completion status. Caveat Emptor should apply even on Kickstarter.

105

Careful, Allan. The backers aren’t “responsible” for bringing this product home or even for making a bad bet. As far as the Kickstarter terms of service are concerned, this is legally similar to buying a book from a third-party Amazon seller, or for that matter using your credit or debit card to buy anything.

If you don’t get your product as advertised, the credit card company will refund your money. Often it doesn’t even get that far because Amazon or eBay will reverse the charge and fine the vendor for you. You’re not responsible for figuring out which vendors are legitimate and which ones aren’t.

Now if you get that product as advertised and still don’t like it, that is your responsibility and your loss. That’s where the buyer has to beware. But until you get that product in the first place, Kickstarter is crystal clear: it’s the project creator’s responsibility to give everyone a refund who asks.

I’m harping on this because again, I see a real eagerness here to not only shoulder responsibility for other people’s problems (not a bad thing in itself) but pressure fellow fans and backers to do likewise. If I or you personally want to give up our rights and give the creator more leeway than he’s entitled to get with our money, that’s our business. All the other backers don’t need misinformation about their “risk” as “investors.” If they want to walk, they can get their money back. They don’t even have a professional reputation to lose.

Interestingly and unfortunately, I suspect Autarch is technically the “project creator” here, but I’ve heard James is the one making the refunds so far. Moral: don’t run a Kickstarter campaign for anyone but your closest friends because you’re the one on the hook.

106
Allan wrote:

if anyone wants to blame the author or Autarch that person/people should also blame themselves as well for not asking about the completion status.

All right. What can we blame the backers for? Let’s run some scenarios.

If the product was advertised as being available in June and it’s not available in September, is it the backers’ problem? No. The backers can wait if they choose or they are otherwise entitled a refund.

If in general the product misses its Estimated Delivery Date, were the backers “responsible” for not insisting on evidence that that schedule was even possible? Technically, sure. But at least in the role-playing world, Kickstarter backers still tend to trust the project creators to know what they’re doing and to tell the truth. Maybe in the future we’ll all ask much harder questions. I think that’s a shame, personally. However, should the backers blame themselves? No, never. They can get a refund at any time or choose as adults to wait.

If the product comes in but fails to live up to what was promised, it’s more of a gray area, but we’re getting into true bait and switch territory now. For example, if you don’t get as many levels as advertised when Dwimmermount comes out, or if it’s for the wrong retro clone system, or whatever. Should the backers blame themselves for effectively being lied to in this case, unlikely as it is here? No, they should not. They can make a rightful ruckus and either get a refund or wreck the project creator’s credentials, or they can blow it off. Their choice, but not their blame.

If the product comes in as specified and the backer still doesn’t like it, now the backer is out of luck. If, for example, Dwimmermount comes in at 6 pages but is still hardbound, has all the levels and so on, hey, James gave you everything advertised and it was your responsibility to ask “how many pages will it be.” You don’t get a refund! Welcome to your book!

That’s a question I don’t recall anybody asking, by the way. Luckily James seems to have a nice thick volume(s) in mind so it’s okay, but would-be backers who want to avoid a reason to blame themselves next time should make sure to nail down format, heft and any other important details before they push the funding button.

107

Econobus - Your scenarios are all valid, but my point is that if you do business with someone you either don’t know well or have never done business with before or both, then if you don’t at least ask questions and instead just hand your money over, then if desired outcome suffers delays, the person you did business with is partially to blame but so are you. As I Run With Scissors said (paraphrasing) “you failed to do your due diligence”.

Even if dealing with a major company that has an already existing reputation, you should as questions about a product if you’re unsure of of the the basic details of said product. No one should ever sit back and just assume everything is going to work out, we do not live in a perfect world, there are always snags/delays that could occur.

The reason I’m harping on this is I see a pattern of throwing blame, but some backers don’t want to admit that they failed to even look into the status of this project and just throw all the blame on James/Autarch. Our fellow backers need a reality check about personal responsibility and need to understand that if they don’t have details they can’t be sure of what they are buying than they need to ask questions.

