Another alternate solution: accepting an item that's of lesser value

Would you accept a GCW Zero in place of your Pandora? (only preorderers who can't pay extra)

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • I'd rather have a different device.

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14

@WizardStan:

No, most of the 150k (a bare minimum of 120-140k) was used BEFORE the move to Germany. With my previous post I'm simply saying we don't know the legal obligations that were transferred from Craig to ED with the move to Germany. But yes, like said before, we DON'T hold ED accountable.

And while yes, like you said morality affects everyone's business actions, but it's still not recognized as a legal factor. If the company meets its legal obligations, then the customer doesn't have any legal ground to have them do anything else. And in our case, for the pre-orderers (apart from his own), ED probably didn't have any legal obligation, to begin with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, most of the 150k (a bare minimum of 120-140k) was used BEFORE the move to Germany. With my previous post I'm simply saying we don't know the legal obligations that were transferred from Craig to ED with the move to Germany. But yes, like said before, we DON'T hold ED accountable.
That doesn't change anything. If you are saying that EvilDragon is not accountable for the 150K from the 500 remaining preorders then you are agreeing with my original statement: the argument that EvilDragon owes his current success to these preorders is bad and should not be used to justify why he needs to continue to supply them.Because it can't be both ways. He can't be expected to repay what he owes AND not be held accountable to them, they are completely opposite ideas.

it's still not recognized as a legal factor.
Fortunately it doesn't have to. Legal does not necessarily equal moral. They are two completely different frameworks that simply have a lot of overlap. You can be morally obligated to do something illegal, and legally obligated to do something immoral. You can ignore moral obligations while still being entirely legal and ignore legal obligations while still acting morally.
 
Ignoring can be both illegal and immoral in some circumstances. ;)
 
Success? Right now my company still has 200K EUR debts thanks to the Pandora... I wouldn't call that success...
 
Trust me, the Pandora will never even make enough profit for the debts it already caused me. If Craig hadn't pulled me in at the very beginning, I'd have continued to make profit with my shop but WITHOUT having debts.


A Pandora successor might make profit, but the Pandora never will.
 
Are you his accountant?
No. I'm just saying that for the purposes of the argument that was being had "still producing" is considered success. If anyone has serious complaints about that definition then I'll use whatever term you prefer. "Success" is short and should have been sufficiently accurate for the task. EvilDragon succeeded here where Craig did not.
 
@WizardStan:

Well, this has already been said multiple times:
We don't hold ED accountable to us. Therefore, he doesn't really OWE anything to us, and nobody is saying that he does. But we were there to make it happen, or rather took the project far enough so that it could even be restarted, in the first place. Though not by ourselves. If some other supporter/contributor group was missing, the results might still be the same. And we aren't saying he is expected to repay us, so it's not both ways.

I know, the situation might seem different depending on how strongly people see moral obligations. But in my case, I don't see the current situation strong enough for it. I understand that it could disturb other people's "moral center", but at least personally I won't hold anyone obligated to support the orders. Well, besides Craig. But Craig has a legal obligation to do that.

Regarding the moral vs legal discussion:
No objections from me. But once you enter the business world, the moral code is a secondary issue. It only matters if you played by the book. Though bear in mind, the more extreme moral issues are usually also covered by the law. So it is still good to follow one's moral sense, especially if it's also deemed legal, or even a legal requisite (like reporting blackmailing, bribery or poor working conditions).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well somehow in all this discussion I got the idea that the Pandora was making a profit.

If ED was getting rich off the Pandora and not helping the pre-orderers, there might be reason to complain. But that's not what's happening.
 
I think at some recent thread ED stated that he is roughly half-way to securing the investors' money.

(No idea what his personal debt is)

Although, I might have been having a dream, so don't quote me on that.
 
My 2 cents:
150K€ from pre-orders was precondition for *anything* Pandora-related happened. Imho it is silly even arguing about it.

