More Greedmonger refund drama

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

In this Neverending Story, Jason Appleton the former person behind the ill-fated Greedmonger and such gems as the ill-fated SwingEasy App (removed from the app store) and who was part of the ill-fated Neighbors With Benefits TV show... is now bashing backers that are upset that they still haven't gotten their refunds for the game originally abandoned in 2015 despite his promises. Here are some of his recent comments:

Image: https://forums.mmorpg.com/uploads/editor/mu/mv2hbg2dp2z0.jpg

Here is his refund spreadsheet:

http://bit.ly/2nkUz0a

For a guy that claims to have made a fortune in CryptoCurrency he sure seems to have a lot of trouble simply paying back these folks. He has a new "Crypto" show that is supposed to be coming out. Anyone want to take a bet that I can soon use the prefix "Ill-Fated" when discussing it?

kitarad · May 2018

Tsk, tsk, sounds shady.

Vrika · May 2018

I think he's just looking for cheap advertisement on his upcoming cryptocurrency project. If he manages to gain a lot of attention while giving no refunds then he's accomplished his aims.

kitarad · May 2018

Really wish they would regulate Kickstarters a little more.

Ungood · May 2018

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

lahnmir · May 2018

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is clear. Feel free to take up the suggestion from @lahnmir

I think that @Vrika hit it on the head. He's looking for publicity.

Pretty sure his Crypto show will end up alongside Neighbors With Benefits in the garbage heap.

Phaserlight · May 2018

My favorite part is when he shows up here and threatens to sue literally everyone.

Ungood · May 2018

lahnmir said:

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.

But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.

Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?

I'll await your answer.

Phaserlight · May 2018

Ungood said:

lahnmir said:

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.

But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.

Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?

I'll await your answer.

Yes, probably:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2015/06/dont-let-crowdfunding-be-your-doom

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?

That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.

Wellspring · May 2018

I just count myself lucky to have never heard of this game back when it was on KS. Who knows if I would've backed it?!

Scorchien · May 2018

what a POS , the time it takes this foo to put people on his special little spread sheet , who have given them there refund and maybe just maybe , people would stop trashin your dumb ass

Wizardry · May 2018

How did he defraud anyone,people that give money on a whim are idiots and deserve NOTHING.

How long ago was this and we still see millions thrown at Chris Roberts.Last time i tried SC i spent like 5 minutes and thought wtf is this pile of crap and logged out and never cared to ever look at the game again.Yet here we are and people STILL throwing money at the game.

I just spent a few minutes to go look at Reynad's self made card game as well i listened to him talk about it in Twitch.It is CRAP and he talks about how people will look at the beta version and be turned away not realizing it's full potential.NO to excuses,you are considered a young millionaire,hire some real artists,put some real money into the game like YOUR own instead of just ripping off naive people.
I will spell it out ,yet again,if a game is good enough the developer will fund it or via real investors,if the dev has to go to the people to get free money then that dev is NOT confident in their own product and it is then NOT good enough.

rertez · May 2018

Ungood said:

lahnmir said:

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.

But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.

Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?

I'll await your answer.

He started off the Greedmonger kickstarter campaign to scam people. He hasn't chosen to repay a portion of his backers but he got into an unconvenient situation that forced him into promising to repay some people to ease the pressure on him. This guy is a notorious liar and scammer. He's probably lying about repaying some of his backers too.

Oh and his line about the so called "self fulfilling prophecy of the haters, trolls and flamers" that caused his project's failure is just classic.

Greedmonger was among the most famous kickstarter scams that forced KickStarter to change their campaign policy a couple of years ago.

I'm not a backer of Greedmonger but I found the history of this "project" very interesting, instructive and alarming at the same time.

Vrika · May 2018

Ungood said:

lahnmir said:

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

Trust me, he is the bad guy. The history behind this is, lets say, unique. You should read up on all of it, Slapshots got you covered if you dig through some old threads on this very website, its eye opening really.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Well, I'll be honest, I am not going to dig though anything, as this sounds like drama for the sake of drama, and I think I would rather drink molten glass then actively look for that kind of stuff.

But, let me ask you a question. Just one question.

Is this person required by law, to provide a refund at all?

I'll await your answer.

Yes, very likely.

But the game gained less than $100 000 in Kickstarter, and apparently no-one ever took the risk of legal costs to sue him and try to obtain that money.

Scorchien · May 2018

Ungood said:

So let me get this right.

He has Zero Obligation to repay the Money.. yet.. has chosen to give a refund.. out of his own pocket no less.. and a bunch of crybaby entitled audacious jerks.. are calling him the bad guy?

He did however , promise folks more than once that he would do redunds.. So he has a moral Obligation to do this or say " Hey i was wrong , i cant do refunds , turns out i am as Morally Bankrupt as a I am Financially Bankrupt"

But he doesnt even have the backbone or intestianl fortitude to do that , he would much rather take the weak approach of detract, blame ,excuses and or avoid ..

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Scorchien said:

But he doesnt even have the backbone or intestianl fortitude to do that , he would much rather take the weak approach of detract, blame ,excuses and or avoid ..

It’s a common tactic of those that over promise on these Crowdfunding games and blame everyone but themselves. Always a few who defend them as well.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?

That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.

I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.

Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.

Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.

You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.

This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.

Scot · May 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

I don't think we can rope the whole of crowdfunding into this, and that's coming from someone too cautious to crowdfund anything.

Appelton is a unique individual, his whole approach said "do not fund me" from a very early stage. I would advise posters to never have anything to do with one of his projects again.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?

That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.

I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.

Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.

Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.

You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.

This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.

As a matter of fact it does let this guy off the hook. I feel it shouldn't but it still does. Person A. said "Hey give me some money and I'll try to give you guys some cool stuff." People B. gave the dude some money with no other contract or guarantees. Person A. failed to deliver said cool stuff. Which means People B. have no other recourse to the law and therefore are fucked. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Again you are mistaken. People may or may not have a legal recourse but they can certainly let any future investors in his Crypto Currency stuff know all about his track record. Victim shaming with statements like “feckless whining” them serves no purpose other than to try and defend the original person behind this disaster.

Phaserlight · May 2018

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

MisterZebub said:

Slapshot1188 said:

The level that some people go to in order to defend these Crowdfunding people is astounding. That ANYONE would want to defend Appleton is astounding.

Is it defending Appleton when you deride overly eager morons for foolishly throwing money to something that sounded too good to be true?

That’s a totally different topic. One does not negate the other.

I apologize in advance as I do try to not be rude if I can help it, but in this case I'm making an exception as your statement is just such absolute bullshit that I can't help myself.

Let me explain. Person A. made a bunch of promises to create a game that People B. would like. He asked for People B. to give him money, no strings attached to make these dreams and promises come true. People B. threw thousands of dollars at him, based on nothing but some windy words. Person A. failed to deliver on said promises. Thereby making People B's donations worthless.

Ok then, how am I supposed to demonize one participant and yet not the other? If I agree that Appleton is a Charlton that stole your money then I have to also admit you are a gullible fool for handing that money to him in the first place. Saying that Person A. is guilty of fraud but exempting People B. of gullible culpability means that there has been no actual crime committed. Unless Appleton came to all of your homes and took your money at gun point then you fools share an equal portion of the blame. Either own up to this or stop wasting our time with with your feckless whining.

You seem to be mistaken. I never gave Appleton a cent.

This is is why I said “One does not negate the other”. Feel free to demonize both if you want. You can certainly make the case that people who gave thousands of dollars to this guy should have known better. That doesn’t let the originator of this effort off the hook.

As a matter of fact it does let this guy off the hook. I feel it shouldn't but it still does. Person A. said "Hey give me some money and I'll try to give you guys some cool stuff." People B. gave the dude some money with no other contract or guarantees. Person A. failed to deliver said cool stuff. Which means People B. have no other recourse to the law and therefore are fucked. A fool and his money are soon parted.

No it doesn't let Appleton off the hook. Seriously, where did that left-hand turn come from?

'I may be a charlatan but it's your fault for believing me... therefore not guilty'... Really? In what twisted world does that make sense?

That's like the Arrested Development argument of "you can't arrest a husband and wife for the same crime".

btdt · May 2018

It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.

The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.

Now of course, if the people don't have a legal recourse, meaning they had no legally binding contract, they might as well forget about ever seeing that money again.

Whether the man is a charlatan or not is irrelevant. It doesn't make you guilty of a crime. It may make him morally reprehensible, but not a criminal.

As far as I am concerned, not a single kickstarter is any different. It's a loot box per se. You're hoping your investment results in the ultimate loot box. And like all loot boxes, most are filled with junk.

Do you really need the Government to protect you from stupidity? Because that is essentially what you are asking for when you participate in these things and the outcome is less than expected.

They should sue the man... with the monetary reward to each participant being $1 to teach them a valuable life lesson. They obviously are In desperate need of one.

Phaserlight · May 2018

btdt said:

It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.

The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.

Now of course, if the people don't have a legal recourse, meaning they had no legally binding contract, they might as well forget about ever seeing that money again.

Whether the man is a charlatan or not is irrelevant. It doesn't make you guilty of a crime. It may make him morally reprehensible, but not a criminal.

As far as I am concerned, not a single kickstarter is any different. It's a loot box per se. You're hoping your investment results in the ultimate loot box. And like all loot boxes, most are filled with junk.

Do you really need the Government to protect you from stupidity? Because that is essentially what you are asking for when you participate in these things and the outcome is less than expected.

They should sue the man... with the monetary reward to each participant being $1 to teach them a valuable life lesson. They obviously are In desperate need of one.

See my link on page 1. KS absolutely does represent a contract and there has been legal precedent set for this sort of thing. You don't have to believe me: believe the Federal Trade Commission.

Contracts are broader than you think: if it's above a certain value it must be on paper, but if you walk into Bloomimgdale's and buy a pair of jeans this too represents a contract.

That stated, I wish Jason Appleton the best and hope to see a peaceful resolution to all this. I hope he is as good as his word and former backers don't have to sue him. It doesn't make the grand standing Slapshot highlighted any less childishly petulant.

Vrika · May 2018

btdt said:

It would seem to me that if these people really wanted their money back and had the legal right to do so, they'd sue the man. Because in the U.S., suing is the second national pastime right behind baseball.

The courts can freeze his assets until he makes repayments. His lack of free time becomes irrelevant.

Most of the backers used $100 or less. If you were in a situation where you'd have to spent $10 000 to sue a person for your $100, and weren't sure if and when that person has $10 000 to pay back your court costs, would you sue?

The possible gains are too small. People who'd have spare money for suing are normally working adults and most of them don't think it's worth the risk or the time spent to argue in court over what is less than a day's wages to them.

It may seem to you that in the US suing is national pasttime, but that's more in cases where you get physically harmed and can demand absurd compensation, not in a case like this where even if everything goes well you'd only get your refund and court costs.

Howdy, Stranger!

More Greedmonger refund drama

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

More Greedmonger refund drama

Comments