iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.

[comradekingu]

Actually its, if C is true for A, why isnt it true for B, when A is B and they relate to C, when C is how they dont relate to D.

What im saying is law applies to all players equally, and whether you follow it or not is what makes you a criminal. Laws are also in place for an advisory and regulative effect.

If you applied sense to my argument you would see that the mere plausible nature of how absurd my preposition is, suggests ED forgot something in his reasoning.

If something could be criminal, why cant "real" crime hide behind it just as well to disguise what they do? Not being guilty untill proven so, actually needs the pudding there for signs of proof.

TL;DR And equality for all.

Edit: You cant move away from the law that easily, it doesnt even make it a gray area. Reasoning with how that cant happen, foregoes the logic one tries to apply beforehand. If its legal to buy all sorts of business expences with money you receive to explicitly do something else you dont even know there will be anything left by the time refunds come into play.

What seems clear to me is that Link is sitting on the cards right now.

 

[WizardStan]

Actually its, if C is true for A, why isnt it true for B, when A is B and they relate to C, when C is how they dont relate to D.

No, I'm quite certain there were only two distinct things in your statement. I will quote it again just to be sure.

If that was the case, why doesnt every company set up strawcompanies, lie about transparency and eat whatever promises they made in terms of personal expences, not give any info, and pretend that is ok?

Yup, two things: "if that was the case" then "why doesn't every company etc..."If A then B. No C or D.

If you applied sense to my argument you would see that the mere plausible nature of how absurd my preposition is, suggests ED forgot something in his reasoning

Yes, that's exactly what I said you were trying to say: argument by negation. "Since B (companies scamming everyone all the time) is not true, therefore it must be that A (it being not illegal) must also not be true". Your argument is only true if we assume that the only reason B can be false is if A is false. Since you made the argument it has to be assumed that that is what you believe.

What im saying is law applies to all players equally, and whether you follow it or not is what makes you a criminal. Laws are also in place for an advisory and regulative effect.

That may or may not be true but it doesn't matter. I am not here to tell you whether EvilDragon is correct or not, I don't particularly care. I am telling you that the exact combination of words you used to try and demonstrate that EvilDragon was incorrect implies that you believe the only reason for a company to never take advantage of the public is because it would be illegal, which is a scary proposition.

 

[TrashyMG]

>

Spoiler

 

[comradekingu]

So you look at A and wonder, could that be true in this context?
 
If, (which is the kicker here) opinion 1 isnt true, because 2 cant be true as a result of it, could it mean that somehow we are looking at a bigger picture all of a sudden?
 
I understand the cause for concern, but that isnt the point. Those laws being in place equally for everyone is what we are dealing with. Logic also applies to confirmation bias. And as such, if you cant think like a scam, you cant avoid a scam. 

Businesses cant do that, because those rules apply to them, for reasons it would make them impossible to seperate from criminal ventures. My point was there was no such thing taken into account.
 
Its not the chicken or the egg, its whether or not its legal to operate anything that way.
 

Spoiler

To sum it up ED is looking at it from a legal business side of view, as if it was legal to operate that way.
Im saying it isnt, because from an illegal point of view, the very premise of how, is not legal in itself. Simply because you are then unable to tell a scam from a non scam.
And scams really like to pretend they are businesses, if you catch my drift.

edit2: Everyone involved could have zero rights, only the ones ED stated, which have huge loopholes. The likelihood of which is none. We know at least a company is involved, and with those, something applies.

Be it only the guidelines ED described, the whole thing falls on itself and you are in effect down to zero rights, at which point that company isnt a company.

You cant open, transfer, and close a company that way, because it would be exactly why straw-companies are illegal. I feel certain that much everyone would do that, if only for the times when they do mess up. Which is to say, liability doesnt vanish and responsibily is optional. If these rules dont apply to comission work, colour me suprised.

Also, craig is not very smart business wise, he might be very shoddy, but far from smart in doing so.

