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. phinix

    phinix RIP Waynio...

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,000
    Likes Received:
    97
    I vote REJECT.

    Reason: it is too soon to decide things like that. There is no game yet, we don't know what will happen, what is it going to look like, what impact/advatages will have merging groups like that.

    Besides, main reason - BitSec for Bit-Techers. Period.
    So we will be a very small group of pew-pew lovers in the whole SC universe - so what!
    We know each other from here, we created a BitSec to represent Bit-Tech forum, not other groups. If we want to play with others, we can co-op, we can do same missions together etc
    No need to go to bed with them;)
    Do we need to be like other big organisations? No. Let's be small, let's be unique. Bit-Tech integrity.
     
  2. suenstar

    suenstar Collector of Things

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    151
    I don't agree with that statement.
    Plus, I recall that there are already people in the organisation roster that aren't members of the forums.

    I'd prefer to say that BitSec is lead by the Bit-Tech community, but it is for anyone who shares our values & desires.
     
  3. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I'm finding this "BitSec for Bit-Tech" to be...worrying.

    We have people right now in BitSec who are not on these forums. You want them kicked out in some kind of elitist crusade? Is there a superiority thing going on? That makes me uncomfortable, massively so.
     
  4. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    407
    Yeh, I don't like this either. I've brought 6 or so of my friends into the Org and none of them are on Bit-Tech, so this logic makes no sense, especially as we're open to new members.

    Why don't the MF guys simply just join the org? We'd still accept them...
     
  5. phinix

    phinix RIP Waynio...

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,000
    Likes Received:
    97
    Really? :worried:
    I thought only Bit-tech members are in, or if they weren't, they registered in our forum and then joined.
    What is the point calling the organisation BitSec, when anyone can join it (I mean non Bit-Tech members)?
     
  6. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    407
    Nopes, not been that way ever.
     
  7. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Nope.
    They're encouraged to join here, but it is not mandatory, because the intention has always been to take the organisation forums away from here as we cannot run BitSec in a single thread or maybe two, so forcing people to join Bit-Tech made no sense.
     
  8. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,191
    Likes Received:
    565
    I don't think anyone is arguing for fanatical apartheid here, but rather the chance for Bit-Sec to get established before increasing it's membership by 50%. Bit-Tech has a certain culture and we like it, that's why we're here. Bit-sec should be an extension of that culture and bloating the membership so early, when we haven't even played as a group together would destroy any chance for it to get rooted. We don't have our own identity yet; Don't force a child in to a marriage.
     
  9. suenstar

    suenstar Collector of Things

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    151
    I always thought the name relation between BitSec and Bit-Tech was purely due to the initial plans to team-up started on these forums and because we were aiming to go with the same sort of friendly and welcoming community that the forum generally promotes.

    Plus I believe there were a number of names being thrown around during the forming of BitSec that went off down many different avenues with no relation at all to the forum name.

    See that's where I'm thinking the opposite way. I thought we'd rather want to try linking up with them earlier on before we get in the game, so that everyone gets to know each other and any issues are ironed out so when the game launches we have a whole group of people on the same page as us.
    If we do it the other way around then you could have the issue where you set it all up, then when the gates open a bunch of people dive in and wreck the plans.

    Either way there's the same potential for it to go up in flames.
     
    Last edited: 3 Dec 2014
  10. PaulC2K

    PaulC2K PC Master Race

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    812
    Likes Received:
    6
    Havent submitted an opinion yet, i keep wavering, im easily manipulated by a reasonable argument on something ive not already got a firm opinion of :D

    - Feels too early to be required
    - The benefits are mostly benefits we'll really only see months from now (many probably a year+ from now).

    That said, im not opposed to it either, and I kinda assumed BitSec was for Bit-Tech members and friends of B-T members type setup (not with any hard rule, but generally).

    Any 'reject' feelings wouldnt be anything against the folks at MF at all, and i'd assume the same goes for everyone else here, and likewise any MF guys against a merger with B-T too. We dont really know each other to have an opinion about them as an org and vice versa. Its down to sentiment & necessity in a way, and i dont get a strong enough feeling from that alone.

    I havent played SC (or anything else for that matter) with you guys, and i suspect thats the case for many of us. However i suspect we'll all get on fine, and the same is likely true if MF was added too.
     
  11. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,914
    Likes Received:
    558
    Well put.

    Its not like that at all. Its just that the heart of the community is Bit Tech, and most people have some kind of relationship with the forum itself or forum members. If someone unrelated wants to join then they are of course welcome - but 44 members at the same time, all of whom are from a totally different community is not the same.

    And aside from that, in my opinion, its still far too early to even think about this kind of thing.
     
  12. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Parge, I know you weren't meaning it that way, but some of the other posts on here have definitely had that vibe.

