DDM Phu has also asked loyal members of Valahalla's Crusaders to change to other DDM fleets and they will likely face being booted if they do not comply.
They dont want a dictator. DDM Phu is making the game unenjoyable for them. They also dont want to leave the fleet because they have made friends, connections in Valahalla's....obviously DDM doesnt understand this. We are a team, we will stand together and take a stance against what is happening.
It's not okay with any of us.
If anybody was made homeless by this shameful tactic and need/want a temporary home for starbase bonuses, we can take in refuges until your cases get sorted. I really do hope you all can get your fleets back, this is just the worst
You're new to the DDM 'Franchise', so I'll cut some slack here.
Admirals and players of most of the large, established and 'socially active' fleets have long held disdain for DDM and the business model used - which is to lurk UC, Facebook and forums and find players who complain about having small or inactive fleets. Once the blood is in the water, the sharks swarm. Customer Service has some form of policy in place, and has for a long time, about passing the chair of a fleet with an inactive admiral to a new leader. DDM obviously is comfortably aware of this policy, as they have petitioned CS to do so no less than 17 times that we are all aware, at least successfully.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' was in for longer than 4 days.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' built the starbase or community.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' had business renaming to their own brand.
If you legitimately wanted to help a community by joining and helping where leadership is absent, and did so with pure intentions, I'd be all for it. But gutting the fleet, the communication method, changing the leadership, the fleet name, dropping new tags and forcing everyone to join your Facebook group....I just fail to see how any of this is excusable or allowable. And that's not even in the context of the current topical issue.
Full stop, this should not be allowed. CS can see when you, the petitioning requester, joined the fleet in question. If you just joined, they should *never* give you the fleet, let alone let you rename it.
This is bad optics for you to come in and support without knowing the history and all the facts. Sure, your alliance of fleets has funny graphics shared ad-nauseum on various social medias. You are the 'largest fleet alliance in Timelines'. You are also the only alliance larger than 2 full fleets in Timelines. There is no point, in the current game, to fleet mechanics as far as events or competition goes. There is no fleet based rewards for events or overall, and even the fleet leaderboard is player-driven. Even if they did exist, they are individual fleets and not alliances, so having 18 fleets do you nothing. Oh, and go find me the DDM Vol 3 - Vol 17 fleets on the fleet leaderboard. You won't, because they don't exist under those names, they exist under their previous names. Fleet #2 was changed per request in the thread back in May from the original 'Death Star Rebels' with a 127 level starbase. Doing it 2 or maybe 3 times I can see and shrug my shoulders and move on. But getting near 20? You cannot tell me with a straight face that all 20 takeovers have not been hostile, they've been completely clean and above board, with the complete consent of the existing fleet members, and no one was kicked for not agreeing or didn't leave because they thought it was shenanigans?
Anyway, I hope the original leadership is restored and new policies are put in place to prevent someone from using a 'squatters rights' technique in the future. Even if enhanced fleet leadership mechanics are not on the roadmap for QoL improvements, a CS blanket policy change can be done with a single email.
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.
Funny that....did they do it willingly or under pressure that they would be booted if they aren't happy with the change?
Because I know for a fact that the fleet members who have put DDM in their name tag did it because they were afraid of being booted from the fleet
Phu can only steal a fleet if admiral inactive 30 days and he joins fleet. Close your fleet to keep DDM out of your fleet. If DDM cant get into the fleet as a crew membet, then they cant steal your fleet.
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.
I don't know about anyone else but I didn't see Ery name call anyone in this message. He stated a fact. Our fleet has been stolen from us and the person in question is refusing to give it back after TBL and myself have kindly asked him to.
The fleet was never abandoned by leadership like DDM Phu claims.
We are here and we are speaking out
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.
Hostile takeover is the only appropriate analogy that I can see...
Preying on passive/less active fleets with inactive leadership that might easily capitulate to this change because building up a Starbase for maximum bonuses takes time and hard work is just lazy.
Lack of vacancies is just another excuse for not wanting to create a brand new fleet and level a new Starbase from scratch.
Trying to claim that this is to everyone's benefit (e.g. not conducive to performance in events) is presumptive because each fleet was created with its own unique expectations of its members.
Everyone close your fleet to keep DDM from stealing your fleet.
Closing the fleet will harm those who have trouble recruiting. The simple solution is to give back the fleet. I would also like to see WRG institute a policy that fleets will not be handed to anyone who has not been a member for 90+ days. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if there was also a screen shot required of an officer approving, unless no officer has been active for 30 days.
