75 members restriction

[Kjeldoran]

I don't know whether this is AD or PD material, if I'm wrong then feel free to move this thread.

I just want to expres my view on this new restriction of 75 members.

I think it's an unfair and demotivating limitation. Alliances already adapted to 100 members. But look at the current alliances. FAnG, WP, Vision, EoV, .... all have nearly 100 members. Each and every of those alliance will have to sack members. they will have to get rid of pple that ere loyal to them this round.
Ofcourse I very well know that alliances have inactive players, due to whatever reason, but this new restriction means alot of alliances will give LESS chance to new players to join. Most ifnot all current alliances will not recruit alot of new pple, if any. Cause most will have to get rid of some to match the new limit.

What will new players join? they can't even join Valhalla anymore, an alliance that offered a place for new players. but now they will have to get rid of pple. Why should new players join this game? The chances of getting into a good alliance are even more slim now.

I really don't get it why spinner took this decision.

Nway that's how I feel about this decision and tbh I know alot of FAnG members feel the same way about this. I've also spoken to several other alliances like Vision and 1UP and the pple I spoke with there generally agree that this new limit wasn't the best call to make.

If you feel different or you agree, post here but try to not let this become a flame thread.

[Gerbie]

I agree that the 75 size limit has some major drawbacks. Alliances will be forced to sack a few less active members of their community (who might decide to quit). The bigger alliances will stop recruiting.

Ofcourse this will level the playing field a bit. Which I think is a good thing. I don't think Valhalla will have that much of a problem. They will lose a lot of people when the round ends and it will take them weeks before they run into the limit and be forced to kick the less active members.

This might lead to more alliances in the game. If many alliances run into trouble with the limit I might even try to bring back TFD into this game as an alliance.

[wakey]

The problem with some of this argument KJ is the likes of FAnG actually take in such a small amount of new/small players that it hardly registers, most new/small players dont have the ability to get into a good alliance. The alliance limit is lowered simply to reduce the infulence any single alliance can have on the game while increasing the infulence the lower end alliances have thus giving all new players a slightly better enviorment to enter.

[JC]

Do ND have over 75 members?

Do F-crew have over 75 members?

Do the majority of alliances in the game have over 75 members?

The answer to the last 2 is definately no. The weaker players in the big alliances can filter down into the smaller alliances and help strengthen them.

[Banned]

Hold up. Do you actually have to be part of the alliance ingame to be part of the alliance?

[Synthetic_Sid]

I have slightly mixed feelings on it. Speaking purely from the perspective of 1up it's a bad thing - we'd have to turn away good applicants to stay within the 100 member limit, a 75 member limit further restricts us. From a personal perspective it's also a bad thing - as I have to deal in PM with a majority of the rejected applicants. Neither of those, of course, means it's a bad thing for the game - as a large part of our applications are from players already in alliances, who will presumably stay and play there anyway. On the negative side as well, we have a lot of people currently not playing who'd like to return and play - but aren't likely to do so if they can't get into 1up.

On the other side of the equation reducing the membership limit could be seen as a benefit to smaller alliances - particularly if other alliances DO avoid forming blocks. The playing field between individual alliances in a war becomes at least slightly more level with a lower cap on membership numbers.

Ultimately, however, I see it as a bad move for two reasons:

1. A reduction in maximum members in an alliance should have been announced a LONG time ago - so alliances knew during this round that they shouldn't recruit to replace their losses by attrition prior to next round. Some alliances (thankfully not 1up) are now faced with the situation of having to tell players they'd accepted in good faith for next round that there's no longer a place for them. Potentially that's players leaving the game.
2. Another risk is that alliances who have already got more than 75 members will decide to split into two wings so as not to have to turn away loyal members. Having done that the natural tendency then would be to recruit both wings full - and the attempt to reduce alliance size would end up backfiring.

It's not ultimately a big deal to me or 1up either way - but for some alliances it is. On that basis, maybe the decision should be reviewed again.

[wakey]

Actually only the last one is a No JC

F-Crew have 83 members atm and we have actually been at a stage where we struggled with the upper end of the limit till the bigger alliance came poaching our top members

[JC]

Originally Posted by wakey

Actually only the last one is a No JC

Sorry my bad .

