Political Situation

[Foxman]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I dont know why its so laughable, as it is true. You needed 3 alliances to hit us. You needed 6 alliances last round to try and take exi down.

to me the most laughable post is the one that started this thread.

Last round we hit you for a night, you gather your your allies, hit us back, we declare war on you, you ask for a truce.

This round, you claim you have no allies, you get it by what you assume is a block, you take it to AD and whine about it.

and u forget that most of 1up spent the last 2 weeks, begging us to turn on exi 6 not enough

[furball]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

There is no alliance between Hydra / LCH and Insomnia.

1 sentence is all that has to be said to counter Sids post.

So basically you just told us that there is an alliance between Hydra and LCH. Thanks for the confirmation.



Moreover, I think you're equivocating* regarding your relations with Insomnia. Nicely done though.









* Outside of its use as a logical fallacy, equivocation can also mean the use of language that is equally susceptible of being understood in two different ways, or, more generally, ambiguous language. There is often a connotation that the use is deliberate, and intended to deceive.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Worst reply on AD for a while..

Whilie i agree it was quite low, you should have read the thread to the end. It's easily beaten by

Originally Posted by furball

So basically you just told us that there is an alliance between Hydra and LCH. Thanks for the confirmation.

Moreover, I think you're equivocating* regarding your relations with Insomnia. Nicely done though.

* Outside of its use as a logical fallacy, equivocation can also mean the use of language that is equally susceptible of being understood in two different ways, or, more generally, ambiguous language. There is often a connotation that the use is deliberate, and intended to deceive.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Envious

snippius maximus

What was wrong with it? Taking a blatantly wrong statement and inferring a bunch of "most likely" correct statements? If hydra and LCH are trying to hide their 'relations' per se, then maybe they should tell their own members to hush up. *glances at irc etc*

[-=Zyth=-]

Dont confuse poking fun with having a go fs.

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

none taken mazz, we know that. but vdm ment that tofs position atm is solo, and we are planning to keep it like this. and to zyth, well tried but i dont think anybody cares

I'd pack my bags if anybody did

[furball]

Originally Posted by Envious

Whilie i agree it was quite low, you should have read the thread to the end. It's easily beaten by [my post]

Since you don't seem to understand, I will make things very very clear for you.

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

There is no alliance between Hydra / LCH and Insomnia.

1. Hydra and LCH are put into the same category regarding their relations with Insomnia. This is the first clue that they can be treated as a single entity.
2. We are given no information as to the relations between Hydra and LCH.
3. Since this post is attempting to claim that there are no relations, then surely if there was no alliance between Hydra and LCH, Wishmaster would have said so.
   
4. Wishmaster is very specific in using the word 'alliance'. An alliance is the closest possible form of relations between two or more alliances, and does not include situations such as NAPs, attack co-ordination, joint target-picking, and so on. This is what I was talking about when I used the word equivocation - I even included a definition for you.

Someone will inevitably pop up and claim that I'm reading this out of nothing, and that it isn't what Wishmaster was saying at all. Don't be fool, Wishmaster's a very clever guy and he knows what he's saying and what he's not saying.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Sometimes what people DON'T say is more important than what they do say.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by furball

So basically you just told us that there is an alliance between Hydra and LCH. Thanks for the confirmation.



Moreover, I think you're equivocating* regarding your relations with Insomnia. Nicely done though




.

I did no such thing. how u may wish to interpret the way I say there is no relations is up to u.

I am just saying that sid is not correct with what he says.

And I fail to understand how u can ever correct me on that.

[Jonas]

Its simple...

LCH wanna block, 1up wanna block. This is the easiest(and in LCHs case, vs 1up, only) way to win. The best way to justify a block is by accusing the opposition...hence this thread

LCH want to win. They need to take down #1 ,which is 1up, to do it. Thats why they need a block. Accusing 1up of blocking in earlier rounds justify them possibly making a block to take down 1up this round.

1up is #1, and as there are many alliances wanting that position, they get alot of guns aimed at them. This is why they see the need to form a block against their mass incommings in order to stay #1. Easiest way is to claim all their attackers are blocked, and therefore they "have" to make a block to stand against this.

