Change is needed.

But dont start with election and debating flint stuff. That is all.

This is not a legitimate revolution and neither is any leader of it if this isn't going to be democratic.

Our objective is for players who are actually playing the game to own enough shares in it to have the legal right to vote on decisions that affect game design - a system whereby playing the game incurs shares of actual, legal ownership of the company.

Players' offer is $1 (all that I am personally willing to pay).

If there is no counter-offer for the players to consider, I personally will strike and will call on all players in all galaxies to strike and to keep striking until the value of the company sinks enough that it becomes clear to Stefan that it is in his best financial interest to present us a reasonable counter offer. 

If it comes to the point where out of pure spite Stefan lets our strike continue until the actual value of the company sinks to less than $1, Stefan can sell it to someone else, whereupon we will continue our strike until a new, reasonable offer (less than one dollar) is presented by new ownership.

We insist on player ownership, so that we the players have the say on design decisions; we the players insist that the conditions of sale include certain changes to be designed into the system beforehand - certain democratic processes that will clearly and unambiguously indicate collectively determined decisions on matters of concern, the process and results of which are transparent, responsible, and accountable to all players.

No players = no game.  It's time we recognized our collective power in this regard and demonstrated it.

Again, the current offer is $1 to Stefan for 100% of voting rights.

Obviously, which is why I feel it is necessary to start this.  IC should be player-owned and directed through a democratic decision-making process.

It is the best thing for the game's business development: actually doing what the players want attracts more players and ensures its success as a business.

But for it to work, the players need to be stakeholders in the game's financial success, hence the need for player-ownership.

And why is that? 

I mean, although I thoroughly and completely disagree with you and in fact think that not only will 'my' goals be achieved but such goals being achieved is an absolutely inevitable end result of trends that are currently in full swing, not only with regards to this game community, but in regards to all communities, everywhere throughout human civilization, trends set in motion by due to the inherent moral bankruptcy of the very way in which human civilization operates and has always operated over the last 10,000 years.

But, go ahead, Arby.  Please tell me why you think 'my' goals will never be achieved (the very fact that you think they are 'my' goals shows you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, but go ahead).

You couldn't be more wrong.

If you had said this:

"Everything you are trying to accomplish is based on the fact that Stefan considers it's a pet project, it takes up minimal space on his server, and it's fun to tinker with from time to time. He doesn't make much money at all off of it, and as soon as it becomes to the point where the domain registry costs outweigh the VIP cash influx, or if he needs space on his server, then the game will be unplugged."

you would have been correct.  It is for this real reason, just as you said it, that the players should take over.  He's doing such an obviously bad job of it that it doesn't make any money; he doesn't even give a damn about it - its the same story with the way of the world economy, actually, if you think about it.

I don't know who you are referring to, Genesis, but the whole point of this thread, this Player's Revolution, is to prevent IC from dying.  Maybe Stefan loves the game, but by how it's development is happening (against the interests of its success) he isn't showing it. 

He's letting it die because the paradigm under which his business model operates is all wrong. His business model is telling him that letting it die is the most financially practical thing to do, when if he simply changed the business model, this game could make billions.

If players owned the game, and certain democratic processes were designed into the system, we would have it in our best interest to make the game a success.  At the moment, we don't, and yet Stefan is depending on the altruistic tendency of players and designers for its profits? 

That doesn't make any sense.

This game's success and development cannot depend on players' and developers sense of altruism alone.  It not only isn't feasible but it also morally reprehensible. It is essentially exploitative and demeaning to both the players and the developers.

The game's success both financially and in terms of its development depends on the game serving the players' and the developers' and best interests, financially, emotionally, etc. rather than depending their sense of altruism for Stefan's profits.

Stefan operates this game under the self-interest-only business model (the way most businesses out there operate and which is the reason for their ongoing failure) while exploiting the players' and designers' sense of altruism.

The paradigm under which this game can be a success:

Player-designer ownership through a democratic process of player participation in the design process can provide for the ongoing development of this game by appealing to both the altruistic and self-interest tendency of the player-designer.

We the players want this.  We the players will have this, because we the players have the power to make it happen.

Also, can you name any successful example that follows your guidelines? I can only imagine they are the exception and not the norm.

FC Barcelona!

This is not what I describe.  The goal here is a system whereby a democratically-determined, universally desirable progression of design enables and facilitates that which is in the customers' self-interest and fulfills their sense of altruism.

Your system is not such.  Your intention is not to provide such.  Your stated intention is to provide what Stefan wants, and by your own admission this is determined by the income it generates.  Therefore, this system you provide will inevitably fail.  Your paradigm (which is the paradigm of the majority of designers across all sectors of the economy by the way) is in a direct conflict of interest with this game's success. 

Until after a counter offer is presented by Stefan, you'll get no more information from me on this matter.  A lot of the players, however, can sense what I am talking about.  Maybe ask one of them, although I doubt they will tell you.

About the current poll:

I want to know if players have confidence in the polling system that the IC forum uses.  Can we really base our decisions on the results of polls we have here? 

Personally, I'm not sure because of many reasons:  We've had problems with multis in the past in the galaxies.  What is to stop players with multiple accounts from voting on forum polls multiple times?  Also, maybe mods have the power to fudge the stats or edit the questions?

Mods, maybe you can you shed some light on this issue?  I mean, if we the players are going to start basing our decisions on results from polls, we need to know that the poll system is legit.

Is it or isn't it?