Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Judge
lol
Oh i got it sid, I just dont agree that accepting planet naps whilst rejecting the same action for your own members is an acceptable way to act.
I find it a bit double standards, I personally wouldnt do either, but that is probably why I have never won a round of Planetarion? I am not devious enough by far.
|
Bottom line is I want a high standard from my own members and will activiely encourage low standards in the opposition. I'm not sure how that's unacceptable - after all for me to win, someone else has to lose.
I want my members to win, I want the competition to lose.
I want my members to stay active, I want the competition to go inactive.
I want spies in the competition but none in my own alliance.
I want my members attacking the enemy while the enemy attack neutrals.
I want me members attacking the enemy while some of the enemy have planet naps to us reducing the firepower they can bring to bear.
All of those things are entirely consistent and in no way hypocritical. Ultimately in any competitive situation you MUST strive for entirely different objectives (winning ones) for your side than for the opposition (losing ones). That's the entire basis on which competition occurs. Preventing planet naps in your own alliance while encouraging them in the opposition is just one of the many areas in which you can differentiate your alliance as a winning one from the opposition (who you want to be a losing one).
I just can't see how using such an obviously competetive tactic can be considered hypocritical. If I was claiming it was morally right for members of other alliances to do it - buit not for members of my own alliance then you'd have had a point. But I've never claimed that.
I have, of course, focussed on the benefits of such planet naps to members of other alliances. But heck - it's not my job to go round telling members of other alliances what's in their alliance's interest