Point is. Change positions and we would still have the same situation, just with 1up needing to take down LCH and LCH needing to stay up.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by furball

Since you don't seem to understand, I will make things very very clear for you.

1. Hydra and LCH are put into the same category regarding their relations with Insomnia. This is the first clue that they can be treated as a single entity.
2. We are given no information as to the relations between Hydra and LCH.
3. Since this post is attempting to claim that there are no relations, then surely if there was no alliance between Hydra and LCH, Wishmaster would have said so.
   
4. Wishmaster is very specific in using the word 'alliance'. An alliance is the closest possible form of relations between two or more alliances, and does not include situations such as NAPs, attack co-ordination, joint target-picking, and so on. This is what I was talking about when I used the word equivocation - I even included a definition for you.

Someone will inevitably pop up and claim that I'm reading this out of nothing, and that it isn't what Wishmaster was saying at all. Don't be fool, Wishmaster's a very clever guy and he knows what he's saying and what he's not saying.

Did you even listen to yourself? I can ripp out of context whatever sid said and make it so he's allied to all alliances .... makes no sence at all ...

It's a matter of interpretation but I think entire AD can conclude that your post is complete rubbish. Even when it's true or not, it's impossible to conclude that from these posts here unless the HC's of said alliances give a statement about it.

Unless that happens, you'll always live in "guessing land"...

[furball]

There's a big difference between specific statements (such as Wishmaster's) and most posts on AD. I'm sure you can read anything into most posts, especially those of the length Sid does When an alliance HC makes a specfic point regarding external relations, it's a different situation.

Kj, I know it's not in LCH/Angels/Hydra's best interests for you guys to admit that there is a block. So feel free to keep denying it - but it doesn't stop it from being true.

Originally Posted by Squidly

What was wrong with it? Taking a blatantly wrong statement and inferring a bunch of "most likely" correct statements? If hydra and LCH are trying to hide their 'relations' per se, then maybe they should tell their own members to hush up. *glances at irc etc*

If I thought for one second that people would believe any IRC log, let alone the ones I can show you from my galaxy channel, we would settle this once and for all. But no IRC log has ever been able to prove such things due to the remote chance that it's made up. So this thread may keep on rolling....

[lokken]

lying is probably the worst thing you can do on AD for the record

you can look like a right tosser

^^ that is my favourite post ever btw

[Envious]

Originally Posted by furball

If I thought for one second that people would believe any IRC log, let alone the ones I can show you from my galaxy channel, we would settle this once and for all. But no IRC log has ever been able to prove such things due to the remote chance that it's made up. So this thread may keep on rolling....

It would surely be more impressing than your "clever" play with words. The words of others and your own words (forgot to thank you for the "Rethorics for Beginners" lesson before).

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Squidly

If hydra and LCH are trying to hide their 'relations' per se, then maybe they should tell their own members to hush up. *glances at irc etc*

If 1up et. al. want to point their fingers, they should maybe just say "we know we get incs from all of you", which noone will deny. They don't really need someone trying to "prove" anything with far fetched interpretations of more or less generic statements.

[DrunkenViking]

n00bs

[furball]

as much as i like good english, picking on someone's spelling when they aren't english is terminally shit - please, do not do this - Lok

Originally Posted by Envious

If 1up et. al. want to point their fingers, they should maybe just say "we know we get incs from all of you", which noone will deny. They don't really need someone trying to "prove" anything with far fetched interpretations of more or less generic statements.

The entire point of this thread is about blocking, and Sid's assertion that LCH/Hydra/Insomnia have formed the first block. 1up have said that they are receiving co-ordinated incomings from all 3 alliances, which is very close to blocking.


Envious, this is AD. Interpreting others' statements is what we do on here

[Envious]

Originally Posted by furball

[i] 1up have said that they are receiving co-ordinated incomings from all 3 alliances, which is very close to blocking.

i had some jgp on my targets, and i wish the attacks were coordinated

[Judge]

Sids original ramblings are nothing more than an attempt to flagrantly cast aspersions on the other alliances.

His attempt is made as 1up are having a spot of bother, so have to blame the big bad block, he would hate to have to admit a single alliance was responsible for anything (unless it was his) "we will be King Makers" GUFFAWW !!!

