Can't find my backers section!

[droz]

It was there before the rollover from RRG into ED. I can't find it anywhere on my main page after I login. Anyone else have issues?

[Python]

I was just looking for mine, I haven't logged in before but figured I'd better choose my aircraft. Couldn't find a sausage....

[derelor]

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/backer/

 

This link doesn't work?

[droz]

ok, whew, that worked, there was just no direct link from anywhere on the front page options.

[Python]

It does indeed... Thank you.

[20thBG_Blackwolf]

Same problem, I cant get to it from my page, I have to use the link Derelor posted.

[Pizzicato]

It's all probably immaterial anyway. Wags' latest post suggests that backer options are likely to change as a result of what ED can actually afford to deliver versus what Luthier initially promised.

 

Things should hopefully become clearer after the July newsletter.

[rubblebeam]

It's all probably immaterial anyway. Wags' latest post suggests that backer options are likely to change as a result of what ED can actually afford to deliver versus what Luthier initially promised.

 

Things should hopefully become clearer after the July newsletter.

 

That doesn't sound good at all. Is that even legal? I mean I could start a kickstarter promising A,B and C. And have no intention of producing B and C. Then when I receive the money I hand the project over to a 'partner' who says sorry I can't deliver what the other guy promised so here is A.

You should thank me because you could have ended up with nothing.

[Pizzicato]

That doesn't sound good at all. Is that even legal? I mean I could start a kickstarter promising A,B and C. And have no intention of producing B and C. Then when I receive the money I hand the project over to a 'partner' who says sorry I can't deliver what the other guy promised so here is A.

You should thank me because you could have ended up with nothing.

 

That's the inherent challenge with KickStarter projects. There are ZERO guarantees and they're clear and upfront about that. You are NOT buying a product when you back a KickStarter - you're helping to fund a concept you believe in in the hopes that it will reach fruition. The Backer Rewards are incentives, not purchases, and they're not guaranteed. That's why you need to use a lot of discretion when deciding what to back.

[Gate-5]

That doesn't sound good at all. Is that even legal? I mean I could start a kickstarter promising A,B and C. And have no intention of producing B and C. Then when I receive the money I hand the project over to a 'partner' who says sorry I can't deliver what the other guy promised so here is A.

You should thank me because you could have ended up with nothing.

 

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?

 

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

 

I'd say its not and strictly speaking either the creator or the partner (depends on how they are involved) would have to deliver or refund B and C. But it doesnt matter anyways, since you would have to take legal action against the creator or his partner which would only do more damage than there already is.

[MACADEMIC]

That doesn't sound good at all. Is that even legal? I mean I could start a kickstarter promising A,B and C. And have no intention of producing B and C. Then when I receive the money I hand the project over to a 'partner' who says sorry I can't deliver what the other guy promised so here is A.

You should thank me because you could have ended up with nothing.

 

It's a very valid point. From a legal point of view each backer has a contract with Ilya Shevchenko, and he is liable to fulfill promises or make a refund. This is in the Kickstarter Terms and Conditions. Contrary to what some here are saying, the fact that the money was collected at a crowdfunding platform does not absolve the founder from his obligations.

 

In case rewards are cut short by the party that has taken over the project, backers don't need to accept but can ask the founder for a refund. This may be difficult to enforce, however there is a first precedent case where public prosecution has taken a founder to court over non-delivery of rewards. IMO this will become standard in such cases in the future, at least in the US.

 

MAC

Edited June 27, 2014 by MACADEMIC

[Pizzicato]

It's a very valid point. From a legal point of view each backer has a contract with Ilya Shevchenko, and he is liable to fulfill promises or make a refund. This is in the Kickstarter Terms and Conditions. Contrary to what some here are saying, the fact that the money was collected at a crowdfunding platform does not absolve the founder from his obligations.

 

In case rewards are cut short by the party that has taken over the project, backers don't need to accept but can ask the founder for a refund. This may be difficult to enforce, however there is a first precedent case where public prosecution has taken a founder to court over non-delivery of rewards. IMO this will become standard in such cases in the future, at least in the US.

 

MAC

 

Interestingly, the KickStarter FAQ on this topic says:

 

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?

