As requested at the semi-official BBQ meeting, I have been back in contact with STAR regarding the Alliance. This is their current version of their articles.
[pdf]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2805949/Star%20Citizen/STAR-GoverningArticles.pdf[/pdf]
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/STAR
Terms have not changed since initial discussions earlier in the year. They remain committed to working together and still ban piracy. They have no intention of changing either.
Reminder: STAR run the Reddit Star Hangar ship sale group. You'll recognise a lot of names in the org from their Reddit names.
Currently have 9 member orgs:
[TBSI] Black Star Initiative (204)
[SGHQ] Sturmgrenadier (167)
[BFFC] Babylon For Free Constellation (36)
[ZARODINU] ЛЕÐ"ИОР“ЗРРОÐ"ИÐУ†(126)
[INTN] Intelligence Industries (232)
[FOFF] Fork Off (73)
[BNMC] Black Nova Mining Corporation (14)
[BURNED] Burned Renegades (24)
[BLUETOPIA] Bluetopia Network (15)
STAR post that they "have one of the largest capital fleets in the game with 12 Javelins and 40+ Idris in addition to great camaraderie!"
The other org I posted about, PACT (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/PACTINIT) are generally not taking on orgs with less than 500 people. However, STAR describe PACT as not an alliance but a treaty, therefore STAR have no issue with people being members of STAR and signatories to the PACT treaty. STAR maintain good relationships with both Imperium and TA who are key players in the PACT group. More info is here: https://www.pact-sc.org. I have a discussion booked with Ephrain (their currently elected bossman) tomorrow afternoon and will report back.
In the mean time, if you agree with the STAR option for the moment, please post your YEAH in this thread. As before, we can bail at any time if we do not like it.
Happy to persue this line. Thanks TL.
Thumbs up from me.
Meeting with [SUN]Tannhauser/Ephrain today. His role with PACT is the admin and membership enquiries.
Tann is an american chap in his mid-thirties, PACT council members range in age in a similar way to dMw (ie from late teens to fifties), but with a common thread of maturity. The chap who held the PACT admin role previously was a retired USN officer, so they have a wide range of membership ages within the member groups.
PACT is a not an alliance, it is a voluntary mutual defence treaty. Voluntary because you do not have to go on ops. They focus on:
- No piracy.
- Not supporting any alien faction which has hostile intent towards humanity.
- No wars between members.
- To provide relief to fellow PACT signatories where they are in distress or grave danger.
Current signatories (https://www.pact-sc.org/viewpage.php?page_id=5) to the PACT treaty are:
Imperium (3831)
Systems United Navy (393)
Eternal Vigilance (66)
Association of Capitalists, Explorers and Soldiers (350)
Terran Colonial Forces (39)
Tiberium Corporation (22)
The 19th Corporation (44)
The Horsemen (17)
PMC Quasar (215)
BROADSIDE (10)
Tactical Advance (1053)
Intergalactic Trading Corporation (616)
As you can see, the range of org sizes is pretty big, but closer to ours than the average suggests! Time zone coverage is also pretty complete, with only the far east asia not covered.
They operate a council, with voting rules (https://www.pact-sc.org/viewpage.php?page_id=4). Each member org gets one vote, but they try to operate by consensus. Meetings tend to be once per month on a Friday night at 2200 or 2300 UTC (depending on daylight saving time etc). Additional meetings might be called if action on something is needed.
There will inevitably be some PACT ops but it is voluntary. However they would look for some kind of activity level and support on ops as there is no point them allowing people to join PACT, gain the benefit of the protection but then not contribute to the defence of other members. He said nothing is cast in stone at the moment, but said "e.g. we might ask for someone to show up to 50+% of ops".
Finances seem to be fairly simple. If you put 75% of the money into an op, then you would be getting 75% of the tail end. As PACT does not really exist within game, there is no overhead to support other than what you do.
Membership process: they provide a questionnaire for us to fill in, we spend a period of time discussing the answers we give (and any follow-up questions). Eventually we get to a position where we get called to a council meeting (we can bring more than one rep if we want) and discuss with the group on TS. Once everyone has had their questions answered they go away and vote on whether to grant membership. If accepted as a signatory you are immediately a full member of PACT with according voting rights etc.
