TheEraser

well for such a simple treaty upgrade between longtime allies, this thread certainly has delivered :D Much love to Polaris, its exciting to see this treaty upgraded after all these years!

Retention is incredibly important to the long term growth of an alliance, however it is not of any concern to a recruiter. A recruiters job isn't even to get people to join his alliance. I'll slay another sacred cow, the recruiting message isn't really all that importan either. At least not in the infancy of a recruiting program (and any team that does not have consistently high results is in its infancy) I have yet to hear any convincing argument as to why any of the above is important to a recruiter (relevant? sure, but not important) overall, focusing on the final product (new members, retention the message, etc.) is rather foolish until the foundation is sound. So, what is the foundation of a recruiting program that is successful, consistently?

I agree that the approach you're talking about yields good result. however it's not a way to build a successful program. This is something I'll touch on with my next post but the quick answer is that as good as your method it's, it is hard to keep programs running using just this method. The point of my post is not to say spam is let, it's more about controlling the controllable with recruiting. Why? Because it keeps the team focused and energized which is important if you want sustainable results. White chocolate is really hitting on something important that I'll be getting into soon when I talk about the make up of a recruiting team.

new blog post it up, http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=804&showentry=3577

So for those that have been paying attention to my blog, I posted a week or so ago a topic about recruiting. In that intro topic, I made mention that I was going to be doing a "series" of sorts on recruiting and more specifically building recruiting teams. I make no claims to be the best or brightest when it comes to this topic, but I do believe I have enough experience building successful programs that I can share some of my core values when it comes to recruiting. So what is the most important aspect of recruiting? It seems like an easy answer, until you start thinking about it. You've seen over the years recruiting contests and individual recruiters brag about how many people they have brought into their alliance in the last X days, They hold these things up as examples of how awesome their recruiting department is. I used to do the same thing. Bringing in a ton of recruits is an awesome feeling, its a sense of pride.You're actively improving your alliance. But, are you? I mean really, is your alliance better off with 20 new ghosts? So why brag about it like you actually achieved something. Don't get me wrong, recruiting is important, but I think people focus way too much on the results (i.e. new members) than they do the behind the scenes of recruiting and this is why, in my opinion, that a lot of recruiting teams see peaks and valleys in their stats. When you focus on the results and you have a huge month, its awesome, people jump up activity, they recruit more, and they are more active overall. Until the next month, when you have 30 applicants instead of 100, then people quit recruiting altogether, and the blame for that is soley on the head of recruiting (be it a government member, or just someone that was appointed to run the system). You created a system that was only working when, for lack of a better word, it was working. As soon as the tangible results disappeared so did your staff, and now you're stuck rebuilding yet again. So what do you do? This is a question that I had to ask myself and the brain trust we had assembled in one my my past alliances. We had a solid internal leadership team and we all put our heads together. we ended up utilizing a few ideas and concepts, none of them revolutionary, though one was unique at its inception. my major philosophy was that to be successful at recruiting you need to achieve one thing and one thing only: send as many messages out as possible on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. track these numbers. This is the only important stat of a recruiting team. I know some of you are screaming your heads off right about now because you believe its important to know how many nations are joining your alliance. Well, that is important, but not to a recruiter. Allow me to explain. I’ve always believed that the single greatest threat to a recruiting teams success is frustration among the team members. frustration brought on by a combination of abysmal recruiting numbers and burning out the “good recruiters” by making them do all the work. Both of these are incredibly simple problems to solve with the same concept. first, don’t make the goal to get nations to join your alliance. Make the goal daily/weekly/monthly messages sent. When the goal is 500 messages per day, it gets more people involved. one person can not, within the rules of the game, send 500 messages, it forces the team to share the workload (if you don’t have a team of at least 10 recruiters, you’re fooling yourself that they can achieve longterm success). by hitting that goal, morale within the unit stays high because it allows them, and this is the key, to control the process. When the goal and focus is on getting nations to join, all of a sudden those unaligned newbs are in control of your recruiting team. Half of them won't even remember their log ins in a weeks time, and i'm willing to bet a good majority of you are putting them in control of your success! I am of the firm belief that you can not make a nation join your alliance. they are going to join an alliance, usually, but that doesn’t mean it will be your alliance. In fact, more often than not, it won’t be your alliance. There are simply too many variables to consider. Its IMPOSSIBLE to control this. people get frustrated because they’re trying to control something that can’t be controlled. That said, There is really only one way people hear about, and join, alliances and that is the recruitment message. The recruitment message is the key to nation X joining your alliance. Not for the reasons you think though. I know some of you immediately decided, based on that sentence, that its important to have a “super star” recruiting message. and you’d be wrong, dead wrong. I’ll take an average “stock” message sent to 1000x nations per day over a super star unique message sent to 100 people a day, every single time. The simple reason being, the sample size is larger which increases your odds of recruiting nations. Thats all for this post, stay tuned for my next post when I go into how to build and sustain a recruiting team. Let the comment rage commence!

