Poaching

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

The whole point, is that someone put time and effort into developing that player, the least they could expect is some time and effort back from that player to see out the round. To me it's just basic politeness and gratitude because that first alliance gave you 'value for your dollar' in the first place. While they shouldn't ask for ongoing loyalty (as this would be pointless) I don't think sticking to the end of the round is too much to ask. And this is why they have a reasonable frustration.

I can agreee with this to an extent, but there is also a flip-side to consider.

Firstly, the member has returned some time and effort - by defending, attacking and sometimes helped in other ways the alliance during their membership. If they hadn't been returning the time/effort then I can't see why the alliance would want to keep them anyway.

Secondly, and I think a lot of people miss this, there's a very strong reason why the member should leave before the end of the round. They (and the alliance they go to) want to find out if they're a good match for one another before the next round starts.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Anyone who walks out isn't your best. No matter what other criteria you apply to defining "your best", surely one of them has to be that the member wants to remain in your alliance.

Not every alliance holds the status of 1up.


An alliance sitting in the bottom half of the top 10 will have three types of members. One type is your average member. They attack, they send defence, it all goes wonderfully well until they crash their fleet at some point. They'll usually finish in the top 400.

Next, you have your community members. These are the ones who would have been kicked if it wasn't for a sense of community and the problems it would cause if they left. They don't have great planets even though they are active.

Finally, you have your elite members. The ones who seem to get a top 100 rank every round. These are the people who provide your alliance with the handful of top 100 ranks that it needs for prestige. However, by their very nature they don't belong in your alliance. They 'should' be in a top 5 alliance with players of a similar calibre. However, you've got them to where they are today - you trained them and let them grow. You gave them officer positions, and you taught them these jobs.


Then one day they're gone. They're off to X alliance. They seemed fairly happy, but obviously just not happy enough. It's incredibly disheartening and it should be little wonder that F-Crew and ROCK are badly affected by this.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Anyone who walks out isn't your best. No matter what other criteria you apply to defining "your best", surely one of them has to be that the member wants to remain in your alliance.

If someone wants to leave 1up then I don't try to talk them out of it - as I've no interest in trying to persuade someone to remain who isn't whole-heartedly commited to wanting to be in 1up. I thank them for their efforts, wish them good luck then look at their planet to see if it's worth roiding.

Obviously because they aren't committed, they aren't my best in the sense you want to portray it. As I've said above letting them go is the best option, but that doesn't stop them being bloody impolite and unworthy of criticism.

I'm talking in terms of just raw ability/activity/use to the alliance up to that point in time. The fact that someone's appeared to perfectly useful to you and been helping to take the alliance forward suddenly wants to pull the plug on you mid round is annoying as feck, as for a smaller alliance those players are going to be much harder to replace.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I can agreee with this to an extent, but there is also a flip-side to consider.

Firstly, the member has returned some time and effort - by defending, attacking and sometimes helped in other ways the alliance during their membership. If they hadn't been returning the time/effort then I can't see why the alliance would want to keep them anyway.

Secondly, and I think a lot of people miss this, there's a very strong reason why the member should leave before the end of the round. They (and the alliance they go to) want to find out if they're a good match for one another before the next round starts.

True, but certain members who leave an alliance and create a big gap in their wake, for example, the owner for the alliances website/tools or HC's or most important MO or something. Those people could severely hamper an alliances further efforts for that round, which would create anger from that alliance against that person, which isnt good for 'The Community'.

Anyone follow that? No? Yeah I wish I could deliver a witty and insightful comment delivered with impeccable timing too

I'm still undecided on the merits of 'poaching'.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I can agreee with this to an extent, but there is also a flip-side to consider.

Firstly, the member has returned some time and effort - by defending, attacking and sometimes helped in other ways the alliance during their membership. If they hadn't been returning the time/effort then I can't see why the alliance would want to keep them anyway.

The point is that this is the result of someone's effort, they have turned someone into a capable planetarion player and thus there is something still owed.

Secondly, and I think a lot of people miss this, there's a very strong reason why the member should leave before the end of the round. They (and the alliance they go to) want to find out if they're a good match for one another before the next round starts.