That does not imply any obligations from ED, it i just not related to it. I feel like ED is equal victim as us 500+, and I have to thanks him that he did not made same bad things like Craig, because he had more reasons to do that:

1. ) Craig fools him intentionally - again (my stand), *after* he fools him at beginning of project.

I mean Craig involved ED in project that was not managed as Craig presented it, and *after* that swindle, Craig did encourage ED to make "surviving" business plan-

- without giving him exact numbers, and not paying him what was arranged after that.

So, ED was able to turn all the rest pre-orders profit to pay his investors, pay his own debts ... and scr*w few hundreds *more* pre-orderers. I'm already scrwd, so let's say I am not direcly targeted here (at those few hundreds more), but I still want to say Thank you ED for that you tried to play as fair as possible. Actually it is good for you and for your karma.

There is only one case when I will consider ED responsible for us 500+ and to have obligations  to bring us Pandoras or refunds:

In case that ED already pay all investors, debts, make regular profit AND is still making EXTRA profit on Pandoras (+donations etc).

As we know it will not happened, and I know for sure that ED is smart enough to do not allow pre-orderers-ghosts chase him from past.

Simply said, it is not good for karma things.
Btw good luck with that, Mr Rothwell.
 
We don't hold ED accountable to us. Therefore, he doesn't really OWE anything to us, and nobody is saying that he does.
1) Gringe did, and he was not the first. I tried to explain at that point, quoting him directly, that the argument being used was not a good one, that just because there was 150K money injected into the program at some point it did not necessarily mean the entire sum (or even any of it) was required, and therefore EvilDragon did not necessarily owe anything to them. There are many other reasons why they should get the Pandora they paid for but this was not one of them.2) You came along and repeatedly tried to prove I was wrong, that the 150k WAS necessary, without it the project would necessarily have failed, therefore EvilDragon DOES owe the preorders for it's continuation. Not wanting to argue any further I simply agreed, there is evidence that all 500 preorders were necessary for the continued existence of the project, EvilDragon would not have reached this point without them, therefore he owes them.

3) Now you are flat out stating that he does not owe anything.

How can I be wrong that he does not owe you anything and still have him not owe you anything? That is precisely the thing I was trying to say that you told me was completely wrong. It CANNOT BE BOTH WAYS. Either 150K was needed to get this far and therefore he owes the remaining 500 preorders for their sacrifice, or he doesn't and it wasn't.

I know, the situation might seem different depending on how strongly people see moral obligations. But in my case, I don't see the current situation strong enough for it.
There's no "strong" enough about it, it's black and white: if something is good and you want to be good then you have a moral obligation to do that. If ED owes the remaining 500 preorders then it is currently net-negative morality, and in order to bring it positive he must repay what he owes: he has a moral obligation to the remaining preorders. On the other hand, if, as I said from the start, they were not instrumental in his continued existence and he therefore does not owe them anything then he does not have a moral obligation. When I talk about morality, I'm talking about straight up mathematics of good vs evil: you can't say "1+2 = 5 if you believe it hard enough", it just is, and so to it is possible to build a framework that demonstrates certain behaviours as moral and others as immoral. But just because you have a moral obligation to something does not mean you have to do it. There are legal and financial obligations to consider as well, all three of which might be at odds with each other. Ultimately EvilDragon will decided what to dobased on what he feels is right and what can be afforded, but if the projected NEEDED the 150K to get here, then EvilDragon DOES owe the remaining 500 preorders for what little success he has managed to this point, and he DOES have a moral obligation to repay them. 1+2=3.
But once you enter the business world, the moral code is a secondary issue
Doesn't matter. You can work the midnight shift for weeks and never see the sun, that doesn't mean it doesn't rise every morning. If a business ignores their moral obligations for legal and financial obligations then that's their decision, but it doesn't change the fact that the moral obligations still exist. Please drop this line, it is entirely irrelevant because no one is debating the legal responsibilities. Everyone knows the legal responsibilities that EvilDragon has. The question is and has always been what his moral responsibilities are which do not necessarily coincide with legal obligations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) If you look at the whole sentence, Gringe clearly states that only Craig's company owes us, and that ED should be kept out of this:
"Technically, no one but Craig's company owes these unlucky preorderers anything, I also agree that ED should be kept out of this, but please don't talk about "selfish interests", they DO have a *moral* claim."