This to me is a larger problem than people realize.Alliances that flat out require you to fill your slots with tech deals are sending the message that you are good for one thing, supplying our large nations with tech. This is not how you grow a game. Its also a terrible philosophy to have because it means your underlying reasons for recruiting is to get more tech for your fatties. Recruiting is about adding mass to an alliance, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who is recruiting for any other reason is doing it wrong. Also, I"m already behind schedule on getting my first post out, but I've been pulling 12 hr days at work the last week, so when I get home i haven't felt like working on CN lol!! I promise, it is coming though!! probably tonight, but no promises on that!

Depending on how nice my work schedule is to me over the next few days, I should have the first real topic up by Friday, probably sooner.

recruiting off sites is all well and good. Heck it can even be quite rewarding (Fark, and GOONS for example) BUT why not focus on the pool of people that are already at your disposal? I mean c'mon, focusing on offsite stuff is how the new nations get dragged to the wayside. There is a reason that so few nations came from offsite invasions (in comparison to the number of nations in the game over its existence).

I received, iirc, around 15 or so messages trying to recruit me. Part of the reason the game is falling apart, and ill expand on this later, is new recruits are not handled properly. While that is not a recruiting problem so much as a admissions/mentors hip problem, it does have an effect on recruiting. Also mass messaging scripts are only illegal, if I remember the tos correctly, IF they change or otherwise interfere with cn code. It is not hard to create a spreadsheet that will parse together mass messaging lists do you, but you have to be willing to do some actual work. Wanting results without putting in the effort is a large part of the problem with recruiting. That said, before I post my first topic I have a question: what is the ultimate goal of the recruiter(s)?

Hello, Some of you know who I am, others of you don't, it doesn't really matter. I've been away for close to a year, however, I recently rerolled. As I sit in the unaligned nations stage, I can’t help but believe that most alliances really don’t grasp the concept of recruiting and what it really is used for. As recruiting has always been a passion of mine in this game I have decided that I will be conducting a short mini series on different aspects of my personal philosophy on recruiting and how I’ve utilized it to build strong programs in the past. Before I get into any of that though, I figured I’d see if people were even interested in the topic, and if there were anyone that was willing to collaborate with me. So, a few disclaimers. 1. I will most likely not be joining any alliances (this is subject to change,but I just don’t have the time to actively contribute). you’re welcome to ask me to join, but honestly, why would you? 2. I am not doing this to stroke my own ego. Yes I have built and rebuilt recruiting programs succesfullt in the past, but who really cares about the past? I’m doing this because I believe the easiest way to increase nation retention in this game is to get more nations into alliances. 3. many of you will likely disagree with me. thats the joy of cybernations. there is no one single right way to do anything. However my guess is that a lot of recruiting teams exist simply because “recruiting is important” and thats where the thought process behind them ends. at least that was my impression based on the many recruitment messages i received. 4. I’d ask for civil comments, but this is cybernations so I’ll simply say if we can’t all have thick enough skin to hold a conversation then please go away. I’m not going to be overly offended by your comments and some of your inevitable trolling, and i hope that you’ll not be offended by my, in all likelihood, feeble comeback attempts. I do hope,however, that somewhere in between all that an intelligent discussion can take place. [/ 5. ??? 6. Profit! So lets start this bad boy off by opening up the floor to see if anyone actually wants to have this conversation. What is your philosophy behind recruiting? p.s. 7. If your alliance focuses on only high ans you’re not the target of this topic, because you’re a breeding ground for experience players. I’m focusing on, or intend to focus on, those alliances which wish to cultivate new players. feel free to comment, but I probably wont touch on those topics too much because I’ve never been apart of that philosophy and cant really talk about it as a result.