Link seems to have the option to take his blade from his mouth at this point, and he is standing in the line of fire.

 

[WizardStan]

So you look at A and wonder, could that be true in this context?

Don't care. I'm actively refusing to comment on whether it is true or not. I'm standing by the one and only thing I said, that your statement, using the words that you did arranged in the order that they were have a very specific meaning, one you probably didn't intend but that is logically consistent all the same.Take note that something can be logically consistent and still be completely wrong.

 

[comradekingu]

I agree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruence_bias

 

[ramboky]

Where does he say that's the only reason he can fathom? You're putting words in other people's mouths.

I have been blessed with an uncommon trait known as "logic". Someone can make two or more statements joined by a common theme and I can magically deduce the common things in those two statements. For example, someone can say "plants need water" and "there is no water in the desert" and I can, by the miracle of the mind, deduce that the person is saying that plants cannot grow in the desert. They didn't actually say that plants couldn't grow in the desert, but somehow that knowledge is apparent all the same. Amazing!

....blah blah blah...

Shame you weren't blessed with reading comprehension to match your penchant for sarcasm and mindlessly arguing things to death.

 

[WizardStan]

You have a terrible way of expressing sarcasm then. Sorry.

 

[ramboky]

You have a terrible way of expressing sarcasm then. Sorry.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Unless you're saying you post was not sarcastic. Would you prefer I called it condescending?

Either way, we've each made our point, let's move on.

 

[klapse]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have picked up the concept of the ICP2 and designed a product. Perhaps a buyer could be found for the existing PCBs and case, etc.

 

[ekianjo]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have picked up the concept of the ICP2 and designed a product

Maybe people have better things to do  

 

[kasp]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have picked up the concept of the ICP2 and designed a product. Perhaps a buyer could be found for the existing PCBs and case, etc.

Don't know why no other company picked up on this concept either

 

[Jumpman]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have picked up the concept of the ICP2 and designed a product. Perhaps a buyer could be found for the existing PCBs and case, etc.

Don't know why no other company picked up on this concept either

The same could be said for the Pandora couldn't it?

I agree the ICP2 was a very unique idea, and where someone should have gone that route by now, this industry is beyond crazy at times. Just look at that official crap controller Apple sponsors, I wouldn't wipe my ass with that thing. Then you have Android where everybody and everyone makes devices, and there is no set standard when it comes to physical controls, so the ICP2 is just another great idea and concept that falls between the cracks.

Chris

 

[rl7298]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have used the concept of creating a shell company in the United States to move funds to a foreign entity with no plans to ever deliver a tangible good or refund of the money spent. There has to be more scam artists out there looking at Kickstarter and pissing on their knickers in giggity delight over what they might be able to accomplish.

/Sarcasm of course.

 

[Jumpman]

Rather strange that no other company seems to have used the concept of creating a shell company in the United States to move funds to a foreign entity with no plans to ever deliver a tangible good or refund of the money spent. There has to be more scam artists out there looking at Kickstarter and pissing on their knickers in giggity delight over what they might be able to accomplish.

/Sarcasm of course.

Technically, KS has things in place to keep that from happening. You have to show and prove proof of concept, and what ever else they need to show that you are at least beyond criminal in your request. Nothing is ever perfect, so fraud and scams will happen, but an ICP had already been delivered and was a decent success, so to say this was an outright fraud would be misleading. 

​I believe EVERYTHING in life can be considered a fraud or a scam depending on your own personal opinions and point of reference. That includes work, marriage, religion, taxes, government, etc. The list goes on and on.

I thought the ICP2 was a solid investment, as I personally sold almost 70 of the ICP's around the world and had a wonderful experience doing so. Do I feel the ICP2 was a scam/fraud? No, I don't. Will I ever get a refund? Maybe, Maybe not! It really doesn't matter at this point. The project was cancelled and I knew going in that if anything ever went wrong, there was a chance I may not see my funds returned. That was the risk of "INVESTING" early in an incomplete project. If anyone here wanted to make an actual "PURCHASE", they should have waited until the project was complete, and devices where available at "RETAIL".

