Bubbles_CS said: I would like to call out *redacted* for attempted poaching from my top-500, active coalition.
I would like to call out *redacted* for attempted poaching from my top-500, active coalition.
bken1234 said: Bubbles_CS said: I would like to call out *redacted* for attempted poaching from my top-500, active coalition. Is this achieving anything that you couldn’t have achieved with a PM?
FindingHeart8 said: bken1234 said: Bubbles_CS said: I would like to call out *redacted* for attempted poaching from my top-500, active coalition. Is this achieving anything that you couldn’t have achieved with a PM? it appears it's showing the issue hasn't been resolved.
Given the minimal in-game functionality and the limited time I have to support my coalition, poaching, even when mistargeted, is one of those kinds of mistakes that has an impact that can’t be undone. If anyone in my coalition is susceptible to poaching, they will probably leave soon. If that impacts our success, others may leave in a snowball effect that could destroy our small coalition. I’m not saying this is happening to us right now, but this could be a real impact of poaching on active coalitions. We have lost active members to poaching in the past.
Please try to be mindful of the impact you can have on an otherwise happy coalition.
**Mod note: removed reference to specific alliance name. - fight4thedream
fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you.
FindingHeart8 said: fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you. Are there any reprocussions to continued poaching? A private message only works when you know the leader of the coalition. A private message is also useless if the offending coalition has no intention on changing their poaching behavior.
bken1234 said: FindingHeart8 said: fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you. Are there any reprocussions to continued poaching? A private message only works when you know the leader of the coalition. A private message is also useless if the offending coalition has no intention on changing their poaching behavior. There are no game rules prohibiting poaching. Please do not harass moderators publicly. If you would like to discuss a moderation decision, you may do so with me via PM. @fight4thedream works very hard on the Marvel boards and took time to read this thread and make a decision, so that it would be neutral, since I have been involved in this discussion — however as always, arguing moderator actions in a thread is a warnable offense and if it continues, I will issue them.
FindingHeart8 said: bken1234 said: FindingHeart8 said: fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you. Are there any reprocussions to continued poaching? A private message only works when you know the leader of the coalition. A private message is also useless if the offending coalition has no intention on changing their poaching behavior. There are no game rules prohibiting poaching. Please do not harass moderators publicly. If you would like to discuss a moderation decision, you may do so with me via PM. @fight4thedream works very hard on the Marvel boards and took time to read this thread and make a decision, so that it would be neutral, since I have been involved in this discussion — however as always, arguing moderator actions in a thread is a warnable offense and if it continues, I will issue them. I was not *harassing* his ruling. He made a public ruling, and said in his ruling that continued discussion regarding this was permitted.My responses were not a challenge, merely questions related to his post and my overall concerns with poaching. As this is becoming a reoccuring topic in the forums, more information to everyone is a positive thing.
bken1234 said: FindingHeart8 said: bken1234 said: FindingHeart8 said: fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you. Are there any reprocussions to continued poaching? A private message only works when you know the leader of the coalition. A private message is also useless if the offending coalition has no intention on changing their poaching behavior. There are no game rules prohibiting poaching. Please do not harass moderators publicly. If you would like to discuss a moderation decision, you may do so with me via PM. @fight4thedream works very hard on the Marvel boards and took time to read this thread and make a decision, so that it would be neutral, since I have been involved in this discussion — however as always, arguing moderator actions in a thread is a warnable offense and if it continues, I will issue them. I was not *harassing* his ruling. He made a public ruling, and said in his ruling that continued discussion regarding this was permitted.My responses were not a challenge, merely questions related to his post and my overall concerns with poaching. As this is becoming a reoccuring topic in the forums, more information to everyone is a positive thing. And I have answered your question. There is no game rule in ANY game that I know of that says you can't poach form coalitions, teams, etc. It happens. It doesn't mean it's ok, but it does. It also happens in professional sports, it happens in the workplace, it happens in life. In this case, and all of the cases discussed in this thread and the other one's related to it, it was not intentional, and I am using my player voice here -- frankly I feel you are being rude. I know the leaders of the group in question and they feel really bad about this, and have contacted the poster privately as I requested earlier in this thread. As to the outcome -- it's none of your business unless both parties decide to share it, but as I don't see either party on this thread anymore, I feel like it's more your problem than theirs. The people in this community have come a very long way in four years from a place where there was constant animosity to a place where while we don't always disagree, we don't poke each other, or sow the seeds of discourse. You're doing that here. It's not ok. If it continues with this thread, I will report it, as a player, and ask the rest of the mod team to review it neutrally, as I do not see how this discussion can continue in a healthy direction unless someone else has something to offer.