This is why me and our admiral of our fleet have email communication. He needed to take a break due to commitments for close to a month so we did an immediate transfer to me. Once he returned we moved it back. We don't mess around due to this exact reason. The last thing we want is a hostile takeover so we've put a system in place to be sure it doesn't happen.
It is different when a fleet (a fleet meaning the officers AND the players) has agreed to allow another fleet/person to takeover, but to just send in a ticket to CS asking to be put as Admiral is just wrong. The Star Trek universe would not allow that to happen, especially if officers were active. What was done was wrong imo. And TP needs some changes regarding fleets.
So I will not pretend to understand the intricacies of fleet leadership, nor will I make any personal or bullying style comments - just one fact.
DDM has a method that seemingly works for them, regardless of its being questioned by most, so that will not change. Since the Crusaders have requested their fleet back, as is within their rights because it was unjustly taken, common sense (albeit the rarest sense) should prevail. Just give Vala and co. their fleet back.
I do not understand the issue with Phu stepping down because he made a tactical error in targeting Valahalla's Crusaders. I also am not going to care if someone tries to explain the why, just do the right thing. Is that so hard?
Dazla, I really don't understand how you can possibly defend these actions.
What we are talking about is that DDM are systematically increasing their number of fleets and player members by preying on vulnerable fleets, and manipulating DB to hand over the reigns with no consent from any long-term members of the fleet. This is undefendable! And I call on Shan to make sure (a) all these fleets are returned to their rightful hands and (b) this kind of thing never happens again in Timelines!
And please, we are all intelligent people here, so let's lose the pretence that DDM is doing it for the good of the fleet they are invading. Let's also not tell obvious lies that DDM can't grow from recruiting because all 20 of their fleets are full. Five of them currently have only 1 member.
And I do really wonder if you would have a different opinion if I for example convinced DB that I should be Admiral of DDM fleets based on that in my opinion that DDM has weak leadership, and then kick all your officers and the deposed Admiral. I think you will have a radically different opinion.
And finally I do think the concept that DDM providing leadership as a positive thing is an absolute joke when instead of coming out and speaking for themselves, they send the intern because they want to avoid facing up to the music.
After reading though the facts of what happened to Vala and the VC, I along with others, feel just as aggrieved for what you having to deal right now. DDM can't be bothered making their own new fleet so just takeover others, where the hard work has already been put in and done, so they can just swoop in and invade.
As a fleet Admiral, I would be up in arms if our fleet, that many captains, have spent time, effort, money, to scrape together starbase levels, was taken over at the whim of a new member simply by emailing customer support! Fair enough the Admiral may have to be AWOL for 30 days before hand, but ....
I am troubled at how DB TP can allow this exploit to exist and so easily allow change of leadership, without any real evidence, to a rookie member of the fleet. This should be clear that underhanded tactics are at play.
Give the Valahalla Crusaders their fleet back!!!
If there was a legit reason to handover the 'keys', CS should only ever allow it after speaking to someone else from that fleet, and the Admiralty should only then go to the next longest serving captain in that fleet, full stop!!
Clearly CS has done this for DDM possibly 17 times!!!! 17!!!!!! This hostile takeover method is clearly an exploit being taken advantage of, and TP Customer Service, are clearly being taken advantage of also!
Why is there a need to have 17 fleets??? What benefit does this give you? In a game that does not provide a leaderboard, or fleet rewards?? If you want 17 fleets, make them yourself!
Can this be looked at and changed please DB, TP, WRG, Shan!
Whoever needs to to shown that this is happening in their game needs to see this situation. This can't be allowed to keep happening.
I hate a thief. Last one I caught in the act, I tried to kill. Shovel missed and I cracked the sidewalk instead of his skull. He literally ran screaming for the waiting car with me swinging after him.
People are free to leave a fleet anytime they want. They can find one that better suits them or start their own. To steal a fleet from the majority of its members for THEIR hard earned and contributed resources is theft and I'd happily make someone engaged in it wish their parents had been sterile.
Fleets are run as the players in them wish. They set their own policies, set their own goals, and that is what they want. Recruit unhappy players to existing fleets. Poll players in a fleet of they want to join. Get enough together to build a new fleet. Our admiral is rarely on fleet chat, but several officers/squad leaders usually are, myself included. News on events or starbase projects, plus answering questions or offering advice, is the general limit to game chat. The rest is social chat. I suspect new players sometimes move on if they want something more rigorous, but we're happy as we are.
