@Intocable: It's very possible she did have training, but it was mostly repressed along with her other memories before Jakku.

@mirage_so3: It's very possible she did have training, but it was mostly repressed along with her other memories before Jakku.

@jcharp: He was toying with Finn. Note that Finn got a small hit and Kylo immediately defeated him.

@ruthaford_jive: She didn't really beat him, she just wasn't killed by him before the planet started falling apart. Keep in mind that he had been trying to recruit her, not just kill her immediately. Also, there is reason to believe she did have training, though it had been repressed until now (and is still somewhat repressed).

@celeritasgamer1: Whoops, someone's too serious.

@saturatedbutter: So, does this guy not exist, did he not work for Valve, or is he not actually a writer?

@cornbredx: You do realize that the people saying this aren't trying to sell it, right?

@lonewolf1044: They are getting something, they just can't get things that were promised to be Kickstarter exclusives.

@Zero_Maniac: I don't know if the Kickstarter exclusives were limited on Kickstarter, but they had been labelled as exclusive to Kickstarter and were promised to remain as such. Breaking that promise now would be taking away exclusivity that some people paid for, essentially taking away from the Kickstarter contributors. It seems that the PayPal contributors can get anything that wasn't promised to remain exclusive. At least, that's what the articles have said.

Edit: And I reiterated the part about "getting burned" because I was afraid you had taken what I said out of context, as I never said that people shouldn't get more if they pay more later. Paying more later was never in the discussion.

@brownyyy:

"I stand by the reward should have been everyone because more people voted for yes than no. This much we can agree on. ( Maybe by a small margin but more is more)"

I have agreed more people voted yes than no. I have not agreed that the rewards should have been changed.

"The hypocrisy is that after the vote had finished the company chose no when the vote is designed to take the decision away from the company."

For it to be hypocrisy, they would need to have said, "this vote will make the decision". I do not believe they said that.

"Me saying you agree was actually a mistake on my part as you did not express you views either way."

Thank you.

"My way of thinking about this is the logical was"

There is no single logical way. Logic is a way to reach conclusions consistent with assumptions. Logic does not make assumptions. Your conclusion is logical, given the assumption that the decision should have matched whichever answer got more votes. However, his assumption was that a significant majority would need to be okay with breaking a promise they paid for, so his conclusion is logical given his assumption.

"To you emotion quip I end and retort with this 'Without emotional content we make pictures; with it, we create art.'"

That's great, except you aren't making art, we're trying to have a discussion. You are so emotional that you made assumption and jumped to conclusions rather than reading what I said, which is a problem.

Edit: For reference, the USA does not have a different definition of majority, it simply requires a super majority in some cases. Our constitution gives us liberties, such as the right to free speech, that can theoretically be removed by an amendment to the constitution. Such liberties are deemed too important to allow a simple majority to take away from everyone else. Most other votes only use a simple majority.