1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows [Star Citizen] BitSec Merge Vote

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Cei, 2 Dec 2014.

?

Should BitSec allow a merger?

Poll closed 8 Dec 2014.
  1. ACCEPT merger (Please explain your reasons)

    21.7%
  2. ACCEPT merger in principle, but I have concerns (please post)

    4.3%
  3. AMBIVALENT, will accept any decision

    13.0%
  4. I'm UNSURE and need more information/longer period of discussion

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. I would like a TRIAL PERIOD before making any decision

    17.4%
  6. REJECTmerger (please explain your reasons)

    43.5%
  1. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF BITSEC PLEASE DO NOT VOTE


    As discussed in the mega thread, there's a merge on the table for BitSec. This thread is a voting thread for the initial stage of the merge.

    Please have a read of this initial post by myself, this post by one of the leaders of the merging organisation and then the various other posts by BitSec members with opinions so far. Please note there are more posts than this, have a good read!

    Then, have a good think and vote. Note, this deal will not exist in 6 months, or indeed 12.

    The voting results will be used by the High Council to inform our decision, but I think it is likely that if the merge is accepted we will be having a trial run period regardless. There's also a public meeting this Saturday at 2000 GMT to discuss and meet.

    EDIT: Voting is public. I will also be sending a message out via RSI comms to try and get those not on here to register their vote.
     
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2014
  2. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I voted:
    2) ACCEPT merger in principle, but I have concerns

    My concerns are as follows:
    1) We need a trial period, at the end of which a decision is made whether to continue by the HC.
    2) Usage of the eventual CIG private forums needs to be considered, but likely only can be done when they're launched and feature complete. According to the most recent information from CIG this is 7 months out and possibly longer.
    3) Leadership needs to be hammered out, and many decisions regarding org structure. Still pending game details for many of these however.

    I feel these problems can be resolved and don't represent 'blockers' to a merge.

    I feel that a merge will give us a decent number of new members who appear to have the same value set as us, but a cool-off period would allow this to be evaluated. We remain as BitSec, with the bonus of having private forums where we can run riot which would never ever happen on here. BitSec discussion was always going to have to leave BitTech, so why not now?

    I do see the argument that we dilute our 'shared interest' background (ie: being from BitTech), but to be honest, we started doing that the moment we accepted public members in to the org. Right now, with 79 members, I reckon at least 1/3-1/2 aren't from these forums.

    We would also get TeamSpeak, a website and support for these. These are big advantages.
     
  3. N17 dizzi

    N17 dizzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    317
    I voted ambivalent but I would prefer the term "don't mind"; what ever you all think is best. I will be there!
     
  4. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,914
    Likes Received:
    558
    I am on the Reject Merger side

    This is the key:
    • I'd rather just play with friends and Bit Techers. If I wanted to join a massive clan of people I had no connection with I would have joined one of the hundreds of others.

    But also...

    • Bit-Sec is the heart of the Org. It’s based at Bit-Tech, and that is the common ground that nearly all of us share. Inducting 44 people we don’t know into the group puts an end to that.

    • Asking people to go to another forum to chat about Bit Sec is inconvenient, and given that all 44 of their members use that forum, and currently none of ours do, its not good for organisation.

    • Our decision making process is a voting system, which is good – it’s the fairest way to decide everything. However, we’d be putting voting rights in the hands of 44 people we don’t know, it could sway decisions strongly away from what’s best for current Bit Sec members.

    • Inducting 44 members we don’t know could end up being a security risk, in game. What did we learn from Eve? I still don’t really understand what they are getting out of it? If I was an org of 44 members, I wouldn’t be happy handing over the leadership to a bunch of guys I didn’t know at all across the pond.

    • Ultimately, we don’t even know how the game systems are going to work yet, and if being a bigger clan is going to be of any real benefit. I don’t think we should be swayed by the promise of big ships etc – our current Armada already packs a punch.

    • I can't see why we need private forums now? We can't actually plan or do anything in game that would require them? Probably the likely reason CIG hasn't delivered them yet. Makes sense.

