I went the pre-order route myself. After reading on the receipt that my card wouldn't be charged until the product was shipped, I saw the charge on my Amex about a week later. I didn't do anything then, I wanted the watch... but I kept my receipt and the Amex bill with the charge. Once we were almost to the point of being over the promised time by a year, I sent an email to the CST address listed on the site. After three weeks without a response from CST, I called Amex asking to dispute the charge. At first they said they couldn't do anything because it occurred so far back but I asked to speak with a supervisor. Because the receipt said I wouldn't be charged, but I was, that was the deciding factor for him to approve my dispute. He also said that having been a long time Amex customer with great credit helped me out, plus I had responsible disputes in the past (like charges from Bangladesh where I've never been). I saw the reversal on my Amex bill the next month.
About a month later I **finally** got a 12 word response to my email from Dave saying "sorry they haven't shipped, oh and I see you got a credit". That was it. I'm assuming they were contacted by the credit card company.
I kept up on reading the comments on Kickstarter (but couldn't post) because I was curious to see if people were getting them at some point. I understand the frustration, and feel lucky that I got a refund. It wasn't the cash as much as the principal. I hate getting ripped off and that's how I was feeling.
This is from an email echange I had with Shopify in december '14:
Hi Steve, I spoke with our 'payments team' and they confirmed that they have spoken with the store owners and they are legit They directed us to an updated post they put on kickstarter where they explain the delay in shipping their products:
Paypal should still be able to initiate a chargeback if you don't want to wait any longer for your order and you can contact them directly here;
Hello, Kickstarter Backer here. I hesitate to post on the Kickstarter Comment feed in the likely event that if these two jokers ever are able to ship any meaningful number of units (particularly a number that rests somewhere significantly below full fulfillment, but substantially above the number of Pre-Orders), they'll deliberately discriminate against public detractors. To be honest, I suspect very strongly that this is the main reason anybody is still singing praises or offering encouragement; however unlikely it appears at the moment, these defenders want to be rewarded for their support / kind words / disingenuousness and "get theirs," which, strictly speaking, is understandable. The latest update, as has been said by others, is clearly an attempt to bring the sham into the middle-game of tying loose threads towards the eventual end-game goal of contractually absolving themselves and whatever their corporate entity happens to be of responsibility of fully delivering on pledges, if at all.
From the KS Comment feed,
Can't See Timing posted:
"This need to accept the bs from CST is pathetic. They said they had the watch all but ready for production. This crap was already worked out and they had years of experience bringing products to market. You guys need to re-read the very beginning sales pitch put out by Jerry and the team at CST. They had EVERYTHING figured out and ready for production which was worked out too...."
Sean C posted:
These guys are at least one, and possibly all of the following: they are deliberate fraudsters; they are deceitful, disrespectful, and (in a contractual sense) insufficiently communicative; they are abjectly incompetent as business people, designers, and project managers; they are criminally nepotic; and they are shitty human beings.
The KS terms put the full responsibility for fulfillment on the Creator*. The Creator has some clear duties and obligations when it comes to their project and their Backers:
"When a project is successfully funded, the Creator is responsible for completing the project and fulfilling each reward. Their fundamental obligation to Backers is to finish all the work that was promised."
This structured treatment takes three main lines of argument:
First, I attempt to demonstrate that the Creators made material misrepresentations from the very beginning; second, I attempt to demonstrate that the Creators have been dishonest in their communications and have acted in bad faith; third, I attempt to demonstrate that, in the absence of full fulfillment of rewards, the Creators' obligation becomes to provide a transparent accounting of their expenditures, and that their updates to date have fallen far short of demonstrating that required transparency.
1) To my mind, the most important sub-clause of the obligations weighing on the Creators is that "they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers." A quick run-down of "material misrepresentations" these knobs are patenty guilty of committing and perpetuating:
From the launch video: "We've spent the last year designing and prototyping." The video backs this statement up by displaying what appears to be a working prototype and base station, lights, magnetic "click" sound, and the flicker of a refreshing e-ink display. In fact, O'Leary states unequivocally "We have a full working prototype right now with real production parts."
They also state the prototype shown was created "us[ing] real production methods and techniques."
The backers were led to believe that the Kickstarter funding was mainly to acquire enough cash in order to scale manufacture and production, not fund R&D.
That said, the KS terms state "When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised."