The bottom line is that he (and some of his toadies) want to form their own block, and are throwing out accusations so that they can justify it (in there own minds).

Turn it in Sid, just admit you want to form your own block and get on with it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jonas

You are just making a fool out of yourself

At the moment, there are atleast 4 alliances fighting for #1. Now 1up are currently #1 with by far the better average and also they have the numbers. What do you think they would do if LCH were #1, and they #2? I think hit LCH

Theres LCH theres Insomnia and theres Hydra, which I belive(I can only talk for Insomnia) all have the players and/or aims for #1.

The fact that theese alliances attack 1up is a good thing. People daring to take on the leading alliance of the game, even tho they could easily cruise in an "impressive" #2 #3 or #4. I'm sure a big part of the community will agree. Even 1up players do. And as far as your intel goes, get it straight or stfu.

I assume LCH and Hydra hit 1up. I know Insomnia have. Anything else would be ridicilous if our aims are indeed to get to #1. Nor am I shocked 1up got on the boards immideatley, doing their propaganda to turn the universe at the 1up invented "block". This is done only to justify their "counter-block" which will actually turn out to be the first block this round. This would again secure them #1, which is their aim...

Allknowers like you tho, just dont understand this. Easily manipulated by 1up(or possibly a 1up member/peon alliance member) you live in a world where the only thing you seek is agreeing with 1up. I think it gives you some sort of satisfaction. For your information, 1up have and are still using small alliances to do their work. Sending them in before the realwaves, using them for fake attacks and def-drawing retals(as they should, to maintain #1 in hard times)

Ugh, not sure I managed to say all I wanted. Point being All alliances wanting #1 should be gunning at #1 and not eachother. Fkers like furssie saying we are blocked, are simply just agreeing with 1up in order to feel a bit l33t(or as I said, ure a member of 1up or one of their peon alliances, and should agree with em)

If people actually say shit about Insomnia for hitting and going for #1, maybe we should just hit Hidden Agenda already and let 1up win after 2 weeks. That must surely be the point of this WAR game

(This is in no way a negative post about 1up, they are having a great round and its been nothing but fun so far(except when I lost 860 roids) Keep up the good work looking forward to more fighting )

I declare war on Penis-Allianz in order to avoid blocking and stagnation, Insomnia will be concentrating ALL our firepower on this poor guy with the oh so l33t name \o/

-Jonas-

Very nice post and well written how I sometimes feel when pple like Furssie just refuse to be atleast abit objective (cause every poster is biassed to his alliance).

Whether there is a block, a nap or simply an attack agreement doesn't matter. Sid and 1up claim it exists, some HC's here claim it doesn't.
I for one am NOT gonna agree or deny anything cause that is EXACTLY what sid's post was made for. If I agree I'll get a "I told you so, lame blockers" reply, if I deny I'll get a "fking liar" reply.

Sid knows this VERY well and also knew that his post would harm LCH PR, no matter what lch command would answer (deny/agree). I'm abit surprised that Sid thinks he can "fool" everyone with this attempt. It seems it worked on some posters but it certainly didn't on me.

This is just the best example of PR. No other purpose is behind this thread. This is a wargame and like in every war, PR is a big part of a war (look at Bush and Irak). Every round again we see such posts and every round again we see tons of pple buying it (sometimes the PR is actually true).

Sid very well knows that all alliances aiming for the win WILL attack #1. Sid also knows that alliances will not attack "in turn" just to avoid him yelling "block". Have we come to a point where alliances need to reconsider when they attack an alliance just to avoid the community to yell "BLOCK" cause another alliance happens to attack the same alliance aswell?

Sid, this post is in no way aimed at you in person, but more at you in the function of CEO of 1up and I think if you could be as honnest as you've always been (you know how to manipulate pple on AD, but you never lie so that's the good spirit) then you'd agree that this thread was nothing more then a PR attempt which to some extend reached its goal. I however didn't buy the PR, hence this reply.

rgds Kj

Lokken I undertand that this reply is offtopic for this thread but I quoted Jonas cause it was a perfect example for my post. If you think this post doesn't belong here, don't delete it but just ask me to move it to the Thread which Sid made - Thx

** Since this post is more appropriate in this thread I moved it here, though the original post I quoted from Jonas you find in the "most impressive" thread.

