Don’t you hate those that are so happy to block and censor and feign affront at everything you do, but yet think they can support rule breakers in their midst? is a rule breaking travesty.

You only need to sign onto (or indeed sign up to) Kickstarter and go to Scroll to the bottom to where it says “report this project” and hit that button.

How does she break the rules with this Feminist Deck fundraiser?

“If we get funded, this is where the money will go:

$10000, which is a $150 “modeling fee” for participants.

This part is very important to me. #FeministDeck is about supporting women in the industry, and paying them for the use of their likenesses is the only way for this project to successfully do this.

Most of the women, though, have so far declined payment. For those participants who have decline being paid, this money will be donated to a shelter for unhoused women. As women, we fight the patriarchy best by helping women less fortunate than we are.”

The rules she is breaking around this, are pretty clear

“Projects can’t fundraise for charity, offer financial incentives, or involve prohibited items.

We’re all in favor of charity and investment, but they’re not permitted on Kickstarter. Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or cause, and they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment. We also can’t allow any of these prohibited things.”

Pretty cut and dried. She is breaking the rules with $150/person AND by giving it to a charity otherwise. In both instances breaking the rules.

She is making a mockery of Kickstarter’s rules and they need to know.


  1. Reported. This clique behavior is getting more and more prominent. “Please support me, because I make tribute to people you like!”

  2. Fair enough, Ross, but I was more concerned with one of their cards being based on a narcissistic pedophile and zoophile that has been slandering thousands of gamers for the last 9 fucking months.

    But then again, there’s nothing in Kickstarter’s rules against supporting lying assholes, or their site wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    1. Agreed. I’m all for fighting fire with fire but reporting that utterly forgettable project seems counterproductive IMO, even though they would have done it to others (e.g. TFYC). We’re simply feeding their victimhood complex with this.

      1. What would you like them wasting time and effort on? Something unimportant and ultimately irrelevant or something actually relevant and important?
        I know what I want.

        They have up their contributions and are falling over themselves to make a statement to #Gamergate over this.

        Most of Gamergate have no idea about it. There is a couple like me who do and we don’t really care about it either.

        I find it funny that the project may make so much cash (i.e. rob them of so much cash).

        If I paid someone to write individual notes about GG member in Calligraphy, and got heaps of GG to pay me to get them made en masse. Then I think this would be not a win over Anti-GG. They would rightfully say “Gee, GG just wasted a crippled of cash over a heap of pretty notes…UNREAL!”

        That is my view with their Feminist Deck. I am wishing their campaign the best. They stick within the rules. Focus on the Deck intensely and throw cash at it. Works for me.

  3. Eh, I don’t think that’s gonna work. The Kickstarter isn’t directly raising for charity. If the people being paid stipulate that their payment be donated instead… I dunno, I’d have to really read over KS’s terms and conditions. But I suspect that’s the fig leaf.

    I think you also may have misread the ‘projects can’t offer financial incentives’ bit. You can’t offer financial incentives to BACKERS. Logically, the cash would be used to pay for whatever work that needs to be done, which may include hiring people for tasks.

    I don’t disagree that it’s a pretty appalling project (I had to laugh at the artwork). But I don’t think we can get at them from the breaking Kickstarter rules angle.

    1. Doesn’t matter, that’s specifically WHY Kickstarter bans charities. Because they can’t enforce private people to actually donate. So it’s a huge fucking scamming problem.

    2. The Kickstarter isn’t directly raising for charity.

      That’s actually the point. If, and that’s a big “if”, what the article reports above is true then charity donations would need to be a specific part of the project (crowd funding services don’t like open-ended projects, charity originated or not, they need to be specific).

      What the rule is supposed to prevent is project owners doing a bait n’ switch, getting funds based on “X” when the money goes to “Y” – it doesn’t matter what or who either of those are.

      So… even if the models in question don’t want the money the project owner is still obligated to pay them the $150 because that’s explicitly what the money is in part raised for. In other words it would be up to individual models to donate the $150 once received, not the project author.