Quote from: PACT questionsGeneral Information:
When was your organization founded?
How many members do you currently have?
What is your primary focus as an organization?
What are your long-term goals as an organization?
Are you active in games other than Star Citizen?
Philosophy and Policies:
What is your policy on multiple accounts/alternate characters?
What is your policy on membership? I.e. are your members allowed to have dual memberships with other organizations?
What is your policy on "military intelligence", and how does your organization define that term?
Interest in PACT:
How did you learn of PACT?
Why are you interested in PACT membership?
What do you hope to gain through PACT membership?
What would PACT gain through your membership?
PACT & STAR: his view was that being a member of both *might* work, but that it was unlikely as they want to avoid conflicts or pulling other alliances into war. E.g. If you have a conflict of interest would your priorities lie with PACT or your alliance? Being a member of just one seemed a better solution.
My 2 cents:
I quite like this one now that I have spoken to their rep. In fact I'm more tempted by PACT than I am by STAR and am of the opinion that we'd get more benefit and keep more control by signing up with PACT than we would from joining STAR.
Your thoughts please chaps?
Edit: my earlier post said that PACT do not take orgs with less than 500 people, this was info provided by STAR and clearly is not the case. PACT's minimum is actually 25 and they have some that are lower than that.
Interesting stuff and a new direction to consider.
Could we have a TS session to discuss? Much easier than trying to do it here.
On TS now if anyone want to join.
A good link to PACT policies:
https://www.pact-sc.org/faq.php?cat_id=3
Had a good briefing from TL and I am more inclined to go the PACT route.
I love their ethos (no piracy, maturity etc.) and the simplicity of what it is they offer and how we would be expected to contribute.
I obviously have a lot less information than TL but I am immediately struck by the fact that the first two Organisations mentioned have 3000+ and 300+ members. I cannot see how any Organisation with those kind of numbers can run a meaningful group/clan/guild. That scares me somewhat.
Quote from: smilodon;401946I obviously have a lot less information than TL but I am immediately struck by the fact that the first two Organisations mentioned have 3000+ and 300+ members. I cannot see how any Organisation with those kind of numbers can run a meaningful group/clan/guild. That scares me somewhat.
It's not actually that bad - remember the 10% rule!... Depending upon timezone coverage, an org can really only expect maybe 10% of its membership to be online on any given night. There may be more on a CTA or on the run up to a CTA when logistics are require to move equipment into place for an op, but 10% is usually considered 'good'.
That, and the fact that these large orgs tend to have a pidgeon-hole policy where people sign up to be part of a particular division. A bit contentious in my view considering we don't really know much about the gameplay at this point, but it allows the membership to be broken down into manageable chunks under the control of one or two leaders.
Besides, this is still pre-alpha, and we still don't have any proper org tools or alliance tools, and many people have simply joined the first or the biggest org they can find. I expect, long before we go live, that many of these large orgs will splinter and some will simply implode (remember Blue Horizon?) before we cross the finishing line.
Funnily enough, the list of signatories for PACT contains many of the orgs I shortlisted to join before I found smd joined dMw :)
My point is that there cannot be any kind of quality control when you have hundreds or thousands of members. You recruit, they sign up, they're in! Which is the complete opposite to the way dMw works. It makes a clear statement about the leaders of the guild in question "we'll take anyone, no QA involved."
That's not a group that if feel much affinity for. That being said I'm not playing SC at all anymore or really following the development either, I've pretty much lost interest in it at the moment. So I'm probably not best placed to voice a strong opinion. If TL feels that they are the best option then I defer to his wisdom :D
Ah, I see where you're coming from now.
Yes, you have a point, especially with the way things are at the moment with regards to the development and the lack of proper org tools, and many orgs are simply on a feeding frenzy of recruitment simply to lay claim to being the largest around.
I believe that that will all change when the PU goes live and people start interacting with each other for real. I predict that not only will many of the members of these huge orgs jump ship and join other, but there will also be a culling as individuals' true intentions come to the fore and the leadership determine who they believe to be the 'bad apples'.