2&3) I would like to see where I say that ED owes us. On the contrary, I have repeated on practically every post in this thread that "ED is not accountable to us".

"Either 150K was needed to get this far and therefore he owes the remaining 500 preorders for their sacrifice, or he doesn't and it wasn't."

That "therefore" doesn't belong there. The 150k was needed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that ED owes us. At least it doesn't mean that to me, and from the looks of it, not to anyone else in this thread, from what I recall. Like said, we appreciate the help, but we don't demand it for ourselves.

Regarding moral:
Are you sure you're not talking about karma or something? That's kind of an odd way to look at morality...

This is how I see it:
How strongly people estimate moral values and factors is in their own decision/assessment, and they act upon it on that basis. And everyone has their own sense of moral. Or is there some sort of clear formula for calculating (un)happiness, etc? Some people might see a certain situation as moral, while someone else could consider it immoral. Some might even have the same values as you have. But I don't see it as straight up mathematics. Actually, if it were all black and white, then why would there even be such a thing called "moral dilemma"?

Example:
Do you save the puppy from the burning house, or the kitten?
Now there's a moral dilemma, so who has the formula to calculate the "right" universal answer?

And I never said moral obligations didn't exist or that they are ignored in the business world, just that they don't hold the same ground as the legal obligations.

And with regards to ED's moral and legal responsibilities:
Like said above, his moral responsibilities are his to assess and choose. Everyone does as they see fit. There is no universal answer as to what's "adequate" or "right". Just different people's interpretations of it.
 
Are you his accountant?
No. I'm just saying that for the purposes of the argument that was being had "still producing" is considered success. If anyone has serious complaints about that definition then I'll use whatever term you prefer. "Success" is short and should have been sufficiently accurate for the task. EvilDragon succeeded here where Craig did not.
When ED is the next Jobs... then we can talk success.. until then.. the future :)

ED: Have you considered what your next course of action is?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't there a fallacy in that the amount "needed" would only be a worse hole to be in if it was a larger amount? Seeing as Craig mismanaged the production when he was in charge of production. Whereas ED isnt.

If there are charts, why not make a chart of both companies. With promised value and cashflow. The deal between them is very well described btw. Make sure to include the implied value of yet to be delivered pandoras. Because that is what was lost when craig didnt pay ED. Would be interesting to see.

I cant see ED take a potential fall for anyhting but trusting his preorders with craigs ability to run production. Craigs inability to pay up is only hurting his own customers. No?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That "therefore" doesn't belong there. The 150k was needed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that ED owes us. At least it doesn't mean that to me, and from the looks of it, not to anyone else in this thread, from what I recall. Like said, we appreciate the help, but we don't demand it for ourselves.
No, it does belong there. If someone has sacrificed something against their will it is an injustice against them. If someone profits from that injustice it is a negative on the morality scale.Do you honestly believe that if someone directly benefits from the injustice to another that the benefiting person has absolutely no consideration for the injusticed one at all?
You may be right about that. But ED hasn't profited from the injustice.
 
You may be right about that. But ED hasn't profited from the injustice.
"Profit" is probably not exactly the right word, I'll admit. Does "survived" work? Some word that means that he has reached a point of stability where there is no dagger immediately threatening to cut off all further production, even if he is still in debt. I would argue that "not going bankrupt" is a form of profit (ie, similar to if someone loses their life in order to save yours, you aren't technically better off than you were before but you are better off than you would have been (ie, dead)), but I'm willing to use whatever word you choose that carries the same intention.
 
Back
Top