Dear TE, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tagGuuVYx9g we're back, after a long hiatus, to wreck your !@#$. Love, MI http://murderincte.proboards.com/index.cgi

My nation is going to be gone in a few hours and it looks like i'm a few days late to the party. Never the less, regardless of where I went, I was and always will be Polar at heart. You guys have an extremely strong community, the strongest i've been apart of. Its kept me playing this game LOOOONG past my expiration date, and for that I thank you. I hope you don't mind, but I'll be spending my nation's final hours flying your AA on final time: O/ Polaris also, it is all Random's fault

[quote name='Ameroca' timestamp='1330982981' post='2934144'] So your protection isn't defined except for where it is (ie ends when everyone moves) I know it seems like I'm being pedantic, but in treaties this is definitely the one place where you are supposed to be. I'm fairly sick of running around asking alliances with "indefinite protections" if those are still in effect. [/quote] You could always, ya know, stop tech raiding. Congrats to TIO for bringing friends closer and increasing their stats in one move!

Oh lord not jaym. He's the worst

I came i here to troll MK but was pleasantly surprised to see an alliance that I genuinely like I do miss guiding you fellas but am glad to see your charging ahead!

It's sad to see this, even if I knew it was coming. I only hope that you find the path you're looking for sta, though I'm not so sure. I love you guys nonetheless Za sibir! O/ polaris

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1329794828' post='2924933'] It's clear this guy isn't incredibly active on the OWF. He's here trying to offer advice... and it's good advice, too. Does everyone seriously have to be such dicks? A simple "Yeah. Ishabad sucks." would have sufficed. Thank you, Chaos. Ishabad does, indeed, suck, and I hope someone who doesn't know that will see your post and find out for themselves. [/quote] I agree with this terrible, terrible person

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1329779393' post='2924802'] Let's not forget NPO. NPO made several requests for government terms, some of which we granted. One of these was the demand that Grub be replaced by Griswalds, a term that Grub rejected and that the coalition did not push, but one which members of Polar nevertheless found very reprehensible. When your terms were up, you signed with NPO immediately. As for FARK, they made very clear that they would defend any ODP partner from any attacks they found unjustified. They certainly noted that the ODP upgrade was intended to protect Polar from TOP, IRON etc. You claim that you never became especially close with them is not true. Too, whatever the case of the alliances whom you chose to hold a grudge against, you inexplicably condensed them down to TOP alone. Perhaps this was an at self-delusion, such that you wouldn't need to admit that you'd so pissed off the word that alliances from just about every other sphere in CN attacked you. Whatever. Double standards ftl. Like I said, we seem constant warping of the truth by members of Polar (amongst others) for the purposes of their arguments. Given how transparent and obvious it is, I don't know why they bother. [/quote] Pacifica is a terrible example here. Neither alliance wants anything to do with the other. That treaty was signed more bc of history than anything else. If that's your go to example of polar being friendly with someone, maybe you're trying just a bit too hard. Also he never claimed that the "never became especially close" with dark. He stated that the treaty has never gone higher than and odp and that took a lot of diplomatic work to get it there. Face it polar never truly put its best foot forward to repairing things with TOP but you guys didn't exactly extend any olive branches either. Had the 2nd patriotic war not happened perhaps things would have stayed on a positive curb for both alliances, the past is the past.

