Home The Bridge

Going forwards i will not be spending not one red cent on this game until

Something is done to protect fleets comment moderated. ~Shan, and until the data mining offer wall is gone this game is is nose diving if you can't see that you are blind

Comments

  • ShanShan admin
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Regarding concerns about the offer wall, as said in multiple threads, our Privacy Team is preparing a response to address them.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] ✭✭✭✭✭
    Shan wrote: »
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Is it a secret? Because all I got was censored - no insight.

  • SoupKitchen RikerSoupKitchen Riker ✭✭✭✭✭
    It would be nice if the improved process was set out in the Forums for players to see. If it has been posted, please share the link in this thread.
    “A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.”
    —Mark Twain

    MEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy!

    Best Event Finish: #7 during Rule 125 Rerun

    1024 Immortalized (Not Counting Duplicates)

    Honor Debt: Inconceivable...

    Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
  • <TGE> Darxide<TGE> Darxide ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2020
    Shan wrote: »
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Regarding concerns about the offer wall, as said in multiple threads, our Privacy Team is preparing a response to address them.

    Your response sucked, by the way. Couldn't have missed the point of the backlash any harder if you had tried.
  • SoupKitchen RikerSoupKitchen Riker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2020
    [DCC] bebe wrote: »
    DAE wrote: »
    Shan wrote: »
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Regarding concerns about the offer wall, as said in multiple threads, our Privacy Team is preparing a response to address them.

    Considering the enormous community outrage it is nice to see some statement made. But this is very vague.
    It would seem that given the enormous response to that situation that had gone on for approximately a year without raising an eyebrow, then finally the community stands together in protest, an official response of what measures, processes or consequences have been taken or actioned.
    Many of us have been waiting for an official response or announcement of secondary command to fleets and/or what has been done to eliminate the process as it had been executed.
    There are legitimate fleet adoptions, joining of forces in a co-op of fleets, or some other form of fleet change that takes place when an admiral goes absent and the fleet starts to fall. Many existing fleet members dont know what direction to take or want AdmIral responsibility. Some do legitimately ask for or need help. Then Other fleet co-ops help them out.

    The community as a whole is still waiting for an official response. Keeping everyone in the dark about new changes or processes is continuing to feed the curiosity web and carrying the anger forward. Respectfully, silence is not an answer.
    May we please get an official response with Protections or changes that have been made.
    Then the community can move on instead of continued speculations and complaints. Lets put this behind us. 🖖🏻

    As long as the hijacking of fleets has been addressed by TP/WRG with the new processes that they've put in place then we shouldn't know and don't need them to publish them here on the forum. If they did then there would be nothing, or at least very little, to prevent the hijacking of fleets in the future. TP/WRG not telling us what these processes are is similar to the reason that you don't leave your bank card out on your desk with a sticky note on it that has your PIN number on written down. You don't want to make it too easy for the wrong people to access it.

    While I understand what you are saying, I do think TP at the very least, can tell us if/how they intend to verify “Admiral removal” claims. I like the idea of escalating the ticket, but I personally would like CS to then contact all officers in the fleet and verify the claim. I do not think expressing that part of the process will be “giving away” too much, as the first time someone goes through the process, such information will most likely make the rounds amongst fleets. Forgive me if I am skeptical of the new process, but all I have to go on is what happened previously, which apparently entailed more than one fleet being taken over (even after complaints were made about the process).

    “A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.”
    —Mark Twain

    MEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy!

    Best Event Finish: #7 during Rule 125 Rerun

    1024 Immortalized (Not Counting Duplicates)

    Honor Debt: Inconceivable...

    Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
  • [DCC] bebe[DCC] bebe ✭✭✭
    [DCC] bebe wrote: »
    DAE wrote: »
    Shan wrote: »
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Regarding concerns about the offer wall, as said in multiple threads, our Privacy Team is preparing a response to address them.

    Considering the enormous community outrage it is nice to see some statement made. But this is very vague.
    It would seem that given the enormous response to that situation that had gone on for approximately a year without raising an eyebrow, then finally the community stands together in protest, an official response of what measures, processes or consequences have been taken or actioned.
    Many of us have been waiting for an official response or announcement of secondary command to fleets and/or what has been done to eliminate the process as it had been executed.
    There are legitimate fleet adoptions, joining of forces in a co-op of fleets, or some other form of fleet change that takes place when an admiral goes absent and the fleet starts to fall. Many existing fleet members dont know what direction to take or want AdmIral responsibility. Some do legitimately ask for or need help. Then Other fleet co-ops help them out.

    The community as a whole is still waiting for an official response. Keeping everyone in the dark about new changes or processes is continuing to feed the curiosity web and carrying the anger forward. Respectfully, silence is not an answer.
    May we please get an official response with Protections or changes that have been made.
    Then the community can move on instead of continued speculations and complaints. Lets put this behind us. 🖖🏻

    As long as the hijacking of fleets has been addressed by TP/WRG with the new processes that they've put in place then we shouldn't know and don't need them to publish them here on the forum. If they did then there would be nothing, or at least very little, to prevent the hijacking of fleets in the future. TP/WRG not telling us what these processes are is similar to the reason that you don't leave your bank card out on your desk with a sticky note on it that has your PIN number on written down. You don't want to make it too easy for the wrong people to access it.