I bet if you posted a thread here with your policies and tactics and tried to get people to join, none would.
If new fleets got a 1-3 month unlimited contribution period for the members, would this stop? Build your own!
Check existing fleets before letting someone else take over.
W.W. CarlislePlayed since January 20, 2019Captain Level- 99 (May 9, 2022)VIP 14Crew Quarters: 485/485Most recent/Lowest- Anbo-jyutsu Kyle Riker (1/5* Lvl 30) 5/29/23Immortalized x-866 5* x184, 4* x 490, 3* x91, 2* x62, and 1* x27Most recent Immortal - Tearful Janeway 4* 5/25/23Current non-event project- Improving my Science base skill. Retrieval Project- Mestral 1/5*
Why is there a need to have 17 fleets??? What benefit does this give you? In a game that does not provide a leaderboard, or fleet rewards?? If you want 17 fleets, make them yourself!
This is the part I do not understand. What is even the point of all this? If you want to add more fleets to your "brand", then why not just create new fleets? Why pester existing fleets, unless it's just to avoid the time/effort of building up starbases from 0?
Why is there a need to have 17 fleets??? What benefit does this give you? In a game that does not provide a leaderboard, or fleet rewards?? If you want 17 fleets, make them yourself!
This is the part I do not understand. What is even the point of all this? If you want to add more fleets to your "brand", then why not just create new fleets? Why pester existing fleets, unless it's just to avoid the time/effort of building up starbases from 0?
Ego... they basically want to run the whole game... they're the Borg Collective
Why is there a need to have 17 fleets??? What benefit does this give you? In a game that does not provide a leaderboard, or fleet rewards?? If you want 17 fleets, make them yourself!
This is the part I do not understand. What is even the point of all this? If you want to add more fleets to your "brand", then why not just create new fleets? Why pester existing fleets, unless it's just to avoid the time/effort of building up starbases from 0?
Wow. This is irresistible to comment on. I was once told DDM is “the borg” of STT and this is true. The person running it now is not at all honest, is rude, derogatory, disgustingly inappropriate to the point i have had to block him. @Dazlaaaaa , you said yourself you are relatively new to DDM. You are defending something you know nothing about. You have been sold on a principle statement that is false. The DDM intro would seem co-operative and logical. But after a few weeks the intro line is out the door. It is common practice to leach players, steel fleets, and tell whopping lies to get ppl to blv this is a great productive alliance but is not. It is a dictatorship. Overall i would guess they have consumed upwards of 30-40 fleets. They are all no longer DDM Bcuz some original members stay quiet, follow orders, earn trust, and then take the fleet back when DDM members feel comfortable and go out to absorb another.
It is true once they “take your fleet” they boot officers, boot if you refuse to tag DDM, they really do gobble everything just like borg. If you do not comply you are booted.
This must stop. Others have named the #2 in charge now. This dude has like 10-20 accts. Some in his screen name, some not. He directs his officers to have 2-3 accounts in different names to slide in and hide in fleets and sneak attack, or poach members from fleets. This way it cant be traced to DDM.
This absolutely needs to stop. He is not trek minded at all.
To speak to the DB/CS customer service who allows this as stated above they change their in game names, have multiple accts and many ppl doing the dirty work. It would be difficult to trace/track each one.
The only way to stop it is for ppl to be aware. If your adm is inactive for 30 plus days any fleet member can request adm. if your adm is going on leave they need to hand off to an active trusted officer. This is how DDM hides in fleets, then sneak attack on day 31, put in a request and start booting.
It is logical to C/S that if an adm is offline for 30 plus days someone must run the fleet. They dont know. They can not track all DDM untagged, different accts, different Screen named members.
That's fantastic! now let's see how we can keep this from happening again. I applaud everyone and give thanks to you all who made this happen so quickly.
They are vulture capitalists raiding fleets. The DDM person even uses the word “targeted.” Exploiting a loophole DB made and TP has continued to help the players and using that loophole to hurt players is wrong. Players doing this should be banned as they detract from the game community not add to it.
Comments
That’s a lot of DDM...... if there’s so many fleets, with so many vacancies, why don’t they stick to themselves?
Proud member of Patterns of Force
Captain Level 99
Played since January 2017
TP: Do better!!!
They dont want a dictator. DDM Phu is making the game unenjoyable for them. They also dont want to leave the fleet because they have made friends, connections in Valahalla's....obviously DDM doesnt understand this. We are a team, we will stand together and take a stance against what is happening.