 

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

 

However, the "this" that they refer to is:

 

 

https://ksr-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/creator-responsibility.png

 

I'm no lawyer, but that looks very vague, hand wavy and barely enforceable to me. It's not even proper English and all it seems to suggest is "angry people could get together and try to sue you". It hardly looks like a binding and enforceable legal contract (because God knows I've signed one or two in my time and they're usually dense, complex docs filled with incomprehensible legalese).

 

If that IS the extent of the creators "legal obligation", it reads pretty much like "Dude - seriously. You should REALLY try to give people what you promised them". ;)

 

I could be wrong, though.

[MACADEMIC]

A contract doesn't require a lot of 'legalese' to become valid. When you go to a store, pick up a candy bar, put it on the counter together with the dollar it costs, the shopkeeper takes the dollar and you leave with the candy bar, you have closed a contract. It's clear enough what was going on and what both parties agreed on.

 

Same with the Kickstarter, one party has advertised, the other put up money. Contract closed, supported by the T&Cs of the platform.

 

Here's something on the precedent case of Washington State against a founder who failed to deliver: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/

 

Won't be the last.

 

MAC

[rubblebeam]

Honestly right now I wish they'd just refund everybody's pledge. If folk want the Dora they can pay for it. I'm sure if folk really want the aircraft they'll pay for them. I personally was only interested in the sputfire and p47. Plus the SDK which reading the signs isn't gojbg to happen. I'd rather my $160 be returned.

[Pizzicato]

A contract doesn't require a lot of 'legalese' to become valid. When you go to a store, pick up a candy bar, put it on the counter together with the dollar it costs, the shopkeeper takes the dollar and you leave with the candy bar, you have closed a contract. It's clear enough what was going on and what both parties agreed on.

 

There's a lot of consumer legislation that unpins and enforces such transactions, though, right? The full, legal contracts do effectively exist at the federal level - they're just not seen by either party in the transaction.

 

The situation regarding crowd-sourced funding is different, though, as pointed out by the Washington State Attorney General's Office in the article you linked:

 

“This is a new frontier. We hope this sends a message to other potential project creators to take their responsibilities seriously. We look forward to bringing more cases' date=' if necessary, to protect consumers.”[/quote']

 

What that says to me is that existing consumer protection legislation doesn't necessarily cover crowd-sourcing and there not yet any legal precedents for this kind of case. In effect, the Ed Nash suit is a test case.

 

I agree with you, though, that there will almost certainly be more cases like this and that various countries will have to adapt their legislation to account for this new paradigm.

[MACADEMIC]

Also not a lawyer, but I don't think this is such a new legal terrain but is in principle well covered in existing legislation (Consumer Protection Act in the US). It just happens to be the first case related to crowdfunding brought before court.

 

These quotes from same article make me think so:

 

The Attorney General’s office is seeking restitution for consumers, as much as $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act in civil penalties, and money to cover the state’s costs and attorneys’ fees.

“This lawsuit sends a clear message to people seeking the public’s money: Washington state will not tolerate crowdfunding theft. The Attorney General’s Office will hold those accountable who don’t play by the rules.”

Joe Wallin, an attorney with Seattle-based Davis Wright Tremaine, said he’s not surprised by the Attorney General’s actions. “If people mislead and defraud people, they can expect the government to take action,” Wallin said.

 

MAC

Edited June 27, 2014 by MACADEMIC

[NineLine]

Honestly right now I wish they'd just refund everybody's pledge. If folk want the Dora they can pay for it. I'm sure if folk really want the aircraft they'll pay for them. I personally was only interested in the sputfire and p47. Plus the SDK which reading the signs isn't gojbg to happen. I'd rather my $160 be returned.

 

Please dont assume anything, nobody has said anything about the SDK not being available... but ED is going to adjust things to a more realistic level, for example... I dont think a 1$ pledge should get the SDK? Unless its going to be free to all at some point....

 

Anyways... not sure all this lawyer/legal talk isnt premature... ED has said the project will continue to completion, they have been upfront with everybody, and will announce their plans soon... can we just relax and wait for that announcement before busting out the torches and pitchforks?

