Home The Bridge
Options

Anti-Poaching Alliance

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Mirror M'ressMirror M'ress ✭✭✭
    edited June 2021
    Bylo Band wrote: »
    Bylo Band wrote: »
    6qyp63k3raxv.jpg

    This thread has bothered me all day since I first read it. For a long time I was content to just "awesome" the people echoing my sentiments and leaving a simple image of the in-game options players have to permanently stop people from sending unsolicited fleet invitations, but something about this thread subject just kept gnawing at my subconscious, and I think this is it, the choice of the word "poaching" and the definition.

    Unless we are talking about a way to prepare eggs, one of those two definitions (source: dictionary.com) is being invoked here, and either way, it is disturbing. To claim that another fleet is "poaching" YOUR players, you must first downgrade those players from fellow humans to property, and that is wrong. There are a lot of other things about this concept/idea that bother me but equating fellow humans to not only property but property you are entitled to possess needs to be confronted.

    Slang term

    With all due respect, that explanation is unsatisfactory as it does nothing to address the inherent possessiveness from both the word you chose and the situation you described. Your neighbor may poach one of your lawn ornaments because you own it, but you do not own anybody in your alliance and they are free to accept offers and leave without any reasonable expectation on your part for feeling aggrieved. If it was a simple matter of certain players/fleets harassing players with repeated solicitations, that is addressed by simply blocking the player or filing a ticket under the ToS agreement we all acknowledged. CS has a long history of taking harassment seriously so either that step is being skipped by your alliance or else this really is an attempt to hold possession over other people by restricting their freewill/rights.

    You may very well have benevolent intentions here but your explanation and delivery are seriously off-putting and as presented, this thread is highly objectionable. I wash my hands of this thread.

    ok then i'll dumb it down for you Bylo Band he was using the ingame slang for when a person or people attempt to go into other guilds and harrass and threaten other players into joining another guild preferrably their own


    he was not speaking of others as property and if you continue to think he was i will simply report your responses as an inability to understand slang and an attempt to start Drama
  • Options
    edited June 2021
    Interesting that one would choose the noun of the words definition to denounce humans to property, when the term has been used as a verb through the entire thread. Even the noun definition does in-fact state “encroaching on ones property” which clearly in this context is being referred to as “ones fleet”. “Poaching” is in fact a common gaming term.

    o23vbz82hjjn.jpeg
    5kapymfci3hu.jpeg
    97msibkm8k7m.jpeg
    vkuqxp353juu.jpeg
  • Options
    Prime LorcaPrime Lorca ✭✭✭✭✭
    Trollita wrote: »
    Nothing productive/constructive to add? Don't post :) ~Shan

    Self edited comment. I'll just settle for... 🍿

    🍿

    Sorry for mis-quoting you, but... I decided to poach one of your popcorns. 🍿🤏😉
    Farewell 🖖
  • Options
    edited June 2021
    Trollita wrote: »
    Nothing productive/constructive to add? Don't post :) ~Shan

    Self edited comment. I'll just settle for... 🍿

    🍿

    Sorry for mis-quoting you, but... I decided to poach one of your popcorns. 🍿🤏😉

    Lemme get some of that popcorn please 😆
  • Options
    TrollitaTrollita ✭✭✭✭
    @Bylo Band I am 100% with you and am not getting this. People are not possessions. “My friend” does not mean they are “MINE.” People are people. That username that just left your fleet? That’s a person trying to enjoy the game.
  • Options
    ~peregrine~~peregrine~ ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2021
    Trollita wrote: »
    Nothing productive/constructive to add? Don't post :) ~Shan

    Self edited comment. I'll just settle for... 🍿

    🍿

    Sorry for mis-quoting you, but... I decided to poach one of your popcorns. 🍿🤏😉

    Lemme get some of that popcorn please 😆

    It’s OK, @Prime Lorca [10FH] , I have plenty to share. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿. Passes a box of 🍿 to @[CFOH] Spottswood .

    Yo, someone, get us the Michael Jackson GIF in here, stat!
    "In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game." — Nicky Case, The Evolution of Trust
  • Options
    TrollitaTrollita ✭✭✭✭
    Trollita wrote: »
    Nothing productive/constructive to add? Don't post :) ~Shan

    Self edited comment. I'll just settle for... 🍿

    🍿

    Sorry for mis-quoting you, but... I decided to poach one of your popcorns. 🍿🤏😉

    Lemme get some of that popcorn please 😆

    It’s OK, @Prime Lorca [10FH] , I have plenty to share. 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿. Passes a box of 🍿 to @[CFOH] Spottswood .

