I just posted on the IGG condors comment page... Copied from IG's terms of Use
Community Guidelines
Indiegogo is not a place for hatred, abuse, discrimination, disrespect, profanity, meanness, harassment, or spam.
Do not:
- spam the comments sections or other Users with offers of goods and services or inappropriate messages;
It lasted 5 minutes before the spamming continued... I also got an email from IGG saying they were looking into it... sure
they are...
My email correspondence chronology with IGG goes something like this;
When I alerted them to all the discrepancies of the Sondors campaign on February 8th and thereafter, they said "they would be looking into it."
I followed on with IGG, in response they told me to post on the IGG-Storm chat board, it being a place where I could raise concerns.
To post, I had to provide consideration to the campaign and thus was a participant to it.
I posted a few times, and factually, on the chat board as instructed with my real person name. I offered A2.0 help via a conference call.
They then did a turn around and I got a "threat" from IGG for interfering with the campaign by posting on the IGG-Storm chat board as instructed. (as if they were going to allege tortuous interference, and I would be potentially bogged down defending myself in a frivolous but expensive in a lawsuit for raising concerns). They said the campaign (which I assume to be Agency 2.0) was complaining about me.
I told them that I was following their instructions to post and paid consideration into the campaign and thus was member of it and entitled to express concerns.
I asked for the service address for Storm from their legal department. None was provided.
I provided them with a log of all my posts. (they were small in number and factual)
I told IGG in no uncertain terms that Storm was a problem, but in comparison IGG's conduct, business model, and stance was the real problem. It was up to them to manage their business and conduct it ethically. "Let there be no misunderstanding," you IGG are the problem because...
A member of the press who was copied on their response said "he is trying to alert you to potential fraud" first you tell him to post on the IGG board, and then you prevent him from doing so.
I never used the word fraud, I was assuming bad business. Given the history of non-payment, and the false representations, it might very well be found that he is conducting himself fraudulently. That would be up to a court or agency, not me.
I filed complaints with the FTC and CA AG's office. I spoke to executives at the FTC and CPSC.
This kind of irresponsibility, complete with potential to harm the consumer, really gets me pissed off. We are seeing Storm and A2.0 self destruct in a lawsuit; the more this debacle goes on the more destruction it will reap. It is possible that IGG takes the hit they deserve on this debacle.
The poor consumer has the short end of the stick on this one.
(most don't want to understand they are better off because a few folks are standing up for honesty and transparency, which is in their best interests whether or not they know it; many are just too frozen in bias to ask for a refund)
There is no law against "bad business" as is the case with Storm and IGG, however "bad business" will speak to the longevity of the businesses in question.