[rubblebeam]

Please dont assume anything, nobody has said anything about the SDK not being available... but ED is going to adjust things to a more realistic level, for example... I dont think a 1$ pledge should get the SDK? Unless its going to be free to all at some point....

 

Anyways... not sure all this lawyer/legal talk isnt premature... ED has said the project will continue to completion, they have been upfront with everybody, and will announce their plans soon... can we just relax and wait for that announcement before busting out the torches and pitchforks?

I don't think anyone is busting out pitchforks and torches. I feel there is not a lot of information at the moment. We've been told that Ed are currently working out what parts of the Kickstarter they can fulfill and Ed are taking a loss. Will DCS WW2 be a separate install? If not whats the point of choosing The DCS world 190 as well as the DCS WW2 190 in ones "rewards" if they're the same thing? Same with the P-51, which I already purchased. I don't care for t-shirts or alpha access or posters and like most the manuals I can live without. I backed the project because I wanted it to succeed. There were a lot of promises in the kickstarter not just the aircraft and map. There was a multiplayer aspect, there were campaigns for each aircraft. The SDK etc etc There are a LOT of things that are being discussed by ED at the moment. Folk are on tender hooks for the July update and hopefully some answers to what ED can actually fulfill. Personally I thought a monthly update at such a crucial and surprising time as ED taking over wasn't enough. A monthly update is fine when the project is up and running but when the project changes hands and there are ambiguous statements like ED will look into the rewards and see what can be done. There are bound to be worried folk.

[MACADEMIC]

I don't think anyone is busting out pitchforks and torches.

 

Me neither. Just interested to understand the situation. ;)

 

From my point of view, the cleanest and best long term solution, in case ED can afford it, is to refund all backers the full amount they've put in:

 

"Thanks guys for the interest free loan, we'll take it from here and continue doing business as we did before, producing high quality modules and content, for which we're charging reasonable prices. Unfortunately RRG's Kickstarter rewards model is not tenable for us, but we thank them for their contribution and welcome key members of their team in our ranks. We look forward to seeing you all as customers of our new DCS FW190 D-9, and future DCS aircraft and modules."

 

Much better revenue potential for new aircraft and modules, no legal hassles, no hassles with physical reward items, no upset customers.

 

MAC

[NineLine]

I don't think anyone is busting out pitchforks and torches. I feel there is not a lot of information at the moment. We've been told that Ed are currently working out what parts of the Kickstarter they can fulfill and Ed are taking a loss. Will DCS WW2 be a separate install? If not whats the point of choosing The DCS world 190 as well as the DCS WW2 190 in ones "rewards" if they're the same thing? Same with the P-51, which I already purchased. I don't care for t-shirts or alpha access or posters and like most the manuals I can live without. I backed the project because I wanted it to succeed. There were a lot of promises in the kickstarter not just the aircraft and map. There was a multiplayer aspect, there were campaigns for each aircraft. The SDK etc etc There are a LOT of things that are being discussed by ED at the moment. Folk are on tender hooks for the July update and hopefully some answers to what ED can actually fulfill. Personally I thought a monthly update at such a crucial and surprising time as ED taking over wasn't enough. A monthly update is fine when the project is up and running but when the project changes hands and there are ambiguous statements like ED will look into the rewards and see what can be done. There are bound to be worried folk.

 

Again, you need to wait for the announcement, things will be clearer, I am trying to communicate many of the concerns as well in the hopes we get a full answer. After all I am a backer as well...

 

As for the question of updates... well I think communication has been improved 10 fold. I cant see any room for complaints here. I understand stand peoples concerns, but bottom line is that the project is still proceeding, ultimately, that should be the biggest concern, and we shouldn't be worried as its in good hands.

 

As for a refund? I dont know how that would work, the money wasnt given directly to ED (remember, this was RRG's project, we funded RRG, ED was just a partner), sure ED still seems to have what the money was used for (is the current state of the Me 109K-4), but its not like they have the KS money sitting in their back pocket. Also, if the refund the project, it seems that would also allow them to bow out of the WWII 1944 project as well... if people wanting their refund more than the project, I guess that works, but I rather have the final project... but that is just me.