It's not okay with any of us.
Admirals and players of most of the large, established and 'socially active' fleets have long held disdain for DDM and the business model used - which is to lurk UC, Facebook and forums and find players who complain about having small or inactive fleets. Once the blood is in the water, the sharks swarm. Customer Service has some form of policy in place, and has for a long time, about passing the chair of a fleet with an inactive admiral to a new leader. DDM obviously is comfortably aware of this policy, as they have petitioned CS to do so no less than 17 times that we are all aware, at least successfully.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' was in for longer than 4 days.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' built the starbase or community.
These were not fleets anyone from 'DDM' had business renaming to their own brand.
If you legitimately wanted to help a community by joining and helping where leadership is absent, and did so with pure intentions, I'd be all for it. But gutting the fleet, the communication method, changing the leadership, the fleet name, dropping new tags and forcing everyone to join your Facebook group....I just fail to see how any of this is excusable or allowable. And that's not even in the context of the current topical issue.
Full stop, this should not be allowed. CS can see when you, the petitioning requester, joined the fleet in question. If you just joined, they should *never* give you the fleet, let alone let you rename it.
This is bad optics for you to come in and support without knowing the history and all the facts. Sure, your alliance of fleets has funny graphics shared ad-nauseum on various social medias. You are the 'largest fleet alliance in Timelines'. You are also the only alliance larger than 2 full fleets in Timelines. There is no point, in the current game, to fleet mechanics as far as events or competition goes. There is no fleet based rewards for events or overall, and even the fleet leaderboard is player-driven. Even if they did exist, they are individual fleets and not alliances, so having 18 fleets do you nothing. Oh, and go find me the DDM Vol 3 - Vol 17 fleets on the fleet leaderboard. You won't, because they don't exist under those names, they exist under their previous names. Fleet #2 was changed per request in the thread back in May from the original 'Death Star Rebels' with a 127 level starbase. Doing it 2 or maybe 3 times I can see and shrug my shoulders and move on. But getting near 20? You cannot tell me with a straight face that all 20 takeovers have not been hostile, they've been completely clean and above board, with the complete consent of the existing fleet members, and no one was kicked for not agreeing or didn't leave because they thought it was shenanigans?
Anyway, I hope the original leadership is restored and new policies are put in place to prevent someone from using a 'squatters rights' technique in the future. Even if enhanced fleet leadership mechanics are not on the roadmap for QoL improvements, a CS blanket policy change can be done with a single email.
Funny that....did they do it willingly or under pressure that they would be booted if they aren't happy with the change?
Because I know for a fact that the fleet members who have put DDM in their name tag did it because they were afraid of being booted from the fleet
Bottom line.....not cool
I don't know about anyone else but I didn't see Ery name call anyone in this message. He stated a fact. Our fleet has been stolen from us and the person in question is refusing to give it back after TBL and myself have kindly asked him to.
The fleet was never abandoned by leadership like DDM Phu claims.
We are here and we are speaking out
Hostile takeover is the only appropriate analogy that I can see...
Preying on passive/less active fleets with inactive leadership that might easily capitulate to this change because building up a Starbase for maximum bonuses takes time and hard work is just lazy.
Lack of vacancies is just another excuse for not wanting to create a brand new fleet and level a new Starbase from scratch.
Trying to claim that this is to everyone's benefit (e.g. not conducive to performance in events) is presumptive because each fleet was created with its own unique expectations of its members.
Closing the fleet will harm those who have trouble recruiting. The simple solution is to give back the fleet. I would also like to see WRG institute a policy that fleets will not be handed to anyone who has not been a member for 90+ days. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if there was also a screen shot required of an officer approving, unless no officer has been active for 30 days.
#protectourfleets
DDM has a method that seemingly works for them, regardless of its being questioned by most, so that will not change. Since the Crusaders have requested their fleet back, as is within their rights because it was unjustly taken, common sense (albeit the rarest sense) should prevail. Just give Vala and co. their fleet back.
I do not understand the issue with Phu stepping down because he made a tactical error in targeting Valahalla's Crusaders. I also am not going to care if someone tries to explain the why, just do the right thing. Is that so hard?