I also anticipate that orgs will start to employ more rigorous QA approach to recruitment, especially if espionage and org theft is going to be a thing (and it looks like it will), so orgs will not only want to recruit quality personnel for specific roles, but will also want to protect their assets and org info such as supply routes, private contracts and treaties, etc. And will want to root out spies wherever possible.
At the moment, this far out from going live, it simply doesn't matter who you have in your org, as long as they're not being a dick of the forums and giving the org a bad name. There's no point worrying about quality right now as there's not really anything to judge quality on, so you're left with quantity. At least if you start with a largish group you can pick and choose who the leaders will be, who the core loyal troops are going to be, etc. People who then show that they're not such a good fit can simply be asked politely to leave or not invited to org ops until they either get the hint or simply get bored and leave. There's all sorts of ways to handle it, really.
Ive been in corps in EVE with thousands of members, and each and every one has been vetted and approved before being allowed to join. And then they start with a low rank with limited permissions and roles for a period until they have proven their worth, and even then have to show commitment before they are moved up the ladder. This is all accepted as part of the culture and I anticipate it being the same in SC.
Bottom line, don't let the numbers or the topic of QA foil you: they don't matter right now and by the time they do matter, things will be under a lot tighter control.
+1 to what Obsydian wrote.
The only question that raised its head overnight for me was 'what do we want from an alliance'. Yesterday the bit that I thought we wanted was the mutual defence agreement. Overnight I thought more about whether or not there were other aspects of the game that we would want:
Quote from: STARSTAR Alliance is an alliance with multiple STAR branches handling every aspect of the game:
STAR Forces
STAR Navy
STAR Army
Recon Service
Exploration
STAR Industries
Production
Mining
STAR Logistics
Transport
Special Transport
Secure Transport
STAR Finance
Trade
Bank
Marketplace
Lottery
STAR Sports
Racing
Arena Commander
STAR Diplomacy
Diplomatic Corps
Human Resources
Each branch is run by specialists who know exactly what they are doing and how to accomplish the mission in the best and most efficient way!
I'm not sure that we will need help with all of these, or indeed even with a majority. I'm also worried that as the structure gets ever more complex, that we get closer to having to pigeon hole our org members and what we do. This was one of the factors that led me to prefer the PACT simplicity, it provides a mutual defence agreement and we can then work on coop with whomever we want. So my conclusion was that for me personally, at this stage, the important thing is the defence treaty, not the ability to be part of an alliance that ran a lottery!
The STAR finance also began to worry me more once I had seen the simplicity of the PACT system. Iirc they are talking about STAR ops having profits returned to STAR, with a % going to the STAR Council for global objectives, the remainder going to STAR Division & Bracnh leaders for them to spend as they saw fit within their area. The more I thought about it, the more I thought this would be a mess.
This then led to to assess the sheer size of the proposed STAR offering. When we first discussed with them it had (iirc) 5 divisions, which has now been broken down into many smaller branches with branch leaders, division leaders and council. I'm not sure they have the numbers to support this structure and the management overhead must be pretty huge in my humble guesstimation.
So, that's a little more about why I changed my mind and concluded PACT might be better for us than STAR. Keep in mind, we might not even get into PACT, so STAR might still be the option we end up with.
So the conclusion is?Btw, some of the PACT questions are simply a 'have you searched through and read everything on our website' questions as the answers are often in there. Sort of like our 'WoW application test'. It amused me!
I still see PACT as the best fit as things stand. A division-based alliance might suit us better when game mechanics are better known but for now I like the idea that we can call upon much larger orgs to aid in our endeavourrs.
Unless I am badly mistaken, can I assume we're all agreed to apply to PACT in the first instance (we might not even get in!)? If so, here's a draft application form which I started completing.
Please can I ask everyone to review and input used google's 'SUGGESTING' edit mode (click the pencil top right) to add your suggested changes or insertions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MiuuC6rckKqQeehzDXEtS5V2J6nMYaquMZaCHyfXuh8/edit?usp=sharing
Thank you!
