iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.

[ramboky]

In this scenario the only legal recourse most of us have is with Link. [...] Suggesting I'm putting convenience before morals is both baseless and pretty damn offensive.

I see the base for that comment right there. Putting legal convenience before desert.

It's not convenience, it's the only option. And at then end of the day, it's how business works. 

As for the updates, your question has been asked and answered before. People have asked many questions which Link has chosen to ignore. All they want is answers. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[moxie]

In this scenario the only legal recourse most of us have is with Link. [...] Suggesting I'm putting convenience before morals is both baseless and pretty damn offensive.

I see the base for that comment right there. Putting legal convenience before desert.

It's not convenience, it's the only option.

No. It is an option, but not the only option. In particular, you have the option not to go the legal route. Will that mean it'll take longer getting your money back, or even not getting them back at all? Possibly. That is why this is a moral question: What is more important to you, 80 dollars or treating your fellow man according to what he deserves? 


That is, of course, based on the reason given above - That the reason to go after Link is that it is "your only legal recourse", not anything to do with who is the actual cause of the breakdown. If you do have any particular reason to believe that Link is actually responsible, in whole or in part, for the project breakdown, then it is another matter. So far, I have seen a lot of underhanded mumbling along the lines of "Well, he's hiding something, isn't he, right, got into this together with Craig, ey? And we all know what kind of character that is, ey? And he actually put his pen to the paper and signed, OK, which means he is Legally Reponsible, right? Right?!?", which sounds like nothing more than someone trying to psyche themselves into doing something they really shouldn't. In particular, I've seen noone actually arguing that 1) Link has caused this, or 2) that Link has profited from this. Consensus seems to be that it all crashed because of Craig, but Link has, through bad business or legal sense, left an opening through which he could be sued for the money he no longer has. 


Which, once again, brings it back to the moral question: What is the most important? Damaging the deserving or getting the bloody money?

And at then end of the day, it's how business works.

Yes. That is how business works. Business is amoral (note: I'm not saying immoral) in itself. That is why we usually do not base our relations with other people on business considerations, but on other grounds. So that is the question: Business or community? Legal or moral?

As for the updates, your question has been asked and answered before. People have asked many questions which Link has chosen to ignore. All they want is answers. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Well, that depends on what kinds of answers you want. It is rather obvious that a whole lot of answers cannot be forthcoming from Link if he also is going to do that other thing you want him to - Go after Craig re: the failed business thingie. In particular, he can't sit here and talk about who did what in the decision to close down the project, or speculate on where the money has gone, if he is going to be able to use that legally later. Still, that is what I see several of you demanding.

So, not only do you want to use the legal system to get your money out of someone who (according to the most popular interpretation, anyway) doesn't have them and didn't spend them, you also demand that he gives up the possibility to do the same to the person who actually has and did. Once again, what is more important?

 

[moxie]

Then again, I might be culturally insensitive here. I live in a society where we do not take lightly on suing other people - We do not usually see courtroom negotiations as a social gathering, or see subpoenas as an interesting conversation starter. I understand that that is different in other parts of the world.

 

[cuetzpalin]

You're all right regarding the correctness of regularly, I was mixing my thoughts with a similar word in spanish that also implies frequently.

Anyhow, my point is, even if we all know Link is not to blame for the failure of the project, I think we would prefer a less passive attitude from him.

Had ED acted like Link with the pandora, we would still be *waiting* our refunds. (I know it's not exactly the same, but I think this explains my point)

 

[moxie]

Yes. And had Link acted like ED, this whole mess would have been avoided since Craig wouldn't have had a kickstarter to start with. And had Craig acted like ED, either everyone would have had their pandoras, ICPs and ICP2s long ago, or none would since all involved would have been too sensible to start these shenanigans at all.

Now, the fact is that we are not all ED. And it doesn't strike me as obvious that not-being-ED is something you ought to get sued for, even if there is a legal possibility. 

we would prefer a less passive attitude from him.

Possibly. However, there is not necessarily a correlation between "Passive attitude on the forums" and "Passive attitude towards the Craig mess". Not writing on the forums does not imply that Link isn't working on stuff. It doesn't imply the opposite either, of course. 

 

[cuetzpalin]

I'm using ED as example because many people here seem to believe that not being Craig is enough to put your hands on fire for someone.