The project wasn’t completed, there were delays that’s on James/Autarch, but some backers just assumed, with no questions asked and that’s on our fellow backers. Sure they can ask for a refund, and back out that’s fine, but a lesson needs to be learned here and that is researching and asking questions is the BACKERS responsibility, any claim to the contrary is merely trying to shift blame.

108

Think we’re at an impasse here.

I see two impulses. One is admirable and uses “I” language: “I” trust them and “I” want their product. “I” empathize with how hard it is to put together a commercial megadungeon. “I” know “I” can ask for a refund and “I” choose to or not.

Then there’s the other kind of language that focuses on “they should.”

“Some backers don’t want to admit that they failed… Our fellow backers need a reality check about personal responsibility… they need to ask questions… Some backers just assumed, with no questions asked and that’s on our fellow backers… A lesson needs to be learned here.”

I work in an industry with a reputation for conflicts of interest that come from aggressively selling products that aren’t always great for the consumer, so I’m very sensitive to that “they should” language. I usually see it in attempts to shift blame from the seller (who made the product, advertised the product and already has the money) to the buyer (who literally bought into the advertising pitch and believed he or she was getting what was promised).

I’m convinced turning a theoretically noble “I” impulse into a “they should” or “they should have” prescription boils down to blaming the customer. The customer doesn’t always have to be right, but in this case, I’ve argued that the customer is not wrong. And in this case, the customer can (see what I did there?) decide how to proceed. The customer has important protections here that are real, despite attempts I’ve seen (in this thread and elsewhere) to pretend they don’t exist.

No backer “needs” to do anything. He or she was promised a product, and in point of fact was promised that product in PDF several months ago now. Were the backers innocent or stupid for trusting James and Tavis and not asking the hard questions? That’s not for me to say. But I am going to challenge any attempt to limit their options or as you say, shift blame onto them. They’re the fans. They’re not the ones in the business of making megadungeons here. They’re in the business of buying the darn things. Cheers!

109

Maybe people are unaware that any time they use a major credit card to make a purchase, delayed delivery is considered a “billing error” and grounds to cancel the transaction and get your money back. This is never a “buyer beware” situation because the card issuer will make it right and then they have nefarious ways to get the money out of the seller. It’s not really considered “credit card fraud.”

http://ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre28.shtm is still good but a getting a bit dated. Debit card refunds were still technically “voluntary” last I checked, but whenever I had that rare serious problem, they’ve looked out for me.

Now just about everyone who funds a Kickstarter ultimately uses some plastic account to do so, so they’re covered by this. Visa and Mastercard and even Amazon Payment will pulverize any project creator who threatens their global brands.

My question is then where all this talk of the backers being at risk keeps coming from. What’s the underlying motive for telling the fans “they should” shrug and take it? Who does that talk really serve?

110

Despite the fact that, as I said above, I am now much more copacetic with the whole business than I was earlier (having largely passed through the angry stage), I have to disagree with you here, Allan.

When a company offers a product for delivery in two months, I don’t think there is any need for consumers to demand to know ‘how complete it is’. The close deadline implies that it is pretty darned close to being done, since the company has promised it in two months. Two points need to be underlined. The first seems to be (and I’m not a lawyer, so I am merely inferring here) that the KS agreement works like a contract; if the contract is not fulfilled, as Econobus says, the consumer has the right either to 1) ask for a refund, or 2) choose out of goodwill to wait for delivery. Either way, though, it is a contract, and as such knowing in advance ‘how complete the project is’ is irrelevant; the company (Autarch) signed a contract by taking the backer’s money. If it doesn’t fulfill the contract, then it is potentially in trouble.

The other point is the one I made in my first post, namely that the sheer timing of the conclusion of the KS and the promised delivery date (2 months to PDF) serves as a reasonable estimate of completedness. Since the company promises delivery in two months, it is reasonable to infer that the product is close enough to completion to be delivered in two months. Why would one need to inquire further?

It feels a bit as if you are engaging in a kind of Stockholm syndrome here, trying to get the backers to assume a share of the guilt. I don’t really know how that can be the case. As a backer, I have learned a lesson that in backing future projects I might well inquire about the degree of completedness, but as said above I don’t think that the terms of a KS contract require that I do so, or that I should feel guilty for not doing so.

