Buying from tainted sources?

Discussions in the Cleve indiegogo thread made me think about this.

Where do you draw the line in paying for products which are provided by people you dislike? Do those products become "tainted" by their producer? I've divided people into two groups:

1/ People with unpleasant views - eg Cleve Blakemore, possibly Brad Wardell. Cleve's views are well known as being rather "out there" and obnoxious. Brad Wardell has been accused of sexist attitudes in the workplace (and potentially straying into actual harrassment). Does this affect whether you would buy a game from them?

2/ Those who have acted immorally, eg. convicted criminals such as Gary Glitter and Chris Langham. These names may not mean anything to you if you're outside the UK. Gary Glitter was a 1970s pop star specialising in glam rock, who also happens to be a convicted child molester. Chris Langham is a television comedian starring in the political comedy "the Thick of It" who was convicted of child pornography offences. Its very hard to watch clips of these two individuals now without thinking of the acts they perpetrated. Likewise it poses a moral dilemma if, say, you want to buy a Gary Glitter song on iTunes - you may still like "Rock and Roll" but should such a person still be getting royalties?

For me, I think buying from people from group 1 would depend on the views in question, and the degree of association they have with their product. I think Cleve is more likely to earn a "boycott" because of how vocal he is about his views, and the fact that Grimoire is, mostly, a one-man effort. Whereas Fallen Enchantress from Stardock has many more people involved, it is less closely associated with Brad Wardell on his own. There is also the fact that the sexism he is accused of has not been proven yet.

In the second group it is more clear cut - I wouldn't really buy anything from such individuals in general, although if the person involved is extremely repentant and doesn't reoffend, I might reconsider. Its a big problem that you can't enjoy their material without thinking about the offence though, even if you can accept they are now rehabilitated.

Any views?

I would say for /1 I wouldn't buy from anyone who I knew was actively spending money to advocate opinions I disagree with.

For /2 unless it some movie or something where you see the offender constantly or something like that, I don't really let it bother me.

wither I decide to buy something depends more on the company and how it treats its costumers then about one person and what he or she did.

I stop purchasing things from a company when they do something that I disagree with.

Right now I have Sony, Apple, Creative and Oracle oh my shit list for various reasons. Not buying their products is my only means of protest so I do it.

For actual stores, its Best Buy and Gamestop. I tend to buy everything online if I can so they get less chance to annoy me.

Well, problem is that you have very limited information about most of these things - and my experience is that truth is tainted from the moment it's interpreted and conveyed.

Which is why I tend to go by my own experience, rather than what's being written about someone.

As for Cleve, I recently read his comments about that other Kickstarter project - and that was enough to demonstrate that I have no interest in supporting his product. However, I can't even be certain he was the person behind the comments - so I'd be acting on insufficient information.

So, you have to go by your gut - and that's really all you have as far as being able to make informed purchasing decisions in the vast majority of cases.

Generally, I think people are entitled to their opinion - and the only reason I'd refrain from supporting Cleve is that he's actively trying to hurt other people in public. That's a bit too low for me, but again - I don't know his background for behaving in that way.

Thankfully, I have very close to zero interest in Grimoire - and I'd pirate it in a second if I felt curious enough to invest any of my time in checking it out.

I really don't have any principles regarding things like this. I tried having them when I was younger, but found that I was breaking them way too often - and that my reasoning was flawed to the point of embarrasing myself in too many cases. I've also encountered too many people with ridiculous reasoning behing their "principles" and I've witnessed them breaking them even more than I did, and I've just given up the whole thing.

Principles make you inflexible and closed-minded. Having a principle is like stating out loud that "this is truth" and you sort of have to stick by it, which is the same as being incredibly arrogant - as it means you're basically stating you can't be wrong. If you COULD be wrong, then why have it as a principle? Why not just have it as a current opinion. You know?

That's my ultimate conclusion, so I try not having any principles at all.

I just don't.

Art is a representation of an artists beliefs. Games are art. I will not allow a racist, homophobic lunatic shitbag like Cleve knowing access to my thought processes in that manner. I have no interest in playing his game because of how he chooses to represent himself and who he is. I was out *long* before his attack on Shaker, but that should be enough for anyone to back out of this. He's an offensive psychopath and he doesn't deserve my support. Let alone anyone elses.

The "tainted sources" because a problem - for most Linux dev a non-problem, I got this impression) several years ago when it turned out that the developer of a new file system had been sentenced by a court because of I think it was sexual abuse.

The "techies" among them held the position, then, that a man's work should be differenciated from his personal deeds.

At that point I became sick upon this "philosophy" and decided not to follow this discussion anymore.

We have similar problems even today :

- What about Monsanto pressing farmers into buying THEIR grains and nothing else ? And grans that damage the soil and are so ... that they can only survive with the help of Monsantos fertilizers ?

- What about rare materials dug out under inhuman conditions in Africa and in South America, for example, but still they are used in cell phones and other similar devices ?

- What about the Blood Diamonds ?

- What about raid diggers ? - This is the German term, the English Wikipedia entry used the Euphemism "Treasure Hunting". Items are stolen from - for example - the depths of Mayan Jungle, sold to Museums everywhere in the world, get labelled "unknown provinience", and the raid diggers are happy with a hefty sum of money !

- What about stolen cell phones ? It has become seemingly kind of a fashion among robbers here to steal cell phones, sell them to used cell phone shops - and be happy with a good sum of money ! - I wouldn't buy from there !

- What about scientific studies paid by e.g. pharmaceutical companies ? Which are suppressing negative results because they don't want them to be known ?

- And why are so many people deciding to just not follow their sense of conscience but instead to give in and take from "tainted sources" no matter what ?

Yes all these things are horrible Alrik… and? What are we to do about them?

As a kid the adults in my family (father, uncles, aunties) turned every family gathering into a miserable debate about politics and the woes of the world, but what did they do about it? Nuffin.

They've inspired me to keep my head down and focus on making my tiny sphere of influence a pleasant place to be. The rest can sort it's self out.

So - getting back on topic - I'm kinda with DArtagnan. Principles are wasted on these types of things, and I just go with the flow. Yes Cleve sounds like a dick-snap, but I deal with people I don't like every day at work. That's just modern life!

If his game rocked, I'd buy it. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea though.