 

[comradekingu]

So if link icontrolpad llC funneled money over to craig and then closed shops. What company did he send the money to?

 

[ramboky]

Moxie, Link isn't answering questions, he's ignoring them. You can say differently all you like but it's simply not the case.

What you are suggesting, just as you consistently suggested while the ICP2 project was falling apart, is to give the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. You were wrong then and you may well be wrong again. 

As neither Craig or Link are stepping forward with straight answers then legal action seems to be the only option. If that means Link must pursue Craig with legal action then all the better. It's not about the money, I'll happily donate whatever I get (if anything) to charity if that'll stop your moral preaching. It's about holding people accountable for what has been an obvious abuse of trust.

 

[Exophase]

It's about not being able to accept that sometimes things don't go the way they should have and that you will get screwed over now and then, and that you don't always have to make someone pay to be able to move on.

I bet in 10 or 20 years you will no longer have the same kind of resolve to get retribution over things like this.

 

[rl7298]

Everyone gets screwed now and then, but this is an entirely different level of getting screwed. In this case Link will just move on to Pyra, ithic, mCig, VitaCig, Cannabis Pro LLC. Craig will likely find another venture as well. The oh well attitude doesn't cut it when each of these people is going to continue to push products to the general public. That's my beef here. I'm at the point that I don't care about the money. I'll just as easily spend that money twice over to ensure that other people are informed enough and not going to get screwed in the future.

 

[rl7298]

Granted, if one of these upstanding individuals contacted me and gave me a refund on their own free will, without me needing to "opt in" to some silly refund program, I'd likely take it and call it a day. I am an American after all.

 

[rl7298]

Some of you might think that's hypocritical, but I feel I'm at a crossroads here. The Attorney General of Vermont has been contacting Mark on my behalf and he's ignoring them. There's a few avenues I still have at my disposal, one of which is legal recourse. I need to make a decision if I'm going to buy into the "opt in for a refund" hype, take legal action, or take the high road and pursue a campaign of making the public aware of the facts of what went on within this project and it's managers so people are not screwed over as easily in the future. I'm currently weighing the cost basis for each path.

 

[ramboky]

 

It's about not being able to accept that sometimes things don't go the way they should have and that you will get screwed over now and then, and that you don't always have to make someone pay to be able to move on.

I bet in 10 or 20 years you will no longer have the same kind of resolve to get retribution over things like this.

I'm choosing to do something about this, it's not some emotional need like you're suggesting. When I get screwed over I make a decision as to whether if it's worth my time to pursue it. In this case I've decided that it is. Why does that bother you so much? Perhaps you and Moxie need to accept that people think differently than you and you two need to move on.

What has 10 or 20 years have to do with anything? If you're suggesting I'll mellow with age you're making two false assumptions.

Some of you might think that's hypocritical, but I feel I'm at a crossroads here. The Attorney General of Vermont has been contacting Mark on my behalf and he's ignoring them. There's a few avenues I still have at my disposal, one of which is legal recourse. I need to make a decision if I'm going to buy into the "opt in for a refund" hype, take legal action, or take the high road and pursue a campaign of making the public aware of the facts of what went on within this project and it's managers so people are not screwed over as easily in the future. I'm currently weighing the cost basis for each path.

My opinion is legal action will ultimately make public what went on here in a way that can't be refuted. Any other public awareness effort will just be seen as one person's opinion with people here second guessing and arguing it to death.

 

[EvilDragon]

I can tell you exactly what went on here, it's pretty easy:

1. Link funded Product 3 LLC to gather the funds for Craigs iControlPad 2 production.

2. After successful funding, Link sent some money to my company (to fulfill the PCB production and buy all the needed parts) and some to Craig (to fullfill the case production and buy the needed parts as well as to handle shipping within Europe). He only kept the money needed for the shipments within US. I don't know that, but the designer (Michael Weston) has probably been paid to do his job as well.

3. The bare PCBs have been produced, 100 have been populated, the parts are lying around at the company. That part is finished. Nothing has been heard from Craig what happened to the case and / or the money.

4. Therefore, the full thing has been cancelled. The production company is currently trying to sell the remaining parts. I've got approx. 10,000 EUR left for the production run, which will then be transferred back to Link together with the money for the sold parts (whenever they have been sold...)

That's what went on.

It has already been posted.

And weekly updates wouldn't change anything, as I doubt Link will hear anything else from Craig at all anymore, and as long as the parts haven't been sold, there's nothing to be updated as well.