In connection with this, the Creators state on the launch page "we will be revising our designs to simplify manufacturing and increase the robustness of the manufactured version. We'll be working on =small modifications= to everything from the stainless steel band, selection and refinement of adhesives, adjustments to the display module, refinement to the top mask in color and material choice and simplification of flexible circuits. The revisions we plan on doing will tackle key issues like making the product as waterproof as possible, optimizing scratch resistance, and ensuring that every product that comes off the line stands up to a high standard of quality. The charger will be revised.."
"Small modifications" does not imply entirely redesigning circuitry or structure. As emblematic examples, they changed the material of the band not once, but twice ([!!] from Stainless to Titanium and then from Titanium to Nitinol [!!]); entirely redesigned the charging station, and therefor needed to change the location of the charging connectors, necessitating another full redesign of the band and thus the internal circuitry and presumably the location of the battery and other electrical components. These are only the most glaring material misrepresentations.
In fact, "small modifications" imply exactly the opposite: necessary tweaks towards the goal of being able to scale production of the prototype they already claimed to have, and to have displayed, in perfect working condition.
Their having a workable and scalable prototype may or may not have been the case when, in Update 4, the Creators posted about their "next round of prototypes." These prototypes modified the band curvature depending on the size, and tweaked the color matching. In my opinion, these were indeed the small differences indicated in the Campaign launch.
Update 6 added the PVD coating layer which is hinted at in the initial campaign (as refinement to the top mask in color).
In Update 7, they updated the display to be able to refresh at a less frequent rate. These are admittedly all legitimately characterized as "small modifications." Then things went seriously off track and further and further away from their so-called proven prototypes.
As we know from subsequent updates, "small modifications" quickly grew into complete redesigns.
Update 9 overhauls the circuitry to make the battery more "robust;" this update is also one in which reference towards "general electronics refinement" is made obliquely and not flushed out with any remarkable detail.
Update 11 talks about new partners and the necessity to redesign key components as well as develop new methods of production in addition to changing battery suppliers. They also announced a completely redesigned base station, which required a complete redesign of the structure of the band. This is mentioned as a feature, a positive which would be "travel friendly," which would provide "much better water resistance."
At this stage, it's worth noting they were three months out from the successful funding, but they nevertheless continued to make drastic changes to a product which was supposed to be fully working and ready for manufacture and production. If you had any doubts that the initial "Ready To GO!" claims were disingenuous, you should be reasonably convinced by this stage in the argument. But I know we have some Backers who are desperate to err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. Read on; your rose-tinted memory has clouded your sense of righteous disdain and fury. Please be advised: the following break-down is not exhaustive.
Update 12, about five months after funding, is the first which officially announces a delay of delivery, from September to December 2013. There's also a slew of complete redesigns here: new battery sourcing, new battery circuit, new display circuit, further refinement of charging and data port, and intention to "adjust details on the watch’s metal band."
Update 13 announces tweak troubles (ahem, "challenges") with the base station docking procedure and announces intention to "Test a physical model of the base station and charger to ensure good mechanical and electrical performance" and "Design refinements based on the results of the base station tests and further refinements for moldflow in injection molding." To be clear, in this update, they announced that they would be starting another round of prototyping with another expected round of redesigns and prototyping after that at the time when the original campaign was supposed to ship.
Update 14 announces the delivery of the e-ink circuits, more-or-less the point of no return (as they say) because if something was awry with the e-ink circuits, their project was well and truly boned. It also includes another redesign of the base station.
Update 15 announces the move from Stainless to Titanium for the band construction. This is reported as a good thing because the methods they developed to form the Stainless bands can also be used to form the Titanium bands. They gloss over the fact that Titanium adds to the cost of production because it is a more expensive substance. We're given some positive information about their progress on certification, but they slip in another shipping delay, from December to late January 2014.
In Update 17, they announce proudly that they "have a very detailed production plan in place." Keep in mind, this is fully four months after the original campaign was estimated to ship. They have not yet started the production, and trumpet loudly that they have a finished plan. As we'll also learn in this update, they're still trying to cram in features like "USB functionality." They also announce another shipping delay, this time from late January to late April 2014.
Update 19 announces problems with Chinese suppliers and other vendors, and the Creator's gallant efforts to surmount those challenges. We're also told that the previous claim that the move from Stainless to Titanium would present no problems has indeed presented the Creators with problems. The solution: to move to a refined Titanium alloy, Nitinol, a material we are later told in Update 27 is "incredibly expensive".
Update 20 announces another shipping delay from April to May. It outlines issues with plastics and problems with the Nitinol bands which weren't passing inspection. In this update, we're also told that when everything is in place and ready to move to mass production, their estimated yield will be 200-250 units per day.