    • I’m with PaulC2K. I’m not against Alliances, but for me, it’s too early, and too big a decision to make when we know so little about them and the game.
     
    Last edited: 2 Dec 2014
  5. WildThing

    WildThing Member

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    824
    Likes Received:
    20
    Star Citizen name - Cuin Qunx

    I voted -

    5) I would like a TRIAL PERIOD before making any decision

    I know I'm not that active on these forums but I do still like it here and thought it might be cool to fly with other Bit Techers. However I don't know how active I will end up being when the game finally comes out so a trial period seems reasonable to me.
     
  6. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    176
    I said I wasn't going to vote... but I've changed my mind.

    I vote REJECT for the following 'no benefit' reasons:

    1. There's zero benefit at this moment in time in moving.
    2. Zero benefit to a bigger org
    3. Zero benefit to bringing in a bunch of players from a different time-zone
    4. Zero benefit to moving to MF forums (more threads on the pros and cons of each ship sale? Really?)

    and the following 'risks' reasons:

    1. MF is an unknown to me. I have no interest in joining it. I don't known if, for myself and others, it will have the sticking power that bit-tech has. I follow bit-tech regularly for lots of reasons. Bit-sec is just a part.
    2. Moving from bit-tech to something outside of the game (IE not official) will potentially mean we'll have people not following the threads as regularly. I know I won't.
    3. New people are an unknown (Personally I see this as a very small risk as the inter web is full of unknown people)
    4. It's unclear as to whether it's possible for (post merger) a majority to vote that bit-sec separates from MF. Is it a merger or an acquisition?

    I again re-iterate that it's too soon to think about the strategic benefits of mergers like this. Too soon because the game is not playable in the way we all want the game to be playable!

    Sheesh I know I'm an edge case but some of you spend more time melting unplayable ships down and replacing them with different unplayable ships than I get to spend on any game!

    Take a step back. Wait. Give the game time to mature... I mean be built! We can discuss fleet structure, size and continental makeup a year or three from now! In the mean time we can do everything we need to do here.
     
  7. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I wasn't going to do this, but I really need to address some of your points Guinevere.

    Being a bigger org gives us more people playing at any time, as obviously not everybody will be online at once. This means we have a better chance of being able to field players to run missions, defend our gains and ultimately make the org money.

    This ties in to time zones. As it stands we're mainly in the EU, so when we're in bed/at work, there's nobody playing to further our aims or defend our stuff. Adding US players gives us that ability.

    Really not following your logic on those.
     
  8. Worthington

    Worthington New Member

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2014
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I am not voting, I think it's important to clarify a few things that are false.

    I apologize if my messaging to Cei or my post led anyone to think otherwise, but:

    We do not care if members here post on Bit-tech, I don't expect anyone to stop. Candidly MF isn't going to have issue with members posting on our forums or not. We'll provide the service, it's yours to use -or not to. There is absolutely no gun being pointed at anyone stating you must be active on our website.

    I also do not see how you lose anything when anyone can join Bit-Tech anytime they wish.

    None of us at MF wish to be in an org like Xplore that is large, just to be large. We are far more interested in having fun playing the game, making new friends in the process and being able to cater to both hardcore and casual players.

    I was the one who put the most time into the vision for our org in SC. I can say I literally invested over 100 hours into it. I have slide decks, org charts etc with clearly defined structures, goals, plans, tactics etc. The fact that I am willing to give this up to join someone who does share similar values, in the spirit that I believe it has the potential to ultimately make the game more fun for all involved should speak volumes.

    The bottom line here, is nobody is asking you to swear off Bit Tech. Our community is built around our players, democracy and quite frankly fun. Ego's, internet tough guys and drama are left at the door (and we have a very good fence ;) ).

    I encourage people to come onto our TS and play some games with people. Make some friends, have fun.

    Finally, I think it's very important to clarify one thing.

    Star Citizen is not like any other game, it's fans, development, etc are all very unique. As a result, you cannot apply the same principals to it that most would in other games. I would argue that by doing nothing we are all already behind. Take some time to look through the orgs out there today, there are many, well organized groups that have a clear vision in place.

