Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
More generally if we called ascendancy a community or a block or a trans-tag-co-operational-transmogrifier (okay I made that last word up) would this be different? I've said it before and I'll say it again but alliances aren't tags. You can bring up so many problems with the idea that they are it just gets silly.
|
As I already said, you can argue that alliances aren't just tags. The fundamental purpose of the tag is to fit an alliance inside it, and accordingly prevent the alliance from expanding beyond given memberlimit. You can explain all you want about how an alliance doesn't equal tag, and vice versa, but the whole support rule system is built around the assumption that an alliance must fit inside a tag, and that an alliance shouldn't consist of more members that fits inside a tag. You can call it stupid, and I will agree with you, but if it wasn't so assumed, but the whole unfair benefit scheme is built on the presumption that a tag represents the alliance, and the members of the alliance should all fit in the tag (hereby: as mentioned alliance limits, not tag limits; hence tag limits limit sizes of alliances). You can say community too, but it makes little difference as a community, alliance, guild, clan, group of players, zoo, squad, team, battlegroup, whatever as a single entity is assumed to follow the alliance limits (hereby: tag limits, to fit the members inside the tag).
I guess if you go wordplay, you could call yourselves a block and hence avoid the whole mess saying it's normal for blocks to cooperate. Trans-tag-co-operational, on the other hand, sounds like a plan to set up support planets, so don't say that either! Again, the five point plan on how to deal with multihunters. You should have just told them that you've blocked with Descendancy in order to attack _VBO_ together, and you'd probably be better off, huh.
ps.
No you didn't!