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by lokken

lying is probably the worst thing you can do on AD for the record

you can look like a right tosser

^^ that is my favourite post ever btw

OMG! I remember that!
It started all with one of Cryptic's flamethreads, and I sortof said Fury wasn't clean of cheaters itself, infact they organised cheating on a grander scale. And then Patrician ran off with it


But anyway, Sid's post is probably just another attempt to have people block together so he can announce his own block which ofcourse has been there for a while longer already. Wouldn't be the first time

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Sid, this post is in no way aimed at you in person, but more at you in the function of CEO of 1up and I think if you could be as honnest as you've always been (you know how to manipulate pple on AD, but you never lie so that's the good spirit) then you'd agree that this thread was nothing more then a PR attempt which to some extend reached its goal. I however didn't buy the PR, hence this reply.

Not lying doesn't mean he's telling things the way they are

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Not lying doesn't mean he's telling things the way they are

true, but bottom line is, he ain't lying about it either

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Its simple...

LCH wanna block, 1up wanna block. This is the easiest(and in LCHs case, vs 1up, only) way to win. The best way to justify a block is by accusing the opposition...hence this thread

LCH want to win. They need to take down #1 ,which is 1up, to do it. Thats why they need a block. Accusing 1up of blocking in earlier rounds justify them possibly making a block to take down 1up this round.

1up is #1, and as there are many alliances wanting that position, they get alot of guns aimed at them. This is why they see the need to form a block against their mass incommings in order to stay #1. Easiest way is to claim all their attackers are blocked, and therefore they "have" to make a block to stand against this.

Point is. Change positions and we would still have the same situation, just with 1up needing to take down LCH and LCH needing to stay up.

Your analysis is only partly correct.

Saying that "1up want to block" is wrong. Given our good start, the best possible result for 1up would be an entirely block-free universe, with no naps and no attack agreements between alliances. Surely that's obvious?

By the same reasoning, you're correct that LCH need to block to win (I'm using "block" in the widest possible sense here, to include all degrees of cooperation between alliances).

Yes, claiming our attackers are blocked IS our easiest way to justify making a block ourselves - but that doesn't mean that they AREN'T "blocked".

You know as well as I do that Insomnia and LCH HAVE been cooperating in attacks vs 1up this round. You've told me so in PMs. In fairness, I should point out that you've also told me that such cooperation is only temporary in nature. But when you come on the forums and then dissemble (stopping just short of outright lieing) over your actions plus pretty much accuse me of lieing, am I expected to take your word that it's only a short-term cooperation?

In your analysis you forgot to mention why your own alliance probably needs blocks more than either LCH or 1up do. You also would like to finish #1 - and the best chance you have of doing that is by getting the alliances ranked above you embroiled in a block war. Your ideal scenario would be to kill 1up, then reblock to kill LCH then hope the round ends with yourselves in #1.

Twist the truth all you want - you MAY deceive some of the AD readers but you won't fool everyone. Here's a simple test to see if you're willing to actually blatantly lie on AD:

Has Insomnia cooperated with LCH in attacks on 1up (as opposed to just happening to both be hitting us - which is what you tried to suggest in your post without ever saying it)?

Nice and easy one to answer, isn't it? Only needs a yes or a no.

In fairness, as I'm asking you that question, I should answer it myself. 1up has not coordinated any attacks with any other alliances at all this round. There you go - a totally unequivocal statement. Care to make a similar statement yourself - or aren't you willing to tell complete lies on AD?

Some may think I have no right to ask such a direct question here. I'd say that I do: Jonas' mealy-mouthed post attempted to imply that atatcks on 1up were coincidental and because of our rank - rather than the result of cooperation. If he wants the AD readership to believe that, then he can come out and say so directly.

[mazzelaar]

In addition to Sids post I'd like to extend the direct question to both LCH and Insomnia. Have either of you at any point coordinated attacks on 1up with Hydra?

Please tell the truth as posting logs from both LCH HC and Jonas is something that will get on my tits.

[The_Fish]

On the probability that they have, is that such a crime?

1up are still a whopping 9m in the lead, and with a large roid count, still 1st on roids. I think co-operation should be accepted to bring you down, as long as its temporary and fair.