    While I understand what you are saying, I do think TP at the very least, can tell us if/how they intend to verify “Admiral removal” claims. I like the idea of escalating the ticket, but I personally would like CS to then contact all officers in the fleet and verify the claim. I do not think expressing that part of the process will be “giving away” too much, as the first time someone goes through the process, such information will most likely make the rounds amongst fleets.

    I agree with you, on both counts. I hope that part of the new process includes contacting current fleetmembers or at the very least officers. I also realize that it won't be long until the process is revealed either here or on some other platform, that's why i hope that they have a robust and or rotating set of processes to protect fleets. At least part of the problem would have been averted in the first place if they had listened to what we've been asking for a long time, that is, having the ability of appointing a co-admiral and/or one other level of officer in the game. They didn't listen and helped create the problem that they are now needing to try to fix on the back end instead of getting ahead of it (sound familiar ;) ).
    [DCC] bebe
    Privileged to be Admiral of the Great Fleet
    Dilithium Causes Cancer, maxed Starbase level 134
    Featuring photonic flee free holodecks and
    All you can drink Neelix's Even Better Than Coffee Substitute!
  • WebberoniWebberoni ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2020
    AviTrek wrote: »
    [DCC] bebe wrote: »
    DAE wrote: »
    Shan wrote: »
    The fleet concern you are referring to has been taken seriously, and we have improved our processes as a consequence.

    Regarding concerns about the offer wall, as said in multiple threads, our Privacy Team is preparing a response to address them.

    Considering the enormous community outrage it is nice to see some statement made. But this is very vague.
    It would seem that given the enormous response to that situation that had gone on for approximately a year without raising an eyebrow, then finally the community stands together in protest, an official response of what measures, processes or consequences have been taken or actioned.
    Many of us have been waiting for an official response or announcement of secondary command to fleets and/or what has been done to eliminate the process as it had been executed.
    There are legitimate fleet adoptions, joining of forces in a co-op of fleets, or some other form of fleet change that takes place when an admiral goes absent and the fleet starts to fall. Many existing fleet members dont know what direction to take or want AdmIral responsibility. Some do legitimately ask for or need help. Then Other fleet co-ops help them out.

    The community as a whole is still waiting for an official response. Keeping everyone in the dark about new changes or processes is continuing to feed the curiosity web and carrying the anger forward. Respectfully, silence is not an answer.
    May we please get an official response with Protections or changes that have been made.
    Then the community can move on instead of continued speculations and complaints. Lets put this behind us. 🖖🏻

    As long as the hijacking of fleets has been addressed by TP/WRG with the new processes that they've put in place then we shouldn't know and don't need them to publish them here on the forum. If they did then there would be nothing, or at least very little, to prevent the hijacking of fleets in the future. TP/WRG not telling us what these processes are is similar to the reason that you don't leave your bank card out on your desk with a sticky note on it that has your PIN number on written down. You don't want to make it too easy for the wrong people to access it.

    While I understand what you are saying, I do think TP at the very least, can tell us if/how they intend to verify “Admiral removal” claims. I like the idea of escalating the ticket, but I personally would like CS to then contact all officers in the fleet and verify the claim. I do not think expressing that part of the process will be “giving away” too much, as the first time someone goes through the process, such information will most likely make the rounds amongst fleets. Forgive me if I am skeptical of the new process, but all I have to go on is what happened previously, which apparently entailed more than one fleet being taken over (even after complaints were made about the process).

    It sounds like they're taking the security through obscurity approach. They don't want to share their procedures because then hijackers will know how to get around the new procedures.

    Of course that is weak security. People will eventually figure out there new rules and get around them. Instead TP should be engaging with the community and working to improve the process so it can't be evaded.

    They need to update the fleet structure (ie: vice-admirals) to include a more robust fleet management system, as a first step of takeover prevention. They should also publish a standard procedure for requesting and verifying requests related to a C/S override of fleet management.

    How is consistency and transparency a bad thing, especially after the fleet management structure is reviewed and retooled?
  • SoupKitchen RikerSoupKitchen Riker ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2020
    I know Vice-Admirals have been asked for before (I did sometime in 2017), but if a proper procedure exits, it may not be necessary. On the other side of that thought, it could be a layer of protection for fleets. It’s hard to make that determination with only a new, obscure procedure in place. Without knowing the procedure, I would want a Vice-Admiral in the fleet I belong to.
    “A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.”
    —Mark Twain

    MEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy!

    Best Event Finish: #7 during Rule 125 Rerun

    1024 Immortalized (Not Counting Duplicates)

    Honor Debt: Inconceivable...

    Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
Sign In or Register to comment.