Out of curiosity, fellas

[PotshotPolka]

I'd ransom Garfield's cat back to him for $5,000.

[Bob Loblaw]

Who would the license go to?

 

Here's the thing. We raise up enough money, we buy it, but guess what? Then we are still just SG. We won't be moving forward, and we will still have the same problems as we do now. When we don't meet the donation goal for one month? Then what? Who deals with that? The people who already paid to keep it in SG?

 

Do we cut servers? If so, you just bought a community, and killed it because while you had enough to own it, you didn't have enough to support it.

 

I have no problem at all with Amit. What you seem to be misunderstanding is it STILL IS WITHIN SG (of sorts). While we won't own it, we will do most of the decisions. Our administration is still staying in place, and as I, and Amit/Charles have said before, they won't do anything to hurt SG (if it would upset YOU GUYS, the players, they CAN'T do it, because then they lose you, and lose their investment).

 

You have to think everything through. And I mean (I would be willing to bet my bottom button it wouldn't happen but suppose it did) if Amit does ruin SG, we can rebuild among ourselves if we want..

 

Yes this is a hypothetical thread, but before trying to fix something, wait to see if it's broken (give them a chance). They have tools to help us make SG better, and have no value to gain by changing us or what we stand for.

[Zaraki]

Who would the license go to?

 

Here's the thing. We raise up enough money, we buy it, but guess what? Then we are still just SG. We won't be moving forward, and we will still have the same problems as we do now. When we don't meet the donation goal for one month? Then what? Who deals with that? The people who already paid to keep it in SG?

 

Do we cut servers? If so, you just bought a community, and killed it because while you had enough to own it, you didn't have enough to support it.

 

I have no problem at all with Amit. What you seem to be misunderstanding is it STILL IS WITHIN SG (of sorts). While we won't own it, we will do most of the decisions. Our administration is still staying in place, and as I, and Amit/Charles have said before, they won't do anything to hurt SG (if it would upset YOU GUYS, the players, they CAN'T do it, because then they lose you, and lose their investment).

 

You have to think everything through. And I mean (I would be willing to bet my bottom button it wouldn't happen but suppose it did) if Amit does ruin SG, we can rebuild among ourselves if we want..

 

Yes this is a hypothetical thread, but before trying to fix something, wait to see if it's broken (give them a chance). They have tools to help us make SG better, and have no value to gain by changing us or what we stand for.

 

Bob is right. We need to stand up and ask for advantages.

WE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR OURSELVES!

We want:

 

-Better and more servers

-Overall internet publicity

-The chance to grow further in the community in a system that's not owned by dictators

-A cb with the chance to see people through webcam (everybody lieks cams)

-New layout

-A primal overlord like Neji

-Giveaways of games and merchandise

 

 

 

Please Amit?

 

-

[PotshotPolka]

Really? I thought SG was broken because none of the countless suggestions for reforming shit ever got passed due to VB4-mania.

 

Donations not making ends meet? We were discussing the fallout of donations petering off after a year or so since only a few people would pay out big money for a while BEFORE we moved over to donations only, but that didn't matter because it got bulldozed through. It was obviously our dialectic debates that killed SG, not chronic fucking apathy from the brass.

[PotshotPolka]

Also, while we debate how we would have paid for SG, Garfield shops for a MacBook.

 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11898858&highlight=#post11898858

 

I've also read about people going with a friend who is in education and using the discount they have then the person paying for it getting it in their name.. but I'd like some official answer, I don't want to look silly walking in to the Apple Store and asking then being refused. I do have around £2500 to buy a new laptop, hopefully the 2011 model.

[Bob Loblaw]

Really? I thought SG was broken because none of the countless suggestions for reforming shit ever got passed due to VB4-mania.

 

Donations not making ends meet? We were discussing the fallout of donations petering off after a year or so since only a few people would pay out big money for a while BEFORE we moved over to donations only, but that didn't matter because it got bulldozed through. It was obviously our dialectic debates that killed SG, not chronic fucking apathy from the brass.

 

And so the fix for that is to keep it in the hands of who was doing it to begin with? Sounds counter-logical to me, but LMK how that goes if it happens.