    Yo, someone, get us the Michael Jackson GIF in here, stat!

    NOM NOM NOM

    akqvs3tzvgj2.gif
  • Options
    No offense, but this one sort of cracks me up. It’s an issue that shows up in other games as well, and the argument is equally insubstantial regardless of the platform from which it springs.

    If your fleet is great, (and let’s face it...according to advertisement, they all are), and it is this super-cohesive bunch of like minded Trek enthusiasts...then poachers aren’t a threat. After all, who would willingly leave that environment? If, however, they are bailing out at a rate that seems excessive, then perhaps your fleet isn’t exactly what you thought it was.

    Or, if you have to...think of it as a professional, moving on to a different employer. If you are a high end “performance based” fleet, then odds are that you didn’t recruit because a player “just seemed really nice.” Now they are moving on, because another fleet has an opening, and your fleet member sees it as an opportunity.

    In either case, the blame, if any, lies upon the person leaving the fleet, not the person recruiting. The bitterness about poaching is, for the most part, unsubstantiated.
  • Options
    just block every recruiter, poacher, messager whatever it is if your happy in your fleet. its a problem in every clanbased game and has been annoying and unsolved since the 90's lol
  • Options
    TrollitaTrollita ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2021
    DAE wrote: »

    So it appears a group of high level fleets have gotten together to for some sort of alliance or coalition that is a “pledge” to use traditional recruit practices that dont involve bullying, harassment, infiltrating or “trespassing” under false pretense for the purpose of intentionally causing emotional upset within and information gathering on other fleets or players. Then using that information (screenshots?) (“poached” as in, stolen or taken without permission) to their advantage later when they return to their home fleet and share information gathered.Upon returning they change their captain name, avatar, and bridge info???

    People actually do this? Wow. Yeah, that’s pretty lame. Okay, I’m starting to understand the problem now. Up until this point I was thinking this was something much more simple (and, yeah, I was being a bit cheeky). I’m sorry I misunderstood and was being rather flippant about it. Is this behavior taking place on Discord? You can report their accounts. Discord does take information farming and harassment seriously. I mean, yeah, they can just make a new account, but it does slow people down. I’d also recommend issuing server bans. I’ve had to do that loads of times on a different Discord I moderate, and if you know anything about me, I’m SUPER lenient. You have to be a real pest or genuinely harassing somebody for me to drop le ban hammer.
  • Options
    DAE wrote: »
    Webberoni wrote: »
    I was supportive of the sentiment against stealing fleets through deliberately shady practices, but I admit that I struggle with this one - and yes, I do understand the nuanced difference between this aggressive, relentless poaching and simple recruiting.

    I’ve had a few people message me over the years to ask me if I’m happy with my current fleet or if I’d like to join their fleet. Sometimes I have replied, other times ignored, and maybe once or twice blocked them. I can only get poached if I choose to leave my current fleet, but the decision is entirely my own to make. If other people choose to leave my fleet, that choice is up to them. As an outsider looking in on this apparent concern, I don’t really get the outrage.

    To anybody feeling harassed, threatened, bullied, or attacked by fellow players, to the point that the game is no longer enjoyable and/or you feel like giving up your free will to choose is your only option, I would strongly suggest contacting customer support with screenshots to report the specific players.

    I am still confused about exactly what the opposition is to this thread/concept/idea. Im not sure if everyone is reading the entire posts or just skimming through and getting only 1/2 the info.

    So it appears a group of high level fleets have gotten together to for some sort of alliance or coalition that is a “pledge” to use traditional recruit practices that dont involve bullying, harassment, infiltrating or “trespassing” under false pretense for the purpose of intentionally causing emotional upset within and information gathering on other fleets or players. Then using that information (screenshots?) (“poached” as in, stolen or taken without permission) to their advantage later when they return to their home fleet and share information gathered. Upon returning they change their captain name, avatar, and bridge info???
    Screenshots and tickets are not going to help. If players are doing this it is shady practices and the point they change their info is proof that they know they cant be traced for complaints. Meaning it is pre-planned and they know they are being “shady” “shabby” however those have put it.
    This does seam like a pre-planned attack to blow up competitor fleets. Causing emotional turmoil is against everything most players want when they come here.
    And so what is the opposition? So what. Some fleets have made a “pledge” to be nice lets all mock them or harass them now because they chose to speak up against mean people? Some of the replies here are rude and demeaning. Maybe this is a bit of example of what they are taking a pledge not to do.

    this
  • Options
    SoupKitchen RikerSoupKitchen Riker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2021
    DAE wrote: »
    Webberoni wrote: »
    I was supportive of the sentiment against stealing fleets through deliberately shady practices, but I admit that I struggle with this one - and yes, I do understand the nuanced difference between this aggressive, relentless poaching and simple recruiting.