Update 22 (May 27) marks the first point where the shipping estimate is passed by. They do not announce why the estimate has been passed by and do not update the shipping timeframe estimate ever again with anything specific.
Update 24 (June) updates Backers about the manufacturing process. It does not update the estimated shipping timeframe. "We will start shipping as soon as we can get these wrapped up, which we hope will be in a matter of weeks."
Update 25 (September) outlines issues with multiple iterations of the Nitinol bands. "We have been through 3 sample rounds with the supplier, each round taking a more time to produce and receive than anticipated. Never has it been clearer that the tolerances we are attempting to hold and the thickness goal we aim to achieve is something that is very unique compared with more routine requests in manufacturing. Each round presented it’s own type of quality control problems." They also talk about updating the shipping timeframe estimate, but choose to avoid doing so in an effort to defer disappointment amongst Backers. Too late.
Update 27 reports further issues with the batteries' adhesives which we had been assured were a finalized and unproblematic component. It also blames a supplier for delays in delivery of the Nitinol bands.
Update 28 outlines more quality control issues with battery assemblies. Still no update on shipping timeframe beyond vague assurances of hope and desire.
Update 29 announces triumphantly that the product is shipping. Responses in the Comment feed suggest alternately that the product is possibly the best thing in the whole universe, or irretrievably buggy despite every shipped unit apparently receiving personal inspection by the Creators.
Update 30 downgrades the estimated yield of 200-250 per day (see Update 20), to 200 per week, of which only 130 have been viably shippable over the previous two weeks. As has become a familiar refrain, we're told more testing and updated inspection procedures are needed to get this product right.
Update 31 functions as a cover-your-ass post, while simultaneously admitting they're out of funds. "We’re deeply sorry for what looks like may be a negative outcome and it pains us to write this post." The qualification is unnecessary; the costing breakdown, inadequate as it may be (see point 3 below), more or less demonstrates that they will not be able to fully fulfill rewards, again, if at all.
That's a hell of a lot of "small modifications" which have ultimately led nowhere.
This, material misrepresentation, is the clearest and most obvious contravention of their contractual obligations to us, the Backers.
2) "Project Creators agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date."
Again, as is clear from the KS terms "there's a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the product [in the timeframe specified] as promised."
Something is a singular noun. This project has seen numerous delays and deferrals, at least one major delay or deferral every few updates, always with blame laid elsewhere.
If my dear readers would care to review the Update Breakdown in part 1 of this treatment, you will see not one, but four distinct delays in shipping estimate, followed by a total abandonment of any pretense of providing a shipping estimate timetable.
This criticism is more generally about professionalism and honesty. I could go through all the Updates and list, in minute detail, each and every broken promise (I've done that above for the changes in product design), but truthfully, I've already spent the better part of a day on this treatment and I'm exhausted. As Jamie O'Rourke pointed out on 18 April 2015, in Update 30, they claim the rewards won't be fully fulfilled due to a high failure rate; now, only a few days later, in Update 31, we're informed that the rewards won't be fully fulfilled due to not having enough parts. I recognize that a high failure rate of certain components during assembly requires the scrapping of certain components, which leads to a shortage of total parts. But this is presented like it's two different issues, when it's one overarching issue of mismanagement of design, sourcing, and production oversight. It's a problem with suppliers, or materials, or something other than their incompetence and overreach. They refuse to take ethical responsibility.
As has been said in the Comment feed, in all likelihood, the Creators will seek to hammer out the exact number of Pre-Orders in order to avoid criminal charge. The KS terms protect the Platform and Creators against having to own up to this squanderfest. Bankruptcy can protect against creditors, but Pre-Orderers purchased a promised product. If the Creators don't deliver on website Pre-Orders, that's tantamount to fraud, and fraud potentially carries jail time in the US. With that said, and again, in the spirit of demonstrating their lack of good faith and dishonesty in their attempt to deliver on all pledges, the Creators state unequivocally in Update 2 that Kickstarter backers will receive their rewards prior to Pre-Orderers. They reiterated this promise in Update 8, the update which announced the successful end of the funding period. Given that they have little direct risk associated with not fulfilling Kickstarter pledges, and significant risk of potentially jailable litigation due to fraud by not fulfilling website Pre-Orders, I find this order of fulfillment extremely unlikely at this point. It's also worth noting here that Pre-Orders were never supposed to be charged until they were ready to be shipped, a claim which has been shown to be false by several Pre-Orderers. Again, patently dishonest and acting in bad faith.