    In regards to the Saturday meeting, if the vote comes down to reject it won't be going ahead and any merger talks will be off the table. As I said before, this is also a one time deal, it isn't going to be on offer in a year or whenever people feel is the "right" time.

    Obviously I'm going to go with the majority steer on this, as was agreed when we set the org up.
     
  13. Tichinde

    Tichinde Active Member

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    878
    Likes Received:
    33
    But the merger will force folk to sign up to someone else boards. It's directly in contravention of one of the opening principles that was had.
    Organisational stuff on the provided Org pages.

    And I thought I quantified my "bit-tech for bit-sec" thing fairly well as being against mass merging 2 communities, not excluding everyone else......but obviously not :)
     
  14. Worthington

    Worthington New Member

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2014
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Everyone,

    I can see that this is trying to push a square into a round hole.

    To be candid, we are having far more well received talks with another org anyway -both of our leadership teams are all on the same page and all have already started spending time on TS.

    While I do think this could have been a good fit with Bit Sec as well due to them having put significantly more thought into their vision come release, more #'s, more capital ships (which to be fair will be very helpful come release) who are all supportive and most importantly the many negative posts I've seen on here I think we should just end these discussions.

    I'm a very transparent person so just wanted to share our reasons for withdrawing from said talks since everyone clearly invested energy into exploring this option.

    I appreciate you all taking time to give this thought, I really do wish you the best in game. Perhaps we'll talk about an alliance one day if it makes sense (we plan to spend the majority of our gameplay in "null sec").

    For anyone who wants to come play any games with us, we are happy to have you on TS with us at mountainfortune.net irrespective of Star Citizen. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised with what you find over there. Quite simply we play a ton of games, we have a bunch of large orgs in multiple games and you'll find friendly, welcoming people in all of them. Might be a good way to continue a relationship in the meantime for those that had some interest in that.

    Finally I should add that I see no conflict in Bit Tech / MF. They are two entirely different types of websites with different goals. We are focused 100% on providing a platform for respectful gamers who share similar values to have fun. That's it, no more, no less. We have a lot of services available to anyone who fits into that criteria and our only ask is that you have fun which of course in turn makes it more enjoyable for everyone else there. There is no requirement to post on forums, no "choice" between one community or another. Play with us if you like and continue doing whatever else you do -it's your choice.

    Best,

    Worthington
     
  15. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Just spoken to the leader of MF, and we've agreed to not move forward with this. He has a post pending moderation queue, which will no doubt pop up after this.

    So no merge, and no possibility of one down the line. They've very generously offered open access if anybody wants to play some games with them, including SC, which I think after the treatment/suspicion they just got is more than we deserved.
     
  16. Guinevere

    Guinevere Mega Mom

    Joined:
    8 May 2010
    Posts:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    176
    May I ask why this is the case? Is that 'us' laying down that rule or the MF lot?

    Treatment and suspicion? You think that by rejecting a merger we've treated them/you badly and just been suspicious of some shady foreigners? I never got that vibe from anyone.

    I read it that the 'REJECT' consensus was that it's all just too early to fundamentally change bit-sec and rip it away from here and that there's a lot of affection for bit-tech tied up with it ATM.
     
    Last edited: 3 Dec 2014
  17. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Simply because they will merge with somebody else and are not going to sit around waiting for us to eventually do something about it. Much like anything, you can't keep somebody hanging around for months/years on empty promises.
     
  18. GravitySmacked

    GravitySmacked Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    2 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,933
    Likes Received:
    73
    Dear god I feel bad about it now; I hope this game doesn't get all political like Eve did (reason I stopped playing after the first 2 years). I just want to play casually and have fun and not feel bad about things like this.

    This thread asked for peoples opinions, if they were voting no, and that's what has been posted.

    I don't see any particular ill will against MF rather genuine concerns about our organisation and what a merger will mean.

    And come on it hasn't taken that long from the idea being floated to this point has it? Unless I'm missing something as I've not been following the main thread as much as I used to.
     
  19. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    407
    Its going to be like that in a big way. Its the whole scope that Chris Roberts looks for in his games is relationships and interactions, so politicing will be a big thing I think.
     
  20. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    No, we just took a small group of players who wanted to merge in to a larger organisation solely to have the ability to play with more people because they felt they would be too small to be effective, who also offered us a TeamSpeak and forums, and told them that we think they're going to invade our group, make it feel 'different' and that basically we don't like people who aren't on Bit-Tech.

    Sorry, to me that's not exactly being nice and is pretty distrusting.

    Yes, it has moved relatively quickly, and the plan was to run this vote to the end of the week, but at this point the conclusion is obvious and even if it did pass we'd have a very large minority of people who are obstinately against, which isn't good for keeping people in the org full stop.

    Anyway, as I said, I'll abide by the group decision on this one. I'm just disappointed in the attitudes demonstrated from several quarters.
     

Share This Page