Nauti
Level 99; VIP 14
Crew immortalized = 869
Common Crew: 27/27, Uncommon Crew: 54/54, Rare Crew: 89/89, Super Rare Crew: 370/375, Legendary Crew: 363/454
Pending collections = Klingon
What we are talking about is that DDM are systematically increasing their number of fleets and player members by preying on vulnerable fleets, and manipulating DB to hand over the reigns with no consent from any long-term members of the fleet. This is undefendable! And I call on Shan to make sure (a) all these fleets are returned to their rightful hands and (b) this kind of thing never happens again in Timelines!
And please, we are all intelligent people here, so let's lose the pretence that DDM is doing it for the good of the fleet they are invading. Let's also not tell obvious lies that DDM can't grow from recruiting because all 20 of their fleets are full. Five of them currently have only 1 member.
And I do really wonder if you would have a different opinion if I for example convinced DB that I should be Admiral of DDM fleets based on that in my opinion that DDM has weak leadership, and then kick all your officers and the deposed Admiral. I think you will have a radically different opinion.
And finally I do think the concept that DDM providing leadership as a positive thing is an absolute joke when instead of coming out and speaking for themselves, they send the intern because they want to avoid facing up to the music.
As a fleet Admiral, I would be up in arms if our fleet, that many captains, have spent time, effort, money, to scrape together starbase levels, was taken over at the whim of a new member simply by emailing customer support! Fair enough the Admiral may have to be AWOL for 30 days before hand, but ....
I am troubled at how DB TP can allow this exploit to exist and so easily allow change of leadership, without any real evidence, to a rookie member of the fleet. This should be clear that underhanded tactics are at play.
Give the Valahalla Crusaders their fleet back!!!
If there was a legit reason to handover the 'keys', CS should only ever allow it after speaking to someone else from that fleet, and the Admiralty should only then go to the next longest serving captain in that fleet, full stop!!
Clearly CS has done this for DDM possibly 17 times!!!! 17!!!!!! This hostile takeover method is clearly an exploit being taken advantage of, and TP Customer Service, are clearly being taken advantage of also!
Why is there a need to have 17 fleets??? What benefit does this give you? In a game that does not provide a leaderboard, or fleet rewards?? If you want 17 fleets, make them yourself!
Can this be looked at and changed please DB, TP, WRG, Shan!
Whoever needs to to shown that this is happening in their game needs to see this situation. This can't be allowed to keep happening.
People are free to leave a fleet anytime they want. They can find one that better suits them or start their own. To steal a fleet from the majority of its members for THEIR hard earned and contributed resources is theft and I'd happily make someone engaged in it wish their parents had been sterile.
Fleets are run as the players in them wish. They set their own policies, set their own goals, and that is what they want. Recruit unhappy players to existing fleets. Poll players in a fleet of they want to join. Get enough together to build a new fleet. Our admiral is rarely on fleet chat, but several officers/squad leaders usually are, myself included. News on events or starbase projects, plus answering questions or offering advice, is the general limit to game chat. The rest is social chat. I suspect new players sometimes move on if they want something more rigorous, but we're happy as we are.
I bet if you posted a thread here with your policies and tactics and tried to get people to join, none would.
If new fleets got a 1-3 month unlimited contribution period for the members, would this stop? Build your own!
Check existing fleets before letting someone else take over.
Ego... they basically want to run the whole game... they're the Borg Collective
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
It is true once they “take your fleet” they boot officers, boot if you refuse to tag DDM, they really do gobble everything just like borg. If you do not comply you are booted.
This must stop. Others have named the #2 in charge now. This dude has like 10-20 accts. Some in his screen name, some not. He directs his officers to have 2-3 accounts in different names to slide in and hide in fleets and sneak attack, or poach members from fleets. This way it cant be traced to DDM.
This absolutely needs to stop. He is not trek minded at all.
To speak to the DB/CS customer service who allows this as stated above they change their in game names, have multiple accts and many ppl doing the dirty work. It would be difficult to trace/track each one.
The only way to stop it is for ppl to be aware. If your adm is inactive for 30 plus days any fleet member can request adm. if your adm is going on leave they need to hand off to an active trusted officer. This is how DDM hides in fleets, then sneak attack on day 31, put in a request and start booting.
It is logical to C/S that if an adm is offline for 30 plus days someone must run the fleet. They dont know. They can not track all DDM untagged, different accts, different Screen named members.
😁
I would certainly love to see that and will stop targeting them if they have done so.
What about all the other fleets they toke over using this tactic?
i hope so cause i risked quite a bit to inform the game what was going on i don't want that to be in vain
What about all the other fleets they toke over using this tactic?