Should STF form an alliance with Alpha Quadrant sim group? Follow-up.

Our member count is consitantly declining, as has been shown in the PDept reports and monthly Census. The reasons for this are most likely varied, but it is clear that it is something we need to address and stop if we want to continue supporting the amount of ships we currently have. Given the most recent reaction to the Paladin's decomission, I suspect most people would agree with me on the above.

History

As you can see in the Command Log, we discussed the prospect of having diplomatic relations with another club, the AQSG, earlier this term. It was generally decided that we weren't ready to jump into a formal agreement with them yet, but that we'd like to try a banner exchange first.

Well, the banner exchange was tried. Discussions were discussed, and in the end, they're holding up their end of the bargin and being cool people.

My conclusion is that this trial period is passed with a success.

Proposal

The proposal is rather simple, and all the work is done: Formalize our relationship with the AQSG in an alliance. The paperwork is written, the name of the alliance chosen, all we need is a general consensus from the club.

An Executive Assistant position would be created, titled Star Fleet Diplomat, who would be charged with maintaining this relationship.

Discussion

There are many things we need to do to address our membership problems, and I believe this is a solid first step in doing so. Primarily, we need to establish ourselves in the internet gaming community by advertising and joining with other reputable groups to promote the activity. This is the first step in doing that. We become founders of something that could become very large and prosperous (in terms of membership), while paying for it with nothing but our support. If at any time we wish to withdraw, we can simply by saying so.

In terms of a cost/benefit analysis, our cost is the time we invest on the alliance. Thus far, the time investment has been minimal, and I do not forsee that escilating very much if at all. What do we gain? Most obviously, we gain an ally. Two heads are better than one... the AQSG has a unique perspective, but is a group that is very similar to our own. The Alliance would afford them absolutely NO governmental or political rights in our club... infact they don't even get member accounts unless they join like any other member. What we gain is friendship and an opportunity to expand our name in the internet RPG world, and thus hopefully bring in some new members.

In the future, this could expand to joint projects and ventures, but for now, we're just looking to formalize a friendship. We'd like to move up the next step of testing the waters with this group, and I believe we could only benefit from it.

Minutes

1. Jared Kowalewski: Requested more information about what the next step would be.
2. Jen Herr: Responded to Jared, explaining that resources and membership would be shared and encouraged between the two clubs.
3. Chris Jones: Asked by what terms we considered the banner exchange a success.
4. Edgar Cramer: Clarified on the meaning of a "banner exchange". Proposed establishing relations with Ajje Games, where he is part of the government.
5. Symon Silvester: Asked by what terms we consider the banner exchange a success. Seconded Edgar's proposal of a banner exchange with SFHQ.
6. Therle Dregansky: Pointed out the location of STF's banner on AQSG's site.
7. Therle Dregansky: Disagreed with Edgar and Symon's proposal based on SFHQ philosophy concerns.
8. Symon Silvester: Requested more information about Therle's concerns and provided more benefits to an exchange with SFHQ.
9. Brandon Irvine: Agreed with Symon.
10. Jen Herr: Responded to Chris' concerns, emphasizing that it's just an alliance, not a merger of any sort.
11. Jen Herr: Responded to Edgar's concerns, showing where the STF banner is on AQSG's site. Turned down offer of banner exchange with SFHQ.
12./13./14. Jen Herr: Responded to Symon's and Brandon's posts, providing reasons that the exchange was successful. Explained there's not enough time in the term to discuss an exchange with SFHQ.
15. Chris Jones: Questioned further as to how the banner exchange is considered a success. Questioned what the club can do for STF and whether or not a formal agreement is necessary.
16. Edgar Cramer: Provided data to support a banner exchange between STF and Ajje Games.
17. Therle Dregansky: Disagreed with data provided by Edgar Cramer.
18. Edgar Cramer: Reiteration of banner exchange offer.
19. Symon Silvester: Rebuttal to Therle Dregansky.
20. Catt Bennett: Rebuttal to Therle Dregansky.
21. Jack Dipper: Poses questions regarding the resources committed to the alliance, as well as the paperwork involved.
22./23. Therle Dregansky: Rebuttal to Edgar Cramer, Symon Silvester.
24./25./26./27. Symon Silvester and Therle Dregansky: Responses to one another about club loyalty.
28. Jen Herr: Steers discussion back on track. No resources committed. Poses idea of open house.
29. David Wonderly: Questions about obligations to promote clubs.
30. Amanda Noon: Poses question about why a banner exchance turns into an alliance.
31./32. Larry Garfield: Offers legal perspective on sharing of resources under STF's TOS. Poses question regarding the difference between a banner exchange, an alliance, and a webring.
33./35./36. Jen Herr: Clarifies that this is just a formal friendship.
34. Jen Herr: Provides document regarding alliance.
37. Amanda Noon: Questions why a banner exchange needs such a document.
38. Brandon Irvine: Asks for clarification regarding restrictions on RPGs that can be created in a club.
39. Jen Herr: Clarifies that we just can't create a PBeM or IRC sim if there's already one in the alliance.
40. Jen Herr: Responds that it's not a complex document for an alliance.
41. Symon Silvester: Asks if restrictions will prohibit the alliance's expansion.
42. Jen Herr: Responds that we're not just tied to this alliance.
43. Amanda Noon: Asks what STF will gain from such a formal relationship.
44. Robert Gulley: Agrees with the idea of an alliance, but disagrees with the terms set.
45. Symon Silvester: Raises the question of how to administer many different little alliances.
46. Jen Herr: I'd like to thank everyone that asked questions and gave input to this idea. It is my fault that we ran out of time for this discussion, but I do highly recommend to Sarah that we continue next month. I do in my heart believe this is a good idea and that we should persue it, but I do understand people's concerns and reservations.

Therefore, I am closing this discussion, and I highly recommend that Sarah reopens it and considers a trial period with this proposal. We need some friends out there, and there is nothing about this deal that could hurt us. :)

Thank you again to all who participated, your voices were heard.

Jen

--Jen Herr

Prev	Up
Should STF form an alliance with Alpha Quadrant sim group?	Home