[Light]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

It's only unfair if it's against the rules. It's a worse than meaningless word in any other circumstances.

Rules dont define what is unfair or fair, The new private galaxy system is unfair for new players and will likely be changed back next round but its allowed this round.

If the donation rules are changed next round, would it make it unfair?

Yes, it is.

No it isnt.

See what I mean by 'arbitrary'?

Nope.

First off all, this is a logical fallacy. I don't have to do the stuff I advocate in order for my points to be valid. Secondly, you picked just about the worst person to pull it on. I did XP in r16 in ROCK. I was personally involved with the no roid cov op strategy in r22. I was in the mass-dist galaxy in r24 (the round before Ascendancy as an alliance tried it). I have probably introduced or participated in more revolutionary strategies than anyone in the last 20 rounds. So, er, **** off.

Congratulations on your revolutionary strategies. However, none of those strategys directly resulted in you being well ahead of everyone and all had major drawbacks stopping you.

The funny thing is, whenever someone introduces a new strategy, it invariably gets destroyed the round after. XP? Ruined after r16. Dists? Ruined after r25. Cov ops? Ruined after r22. Donations? Probably ruined after this round. And invariably, it's not people like me that ruin them. It's people like you.

or you ruin them by taking them to the extremes which no-one else had yet thought of so they got nerfed.

]
Do X or Y but not Z! But thank God you're not being arbitrary.

ty.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You haven't, at any point, given an even vaguely objective definition of "unfair". So yes, your argument does boil down to "I don't like this".

When someone is allowed to gain a 2x+ value lead over everyone else.

or in a broad sense

Unfair is when someone is allowed to gain a huge lead over someone else through other means than the core gameplay or by means that havent yet been thought of within the core gameplay which offer them a major advantage over everyone else.
Core Gameplay: Attacking, Defending, Cov-ops, Scanning.

This is an insane use of the word unfair. Purely in the context in which you use it you could replace "didn't have donation whores" with didn't get alliance def or anything else. Note that I'm not saying that they're exactly the same thing here, I'm just saying the actual argument is completely meaningless.

How is it completly meaningless, the game is based around alliance or galaxy play it is not based around getting people to donate to you.

This isn't an argument. It's a statement.

A correct statement.

This is almost an argument but you still don't provide any reasons for why you shouldn't be able to achieve high value through donation whoring.

As its an unfair advantage to allow one planet to be donated so many resources and gain the #1 rank just through donations. We dont allow planets crashing on purpose, we dont allow planets donation there roids, we shouldnt allow planets donating there resources either.

Edit: Seriously light, it's not a coincidence that mz and my response's are almost exactly the same. At this point I'd advise just going out and looking up what most of the words you're using actually mean, and then try to apply them to pa and figure out how they fit in.

You're in the same alliance which i highly suspect has spoked about this thread and my replys. You've also probably discussed this donation system in great deal and came up with your own lines or reasonings.

o the discussion of arbitary lines though, anything could be it? Why stop at 50mil max? thats just a line in the sand. Why not allow those 7 planets to donate all there resources to him all round?