Quote from: OldBloke;402057I still see PACT as the best fit as things stand. A division-based alliance might suit us better when game mechanics are better known but for now I like the idea that we can call upon much larger orgs to aid in our endeavourrs.
Yep, completely agree.
Document is 'view only' for me (no 'Suggesting'). I've requested the ability to edit.
I need to add edit rights, sorry. Adding them now, you should all be good to edit in next few mins.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Made a few suggestions. Now off out.
PACT application submitted via email. Pdf of the application is attached and the above google docs link is the original document. Careful wording has been used in places to make sure it aligns with their policies, so be aware!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3343[/ATTACH]
Nice job there, TeaLeaf!
Thanks! Oldie helped me tidy it up last night and finalise it, so I'll share the credit! :biggrin:
Yup looks great guys well done
Sent from my Nexus 5
PACT app is on hold whilst they sort out this unbelievable situation!
QuoteGood morning, Tealeaf.
I will preface this with an apology - what I'm going to say is somewhat stupid.
PACT was sent a copyright claim over the weekend while I was working my event. The individual in question proposed our logo and the original text of the Treaty almost three years ago. His organization left PACT two years ago and he hadn't been heard of since - we, of course, carried on regardless.
Since Star Citizen is a game (or so we keep telling ourselves) our Treaty is technically an artistic work of fiction. We felt it best to simply remove all of this individual's contributions so that we don't have to deal with him any longer.
We'll be re-writing the Treaty over the next week or so. Functionally it will not change - in fact, it will better explain who we are and how we work, as we won't be bound to the old format. I would still recommend that DMW temporarily holds their application until you read the new version. I think that you will be happy with it, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
In the meantime, I've taken down the old version of the Treaty. I can provide you a copy if you'd like one for reference.
Again, I apologize for this. Communicating with IP lawyers regarding my Star Citizen hobby was the last thing I expected for my Sunday afternoon.
Sincerely,
Ephraim
Wow! Crazy.
Quote from: OldBloke;403148Wow! Crazy.
Well, we've had exactly the same from some members who wanted to leave no trace of their DMW presence. I remember three in particular, the only thing missing was the lawyer.
Quote from: TeaLeaf;403149Well, we've had exactly the same from some members who wanted to leave no trace of their DMW presence. I remember three in particular, the only thing missing was the lawyer.
/me shudders
/facepalm
Don't you just love the internet?
Ok, they have drafted and are voting on the PACT agreement. This is draft and in confidence, their vote will not finish until 28th September, but is not expected to change.
Draft attached for early consideration.
[pdf]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2805949/Star%20Citizen/PACT%20Agreement.pdf[/pdf]
...and the final version is on the website. We ought to read it I guess to make sure it is still as was and then let them know we want to go ahead with our application.
I may not get a chance to check through it until the LAN, so if someone else can then so much the better!
https://www.pact-sc.org/viewpage.php?page_id=23
Joining PACT will have some administrative requirements from us, which I assume isn't an issue, but will also affect the play style and actions of our own members in the following way:
- Don't attack or be nasty to other PACT members. Sort things out diplomatically.
- We need to define 'Exclusive membership' withing our Org and PACT what that means and then enforce it within dMw.
- No piracy. No mindless ganking, griefing or general naughtiness.
- Look out for and where possible help other PACT members who are getting shot up unless doing so would get you killed.
So our membership of PACT will effectively be saying to dMw members "If you want to play SC and you want to play in the dMw then these are things you can and cannot do". I don't see an issue with that but as it will directly impact on everyone's play style maybe we should give everyone a heads up as to what will be involved, what the pluses and minuses are.
Quote from: smilodon;404720... So our membership of PACT will effectively be saying to dMw members "If you want to play SC and you want to play in the dMw then these are things you can and cannot do".
In a nutshell it says 'Play SC the dMw way'. Their rules echo our ethos pretty well, IMHO.
The admin requirements fall on me (as you bar-stewards voted it to me at the BBQ). :narnar:
Nothing in the treaty has changed substantively so far as I can tell (I found time to read it this morning during my cup of tea). I've sent back a couple of spelling errors, but other than that the intent has not changed since the last version we all agreed on.