I have no concept of this, so won't comment. Usually I just sign up for alliances on a round upon round basis. I did sign up to Ascendancy for round 16 before round 15 ended, but refused to be added to their channels as my main commitment at the time was to ND for that particular round. I think it's the best (and perhaps the only sensible) way to switch alliances.

While F-Crew and ROCK are having an inexorably wide view of poaching, I see a lot of force in their point of view as they've got far less to play with than yourself.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by sniborp

True, but certain members who leave an alliance and create a big gap in their wake, for example, the owner for the alliances website/tools or HC's or most important MO or something. Those people could severely hamper an alliances further efforts for that round, which would create anger from that alliance against that person, which isnt good for 'The Community'.

Why do people assume that the status quo is 'good for the community'? How come change is so awful?

Edit:

Originally Posted by lokken

The point is that this is the result of someone's effort, they have turned someone into a capable planetarion player and thus there is something still owed.

I strongly disagree. What was given was volunteered. If you establish upon joining that you expect a member to do certain things in return for this, then you can come to me and complain about it. Until then you're just ****ing with people's heads.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Banned

I strongly disagree. What was given was volunteered. If you establish upon joining that you expect a member to do certain things in return for this, then you can come to me and complain about it. Until then you're just ****ing with people's heads.

The point is that the alliance helped a good deal in making that member into a marketable 'asset' infact it would have been pretty much impossible without that alliance - players can't offer themselves officer positions or imagine all the tricks of the trade and get experience. It gets nothing in return for that. I see seeing out a round a fair return for giving a player this marketability.

I don't think we should treat these alliances as ones that just have to put up with it. Yes they need to deal with it better, but we should give them a reasonable incentive to what they do on top of their altruism. They bring in new players, they develop the faceless alliance peons of the future that help build the game. If they get cheesed off enough to stop doing it, well planetarion in my opinion would be all the poorer for it.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Banned

This is the biggest load of shit I've seen on AD in quite a while. A community that cannot tolerate 'friends' playing the game in another alliance is not a community, it's a elitist clique.

Some people don't get what they want out of their alliance, even if their friends are in it. These people think they will be happier in another alliance. Who are you judge whether it's right or wrong of them to try to get more fun out of this game?

The only people who are a problem to the 'community' are the ones who, like you, think that leaving an alliance is a betrayel. If you're going to guilt-trip people into staying with your alliance, you're not going to make them happy and you're not going to build any strong community. You're going to build a gang of miserable ****s who would rather be doing something else.

Thats because your taking it out of context, we arent talking about people whom are unhappy in your alliance and want out immediatly and have raised their concerns with the HC. We are talking about the people whom were happy to see out the round before moving on until the shiney offers from other alliances came.

No-one has a problem with people whom are unhappy leaving at the end of the round for a new challnege or even leaving midround as long as they have talked the issues they have with the alliance over with a HC first and seen if anything can be done to sort them out. Yes its a pain but its understandable. The issues where a member has indicated that they will be leaving at the end of the round but will see the round out but are sweet talked into leaving this round (often by alliances that actually cant even accept them, so they are actually just sitting there as standbys)

What also makes it worse is the way they make them lie to their 'friends' they have made in their current alliance. Most are never honest about their reason for leaving as they have been told not to by the recruiter, they either just blank questions or end up giving different excuses to everone who asks until the truth eventually comes out. Some even go as far as telling these people to say that another unconnected alliance is responsable for poaching. How are we supposed to tolerate friends going to another alliances and then being forced to lie to and basically cut off contact with the friends they have made. That to me is being more an elitist clique than anything

Also you talk about "Who are you judge whether it's right or wrong of them to try to get more fun out of this game? ". Thats a two way street, what gives these people the right to often resign 50+ others to having less fun. The BC and Scanners for example that have pissed off from F-Crew this round after being told "You have to join us now else we cant guarentte the place you want next round" have made the game alot less fun for the rest of our command as we are having to cover the massive holes they have left which has left much of our command ill as the hours they are having to pull while juggling RL are ridiculous. The members then find themselves in a situation where they are being effected by this person leaving and thus have less fun. This isnt a solo game and people HAVE a responsabilty to others which people all too often choose to ignore. Again its another case where your community not elitist clique's thing falls down, as a community would be wanting to ensure it grows, where as a collection of elistist clique's are only bothered about ensuring they thrive at any expense.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I don't think the word "poaching" is even relevant. Poaching involves taking something which belongs to someone else. Members aren't owned by an alliance, they are the alliance.

