Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Methedrine · 8 Jul 2004, 11:18

I am astonished.

Synthetic_Sid was proposing a free-for-all round (as people can find on this thread). Also, he said here that one major problem with blocks is the exchange of memberlists. Now he complains that 3 alliances should have blocked just because they have hit the same alliance (shocking, 1Up is the #1 alliance, they have to expect to be hit most), while those 3 claim to have not blocked since they can still hit each other (isn't a no-hit-agreement between those alliances required to call it a block?). Also take a look at the alliance rankings ... even if such a block should exist you would just need to hit MISTU in order to disable their ability to gain the #1 spot - and MISTU's current chance to get to the top is extremly small already.

Given this situation I simply say that
a) what Sid claims to be a block is none
and
b) even if it would be a block it wouldn't justify a counterblock of the #1 alliance since it's only purpose seems to be levelling the playing field again (according to a few statements in this thread) - which is perfectly ok - since neither FAnG nor ROCK seem to have options on winning the round and MISTU is still struggling (just take a look at their performance history on the toolkit pages like sandmans or pilkara)

From these 2 conclusions I can say a few things:
- Sid fears to lose the #1 spot very soon
- Sid tries to draw attention away from 1Up so that they can play a bit more relaxed again
- Sid considers 1Up as not strong enough to become winning alliance of r11 by itself as he is actively seeking for a reason to find partners with this thread.

However, Sid, if YOU WANT TO block, just do it (in reference to your posting here). You don't need to justify yourself for blocking. One can only hope that no alliance gives in to what Sid claims and keeps on fighting the #1 (as it should always happen in a free-for-all round in order to keep the game interesting).

[EDIT] In Razorbacks comment I noticed that my saying #3 was not clear enough so I changed "become #1 alliance" to "become winning alliance of r11"

8 Jul 2004, 11:18	#115
Methedrine wearing cheap sunglasses Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: middle of uphill Posts: 63	Re: And so it begins ... I am astonished. Synthetic_Sid was proposing a free-for-all round (as people can find on this thread). Also, he said here that one major problem with blocks is the exchange of memberlists. Now he complains that 3 alliances should have blocked just because they have hit the same alliance (shocking, 1Up is the #1 alliance, they have to expect to be hit most), while those 3 claim to have not blocked since they can still hit each other (isn't a no-hit-agreement between those alliances required to call it a block?). Also take a look at the alliance rankings ... even if such a block should exist you would just need to hit MISTU in order to disable their ability to gain the #1 spot - and MISTU's current chance to get to the top is extremly small already. Given this situation I simply say that a) what Sid claims to be a block is none and b) even if it would be a block it wouldn't justify a counterblock of the #1 alliance since it's only purpose seems to be levelling the playing field again (according to a few statements in this thread) - which is perfectly ok - since neither FAnG nor ROCK seem to have options on winning the round and MISTU is still struggling (just take a look at their performance history on the toolkit pages like sandmans or pilkara) From these 2 conclusions I can say a few things: - Sid fears to lose the #1 spot very soon - Sid tries to draw attention away from 1Up so that they can play a bit more relaxed again - Sid considers 1Up as not strong enough to become winning alliance of r11 by itself as he is actively seeking for a reason to find partners with this thread. However, Sid, if YOU WANT TO block, just do it (in reference to your posting here). You don't need to justify yourself for blocking. One can only hope that no alliance gives in to what Sid claims and keeps on fighting the #1 (as it should always happen in a free-for-all round in order to keep the game interesting). [EDIT] In Razorbacks comment I noticed that my saying #3 was not clear enough so I changed "become #1 alliance" to "become winning alliance of r11" Last edited by Methedrine; 8 Jul 2004 at 11:55.