[Wandows]

I still don't get the point of this thread? do you (1up) want every alliance in the game stating that they are ok with you forming your counterblock or whatever you want to do? Do you want them to say boohooohoo to LCH / Insomnia / Hydra / whatever other #1/top contending alliance, for doing what any contending (w)(sh)ould obviously do and hitting the #1?

You are by far in the lead and not even falling behind when 3 alliances apparently are hitting you, so what is the problem? if you need extra help just get it? No need to cry on AD for being attacked and being in the leading position.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

On the probability that they have, is that such a crime?

1up are still a whopping 9m in the lead, and with a large roid count, still 1st on roids. I think co-operation should be accepted to bring you down, as long as its temporary and fair.

No, of course it's not a crime.

But lieing about it on AD while trying to point the finger at 1up as the ones who want to block isn't attractive. And if they lie/mislead about cooperating, who's going to believe them if they later claim it's temporary?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

as long as its temporary and fair.

Think about it...............

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Wandows

I still don't get the point of this thread? do you (1up) want every alliance in the game stating that they are ok with you forming your counterblock or whatever you want to do? Do you want them to say boohooohoo to LCH / Insomnia / Hydra / whatever other #1/top contending alliance, for doing what any contending (w)(sh)ould obviously do and hitting the #1?

You are by far in the lead and not even falling behind when 3 alliances apparently are hitting you, so what is the problem? if you need extra help just get it? No need to cry on AD for being attacked and being in the leading position.

So what, precisely, do YOU think AD is for - seeing as you apparently don't believe it's for discussing alliances/politics in PA?

[furball]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I think co-operation should be accepted to bring you down, as long as its temporary and fair.

A temporary block is not going to happen. LCH/Hydra/Insomnia will hit 1up until they have no chance of regaining the number 1 spot. Then what? If an alliance breaks off, Phraktos style, then that alliance will be smashed by the other two.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

is something that will get on my tits.

mazz got man-tits /o\

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

mazz got man-tits /o\

All paid for and creating an uber block with my big fat ass.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

In addition to Sids post I'd like to extend the direct question to both LCH and Insomnia. Have either of you at any point coordinated attacks on 1up with Hydra?

Please tell the truth as posting logs from both LCH HC and Jonas is something that will get on my tits.

You will NOT and I repeat NOT receive an official answer from LCH. We do not play your games cause if we deny or admit, in both situations we'll come out looking either lame blockers or lame liars in your eyes.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Your analysis is only partly correct.

Saying that "1up want to block" is wrong. Given our good start, the best possible result for 1up would be an entirely block-free universe, with no naps and no attack agreements between alliances. Surely that's obvious?

By the same reasoning, you're correct that LCH need to block to win (I'm using "block" in the widest possible sense here, to include all degrees of cooperation between alliances).

Yes, claiming our attackers are blocked IS our easiest way to justify making a block ourselves - but that doesn't mean that they AREN'T "blocked".

You know as well as I do that Insomnia and LCH HAVE been cooperating in attacks vs 1up this round. You've told me so in PMs. In fairness, I should point out that you've also told me that such cooperation is only temporary in nature. But when you come on the forums and then dissemble (stopping just short of outright lieing) over your actions plus pretty much accuse me of lieing, am I expected to take your word that it's only a short-term cooperation?

In your analysis you forgot to mention why your own alliance probably needs blocks more than either LCH or 1up do. You also would like to finish #1 - and the best chance you have of doing that is by getting the alliances ranked above you embroiled in a block war. Your ideal scenario would be to kill 1up, then reblock to kill LCH then hope the round ends with yourselves in #1.

Twist the truth all you want - you MAY deceive some of the AD readers but you won't fool everyone. Here's a simple test to see if you're willing to actually blatantly lie on AD:

Has Insomnia cooperated with LCH in attacks on 1up (as opposed to just happening to both be hitting us - which is what you tried to suggest in your post without ever saying it)?

Nice and easy one to answer, isn't it? Only needs a yes or a no.

In fairness, as I'm asking you that question, I should answer it myself. 1up has not coordinated any attacks with any other alliances at all this round. There you go - a totally unequivocal statement. Care to make a similar statement yourself - or aren't you willing to tell complete lies on AD?