I don't see a problem with letting members know, especially as it aligns with the way we want our organisation to run, so it should not be a problem. We've already said (prior to STAR/PACT) that we don't want piracy, we don't want ganking etc, so it's not really that different.
The exclusive membership is already pretty much what we do - we want people to represent dMw, but not so strictly that we would exclude membership of another org that was e.g. a small group of friends, or 'club' (e.g. Idris Owner's Club) or a non-PU group (e.g. the SC Meetup Group). Do we need to define it beyond that?
Edit: Oldie posted whilst I was typing and he said it in a much more succinct way! +1 to his comments!
Yeah, I had a quick read through at lunch today and it doesn't look any different to me (but then my memory isn't that good!), so it's a +1 from me, too.
Probably the thing to think about and make clear to the rank and file is that membership of PACT has gameplay requirements
1. Anyone who wants to play SC under the dMW banner 'must not' attack PACT members, so should be aware of who they are (keep a list).
2. Don't roll a Pirate or do pirate like stuff.
If you do either of these things then either don't join the dMw Organisation or expect to get sent into the naughty corner.
Quote from: smilodon;404746Probably the thing to think about and make clear to the rank and file is that membership of PACT has gameplay requirements
1. Anyone who wants to play SC under the dMW banner 'must not' attack PACT members, so should be aware of who they are (keep a list).
2. Don't roll a Pirate or do pirate like stuff.
If you do either of these things then either don't join the dMw Organisation or expect to get sent into the naughty corner.
#2 is already on our org page, so it is out there already.
On the basis of the above I gave the go ahead to Ephraim to proceed with our PACT app.
Excellent!
I followed up with Ephraim to get some timescales. Here is the email chain which I hope everyone is ok with in terms of the language used.
(apologies to our golden leader, Smilodon, as I mentioned Oldbloke in my last email as that was who I had talked to Ephraim about during our initial conversations. No offence intended!)QuoteOn Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Tealeaf wrote:
Hi Ephraim
I'm not chasing, just trying to ascertain the timescale that the process (member questions for us, then the TS meeting etc) usually takes and when a meeting then might be. If there's no clear answer then that's fine, but it would be nice to know roughly what the timescale usually is so that I can tell the other board members of the org when to expect something!
Any info you have would be good!
Many thanks.
Regards
Tealeaf
Dead Men Walking
QuoteOn 21 October 2015 at 19:03, PACT Administrator wrote:
Chasing is perfectly acceptable!
So far, feedback has been positive. There have been requests for clarification on two points:
1) What is your stance on piracy?
2) What is your ideal alliance approach/structure?
I know the two of us have talked about the first, but a few Representatives would like to hear your own words on the matter. The second is a bit nebulous, and has to do with the fact that PACT doesn't operate like your typical "hard" alliance. The Council wants to be sure that both our viewpoints align. You can answer either questions here, or wait for your in-person Q&A meeting.
Speaking of meetings, the next PACT meeting will be next Friday, 30 October at 2200 UTC. I'll let you know by the end of the day tomorrow if I can get you on the agenda - we have a lot to discuss, and I want to be sure that you get a proper amount of attention.
Barring that, you'll definitely be invited to the following meeting. With the switch in Daylight Savings Time, we're moving to the last Saturday of the month at 1200 UTC. This would be Saturday, 28 November. We usually skip December due to the holidays.
Thank you very much for your patience!
Ephraim
QuoteHi Ephraim
In answer to the two questions:
We did state twice in our application that piracy is not allowed and we do not support it. Primarily, piracy goes against dMw's own community principles, not just PACT's.
- We don't have an ideal structure in mind for an alliance, there are and will be many that would work well, so setting arbitrary restrictions on structure would be counter-productive. We look more for qualities that align with our own principles and beliefs. Quoting from our website landing page (referred to in our application):
“Dead Men Walking is a long *established multi*gaming community with an excellent reputation for fair play, mature attitude and teamwork. Established in 1996 our continuing mission is to provide a home for PC gamers who recognise that achieving success as part of a team is far more rewarding than racking up individual scores. Quite simply, frag*hunters, lone wolves, griefers, cheats and the plain selfish will not fit in here.â€
The key to our approach is the first and last sentence of that paragraph. If an alliance supports fair play, operates with a mature attitude and respects teamwork then we're interested. Another way of putting it would be to ask yourself:
What would I do to help my best friend?
