6 ms·
If the reason for the rule is to avoid the submitter pushing through their viewpoint, this particular case shouldn’t be a problem. The “Y Combinator” part is a
by tobr 5y ago
If the reason for the rule is to avoid the submitter pushing through their viewpoint, this particular case shouldn’t be a problem. The “Y Combinator” part is a reason why it’s relevant to this site, and it’s not a viewpoint.
- sanxiyn 5y ago"Scam" is the problematic part. The article avoids the word in the title because the article itself says: > "I think we use the word scam as a colloquial term mostly and there's some nuance to this. I don't think either game's developers have the actual intention to not deliver." So it's not a scam, not to speak of blatant scam.
- onli 5y agoThat's a quote in the article. He also said this: > "I think for me, the base intent matters very little when the end result is the same and you've lied to everyone throughout." If it's true that the game developers promised this: > The campaign promises, among other features, "multiplayer with the population density of real cities" and a fully dynamic environment with no fixed interaction points. Then it's clearly a scam. And both statements really are on the kickstarter. There is also this gem: > We plan to expand to every internet connected device with a screen very soon! Ridiculous.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Bjartr 5y agoThere is however the possibility they are merely incompetent and genuinely don't appreciate the difficulty implicit in the scope of what they've set out to do.
- shkkmo 5y agoThen they've lied about how much technical and game development experience they have.
- seattle_spring 5y agoThey did lie, 100%. Cofounder said he, "quit Google, Facebook, and Apple" to start Dreamworld. He fails to mention that both Google and Facebook were 3 month internships, and his role at Apple was an SDET and not an actual software engineer.
- vmception 5y agoI agree, we should be using the word ripoff way more often, as scam is heavily diluted to things that aren't.
- philliphaydon 5y agoIt's a scam IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RQ7NdpW1R0&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RQ7NdpW1R0&t=0s
- dragonwriter 5y ago“blatant scam” is editorializing beyond “giant fiasco” and is a viewpoint.
- dumbfoundded 5y agoScam = fiasco + company claims. I don't see it as a large leap based on the company claims. You could argue that it's not a scam as long as they're trying but if what they claimed was inherently impossible, I don't think it's a stretch.
- akerl_ 5y agoThankfully, we don’t have to debate whether it’s a small or large leap. The fact that it is a leap makes it editorializing.
- littlestymaar 5y ago> Y Combinator backed MMO metaverse game has become a giant fiasco Would be editorialized enough to provide context, but not as much of a click-bait title.
- tptacek 5y agoSubmitters don't get to decide why things are relevant to the site; that's a hole people have driven trucks through in this guideline. The YC angle is a perfectly good comment to write (so is the "scam" thing, if that's a case you want to make); it's not the title of the story.
- dredmorbius 5y agoIt's possible to submit stories and a comment simultaneously (fill in both the URL and "text* fields on the submission form). An early-entry comment carries a lot of weight in steering conversation, and quoting the portion of the story citing YC's involvement as well as the alleged fraud would be proper. Unless unclickbaiting titles or working with arbitrary text (e.g., a Twitter stream submission), changing titles is strongly frowned upon, especially where the source does in fact have a viable title. I'd lose the preemptory "This" from the original source, but otherwise recommend the original title be used. (Meantime, the discussion is now derailed by title discussion, which dang will have to clean up.)