Worker & Customer Poaching

[BrokenNose]

As a service worker I don't get the "you can't work elsewhere" rule. It's self-sabotage, I have avoided several discords with this term just because I can handle a big amount of orders at the same time, and most servers can't supply that many. You're probably missing on very good workers because of this rule.
On topic: if you offer your workers good, or at least above average, working conditions they won't leave. If you're still concerned you can make your system less vulnerable as someone suggested (I can think of for example not making who the workers are visible to public). I agree what you described is a very bad practice, but no support.

I don't disagree with what you said regarding treating workers well and they will stay. This is not my concern, because my workers are very happy.

My concern was moreso around other people harassing workers & Customers when otherwise asked not too. The goal of this thread is to see if we can have a discussion around implementing penalty toward people who are actively malisious and or spamming, and on the platform of Sythe.

Moderation can be implemented to mitigate this in servers, but rules can be implemented to mitigate scamming also, but it still happens and moderation accommodate reporting of scammers if sufficient data is there to review, we should be able to also report people who are malisious and or spamming servers yet hold reputation on this platform as upstanding.

 

[Superfluous]

I don't think Sythe staff should be policing outside there justification (In discords and such) as it also hard to know if the owner of the company is the one who is behind it etc it's not Sythe staff's job to moderate your discord

or you could just restructure your discord in a less vulnerable way

These posts pretty much sum it up. This problem is not unique to you or to Sythe. I don't see why it's Sythe's responsibility to intervene.

 

As a service worker I don't get the "you can't work elsewhere" rule. It's self-sabotage, I have avoided several discords with this term just because I can handle a big amount of orders at the same time, and most servers can't supply that many. You're probably missing on very good workers because of this rule.
On topic: if you offer your workers good, or at least above average, working conditions they won't leave. If you're still concerned you can make your system less vulnerable as someone suggested (I can think of for example not making who the workers are visible to public). I agree what you described is a very bad practice, but no support.

^ we initially didn't have this rule either.
After having a worker "slack" on a job because "he was busy for another order on another server" we decided to enforce this.

It is reasonable, as long as enough work is provided.

 

^ we initially didn't have this rule either.
After having a worker "slack" on a job because "he was busy for another order on another server" we decided to enforce this.

It is reasonable, as long as enough work is provided.

I would of just addressed that particular worker instead of punishing everyone. If you want to have a term preventing workers from slacking you can have one that requires a minimum of 6-8 efficient hours per day, for example.

 

I would of just addressed that particular worker instead of punishing everyone. If you want to have a term preventing workers from slacking you can have one that requires a minimum of 6-8 efficient hours per day, for example.

in that scenario however, you would set different terms for different workers.
our workers are always busy at the capacity level they wish to be. as such, i dont see an issue with said term.

it's a situational thing, but definetly in the biggest interest for the server owners.


in addition, it is big for customer safety. assuming below scenario:

worker has a 500M deposit in server 1
worker has a 250M deposit in server 2
worker has a 100M deposit in server 3

on server 1, the worker has been active and is currently having access to a bank slightly exceeding his deposit
on server 2, he worker has been active and is currently having access to a bank touching his deposit
on server 3, the moderator made a mistake and suddenly he has access to a bank way beyond his deposit

this punishes server 1 and 2, since said worker will most likely clean the accounts on all 3 servers due to a mistake on a single server, and disappear, only to reappear under a different name in 2 weeks


to get back to the matter of this thread:

personally i find attempted poaching of customers (in DMS) a TWC worthy offence.
since prices on the service market are mostly comparable between all major servers, it's easy to "undercut" for a single order, to claim a client.
this has been happening in my server, and whereas customers tend to return after having a "bad" experience over in other places, it is annoying since from that moment onward a new pricing discussion starts.

we, like many other businesses on sythe pay some good $ for advertising. leeching on success of others is not a way to start a business.

 

No support, it's somewhat inevitable and easily circumvented. The effort to enforce it isn't there and goes too far out of what staff will usually handle regarding off-site disputes. Seems like it's not helping the competition considering your workers/customers let you know. I don't think you have to worry too much about it

 

No support, it's somewhat inevitable and easily circumvented. The effort to enforce it isn't there and goes too far out of what staff will usually handle regarding off-site disputes. Seems like it's not helping the competition considering your workers/customers let you know. I don't think you have to worry too much about it

This sums it up