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1329613412' post='2923676'] Guys give Roq a break. He'll be here when he's here. [/quote] Problem is when you say "I'm going to drop a game changer of a log dump" and you're actually someone who may actually have that information, like say the former leader of a premier alliance that was involved in cn,mpeople tend to set their calendars. Promptness is a virtue sorely lacking in this world

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1329612151' post='2923660'] Again, seven alliances and NPO (who made several of the government change requests that were granted by the victors and laid out as terms) are suddenly condensed down into TOP for the convenience of a flawed argument. Yes, the same NPO with whom Polar signed a treaty immediately after completing their WotC surrender terms. And also FARK, who took reparations from Polar and were completely OK with the government-related terms. You and yours can try all you want to make it seem as if TOP was the responsible party for everything that happened to Polar during the WotC, but really it's just a convenient and very flawed argument by which you can attempt to justify your alliance's betrayal of ours (and of IRON, TORN, etc.) in the Bipolar War. Give it up already. Nobody is stupid enough to buy this. Or maybe you've just truly deluded yourself into thinking that it's the truth. This would not surprise me, as self-delusion is a hallmark of your alliance. Also, the allegation that the coalition was attempting to destroy Polar's community is absurd and has no basis whatsoever. The idea that IRON was only in this war to support TOP is completely wrong. They entered this war for the same reason we did. You forget that your alliance screwed over IRON in Bipolar almost as much as you did TOP (with the declaration of war on TOP being the added cherry that IRON didn't need to deal with). Telling yourself that only TOP was after revenge and IRON was not is just another example of the constant self-delusion that is apparently such a vital part of your alliance's character. [/quote] I had actually forgot that pacifica was integral in those, thanks top and co (is that better buddy?) tried to destroy a community you can not deny this and you can't pretend like you didn't smile handing out those terms. All the other Major players from that war have since paid their price. TOP has avoided the hammer by masterfully jumping from ruling power to ruling power. One day the rule powers will tell you to take a flying leap, and I can only hope I'm still around to dance on your corpse when that happens Xoxox

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1329605296' post='2923597'] You know, banning people from government offices isn't exactly the same as "destroying a community", unless it's a very small alliance and they absolutely rely on three or four figureheads. We also have addressed that so many times in the past it feels like beating a dead horse at this point. [/quote] Oh I'm not concerned with the legitamacyn or lack thereof of said claims, but that was most certainly enraged us the most. It was more than just bannin people from gov too, but you are right about one thing, dead horses and such. Id like to imagine tha polar and top can at least coexist now, but I just don't see it...

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1329603165' post='2923576'] The wotc or aka war of the coalition, electron sponge kept poking at TOP and friends for months, "Saying he was going to dance on TOP's grave" So TOP gathered a coalition and declared on Polaris, their MOD had 11 million on him to start the war , and afterwards Polar cried about TOP having bigger nations, more tech and bigger war chest. [/quote] Actually I think they were more enraged with the secret terms top had levied against them in an attempt to destroy the community and drive away some of our more beloved members.

[quote name='bros2' timestamp='1329588271' post='2923450'] Londo speaks the truth? I remember the... vast networks NPO ran. Of course, you will never be able to get anyone to admit to the spy networks they ran, with spies in every alliance worth its salt at the time. [/quote] What do those operations have to do with you betraying alliances trust? Oh right nothing but hey it's a distraction right?

How on earth do you cowards have the audacity to take reps from a war you started for no valid reason? Reminds me how pathetic an alliance top and tso are.... Congrats on peace regardless Polaris!

Sarm is a terrible terrible person, you should cancel this treaty on the grounds that he sucks, Just sayin....