rheda wrote:
In case ryzom.org got control over Ryzom, there's no intention on exploiting a server commercially. The aim of the project is to create a robust paid service in a non-lucrative way. There's no point on thinking some want your money. Read again the info on the webpage, and pay attention to the social contract, please.
I did. Several times. This is the part that, imho, needs detailed, elaborated explanation and has changed significantly, to the point of having an internal vote within the project and offering players to withdraw their pledges if they do not agree. What you say is how I conceived the project initially. This was the project I was curious in.
This started to be taken with a grain of salt when the non-profit community based association became a third of the recently founded SAS, with 2 new "for profit" investors, "after internal discussions where we agreed the non-profit organization was not realistic and unable to raise enough founds". You say "non-lucrative", uhm, I don't see where. One of the three partners is. You state "there is no point in thinking soem want your money", well, to me, investors, SAS, profit, etc. they tend to imply another thing.
The non-lucrative goal is to be examinated, for in the written "statuts" (written by the partners themselves, maybe from a "template" yes, but I no longer believe in the "non-lucrative" sorry) where it is clearly stated that the "elected" -- by shareholders weight of course -- president can have a salary proportional to the profit or "CA". This is no legalese or law, this is a paragraph written by whoever wrote that document. The social contract is constrained by the will of the two shareholders "but there is no reason to worry", and the community has no vetoing options.
The presented budget was marked as unreliable and unfinished, being a an improved one finished and kept secret till late for strategic purposes. I may stand corrected if this changes. For the time being, I have *no* guarantee that it is non-lucrative. When a player stated there that they may reduce the subscription if there was profit, the subsequent posts stated that this will be clarified later.
When someone answer me the following questions clearly:
1) Will the money of subscriptions invested fully in full time developers, servers and hosting, billing outsourcing and similar costs, or is it at the discretion of share-holders?
2) Can we expect full transparency in this too, including subscribers numbers, operating costs and basically the "CA"? Isn't the original Social contract a bit subject to Shareholders discretion?
3) What's the point in being a non profit organization if you represent (grossly) a third of the capital?
_then_ I'll believe what you say. Maybe it's true, but I am reluctant. I am not saying it is a scam, or that they are lying or have hidden agendas, not at all, just pointing out that I cannot take it "for granted" with legally binding guarantees. It's simple: do you honestly think that the two investors would put (grossly guesstimate by capital shares and weight) 150k Euros to have a non-profit operation of the service?