 

Edit: I'm not trying to address the issues with SG, we all know they are there, and we know what they are. I'm saying this plan won't fix them.

[Zaraki]

As i have discussed with Saxe,

 

Why wouldn't we just get the money together to buy Steamgamers.com, divide it into capital stocks (or stockings idk) and see where we can get from there?

Theoretical, i have seen some options:

 

-The stock holders as a part of the higher ups, a new sort of Community Advisors that consider new stuff for SteamGamers and helping as much as they can, with Donators (Keep the same rank) to reach the monthly limit.

 

- The stock holders can leave SteamGamers when they want, because they can sell their share to anybody that has interest. (For example. I have 5% of SG and want to get out. MPQC wants to buy it and i bought it for 68$, so i can get 68$ for it, no more, no less. Unless people bid more for it if they want it so badly.

 

-The stock holders don't have any server powers (if they don't have admin powers already) and don't have server access, nor can they buy it.

-The President of Steamgamers could be elected from a major community vote (Reg and up can participate, but Bullet Wound can host the elections )

 

-The major concern was improvement. There can be a trust fund for SG that holds all the money from SG and is trusted to the new chosen President. The new president can't take money or make changes (only add fcourse) without permisson from the Board of Directors and the Stock holders.

 

 

This is only a theoretical idea, don't flame on me for this.

 

 

 

Thank you!

(Also sorry for the grammar)

[Chobber]

Who would the license go to?

 

Here's the thing. We raise up enough money, we buy it, but guess what? Then we are still just SG. We won't be moving forward, and we will still have the same problems as we do now. When we don't meet the donation goal for one month? Then what? Who deals with that? The people who already paid to keep it in SG?

 

Do we cut servers? If so, you just bought a community, and killed it because while you had enough to own it, you didn't have enough to support it.

 

Who the license would go to is pure formalia at this point.

 

No, we might not still be SG - you should never say never, but chances are (also from what I've heard from Amit) that we're gonna go big and venture out on new games or maybe even platforms.. Is that SG? Drastic and major changes like that?

Not saying it is gonna go bad or wrong, just saying that that it's not SG!

 

What do we do these days if we cant afford the servers? Cut them? Yes!

Not long ago we had 2 dedicated servers - now we have 1 because our popularity and our wallet wasn't big enough for it!

 

In case that SG reaches a really tough financial state, people are actually really really great at tipping in what is needed..

 

I have no problem at all with Amit. What you seem to be misunderstanding is it STILL IS WITHIN SG (of sorts). While we won't own it, we will do most of the decisions. Our administration is still staying in place, and as I, and Amit/Charles have said before, they won't do anything to hurt SG (if it would upset YOU GUYS, the players, they CAN'T do it, because then they lose you, and lose their investment).

 

Neither do I.. I sincerely hope that they won't screw up.. We will be able to do our own decisions in such a measure that it won't interfere with their business plan.. But wait, business plan? That's not normally something SG runs by!

Yes, we are the players behind a fantastic brand as it is now.. By, as stated above, venturing out on other gaming adventures we won't be those players..

If future-SG reaches 50k members the original 1000 people will only be those that laid the bricks of what branded SG - not any major source of income..

 

Also, honestly, I don't believe that they will just throw money in this and not getting anything out of it.. So whether or not they take over the control here, we will have to pay for the upkeep of the servers... If not - they're Harry Potter..

 

You have to think everything through. And I mean (I would be willing to bet my bottom button it wouldn't happen but suppose it did) if Amit does ruin SG, we can rebuild among ourselves if we want..

 

Indeed everything has to be thought through.. In general we're a loving, debating and clever society - we don't jump to conclusions of selling SG to some guys that hasn't used steam before (no offence, Amit)..

 

Yes this is a hypothetical thread, but before trying to fix something, wait to see if it's broken (give them a chance). They have tools to help us make SG better, and have no value to gain by changing us or what we stand for.

 

Funny.. I could've sworn it's easier to prevent a fire than to put one out.....

 

Also, no offence to Amit and his crew or you Bob.. Just stating the obv .. I mean .. an alternate point of view..

[floffypus]

I would give my balls for SG! i won't be needing them cuz im a HARDCORE gamer

[Dracula]

No support