3) In the KS terms, "If a creator is absolutely unable to complete the project and fulfill rewards, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to a satisfying conclusion for their backers." This includes a new obligation; that obligation is "to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised."
I find it shocking many commenters claim what we've been given has made good on the requirements of accountability and transparency. To be quite honest, I think y'all who are satisfied by these last two updates are fucking stupid and I would be happy to sell you a horse which pulls the wool over your eyes, steals your wallet, and fucks your spouse. You're willfully ignorant of all warning signs, and in some cases, are actually prompting the Creators to request a top up in funding in order to eventually bring the project to light. Best case scenarios at this point are a liquidation of company assets and disbursement amongst the Backers, along with a declaration of bankruptcy; or the sale of their IP and holdings to Venture Capitalists towards honoring the original pledges and website Pre-Orders. What is happening in Updates 30 and 31 is an attempt to exempt themselves from litigation. They will receive no further funding from me, and if they're ever able to escape bankruptcy, bring their product to market and claim my disinclination to provide them further funds to fritter disqualifies me from receiving my reward, I'm sure that must constitute grounds for launching a class-action.
A couple pie charts, particularly ones that conveniently suggest that -exactly- all of the Backers funds are gone is not a demonstration, it's a claim. What would constitute a demonstration is a collection of receipts which added together in a table can be visually represented by those silly pie charts. And because we no longer have faith in these idiots' "good faith" (see point number 2 above), acceptable receipts are uploads of original pdf files with unmodified datestamps, or photographs of physical receipts with datestamps on them. A photograph of the inside of a van might satisfy those who are easily emotionally manipulated, but to be quite honest, I simply don't believe that claim either. The sleuthing work by Jamie O'Rourke dated 18 April 2015 which alleges the van belongs in a different area code 350 miles away, and that the company which apparently owns the van is also plagued by complaints and fraud reports is admittedly circumstantial, but it certainly gives me less of a reason to believe the sob story.
To be clear, it is their obligation to provide an itemized material accounting of the expenditure of all funds, backed up by verifiable receipts. In the absence of full fulfillment of all rewards, I hold that it is also the Creator's duty to specify -exactly- how many of each iteration of this watch were / will be successfully shipped: how many small, medium, large; how many Standard Black, Standard White, Nando Rossi, Rose Gold. In Update 30, the Creators claim that due to manufacturing issues, they are achieving 55% yield which crunches to ~120 units a week. Jamie O'Rourke requests a photo of the 900+ units such a scenario should have resulted in. My contention (along with Jamie O'Rourke) is that there aren't any watches being produced, and that the Creators abandoned this project weeks if not months ago. What we're seeing now is an attempt to escape criminal culpability by trying to demonstrate an effort to make good on their responsibilities. Support for this contention comes in several forms:
A) From photographs, we know there were at least 35 units produced and packaged for release in late February. Several of these went to friends and professional acquaintances who wrote glowing responses or reviews. This looks like both nepotism and conspiracy to defraud. Several went to an apparently random selection of Backers and Pre-Orderers, all of whom (as far as I can sleuth) have gone on the record saying there were performance and/or build issues, and several of whom have returned their rewards in good faith only to be met by silence from the Creators when they asked for a follow up.
B) Nobody on the Comment Feed has received anything from the Creators since, and I can find no evidence whatsoever of any other recipients since that initial distribution in February.
C) A reasonably defensible case has been made in the Comment feed that at least one of the Creators has begun work with another company, which shows their claim of renewed commitment and full-attention in pursuit of this so-called full-time job to be an outright lie.
It is conceivable that production was never scaled, no parts were mass-produced, and nothing was ever done after the creation and distribution of those first 35 in February (which, again, frankly could have been a cobbled together collection of hand-assembled prototype units dating from far, far before February). This would mean that all the subsequent hand-waving about quality control issues, yield issues, and sourcing has been merely a well-planned, well-spun, and well-executed fiction. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assert that this is a reasonable supposition to make. And receiving over a million dollars for being able to spin a yarn is a pretty nice pay day, one which I'm sure many of us would be happy to sign up for.