In the case of around 50% of cases of alliances poaching our members I'd say that poaching is the right word. We do pay for a fair amount of the people whom come through our doors. Myself alone whom doesnt even need to pay for an account for myself buys in excess of 6 which goto upgrading new players and to give them a chance. Its what often makes poaching even worse. I mean here i am whos spent what 19 rounds trying to help get new players into this game and what have i got out of it, abuse and insults from other people in this community, a massive workload thats increased by people im relying on letting me down and a hole in my bank balance where ive upgraded people whom turn around and are ungrateful.

Its things like this that sees alliances like F-Crew and ROCK being so rare. Most alliances taking on alot of new players dont even get off the ground, those that do rarely stick around long and either take the SiN route of going more elite based or the IPC route and quitting the game as its not worth the hassle it brings

Originally Posted by Mek

i have done poaching in the past for insomnia and tbh altho its not something that is "ethical" for the alliance concerned to be doing, at the end of the day we dont hit that 'leave alliance' button for them, they do it themselves.

If you instill loyalty among your memberbase and have that certain something that makes players want to stay with you, then poaching should never be a worry for you.

Loyalty is tough to instil into anyone. Loyalty is something that normally comes with time and people like me simply trying to drum loyalty into our members wont result in loyalty when the rest of the games somewhat built around using the lack of loyalty as an advantage

Its like in football. Chelsea can basically pay anything for any player they want and in each position they have atleast 3 if not more top quality players. Yet how many players get seduced by the chance of playing in a team of some of the best players in teh world, pretty much any player they go after. Its only those like Gerrard whom are playing for a club they have supported all their life that have loyalty (and even then he almost left for them)

If an offer comes in from a top alliances its appealing for anyone and is flatering and someone whos only been a member a couple of months doesnt in most cases have time under their belt to have built up the kind loyalty needed to keep them.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by wakey

Thats because your taking it out of context, we arent talking about people whom are unhappy in your alliance and want out immediatly and have raised their concerns with the HC. We are talking about the people whom were happy to see out the round before moving on until the shiney offers from other alliances came.

We're working from different understandings of the word 'happy'. You're thinking that someone who's unhappy is actively disgruntled. I mean that someone who is happy, but perceives the grass to be greener in another alliance. I can be happy in an alliance, but think I will be happier when I join another alliance. It doesn't have to be true, but you really aren't in a position to dictate whether I should believe that or not.

What also makes it worse is the way they make them lie to their 'friends' they have made in their current alliance. Most are never honest about their reason for leaving as they have been told not to by the recruiter, they either just blank questions or end up giving different excuses to everone who asks until the truth eventually comes out. Some even go as far as telling these people to say that another unconnected alliance is responsable for poaching. How are we supposed to tolerate friends going to another alliances and then being forced to lie to and basically cut off contact with the friends they have made. That to me is being more an elitist clique than anything

Have you ever stopped to wonder if this sort of behavior hasn't been encouraged by your violent reactions to people leaving for other alliances?

[Spritfire]

Sorry to say, but wakey's posts have a bad innfluence on my reading.

Everytime one show my reading skills stops and I need to do something else :\

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Banned

Have you ever stopped to wonder if this sort of behavior hasn't been encouraged by your violent reactions to people leaving for other alliances?