Chris

 

[ramboky]

Was the ICP2 a fraud from the outset? Of course it was. I don't believe Craig intended to take our money and never deliver but the project was not in the state represented at launch. The ICP2 was never "ready for mass production now" as claimed. Craig knowingly used dishonesty for financial gain. That's fraud, plain and simple. And I find it hard to believe there can be so much missing money now without further fraud taking place.

 

[Exophase]

Every time someone talks about stolen money in this project I never see an effort to account for any labor costs. In the real world the work MWeston did would cost tens of thousands of dollars but I guess he was supposed to do it for free. Likewise somebody had to do the work designing the case used for the prototype, even if we have no idea what efforts were made towards case design after the project was done. Even if there was an agreement to do work before the KS began that doesn't mean that the workers weren't promised part of the money if the funding was realized. If molds ever were made after prototyping that'd also be more tens of thousands of dollars.

It's not hard to see how the unaccounted-for money could have been dispersed in a legitimate effort to make the product and not just Craig moving $150,000 to his bank account and calling it a day.

Was it fraudulent of Craig to say that the thing was ready to ship, yes it was. Was it a scam with no plan to ever deliver a tangible good? Almost certainly not. I can't fathom why someone would do a bunch of design work before the KS, pay for an almost complete electrical and software design, pay for almost all of the electrical components for the orders, pay to have the PCBs manufactured, and populate 150 or however many of them all with no intention of delivering anything. I'm having a hard time even grasping how others could think that's indicative of such a scam.

 

[SNESFAN]

Poor planning and management yes, scam I think not. Delays involving the Pandora and icp2 could probably both be directly linked back to shitty project management. Wanting to be able to do something, convincing others you can do it, thinking you can do it, are much different than being able to do it. Communication on the progress of a project also falls on a project managers shoulders and we can see how fail that was, I'm certain if he handled the public facing part of his job as well as he did that the closed door parts were equally as bad. I think its obvious where the weak link in that chain existed. It may appear it was intentionally bad, but it may just be he was just really really bad at what he made himself look like he was good at.

 

[ramboky]

@Exophase

We agree that it was a fraud, not a scam and that Craig's intentions were good, even if his actions weren't. But I don't believe for a second that Craig ever had molds made. No one has ever seen a single case from a mold, nor has Craig ever actually mention them. And what about the swivel clamps? Craig never even published a render and he refused to answer a single question about them. There were no molds. Why do people find it so hard to believe Craig stole money from this project? He's already proven himself to be a liar, you can't deny that.

 

[Exophase]

@Exophase

We agree that it was a fraud, not a scam and that Craig's intentions were good, even if his actions weren't.

rl7298 clearly does not agree, and this sort of conspiracy theorist reasoning on his part only hurts his efforts to get any kind of resolution out of the ordeal.

One thing I know about this project is that, like Pandora, the mechanical design was supposed to be done by DaveC. I don't remember anyone ever hearing anything publicly from him, but that doesn't mean he never did any work - someone had to design the prototype demonstrated in the video, even if it had no actual function. Given that the mold design would have also been under his domain I don't find it inconceivable that some work was done to that end as well.

And you have the wrong idea here, it's not that I find it so hard to believe that Craig stole money from Pandora (although I'm not really sure where paying himself wages ends and where stealing money begins - apparently under UK company law even an LTD with debt can still pay its owner), I simply don't think there's enough evidence to say it with any real certainty. And that accusations kind of demand such a thing, especially if you're expecting to get anywhere legally.

I don't deny that he's lied about things, but that's not enough to make the leap that he's lied about everything. Probably most people lie about something or other, I have and you probably have to, if perhaps not to level of severity Craig has.