111

When you, me or anyone purchases anything on credit there is always a risk. A small purchase like Dwimmermount is typically resolved fairly easily. The company or individual selling said product will usually honor request for refunds, as James I’m told is doing. The issue is people in general tend to operate under the assumption that purchasing with credit poses no risk, and will often repeat patterns of negligence.

If someone makes a purchase on a credit card then contacts that card company months later claiming fraud, the credit service typically issues a refund, but this is also noted in the persons credit history. Meaning if that person makes a habit of impulse purchasing followed by buyer’s remorse (even if they are legitimate cases of fraud), it will affect that credit score and even their interest rate because that person is now flagged as a credit risk.

Another example, if someone takes out a loan for a land purchase and it is discovered after the purchase that there is a sinkhole on the property, the owner is still responsible for that loan. Yes the owner would have options, just like with small purchases, but that doesn’t absolve the owner of any blame. Asking questions about details is important.

I’ll even give you a very real example of how people use credit with out thinking and than call foul. The housing market in Florida crashed a few years ago, because banks offered high loans to people who couldn’t afford said loans. Yes the banks are mostly at fault in this case, but the people accepting the loans also bear some blame for not asking why they were approved for so much when they couldn’t cover the payments.

I think we as a society have grown accustomed to the false idea that there are no consequences to the use of credit just because we may feel victimized. Since it’s inception more than a thousand years ago, the credit system has always been useful but also dangerous if misused. So there is a risk regardless if people want to believe it or not.

112

“Another example, if someone takes out a loan for a land purchase and it is discovered after the purchase that there is a sinkhole on the property, the owner is still responsible for that loan. Yes the owner would have options, just like with small purchases, but that doesn’t absolve the owner of any blame. Asking questions about details is important.”

Asking questions is important. And, I do admit that I should have asked how much of the product was written before backing. I now ask that of every kickstarter I back.

But now, let’s take a look at your sinkhole argument and make it fit Dwimmermount.

First, was the land advertised and sold as sinkhole free? If so, then I have grounds for calling fraud, at least based on false advertising. The second point is, did the sellers know about the sinkhole and not disclose the fact? If so, I can call fraud.

As for Dwimmermount, it was advertised as being available two months after the close of the kickstarter. It wasn’t.

Now, for the bigger question. Did the designer of Dwimmermount know that it wasn’t finished?

I’d say that JM knew that to be the case. Autarch I’m willing to cut some slack because they’re in the unenviable position of middle-man. They’re the realtor in your sinkhole analogy. They’re on the hook by association.

I think the key point is that well before the kickstarter ended at least JM knew the deadline wouldn’t be hit. But that wasn’t communicated to backers before the funding ended so that they could, like you suggest, make an informed purchase.

113

I think we can all agree that this wasn’t handled well and that people have a good reason to be unhappy about the situation.

I suspect the only reason there’s even an argument here is due to people being “extra” level-headed and forgiving as a direct defense against the original poster’s vehement, curse-filled, and (seemingly) irrational tirade.

Had the tone been set differently, there’d have probably been some, “Yeah, what the heck?” and “Here’s what you can do about it…” and “I wonder what this means for the model?” and then that’d be all, without any nitpicking about “blame”.

Or something.

114

I don’t want to keep going back and forth on this, as it’s pretty clear that our views don’t jibe, Allan.

I don’t think, however, that your sinkhole analogy is a very good one. Econobus (I think) made the point upstream. First off, in your analogy the land is not being created. it already exists. second, the complaint about Dwimmermount concerns delivery of the product. In your analogy, the problem is about the quality and/or usability of the product. To make Dwimmermount fit your sinkhole analogy, we would have to imagine that JM and Autarch delivered the goods in June 2012, but that somehow there was a fatal flaw in them (the sinkhole), e.g. it was only a 6-page hardback (Econobus’ example).

I don’t disagree that there is risk in any transaction. But risk doesn’t mean guilt.

Stripping away all other concerns, the fact remains that you (and I) handed over money in return for a product to be delivered in June. I shouldn’t have to inquire about whether or not JM believes he can honor that contract, because contracts are legally binding (hence the KS refund policy).

