Home› The Bridge

DDM

DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
in The Bridge
Hello,

Taking the emotion out of things, I feel the need to discuss the strategy that the Alliance has undertaken and why we've taken the approach we have.

I'll start by saying I'm commuting right now, so won't be able to reply quickly, but I'm happy to field questions should people have them?

Full disclosure, I'm a relatively new member of DDM, but I actually support what's going on.

Why, I hear you ask?

Well, from where I am, we've generally targeted fleets where the Admiral and several Officers/SL's have been inactive for significant periods. We've also found fleets where ordinary users are online regularly but the leadership is not. That's not conducive to performance in events. I'm F2P and it's so important to have regular contact and leadership (and shared crew) from the more experienced players.

Happy to field questions, but would rather people refrain from starting a flame war.

Thanks,
D
«1345

Comments

  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    No. And the reason they weren't enough was because there was too much emotional baggage attached. I'd like to discuss it civilly.
  • Prime LorcaPrime Lorca ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dazlaaaaa wrote: »
    No. And the reason they weren't enough was because there was too much emotional baggage attached. I'd like to discuss it civilly.

    Show me evidence that DDM is engaging active members of the fleet before taking over.
    Farewell 🖖
  • Navarch Navarch ✭✭✭✭✭
    I’ll play: Why do you believe it’s appropriate to make this move without the consent of the existing leadership/membership?
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    Prime Lorca [10FH] wrote: »
    The accusation is that active members of the fleet are kicked out. If that is happening, then you are exploiting a hole in the system. You should cease and desist. If you are not joining the fleet and engaging active members, then you are doing it wrong.

    Also, you are perpetuating a flame war. You have cleared up nothing.

    OK - I'm really not perpetuating anything. You've raised a query about kicking actives.

    To the best of my knowledge, we haven't kicked any active fleet members. It doesn't make sense. We want active members to stay and contribute. We run a fairly standard rule about activity levels and its far less onerous than I'd actually like.

    Does that make sense?
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    Navarch wrote: »
    I’ll play: Why do you believe it’s appropriate to make this move without the consent of the existing leadership/membership?

    Ok, interesting query.

    By definition, you can't get consent from an inactive leadership. It's not a huge leap to assume that players inactive for 30 days+ are defunct. To the best of my knowledge, this approach has generally been well received by the captains in the fleet.
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    [GoT] Gabe wrote: »
    I applaud the initiative of this thread but feel it's going to get closed just like the others.

    Before it does ..... why is
    a relatively new member of DDM
    doing this and not the Admiral in charge of the Fleet Alliance?

    Fair comment. Why am I doing it? I talk for a living. I'm generally pretty good at defusing situations and discussing things calmly and rationally, taking the emotion out of it.

    I also felt that I support the initiative, so ought to say so.
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    Eryapsed wrote: »
    As one of the most active members, and an officer/squadron leader, of the recent hostile takeover, no communication was made with me concerning this takeover. The main point being that DDM has done this many times before but has now found a fleet willing to fight back and not capitulate.
    Can you post that you go for very low-level fleets and do the same?? They might appreciate the assistance that you claim to provide.

    I'm not privy to comms that went between you or Phu, or anyone else.

    Bottom line is that there is an approach here that involved communicating like grown ups and not initiating a flame war. On both sides.

    There have also been a number of fleet members who have robustly supported the change.

  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    Navarch wrote: »
    Dazlaaaaa wrote: »
    Navarch wrote: »
    I’ll play: Why do you believe it’s appropriate to make this move without the consent of the existing leadership/membership?

    Ok, interesting query.

    By definition, you can't get consent from an inactive leadership. It's not a huge leap to assume that players inactive for 30 days+ are defunct. To the best of my knowledge, this approach has generally been well received by the captains in the fleet.

    Why not engage the membership before the takeover or better yet, get the members who want to be in an active fleet to join you directly?

    Also, why change the names of the fleets you take over?

    Ok, three great questions here.

    Why do we want to "take over" a starbase? Simply, that it saves time on bringing fleet rooms up to speed. You didn't expect a different answer, did you?

    Why not poach the members? We don't have many vacancies across the rest of the Alliance.

    Why change the names? Simple conformity.
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    Eryapsed wrote: »
    You missed the point of my comment. There were no communications at all before this happened. If there had been that the takeover would have been rejected and we would not be having this discussion now. I am angry as I have put a lot of time and effort into the fleet that someone else is not willing to do and just wants to go and "steal" other fleets.

    You have missed mine. I can't comment on this particular event - I haven't seen comms, but a stealth takeover simply isn't DDM's MO.

    Communication will solve this, as an issue. There was no need to bring it to name calling.
  • DazlaaaaaDazlaaaaa ✭✭✭
    I'm grateful that this has been civil so far. I'm back on the move again now, and it may be a little while before I'm back online.

    Please bear with me and I'll come back to anyone as soon as I can.

    I realise that some emotions have been stirred up here over this and, truthfully, I can see why. I can also, however, understand how this benefits users and this has been passed on to us.

    There will be an amicable solution. I'm quite certain that in dialogue with Shan and the other parties, this can be solved.
  • EryapsedEryapsed ✭✭
    This is reality and by creating this thread you are commenting on it. I am appalled by your lack of understanding of what this causes. From your comments, you seek the easy way to achieve what others have spent time and effort doing. You need to understand the resentment that has been caused to DDM by their actions.
    Could I say to the judge, "it is not my fault they got in front of the bullet??" and getaway with it, I think not.
This discussion has been closed.