R11... and the winner is

[Minty]

Originally Posted by Cooling

Minty for president \o/

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

So when 1up feels its necesary to block, it will. And if another alliance feels its necesary to block it will. The all of the sudden there are blocks.

Wrong. This is a team effort. The removal of the dominating block that is likely to cause stagnation will be worked out by the remaining parties. You seem to infer that 1up will be deciding upon the mechanics of every situation. This isn't true. The whole deal relies upon the cooperation of all alliances.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

If you really want to be altruistic and "lead by example" you should state "no matter what happens in the round 1up will not block"

Theres a difference between wanting an even round to prove who is really the best and being plain dumb. Why would we want to be martyrs? We are simply asking that no-one starts the round with predefined partnerships. I'd think seriously before you post from now on because statements like that simply beggar belief.

Originally Posted by fyodor

I understand how ridiculous that sounds, but a i think a statement like will enable more people to believe that your anti blocking statements are really for the benifit of the game.

It can't be put any simpler for everyone. Start the round without blocks. Don't block to kill the game. How can you not see that is for the benefit of the game rather than 1up.

Seriously, I haven't seen a single constructive comment from you at all. Why not havea quick cuppa tea and think over a post that really might have a useful impact upon preceedings because what your posting now is just useless and just plain silly in places.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Wrong. This is a team effort. The removal of the dominating block that is likely to cause stagnation will be worked out by the remaining parties. You seem to infer that 1up will be deciding upon the mechanics of every situation. This isn't true. The whole deal relies upon the cooperation of all alliances..

You dont seem to get it. Once blocks form they are very hard to disengage. Lets say alliance A and B decide to cooperate. In said cooperation they start to out grow the rest of the universe. Alliances X,Y and Z get togetther to take down A&B. So now A&B start friendly talks with alliance C and bam, the blocks will probably stay the same throughout the round.

Theres a difference between wanting an even round to prove who is really the best and being plain dumb. Why would we want to be martyrs? We are simply asking that no-one starts the round with predefined partnerships. I'd think seriously before you post from now on because statements like that simply beggar belief..

Nothing to do with being dumb. What im looking for are great quotes for later in the round if anyone is caught lying.

It can't be put any simpler for everyone. Start the round without blocks. Don't block to kill the game. How can you not see that is for the benefit of the game rather than 1up.

Ofc i can see no blocks as a huge benifit to the game. But there have been blocks almost every round since the game started. And there have been blocks after many HC's have proclaimed they would not block. So why should I believe that it wont happen again this round?

Seriously, I haven't seen a single constructive comment from you at all. Why not havea quick cuppa tea and think over a post that really might have a useful impact upon preceedings because what your posting now is just useless and just plain silly in places.

Seriously, Im not trying to be constructive. Im pro block. Although id love to see no blocking in PA, i dont think it can ever be achieved. And because ive seen so many lies be told in this game, i figure its better to be prepared. The thing is, im not trying to start trouble or arguments. Im trying to find out exactly where alliances stand. If you look in my prior posts on this subject, youll see that I was trying to workout some contradictions. Now given you may be a much smarter person then I, but who are you to call my thought process and investigative process dumb or stupid?

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by LB|away

since ND wants to block
we should talk about blocking to cayl

If I were a cheerleader, reading this would send me into a fit of cartwheels and toe touches.

Nowhere did I say ND would be forming or participating in a large block this round. Nowhere did I argue the merits of creating large blocks prior to the start of the round. I was simly trying to explain that most of the universe cant jump in head over heels to an agreement with no guarantee, no leverage.

Cayl: I would indeed be incredibly stubborn and unwilling to budge in my attitude, but, we've been following the guidelines of "your propsal" since round 7. The only time after round 2 that ND participated in a large 'dominating' block was round 6, and I'd argue that was necessary for the game. We're not fans of blocking, just like the rest of you - I simply was not aware that our reputation was staked on submitting to Sid.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

I simply was not aware that our reputation was staked on submitting to Sid.

Then I suggest you start paying attention.


Seriously though, at this point, you're not just bowing down before Sid, you're facing the united will of several serious alliances.

I know that my original request was some several pages back, so allow me to restate the important bit:

Originally Posted by Cayl

Please let us know what kind of assurances you need to be given to be totally comfortable with this idea. At least this way we'll have a starting point for discussion.

Thank you.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Seriously though, at this point, you're not just bowing down before Sid, you're facing the united will of several serious alliances.

'heh'

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Seriously, Im not trying to be constructive. Im pro block.

Now given you may be a much smarter person then I, but who are you to call my thought process and investigative process dumb or stupid?

You answered your own question nicely.
Why do you argue with him over a cause you dont plan to support. You are pro blocking.
All your posts in this thread try to slander the idea of no blocks simply with the aim to advertise another blocking round. You stated yourself you dont believe into a blockfree round and by debating over and over you will create enough fear and sentiments for ppl to start blocks and then we are caught in the everlasting circle of blocking again,

It is a fact it only needs a few ppl to ruin the spirit of "going solo" and if not in the discussion, you are very constructive about that.

But like mazz said, sit back and have a cup of tea, seeing your last round "achievements" wrg to blocks i can hardly believe you enjoyed the game or have hopes the majority of the players would have enjoyed it.
Just to clearify that, your arrogance of a won round justified by overstagnating blocking might not give you the idea that without a blockfree round this coming round every man and his dog might want to make a small teamup gangbang at your place ? "pay back" ? i wonder how much you would enjoy such a blocking round where blocking is not in your favour.

The point however is that ppl try to advocate blocking for whatever reasons and previous rounds showed that it is a tough road to go against this lobby tho its not impossible and by mumbling "ppl cant change their views EVER" you will not change the game ever yourself.

As a conclusion from all above, what would be lost for most of the medium or small alliances to agree to a block free round. The outcome for many alliances will be the same and if or if not 1up would benefit from it would have to be seen, atm alot of ppl try to persuade themself with rumors and some hype to see a big conspiracy where noone is. If 2-3 alliances would have an advantage the worst case would be this block winning "wow/doh/omg" and the best case that the universe would beat up the block. Either way its no big deal. So if you agree to non blocking you have nothing to lose and you can still change your view if the situation changes in the game.
So there is plenty of time for "i told you so", just you need to give it a try first :P

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

You dont seem to get it. Once blocks form they are very hard to disengage. Lets say alliance A and B decide to cooperate. In said cooperation they start to out grow the rest of the universe. Alliances X,Y and Z get togetther to take down A&B. So now A&B start friendly talks with alliance C and bam, the blocks will probably stay the same throughout the round.

No no no. They are easy to set up and break up on the fly. You just have to want to.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Nothing to do with being dumb. What im looking for are great quotes for later in the round if anyone is caught lying.

No-one is lying. Seriously, which proposal have you been reading? If you haven't already I'd go back and read it properly then actually take time out to go through the discussion since then. This isn't about 1up saying what we are and aren't going to do it's about the whole pf PA and the attitude inherint in every single round. We are quite simply trying to break the mould and have a round of PA that is slightly different to every other one.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Ofc i can see no blocks as a huge benifit to the game. But there have been blocks almost every round since the game started. And there have been blocks after many HC's have proclaimed they would not block. So why should I believe that it wont happen again this round?

I can't even begin witht his statement and what it says about you as a person. Change can happen, people just have to want it enough.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Im pro block.
Although id love to see no blocking in PA...
Ofc i can see no blocks as a huge benifit to the game.

Make your mind up.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Now given you may be a much smarter person then I, but who are you to call my thought process and investigative process dumb or stupid?

I never said I was smarter or that you were dumb. The statement in question was pertaining to you suggesting 1up would still go solo even if the universe was against us just for the sake of it. This is a ridiculous idea, like I said - why would we commit suicide? We haven't stated we would go solo for the round no matter what. What we said is that we will begin with no arrangements and stay solo until a block starts up that will essentially polarise the game and bring forth a very obvious outcome and cause stagnation.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

What we said is that we will begin with no arrangements and stay solo until a block starts up that will essentially polarise the game and bring forth a very obvious outcome and cause stagnation.

And there lies the entire problem of the proposal. Even if it was to start to start without blocks, as soon as a single alliance starts to show greater commitment, dedication, military strength and the rest, then others in the universe will notice. That alliance doesn't even need to dominate or be in that much of a much stronger position, the general community just has to believe that they can. As soon as they do, then opposition will be formed, which those involved will create with allies and NAPs that leaves them with the greater military strength. From there it'll understandably increase and end with one 'group' being victorious. A two-sided war is probably inevitable, it's also fun until one side starts to win noticably. But it's what happens afterwards thats important.

For the game to remain interesting, alliances need to grow some balls and go out-right to win the game. Mix and match allies, play the game without loyalty to anyone except your own members and betray those that aren't. Form blocks to give the upper hand but be prepared to break them down when they become a hindrance to your alliance being recognised as the clear cut winners.

[[Graham]]

Originally Posted by Tis

two notes:

[graham] - have you even bothered to read sids post? by his definition, your 'example' would not even be considered a block. kindly hush till you have some clue what you are talking about.

and kjel - since your lot are always so quick to point out "OMG! NOOB! ITS FAnG not Fang!!," i feel it is my duty to inform you that it is 1up, not 1UP. :P

its [Graham] not [graham] and i did read his post so how about shutting tfu?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by [Graham]

its [Graham] not [graham] and i did read his post so how about shutting tfu?

he had hoped you would rather have not read it instead of admitting you havent understood it.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by [graham]

its [Graham] not [graham]

you incorrectly assume i care.

Originally Posted by [graham]

and i did read his post so how about shutting tfu?

while i dont really see stupidity as being that much better than ignorance, i suppose it is your decision, so whatever makes you happy.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by fbd

For the game to remain interesting, alliances need to grow some balls and go out-right to win the game. Mix and match allies, play the game without loyalty to anyone except your own members and betray those that aren't. Form blocks to give the upper hand but be prepared to break them down when they become a hindrance to your alliance being recognised as the clear cut winners.

I really could've sworn this is exactly what we have been trying to advocate from day 1.

[Heartless]

First I wanted to write another huge reply but somehow I cannot be arsed since most has been said before but actually never happened... as sad as it is. The situation won't become better because of 2 major alliances advertising a block-free round when those two alliances are both proven overpower-blockers (for whatever reasons) from the past. I can understand everyone who doesn't want to play along and I simply accept that fact; one day even those will learn that revenge is not the thing this game is about.

A note to Focht: Why not simply adapt to the situation like I do and accept it that some people won't change their views just because you and your friends want them to change their views? Even though I am very much agreeing on the no-blocking-from-the-start idea you cannot expect everyone to agree on it.

Oh and before anyone tries to outline a FAnG way for round 11 from this post: It was just a very personal statement... but then again ... I'd like to pick up on a something you said there, Focht, which was about this conspiracy theory: If you want it to be a conspiracy, then let it be one. I don't see any in here. It's a game, fs.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Heartless

The situation won't become better because of 2 major alliances advertising a block-free round when those two alliances are both proven overpower-blockers (for whatever reasons) from the past.

As far as I was aware this is 1up's first round. Or are we back on the boring, predictable, endless but incorrect statement that 1up is just Fury in a different skin?

Please will someone play a different record?

[Lerxst]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

As far as I was aware this is 1up's first round. Or are we back on the boring, predictable, endless but incorrect statement that 1up is just Fury in a different skin?

Please will someone play a different record?

Not that I wanna play any record, but you can't deny the fact that most of the people speaking for 1up were affiliated with Fury. That's a simple fact. So you got a new alliance, old people. Though people may change, motives for gaming may change and views on how to conduct an alliance may change, you have to accept that not everybody believes your promises to not re-form the evil Fury again. And some people (like me) have bad memories when thinking of Fury and remembering the rounds they won and how they stagnated (in my personal, biased and uninformed view)

You cannot just say "Hey - now some of us are back and like to make things different. We now play not just for our amusement, but also for a better and more challenging game" and then hope everybody believes it and congratulates 1up for their new approach to PA. You have to accept that Fury has a much too bad record in many peoples memory to just wipe it clean with a new alliance name (yes - 1up is definitely not Fury, but most of command seems to be old the Fury masters) and some statements on the forum.

Mazz - why don't you just let those talk and prove them better with the actions 1up will perform in R11. For actions speak louder than words It makes me wonder that you got a new approach but the same old methods of playing the forum-game like in so many previous rounds

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

As far as I was aware this is 1up's first round. Or are we back on the boring, predictable, endless but incorrect statement that 1up is just Fury in a different skin?

Please will someone play a different record?

Correction:
"The situation won't become better because of 2 major alliances advertising a block-free round when one those two alliances has just caused an overpowered-block and the other alliance is lead by a person which was hc of an alliance which tended to overpowerblock in the past."

[ComradeRob]

I think that is wrong.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

As far as I was aware this is 1up's first round. Or are we back on the boring, predictable, endless but incorrect statement that 1up is just Fury in a different skin?

Please will someone play a different record?

if you give out the percentage of ex-fury members in 1up, i'm sure ppl would stop being silly and comparing you to fury

Sidenote: Whats wrong with being stuck with the "Fury label"? Noone of you are proud of your ex-alliance?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

if you give out the percentage of ex-fury members in 1up, i'm sure ppl would stop being silly and comparing you to fury

Sidenote: Whats wrong with being stuck with the "Fury label"? Noone of you are proud of your ex-alliance?

Nothing wrong with your EX alliance if ppl realise its past tense.
If someone in soccer changes his club noone lables him "wow thats how real madrid plays".
New contract, new club, new game.
You dont see anyone saying "wow beneton won another championship" while schumacher is now ferrarri and benetton is long gone.
So any labeling is invalid to the new alliance, especially if other ppl try to make desperately profit with it. I.e. using it as a supportive argument to their agendas.

On a sidenote, how many players have been ex XY after their alliance stopped playing many rounds ago or they just left for new grounds. By this logic once you touched Fury or Legion now all other achievements or alliances you were member of are forgotten ? There must be alot of Furys and Legions out there in this case, considering we had quiet a memberflux and i.e. Sid was WP last round.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Nothing wrong with your EX alliance if ppl realise its past tense.
If someone in soccer changes his club noone lables him "wow thats how real madrid plays".
New contract, new club, new game.
You dont see anyone saying "wow beneton won another championship" while schumacher is now ferrarri and benetton is long gone.
So any labeling is invalid to the new alliance, especially if other ppl try to make desperately profit with it. I.e. using it as a supportive argument to their agendas.

On a sidenote, how many players have been ex XY after their alliance stopped playing many rounds ago or they just left for new grounds. By this logic once you touched Fury or Legion now all other achievements or alliances you were member of are forgotten ? There must be alot of Furys and Legions out there in this case, considering we had quiet a memberflux and i.e. Sid was WP last round.

If shummi would go from Ferrari to Sauber, you can still claim Ferrari won

also what if he goes to BWM Williams and suddenly they drive red cars sponsored by Malboro?

nway, just fooling around abit Focht

[Razorback]

pfft afterall he will still stay a german and therefore... you know the 2 worldwars etc,,,,

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Razorback

If someone in soccer changes his club noone lables him "wow thats how real madrid plays".

If the entire rest of the team + coach + physio + manager + supportclub + clubhouse + pich changes to the same club too.....

Originally Posted by Razorback

New contract, new club, new game.

all i said was, renewed contract, renamed club, modified game

Not saying that every of your member is the essence of fury etc etc.
Just saying that you shouldnt attempt to make it seem like youre far, far, far from the same thing when you got sameish commad and members. Bah i dont care really, just annoys me that you so desperatly try to avoid the fury label. And i have no idea why you do it, nor why it annoys me.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I really could've sworn this is exactly what we have been trying to advocate from day 1.

So in other words, 1up will form blocks if necessary but those involved can't rely on your loyalty? Hehe not a good situation, if you are blocked against you'll form a block, but who with if they know that you'll happily sacrifice them for a solo win? Maybe you'll have the decency not to pick smaller allies off one by one but I still doubt you'd split up the (completely hypothetical) block in a way that put you at any disadvantage

[lokken]

fbd <3

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by fbd

So in other words, 1up will form blocks if necessary but those involved can't rely on your loyalty? Hehe not a good situation, if you are blocked against you'll form a block, but who with if they know that you'll happily sacrifice them for a solo win? Maybe you'll have the decency not to pick smaller allies off one by one but I still doubt you'd split up the (completely hypothetical) block in a way that put you at any disadvantage

Quite simply, no. If a block forms we will do what it takes to take them down, if this means forming a counter block then so be it. But any block we may be involved will know from the begining that as soon as the threat posed by the initial block is gone then any agreements will be dissolved and the round will then return back to the level playing field it was prior to the first block forming.

Now, I can't put it much simpler without pictures. You close to getting the idea now or are you just gonna throw some more "1up are evul blockers and backstabbers" bullshit at us again?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

fbd <3

Birds of a feather.......

[lokken]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Birds of a feather.......

I agree with him, other Deus don't. Simple as that.

He's simply taking hypothetical situations and taking them to a logical conclusion. There are obvious holes which he's picking out, I agree with his approach hence i'm simply letting him point them out, as he can do them better than I can.

Nice worthwhile post btw

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

I agree with him, other Deus don't. Simple as that.

He's simply taking hypothetical situations and taking them to a logical conclusion. There are obvious holes which he's picking out, I agree with his approach hence i'm simply letting him point them out, as he can do them better than I can.

The situations is he "hypothetically" trying to make up have already been covered and our ideas are laid out in full. He is trying to muster a hidden agenda where there simply isn't one. So his whole argument is factually incorrect which also means neither of you can read properly. We've stated it numerous times about the mechanics of making an anti block movement.

Originally Posted by lokken

Nice worthwhile post btw

Originally Posted by lokken

fbd <3

pot

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

The situations is he "hypothetically" trying to make up have already been covered and our ideas are laid out in full. He is trying to muster a hidden agenda where there simply isn't one. So his whole argument is factually incorrect which also means neither of you can read properly. We've stated it numerous times about the mechanics of making an anti block movement.

pot

I think your wide of the mark here, but he is right. If you do block it will be only to kill those that block against you. You have already stated that you want to win the round solo and you have already (historically speaking) as command team members taken historical decisions to "drop" allies.

I don't think he is trying to show a hidden agenda - just point out wha is blatantly obvious. However past rounds have shown you will find someone to block with so its a bit of a mute point as there will always be bottom feeders who think they can survive by hanging on.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I think your wide of the mark here, but he is right. If you do block it will be only to kill those that block against you. You have already stated that you want to win the round solo and you have already (historically speaking) as command team members taken historical decisions to "drop" allies.

I don't think he is trying to show a hidden agenda - just point out wha is blatantly obvious. However past rounds have shown you will find someone to block with so its a bit of a mute point as there will always be bottom feeders who think they can survive by hanging on.

The only thing thats blatently obvious, other than the fact you are trying to incite anti 1up sentiment, is the fact neither of you can read. Numerous people in 1up have stated that should any stagnating block appear then measure will be taken to remove them and even up the playing field to provide a more open round of planetarion. This block would have been made witht he understanding that the instant the threat of stagnation has been removed then all agreements will be null and void and the block will break up.

Which bit of this don't you get? It's got nothing to do with 1up winning, we could be in 10th place and we would still do what we could to get rid of a block because stagnation is stagnation and that is boring as fk.

Rumad, do us all a favour and knock this "past rounds" crap on the head. This isn't past round this is an entirely different situation. I fail to understand why none of you could see that 1up could have made an uber block from tick 1 with 2/3 hang on allies, kicked the shit out of everyone then dropped them one at a time. It's it just plain pig headedness that making you all unable to see this or the fact that you're all utterly bitter and cannot let go of past grievences.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

The only thing thats blatently obvious, other than the fact you are trying to incite anti 1up sentiment, is the fact neither of you can read. Numerous people in 1up have stated that should any stagnating block appear then measure will be taken to remove them and even up the playing field to provide a more open round of planetarion. This block would have been made witht he understanding that the instant the threat of stagnation has been removed then all agreements will be null and void and the block will break up.

Which bit of this don't you get? It's got nothing to do with 1up winning, we could be in 10th place and we would still do what we could to get rid of a block because stagnation is stagnation and that is boring as fk.

Rumad, do us all a favour and knock this "past rounds" crap on the head. This isn't past round this is an entirely different situation. I fail to understand why none of you could see that 1up could have made an uber block from tick 1 with 2/3 hang on allies, kicked the shit out of everyone then dropped them one at a time. It's it just plain pig headedness that making you all unable to see this or the fact that you're all utterly bitter and cannot let go of past grievences.

I understand what yu say, but sid did make reference to the fact that if Others blocked (notice the plural) that 1up would block. The situation at worst extreme which is what FBD has taken it too is if there is 3 blocks or more. The nature of that block would become static and as such alliances would take comfort from being your ally. Whether you agree up front or not in this situation is yt t be seen, but I would guess in need of strong co operation that plan A goes ou of the window for more traditional blocking arrangements.

I understand you political motives about wishing to avoid stagnation, but you want to win and that will be a priority for planning. Thats because any top alliance whether they win or lose needs to aim to be number 1 because thats how you become a competer instead of a lamost ran.

With your last part yu frget one thing. A aliance hc has decisions based on value driven beliefs. So I am me and 9/10 I will react in the same way in any given situation. I will learn frm my mistakes, but the style f the decision will invariably be the same. Ever heard the saying a leopard can't change its spots? Same is true of a HC.

Trus m when I say I want to incite nothing, but as you have stated everyone can come to these boards and question motives, beliefs and debate what you have to say. as fr me being biter - i wont be playing so I have no biterness, just sayig it how I see it

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

I understand what yu say, but sid did make reference to the fact that if Others blocked (notice the plural) that 1up would block. The situation at worst extreme which is what FBD has taken it too is if there is 3 blocks or more. The nature of that block would become static and as such alliances would take comfort from being your ally. Whether you agree up front or not in this situation is yt t be seen, but I would guess in need of strong co operation that plan A goes ou of the window for more traditional blocking arrangements.

If people are sticking to the proposed agreement then why would there be three blocks? You are talking about a situation thats no even remotely like what Sid outlined in his proposal and it more akin to a standard round of PA which is everything we are against, albeit 3 blocks are better than 1 vast one and the also rans who get bashed to death. You simple can't apply this situation to the 1up proposal to suit your requirement to outline us as the evul backstabbers as this is something that we have made perfectly clear from the start and you're also talking about a situation where all other aliances have gone against the proposal and blocked up.

Originally Posted by Rumad

I understand you political motives about wishing to avoid stagnation, but you want to win and that will be a priority for planning. Thats because any top alliance whether they win or lose needs to aim to be number 1 because thats how you become a competer instead of a lamost ran.

I'm not entirely sure why this might be relevant. Of course every alliance wants to win, why should 1up be any different? We are just outlining our plans before the start of the round - We want to stand on our own two feet and beat everyone on a fair and even battleground. Thats our mission and if we succeed, hurrah, if not then we just gotta take our medicine. But I can assure you, win or lose we will do what we can to stop stagnation.

Originally Posted by Rumad

With your last part yu frget one thing. A aliance hc has decisions based on value driven beliefs. So I am me and 9/10 I will react in the same way in any given situation. I will learn frm my mistakes, but the style f the decision will invariably be the same. Ever heard the saying a leopard can't change its spots? Same is true of a HC.

Trus m when I say I want to incite nothing, but as you have stated everyone can come to these boards and question motives, beliefs and debate what you have to say. as fr me being biter - i wont be playing so I have no biterness, just sayig it how I see it

I'm not gonna bother responding to these posts any more until you all manage to go past the collective mental age of 11. We aren't Fury, we won't be Fury and we've made it perfectly clear what our beliefs are. If you choose to to believe them fair enough let's stop the anti Fury bollocks. If you don't choose to believe then start making your blocks and stop the anti Fury bollocks.

[DeadMan]

I still find AD forum amusing when im at school. Keep all the good jokes coming.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

pot

I was saying hello to the chap, if you must know. I could simply repeat what he said, but he put it best. I couldn't be arsed to send a PM, it was pretty shite.

Meanwhile you simply moan on claiming people are clueless (it's almost as bad as some FAnG posts a while ago) and have no right to be cynical in any way, while simply regurgitating previous posts. I'd give up the 'we are not Fury' line if I were you - you just make yourself an easy target with the amount of ex-Fury you have.

"If people are sticking to the proposed agreement then why would there be three blocks?" - that suggests you trust anyone in PA further than you could throw them, and that's very, very amusing indeed. I wouldn't trust any of my enemies to play nice.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

I
Meanwhile you simply moan on claiming people are clueless (it's almost as bad as some FAnG posts a while ago) and have no right to be cynical in any way, while simply regurgitating previous posts. I'd give up the 'we are not Fury' line if I were you - you just make yourself an easy target with the amount of ex-Fury you have.

I'm not saying anyone is clueless. My point is that people are intepreting the terms of the proposal in ways they were not supposed to be. OK - if it's left open to interpretation thats fine but when we have explained exactly what we mean and it's of mild irritation when we are being told what we did and didn't mean in our own proposal.

You can blather on as much as you like about how many ex Fury we have but it still doesn't make us Fury. You can keep saying it but it simply ain't true. However if it makes it easier to dislike us then think what you want, it's not really gonna stop us backing Sid's proposal but it will give you all another handy excuse for boring the shit out of us all with another block war.

At the end of the day all this deliberation is irrelevant. Alliances will do as they see fit. 1up will be going solo. If the others do then thats just great and we all hopefulyl get to enjoy a round of participating in a full on war game. If not then we'll all be bored in about 4 weeks time.

Originally Posted by lokken

"If people are sticking to the proposed agreement then why would there be three blocks?" - that suggests you trust anyone in PA further than you could throw them, and that's very, very amusing indeed. I wouldn't trust any of my enemies to play nice.

Then maybe we are in the minority in that we assume people would much rather have a decent round of PA that is a challenge rather than just blocking the shit out of it and boring us all to death.

[fbd]

An anti-block movement is completely impossible.This is a war game and people want to win, thats the end of it. What happens if you start losing against 2 or 3 alliances that are hitting you without co-ordination or co-operation? Are you just going to let your members suffer or look at other options, ie alliances with others. That proposal is a farce, the more I look at it, the more I believe it's simply Sids attempt to give you as an alliance a headstart and the moral ground. It's a PR post, not a proposal, I'm sure that he and your other senior members knew that it would never receive enough support to work fully. This is an argument that'll continue in circles forever, but suffice to say it looks like Sids post has back-fired rather badly, rather than having 'moral' support you've become victimised rather badly on AD (not that it matters) and from what I can tell among the player base as well.

As for being anti-1up, on the contrary, I'd prefer to see you win above any else. You have players that command more respect and that are generally the more mature in the PA community. Still I know that the majority of you members would do almost anything within the rules to win. If you want to block then you will, I don't see you sacrificing roids and score that can be avoided with a simple agreement with another alliance.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by fbd

An anti-block movement is completely impossible.

You're wrong there - so rest of your post doesn't need a response. I'm still confident enough alliances want a round without huge blocks that agreement will be reached. You're right that empty promises mean nothing - but that was never my intent. For such a proposal to stick it needs teeth - the sort of teeth provided by sufficient large alliances agreeing to the proposal that the rest know if they block they'll get twatted by a temporary block sufficiently large to remove them as any sort of threat quickly: and then split back up to going solo. That was always my proposal, it remains my proposal and I still see it as far from "completely impossible".

Make the potential cost of forming a block far higher than the likely benefit of making it and it'd be a brave (or foolhardy) group of alliances that did it.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You're wrong there - so rest of your post doesn't need a response. I'm still confident enough alliances want a round without huge blocks that agreement will be reached. You're right that empty promises mean nothing - but that was never my intent. For such a proposal to stick it needs teeth - the sort of teeth provided by sufficient large alliances agreeing to the proposal that the rest know if they block they'll get twatted by a temporary block sufficiently large to remove them as any sort of threat quickly: and then split back up to going solo. That was always my proposal, it remains my proposal and I still see it as far from "completely impossible".

Make the potential cost of forming a block far higher than the likely benefit of making it and it'd be a brave (or foolhardy) group of alliances that did it.

I'm not, it's human nature to want to win and you have the means to do so. As soon as you start to win (assuming that the round starts without anybody co-operating) then other alliances will respond, quite simply they'll 'block' (I hate that word the more its used) with other losing alliances. And your response will be?

This temporary block could merely be a means to removing your opposition. It's a political ploy, not a moral one. I'm expecting that you'll be the first target for most alliances, your memberbase is probably individually the most capable in PA, your organisational skills and dedication at a command level will be more competent than most as well. If you were to be hit by several alliances co-operating at once, this temporary block would be a perfect escape. If you were hit individually by alliances and found yourselves losing the round within a couple of weeks would you accept failure or would you start a block of your own? Would your members watch their roids float away for a moral victory?

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by fbd

Would your members watch their roids float away for a moral victory?

On the otherhand would you think for "our members" admittingly many of them having won nearly half dozend of rounds a win more or less would matter that much ?
Call it arrogant but if you have won a few times it kinda loses its special cozy taste so atleast in my own personal case i would prolly agree to the moral option. About the rest, been there done that, wouldnt play without this solo option, same goes for many our members, as the no stagnant blocks was something many of them signed up to because it is a special try.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Razorback

On the otherhand would you think for "our members" admittingly many of them having won nearly half dozend of rounds a win more or less would matter that much ?
Call it arrogant but if you have won a few times it kinda loses its special cozy taste so atleast in my own personal case i would prolly agree to the moral option. About the rest, been there done that, wouldnt play without this solo option, same goes for many our members, as the no stagnant blocks was something many of them signed up to because it is a special try.

But you can still win with blocks without stagnation. The important bit is to keep the game fluid, backstab, betray, lie and deceive anybody you ally with. A bit of political intrigue would make the game even more interesting than a load of solo alliances hitting each other. Boredom comes not from blocks, but from the stagnation caused by one side winning outright.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by fbd

But you can still win with blocks without stagnation. The important bit is to keep the game fluid, backstab, betray, lie and deceive anybody you ally with. A bit of political intrigue would make the game even more interesting than a load of solo alliances hitting each other. Boredom comes not from blocks, but from the stagnation caused by one side winning outright.

not entirely true. Those outside the cmpeting blocks will always have stagnation.

Its the nature of the game.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by fbd

But you can still win with blocks without stagnation. The important bit is to keep the game fluid, backstab, betray, lie and deceive anybody you ally with. A bit of political intrigue would make the game even more interesting than a load of solo alliances hitting each other. Boredom comes not from blocks, but from the stagnation caused by one side winning outright.

While i would agree to this completely in r7 and prior its totally wrong nowadays.
Sad fact is that the universe is small enough to allow a gang of 1-2 alliances to run the show on their own.
Changes of the game mechanics made it also harder to beat an enemy significantly, so i,e, in r10 it took ages to inflict damage to an alliance even with ganging up bigtime on it and r10.5 showed that devide and plunder with 4 alliances didnt work either.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Sad fact is that the universe is small enough to allow a gang of 1-2 alliances to run the show on their own.

And this seems to be the very point put forward.

If 1up were losing to one alliance or a 'partnership' (which appears to be OK from Sid's post) with no hope of taking them out on their own, they'd either have to block or lose. I'd find it interesting as to which one they'd take, and as fbd probably would suggest, it's be the former rather than the latter. Blocking is an inevitable consequence of PA and human nature and the only remedy is knowing when to end blocks.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by lokken

And this seems to be the very point put forward.

If 1up were losing to one alliance or a 'partnership' (which appears to be OK from Sid's post) with no hope of taking them out on their own, they'd either have to block or lose. I'd find it interesting as to which one they'd take, and as fbd probably would suggest, it's be the former rather than the latter. Blocking is an inevitable consequence of PA and human nature and the only remedy is knowing when to end blocks.

as you stated yourself a temporal relationship to pull through this battle would be "ok" from sids post. Seeing the past you would need to stress out "temporal" and "pulling through THIS battle" instead of creating a 4-5 alliance block which is more or less set in stone.

Even with a 2o2 the rest of the universe can still play their game as this would allow a "fair" fight.
If it would be achieved, hypothetically that each alliance, atleast the top5 ones, try to go for the best spot possible, the round should be very interesting. I mean instead of hoping to be known as #1 janitor....

[lokken]

If blocks can be temporary, why not allow them from the outset then if galaxies are random? Why bother with a moral crusade? The only really beneficial thing I can glean from all of this is that it'll prevent massive blocks occuring and hopefully disentangle things a bit - but ultimately many sides would probably become 2 because of the way the game works.

Ultimately as you say, people will block because they have to - if they want to win after that block succeeds(which anyone would hope they would - I think we can agree on this at least), they'll prevent have to block again to prevent that particular block from turning on them as that block will view it as one less fish in the pond, more chance of them winning.

As fbd points out, this is a case of politics rather than morals, and that when you boil things down, any idea of preventing blocking outright would probably be next to impossible.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by lokken

If blocks can be temporary, why not allow them from the outset then if galaxies are random?

Aside from anything else, galaxies aren't totally random. Even ignoring the possible abuses of the current system, any alliances blocking from the start would likely use the buddy system to ensure mixed galaxies - reducing their defence problems while still giving their members guaranteed ingalaxy backup. And we all know where blocks with a majority of shared galaxies leads.

[lokken]

Yes, but i don't think shared galaxies is an excuse

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lokken

Yes, but i don't think shared galaxies is an excuse

It worked for MPF all last round.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

It worked for MPF all last round.

Why should anyone accept it?

It only works because the majority considered it acceptable.