Jump to content

Poll: Recruiting from other alliances


bakamitai
 Share

Recruiting from other alliances  

399 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think it is acceptable

also why do you have to vote for one of the second ones?

I just voted other

Edited by Z3000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm utterly against it, there's no action or reason which could justify someone drag a member of one alliance into their own via mass recruitment.

It's nothing short of insulting to even suggest such a thing to an opponent in a time of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that recruiting members in an alliance is okay in a few situations:

-For teh lulz (NSO's letter was a pretty lulzy read)

-1 on 1 with people who you actually know (That's personal business, alliances should butt out)

-If the alliance in question won't throw a hissy fit because of it (All in good natured sport, eh? Personally, I think it'd be funny for alliances to declare recruitment wars on each other. :P)

And to those complaining about the second question, that's a restriction of Invision that baka probably wasn't aware of when he made the poll, or he would have added the "None" option.

Edited by Locke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious about the number of no votes. Of the no, how many think "poaching" is an act of war?

I do.

Not recruiting from alliances is one of those norms that makes this a better place for us all. It's kind of like "Don't talk on IRC while drunk" or "Don't declare war on a large alliance when you are the only nation on your side."

It's a respect thing. You are respecting the other alliances by not recruiting from them. And yes, I have threatened war on occasion for recruiting and I have apologized and offered reps when one of my members crossed the line.

Edited by Duncan King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that recruiting members in an alliance is okay in a few situations:

-For teh lulz (NSO's letter was a pretty lulzy read)

-1 on 1 with people who you actually know (That's personal business, alliances should butt out)

-If the alliance in question won't throw a hissy fit because of it (All in good natured sport, eh? Personally, I think it'd be funny for alliances to declare recruitment wars on each other. :P)

And to those complaining about the second question, that's a restriction of Invision that baka probably wasn't aware of when he made the poll, or he would have added the "None" option.

For the lulz is fine, mostly because it's not actual recruiting, but I disagree that NSO's was for the lulz, I think it was a serious attempt to gain new members, they've shown that they're looking for new members in many ways, including recruiting from the POW's, I don't think they see this as any different.

I completely agree about 1 on 1 with personal friends, but quite often that's a different situation entirely. That's not recruiting from an alliance so much as recruiting a friend. There is a difference, NSO singeled out the alliances of those they sent messages to and tried to show how they weren't good alliances and lure the members away in that manner, as opposed to you going top a friend and saying "Hey, you should come with us, we're good friends, it would be fun".

I don't think it matters much how the alliance will react. I don't see any reason to recruit from alliances other than if you are personally friends with the recruitee. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious about the number of no votes. Of the no, how many think "poaching" is an act of war?

Depends on the situation. It could certainly lead to war. Especially if it a government run operation aimed specifically at an alliance or alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an alliance provide an enjoyable environment that appeals to the wants of your membership and you will never be poached of anyone of value. If you find numbers of people leaving your alliance (poached or sunny side up,) perhaps you should consider that either you didn't recruit people that fit into your alliance in the first place or have some sort of internal defects that are turning your membership off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under a VERY limited set of circumstances should recruiting from other alliances' AAs be allowed

Say Alliance X wanted to get rid of ghosts. So they give Alliance Y a ghost list and say, "go nuts with these guys."

I've been tempted to hand TOOL's ghost lists out myself :P But Graham would have me shot for that.

Aside from this, recruiting from alliances is, if not an act of war, then a sign of complete lack of respect for the other alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but mass-spamming the less active ones would definitely be over the line

My question is why would you want them anyway? Even from the stat collector point of view it's better to get one active person who'll participate in various NS building programs than 10 inactives that'll just kinda sit where they are and show little growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why would you want them anyway? Even from the stat collector point of view it's better to get one active person who'll participate in various NS building programs than 10 inactives that'll just kinda sit where they are and show little growth.

Believe it or not, some people use inactives as meatshields. In wartime, inactives will ... receive incoming wars that could otherwise be going to your active, valued nations.

I do not like this practice, but it is logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, some people use inactives as meatshields. In wartime, inactives will ... receive incoming wars that could otherwise be going to your active, valued nations.

I do not like this practice, but it is logical.

It's also not that useful. Those are the same folks that will seek the safety of surrender as soon as humanly possible. In the end, the attacker doesn't lose much and moves on. Note, folks that actually defend themselves and become active at wartime shouldn't be considered inactive. Maybe just part time active.

Though, I do like the use of the word meat in meatshields. Meat can be a very fatty product after all and that's kinda how I see inactives in an alliance, dead weight making an alliance fat and nowhere as nimble or fit as an alliance with very little dead weight. A good active alliance of 50 can hang with and even beat somebody twice their size if the larger alliance has activity issues.

So again, what's the point?

(rhetorical this time, mostly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious about the number of no votes. Of the no, how many think "poaching" is an act of war?

I think it depends on the scale and situation. A single message, probably not. Focused efforts on an alliance, probably. Continued poaching after diplomats have been involved and the messaging has been requested to stop, that's now open hostility and encroaching on the sovereignty of another alliance, and could easily be taken as an act of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also not that useful. Those are the same folks that will seek the safety of surrender as soon as humanly possible. In the end, the attacker doesn't lose much and moves on. Note, folks that actually defend themselves and become active at wartime shouldn't be considered inactive. Maybe just part time active.

Though, I do like the use of the word meat in meatshields. Meat can be a very fatty product after all and that's kinda how I see inactives in an alliance, dead weight making an alliance fat and nowhere as nimble or fit as an alliance with very little dead weight. A good active alliance of 50 can hang with and even beat somebody twice their size if the larger alliance has activity issues.

So again, what's the point?

(rhetorical this time, mostly)

Well yeah, they don't bring a lot. But (again I'm not trying to justify the idea, I don't like this practice) the idea is that if you have two alliances, both have 100 active nations, but one also has 200 inactives while the other only has 10, if they go to war the alliance with 110 nations is going to have a hard time assigning useful targets to its nations.

It's based on the idea of both alliances having the same number of actives tho. Of course if you have two alliances, one has 50 actives and 0 inactives, and another has 20 actives and 200 inactives, the 50-active alliance will win pretty much every time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll speaks for itself. I'm curious as to how the other nations feel about this question.

Yes, but what do you think of the issue?

Poll threads without a substantial OP need to not exist.

Edit: On topic - it's fine. If they're that easily swayed, they were bad for the alliance they were in in the first place.

Edited by Lord of Destruction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way.

Yes it is.

That reminds me to mass-PM your entire alliance (including government members) if they want to join DOOM and bash your alliance in my poaching messages when I have the time. :awesome:

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...