    What does this mean to you and I? Well, do you want to miss out on a ton of this game because you are not able to defend yourself come release? Do you want to be the minnow swimming with sharks or do you want to also be a shark that causes other sharks to take pause before engaging you?

    Do you want to be stuck in "NPC Land" and miss out on many aspects of the game which will be in the ungoverned space? Missing out on some of the highest rewards attainable in the game?

    I'm not trying to be doom and gloom, but I am a realist and both of our org's are behind. Others have a huge headstart and continue to build momentum. I'm not suggesting we turn into a massive org, but I am suggesting we consider this because working together would help us drive the right kind of growth and perhaps help us hit release with a large ENOUGH force to cause others to question hostilities while we are trying to explore or trade.

    Additionally with that comes leverage in the political community. Ethiopia doesn't have much influence on what happens in the world today. I'd like to be a part of a first world country where others will listen to us, will be interested in partnering and working together strategically.

    Regardless if this happens or not I strongly urge many of you to take some time to look at the fanbase already, the current orgs.... We are both behind and that gap is only getting larger the longer we avoid doing something about it.
     
  9. fix-the-spade

    fix-the-spade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    4,056
    Likes Received:
    519
    Stupid Question!

    I intend to get into SC after Christmas, but am not involved right now, can I chuck my 2 cents into the bucket?
     
  10. Worthington

    Worthington New Member

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2014
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great points Cei.

    I forgot to mention this in my other post (which will take awhile to pass review).

    Capital ships... The Javelin can crew close to 50, 24 is the minimum. The bengal is even crazier. You absolutely will need numbers to even crew one capital ship effectively, let alone the remote possibility of a capital fleet with sub capital support.

    I think all of this concern would vanish if you all took some time to come play any game with us. We have an active TS and there is an open invite. mountainfortune.net is the address. Poke an admin or someone with an R when you join to get setup (you can't leave the lobby otherwise).

    Whether we play SC together or not, any of you are welcome to play with us. We have an active, 2600 member PS2 presence, War Thunder, World of Tanks, WoW shortly (new expansion has driven a lot of interest), DayZ, ArcheAge and of course scores of other games that we have many people playing. Everyone is very friendly and open to new people joining in. Our rules are simple, don't be a *****, we are all here to have fun.
     
  11. teamtd11

    teamtd11 *Custom User Title*

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    30
    I voted:
    ACCEPT merger (Please explain your reasons)

    If they are players with the same goals as us, we may as well be together. If they are happy to join the org then I have no reason to decline.
    To me, as long as when the PU launches, we have a good group of players, we are going to have a good time out there. I'm going to need people wanting to fly in my Carrack and I'm going to be wanting to bum out on people ships, its going to be fun.

    Some points though (not really concerns), Having a forum for the org will come sometime on RSI, It may be a while but it will be a long time before the PU
    If needed I have my own domain with unlimited bandwidth ect, it would not be much to put some forums up, but that's to a side of this. Similar with TS. I was unsure of the current TS situation. But if we need one. I'm sure people could make it happen. Again that's more something for closer to the PU though.

    One thing we do need to do is some co op AC, it's currently the only thing we can do other than talk about SC
     
  12. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    If you have an RSI account, which incidentally doesn't require you to be a backer, and have joined BitSec then yes you can. So basically, sign up.
     
  13. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    176
    But the game isn't playable in this way yet, and won't be for a long long time.

    We don't need to be talking about mergers now. It's crazy early.

    "How to recruit members", "Where shall we base our forums", "How do we protect out bases at night (GMT)?" "What team speak server shall we use during PU missions?" and "Should we merge with another org" are all great thread topics...

    ...for 2016.
     
  14. mattyh1995

    mattyh1995 Active Member

    Joined:
    1 Oct 2011
    Posts:
    795
    Likes Received:
    25
    I voted for accept for the simple reason of I think more people will be better for us.

    I'm a simple man.
     
