Political Situation

[furball]

Originally Posted by Stifler

Cooperation that will only last for a limited time to achieve common goals, in this case to peg 1up back so they cant run away with the round.

Any cooperation can only be short term for the simple fact we also have conflicting goals, to end #1.

Yet you fail to say what constitutes pegging 1up back so that they can't run away with the round. Should they be equal to LCH's score? Insomnia's score? Hydra's score? Below that? What about their roid count, their average score, and so on?

Besides, it is in LCH's best interests that the block continues for as long as possible, I'm suprised you haven't realised this. You have the most members, and other things equal, have the best chance of winning the round if 1up do not. Therefore the fewer alliances attacking you, the better. At the moment, as part of this block, Insomnia and Hydra are not hitting you. However, they will need to hit you to finish number 1, as they cannot out-roid you.



Didn't you play Round 10.5?

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

ALL cooperation in PA is for "a limited time" - or is there some number of days after which it becomes "unlimited time"?

ALL blocks last for a limited amount of time - until they break up.

Read my previous post as to way its hard to give a actual time period

edit due to posts made

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Stifler

Its quite hard to assign a time to short term for the simple fact that how would we know how long 1up can keep there impressive lead? As you know fully well yourself, 1up arent an alliance that will just roll over easily.

All that can be done is look at 1ups growth at the end of each day and decide from there

So by your own comments it's NOT necessarily short-term. After all, if we DID keep an impressive lead all round, you've just said you'd stay together for the rest of the round. Is staying together till the end of the round short-term?

You seem to see no contradiction between "short term" and "for as long as it takes".

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You DO appreciate that without a definition of short-term, the remainder of your definitions are totally and utterly meaningless? Is 2 rounds short-term? what about 1 round? what about a month? what about a week? what about a day?

"Short-term" means nothing without a contect in which to assess how long is "short", "medium" or "long".

You can't define as "short-term" something which lasts until an objective is met - as if the objective doesn't get met then it's actually "infinitely long-term". Similarly, "temporary" without a specific end date is meaningless.

You are correct. I apologize.

The meaning of this cooperation is two alliances hoping to finnish #1 see current #1 running away with it. Therefore cooperating to make sure there will still be a fight for #1 for the reminder of the round. I'm sure you two(1up and LCH) can create ur blocks once its even and you actually have to fight, instead of getting the easy ride again.

So. There you have it. Once LCH and 1up can fight it out alone, Insomnia wont be helping one side against another, unless someone blocks and makes it uneven. This is exactly what we want. No alliance in PA history has ever pulled of a win completely by themselves, nor will Insomnia. We will do whatever it takes(within the rules ofc) to keep our chances up. This is just perfect for us. You know it, we know it. Its just as perfect for LCH, and our time will come, as we both want #1. Thats when it will be perfect for 1up. You all understand it. Its the ones with the best tactics, timing and patience taht will win this. Goodluck LCH and 1up. I fear we might cooperate with both of you in order to get our win, and I fear you both will want to cooperate with us, in order to get yours.

This is like a 3man game of risk. Once someone get too big, without managing to pull it off, he will be consumed by the other two until hes nolonger a threat, and someone else will go for the #1. Why? Because they all want to win.

We can also assosiate this with Tour de France. 3 riders r fighting for the win, X tries to get a distance to the others, they help eachother by pulling eachother half the time(saving strenght), catching up X and eventually Y or Z will try to get ahead. The same thing will happen, but with different positions. Why? Because they all want to win.

Eventually, the smartest and most dedicated will win. Once someone actually got the strenght to run ahead without the others managing to catch up, we have a winner!

Whereever theres 3 different contesters to a win, and all really want to win, we will ALWAYS see a 2v1 if someone gets ahead. Its not illegal. Its not wrong.

Its perfectly natural

-Jonas-

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I agree that LCH and Insomnia are currently allied (you forgot to mention the napped part).
I agree that you don't believe that Hydra are coordinating attacks with LCH/Insomnia.
I agree that by YOUR definition you aren't a block (your definition presumably being Jonas' one - which is approximately that it's not a block if the people in it agree it isn't a block).
I agree that 1up can expect coordinated incs.

So yes, we agree on a lot of things - especially about what you believe.

It would be silly to attack each other while coordinating attacks on 1up, so, yeah, we must be napped.
I am indeed making assumptions about hydra, which are based on simple facts such as hydra hitting our gals, and lch and insomnia hitting them. Of course, only HC can confirm whether they are coordinating attacks with LCH / Insomnia. I would like politics to be open, but then again, that's probably not going to happen.
Whether we are or not a "block" or whether your definition or ours is more correct, is not the issue here. The valid issue is when will this cooperation end. I expect it to end soon, seeing as 1up have lost some roids finally :P

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

So by your own comments it's NOT necessarily short-term. After all, if we DID keep an impressive lead all round, you've just said you'd stay together for the rest of the round. Is staying together till the end of the round short-term?

You seem to see no contradiction between "short term" and "for as long as it takes".

But theres also 3-4 candidates for the #1 spot and the end, so can you really see the other 1-2 letting any cooperation last all round, and hence lose there own chances to win?

I admit, if any cooperation last all round LCH would benefit the most but can you really see Jonas/insomnia letting that happen when he has said many times he wants this win as well...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by lokken

Go go gadget planetarion history books

Not one to shirk from a challenge, here's my attempt.

I choose to define 'block' as any entity consisting of more than one planet spread over two or more galaxies.

Thus any alliance is a 'block'.