Our answer to that question would be that we'd be there to help and stand with them in their hour of need. Unless we're mistaken, we interpret PACT as that kind of alliance.
Alongside the mutual defence aspect, we'd hope that within an Alliance there was opportunity to participate in operations with other Alliance members. Our community loves tactical & teamwork, that doesn't mean it has to be military action, it might be sharing the exploration of a sector of space etc. The fact that as individuals our members own such a high number of multicrew ships should tell you how much we want to work with others on projects or missions.[/list]
Hopefully that tells you what we look for in an Alliance, but please feel free to ask more questions if you need more info.
If we get invited to a meeting with PACT members, I'd hope to be able to bring along Oldbloke, who like me has been a member of Dead Men Walking for almost 20 years. Oldbloke and I are both Board members of our Star citizen org, but we also ran the dMw community together as Head Admins for over 10 years, so we know each other and our joint ethos very well and have grown our membership with these same ethics since dMw first started back in the 1990's.
I hope that this answers your questions, but feel free to fire more back at me Ephraim if additional clarification is sought.
I'll wait to hear from you.
Regards
Tealeaf
Dead Men Walking
Invite accepted.
Thanks for leading on this, Paul. Shame they don't appear to read what we send them :sideways:
Quote from: OldBloke;405431Invite accepted.
Thanks for leading on this, Paul. Shame they don't appear to read what we send them :sideways:
I suspect most of them did (as sort of indicated by Ephraim), but there's always someone 'special' who needs a prompt!
November it will be.
QuoteHi Tealeaf!
I've passed your answers on. I don't have any further for you at the moment - I'll keep prodding the Council along.
We do have an overflowing agenda for this month's meeting, so I'll schedule you for November. I'll be sure to send you a reminder the week of, with the login information for our TS server. Oldbloke is welcome as well!
Thank you,
Ephraim
Calendar invite sent out to Obsydian & Smilo for the online/TS meeting with members of the PACT council at 1300 UTC/GMT on 21/11. Hopefully one of you will be about to support me at the meeting as Oldie is on holiday that day!
I'm dependent upon the wife's schedule that day and may not be around (we may be visiting her mother!), but I'll try to be there if I can squeeze it in before we leave.
TS details for the meeting. Fingers crossed for either Paul or Greg to be available to accompany me.
QuoteHello Tealeaf!
Our meeting is just around the corner! As I mentioned earlier, we're scheduled for this Saturday, 21 November at 1300 UTC. Here are our TeamSpeak credentials:
Address: voip.systemsunitednavy.com:9987
Password: dmwguest
I'll try to be online and available an hour prior to our meeting. If you run into any technical issues, please let me know ASAP and I'll get you sorted.
Thank you very much!
Ephraim
Quote from: TeaLeaf;406120TS details for the meeting. Fingers crossed for either Paul or Greg to be available to accompany me.
Apologies I forgot to confirm. This is me confirming. :D
Do we need to have a pre meeting meeting? For what it's worth I'm working in Letchworth on Friday if we fancy making the meeting a face to face, over a pint sort of meeting. If not maybe TS before hand?
You are welcome to drop in if you want Greg, but a TS chat on our server beforehand would suffice. Letchworth to MK is not exactly a short journey!
Picking up on Paul's post in the Pilot's Lounge, the choice of our home system is an excellent question to ask PACT. There's little point in being in a system which is out of reach of other PACT members, so we need to collaborate.
Tealeaf and I just finished up our meeting/interview with the guys from PACT. We were on for a little over an hour and it went extremely well. Most importantly of all they all seemed like really nice people who's approach to gaming fit in very neatly with our own. Personally I'm sure that our two groups will fit together perfectly.
Their rules require them to vote on our application and for us to get a 75% positive vote. They will have the vote up for a week so by next weekend we should know if we're in. It's not done till it's done but as mentioned the meeting went extremely well and I think we stand a very good chance of being accepted. As importantly PACT passed our test as well and are definitely a group we can become a part of without compromising our own values and ideas.