    I’ve had a few people message me over the years to ask me if I’m happy with my current fleet or if I’d like to join their fleet. Sometimes I have replied, other times ignored, and maybe once or twice blocked them. I can only get poached if I choose to leave my current fleet, but the decision is entirely my own to make. If other people choose to leave my fleet, that choice is up to them. As an outsider looking in on this apparent concern, I don’t really get the outrage.

    To anybody feeling harassed, threatened, bullied, or attacked by fellow players, to the point that the game is no longer enjoyable and/or you feel like giving up your free will to choose is your only option, I would strongly suggest contacting customer support with screenshots to report the specific players.

    I am still confused about exactly what the opposition is to this thread/concept/idea. Im not sure if everyone is reading the entire posts or just skimming through and getting only 1/2 the info.

    So it appears a group of high level fleets have gotten together to for some sort of alliance or coalition that is a “pledge” to use traditional recruit practices that dont involve bullying, harassment, infiltrating or “trespassing” under false pretense for the purpose of intentionally causing emotional upset within and information gathering on other fleets or players. Then using that information (screenshots?) (“poached” as in, stolen or taken without permission) to their advantage later when they return to their home fleet and share information gathered. Upon returning they change their captain name, avatar, and bridge info???
    Screenshots and tickets are not going to help. If players are doing this it is shady practices and the point they change their info is proof that they know they cant be traced for complaints. Meaning it is pre-planned and they know they are being “shady” “shabby” however those have put it.
    This does seam like a pre-planned attack to blow up competitor fleets. Causing emotional turmoil is against everything most players want when they come here.
    And so what is the opposition? So what. Some fleets have made a “pledge” to be nice lets all mock them or harass them now because they chose to speak up against mean people? Some of the replies here are rude and demeaning. Maybe this is a bit of example of what they are taking a pledge not to do.

    I think many of us are against such tactics. However, before the OP was edited, it made a generalized reference to poaching. If someone politely asked me to join their fleet, I didn’t think that qualified as a shoddy recruitment practice, and I responded with that statement.

    However, since the edit of the OP to clearly define their interpretation of poaching, I would hope many of us agree that those defined practices are concerning (deceptive recruitment, stealing fleets, harassment). I think much of the snark, for and against, comes from the vagueness of the original unedited post.

    While I am not against the alliance (if you want to join, more power to you), I personally feel players just want the information of who is currently engaging in shoddy tactics. I also think many players already fall into the camp that is against deceptive recruitment, and even more so as it relates to fleet theft and harassment. I do have some questions… 1) How do you easily ensure that information gets disseminated in a timely manner and without violating any TOS (If player X or Fleet X is trying take a fleet)? While we probably couldn’t do that on the Forums, I’d like to be on the lookout especially if such activities are spiking. 2) How to define shoddy recruitment practices, as I could easily see the disseminated information getting out of control and leading to major flame wars if it isn’t clearly defined? 3) Lastly, I am curious to know what TP actually does in these situations? For me, I would need to see those questions answered to better see the effectiveness of your proposal.

    LLAP

    “A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.” —Mark TwainMEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy! Best Event Finish: #3 Honor Debt: Inconceivable...Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
  • Options
    KanonKanon ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kanon wrote: »
    I agree that "poaching" is just natural... What is the alternative? Everyone already on a fleet is off limits? Should fleet admirals be contacted first to negotiate members? Attracting members from forums and other media is ok, but not in game chat? (and just to be clear, I do not invite people to the fleet I'm a member of, and I barely use the social aspects of the game)

    Use the suggested players screen/recruiting screen or UC. I have recruited 100s of players this way for multiple fleets. Other ways to recruit include this forum, the wiki, discord and Facebook timelines group

    I understand that there is an alternative if you change your goals. My point is, if what is the alternative if you want someone who is already on a fleet. Is that player completely off limits, or is there a proper channel to recruit them? asking their "superiors"?
    Bylo Band wrote: »
    6qyp63k3raxv.jpg

    This thread has bothered me all day since I first read it. For a long time I was content to just "awesome" the people echoing my sentiments and leaving a simple image of the in-game options players have to permanently stop people from sending unsolicited fleet invitations, but something about this thread subject just kept gnawing at my subconscious, and I think this is it, the choice of the word "poaching" and the definition.