Your legal action will bring nothing new to the public - it will make public if Link did any fraud, but as far as I know he didn't - he simply hasn't been delivered with the ordered iCP2s by iControlPad Ltd. in UK.

A legal action against Link will not bring to the public whatever Craig did - and that's the issue.

 

[Exophase]

I'm choosing to do something about this, it's not some emotional need like you're suggesting. When I get screwed over I make a decision as to whether if it's worth my time to pursue it. In this case I've decided that it is. Why does that bother you so much? Perhaps you and Moxie need to accept that people think differently than you and you two need to move on.

What has 10 or 20 years have to do with anything? If you're suggesting I'll mellow with age you're making two false assumptions.

I really don't care if you're emotional about this or not - although you have been over and over again - but however you look at it you're petty and vindictive. And the one and only reason I give even half a shit about anything you're saying or doing here is because I don't want to see Link get punished because you and others like you have to make someone pay.

What I thought might happen with age is you might get some perspective. I guess we'll see. It's never too late.

Granted, if one of these upstanding individuals contacted me and gave me a refund on their own free will, without me needing to "opt in" to some silly refund program, I'd likely take it and call it a day. I am an American after all.

Give me your paypal, I'll do it. This conspiracy theory bullshit you're piling on Link is totally unfair. He didn't scam anyone here, and I don't know where you get off saying he's going to go on to do scams under other companies. But I guess you don't need evidence of anything and you don't care about throwing people in the mud so long as you get your fucking retribution over your miserable little Kickstarter contribution.

And believe me, the very thought of covering for even a penny of Craig's mess makes me sick, but not quite as sick as you're making me right now.

But I'm sure you'll just say I'm a big shill like you did with sswam and I'm sure you won't take me up on it either.

 

[ekianjo]

I can tell you exactly what went on here, it's pretty easy:   1. Link funded Product 3 LLC to gather the funds for Craigs iControlPad 2 production. 2. After successful funding, Link sent some money to my company (to fulfill the PCB production and buy all the needed parts) and some to Craig (to fullfill the case production and buy the needed parts as well as to handle shipping within Europe). He only kept the money needed for the shipments within US. I don't know that, but the designer (Michael Weston) has probably been paid to do his job as well. 3. The bare PCBs have been produced, 100 have been populated, the parts are lying around at the company. That part is finished. Nothing has been heard from Craig what happened to the case and / or the money. 4. Therefore, the full thing has been cancelled. The production company is currently trying to sell the remaining parts. I've got approx. 10,000 EUR left for the production run, which will then be transferred back to Link together with the money for the sold parts (whenever they have been sold...)

Simple question, why has Link never shared a clear message just like what you have shared here ? It's been months already.  

 

[elwing]

Simple question, why has Link never shared a clear message just like what you have shared here ? It's been months already.  

My guess would be that he might be in a legal jeopardy and his advocate counseled to avoid speaking or something like that...

while he clearly seems to have done nothing bad the LLC is at his name and I guess there's some risk for him there...

 

[ekianjo]

My guess would be that he might be in a legal jeopardy and his advocate counseled to avoid speaking or something like that...   while he clearly seems to have done nothing bad the LLC is at his name and I guess there's some risk for him there...

If he has nothing to blame himself for, he could simply state the facts and I don't see where this could turn against him from a legal standpoint.

On top of that, this thread is getting really depressing. There are some pissed off people who spent money, asking for valid questions and getting nowhere, and on the opposite side people getting angry "because Link's reputation may be tarnished". 

Come on guys, Link is a full grown adult and he can defend himself if he has to. He doesn't need a bunch of bodyguards. 

 

[moxie]

Yes, and as far as I know, Ramboky and rl7298 are also fully grown adult, even if they fail to act it. This thread was getting depressing the moment said fully grown adults announced that it was more important to "do something about it" than it is going after the properly guilty party. 

 

[moxie]

  Simple question, why has Link never shared a clear message just like what you have shared here ? It's been months already.  

 

What part of the above hasn't already been said, time and time again? None of that is new! We all know all of that! What is this idea that the same things ought to be stated over and over again, and not only that, but by particular people? That is why I wonder what questions it is people want answered - I fail to see what isn't already 1) said over and over again and well known, or 2) obviously damaging to a possigle future legal action.