  15. Tichinde

    Tichinde Active Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    878
    Likes Received:
    33
    Bit-tech for Bit-Sec.
    On the topic of a bigger Org meaning more people on at any one time, if they are US based are we all not likely to end up being like ships in the night, giving us 44 people we'll rarely see so what would the point be?
    Plus another forum to check for updates when we'll have the Org stuff when it's ready.

    Additionally, I've been a member of a similar group before and while they boast 100's of members a fraction of them play the various games they support as a community. A new game comes out, most jump on it, then drift back to what they were on previously.

    Trying to merge two communities feels like we'll end up with two houses under one roof which isn't going to work very well IMHO.
     
  16. GravitySmacked

    GravitySmacked Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    2 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,933
    Likes Received:
    73
    I voted reject for pretty much all the reasons Parge stated.
     
  17. IanW

    IanW Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    6,913
    Likes Received:
    650
    Sorry all, I'm with Parge as well.
     
  18. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    572
    I voted reject.

    We haven't seen the game yet, so we can't know if a merger will help or hinder until then - Is there an optimum fleet size for the instancing model? Might the FPS component turn out to be extremely compelling, and will we see an influx of people already from Bit-Tech eager to play it solely as an MMOFPS, leaving us joystick-owning early backers as glorified taxi drivers? We just don't know...We need to take a look at the battlefield before we can make any strategic decisions.
     
  19. suenstar

    suenstar Collector of Things

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    151
    Accept the merger - Reject the new forum

    Apologies for not chiming in my views when the subject first came to light with Cei's post in the main topic. I've taken a fair bit of time to mull over the information and debated with myself extensively on where I stand with the decision.

    I'm on the side of accepting the merger, I'll post my for/against reasons but overall I am for the merger.


    My only real complaint towards the merger is the suggested requirement to divert communications relating to the game over to their hosted forums. It's all well and good having a dedicated website for your gaming clan, but it's a major nuisance for those that have already signed up to enough communities and already.

    Personally for SC content I tend to focus on visiting the RSI website and on occasions our forum, I'm not keen on adding yet another place to register to view. So I would much prefer that we wait for RSI's organisation forums to be up and running for the organisation's dedicated system.

    I'd have no complaints if the High Council wanted to join the Mountain Fortune forums to maintain a collaborative dialogue with their members prior to the organisation forums being launched on RSI, but wouldn't be keen on being forced to join as part of the organisation's membership requirement.


    Regarding the general merger in terms of the boost in numbers; as someone who is wholly focussed on the industry side to the game, I'm 100% for adding another 44 people. Especially as I'm someone who never knows what my work schedules will be like until the start of the week and switch between day and night work so in turn periodically switch between playing either evenings or during the day when other UK players might be at work.
    I'm 100% in the mind that the addition of 44 people, particularly in the NA time-zones would be a great benefit to the organisation's industrial activities and security coverage. Sure they're currently all complete strangers to us, though to be honest the majority of people from Bit-Tech who are in the organisation are unknown to me.


    I'm on the opposite viewpoint of most people it seems, in that I'd prefer the merger happen before the launch of the PU. The reasoning behind me being in that state of mind is that it provides us time to all get to know one-another well ahead of flying together.
    The benefit I see from us combining communities ahead of the launch, is that if we a chance to chat a few times over the next few months and organise the small practice sessions in the DFM then there's a good chance we'll be able to iron out most differences and get a better understanding of how each other thinks.


    Short version:
    I'm for the merger in general and am for it starting before the launch of the PU so we can see how we get along (whether that's as a trial or not is fine with me as even without a trial period our current community always has the option to turn around and say that it's not working if there's major problems)... but I am against using their forums for communications as we've been discussing using RSI's system for a long time now and most if not all of us are already members of quite a few communities.

    I can see people's viewpoints of waiting until we see how the game works before merging, however from my experiences in EVE Online, I have found that there is nothing worse than when you have a working structure in place and shake it up a few months down the line with a merger. Best to get everyone on the same page and relatively known to one-another early on, so that we can all develop as a whole entity when the ball gets rolling.
     
  20. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,935
    Likes Received:
    409
    This is basically my standing too. I'll go with whatever other people want to do, just as long as I get a flag ship to command black-ops from I'm happy :p
     

Share This Page