Thanks for doing this guys, and I offer my apologies for not being able to make the meeting: as I expected we had to go and visit my mother in law!
It sounds very positive and hope to be able to help out with this in future.
Thanks to you both. Did anything they say give you any clue as to where we should think about calling 'home'?
I forgot to ask, but I reckon we can talk to them about it next week when we're in. [emoji14]
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
One of the things they did mention at the meeting was Imperium's in-game tool. Apparently RSI have already told Imperium that the in-game will not (at launch or some some while afterwards) support the sort of fleet of fleet control they anticipate needing, so they have designed and made their own to allow coordination across groups that are collaborating. We said that in principle we have no problems using such a tool and are interested in seeing what it can do. Chimaera (the Imperium ambassador to PACT) said that he would be happy to show us the tool, so with this in mind I have set up an account (for me) on starcitizenbase.com and sent him a PM there to see about getting access so we can assess it..
It might be a seriously helpful addition to the game and once I get a response and some info I'll report back.
In the mean time, if you do set up an account there, could I ask you to preface your forum account name with 'dMw' for identification purposes please? E.g. my account is 'dMwTealeaf'.
Thankee kindly! :worship:
Nope wasn't discussed. Also nothing mentioned on the PACT website so I don't think it's been decided as yet. Once we're in we can raise the question.
I do know that the plan for Imperium, which is a huge Organisation, is to quickly carve out a home of their own somewhere in 'low sec' (fringe) space. As members of PACT I'm assuming we would have clearance to travel through their space and would be given protection by their members (reciprocal by us) while we were in or near their territory. We'd also most likely trade with them as well in whatever way the game allows. It might make sense to locate somewhere near to their location, so we could take advantage of this?
One other thought is we'll need to provide our Star Citizen dMw Logo and decide what our full name will be. Are we going to be Deadmen Walking Heavy Industries and Novelty Goods Co. or dMw Conglomerates or Deadmen Independent Traders or what? :D
From Ephraim/Tannhauser (received Sunday)
QuoteHello Tealeaf!
I wanted to thank you again for attending our Summit yesterday. I could tell that everyone enjoyed getting to know you and smilodon, and I think our discussion was very productive! The vote on your membership application has opened and I'll have a result no later than next Saturday. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
We usually take December off, due to busy personal schedules surrounding the holidays, so our next official meeting will be in January. The majority of our inter-meeting discussions takes place on our forum. If accepted, I'll create accounts for you and your Deputy Representative so you can join in. If anything important comes up I'll schedule a special meeting to discuss. Don't hesitate to reach out with any questions or problems in the meantime!
Ephraim
And we're in.
QuoteGood morning, Tealeaf!
I had one Representative turn in a vote at the buzzer, but voting has now concluded. The results were unanimously in your favor - congratulations on becoming our newest Signatory!
We can begin your onboarding whenever you're ready. I'll need a few items:
I'll need the names and email addresses of your preferred Representative and Deputy Representative. I'll have both added to our email list and will create accounts on our forum.
Please review our Signatory page. Clicking on a logo opens a personalized page for each member organization. I'll be creating a similar page for your organization. Either you can provide text of your own, or I can write one for you. If you would like your TS server included in the list of links, please provide the address and guest credentials. Otherwise, I'll stick with your RSI Org and forum page.
Please provide a copy of DMW's logo. Preferably at least 500x500 with a transparent background.
There's no rush on any of this. Once your Signatory page is created, I'll draft an announcement and will update our website and RSI Org accordingly. You and your members are invited to join that RSI Org (PACTINIT) - simply have them include a mention that they're with DMW in their application.
I have to run to a meeting in a few hours, but I can meet you in TeamSpeak in the near future to explain some details of how we operate during and outside of our meetings.
We'll need to draw up our own plan for announcement, the 'cleaning' of our membership and logos etc. I've told Ephraim that I'll try to catch up with him during the week.
Great work guys well done
Sent from my Nexus 5
Excellent news! Good work guys.