Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
You Don’t Have To Leave Wolfy Behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' Your Companions Level Up With You!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I am so done with kickstarter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8641683" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>They don't walk it back very much, if we look at what they're actually saying. If anything, I'd characterise it as doubling-down, but in the most cautious/PR-friendly way possible. I mean, what they actually say is, once translated from PR-speak:</p><p></p><p>1) "We'll make a demo blockchain to test this out, as a separate organisation, and we won't forcibly transfer our users on to that, nor will will use its tech <em>until we're happy it works properly</em>. We are going to build it though, whether you like it or not. When we are happy we will then use some or all of that tech to replace the existing KS, whether you like it or not, but we will seek "input" on what you find "valuable". No guarantees re: listening to that input though!"</p><p></p><p>So that's a double-down. They are building it, like it or not, and they offer absolutely no guarantees that they won't force every creator in KS on to it's tech, in time.</p><p></p><p>The positive side is, it may well perform horribly and/or offer no obvious benefit in testing (indeed, that's likely the case as absolutely no explanation of how using a centralized platform via the blockchain has been made), which might make it fatal to try and force a changeover.</p><p></p><p>2) "We'll establish an 'advisory council' made up of people we like, who don't necessarily have any qualifications, and with no transparency on how people are selected. Oh and they're not here to help with the blockchain or even input on it, just to tell us how to do better with the current platform".</p><p></p><p>I mean, okay but that's largely irrelevant and also in no way democratic or transparent. I mean, it doesn't have to be, but it's not exactly a concession of any real kind.</p><p></p><p>3) "The demo blockchain's organization will be a Public Benefit Corporation".</p><p></p><p>Fine? I mean if it <em>wasn't</em> going to be that would extremely worrying. So again, no concession or backing down, just as the bare minimum to meet expectations.</p><p></p><p>4) "The new organisation will sign up to the same vague and largely non-enforceable/non-binding environmental commitments ("it's more of a guideline") as KS. We won't rely solely on carbon offsets which you've pointed out to us are massively corrupt and a giant lie, but we will use them, as much as we feel like, so long as it's below 100%. We won't use a "carbon-intensive" blockchain, but we also won't specify what that is, so basically we can use whatever we like as long as it's slightly cleaner than the worst offenders."</p><p></p><p>This is pretty bad, frankly.</p><p></p><p>They're acknowledging that they've been told carbon offsets are a lie (which they demonstrably are), and refusing to not use carbon offsets (just saying they won't "rely on them alone" on them).</p><p></p><p>They're also refusing to commit to a lower-carbon blockchain, just not "carbon-intensive". So I guess maybe not ETH? But even then they might excuse it with ETH's forever-in-the-future promise to go to proof-of-stake.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8641683, member: 18"] They don't walk it back very much, if we look at what they're actually saying. If anything, I'd characterise it as doubling-down, but in the most cautious/PR-friendly way possible. I mean, what they actually say is, once translated from PR-speak: 1) "We'll make a demo blockchain to test this out, as a separate organisation, and we won't forcibly transfer our users on to that, nor will will use its tech [I]until we're happy it works properly[/I]. We are going to build it though, whether you like it or not. When we are happy we will then use some or all of that tech to replace the existing KS, whether you like it or not, but we will seek "input" on what you find "valuable". No guarantees re: listening to that input though!" So that's a double-down. They are building it, like it or not, and they offer absolutely no guarantees that they won't force every creator in KS on to it's tech, in time. The positive side is, it may well perform horribly and/or offer no obvious benefit in testing (indeed, that's likely the case as absolutely no explanation of how using a centralized platform via the blockchain has been made), which might make it fatal to try and force a changeover. 2) "We'll establish an 'advisory council' made up of people we like, who don't necessarily have any qualifications, and with no transparency on how people are selected. Oh and they're not here to help with the blockchain or even input on it, just to tell us how to do better with the current platform". I mean, okay but that's largely irrelevant and also in no way democratic or transparent. I mean, it doesn't have to be, but it's not exactly a concession of any real kind. 3) "The demo blockchain's organization will be a Public Benefit Corporation". Fine? I mean if it [I]wasn't[/I] going to be that would extremely worrying. So again, no concession or backing down, just as the bare minimum to meet expectations. 4) "The new organisation will sign up to the same vague and largely non-enforceable/non-binding environmental commitments ("it's more of a guideline") as KS. We won't rely solely on carbon offsets which you've pointed out to us are massively corrupt and a giant lie, but we will use them, as much as we feel like, so long as it's below 100%. We won't use a "carbon-intensive" blockchain, but we also won't specify what that is, so basically we can use whatever we like as long as it's slightly cleaner than the worst offenders." This is pretty bad, frankly. They're acknowledging that they've been told carbon offsets are a lie (which they demonstrably are), and refusing to not use carbon offsets (just saying they won't "rely on them alone" on them). They're also refusing to commit to a lower-carbon blockchain, just not "carbon-intensive". So I guess maybe not ETH? But even then they might excuse it with ETH's forever-in-the-future promise to go to proof-of-stake. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I am so done with kickstarter
Top