If I think about why it is that I will now politely inquire as to the state of completedness before backing another project, it has to do with protecting myself from annoyance and frustration. That is, I ask questions now to spare myself the hassle of trying to figure out what to do if the contract is broken. That is an entirely legitimate reason for asking questions. But let’s not conflate that reason with what you seemed to have been arguing, namely that not getting full information is akin to sharing guilt when the project fails or is delayed. The one is a moral/ethical issue, the other is a legal one. Legally, I have no guilt at all, because I upheld my part of a contract. Morally, I kick myself for being naive, for not having been a bit more inquisitive, for putting myself into a situation where I have to argue about such things with strangers on message boards (LOL). Different things, IMO. [and ‘moral’ is probably the wrong word - maybe ‘psychologically’ is better? dunno]

115

I agree.

I don’t plan to keep arguing about who is or was guilty, as it seems pretty clear what the answer is. The better questions are these: what is the best plan for moving forward? that is, despite all the rancor and shame, how can we all (backers, JM, Autarch) get what we all want, namely an excellent megadungeon?

These may be famous last words, but I am fairly reassured by the recent updates. It seems that James is in a good writing space, that work is proceeding, and that there is a good chance that the project will eventually be completed. I know Tavis would like people like us to post constructive comments to aid JM in his writing instead of dwelling on the errors of the past 6 months, so that’s what I am going to try to do from now on.

116

Ok the land anology may have been a stretch, but this isn’t just about the original poster. This is also about the fact that there are statements here which blame the JM and Autarch and that’s acceptable because they do deserve some (maybe most of the blame) but people also have a personal responsibility to themselves not to just accept every written line and spoken word as the absolute truth.

Also this isn’t Stockholm syndrome, no one forced me to contribute, and I know I could ask for a refund and probably get one (but I don’t want that).

My biggest pet peeve is when people refuse to accept responsibility for their own decisions and use every excuse and claim they can think of to get out of the decision. I never once heard JM or Autarch say sorry, this product will not come out and we already spent the money, sorry. All I keep hearing is (paraphrasing) this product was delayed, they lied, and it was an impossible deadline.

I’ve got news for everyone, NO ONE forced you to contribute, you all clicked that button on your own (and you could have canceled anytime before the kickstarter closed) and you did so of your own will because you wanted this product. So if you’re having second thoughts fine ask for a refund and walk away otherwise accept your decision and just wait for the product but please don’t claim that you are all victims and that you were tricked or otherwise forced to contribute.

117

Sorry to butt in as a complete outsider, but the main cause of disagreement seems to me to be in a different area.
(I’m guessing here) The Dwimmermount kickstarter promised something along the lines of “a massive megadungeon with lots of awesome bits, in August”. Clearly the “in August” part has failed… the divide comes between those who extrapolate from that to saying the whole has failed and those who subscribe to the more relaxed Valve ethic: ‘it’s only late until its released but if it sucks, it sucks forever’ I.e. delays are acceptable as long as the final product is good.

In general, Game makers need to get better at estimating times and production schedules (I think the Autarch guys are taking that on board) and gamers need to be less tolerant of unexplained slippage. Yes, I said less tolerant: it’s a hobby, but these are commercial products within that hobby.

That being said, this process is ongoing and we need to stay calm during the reconciliation… “in August” has clearly failed, but what can be done to convince people that the “a massive megadungeon with lots of awesome bits” will still happen?
Given the responses received from Autarch guys it looks like they’re still dedicated to that, so to me it seems premature to call it a Scam or ask for a refund.

118

Well, if the current estimate is Fall 2013, they not only missed one August, but two.

It’s hard to see how that is possible, especially given that 6 levels (or I guess slightly over half) of the dungeon is done. How does a delay of 3 months snowball into a delay of 15 months (or more)?

119

At one point a typo gave 2013 as the optimistic date rather than 2012. A realistic projection based on the current rate of completion is looking more like Winter 2012 for PDF. The previous estimate of Fall 2012 was based on a rate James felt was possible at the time, but has only recently been achieved.

120

Well said, sir.