[wakey]

Actually sid most alliance should have known this was coming as its been on discussion over on the 'alliance' forum that every alliance has access to via a couple of reps. In fact 75 seems like a comprise as 50 members was the figure being banded around.

As for the wing thing, yes its something that is brought up alot and its the reason ive always been againts the reintroduction of dynamic eta's, it does make spliting into wings alot more appealing because it is now possible to help defensivly the other wing (atleast in most cases anyway) rather than just an offensive situation like would be possible in PAX

On your old players who want to return but only for your alliance, if I was you I know id personally be giving these people a home first over the current players who have a home, perhaps i'm just a little strange but I personally like to always look for the solution that best for the alliance but also good for the general community

[Barrow|Pony]

Its hard to believe that the 25 people that will have to find a new home would rather quit then join another alliance. If the 'worst' 25 members have that type of devotion to fang, mistu, pack, vsn, then this universe is in better shape than we thought.

[Kal]

With reference to what wakey said, each of the alliances shoudl indeed have 2 reps, however I ahve noticed that some alliances rarely check the forums if at all. For instance i'm not certain FAnG's now single rep has ever read the forums. However the compromise figure of 75 was brought up about 1.5 weeks ago, and I did confirm to the alliances that this was the figure spinner was thinking about and there were no majot objections then.

There is now a new thread on thosoe forums for alliance HCs - and I stress HCs to discuss it. I'm sure everyone was their opinion on limits, but alliances HCs are the ones that have to weigh up whether their alliance will be playing, or in deed in some way take responsibility for the game..

Anyway - alliances HCs go read alliances forums - 2 reps per alliance, if your alliance does not have 2 reps please contact me asap and i'll get u added to the channel and tell you how to get added to the forums.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by wakey

On your old players who want to return but only for your alliance, if I was you I know id personally be giving these people a home first over the current players who have a home, perhaps i'm just a little strange but I personally like to always look for the solution that best for the alliance but also good for the general community

Indeed - old players returning ARE being given preferential treatment: at least those old players who are well known to those of us at the helm of 1up. I never expected any problems getting enough interest in 1up - but have been surprised at the sheer volume of interest from current players. Saying no to an applicant purely because of an ingame restiction on numbers isn't pleasant (with a few exceptions) - not when all available information is that the player is active, honest and trustworthy. That we can receive sufficient applications within 24 hours to more than fill an alliance (had we not rejected the majority) suggests to me that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way a lot of alliances present themselves - because the players are clearly out there to recruit if you offer them something they want.

Where our views do, however, differ is on what's for the good of the general community. I suspect, in part at least, becasue our definition of the community is maybe different. What I believe would most help the community is more alliances who will compete at the top level within the game. Stagnation occurs because of a lack of competetion - and the lack of alliances able to compete only makes stagnation more likely. I would argue that the creation of 1up is, of itself, good for the community as a whole - win or lose we'll hopefully make next round more competetive than it would otherwise have been.

Dropping alliance size may, on the face of it, add to competetiveness at the top - but the danger exists of making any kind of meaningful win impossible. Wherease total domination/stagnation is undeniably bad, having a clear winner/leader is good. Dropping alliance size too low will just force alliances to make allies if they want to win a clear manner (and no - this is not in any way an attempt to retract my statement that 1up enters round 11 without allies).

Maybe alliances should have foressen the drop in members size - I had no access during the round to alliance forums (quite rightly) so can't comment on that. But changes such as this one should, in a ideal world, be clearly and unequivocally pointed out well in advance so alliances can plan accordingly.

The variable eta times would help alliances with multiple wings slightly - but any alliance with 2 wings wouldn't be at any disadvantage defence-wise over a single-wing alliance even without that change.

I can't see the reduction in alliance size adding any real benefit to the game - but I CAN see it causing problems for some alliances, and I can see it resulting in some (though probably not that many) players leaving the game.

[Sevrok]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I don't know whether this is AD or PD material, if I'm wrong then feel free to move this thread.

I just want to expres my view on this new restriction of 75 members.