To assist in arguments on AD, I think we should differentiate between a block* and a bloc**. A block is simply a set of planets that (try to) act as a unit. While there is sometimes (often) bickering within the party/alliance/block, no one truly gains from sabotaging for eachother. A block can also part of another block. For example, if alliance Wankers and Tossers ally eachother, they can be referred to as a block. Of course, the Wankers and Tossers would do everything in their power to deny that they are in fact a block, claiming that they are two seperate blocks.

This brings us to bloc. A block can be a bloc, but that's not necessarily the case. A bloc is an entity of power. A force to be reckoned with, though not necessarily corresponding to a block or even a set of agreements countering that block.

Following definition 1:

Originally Posted by American Heritage

1. A group of nations, parties, or persons united for common action: the Communist bloc.

Note that the definition includes 'persons'. In planetarion terms: planets. In PA terms this makes Fury or Legion of the pre-round 4*** period blocs. A bloc doesn't even need to be an alliance; a battlegroup with significant influence and an agenda can be considered a bloc.

A bloc is also signified by the unity for common action. Pre-round politics in pre-PAX (probably post- as well, but I'm much more familiar with pre-PAX) generally revolved around convincing someone there was a bloc that needed countering, thus forming a bloc of common action to take down the possibly real threat-bloc. The counter-bloc might be ill-informed, so that it is actually the threat bloc. This usually results in the horrible messy death of the counter-cum-threat.

Binary blocs are boring, and once r13 shaped up to be the EXil bloc vs the 1up bloc the round suffered**** (imo). I'd also say

Following definition 2:

2. An often bipartisan coalition of legislators acting together for a common purpose or interest: the farm bloc in the U.S. Senate.

This is where a bloc differs from the traditional 'block'. A bloc has an agenda. In my opinion there are three agendas in PA.

1. The block victory agenda - A bloc pursuing this agenda wish for a certain block to win. This generally means an alliance*****, though many people seem to think that several alliances can 'win'.
2. The galactic victory agenda - A bloc pursuing this agenda is generally inferior to a primary bloc, or merely superior enough to pursue it successfully as a tertiary priority.
3. The planetary victory agenda - A bloc pursuing this agenda will sacrifice priority on the other agendas to increase a certain planet within their bloc to gain the top spot. In some cases it has been achieved despite the bloc not posing a threat for either of the other victory agendas.

I argue that a composite bloc, that is a bloc that consists of multiple alliances can only delude itself that it is trying to pursue any but these agendas. Some alliances will do so willingly, for hate of other alliances. (I'd argue that LCH sided with EXil simply to ensure that 1up failed in all their agendas******).

In arguing that a set of blocks are in fact parts of a larger block, one is implicitely stating that the blocks are in fact part of a bloc (and thus represent a danger, a cowardly conspiracy etc etc).

I think it's important to point out that there can be blocs within blocs, but that their actual effect on the greater part of the universe is through their influence on the outer bloc. For example, a BG might be pursuing a planetary victory agenda while supporting their alliance's block victory agenda.


* Refering primarily to definition 7.

** Refering primarily to both definition 1 and 2.

*** I'm trying to speak in the abstract here to avoid getting involved in this specific case of shit-lobbing.

**** Still a great round (again imo).

***** Only people stuck in pre-PAX think multiple alliances can 'win' by being part of the same bloc or block.

****** Though one could argue that 1up did have partial achievement the galactic victory agenda, seeing as they had 2 HC and a member in the winning gal. Says a bit about how cheap that one can be.

[ElAlan]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

So by your own comments it's NOT necessarily short-term. After all, if we DID keep an impressive lead all round, you've just said you'd stay together for the rest of the round. Is staying together till the end of the round short-term?

You seem to see no contradiction between "short term" and "for as long as it takes".

You've just made a good point here for the reason for this block. It is obviously to stop 1up winning the round easily thus if 1up were still winning, even against this block wouldnt it be a better more interesting war fighting this block all round than winning very easily against individual alliances?

[TheGoaT]

you are all a bunch of whiney bitches. stfu and fight.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Banned

**** Still a great round (again imo).

Very true. The round is not stagnated, unbalanced or predictable*. Its most open and enjoyable

*Parts of it aint predictable

[SteInMetz]

so if they have a block who attack's 1up.
They must :
1. Not be attacking 1up
2. Their attack suck so much that their mother is ashamed.
3. Attacking coords they belive are 1up. but not really are.

if 3 alliances attack 1 alliance, There is no chance in hell that the 1 alliance can keep growing as we see now.

So pick one of my 3 alternatives and find out whats right.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

if 3 alliances attack 1 alliance, There is no chance in hell that the 1 alliance can keep growing as we see now.

you must be seeing a different 1up than me. according to sandmans, 1up average roids increased by 2 over the last 3 days. what growth?

[SteInMetz]

They still are outgrowing LCH on score ?
Even When LCH have more roids.

so no I am not seeing wrong.

[furball]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

so if they have a block who attack's 1up.
They must :
1. Not be attacking 1up
2. Their attack suck so much that their mother is ashamed.
3. Attacking coords they belive are 1up. but not really are.

if 3 alliances attack 1 alliance, There is no chance in hell that the 1 alliance can keep growing as we see now.

So pick one of my 3 alternatives and find out whats right.

I pick 2, sadly.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by SteInMetz

They still are outgrowing LCH on score ?
Even When LCH have more roids.

not exactly outgrowing. 1up and LCH scores are growing nearly the same, so 1up is keeping their lead. also, LCH has been having (slightly) more roids for just one day, out of 20 days of the round. so it's natural they don't start rapidly outgrowing 1up instantly (saved resources etc).

also, you obviously missed option 4: some alliances are hitting LCH and insomnia, but not 1up. and, obviously as well, the true reason is not a single one out of those 4, but a combination of several of those. and more.

[Illmaticks]

Yea, and personally I think y'all should lay off tha crack.