A gentle reminder....

Not only would they have to really hate us, but they'd have to be willing to spend hundreds of real world dollars in order to really hurt us.

I think that generally things are ok as they are at the moment, and if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. :-) I'm sure it's a policy that's under constant review, and a little caution doesn't hurt. Plus, people can still get whatever they want, they just have to deal with a 'shopkeeper'.

We could do with having a few more people who can promote people to the requestioning rank though, perhaps across different time zones? Then there'd be more people around to help. :-D

I think the idea of the requestioning rank being permanent after donating xxx amount to fleet projects to be an interesting idea though (and not just because I'm near the top of the chart, lol)...

It doesn't strike me that the risk outweighs the reward here. We have always purported ourselves to be a safe place, welcoming and open to all as long as we treat each other fairly and respectfully. Yes, we have had the occasional individual or group that for one reason or another did us harm. That creates fear and fear breeds mistrust so I can understand why some people would choose a more conservative model out of habit. I can also understand why others, like Araa would feel as though their leadership viewed them-and by extension the rest of the fleet with a measure of mistrust. I don't think at all that it was intentional, it was simply based on some past experiences that engendered a modus operandi geared toward protecting the fleet's holdings. I was on the fence about this issue but given the arguments and evidence very articulately presented by both sides I do not see the harm, or rather the level of potential harm in trying the model that seems to have worked for much of the other fleets. I feel if we opened up access to the fleet store to those who meet the requirements it may boost participation in fleet projects to casual gamers or new members from other fleets who maybe find it a little inconvenient to seek out a fleet captain every time they want to access the store. I feel that it could maybe boost the feeling of incentive to have such ready access to fleet rewards.

So we seem to have people coming up with a few different options, let me try to summarize for the discussion. Feel free to speak up for your favourite:

1. Status Quo - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
2. Increase Quotas - "Come on guys, one more ship per toon, please, we have tons of those provisions"
3. Add "sub Fleet Captains" to help manage the store - "Add a few more people who can help prevent those delays when FCs aren't online", ~2-3 times a day in my estimation.
4. Allow everyone access to the store, as long as they've contributed a minimum of x fleet credits - "Why not, it's much more efficient for everyone and no one's outlined a worst case scenario to be afraid of yet"
5. Totally open for everyone - Heck, even I'm not pushing for this one.

Note that they aren't mutually exclusive of course, could do 2 and 3 for example, or 2 and 4 if we feel 4 needs quotas.

One note, I'd really like a status quo person to tell me what we're afraid of, ideally with numbers. Once you sit down and start calculating what a thief would have to do to hurt us, it starts looking pretty crazy to me. And I personally think the current system is broke, largely because it goes against our egalitarian values as a fleet, as well as it's inefficiency, but that's just me.

ok people evil genius speaking here.

bwahahaa

what if we put a timer on membership, say 6 months of support and active membership. So if someone supports the base, embassy whatever and they actively are active then its open to buy.
Captains review @ the 6 month mark. still can buy under review before then.

I would think a scammer would not hang on the fleet and be an active participant for that long. Originally thought a year, but tequila makes me a friendly evil genius.

Quote by joenAtl

but tequila makes me a friendly evil genius.

Now I want tequila!

But that's a really good idea you had too ;)

Wow Joen, look what happens when you apply your evil genius powers for good!!! More tequila for everyone!

Thanks for adding ANOTHER option just as I finished my list, but I'd say your idea is awesome, and not one I've seen implemented before.

I'd be more than happy to replace my fleet marks minimum with your time limit to make that the new Option #4.

So yes, with the new Option #4, a scammer would now have to be a filthy rich evil genius who targets only Stonewall and then waits six months to launch his dastardly plan to throw his money down the toilet. Sounding like we're pretty golden to me.. :-D

P.S. And to help calm down anyone who might still be concerned about security, remember, we don't need to be locked down like Fort Knox to avoid scammers, we just need to be a harder target than the other guys. If we had a mandatory minimum waiting period, there are hundreds of fleets that would be MUCH easier targets than us.

Quote by Jacien

Yes, we have had the occasional individual or group that for one reason or another did us harm. That creates fear and fear breeds mistrust so I can understand why some people would choose a more conservative model out of habit.

Not out of habit. Out of experience. It has happened before that people have abused thier free access to shared fleet resources, and we are reacting to that experience by urging that we maintain our reasonable precautions when it comes to fleet provisions.

I do rather take exception to the suggestion that my position is based solely on some unthinking, panic-fueled, habitual reaction. Personally, I think I've thought my position through quite thoroughly and dispassionately. We're all science geeks here... if we are going to keep doing the same thing over again expecting a different result, what would Einstein call that?

Hey guys, the bank was robbed so let's open up the store to prove that we trust people to not do it again! Srsly?

I got bored playing without access to fleet provisions. I started playing GW2 instead because there was consistently NO fleet captain online during the times I log in. It is a problem... most people able to promote for access play during North America peak times.

The issue I have with your reaction to the bank issue is that Bank robbery != Store robbery, for the reasons we've discussed.

Stealing from a bank - easy - makes the robber rich. Stealing from a store, will make the robber POOR. I'd totally support harsher restrictions on our bank. In fact, bizarrely, our policy is far more lenient for banking than most other fleets I've seen. Why are we lenient on the stuff that's easy to steal and tough on the stuff that no one wants to steal? No idea.