I think it's an unfair and demotivating limitation. Alliances already adapted to 100 members. But look at the current alliances. FAnG, WP, Vision, EoV, .... all have nearly 100 members. Each and every of those alliance will have to sack members. they will have to get rid of pple that ere loyal to them this round.
Ofcourse I very well know that alliances have inactive players, due to whatever reason, but this new restriction means alot of alliances will give LESS chance to new players to join. Most ifnot all current alliances will not recruit alot of new pple, if any. Cause most will have to get rid of some to match the new limit.

What will new players join? they can't even join Valhalla anymore, an alliance that offered a place for new players. but now they will have to get rid of pple. Why should new players join this game? The chances of getting into a good alliance are even more slim now.

I really don't get it why spinner took this decision.

Nway that's how I feel about this decision and tbh I know alot of FAnG members feel the same way about this. I've also spoken to several other alliances like Vision and 1UP and the pple I spoke with there generally agree that this new limit wasn't the best call to make.

If you feel different or you agree, post here but try to not let this become a flame thread.

The Lupine Crux will accpet any one who wants to join next round, we will accept newbies as we train every one to use our war method!

[Kjeldoran]

I can only state my own opinion. And I'm in an alliance has a problem with this new limit. I agree that the rule has some good and valid points why it should be restricted but I think there are some ifnot more reasons why it should remain at 100.

For big alliances (in members) this is something they'll have to adapt to drastically, which smaller aliances don't have to change anything.

[Appocomaster]

I disagree.
I know of other online games where the alliances are only 20 or so - more like a bg.
if there were no politics, just small bgs of people as "alliances", then the game would be far more successful. planetarion is all about survival (via politics), as much as any sort of military skill.

[K-W]

Edited because it didnt sound like what i inteded to write.

Sid, I disagree that 75 is a small enough number to make a meaningful win impossible or even markedly more difficult. IF blocking goes away, and that is a pretty big IF, it is possible that it might create a position where its hard to take a lead... but isnt that exactly the point? The game is more fun if the lead is constantly changing hands.

[wakey]

tbh Sid i dont think we do differ on our view on whats good for the community as Ive said many times that the game needs more compitition, its why iI was one of the ones in favour of reducing limit as low as 50 because it would have brought a handful of alliances into the fold, created loads of new alliances and just added alot more competition throughout the game which would have been good for everyone.

Where we do see to differ however is that too much competition is as bad as too little, i kind of find that a little strange. While i dont really have any PA experiance of "winning" but any small victors me or f-crew have had have always felt much better when its been a challenge rather than a walkover and i certainly know when i'm playing tennis in real life that i much perfer a tough 7-6,7-6 (or even a 7-6, 6-7, 7-6) than a 6-0 6-0 one. Theres just something that much more rewarding about winning something my a margin than there is a walkover as it simply means you came up against an eqaual opponent but you were slightly better in the pressure moments

[Banned]

Originally Posted by K-W

Actually Sid you are wrong on this one.

I think you misread.

[Chika]

the 75 person limit has its ups and downs. But in the end, ultimately it will only make things worse. as was stated, people will want a clear win. We all know there will be blocks. We all know there will be NAPS.
An advantage will be given to those that do block and NAP with the Dynamic eta, and the less than half member base will either fold and lose hard, or be forced to block and NAP. Thus starting all over from the beggining. Only difference will be, "We attacked ND last night, and ND2, VSN, and FAnG countered us".
only what i think.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by wakey

tbh Sid i dont think we do differ on our view on whats good for the community as Ive said many times that the game needs more compitition, its why iI was one of the ones in favour of reducing limit as low as 50 because it would have brought a handful of alliances into the fold, created loads of new alliances and just added alot more competition throughout the game which would have been good for everyone.

Where we do see to differ however is that too much competition is as bad as too little, i kind of find that a little strange. While i dont really have any PA experiance of "winning" but any small victors me or f-crew have had have always felt much better when its been a challenge rather than a walkover and i certainly know when i'm playing tennis in real life that i much perfer a tough 7-6,7-6 (or even a 7-6, 6-7, 7-6) than a 6-0 6-0 one. Theres just something that much more rewarding about winning something my a margin than there is a walkover as it simply means you came up against an eqaual opponent but you were slightly better in the pressure moments

Where we differ is that you appear to believe lots of 50 member alliances is better than half as many 100 member alliances. I'd agree IF those 50 member alliances were any good. From what I've seen there just isn't enough quality leadership around to run lots of alliances that will actually be competetive. And the number of people trying to join 1up seems to suggest that a lot of the player-base feel the same way.