Some may think I have no right to ask such a direct question here. I'd say that I do: Jonas' mealy-mouthed post attempted to imply that atatcks on 1up were coincidental and because of our rank - rather than the result of cooperation. If he wants the AD readership to believe that, then he can come out and say so directly.

Sid -

Your alliance is the best in the universe, I think everyone recognises that, simply because of the talent and experience at your disposal.

If you expect other alliances to simply roll over, lay down and die and not block, to counter the 'threat' that 1up poses, you are off your tree. There is nothing wrong with blocking in this scenario. If you want to block - go and do it if you feel you have to. The issue here isn't really whether they are blocked at all, but whether it is reasonable for them to do so. Given their situation, I think it is. In my opinion, there's not that much to dispute about whether blocks exist and in fact in my view is rather 'missing the point'.

Like them, you are equally entitled to act in your own self-interest and claim it's unreasonable on Alliance Discussions by claiming it is an outrage. While a r11 type situation might suit your purposes for some reason, it doesn't suit LCH/Hydra/Insomnia if they are blocked so to speak - because guess what, other alliances want to win too. And to be honest, lets face it - if you wanted to block, you could do so pretty quickly, wouldn't need to justify it because you would be confident of winning anyway and really I don't see why you would feel the need to justify it. So what if Insomnia have some clever political plan? I hardly see you as someone lacking the ability to counter it.

As I have no idea what the real reasoning behind your posting is, since you seem to want to state the obvious till you are blue in the face (it seems you are trying to rant and score points if we go down the "are they blocking" route), I'll make a guess. My wager is that you are trying to get galaxy members in 1up galaxies on your side by fear or sympathy, and to persuade them to fencesit by making such an open offer for planet NAPs in your initial post.

The result allows you to mop up the nasties first, then deal with the timorous rest at a later date. The effect is comparatively similar to blocking, infact I'd call it blocking via the back door. If I'm right, well I'm mighty impressed. If I'm wrong, your posting is no more than ranting between ticks.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You will NOT and I repeat NOT receive an official answer from LCH. We do not play your games cause if we deny or admit, in both situations we'll come out looking either lame blockers or lame liars in your eyes.

Not in the slightest. I know the truth - I was just wondering if you were men enough to tell it. Evidently not.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

The issue here isn't really whether they are blocked at all, but whether it is reasonable for them to do so. Given their situation, I think it is. In my opinion, there's not that much to dispute about whether blocks exist and in fact in my view is rather 'missing the point.

As you acknowledge, it's obvious that the block exists - yet LCH HC have flatly denied it (i.e. lied) and Insomnia HC have tried to mislead. IF they were honest enough to admit what they're doing then you'd be right - and there'd be "not much to dispute about whether blocks exist". All the time they're in denial you're wrong - and there IS something substantive to dispute.

Originally Posted by lokken

Like them, you are equally entitled to act in your own self-interest and claim it's unreasonable on Alliance Discussions by claiming it is an outrage.

I've never claimed blocking is, of itself, an outrage - or even a bad thing. On the contrary I've acknowledged in this thread that for some alliances it's the only sensible move. The size and durability of a block are the issues that merit discussion - but while the participants lie/prevaricate/mislead we're unable to progress to sensible discussion about those issues.

Originally Posted by lokken

As I have no idea what the real reasoning behind your posting is I'll just make something up.

FYP

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You will NOT and I repeat NOT receive an official answer from LCH. We do not play your games cause if we deny or admit, in both situations we'll come out looking either lame blockers or lame liars in your eyes.

We already had an answer from LCH HC on the first page of this thread. You realise it's possible to be both lame blockers AND lame liars (i'm not accusing you personally of this) - it's not necessarily a choice between the two. Equally it's possible to be neither of those things - but that does require an honest answer.

[Gio2k]

If LCH, Insomnia, Hydra, etc targetted 1up without any type of coordination, most of the firepower would be wasted. However, in my eyes a block has much better coordination than the one i have seen. There are no nap amongst the alliances involved afaik. But to attack 1up blindly would be stupid. Looking at pilkara, i think most would agree this has been the first _well coordinated_ effort on 1up. I recall one other night where we also targetted individual coords, but i don't recall that night to have a big impact on 1up.
Anyways, 1up have been somewhat slowed down now. I would expect politics to reset back to a free for all round soon.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Not in the slightest. I know the truth - I was just wondering if you were men enough to tell it. Evidently not.

