Uusi's 5th deck: "Hotcakes": Funded $46,000 on Kickstarter!

[Mike Ratledge]

It was CLEARLY stated in the KS campaign that there would only be 50 available that way. In no way did the say nor imply they would not make more, if anything that wording says that they were going to do so later

[Cbkimble]

Understood Mike but they should have been numbered xx/50. They wanna do more later, fine, but don't state only 50 for the project and then number the decks xx/75. If they wanted to do more later, then by all means please do but number each batch you do separate b/c if they do 25 more those decks will be yellow edge printed decks V2 but will be sold as a V1 due to their numering system. It was an extremely ambiguous statement they made knowing collectors would believe only 50 were being created, but they knew they might make more later and failed to state that fact. Would collectors still have pledged for one of 50 if they knew that Uusi might make up to 25 more later, yes they would.

The issue is not that there could be 75 total. It's they failed to let backers know that more might/could/would be produced later.

[sinjin7]

Also, the argument that people need to have bought these to even discuss this situation is ridiculous.

That was not the argument I made and you clearly missed my point. What is ridiculous is Brent implying fraud, which is completely uncalled for, and all the more so because Uusi never ever took a penny of his money (and to his credit, Brent apologized for using that term). Look, I don't think changing the number from 50 to 75 is a great move either, and saying "only 50 ever made" versus "only 50 made available" in the KS campaign is semantic shenanigans that we've called others out on, like T11 and the Buck twins. But let's not go implying fraudulence - which is criminal conduct, by the way - when they haven't even yet produced the extra 25 decks yet. The point I'm trying to make is let's give them a chance to explain things before reacting so over the top and calling them criminals, or needing to warn others about Uusi in the future because they're tricky folks, I think they've earned that right at least based upon their exemplary conduct in the past.

[montecarlojoe]

At the very worst the wording is ambiguous.
"Only fifty [gilded] LE Decks and fifty RED decks will be made for this project" (Bold was added by me for clarity)

Could be interpreted as

"[gilded] LE Decks and RED decks will only be made for this project, and there will be fifty of each of them"

or

"Fifty [gilded] LE Decks and fifty RED decks will be made specifically for this project, but more could be made outside of this project"

In English both are valid ways to pars the sentence - so ambiguous yes, but purposefully deceptive -no. Certainly not fraudulent (which as Sinjin points out has a very specific legal definition and is a serious allegation to level).

[Sher]

I agree that the term fraudulent shouldn't be used too lightly since it has a really negative connotation.

I bought all the gilded decks except for the single blue blood and the most recent copper decks, and I'm not really bothered by the possible extra 25. I'm not saying it's okay for creators to quote one number and then create more later, but I'm also considering that Uusi probably didn't intend to cause any misunderstanding. The example on creating 100 vs 1000 decks is a slippery slope argument that is a bit extreme and already implies an intent to deceive or mislead, which does not seem to be the case here.