Quality, rather than quantity, matters in leadership as well as in members. Reducing the maximum size of alliances forces the competent leadership to be spread more thinly - and hence actually reduces the competetiveness of the game: as a small % of the player base is in an alliance which can compete.

[Jonas]

100 > 75

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Jonas

100 > 75

i really hope everyone knows that one...

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Jonas

100 > 75

GCSE Maths isnt wasted on you eh?

75, 100, makes no difference to me. The players who are kicked from the big alliances, will find a new home if they want to.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

And the number of people trying to join 1up seems to suggest that a lot of the player-base feel the same way.

what is this, the 4th time in this thread youve mentioned the "number" of people trying to join your alliance? sounds like you are trying awfully hard to get your point across.

[lokken]

The point is that, ultimately alliances will be focusing on having the best membership they can get, be more ruthless with who they recruit and who they drop because there will always be more queueing up. Players will have to work hard, because if they don't they find themselves out on their ear, and searching and waiting for a new alliance to take them on in-game.

It will certainly encourage alliances to be more streamlined, efficient and well run which seems to be badly needed.

There will also be less of a polarisation of quality in the game, as when there was no cap on such things there were phases when Xan/Fury/Legion had all the real talent and no one could realistically touch them within a short space of time.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

GCSE Maths isnt wasted on you eh?

75, 100, makes no difference to me. The players who are kicked from the big alliances, will find a new home if they want to.

personally, the reason why I made this thread was not about a concern that the kicked members wouldn't find a home. My point was that no HC likes to kick 25 members (which in this case is 25% of the alliance). Obviously some will be inactive but some won't be. what do you tell them? that you like them less then the rest? that they are not as good as the rest in your alliance.

Another yet more personal reason would be the gaming community we established. Not gonna go into that one but it's probably the main reason why it concerns alot.

Those are the reasons why I made this post.

[Razorback]

brum brum brum, the fang thread bus is coming your way.
Only 2 threads today, plaster the boards fang plaster them good!

[Lord_Thunderball]

75 people,

Will stop ppl from coming back to this game..
Will stop creating a chance for a community to play this game, which most of the time has more then 75 people.
Will give newer players, less chance to learn the fun of active big allainces..

100 > 75

[Tomkat]

Perhaps the introduction of 75 players to an alliance will make players strive harder to make sure they stay above the water. If the "dead wood" is going to be tossed out, then players should ensure they aren't part of it. If they're in the bottom 25%, it's their own fault - noone elses.

Perhaps a little harsh viewpoint, but it's the way it is. Hopefully we'll see another couple of new alliances emerging then for all these players, along with 1up.

[Stealth]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Perhaps the introduction of 75 players to an alliance will make players strive harder to make sure they stay above the water. If the "dead wood" is going to be tossed out, then players should ensure they aren't part of it. If they're in the bottom 25%, it's their own fault - noone elses.

Perhaps a little harsh viewpoint, but it's the way it is. Hopefully we'll see another couple of new alliances emerging then for all these players, along with 1up.

The problem with that is most 'dead wood' would most likely be considered newbies to the game. Now I'm not a newbie, but neither have I ever been considered for any top alliance since I've started playing. This round I joined Empire because they weren't the biggest, nor probably the best, but for a political newbie like myself, I had no choice. Of course with the formation of EoV I was thrown into somewhat of a big alliance, but it wasn't my own doing anyway.

Bottom line is it is very hard for newbs to get into good alliances in the first place, without them having to worry about hitting the alliance limit. Now, it'll just get that much harder. And of course if you're not in an alliance these rounds, you're pretty much dead. Unless you're lucky and get an active galaxy..

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Where we differ is that you appear to believe lots of 50 member alliances is better than half as many 100 member alliances. I'd agree IF those 50 member alliances were any good. From what I've seen there just isn't enough quality leadership around to run lots of alliances that will actually be competetive. And the number of people trying to join 1up seems to suggest that a lot of the player-base feel the same way.