If you know the truth then don't bother asking in on AD. I personally am not gonna tell you anything because of 2 simple reasons:

- I'm inactive as hell and haven't even been involved in the politics in LCH (ask Ace if needed)
- No matter what I answer, you will not believe and you could held it against me whenever it suits you (I'm not saying you would, I'm saying you CAN)

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

- I'm inactive as hell and haven't even been involved in the politics in LCH (ask Ace if needed)

Then why are you replying?

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

- No matter what I answer, you will not believe and you could held it against me whenever it suits you (I'm not saying you would, I'm saying you CAN)

You're entirely missing the point. We're only asking for honesty. If you were just honest how could we hold anything against you? Sid has already justified the need for alliances to work together for you.

Remember that I already know the truth having spoken at length with LCH and Insomnia HC in PM. We're just interested if you still want to be known as liars or actually have the testicular fortitude* to actually admit it and say straight out that it's a temporary situation that will be broken up when the objectives have been achieved.



* copyright jernub`

[derry]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If you know the truth then don't bother asking in on AD. I personally am not gonna tell you anything because of 2 simple reasons:

- I'm inactive as hell and haven't even been involved in the politics in LCH (ask Ace if needed)

for some reason you don't seem to be on these boards, you seem to be the first to have a word for every post being posted here, wheter it was aimed at you(or your alliance) or not

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Then why are you replying?



You're entirely missing the point. We're only asking for honesty. If you were just honest how could we hold anything against you? Sid has already justified the need for alliances to work together for you.

Remember that I already know the truth having spoken at length with LCH and Insomnia HC in PM. We're just interested if you still want to be known as liars or actually have the testicular fortitude* to actually admit it and say straight out that it's a temporary situation that will be broken up when the objectives have been achieved.



* copyright jernub`

1: Why am I replying. If you read my initial posts it was more aimed at the PR stunt this thread is rather then me saying what LCH's political relations are.

2: I"m not known as a liar. I've not told lies here on AD nor in pm's with pple. If you wanna believe I'm a liar then that's fine but I'd like you to point me to the EXACT post.
My opinions etc you might disagree with but I don't take it that you call me a liar when ALL I've said so far was that I'll not admit/deny.

I'm way to inactive and not involved to make any statements about the politics of LCH. I've never done that this round and I'm not gonna either. The reason I replied on these threads is to give MY OPINION on the thread and what I think are the motives for Sid/1up to make this thread.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

1: Why am I replying. If you read my initial posts it was more aimed at the PR stunt this thread is rather then me saying what LCH's political relations are.

2: I"m not known as a liar. I've not told lies here on AD nor in pm's with pple. If you wanna believe I'm a liar then that's fine but I'd like you to point me to the EXACT post.
My opinions etc you might disagree with but I don't take it that you call me a liar when ALL I've said so far was that I'll not admit/deny.

I'm way to inactive and not involved to make any statements about the politics of LCH. I've never done that this round and I'm not gonna either. The reason I replied on these threads is to give MY OPINION on the thread and what I think are the motives for Sid/1up to make this thread.

So what you are effectively saying is that you're simply sticking your nose in without the knowledge to back any of it up.

Why not keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're tlaking about instead of sticking your oar in when you blatently either

A) Have absolutely no idea whats going on

or

B) Just bullshitting us all

How on earth can you say this is a propoganda thread if you know none of the particulars that it is referring to.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You will NOT and I repeat NOT receive an official answer from LCH. We do not play your games cause if we deny or admit, in both situations we'll come out looking either lame blockers or lame liars in your eyes.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I'm way to inactive and not involved to make any statements about the politics of LCH. I've never done that this round and I'm not gonna either. The reason I replied on these threads is to give MY OPINION on the thread and what I think are the motives for Sid/1up to make this thread.

If your too inactive and not involved, why make posts saying you are involved

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by furball

A temporary block is not going to happen. LCH/Hydra/Insomnia will hit 1up until they have no chance of regaining the number 1 spot. Then what? If an alliance breaks off, Phraktos style, then that alliance will be smashed by the other two.