Yes because over 19 rounds ive had SO many violent outbursts. Theres just TWO i can remember

1) The member I upgraded due to his galaxy demanding he was upgraded or be exiled. Within a day of being upgraded he was appraoched by a recruiter from tof in the galaxy and poached (ToF at the time were a fair bit above F-Crew). The recruiter told the member to say it was 1up to me

2) VGN last round where they took one of our highest scoring members even though they couldnt ass any more people. He was recruited as a 'reserve' in case they lost enough members to recruit or fell out the top 5

Both of those cases I had a right to kick up a fuss over but its hardly a common occurance

[Banned]

Originally Posted by wakey

Yes because over 19 rounds ive had SO many violent outbursts. Theres just TWO i can remember

I didn't say outbursts, I'm just saying that it's pretty clear you're hostile to the idea of someone leaving for another alliance.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by wakey

In the case of around 50% of cases of alliances poaching our members I'd say that poaching is the right word. We do pay for a fair amount of the people whom come through our doors. Myself alone whom doesnt even need to pay for an account for myself buys in excess of 6 which goto upgrading new players and to give them a chance. Its what often makes poaching even worse. I mean here i am whos spent what 19 rounds trying to help get new players into this game and what have i got out of it, abuse and insults from other people in this community, a massive workload thats increased by people im relying on letting me down and a hole in my bank balance where ive upgraded people whom turn around and are ungrateful.

I think the whole issue paying for accounts is a total red herring. Yes, it's very noble of you to do so - but how many hours of commitment from them do you think your £3 should buy?

Last round I paid to upgrade 3 planets in my galaxy. One of them I subsequently exiled as after I upgraded him I never saw him again, one stayed allianceless and the other one joined f-crew. By your logic, you poached him from my galaxy - as I upgraded him so he should have been keeping his defence fleets home for me.

I guess f-crew owes me a member.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Banned

I didn't say outbursts, I'm just saying that it's pretty clear you're hostile to the idea of someone leaving for another alliance.

No i'm hostile to certain circumstances of it happening these include

• When they are encouraged to leave midround rather than wanting to leave
• When they have committed to a position of importance (BC, Scanner ect) and leave midround
• When the leave due to issues in the alliance yet havent had the decency to raise it with a HC
• When we have paid for their account

Many people pass through our ranks and most go with out any issue. For example

• If anyone wants to leave between rounds then im fine with that
• If someone isnt happy and comes to talks about it and we cant resolve the issue then im fine with that
• If someone who we have paid for wants to leave and makes arrangements to pay the credit back (normally under such a situation its a case of agreeing that they will upgrade one of our new players at the start of the next round or this round if its not getting a bit late on)

Even alot of those whom maybe leave not in the best of circumstances end up going on ok terms by offering us some help without being in the alliance. For example perhaps they might be able to help us with any scans that we cant get.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

The point is that this is the result of someone's effort, they have turned someone into a capable planetarion player and thus there is something still owed.

No alliance turns someone into a capable planetation player. Alliances assist members in turning themselves into capable players.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I think the whole issue paying for accounts is a total red herring. Yes, it's very noble of you to do so - but how many hours of commitment from them do you think your £3 should buy?

Last round I paid to upgrade 3 planets in my galaxy. One of them I subsequently exiled as after I upgraded him I never saw him again, one stayed allianceless and the other one joined f-crew. By your logic, you poached him from my galaxy - as I upgraded him so he should have been keeping his defence fleets home for me.

I guess f-crew owes me a member.

was the guy you upgraded 1up? O.o

[jerome]

Originally Posted by wakey

No i'm hostile to certain circumstances of it happening these include

• When they are encouraged to leave midround rather than wanting to leave
• When they have committed to a position of importance (BC, Scanner ect) and leave midround
• When the leave due to issues in the alliance yet havent had the decency to raise it with a HC
• When we have paid for their account

Many people pass through our ranks and most go with out any issue. For example

• If anyone wants to leave between rounds then im fine with that
• If someone isnt happy and comes to talks about it and we cant resolve the issue then im fine with that
• If someone who we have paid for wants to leave and makes arrangements to pay the credit back (normally under such a situation its a case of agreeing that they will upgrade one of our new players at the start of the next round or this round if its not getting a bit late on)

Even alot of those whom maybe leave not in the best of circumstances end up going on ok terms by offering us some help without being in the alliance. For example perhaps they might be able to help us with any scans that we cant get.

i hope you sign contracts when you "give" your players credits just in case they don't sell their rights of free choice straight away for that credit.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by wakey

No i'm hostile to certain circumstances of it happening these include

This is paraphrased from a PM I just sent Lokken:

I never said alliances shouldn't demand loyalty. I said that it's wrong to get all hostile about it when someone leaves [Edit: for any reason]. If I tell my members that they're likely to be approached and warn them that leaving will hurt the alliance and that they should keep this in mind when they are approached, that's great. But if you wait until they are approached and then call them a traitor, they're just going to get a confused and hurt look on their face. They're not psychic, how were they supposed to know?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Banned

This is paraphrased from a PM I just sent Lokken:

I never said alliances shouldn't demand loyalty. I said that it's wrong to get all hostile about it when someone leaves [Edit: for any reason]. If I tell my members that they're likely to be approached and warn them that leaving will hurt the alliance and that they should keep this in mind when they are approached, that's great. But if you wait until they are approached and then call them a traitor, they're just going to get a confused and hurt look on their face. They're not psychic, how were they supposed to know?

Your assuming we dont make members aware of that. Additionally your forgetting that they continually see the effect it has on the alliance because obviously if you lose a valued member no matter how much the Command try and shield the loss and cover it it is noticable

[Banned]

Originally Posted by wakey

Your assuming we dont make members aware of that. Additionally your forgetting that they continually see the effect it has on the alliance because obviously if you lose a valued member no matter how much the Command try and shield the loss and cover it it is noticable

Yes, I'm assuming you don't explicitely tell your members when they join that they are expected to stay out each round. Do you?

I don't care that members see the effect. Sure they do, but they don't care the way HC (you!) care. For them it's a reason less to stay, not a reason more.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by jerome

i hope you sign contracts when you "give" your players credits just in case they don't sell their rights of free choice straight away for that credit.

In my opinion if you get a credit for a player to play out a round and he defects in a way you don't like, you should have the right to pull that credit from under them. To defend the very thought that people can take liberties with other people's money is vile.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Banned

Why do people assume that the status quo is 'good for the community'? How come change is so awful?

I did mean to say leaving mid-round, or at least implied it by saying 'hampering the rest of the round'.

Change can be good (stats), but somethings aren't as good, for example it's nice to have a solid core of members and add some fresh blood to that occassionally.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

No alliance turns someone into a capable planetation player. Alliances assist members in turning themselves into capable players.

The alliances are still the enabling feature/catalyst, which prevents them from struggling and inevitably quitting.

[furball]

Originally Posted by wakey

2) VGN last round where they took one of our highest scoring members even though they couldnt ass any more people. He was recruited as a 'reserve' in case they lost enough members to recruit or fell out the top 5

That's not really true. However, this sort of thing belongs in PM where we can clarify facts openly, as opposed to hijacking an abstract thread.

[Timeline]

ok this is my 2 cents, and is probably going to have no affect on ppls views whatsoever

The acquisition of players mid round from other alliances has got 2 differing views, 1 is that if the person is unhappy then it is fine to do so...the other is that it is unmitigatingly wrong full stop.
Obviously the first is taken by alliances that prosper by this acquisition, i wont point fingers at who thinks this way as those people have already made themselves known. I can understand their point of view, in that planetarion is just a game and therefore it is ultimatley what is in the players personal view of fun as to whether they stay or leave.
The second pov is also understandable by everyone tbh...all players at some point of their pa history have been in a small alliance...only the lucky new players who have friends in the big 5 get in them straight away, and therefore have seen ppl leave those alliances mid round for pastures green. I think i speak for everyone who has been in the situation of seeing a well scored member leave, when i say it is probably the most demoralising thing a hc can have happen to them. You put hours/days/weeks of effort into developing a person for the alliance, and when they leave you think 'why do i bother'.

Despite all that i am of a fence sitting disposition. If a member wants to leave...fair enough. BUT it should be of their own violition. if they are unhappy then they should first speak to their hc about whats upsetting them. If that doesnt work, then they should go to another alliance and ask about recruitment....not be approached by a recruiter who has been told by a member of this person who is interested of recruitment. At this point, imo and in a perfect pa universe, both the member and the alliance who have been approached should inform the current ally hc of the persons desire to leave...that way all views of poaching are blown out of the water.

Pls note on that last bit i said in an ideal universe...we all know this wont happen as many alliances cant stand others (again no names or finger pointing)

anyway rambled on enough now....dont want to be accused of doing a wakey (awaits neg rep)