fight4thedream said: FindingHeart8 said: fight4thedream said: **Mod note: I have removed references to a specific alliance as it is in violation of rule 7. While the mod team is aware that rule 7 does not specifically mention the naming of alliances, we believe this to be in keeping with the spirit of that rule. We understand that poaching is a serious matter and allow discussion of the issue but we ask that you refrain from naming specific alliances, with the exception of congratulatory posts. Since this may have been unclear to many, we will not be issuing a warning this time around but going forward we ask that you keep this in mind. Future infractions may result in your post being removed and the issuing of a warning. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Thank you. Are there any reprocussions to continued poaching? A private message only works when you know the leader of the coalition. A private message is also useless if the offending coalition has no intention on changing their poaching behavior. Not that I am aware of. Unfortunately I don't play MtGPQ so I am not familiar with the game's rules, but if they are similar to Marvel Puzzle Quest's then I would assume there are no rules prohibiting poaching. It is thus a mattter of in-game etiquette, the rules and repercussions left up to the player community to decide. But as is the case with real world etiquette, it us up to each player or coalition to decide whether to follow established social conventions or ignore them. While my knowledge of MtGPQ's rules is severely lacking, I am well-versed in forum rules and policies. The reasons we do not allow the public mentioning of alliance/coalitions or player names when discussing in-game actions with the exception of congratulatory posts are: 1. to avoid creating a negative, toxic environment; and 2. the alliance/coalition or player may not be a member of the forum community and would thus be unable to defend themselves if mentioned in a negative light. In regards to this specific matter, we simply don't want the forum to be used for the purposes of shaming. While I admit it may serve as a tool to deal with the problem of poaching, it is not what the forum is for and potentially leads to strife or discord on the forum. As I mentioned previously, you are free to discuss the matter of poaching as an issue. If you wish to discuss a specific instance, then we ask that you do so without mentioning names. You are also free to address the issue privately with another member via PM but please do keep it respectful. Hopefully, I have shed more clarity on the matter.
FindingHeart8 said: Thank you for the thorough and professional explanation. That answers the questions I had. I agree that referencing coalitions by name is not a healthy way to address the issue.
Bubbles_CS said:Wow that blew up fast - apologies for apparently derailing this thread. I did review the forum rules including #7 and didn’t find any restriction on using coalition name, so I appreciate the leniency and explanation here, @fight4thedream. Would it be possible to update this forum rule to also specify coalitions as well as players? I am not arguing the decision but I feel this should be mentioned there if it should remain an enforceable rule.I feel that this thread has so far has resulted in the bones of a community definition of etiquette around poaching, and it sounds like some, including the parties involved, are trying to abide by this etiquette, which I appreciate.Quoting @fight4thedream’s detailed response above, “It is thus a mattter of in-game etiquette, the rules and repercussions left up to the player community to decide.” I can get behind that (and more so were it possible to do so in game, as we discussed here earlier), however I honestly can’t think of any non-shaming repercussions for breach of etiquette. I am not suggesting that this be allowed to continue - mods say no and that needs to be respected - however, I would honestly like to ask what kinds of repercussions are in the community’s toolbox when it comes to breaking our poaching etiquette?I do appreciate both the mods and community’s discussion here.
I would honestly like to ask what kinds of repercussions are in the community’s toolbox when it comes to breaking our poaching etiquette?
Bubbles_CS said: Bubbles_CS said: I would honestly like to ask what kinds of repercussions are in the community’s toolbox when it comes to breaking our poaching etiquette? Poached again by “a major alliance”. There’s a new shiny wrapper on the “we are here for your active players” message. All kittens and rainbows. The very small cat wouldn’t even identify who he was with “because he saw there were active players here” (in our top 400 coalition, surprise!) but still managed to get his point across and leave his contact information, you know, just in case.So I ask again, what am I able to do about this, within forum rules or within the extremely limited in-game coalition functionality? Can I at least have the power to delete or flag spam messages from these pirates? Can we self-identify on the forums somewhere as do-not-poach (if I am to believe that this would actually do anything), if this is somehow different from posting in the recruitment thread of the coalition forum?Please, give me something.
Nyarlathotep said: I may have a solution to the problem.The in-game chat only holds on average like 30 messages, or if you scroll down like 9-10 screens worth of 'pages' if we want to call it that way.Next time some randy random joins a group that does not want to have anyone say a word about other options. Spam the chat. Spam it really hard. Pm 5 players instantly with your tool of choice, discord, slack, WhatsApp, ICQ whatever you personally chose to use aside the in game chat and have them spam for 3 minutes of their time.Two things will happen. The randy random probably won't join you again, because that's something he did not have on his agenda and he will remember about it as well as probably tell others about it. And the msg or msgs of whoever wanted to poach your players won't be shown anymore. Don't say there is no solution and you are powerless. You're simply not that creative.And sorry, that may sound harsh or rude to some, but it's just the truth.
soultwist said: It holds 75 messages so that is defiantly a bit more work.You are right that all the coalition management tools and sorting and finding active vs dead are all ****.Solutions would be go private, fill coalition, or provide an experience that users are reluctant to leave.