Quality, rather than quantity, matters in leadership as well as in members. Reducing the maximum size of alliances forces the competent leadership to be spread more thinly - and hence actually reduces the competetiveness of the game: as a small % of the player base is in an alliance which can compete.

I think your under estimating two things

1) The amount of infulence you have, its you and some of the other key people involved with 1up thats appealing to players rather than their current alliances being 'poor' . They saw what you did at Fury and expect you to get the same amount of domination with 1up and hence want to be part of it

2) Yes theres a lot of low quality leaders further down the rankings BUT at the same time theres alot of failry high quality ones. The problem is that in general the good leaders further down dont get a chance to shine because the setup of the game is such that you can get greatly overpowered. And its not helped by the bigger alliances also who as soon as any of your members show promise they end up poaching them which really does hold you back.

As for low quality leaders at one point we were all basically low quality leaders. we didnt know what we were doing and we were just winging it but as it progressed we gained experiance and skills and became better. However most of us came through at a time when an alliance could be new but survive, as it is now membership numbers at the lower end are at a critical level in relation to the size of those at the top and as such the smaller alliances are on a knife edge so never get the chance of getting that experiance. For all we know these people COULD be the people who lead this games next 'fury' or 'legion' if they get a chance but as it is they dont

[TouRiQueT]

by reducing alliances to 75 members you are basically looking to reduce numbers in this game because you are asking HC's to choose 75 of the best members. That means 25 people who want to play the game for their alliance and just chill, not be hardcore, active and very competative are left out and have to form new allainces or join other alliances. The effect is that people may leave because thye cant be where they want to be.... making a small member base, smaller. \o/
________
BigNipples live

[Kal]

what we want is away to limit the number of "top" players in an alliance...

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kal

what we want is away to limit the number of "top" players in an alliance...

That would cause more uproar, by limiting top players your basically going to have to spend the round kicking players when in a top alliance because as a top alliance you have the ability to make all most of your players top players so they are always going to be exceeding the limit

[Kal]

"top" was in inverted commas.... i know its impossible and unrealistic. but ti is kind fo what we want at least in the short term as we want to train new players so the game has a future.

[Bloodaxe]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

On the other side of the equation reducing the membership limit could be seen as a benefit to smaller alliances - particularly if other alliances DO avoid forming blocks. The playing field between individual alliances in a war becomes at least slightly more level with a lower cap on membership numbers.

reducing the limit to 75 and avoiding blocks would be a key element to getting a fun round. Would get a few more "even" alliances and the universe would look more interesting. Throw in random galaxies and its even better

[The_Fish]

alliances at the top who have to kick members is much different than the bottom. there are no noobs in the top allies. And I'm sure the 25 people who leave FAnG, will either leave them by choice, leave them and PA by choice, be kicked for being inactive, or a very very small amount will be kicked because of the new limit. They can find a home elsewhere, np.

People like those in VoE, I'm sure quite a few of them wont come back for R11 too, but there will be a few who have found a happy home, that accepts 'noobs', and it will be worse for them having to leave than it will FAnG members leaving FAnG.

[Guran]

Funny that mostly those in top alliances have been whining about the limit. Let's see, 5 alliances in top 10 who actually has more than 75 members(?). This is something I've never understood, people buying planets just so they can 'chill' but then again, if one has nothing better to do with their money, it's understandable. I guess I'm in the minority when only thing I want to do is play hardcore, not for "fun". What exactly is this "play for fun" so many are talking about?

Think about the limit from a small alliance-view. I think, having smaller alliances at this point, only helps the game to grow, not vice versa.

Originally Posted by TouRiQueT

by reducing alliances to 75 members you are basically looking to reduce numbers in this game because you are asking HC's to choose 75 of the best members. That means 25 people who want to play the game for their alliance and just chill, not be hardcore, active and very competative are left out and have to form new allainces or join other alliances. The effect is that people may leave because thye cant be where they want to be.... making a small member base, smaller. \o/

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

alliances at the top who have to kick members is much different than the bottom. there are no noobs in the top allies. And I'm sure the 25 people who leave FAnG, will either leave them by choice, leave them and PA by choice, be kicked for being inactive, or a very very small amount will be kicked because of the new limit. They can find a home elsewhere, np.

