3 ms·

You should have sympathy for the guy. Maybe he didn't do everything right to protect himself but he entered that transaction in good faith and was screwed over

You should have sympathy for the guy. Maybe he didn't do everything right to protect himself but he entered that transaction in good faith and was screwed over by the company and by the renter. I think it's a bad tendency to blame victims because they weren't savvy enough. KitSplit seem to be just a bunch of a..holes who don't take responsibility for their business.

tofof 8y ago
It's not merely that he didn't do everything right. This is a victim that still uses the service and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance he's now been very clearly warned he needs.
- romwell 8y ago
  >and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance It might not be possible to get insurance that covers "voluntary parting" if all the companies are doing that (or asking for crazy premiums without this clause). It's not irrational to take on the risk vs. buying insurance. His equipment is not that expensive (say, people renting out their cars on Turo are in a different league); it still might make enough sense to vet renters more and cover the risk out-of-pocket.
carapace 8y ago
I have to agree with totof. I think the author is a fool, and doubly so for taking the time and effort to carefully document his own foolishness. He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It sucks that he got ripped off, and it sucks that the company rep lied to him in the chat. From what he says though it seems to me like they're trying to do right by him after the fact. Maybe they are a bunch of amoral jerks, or maybe they're just "a small team of filmmakers and photographers who ... work hard to make KitSplit as safe as possible" and who just messed up, eh? I also think it's a bit lame for him to take the $2000 they offered him and keep using the service but write a blog post complaining that that's not good enough. At least he learns from his folly! That's encouraging. > I feel like everyone is to blame, including (and especially) myself. I should have read the fine print better and protected myself. $4500 is a lot to pay for such a basic life lesson, but at least he wasn't physically hurt, and if he sticks with it and is careful he may yet break even on KitSplit, eh? I would say that the person to blame is the dude who ran off with the camera. I don't blame Peter H. for getting ripped off, but I do think it's his responsibility to look out for his own camera, and that he made a foolish mistake.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It's not inherently foolish. The startup is perfectly capable of insuring the loss, and if was insured then there would be no problem at all. It's foolish to expect that no theft will ever happen. It's not foolish to evaluate the risk level, compensate for it, and then do the lending. Insurance is a valid form of responsibility for a fungible product. You only do it with something replaceable, but a camera is extremely replaceable.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >but a camera is extremely replaceable. Well, not all cameras are, but the one that he lost - most certainly.

tofof 8y ago

It's not merely that he didn't do everything right. This is a victim that still uses the service and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance he's now been very clearly warned he needs.

romwell 8y ago
>and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance It might not be possible to get insurance that covers "voluntary parting" if all the companies are doing that (or asking for crazy premiums without this clause). It's not irrational to take on the risk vs. buying insurance. His equipment is not that expensive (say, people renting out their cars on Turo are in a different league); it still might make enough sense to vet renters more and cover the risk out-of-pocket.

carapace 8y ago

I have to agree with totof. I think the author is a fool, and doubly so for taking the time and effort to carefully document his own foolishness. He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It sucks that he got ripped off, and it sucks that the company rep lied to him in the chat. From what he says though it seems to me like they're trying to do right by him after the fact. Maybe they are a bunch of amoral jerks, or maybe they're just "a small team of filmmakers and photographers who ... work hard to make KitSplit as safe as possible" and who just messed up, eh? I also think it's a bit lame for him to take the $2000 they offered him and keep using the service but write a blog post complaining that that's not good enough. At least he learns from his folly! That's encouraging. > I feel like everyone is to blame, including (and especially) myself. I should have read the fine print better and protected myself. $4500 is a lot to pay for such a basic life lesson, but at least he wasn't physically hurt, and if he sticks with it and is careful he may yet break even on KitSplit, eh? I would say that the person to blame is the dude who ran off with the camera. I don't blame Peter H. for getting ripped off, but I do think it's his responsibility to look out for his own camera, and that he made a foolish mistake.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It's not inherently foolish. The startup is perfectly capable of insuring the loss, and if was insured then there would be no problem at all. It's foolish to expect that no theft will ever happen. It's not foolish to evaluate the risk level, compensate for it, and then do the lending. Insurance is a valid form of responsibility for a fungible product. You only do it with something replaceable, but a camera is extremely replaceable.
- romwell 8y ago
  >but a camera is extremely replaceable. Well, not all cameras are, but the one that he lost - most certainly.