  4. But there are no suits or numbers on the cards, as that would be classist and hierarchical. So, no card games of any kind can be played with them. Just as well, because losing could be triggering. And in any event, using pictures of women as pieces in a game is the EPITOME of patriarchy.

    1. I’m actually surprised it took so long for that project to be fully funded, given the low funding threshold and enormous ego’s involved.

  5. This is much ado about nothing, because you don’t understand words.

    > Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or

    They aren’t. They are paying for model’s labor with part of the funding, which is of course allowed. If models then defer payment, it will only then be sent to charity. The project is explicitly not raising money for a charity or cause; it’s a project pricing something.

    > they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment.

    You are misinterpreting this clause. This is to discourage backers approaching their support a investment. Projects cannot sell ownership stake in a cool any or product, which is equity. They also cannot promise repayment of the backer’s pledge. That’s what repayment is; this is ostensibly to discourage a kickstarter reward used as a essentially a loan or other investment vehicle. None of this applies to this project. Even if a model was a backer and ep rendered services to the project, they wouldn’t be a case of s project making promises of repayment. Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or cause, and they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment.

    Ah, GamerGate. Much illiteracy. So dumb.

    1. You’re mistaken. TFYC was not allowed to use Kickstarter, despite being a Capitalist venture, because their profits as stock would go to charity. If they get banned? Feminists get banned.

      1. > their profits as stock would go to charity

        I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

        Perhaps you have an original source of this information?

          1. Ok, I guess. That has nothing to do with the feminist deck rewards. Stock is a thing with a definition and that’s not it.

            Nothing about your link says anything about a kickstarter rejection for any reason. However, they are promising profit sharing for backers which is clearly a form of promising repayment. I can see that not flying.

          2. It says right in the description that money refused by those who are in the set will instead be donated to a woman’s shelter. That is donating to charity but it seems you are too fucking stupid to grasp that concept. I have also reported it but I doubt anything will be done.

          3. It says if money is refused, it will go to other models or go the charity. It is clearly not a project mased as a charitable fundraiser.

            This isn’t hard.

          4. I feel bad for you that you’re suck a pathetic tool. Did coming on Ralph’s site to set him right give you the little rush you were looking for? Because it sure didn’t change minds.

          5. You can look into them further in depth why Indiegogo not Kickstarter elsewhere, but it’s really quite simple.

            The form on reporting this is easy. You scroll down. You say it’s breaking a rule it asks “Which rule?” you say “Charity” it goes “Cool thanks we’ll look into it.”

            The reason is specifically because 1) Kickstarter CANNOT enforce private entities to actually donate to charities or prove they did so. 2) that is a GIANT legal can of worms. 3) Charities MUST be filed with other organizations — HENCE our irritation with FemFreq for filing taxes as a charity when that is blatantly against Kickstarter terms. I know we sound like incompetent idiots on the internet to you, but we have been looking this shit up for a very long time.

          6. That’s not why Kickstarter doesn’t want charities. They want discrete projects that produce something at the end.

            They do not want a charity just raising money for general operating funds, or an open-ended cause like “donate to fight cancer” or whatever. They are fine with charitable organizations opening a project, however. Many do.

            There is nothing wrong with FemFreq filing taxes as nonprofit charitable firm, as they are a 501c3. Kickstart explicitly acknowledges this.


            If you’re irritated, it’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          7. Dude, if there’s anyone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about it’s you. How do you abuse a charity? Simple. Say you’re going to donate to one, have all profits go to you instead. Who would take the fall for that? The charity? Kickstarter? NOT YOU. THAT IS THE GOD DAMN PROBLEM.

          8. You and your pronouns make no sense. This isn’t complicated as the tax rules for donating to charities are well understood.