    Unless we are talking about a way to prepare eggs, one of those two definitions (source: dictionary.com) is being invoked here, and either way, it is disturbing. To claim that another fleet is "poaching" YOUR players, you must first downgrade those players from fellow humans to property, and that is wrong. There are a lot of other things about this concept/idea that bother me but equating fellow humans to not only property but property you are entitled to possess needs to be confronted.
    My sentiments exactly.
  • Options
    AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kanon wrote: »
    Kanon wrote: »
    I agree that "poaching" is just natural... What is the alternative? Everyone already on a fleet is off limits? Should fleet admirals be contacted first to negotiate members? Attracting members from forums and other media is ok, but not in game chat? (and just to be clear, I do not invite people to the fleet I'm a member of, and I barely use the social aspects of the game)

    Use the suggested players screen/recruiting screen or UC. I have recruited 100s of players this way for multiple fleets. Other ways to recruit include this forum, the wiki, discord and Facebook timelines group

    I understand that there is an alternative if you change your goals. My point is, if what is the alternative if you want someone who is already on a fleet. Is that player completely off limits, or is there a proper channel to recruit them? asking their "superiors"?


    You advertise your fleet and wait for them to approach you. You deciding you want someone in another fleet and trying to convince them to jump ship is exactly what is being said to not do.
    Kanon wrote: »
    Bylo Band wrote: »
    6qyp63k3raxv.jpg

    This thread has bothered me all day since I first read it. For a long time I was content to just "awesome" the people echoing my sentiments and leaving a simple image of the in-game options players have to permanently stop people from sending unsolicited fleet invitations, but something about this thread subject just kept gnawing at my subconscious, and I think this is it, the choice of the word "poaching" and the definition.

    Unless we are talking about a way to prepare eggs, one of those two definitions (source: dictionary.com) is being invoked here, and either way, it is disturbing. To claim that another fleet is "poaching" YOUR players, you must first downgrade those players from fellow humans to property, and that is wrong. There are a lot of other things about this concept/idea that bother me but equating fellow humans to not only property but property you are entitled to possess needs to be confronted.
    My sentiments exactly.

    Meriam Webster includes this as a definition: "to attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poaching

    You can argue if it's ethical to poach players or not(there are plenty of pros and cons arguments from the business world), but modern English includes this as an accepted use of the word, so don't pretend like this has anything to do with treating players as property.
  • Options
    KanonKanon ✭✭✭✭✭
    AviTrek wrote: »
    You advertise your fleet and wait for them to approach you. You deciding you want someone in another fleet and trying to convince them to jump ship is exactly what is being said to not do.
    So, the limit and only practical difference is using the in game chat? 'Cause if there is a player that I want in my fleet, and instead of using the in game chat I put an invitation right there where he will see it, what is the difference? (to the player, maybe it is annoying to have a DM, but for the other members of the fleet, there is no difference). It's the same information "this is my fleet, this is how good it is, we want you", just in a slightly different medium
  • Options
    AviTrekAviTrek ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kanon wrote: »
    AviTrek wrote: »
    You advertise your fleet and wait for them to approach you. You deciding you want someone in another fleet and trying to convince them to jump ship is exactly what is being said to not do.
    So, the limit and only practical difference is using the in game chat? 'Cause if there is a player that I want in my fleet, and instead of using the in game chat I put an invitation right there where he will see it, what is the difference? (to the player, maybe it is annoying to have a DM, but for the other members of the fleet, there is no difference). It's the same information "this is my fleet, this is how good it is, we want you", just in a slightly different medium

    If you want to advertise your fleet in general, and a player reaches out to you, that's fair game. If you reach out to the player first, that's poaching. It's about who makes the first contact.

    For comparison sake, if a company advertises a job on their website/indeed/other website and an employee of a competitor applies, of course the company can/should interview the candidate.

    On the other hand, if the internal recruiting team at the company contacts someone directly at a competitor that is poaching.
  • Options
    SSR BarkleySSR Barkley ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think the point people are missing here is that people set their ethical boundaries in different places. The fleets making the pledge with Spots are basically saying they set their ethical boundary at "first contact", as AviTrek just mentioned above. They are pledging that they will not recruit players who are already part of another fleet, and that they define poaching as exactly that ... the practice of attempting to recruit a player out of another alliance.
    /SSR/ Barkley - semi retired
    Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
This discussion has been closed.