Further, if the Creators' claim that they have spent so little of the funding amount on their own salaries (~18k between two people over two years is a salary of less than 5k each per year), and have spent so much of their own savings pursuing this ridiculous endeavor is to carry any sense of veracity at all, they should also provide a transparent accounting of their personal finances as they relate to this project. That is to say, I don't believe they paid themselves so little out of the funding lump (for this stated "full-time job") and if they want us to believe that claim and not pursue litigation, they should demonstrate it with verifiable records. Peter Blok on 18 April 2015 asks for a report from an independent accountant. This is a reasonable and legitimate request. Absolute transparency.
Finally, towards a demonstration that all reasonable efforts to bring the project to a satisfying conclusion, I find Michael Johnson's request on 18 April 2015 that, in the absence of a workable product, CST demonstrate their efforts by sending him a faulty unit (for which he offers to pay shipping on arrival [remember, Backers have already paid shipping]) interesting and reasonable. At this stage, I'm particularly interested in the response he receives to his request.
For those of us demanding refunds (for the record, I am not and have not), and those broken records who repeatedly (and to my mind disingenuously given the above treatment) intone that we aren't buying something, but rather helping to fund the creation of something which may or may not see the light of day, the following is relevant:
"A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward. Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
As the Creator is either unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward any party demanding a refund is wholly entitled to make their demand, especially seeing as
A) it is so, so far beyond the initial estimated delivery;
B) as Tony Bothwell on 9 April 2015 pointed out - an entire smartwatch industry has grown up in the intervening period, with several of those players going through multiple iterations thus far; granted, this isn't a smartwatch, it's a deliberately dumb watch; but
C) being so far beyond the initially estimated delivery date, and recognizing that this kind of technology is time-sensitive insofar as the CST-01 was only worth investing in because of its then-Wow factor, it's reasonable to assert that its Wow-time has passed.
Sure, we've heard from engineers and others in the tech field who heap laudatory praises on these douches for shooting for the stars and failing. I recognize that it is nearly impossible, given the strictures of tech production, that any money could have ever been refunded after the funding period ended and material procurement began. But again, to reiterate point 3 above, in the absence of an independent accounting outlining all expenditures, in addition to photographic evidence that there are raw materials ready to go (which are unable to be successfully assembled into working units given exhaustion of funds), as well as photographic evidence that at least 900+ units are ready to go, or anecdotal evidence that at least several hundred Backers / Pre-Orderers have receive even a faulty product, there is no reason to believe any of the funds were actually spent on anything other than whatever the hell these guys wanted to spend them on (read: not production).
For the record, I don't believe, and haven't for several months now, that I will ever receive a watch. I also believe I will receive no monetary reimbursement, either through proportional refund (as they conveniently claim they have spent exactly all of the provided funds) or through eventual class-action litigation leveled against this company (bankruptcy saves the day) nor from Kickstarter itself. I believe the terms of KS* as well as the deliberately misleading and waffling presentation on the initial project campaign launch page will allow both Creator and Platform to escape all negative consequences of this failed endeavor. Pre-Orders are, as has been discussed, another story altogether.
As a KS Backer, I recognize my recourse is rather limited; Pre-Orderers have a more defensible claim to launch a class-action fraud suit, but again, I suspect very strongly that these charlatans will escape that by either filing bankruptcy after fulfilling Pre-Orderers with faulty units, and/or simply disappearing. In the absence of organized legal action, they'll likely just seek to lay low for awhile and wait for the storm to blow over.
Again, quoting Sean C (from 25 March 2015):
As this stage, my sole desire and purpose for writing is to hold these jokers accountable for the gigantic mess they're made all over the floor. Even if I'm completely off-base with my allegations of deliberate dishonesty, deception, and fraud, their complete mismanagement of several major aspects of this project; their repeated misrepresentations of the product, timeframe, and their level of expertise and competence relating to it; their lack of (contractually required) transparent communication; and their disinclination to provide a full, honest, and complete accounting of their disaster demonstrate them to be professionally and ethically bereft. They are legally and ethically responsible to all invested parties. They deserve to have their noses rubbed in the mess they made. To me, this means a permanent black mark on the financial futures of one or both (and/or whoever is the legal entity behind Central Standard) via a declaration of bankruptcy, a black mark that should, if justice serves, prevent them from ever being able to mount a successful crowdfunding campaign again. Further, it should dissuade current and potential employers, friends, and business colleagues against trusting such demonstrable nincompoops ever again.
