But now you have an awesome community, a loyal fanbase and some kind of international fame. And also a priceless experience you'll never get any other way
Hope it worth those 200k..
Another alternate solution: accepting an item that's of lesser value
- Thread starter sporkbox
- Start date
Hope it worth those 200k..
@WizardStan:
1) Well, I don't actually see the interpreted off-post context being that important, because Gring specifically said "ED should be kept out of this". I can't see how you could translate his post to "ED owes us". They are at the opposite sides of the spectrum.
And no, he's not contradicting himself. He would be contradicting himself, if he also took the same "black and white" approach to moral obligations as you are (more of that below). But like said, he clearly doesn't see ED obligated to compensate the pre-orderers.
2&3) Nope. I was against your argument that the remaining pre-orderers didn't support the development/production. And I was trying to make a point that they were indeed important in the overall survival of the project, and that people should stop downplaying our input.
And if I'm specifically saying "we know ED isn't accountable to us", then I can't again see how you could turn that into "ED owes us". Furthermore, I've been stating the same in pretty much every post I've made in this thread. You can't say you've missed it. Actually, I think I can say I've been pretty adamant in driving it through. There shouldn't be any room for hesitation, at this point.
"If I'm wrong then he does owe them. If he doesn't owe them then I'm not wrong."
By your logic, perhaps. But not everyone is agreeing with the causality.
(this might have something to do with the thing below, so bear with me for a second)
Moral discussion:
OK, wikipedia isn't the best of sources, but here's a citation:
"The term moral obligation has a number of meanings in moral philosophy, in religion, and in layman's terms. Generally speaking, when someone says of an act that it is a "moral obligation," they refer to a belief that the act is one prescribed by their set of values."
So let's just say our definitions are from different sources, ok? My definition is stated below and in earlier posts, not sure which one it falls into. Neither do I know to which one yours belongs to.
But, like said before, I see the moral obligations as something that a person determines by himself. If ED doesn't feel he has a strong enough moral obligation regarding the matter, then he simply won't act upon it. It may be different from what "should" be felt as the moral obligation, but that doesn't matter, as that's just somebody else's opinion. Sure, we can criticize him for it, but that's all we can do. It doesn't obligate him for anything, if he himself doesn't feel it that way.
Also, just as a side note, ED hasn't made a profit from the project as a whole. He may have finally made a profit on a yearly basis, but on the bigger scale, the overall profits still don't match the overall debts he had to take when he moved the production to Germany and accepted the investors' money.
Business world and moral obligation:
Again, if you would quote the whole paragraph (let alone the other replies), you could see I clearly state that moral does its work in the business world (I even gave the example involving ED), and talk about primary and secondary obligations, difference being which one actually matters in the business world. So the "strictly speaking" actually had a purpose for being there.
And what do you mean legality doesn't belong in the argument? That's one of the carrying themes of this discussion. The difference is you are trying to enforce the moral side of things to it, while I'm saying it's a secondary issue here.
1) Well, I don't actually see the interpreted off-post context being that important, because Gring specifically said "ED should be kept out of this". I can't see how you could translate his post to "ED owes us". They are at the opposite sides of the spectrum.
And no, he's not contradicting himself. He would be contradicting himself, if he also took the same "black and white" approach to moral obligations as you are (more of that below). But like said, he clearly doesn't see ED obligated to compensate the pre-orderers.
2&3) Nope. I was against your argument that the remaining pre-orderers didn't support the development/production. And I was trying to make a point that they were indeed important in the overall survival of the project, and that people should stop downplaying our input.
And if I'm specifically saying "we know ED isn't accountable to us", then I can't again see how you could turn that into "ED owes us". Furthermore, I've been stating the same in pretty much every post I've made in this thread. You can't say you've missed it. Actually, I think I can say I've been pretty adamant in driving it through. There shouldn't be any room for hesitation, at this point.
"If I'm wrong then he does owe them. If he doesn't owe them then I'm not wrong."
By your logic, perhaps. But not everyone is agreeing with the causality.
(this might have something to do with the thing below, so bear with me for a second)
Moral discussion:
OK, wikipedia isn't the best of sources, but here's a citation:
"The term moral obligation has a number of meanings in moral philosophy, in religion, and in layman's terms. Generally speaking, when someone says of an act that it is a "moral obligation," they refer to a belief that the act is one prescribed by their set of values."
So let's just say our definitions are from different sources, ok? My definition is stated below and in earlier posts, not sure which one it falls into. Neither do I know to which one yours belongs to.
But, like said before, I see the moral obligations as something that a person determines by himself. If ED doesn't feel he has a strong enough moral obligation regarding the matter, then he simply won't act upon it. It may be different from what "should" be felt as the moral obligation, but that doesn't matter, as that's just somebody else's opinion. Sure, we can criticize him for it, but that's all we can do. It doesn't obligate him for anything, if he himself doesn't feel it that way.
Also, just as a side note, ED hasn't made a profit from the project as a whole. He may have finally made a profit on a yearly basis, but on the bigger scale, the overall profits still don't match the overall debts he had to take when he moved the production to Germany and accepted the investors' money.
Business world and moral obligation:
Again, if you would quote the whole paragraph (let alone the other replies), you could see I clearly state that moral does its work in the business world (I even gave the example involving ED), and talk about primary and secondary obligations, difference being which one actually matters in the business world. So the "strictly speaking" actually had a purpose for being there.
And what do you mean legality doesn't belong in the argument? That's one of the carrying themes of this discussion. The difference is you are trying to enforce the moral side of things to it, while I'm saying it's a secondary issue here.
Last edited by a moderator:
