OK. Newdawn

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

OMG!!!

Has Sid sodomised you with an oil tanker at some point without your permission? That the only viable reason I can see for you being so bitter.

We aren't Fury irrespective of whatever bollocks you want to talk. Fury would drop and break naps at will, this is something 1up have never done. Your arguments fail on so many points it's beyond mentioning. As for next round (and I couldn't give a flyfing **** whether you believe me or not so don't bother replying to this as I'm simply mentioning it for the record) 1up have absolutely no plans to make agreements of any description. I obviously cannot talk on behalf of Reunion my assumption is that they are in the same position in terms of next rounds plans.

Now kindly take your bitter skewed rubbish and **** off my internet, ta.

Why would I be bitter?
I simply haven't liked Fury/Eclipse ever since I joined them and found out what a completely dissapointing alliances they infact were. And 1up is just the logical next step.

But if you're so bitter about me, why do you keep reading my posts?



@ Virall: #1 and #3 alliance having an agreement etc isn't a block?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Anyone with any brains know why u guys dont hit Reunion, U are hoping that Reunion will be your happy lapdogs in round 15. So technically 1up has allready started the blocking.

That's the only logical reason why 1up dont hit Reunion.

Another common mistake made in Planetarion: "Oh, they refused to do thing X to alliance Y in round Z! So they MUST be blocking in round Z+1!".

Calling it a "start of blocking" is probably the most piss poor attempt of propaganda, and it is even worse if you come up with such an argument for any political actions that may lead to a cooperation between alliances before PT 150 or so.

[Chika]

**** it I give up!!! They caught us guys come on out!!!!!
WE OWNED YOUR ****ING ASS!!. NEXT ROUND WE WILL BLOCK WITH REUNION.
We didn't hit them so noone would know that we would NAP with them next round. We thought we had you. kargool you have such keen senses you should be a private eye man.
Wow, you guys found out man. ****, we should do a better job of hiding it next round.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

The moment we do that, we would get a whole bunch of people saying "why are you hitting us? we haven't hit you!".

It's not a question of guts - we're too far ahead to be caught now. For precisely that reason, we have no need to start hitting people who haven't hit us. What benefit would there be to us? A few more roids? And I really can't see how it would benefit the players we'd be hitting, either.

Weren't 1up complaining last round at Angels for not breaking the nap with Exilition? It sounds like you have no reason to drop a nap but then again last round quite alot of pple wanted Angels to break theirs.
I've had Forest pm me multiple times to propose how to take out Exilition etc.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Weren't 1up complaining last round at Angels for not breaking the nap with Exilition? It sounds like you have no reason to drop a nap but then again last round quite alot of pple wanted Angels to break theirs.
I've had Forest pm me multiple times to propose how to take out Exilition etc.

The answer is simple, my friend: Angels were not #1 alliance last round and Angels were asked to drop their NAP in order to become #1.

Blaming 1up for Reunion* not breaking the NAP is also piss poor Kj. It would be like blaming eXilition for not breaking the NAPs they made, which nobody did iirc?

*if at all, a breaking of the nap might have a benefit for Reunion, not for 1up. Which again is nothing that is asked here.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Virall

I wish non 1up players would stop posting utter crap. We arent blocked, we have no plans for a block, the reason we napped with reunion is that politically and tactically was the best move for 1up at the time, given the amount of incs and hostile alliances against us.

Kargool, you have absolutley no idea what you are on about. I feel for your members and would be quite surprised if you managed to convince them that you do actually know about this. Because you don't.

Everyone had an equal chance of beating 1up at the start of the round. Half the reason you failed, is because you were politically inept (which is no secret).

Kindly stop whining. Either accept defeat honourably, or get off the forums.

As far as i'm concerned after this thread I'm considering any alliances pulling reasonably in the same direction and not hitting each other as a block, simply because this is the definition that your own alliance decided upon. I'm not whining about the fact that there is a block, because that's PA - but to deny it doesn't exist when Sid basically defines it as "anything that randomly looks like opposing me and isn't hitting each other" just plain isn't on. I'd say that Reunion's recruitment has also been a massive helping hand in this and played massively into 1up's hands, and this is totally unforseeable.

Like i've said, a round well played - we can't sustain combat as long as 1up can. We do not have your depth. All I'm defending is your criticism of our play which I believe is hugely unfair considering our own practicalities (of which we have been more than open about). We were just playing PA the best we could with what's available.

As an advisor to the ND HC (and let me make it plain i do not make decisions for them) I have informed them that I'm very pleased with their performance this round, and that they've laid down something that will allow us to move on to the next level and hopefully that next time if we have a chance to do something spectacular, we'll be in a position to take our chances. I'm not going to tell people off for taking a holiday. We have no reason to be disheartened. Don't regret a bit of our play in r14, we have played as a team and there are some players who I'm chuffed to the nuts about.

As for r15 - we don't care who does what. We'll be doing our own thing and consider everything a blank page.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Why would I be bitter?
I simply haven't liked Fury/Eclipse ever since I joined them and found out what a completely dissapointing alliances they infact were. And 1up is just the logical next step.

But if you're so bitter about me, why do you keep reading my posts?



@ Virall: #1 and #3 alliance having an agreement etc isn't a block?

I have no idea why you're bitter but I think the universal conclusion is that you are unbalanced in some way with respect to everything Synthetic_Sid related.

And I read and reply to your posts because I blatently oppose the care in the community program and am therefore hugely against you spouting such crap in a public forum.

This whole Fury=Eclipse=1up argument has been done many times over. Kindly leave it in the past where it belongs and try to live in the now with a moderately sensible set of opinions based upon current actions rather than those of alliances under entirely different commands over 12 months ago.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

stuff.......

In my own personal opinion ND deserve a pat on the back. They have gone far beyond any expectations I personally had for them this round. I believe they made a couple of mistakes but I don't think these would have altered the round significantly enough to warrant flaming over. It is a new(ish) command and because of this it would be foolish to expect a militarily and politically perfect round for them. They have proven they can throw their weight around and in the right arena could easily be contenders for the top spot.

My only advice to ND would be to be more decisive. A couple of times this round ND have 'dipped their toes in' and haven't really made significant enough difference to a situation to benefit them but still enough to have a negative impact with respect to other alliances attitudes towards them.

On the whole though, well played. You came in, you held your own and you got a good rank (irrespective of recruitment).

[Virall]

Originally Posted by lokken

As far as i'm concerned after this thread I'm considering any alliances pulling reasonably in the same direction and not hitting each other as a block, simply because this is the definition that your own alliance decided upon. I'm not whining about the fact that there is a block, because that's PA - but to deny it doesn't exist when Sid basically defines it as "anything that randomly looks like opposing me and isn't hitting each other" just plain isn't on. I'd say that Reunion's recruitment has also been a massive helping hand in this and played massively into 1up's hands, and this is totally unforseeable.

Like i've said, a round well played - we can't sustain combat as long as 1up can. We do not have your depth. All I'm defending is your criticism of our play which I believe is hugely unfair considering our own practicalities (of which we have been more than open about). We were just playing PA the best we could with what's available.

As an advisor to the ND HC (and let me make it plain i do not make decisions for them) I have informed them that I'm very pleased with their performance this round, and that they've laid down something that will allow us to move on to the next level and hopefully that next time if we have a chance to do something spectacular, we'll be in a position to take our chances. I'm not going to tell people off for taking a holiday. We have no reason to be disheartened. Don't regret a bit of our play in r14, we have played as a team and there are some players who I'm chuffed to the nuts about.

As for r15 - we don't care who does what. We'll be doing our own thing and consider everything a blank page.

This is exactly what im on about. Thank you for underlining my point. We are napped to reunion, we have never co ordinated any attacks or even touch upon the depth in relationship that Sid describes in that thread. We've simply just not hit each other.

'Pulling reasonably in the same direction' is not a definition that cuts the mustard.

I haven't said ND haven't done well, because they have. Politcally, they could've done a lot better with what they had, but that shouldn't detract from what they have achieved.

If you read my post from top to bottom, you'll realise that it isn't infact you lot I was aiming at.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The answer is simple, my friend: Angels were not #1 alliance last round and Angels were asked to drop their NAP in order to become #1.

Blaming 1up for Reunion* not breaking the NAP is also piss poor Kj. It would be like blaming eXilition for not breaking the NAPs they made, which nobody did iirc?

*if at all, a breaking of the nap might have a benefit for Reunion, not for 1up. Which again is nothing that is asked here.

A nap works both ways and can be cancelled for both sides. What I was pointing out is that you CANNOT whine at an alliance to break it's nap when you don't do it yourself, no maater what position your in.

I really don't care on which side of the nap you stand, I'm quite narrowminded when it comes to such things.

Mind you I'm not accusing 1up, I'm accusing nearly every player who yelled we are lame for not dropping the nap. Some even insulted us etc ... probably because our nap with them wasn't in their best interest.

Pple shouldn't whine about 1up and reunion's nap. Fact that they don't break it, means it's beneficial for both (still). Yet last round nobody should have whined about it either.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Virall

This is exactly what im on about. Thank you for underlining my point. We are napped to reunion, we have never co ordinated any attacks or even touch upon the depth in relationship that Sid describes in that thread. We've simply just not hit each other.

'Pulling reasonably in the same direction' is not a definition that cuts the mustard.

I haven't said ND haven't done well, because they have. Politcally, they could've done a lot better with what they had, but that shouldn't detract from what they have achieved.

If you read my post from top to bottom, you'll realise that it isn't infact you lot I was aiming at.

In your opinion, what should ND have done politically that we didn't?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

A nap works both ways and can be cancelled for both sides. What I was pointing out is that you CANNOT whine at an alliance to break it's nap when you don't do it yourself, no maater what position your in.

I really don't care on which side of the nap you stand, I'm quite narrowminded when it comes to such things.

Mind you I'm not accusing 1up, I'm accusing nearly every player who yelled we are lame for not dropping the nap. Some even insulted us etc ... probably because our nap with them wasn't in their best interest.

Pple shouldn't whine about 1up and reunion's nap. Fact that they don't break it, means it's beneficial for both (still). Yet last round nobody should have whined about it either.

You would have made #1, though. Reunion wouldn't make that.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

under entirely different commands over 12 months ago.

I think you're Focht ... finding a wife, buying curtains and changing nationality doesn't mean you're no longer Focht

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Heartless

You would have made #1, though. Reunion wouldn't make that.

You know I'm the first to claim how fking great we are ... ... but I STRONGLY doubt we'd have been able to overtake Exilition.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

A nap works both ways and can be cancelled for both sides. What I was pointing out is that you CANNOT whine at an alliance to break it's nap when you don't do it yourself, no maater what position your in.

Wrong. Position means everything here.

Angels were NAP'ed to Exilition in the following scenario:

* Exilition were already NAP'ed to LCH and ToT.
* Various other alliances were attempting to coordinate against this block, with limited success
* Angels decided to, as a weaker alliance, NAP the obviously dominant alliance in the winning block

This was at an early stage in the round, when the top ranks could still have changed considerably.

The current 1up-Reunion NAP is different - the round is almost over, and ending the NAP would not change anything in terms of the top ranks. Nobody seriously believes that 1up needs the Reunion NAP to stay #1 now. If we wanted to be greedy, we could break it and roid some big Reunion planets. But why bother? It has been a long round and the roids wouldn't make any difference to the final rankings.

I can understand why people don't like it, but I honestly don't think anyone else would do differently if they were in our shoes.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Wrong. Position means everything here.

Angels were NAP'ed to Exilition in the following scenario:

* Exilition were already NAP'ed to LCH and ToT.
* Various other alliances were attempting to coordinate against this block, with limited success
* Angels decided to, as a weaker alliance, NAP the obviously dominant alliance in the winning block

This was at an early stage in the round, when the top ranks could still have changed considerably.

The current 1up-Reunion NAP is different - the round is almost over, and ending the NAP would not change anything in terms of the top ranks. Nobody seriously believes that 1up needs the Reunion NAP to stay #1 now. If we wanted to be greedy, we could break it and roid some big Reunion planets. But why bother? It has been a long round and the roids would make any difference to the final rankings.

I can understand why people don't like it, but I honestly don't think anyone else would do differently if they were in our shoes.

You quite lost my interest when you called us "a weaker alliance" ... quite insulting and dunno where you're getting that crap from m8.

Angels napped exi BEFORE they were top5. We didn't nap the alliance cause of their dominant position, we napped EACHOTHER cause we shared alot of buddies. I love it how you "conveniently" forgot this detail.

Nobody would doubt exi to win the round if they broke the nap 3 weeks before the end. Just like 1up. reunion is in no position to win this round, so dropping that nap would be pointless for them. Angels is in the EXACT same position.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You quite lost my interest when you called us "a weaker alliance" ... quite insulting and dunno where you're getting that crap from m8.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You know I'm the first to claim how fking great we are ... ... but I STRONGLY doubt we'd have been able to overtake Exilition.

Your own admission?

When I said "weaker", I meant "weaker than the alliance you were NAPing", in this case Exilition.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Your own admission?

When I said "weaker", I meant "weaker than the alliance you were NAPing", in this case Exilition.

fair enough then, I interpreted it differently.

I was also editing my reply when you already quoted mine, so read the rest of it aswell plz.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I think you're Focht ... finding a wife, buying curtains and changing nationality doesn't mean you're no longer Focht

Bah!

Don't you dare chastise Rob about being insulting after that comment!!! I've a good mind to come over to cuckooland to whup your sorry ass for that.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Bah!

Don't you dare chastise Rob about being insulting after that comment!!! I've a good mind to come over to cuckooland to whup your sorry ass for that.

hehe, did I hit a sensetive nerve?

P.S. I like focht, so it's not really an insult or meant as one (even if it was a joke)

[laputa]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

[...]and in the right arena could easily be contenders for the top spot.

You mean in an upcoming summer round in which eXil and 1up are taking a break?

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

On the whole though, well played. You came in, you held your own and you got a good rank (irrespective of recruitment).

d'accord! Being second in a scenario where #1 and #3 are napped is a great achievement - especially when considering the quality of 1up and reunion.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Who are you referring to?


And yeah, ironic... 1up is the only alliance in a big block atm. What happened to all that flexible politics stuff? Wouldn't surprise me if they (Reunion and 1up) ended up nap'ed again next round. Afterall, they've done things like that in the past and Sid and his goons have not shown any change since. You act like Fury, you are like Fury, you are Fury. (And that's not intended to be a compliment.)

how many freakin times does it have to be explained to you....an alliance under a NAP with another isn't a block..... it's a NAP, nothing more, no military cooperation

[Virall]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

In your opinion, what should ND have done politically that we didn't?

Instead of whispering to several alliances and dragging them into meetings with various offers (which will be denied by ND) you shouldve hit us with LCH sooner.

You had a greater average value and it was your best shot at overtaking us. You shouldve attempted to beat 1up down whilst gaining more than LCH, gaining in xp and hopefully (although not necessarily ofc) over taking LCH ion the process. You had the better values, but like GAte said to me in pm, your attacking side was not up to scratch.

He ran most of the attacks (or so he claimed to me) and things went downhill after he went on holiday to Derbyshire.

Deny what you like, but ND suffered from poor political manouvres (not from want of trying to correct them).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Virall

Instead of whispering to several alliances and dragging them into meetings with various offers (which will be denied by ND) you shouldve hit us with LCH sooner.

You had a greater average value and it was your best shot at overtaking us. You shouldve attempted to beat 1up down whilst gaining more than LCH, gaining in xp and hopefully (although not necessarily ofc) over taking LCH ion the process. You had the better values, but like GAte said to me in pm, your attacking side was not up to scratch.

He ran most of the attacks (or so he claimed to me) and things went downhill after he went on holiday to Derbyshire.

Deny what you like, but ND suffered from poor political manouvres (not from want of trying to correct them).

In the end, IF you have the quality (like 1up, Exi, Angels, ND, ...), isn't it always the political choices which fk up your round (except for the #1 alliance)? Don't make it sound like taking good political choices is easy.
If entire HC teams can make a political wrong decision, then I doubt an individual would have done better. It's from those errors that you learn and by avoiding them on the next similar occassion, you improve your alliance.

[Virall]

It does make a huge difference.

Political desiscions that benefit your alliance at a certain time (not their rank, but the alliance itself) can make or break an alliances' round. In this instance I'm not (and if you read my post, you can see) judging other alliances here. Im merely saying that ND could have put up more of a fight if their politcal desiscions at HC level were more careful. ND had a gung-ho attitude politcally.


Its just my opinion, Im giving it because I was asked for it.


And kj, quality isn't just 'there.' Quality comes from many things such as activity, skill of the game, attitude, experience and political manouvres.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Virall

It does make a huge difference.

Political desiscions that benefit your alliance at a certain time (not their rank, but the alliance itself) can make or break an alliances' round. In this instance I'm not (and if you read my post, you can see) judging other alliances here. Im merely saying that ND could have put up more of a fight if their politcal desiscions at HC level were more careful. ND had a gung-ho attitude politcally.


Its just my opinion, Im giving it because I was asked for it.


And kj, quality isn't just 'there.' Quality comes from many things such as activity, skill of the game, attitude, experience and political manouvres.

I mean, if you have active, dedicated skilled members (which those alliance I mentionned have) then, like you said, political decisions can break or improve an alliance greatly.

I'm just saying that you shouldn't be talking about political decisions like they are piss easy to take. Most HC's will agree with that (unless he's an arrogant prick acting like he's better then others)

For instance, last round alot might claim we played a poor political round. I'd agree to an extend that we idd took the wrong choice early in the round but aside but after that we played a good political round resulting in the position we ended last round.

Making high lvl crucial decisions isn't easy and it's no shame that you fk up every once in a while.

[Virall]

That's not what I said or meant. Indeed it isn't easy, which is a factor in why there aren't many alliances that have won pa.

If I came across as making it sound easy, I apologise. It has been a pitfall many times, and is only a contributing factor; a factor i believe to be a crucial one. Like I said, ND have done well, its just an area in which I think they have faltered.

Political desiscions in this game can never be easy. Partly because every alliance (no matter how many strong relationships they have with one another) is competing with one another. Also , its partly because they are desiscions that constantly get flak from AD/members/other alliances.

It can never be easy.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Weren't 1up complaining last round at Angels for not breaking the nap with Exilition? It sounds like you have no reason to drop a nap but then again last round quite alot of pple wanted Angels to break theirs.
I've had Forest pm me multiple times to propose how to take out Exilition etc.

Angels were in #2 last round. Reason to break NAP would be to go for #1.

1up is #1 at the moment. What would the reason be to drop the NAP ?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Desse

Angels were in #2 last round. Reason to break NAP would be to go for #1.

1up is #1 at the moment. What would the reason be to drop the NAP ?

Read my later replies ...

[laputa]

Originally Posted by Desse

Angels were in #2 last round. Reason to break NAP would be to go for #1.

1up is #1 at the moment. What would the reason be to drop the NAP ?

If you are #1 and your NAP partner (there is a Friends episode which uses this term quite differently ) is growing faster than you are, you have an incentive to cancel your NAP (or you persuade other alliances to hit him).

If you are #1 and planning to quit after the current round you could entertain your members by a grande finale and a nice battle against your former NAP.

See, two reasons already I know that they don't apply to 1up's situation but basing the question to nap or not to nap merely on your rank within the universe is not necessarily the best choice.

[I am Idler]

I was a highwayman, along the coach roads I did ride,
With sword and pistol by my side.
Many a young maid lost her baubles to my trade.
Many a soldier shed his lifeblood on my blade.
The bastards hung me in the spring of twenty-five:
But I am still alive.

I was a sailor, I was born upon the tide.
And with the sea I did abide.
I sailed a schooner round the Horn to Mexico.
I went aloft and furled the mainsail in a blow.
And when the yards broke off, they said that I got killed:
But I am living still.

I was a dam builder across the river deep and wide;
Where steel and water did collide.
A place called Boulder on the wild Colorado,
I slipped and fell into the wet concrete below.
They buried me in that great tomb that knows no sound:
But I am still around.
I'll always be around,.
And around and around and around and around.

I fly a starship across the Universe divide.
And when I reach the other side,
I'll find a place to rest my spirit if I can.
Perhaps I may become a highwayman again.
Or I may simply be a single drop of rain;
But I will remain.
And I'll be back again,


We can all learn a bit from this song.

[Fyodor]

The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees,
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
The road was a ribbon of moonlight, over the purple moor,
And the highwayman came riding-
Riding-riding-
The highwayman came riding, up to the old inn-door.


Ow Wait, wrong poem :P

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Heartless

You would have made #1, though. Reunion wouldn't make that.

I think a better question than do reunion have a chance at number one if they dropped the 1up NAP now is did reunion ever have a chance at number one if they dropped the 1up NAP. As I recall at one point reunion were ahead of 1up in the rankings. I'd say they might have had a chance if they did so then. However I don't remember the general war being finished at that point in the round so it probably wasn't a case of 1up or reunion. So if reunion were in it for each individual ranking it probably was their best idea to stay NAPed to 1up. But if you're in it to win it second is the same thing as second last.


In response to the whole "1up and reunion NAP or block?!?!?" I posted this last round. As I recall it was ignored back then ( ). I'd like to restate my point that a NAP in a limited size universe of the sort which PA is currently played out in is effectively a block by any other name. Also I like idler although I think there's a serious question of how tenuous his grasp on reality has become.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I personally think Duck did a good job as ND HC, but I am glad he left, I think ND improved a lot by him not being here.

Had he been HC, he would have certainly napped us (or attempted to nap us) with 1up. The fact we haven't is the biggest bonus for ND this round. And we showed without them we wont collapse.

The second point to this post, 1up WILL be napped to Reunion next round, providing they don't die. They WILL. I would bet anything on it.

Not quite sure where you get the idea from that if Duck had still been ND HC you'd have tried to nap 1up. You DID try to nap with 1up before the round started - without Duck being ND HC. It was 1up who chose not to start the round napped/allied - NOT ND. Which isn't tosay that you may have changed your mind anyway had we accepted.

Your last paragraph is just totally stupid. HOW much will you bet? 'Cos I'm sure if you offer enough both Reunion and 1up HC will happily take your money off you. No doubt you'll now back-off from the "I would bet anything" to "I'll bet a pint" or some such. It would be stupid of me to state now that I'll totally rule out cooperating with ANY alliance next round. What I will state is that 1up intends to start next round solo and stay that way unless/until there is definite evidence that other top alliances are doing otherwise.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think a better question than do reunion have a chance at number one if they dropped the 1up NAP now is did reunion ever have a chance at number one if they dropped the 1up NAP. As I recall at one point reunion were ahead of 1up in the rankings. I'd say they might have had a chance if they did so then. However I don't remember the general war being finished at that point in the round so it probably wasn't a case of 1up or reunion. So if reunion were in it for each individual ranking it probably was their best idea to stay NAPed to 1up. But if you're in it to win it second is the same thing as second last.


In response to the whole "1up and reunion NAP or block?!?!?" I posted this last round. As I recall it was ignored back then ( ). I'd like to restate my point that a NAP in a limited size universe of the sort which PA is currently played out in is effectively a block by any other name. Also I like idler although I think there's a serious question of how tenuous his grasp on reality has become.

In response to your first paragraph, at the point when Reunion became #1 the response of ND/LCH was to attack them and invite 1up to join in attacking Reunion (which we rejected). Had they approached Reunion instead things might have turned out differently.

On your second point I semi-agree with you. Whether or not something is a "block" depends first and foremostly on your definition of a block. From where I stand, 1up/Reunion doesn't seem to be a block - as there's no cooperation beyond a simple nap. But from the outside perspective of an alliance which received some incs from both 1up & reunion it may just as well be a block even if it actually isn't one by definition.

Ultimately the problem isn't that 1up napped Reunion, it's that the opposing block (which was a block by ANY definition - having attack cooperation as well as a nap) collapsed at an innopportune moment for the competetiveness of the round.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Virall

This is exactly what im on about. Thank you for underlining my point. We are napped to reunion, we have never co ordinated any attacks or even touch upon the depth in relationship that Sid describes in that thread. We've simply just not hit each other.

'Pulling reasonably in the same direction' is not a definition that cuts the mustard.

I haven't said ND haven't done well, because they have. Politcally, they could've done a lot better with what they had, but that shouldn't detract from what they have achieved.

If you read my post from top to bottom, you'll realise that it isn't infact you lot I was aiming at.

But I believe by that definition, and JBG's definition, it is a block. I see little point in you denying that. Simply because NAP's in a smaller universe naturally funnel alliances towards certain targets. As ND is last man standing and the other 2 alliances are napped, I think it's more than fair to assume a block exists.

As for us doing better - the only way an alliance like ND is going to win is via a grandstand finish, and that was via the window that opened in late august. Do you know why? Becuase if people see ND at the top early on, they'll go "that's not right" and gang up on us. We are in a position, therefore, where we have to assume #1 rank quite late. Despite us missing the mid to late august window, I see our rationale as pretty logically sound.

[Mitre]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

In response to your first paragraph, at the point when Reunion became #1 the response of ND/LCH was to attack them and invite 1up to join in attacking Reunion (which we rejected). Had they approached Reunion instead things might have turned out differently.

.

LCH never targeted Reunion. LCH hit 1up as you should know

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Not quite sure where you get the idea from that if Duck had still been ND HC you'd have tried to nap 1up. You DID try to nap with 1up before the round started - without Duck being ND HC. It was 1up who chose not to start the round napped/allied - NOT ND. Which isn't tosay that you may have changed your mind anyway had we accepted.

Your last paragraph is just totally stupid. HOW much will you bet? 'Cos I'm sure if you offer enough both Reunion and 1up HC will happily take your money off you. No doubt you'll now back-off from the "I would bet anything" to "I'll bet a pint" or some such. It would be stupid of me to state now that I'll totally rule out cooperating with ANY alliance next round. What I will state is that 1up intends to start next round solo and stay that way unless/until there is definite evidence that other top alliances are doing otherwise.

The ND objective for this round was to build a solid base for future rounds, and also to improve our reputation. I haven't been HC since PT0, and since I have none of us have wanted to nap 1up. We were almost forced to ask for one when Insomnia removed the nap, but we did not want to nap 1up.

How about a bet between me and you Sid? £10, through paypal, that 1up nap Reunion at some stage during R15?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

How about a bet between me and you Sid? £10, through paypal, that 1up nap Reunion at some stage during R15?

Given that you were so confident about 1up and Reunion working together prior to round start this sounds seriously like yuo've been called and don't really have the balls to follow through.

Fairly poor tbh Fish. You just made yourself king of the trolls though, congratulations.

[G.K Zhukov]

You 1up fellas are riding high on your white horse these days..

[Mek]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The ND objective for this round was to build a solid base for future rounds, and also to improve our reputation. I haven't been HC since PT0, and since I have none of us have wanted to nap 1up. We were almost forced to ask for one when Insomnia removed the nap, but we did not want to nap 1up.

How about a bet between me and you Sid? £10, through paypal, that 1up nap Reunion at some stage during R15?

il bet £15

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

You 1up fellas are riding high on your white horse these days..

'

Care to outline the basics for a reply fit for a 1up member?

seeming we arent allowed to reply with anytrhing before its "oh lol horsie" and soforth.

Please, do provide the answers for a modest reply in spirit with the current alliance rankings

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

You 1up fellas are riding high on your white horse these days..

Not really. I just think it's fairly shit when you publicly shoot your mouth off abuot something then back down as soon as you're aked to put your money where your mouth is.

[G.K Zhukov]

Your post fits nicely in with alot else written in this thread by 1up members, mazzelaar:
(and Ive havent even searched trought the whole thread..)

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Fairly poor tbh Fish. You just made yourself king of the trolls though, congratulations.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Your last paragraph is just totally stupid.

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And I read and reply to your posts because I blatently oppose the care in the community program and am therefore hugely against you spouting such crap in a public forum.

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I think it's arrogant that such mere mortals as yourselves attempt to judge 1up's behaviour.

Originally Posted by Chika

?
Dude, your like, an idiot or something. I see your having a go at PR. Noone is doing anything during any round based on your **** ass losing some roids. Get over it goofy.

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Edit: I disagree strongly with Lokkens comment here. I find it to be childish and and non-cunclusive.

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

most rediculous thing I've heard all round...you been callin Miss Cleo?

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Let's try to get to the root of your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

you been hanging around with Kargool Fishie? seem's your watching the same cable TV psychic shows......

Originally Posted by Chika

Ah fish, lame copout bro'.

[ComradeRob]

Zhukov wins the prize for being the only person to take my post seriously

[G.K Zhukov]

Your post was more to show that 1up has some humour, if they want too

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Not really. I just think it's fairly shit when you publicly shoot your mouth off abuot something then back down as soon as you're aked to put your money where your mouth is.

If Sid wants to raise the stakes, I am more than willing, if Sid is as confident as I am, he can put his money where his mouth is.

£20? £50?

[Legator]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

If Sid wants to raise the stakes, I am more than willing, if Sid is as confident as I am, he can put his money where his mouth is.

£20? £50?

you are really a lost soul....

you would even bet on something in pa.....

get a life mate, this is just a game - even for us nerds.....you take it to serious The_Fish lol. Dont get lost in a browser game

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Zhukov wins the prize for being the only person to take my post seriously

ok now THAT's discriminating !!!

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

If Sid wants to raise the stakes, I am more than willing, if Sid is as confident as I am, he can put his money where his mouth is.

£20? £50?

If I was going to bet i'd want something with a few more digits in. The point of my post was that you'd have to be an idiot to bet a substantial amount with someone who can choose whether or not they win the bet.

I read your initial post as meaning that you'd bet a large amount ("any amount") that 1up and reunion would be napped at the start of next round. Now it's reduced to you offering to bet pocket change that we'll have a temporary nap with them at some point during the round.