People like those in VoE, I'm sure quite a few of them wont come back for R11 too, but there will be a few who have found a happy home, that accepts 'noobs', and it will be worse for them having to leave than it will FAnG members leaving FAnG.

with all due respect but how could you possibly claim that members of alliance A would have a harder time leaving its alliance then members of alliance B? Just because you dislike alliance B doesn't mean that the members in that alliance dislike it aswell.

I don't see why any other problem with equal amount of members would have it different then FAnG.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

with all due respect but how could you possibly claim that members of alliance A would have a harder time leaving its alliance then members of alliance B? Just because you dislike alliance B doesn't mean that the members in that alliance dislike it aswell.

I don't see why any other problem with equal amount of members would have it different then FAnG.

I think his point may be more that FAnG members know they can probally walk into another resonable quality alliance due to their skill and experiance, the likes of EOV however contain lower quality members and those cut loose would have a harder time finding a new alliance

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Guran

I guess I'm in the minority when only thing I want to do is play hardcore, not for "fun". What exactly is this "play for fun" so many are talking about?

Think about the limit from a small alliance-view. I think, having smaller alliances at this point, only helps the game to grow, not vice versa.

Play for fun, check my planet/gal, ask my galmembers and you know it.
Newer(not total newbs) players learn a lot in big alliances, if there is not room for them to join, they prolly be left alone in allainces where they will always be the roidfarm. 100 is a good number, 75 is to few.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

but this new restriction means alot of alliances will give LESS chance to new players to join.

Very few alliances already do.... yours for example. And certain alliances will never gain 100 members witch will allways leave them "half the size of the enemy". I got the impression there is a general feeling that blocking = bad around here. And if certain alliances have their 100 members the others with around 40-50-60 will have to block to have a chance.... I think its a good idea to bring max limit down, i'd rather see more small alliances, than a few big ones tbh.

[BLACK_OPPS]

make wings der

seriously does no one think of ways around the pointless creator imposed crap these days

[Jackal2112]

I'd like to know *why* a 75 player limit has been put in place..

If it's done to stop blocking of alliances, I don't think it's going to be of much use.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

Very few alliances already do.... yours for example. And certain alliances will never gain 100 members witch will allways leave them "half the size of the enemy". I got the impression there is a general feeling that blocking = bad around here. And if certain alliances have their 100 members the others with around 40-50-60 will have to block to have a chance.... I think its a good idea to bring max limit down, i'd rather see more small alliances, than a few big ones tbh.

tbh, before this round started and we still thought it was gonna be 150 members limit, alch took in some newer players to give them a chance and possibly train them to be equal to other members in skills. With the new 100 rule he decided not to go through with this. Fact that he's one of the main pple behind the Mentor idea means he actually does care about new players.

So does fang. But with this 75 limit, recruiting is out of the question, we'll have to infact get rid of 1/4th of our alliance.

Then again, I've seen alot of good replies of pple showing me the other side of this decision and I can understand their arguements. I only wish that if this rule stays, that it PROVES to be worth it and that it actually does contribute to make PA more accessible to newer players.

[Seth Mace]

Why do i always get the feeling, that each round of PA is that of a "practise" until the next round, where things will "really" happen?

I do think its a positive the limit, although there are so many minor positives/ negatives that may happen, it's hard to be sure of its success in improving the game. I suppose we wont really know untill the later stages of Round11.

[BoredOfThis]

pathetic kjel :/

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by BoredOfThis

pathetic kjel :/

odd that everyone replying here so far can be reasonable and actually contributed to this thread, aside from you and Focht. Though I don't mind tbh

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

Very few alliances already do.... yours for example.

Dont know where you get your info from, but this round fang took in about 10 players who hadnt played in many rounds and about and about 6 who had 1 round expierience or less. The most rewarding part of doing this, is that about 10 of the 16 have done very well. So please dont allude to to things you know little about.

[ronnie]

how can you (FAnG) complain about the limit being brought below your actual member base, then go around asking ppl to come to you, seems a bit of a contradiction