Further, for the record, I will never back another project on any crowdfunding platform that does not explicitly and unequivocally state that the funds are needed solely for production costs AND provide an itemized breakdown of necessary costing towards that goal, rather than merely imply this strongly (like these dishonest douches), while using linguistic crevices to weasel more-of-less the entire R&D budget out of my good faith backing of a manufacturing and production run. This has been a bad experience which has permanently soured me on the idea of crowdfunding, an idea I remember being extremely excited about around two years ago. That's partly on me, but moreso on these idiots and on KS's profit model.
Lastly, Kickstarter's inclination to ban and/or suspend the posting privileges of legitimately disgruntled Backers in the service of protecting a spiraling failure of demonstrably dishonest Creators looks suspiciously like it could be reasonably characterized as conspiracy to commit racketeering. It's worth noting that only some, not all of the "abusive" comments have been deleted, and only some, not all of those posting "abusive" comments have had their accounts suspended for any period of time. I've reread through the last two months of this Comment feed this morning to construct this post, and there are still overt physical threats present, but often posted by one-time commenters. This is at very least inconsistent application of KS's own rules, and looks like it is designed and deployed to silence or at least minimize the voice of the most vociferous complainants. Backers unite, indeed.
The last pertinent obligation on the Creator is that
"The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers."
As far as I can surmise, this is where we are as of this writing. For US citizens, it seems the best recourse for both Backers and Pre-Orders is to contact the Illinios State Attorney General Consumer Fraud Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center:
Alternatively, as Corporate3-6 posted on 23 March 2015, an Illinois small claims suit "would compel them to answer the suit, or face a default judgement which could then be sent to a sheriff to begin seizing assets (car, house, television, laptop, whatever)." At this stage, it appears that the only monetary reimbursement Backers and Pre-Orderers could possibly recoup is from the liquidation of their equipment and other seizeable assets, as the Creator can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away from the mess.
For the rest of the world, including international Pre-Orderers, I don't think there's anything we can do besides scream foul to tech media, who, to date, have apparently expressed no interest in substantively reporting on this enormous squanderfest. It's surprising to say the least. As James Fisher on 7 April 2015 said "'The Million Dollar Kickstarter Fail' does have a certain ring to it!"
David Livermore wrote on 18 April 2015 that "Eventually there will be laws and other such things to govern sites like this. This project will be a shining example of why does laws are needed" and I hope relevant legal bodies are taking notice.
It would be useful for someone with legal training to weigh in on the four above routes as being more or less likely to result in anything of substance.
*Kickstarter is not liable for any damages or loss incurred related to rewards or any other use of the Service. Kickstarter is under no obligation to become involved in disputes between any Users, or between Users and any third party arising in connection with the use of the Service. This includes, but is not limited to, delivery of goods and services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties, or representations associated with campaigns on the Site. Kickstarter does not oversee the performance or punctuality of projects. The Company does not endorse any User Submissions. You release Kickstarter, its officers, employees, agents, and successors in rights from claims, damages, and demands of every kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, arising out of or in any way related to such disputes and the Service.
To one of the more vociferously negative backers, feel free to repost or link to this post on the KS Comment feed if you want (or can; I suspect there are size constraints). If you want to clean it up (to remove the any of the "abusive" wording for which KS are banning/suspending accounts in retaliation), please do. As stated above, I don't believe any reward or reimbursement will ever be forthcoming, but in the unlikely event that it does happen, I don't want to hamstring the possibility of receiving what I pledged for. Apologies for this cowardice.
Lastly lastly, and I guess this goes specifically to Jordan or Sean C or whoever the admin and readers of this board are, please repost the URL to this freeboard at least daily (so long as you're not locked out of your KS account). This shit is potentially going to get messy, and given Kickstarter's demonstrated attitude thus far, I can see them beginning to delete posts which attempt to take action outside of the Kickstarter platform in order to protect their brand reputation. When that time comes, you can be sure I will be posting links towards this freeboard also. The Million Dollar Kickstarter Fail does have a certain ring to it!
Last Edit: Apr 18, 2015 20:40:19 GMT by strategian
I spoke with a backer last year saying NASA is preparing a craft to go to space in 2017.I joked that NASA would complete first. BTW it is called. CST-100. Guess the laughs on me.although I am a pre -orderer I received a request from CST last year and paid.
I pre-ordered and was charged USD 166.35 on Feb 14, 2014. Here's an excerpt of the email I got from them, in which I was really excited for.
"A note regarding production: We are on track to deliver about 10,000 units to our Kickstarter backers in April of this year. We will then scale production to deliver 5,000 to 10,000 units per month and we expect to begin shipping these units beginning around April-May 2014 for those of you who have signed up to 'pre-order.'"