        1. Don’t YOU understand words?
          Just kidding. You guys always get “righteous” and “right” confused. It leads to condescension and inevitably looking like an idiot when you get it wrong.
          It’s not a biggie, man.
          There is no doubt this is being pushed by the big names on the other side. I KNOW this.
          Apart from promoting this, have they financially backed it through Kickstarter? If so….
          But hey, back it, report it or whatever, no need to posture and argue over a deck of cards

          1. Clearly, anti-feminist trolls see the need to posture, lie, and brigade false reports.

            I do appreciate that scumbags like the proprietor of this site goes to great lengths to support the typical GG image, though.

          2. Yet this is clearly no false report..
            A “typical” GG image. That is one thing that a Jackboot ideologue that marched in lockstep with his peers, sharing a hivemind of same-think, can’t understand.
            If one of you has cause to doubt one small aspect of the hivemind, disagree with the wrong person, agree with the wrong person, you are torn to pieces and better either apologise or fabricate a distracting faux threat.
            We don’t have that mindset in GG.
            Diversity IS a great thing.
            The other side wouldn’t know diversity of thought or its benefits, if it buggered them senseless.

          3. Yes, it’s a false report. The complaint is trivially observable to be nonsense because the reasoning is laughably stupid. As I explained using very plain language.

            The project will be funded shortly and Kickstarter will leave it because it’s legit.

            I don’t care about the rest of your stupid conspiracy wharglebargle. Enjoy the endorphin rush.

          4. Either it will get funded, (in which case, who cares? Nothing lost but a bit of time hitting a report button and filling in some details) or it won’t and the noise will be a symphony of cries of anguish coupled with belly laughs. I think that would be nice.

            You seem somehow invested in this.

            But look, we already know, prior to the cards being made that some of that $22500 is absolutely going to charity. This is not might or could or will if. It will be. The “models” have already said in advance they refuse the $150 and so it WILL go directly to charity. Who has rejected it so far? Everyone. Where is all those rejected funds going? Charity. This is NOT allowed by their rules

            Sorry to have to spell it out to you especially after making an asshat of yourself in lecturing about why this is a false report and why we can’t comprehend the rules

          5. “You seem somehow invested in this.”

            And then some. Skippy was all over the Honey Badger fundraising thread as well, if I recall. It just seems so fucking sad that someone would be so obsessed about something. Surely there’s more to life than trolling?

          6. It’s always a hoot when some who doesn’t “care” spends countless hours telling everyone how much they don’t care. The fear is palpable. Whatever your take on the rules, doesn’t hurt to seek clarification from Kickstarter about all this.

          7. Well, good! No need for you to be so scared and confused anymore eh Skippy? *high-five*

          8. But it’s going forward despite your collective wharglbargl. Shocking.

            Yet more evidence of Kickstarter’s corruption.

            Oh well, I know I’ll be laughing when the SEC drags their owners off to prison along with Patreon and the rest.

            Did you think that breaking money handling laws for your buddies is going to end well or something?

          9. Do you realize any business handling money transfers isn’t going to be allowed to operate on the SRS “I can do what I want because I have connections” model?

            Reddit may allow SRS to violate all the rules with impunity while banning their enemies for no reason, but financial companies are in for a rude awakening if they try it.

    2. Kickstarter once shut down a special pledge level you could pledge for in a board game kickstarter project, because it involved sending copies of the game to soldiers through a charity program. They cancelled that pledge level because it had to do with charity (even if it wasn’t funding charities). This is no different, it’s 100% against KS’ rules.

      1. It’s literally completely different since there is no pledge level that sends any specific portion of the pledge to charity. There are no shared characteristics. And that’s taking your description at face value.

  6. They’re just going to make them adjust that portion of the Kickstarter. It may irritate them and might be a little funny but they’ll just use this to say Gamergate tried to shutdown charity for homeless women. So really there isn’t much to gain here unless you consider being annoying a gain. This is kind of petty really.

  7. That list of twitter handles to be featured reads like a laundry list of whiny first world problem bitches. Did anyone else notice that Arthur Chu and Vereen Jubal are included? My favorite thing though is the bitch slap given to our pal Wil Wheaton. After all his white knighting and beta male antics he was not included in the deck but his wife Anne is in there.