Rubbish. Hydra, LCH and Insomnia ALL want to win this round, there is no way they'd just block and let 1up be pwned. They all need to make sure the other doesn't run away with the lead, it is most certainly a temporary thing, if the HC of the 3 have a brain cell between them anyways.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Rubbish. Hydra, LCH and Insomnia ALL want to win this round, there is no way they'd just block and let 1up be pwned. They all need to make sure the other doesn't run away with the lead, it is most certainly a temporary thing, if the HC of the 3 have a brain cell between them anyways.

I agree with this really, furball makes a good point that a HIL 'powerblock' would suck if it kept on going, but at one point, Hydra or Insomnia are going to have to make a move simply because LCH haev the greater numbers and it will be nearly impossible to outroid them. Unlike FPM, I think Insomnia and perhaps Hydra too will not be bound to some excuse of loyalty like in 10.5 when the FPM group claimed it would be disloyal to prevent hte round from being absolutely shit by going for first.

Atleast, this is what I'm really hoping for, and I don't think my hopes will be in vain.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Rubbish. Hydra, LCH and Insomnia ALL want to win this round, there is no way they'd just block and let 1up be pwned. They all need to make sure the other doesn't run away with the lead, it is most certainly a temporary thing, if the HC of the 3 have a brain cell between them anyways.

So you're saying these three will be the first alliances ever to break the standard PA trend of staying in one mass lump not attacking each other and stagnating the round or kicking one alliance out and seeing which of the remaining two can get all the roids first?

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Twist the truth all you want - you MAY deceive some of the AD readers but you won't fool everyone. Here's a simple test to see if you're willing to actually blatantly lie on AD:

Has Insomnia cooperated with LCH in attacks on 1up (as opposed to just happening to both be hitting us - which is what you tried to suggest in your post without ever saying it)?

Nice and easy one to answer, isn't it? Only needs a yes or a no.

In fairness, as I'm asking you that question, I should answer it myself. 1up has not coordinated any attacks with any other alliances at all this round. There you go - a totally unequivocal statement. Care to make a similar statement yourself - or aren't you willing to tell complete lies on AD?

Some may think I have no right to ask such a direct question here. I'd say that I do: Jonas' mealy-mouthed post attempted to imply that atatcks on 1up were coincidental and because of our rank - rather than the result of cooperation. If he wants the AD readership to believe that, then he can come out and say so directly.

Yes. At a certain point we talked to LCH and made sure gals werent doublebooked(as both was clearly hitting 1up already anyway). They still seem to be by ToF anyway :P

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

In addition to Sids post I'd like to extend the direct question to both LCH and Insomnia. Have either of you at any point coordinated attacks on 1up with Hydra?

Yes. 1 time. Terribly disorganized, not sure if they even did what they were supposed to. Then accused us of backstabbing(their HC lost roids to ND in a gal we roided?? No shocker ND takes on Hydra imo after them taking in G-II ), so we roided em for a few nights.

So my question to 1up. Have you or have you not used non 1up planets for retals on your attackers?

ps. This post is made by me, as Jonas the honest person. LCH or Hydra have not been informed about or akwnoledged it, they might even deny it. However, I'm not afraid to admit I learned from 1up in previous rounds, and for a time gave them a lesson in their own tactics.

[Mek]

Jonas...i think i may love you :P

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Yes. 1 time. Terribly disorganized, not sure if they even did what they were supposed to. Then accused us of backstabbing(their HC lost roids to ND I think), so we roided em for a few nights.

I think I remember that. I got accused of blocking with 1up, despite the 1.3k 1up CR/BS that roided me the night after \o/

[Agerus]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1up has not coordinated any attacks with any other alliances at all this round. There you go - a totally unequivocal statement. Care to make a similar statement yourself - or aren't you willing to tell complete lies on AD?

but did you NAP various other alliances... yes or no?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Jonas

So my question to 1up. Have you or have you not used non 1up planets for retals on your attackers?

No, we haven't. Obviously I can't rule out the possibility that some member has got a friend/galaxy mate to counter his own attackers - but I've never asked anyone not in 1up to retal an attacker, nor am I aware of any instance in which any 1up member has.