[nick10]

The point is id like to know if my original pledge won't get me the Dora as promised I need to know now so I can pre purchase at the cheaper price

[NineLine]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2101600&postcount=2

[Phantom453]

 

Anyways... not sure all this lawyer/legal talk isn't premature... ED has said the project will continue to completion, they have been upfront with everybody, and will announce their plans soon... can we just relax and wait for that announcement before busting out the torches and pitchforks?

 

I think people are rightly concerned about their investment Sith (just like you I'm sure), but I don't see and signs of "torches & pitchforks" here - certainly not towards ED. Far from it in fact . I think the majority of people are very appreciative of the way ED has stepped up and are trying to resolve this mess for the benefit of all involved. Unfortunately, in any information void, there is bound to be speculation. But as you point out, we will just have to do our best to await further advice from ED.

 

On the other hand though, in relation to KS obligations discussed above, I haven't seen one single sign of "good faith" from Ilya Shevchenko. Not a single word that I am aware of. No explanation of a problem. No reworked plan - nothing but silence. The point being that he had an obligation to his backers and to the best of my knowledge made no attempt to demonstrate "good faith" whatsoever. And its not like he wasn't logging onto these very forums several times post the sudden stop in communication. So to my mind, if he ends up in court over this, then he only has himself to blame. If anyone has indeed seen something from Ilya on this forum, or any other forum, by way of explanation, then I'd love to see a link please.

 

And just to be clear here, I'm not discussing

 

8 June 2014 Update

 

.......the circumstances which led to this change in product management and development.

 

I'm discussing KS rights, obligations, and acts of "good faith."

[NineLine]

Perhaps I read too much into it, the talk about legal rights and other cases/lawsuits, etc... I apologize if I did.

 

I cant comment on Ilya's position, I wont comment on my opinion of that/him either.

 

My thoughts on what is good faith for the KS from ED, is the project being completed. The rewards shouldnt carry so much weight, but I understand that's a personal judgement we all need to make. Just stating my thoughts on all of it. If someone comes on here and is upset about a part of the rewards, I wont knock them, we all need to decide what we are going to be happy with.

 

I dont want you guys to think I am arguing with you or trying to impose my will on you, I am sort of a middle man in ways, I have a slightly different vantage point, I also only backed for 40 bucks. Its probably not fair for me to comment on the rewards, I mean after all, with out them the project might have not got funded, that said... maybe it shouldnt have considering the original lead... but its all what ifs now... we have to judge everything based on where we are now. So it still comes down to seeing what ED can do, and again, deciding if you are going to be ok with it... I am not sure what to say if you are not. And thats not me being unfeeling, it is what it is at this point. My hopes are to fly in DCS WWII 1944 some day. Now I just sound like a broken record... but what a mixed up mess this is...

[Art-J]

 

On the other hand though, in relation to KS obligations discussed above, I haven't seen one single sign of "good faith" from Ilya Shevchenko. Not a single word that I am aware of. No explanation of a problem. No reworked plan - nothing but silence. The point being that he had an obligation to his backers and to the best of my knowledge made no attempt to demonstrate "good faith" whatsoever. And its not like he wasn't logging onto these very forums several times post the sudden stop in communication. So to my mind, if he ends up in court over this, then he only has himself to blame. If anyone has indeed seen something from Ilya on this forum, or any other forum, by way of explanation, then I'd love to see a link please.

 

 

Sigh....

 

It's not like this is the first time Ilya did it, is it? Since his very first "personal project" - Pacific Fighters (and that was 2004, mind you), the guy's trademark were: a) promising bells, whistles and whatnot; b) falling more or less short with delivering; c) either giving poor excuses or disappearing off the radar without a word.

 

I don't know what's more funny/pathetic about DCS WWII project: a) Ilya trying to pull off the same trick for the third time or; b) people donating hundreds of bucks hoping (?) this time he would behave properly. I don't want to ridicule the backers, I just don't understand the concept of throwing cash without proper cross-checking fundraiser's credibility.

 

Anyway, I don't think he will end up in court. The guy sits in Russia where American "hire lawyer and sue anyone for anything" mentality just ain't going to work, simple as that.

 

As You noticed, the only thing folks here can do at the moment is to wait for ED to come up with realistic solutions of the problem.