    1. Come on, the white knights don’t need the promotion, they’re just there to get any bit of attention from their Damsels, I’m sure his wife will let him out of the trunk tonight if he’s good.

      1. Wait, so they have a pedophile (sarah Butts), and a rape defender? “This is what feminism looks like”

  8. Ain’t gonna jump on this one. Charity loses in the end and that’s one of the rare cases where These faces are used for something good (way better than their owners uses them for).

    May Kickstarter do as the rules command. I say that if ANYONE wants to report it, please add something like “the charity idea is a good one, even if it breaks the rules”.

  9. I would say you could get away with reporting it just on the hate speech alone, considering some of the people involved.

  10. For once, I have to disagree.

    Sure, this project reunites many “feminists” that I cannot stand, because they are lying con artists and are doing more harm to women than anything.
    Sure there are some horrible persons such as srhbutt up here.

    Actually,I dislike almost everything about this kickstarter, it’s SJW bullshit, as usual.

    HOWEVER, as much as I dislike it, reporting it because donating to charity is forbidden seems like a low blow to me.

    I mean, if I could have it removed because of all the problems I noted above, or because even the description is borderline hate-speech, I would.
    But I don’t like the idea of taking something down for the wrong reasons.

    I still hate that thing, it’s just that if we’re gonna fight something, we shouldn’t resort to such methods, I mean, we are much more than SJWs, aren’t we? 🙂

    1. Not entirely right nor wrong.
      Firstly, either I am right in my assertion or I am not right. KS makes THEIR assessment and will act accordingly.
      This is no biggie in the scheme of things BUT I think you should always look for opportunities to make every post a winner and never give them anything.
      That said, is this a bit of a Low Blow? Sure. Will this completely scuttle their chances? I would think so? Does this mean they can’t raise funds for charity via some legitimate charity full draining vehicle? No.
      I remember well some very nasty untagged threats made to an unknown Twitter handle called Spacekatgal. It was from an account called Death to Brianna. All of us jumped on the situation and condemned and reported the account. Most of us were Pro-GG. Then we were perpetrators by the media for months and by her, based on what? That was a low blow too.
      If it’s legal and does not expose us, then all good. They deserve A metaphorical bloody nose.

    2. It’s not so much a low-blow as perhaps gamergators using the only means of ‘communication’ open to them… someone could have contacted the projects author directly to suggested she double-check with KS that she isn’t breaking the rules (which it appears she is doing as a result of this action, ironically) but it’s likely that might have been taken as a direct threat or harassment. Can’t win for losing as the saying goes.

    3. Yeah, I’m all for free speech and people wanting to spend their money on dumb crap, but the “modeling fee” does break their rules.

  11. From what I’ve seen Kickstarter have an issue with shutting down projects that Kotaku didn’t complain about.

  12. I could see one possible outcome from what you suggest Ralph, and that would be that they would then change their statement to not include the charity part, yet covertly still donate to one

  13. Feminist decked.
    I would actually support it if they did actual pictures, e.g. they have Randi “the harpy” Harper pictured as something other than morbidly obese.
    Perhaps someone here should create a SJW kickstarter with the same bitches, but sans airbrushing or Photoshopping.

  14. Nope. As someone who has backed hundreds and hundreds of Kickstarter projects, I’m not risking my account by filing a report that will be interpreted as that of a “misogynist hatemonger” or what have you.

  15. The person behind that Kickstarter project also accepts donations (not for this project, but just for funding their life in general) on their website ( You can pay directly, or by paypal, or via Patreon (where she currently gets nearly $400/mo).

  16. You’ve misinterpreted the rules, this is okay. You can pay artists /models. You can’t give equity to backers. If models give/assign their money to charity that’s also fine.

    What you can’t do is raise money for a charities general funds. You have to have a project, specific and deliverable. Which this does.

    Beat bad ideas with good ones don’t silence artistic endeavors.