So given that you've thought through your position in a logical way, which I don't doubt, I ask you, please outline the scenario I should be afraid of, with figures. My theory is that, as you try to build the robber's business case, you'll see it just doesn't make sense. But I'd love for you to prove me otherwise, cause I'd totally learn something in the process.

* != is the geek way of saying "does not equal", for anyone who isn't familiar with the notation

Sthiss, that's pretty crazy, but yeah, I have seen people get quite frustrated with that at times, particularly the Europeans.

Would you care to weigh in on which of the 5 options you think would work best, particularly based on your assessment of the risks associated with each one?

Quote by Toddoverton

I do rather take exception to the suggestion that my position is based solely on some unthinking, panic-fueled, habitual reaction. Personally, I think I've thought my position through quite thoroughly and dispassionately. We're all science geeks here... if we are going to keep doing the same thing over again expecting a different result, what would Einstein call that?

Hey guys, the bank was robbed so let's open up the store to prove that we trust people to not do it again! Srsly?

I don't think its entirely fair or accurate to compare the two (bank and fleet store). As previously stated it would be a lot more difficult and costly to try to exploit the fleet store in the way that the bank was. I suggest we move on from that analogy as it is speciously over-dramatized, albeit dispassionately, and focus on what potential true harm, if any does this pose to our fleet holdings.

oh the bank robbery we all know that was a conspiracy. Lucky we saw it and did not give mod permission to the one asking for it.

As far as time zones and access, we could be logical and assign time zone fleet captains. If there is a captain for your time zone they can grant you access during your time zone when both are active (outside of the waiting period). You can do this through mail or IM. Or if we have nite owl captains they could do it for other zones. Again no one needs immed. access to a fleet commodity or they will die.

Quote by Araa

So given that you've thought through your position in a logical way, which I don't doubt, I ask you, please outline the scenario I should be afraid of, with figures. My theory is that, as you try to build the robber's business case, you'll see it just doesn't make sense.

I did exactly that in an earlier post in this thread:

Say you belong to another fleet and have contributed to your starbase and built up a pile of fleet credits, but your own fleet is short of provisions. So you quit that fleet, join ours, go to the fleet store, buy as much as you can afford, quit Stonewall, and rejoin your old fleet with an inventory of fleet provisions that you neither built up nor contributed to. This is profitable for you because you used up otherwise unusable fleet credits to get fleet stores that didn't cost you anything. Am I missing something that makes this impossible? Now imagine a dozen people doing this. Or more. For all of their toons.

Exactly how is this scenario implausible to you?

Maybe it doesn't happen to other fleets because they don't have lots of fleet provisions banked like we do. Or maybe it does happen to other fleets, but we don't know about it because they don't brag about being raided. I don't know. And not knowing makes me cautious.

And let me be clear that I recognize that this is an area where reasonable minds can and will differ... what we are talking about is assessment of risk, and that is all. I respect the fact that you are simply weighing the risk differently than I am.

Quote by joenAtl

oh the bank robbery we all know that was a conspiracy. Lucky we saw it and did not give mod permission to the one asking for it.

Oh, no, that never happens. You're crazy.

Everyone knows that this game is so perfectly designed that no one can ever figure out ways to exploit the system for their own gain and to the detriment of other players. Does. Not. Happen. That fleet store is safe as houses!


You do know that when the base first opened, there was a bug that allowed non-fleet members who were invited to our base by a member to buy stuff from our ship stores? Right? Res did it. Unintentionally and without malice, but did it and told us about it. Who's willing to bet that there are no more bugs in STO's interface? Precautions protect us from things we know happen because they happened before.

I think if the this manner of exploitation was happening with any true frequency in other fleets it would be all over the STO forums by now with demands that the Devs do something to fix it. Since most fleets have been operating without our level of restrictions without widespread incident (which would in all probability be known by now and fleet reputation among the general player base aside) I feel that the scenario put forward is at best a remote possibility. And Joeatl's suggestion of a mandatory waiting period before new players can access the fleet store should be a logically viable compromise for all concerned and serve as a sterling example of this fleet's principle-driven ability to cooperate with one another.

I vote for Araa's options 2 & 4! And Time Zone Captains!

Just to pull back the curtain a little, fleet leadership has been discussing this issue and we're currently weighing potential new policies against the current one. We're closely keeping up with everyone's ideas and opinions on how to handle the starbase provos.

That being said, just to keep everyone's hackles down: this is not a question that will be settled by out-arguing the people who hold other stances. The best way to have your voice make a difference is to state your own opinion clearly and make a case for it.

Thanks Doc, great to know we're in astoundingly in sync with one of the leadership team's topics of the day!

I don't think there are any hackles being raised, it seems to be all in very good fun (I'm having a blast with my worthy colleagues, I have to say), and any debates between positions should only help to strengthen and clarify the positions and their relative merits.

To take one example, my request for Todd to put some figures behind this mysterious threat that we're facing is a counterpoint, but in my view it's CRITICAL to moving the discussion beyond "we need to be safe because of some scary people" and into a data-driven understanding of the EXTENT of that risk and the motivations behind these alleged scsammers. For anyone seriously concerned about a potential security risk, I highly suggest you sit down and do some calculations using our # of provisions, cost of purchases (fleet credits AND dil) and the items they'd be purchasing.

Now the other possibility is that REAL demand lowers the provision count (for ground equip and buffs), but we can always use voluntary quotas to ease that in and see gradually if that's going to be a significant concern. Personally, I feel there's so little actually worth buying in fleet stores that it shouldn't be, but I could be wrong on this count.