@Zero_Maniac: Have they already promised not to give those rewards to new people?
Also, someone in the comments below says Bloodstained has a similar policy of Kickstarter-exclusive rewards. Note that this has nothing to do with adding more to how much you paid, it has to do with getting in on the Kickstarter at all.
Edit: Regardless, they aren't "getting burned", they are getting what they agreed to get for what they paid. It isn't as though they thought they would get something for their money and now it is being taken away.
@brownyyy: "So how is it no more people still voted yes that no correct."
It's because they made a promise to people in exchange for money. 8% of those people said they were okay with breaking that promise. The developer decided that wasn't enough.
"So here is my problem you are saying there isn't a big enough majority for it to pass but there is more for it than against it."
"More" does not equal "enough" necessarily.
"you are drawing comparisons"
I wasn't entirely drawing comparisons, I was just giving an example where a significant majority is needed because the matter is too important for a simple majority.
"My argument is and always has been the same. The reward should have been for everyone"
Here are some of the other arguments you've made, you seem to have forgotten them:
"the chart shows the exact opposite of what he is saying"
"there is your hypocrisy"
Note that I never disagreed with the statement, "The reward should have been for everyone".
"if that doesn't make logical sense to you the there is no helping you"
It is logical from your point of view, from his point of view it was logical to do nothing. Don't worry, I don't need any help.
Edit, in case you missed this:
"you agree"
For reference, I never said I agree. I said that what he said wasn't the opposite of what the charts said, and that he wasn't a hypocrite. You should consider being a little less emotional about this and a little more rational, if you think I've said that I agree with the decision. You've basically decided that, because I don't agree with everything you say, I must disagree with everything you think. That is not necessarily the case. I may agree with some of the things you have said, but I did not agree with the claims against which I argued. I haven't stated my opinion either way.
For reference, I never said I agree. I said that what he said wasn't the opposite of what the charts said, and that he wasn't a hypocrite. You should consider being a little less emotional about this and a little more rational, if you think I've said that I agree with the decision. You've basically decided that, because I don't agree with everything you say, I must disagree with everything you think. That is not necessarily the case. I may agree with some of the things you have said, but I did not agree with the claims against which I argued. I haven't stated my opinion either way.
@brownyyy: "look I don't want to argue about this anymore you agree I don't it seem we are not going to dissuade each other so what's the point."
I wanted to dissuade you from thinking "the chart shows the exact opposite of what he is saying". I have no idea if you still think that, as you refuse to answer your argue for your claim.
As it stands, you have claimed:
"the chart shows the exact opposite of what he is saying"
You have abandoned this claim.
"there is your hypocrisy"
You have abandoned this claim.
I would say you are correct, and that there isn't anything left to argue. However, you have now made another claim:
"It comes down to this a vote was cast to decide an outcome but in the end the outcome was decided by one man. Thus the vote was pointless"
I would argue this new claim (note how you keep changing what you're saying). I believe they said the poll would "inform" the decision, not make the decision, so there can be no claim that they didn't honor their word. As has been pointed out, the poll was very close, so it isn't as though he ignored an overwhelming majority. The decision may have been different, if more people had voted "yes". I am not sure it is fair to say that, because not many people voted "yes", the vote was pointless. It just didn't have the outcome that one minority wanted.
You said no such thing. Here is your post, so you can read it and see what you said:
"In the UK a vote is designed to take the power away from the individual by allowing the people to decide by majority vote that's the whole point or voting. it is a yes no answer. You are not voting for parties or leaders."
@brownyyy: That's great in some situations, I'm just saying that it isn't great in all situations. If you think it's wrong that our system can't allow 51% of people to pass an amendment saying "women can't vote", that's fine, I'm just saying it is valid for people to disagree with that.
@brownyyy: "the chart shows the exact opposite of what he is saying"
Are you still standing by this statement?
"But they didn't decide the develop did so there is your hypocrisy."
There is no hypocrisy in the developer deciding because most people didn't care. Note that only a quarter of eligible people even voted; 3/4 didn't care enough to even do that. "Yes" and "no" both represented about 8% of eligible voters. The majority of voters voted to leave it up to the developer, which is what happened. In fact, there wouldn't even be hypocrisy in deciding to ignore the vote. You hadn't even mentioned hypocrisy before, so I didn't know you were arguing that.
"Without you going of on some crazy America politics are perfect argument"
Note that I didn't say that, I just used it as an example of a situation where a simple majority doesn't decide the vote, but many still consider the vote valid, and certainly the data is not ignored. Ignoring data is not the same as not siding with a simple majority (which, again, "yes" did not have).
Of course, I'm still not sure what we're arguing, because now you're accusing him of hypocrisy. It seems like you're making this up as constantly fail to support your point. Your argument is that he is ignoring the data because he did not make the same decision that you would have made. That is a fallacy, because data doesn't support one decision or the other by itself, you must also account for the value in which you place the data. To the developers, breaking a promise made to original backers required more than 8% of those backers to say yes. That doesn't mean they ignored the data, that just means they valued the data differently. I'm not sure where your "hypocrisy" claim comes from, but feel free to explain if you can.
@linusa: It is also worth mentioning that "yes" only represented about 8% of eligible voters (which is about the same as "no"). More than 3/4 of eligible voters didn't care enough to vote at all, and over 40% of those who voted didn't care enough to decide either. Thus, the poll doesn't really show an overwhelming amount of support for the change.
@brownyyy: "The third answer is filler it is irrelevant."
Maybe you don't care about the majority vote, but the developers do.
Moreover:
"I am arguing he has chosen to go again the critical data by hiding behind a useless choice."
"the chart shows the exact opposite of what he is saying"
I guess I don't know what you're saying then, because you are now changing it. Before, you were saying the chart says the opposite of what he is saying, but you can't say that anything he said is false, much less the opposite of the chart.
As I have said in another post, a vote doesn't matter only if it goes to a simple majority (that said, the simple majority here didn't care, but you don't think that's relevant because it doesn't suit you). To pass an Amendment to the US Constitution, 3/4 of States are required at least. Thus, 26 / 50 isn't enough. I wouldn't say that makes votes for Amendments pointless, it just enforces the fact that it is a big decision and thus support must be particularly strong. In this case, the vote was whether or not to go back on a promise that rewards would be exclusive, which they believed to be a big enough decision to require more than a simple majority (which, again, "yes" did not have anyway). Keep in mind, a vote of "I don't care" still matters in this context. Nobody was forced to vote; they decided "I am going to vote, and I want to say that I don't care", thus voting to leave it up to the developer.
Linusa's comments