    1. The reason TFYC wasn’t allowed on KickStarter was because part of the profits went to charity.

      If they aren’t allowed, this shouldn’t be allowed.

    2. Project authors are not supposed to make claims for pledges and then use the cash for something else (at least not when stated publicly) – if she is claiming funds will be used to pay models, that is what the money *must* be used for, it’s up to individual models to ‘donate’ once they have received payment.

      Regardless of the good intentions if what was said in the article is true then she *may* inadvertently be breaking the (a) rule(s) – something she is now apparently checking with KS to make sure she’s not doing.

  17. I just LOVE how many feminists she has drawn holding very phallic weapons. Yep, penis envy, very feminist.

  18. Same can be said about the Truth and Trolls kickstarter, that was basicly a Fund my life deal. Where you funded a 9 year old girl so she could have gone to an already payed for RPG maker camp.Why? Cus the mother is an entrepenour or whatever its spellt, she has money, she was on some magazine as well.So lets see…. she uses her sons, throwing them under the buss, by saying they were being rude to her 9 year old daughter, telling her that girls cant make video games. And the mother wanted to use feminism to fund the 890 usd rpg maker camp thing, that was already payed for, guess how much she got? 25k usd. This is the same mother that tried to scam people into spending money to buy HERO CAPES, that she wanted 20k usd to fund it. Its a bit funny how people throw the feminism thing around, get funded really fast. Yet they speak about men having privilige when they themselves get money thrown at them when that is the peak of privilige.

    1. The one thing that’s clear in this whole debacle is just how much money there is floating around; collate together all the patreons, gofundmes and other income from everyone in gamergate, and the amount would probably raise a few eyebrows.

      1. Eventually, someone in the IRS is gonna notice. Then it’s gonna get awfully interesting, because the feds just hate untaxed revenue.

  19. Let me see if I’ve got this right; The argument in this article is that proceeds will go to a shelter for unhoused women, and that goes against a rule Kickstarter has on fundraisers for “charities”? You want people to report this project for that?

    I think you’re getting caught up in your own pessimism here. If anything – We should be convincing Kickstarter to allow fundraisers for charities instead of fueling hatred because there’s some unethical militant feminist profiteers involved. Stick with the issue, don’t attack because you’re mad.

    My feeling when I originally saw this was someone was being an
    opportunist. There’s already so many opportunists using the “misogyny
    against women in gaming” for self-promotion & business ventures that I honestly can’t see
    why anyone would laugh that of.

    I’m an artist myself, so I’m not going to oppose ARTWORK. Kiva Smith-Pearson said the cost was going to pay for “modeling”, but YEAH these aren’t life-like portraits here. These are those silly caricatures I’ve done myself at County Fairs for 5 bucks a pop. That’s one dollar every minute. But okay she allotted her “models” $150 for probably “using their likeness” & not a sitting fee. I would have saved a fortune by just not drawing anyone that wanted to get paid for it, but that’s me & my financial penny-pinching. I have created artwork on a zero budget. I’m an artist, I’m broke, I
    garbage pick for supplies, that’s what we do, LOL. I’ve done artwork
    freely for good causes IF I have the time to do it.

    Creating something
    like a (What is it a card deck?) thingy that celebrates women? Fine by
    me, but it wouldn’t cost me anywhere close to $25,500 to create something I want to do and fully believe in. So, since some people are turning down monies and Kiva will have enough for a woman’s shelter. Well good for you her. I hope @KivaBay will prove me wrong, by actually giving the money to a good cause. I have my doubts considering who she’s chosen to include in this art project. But I won’t help shutdown an artist for creating art & donating the funds.

    1. They already allow charities to use the service, just not as a way to raise general funds. It must be project specific. The rules are the way they are because they relate to FINANCE LAW and the type of financial investment crowd-funding is considered to be – when using KS and the likes funders are considered to be *investing* NOT *donating* money to another party so what the project owner *says* they’re going to do with the cash and then actually *does* with it matters in relations to investment protection law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.