Alliance HC's And DC's

[jerome]

let's hope that you stop trying to emulate a certain other "hc" who posts regularly on these forums in being an absolute muppet.

but hey! you know what they say, hope is for the weak and such.

[Ali]

Didnt say we never hit a planet with a Subh ingal we are saying it's not our policy. There are always exceptions to the rules or errors made.

[Synthetic_Sid]

For once I have to support Kargool on the facts regarding subh. Subh DOES hit galaxies with Subh members in: have seen it plenty of times, including last night (though I guess as it was only a Subh scanner it only half counts).

Some alliances do hit galaxies with their members in (examples being Subh and Angels), others don't (examples being TGV and ND). I don't think there's a right or wrong to it: it's a tactical/strategic decision made by alliance command. The choice isn't as black and white as either side has tried to make out here. Alki implies you have to hit your own galaxies to roids - yet 1up has the most roids of any alliance and to date we haven't done a galaxy raid on any galaxy with a 1up member in (including scanners who aren't even in the tag). Others such as Kargool seem to claim there's something inherently wrong about hitting galaxies with your members in - yet fail to explain why it's wrong.

From my perspective I try to avoid hitting galaxies with 1up in purely for the sake of our members there - not because I feel we owe anything to the rest of the galaxy. I believe attacking your own galaxies just for roids leads to ill-will towards your members in there and can end up depriving them of ingalaxy defence and the cooperation of their galaxy mates. But at the same time you can't allow people who happen to share a galaxy with one of your members to have free shots at your members - so a procedure needs to be in place to allow retaliations on attackers from within 1up galaxies.

For what it's worth (probably very little) 1up's policy is as follows:

* By default we don't allow our AGs to do galaxy raids on 1up galaxies
* In our morning retals we focus our efforts on attackers from within 1up galaxies - but only hit the actual attackers and (sometimes) members of the same alliance in the same galaxy
* If a planet (or planets) inside a 1up galaxy attack 1up more than can be accounted for by chance then we will allow them to be selected for inclusion in our main attacks - but not the rest of the galaxy. So far this round this hasn't occurred - but it will be for a few planets soon.

I believe our policy provides a balance between trying to avoid unnecessarily damaging goodwill within our members' galaxies - and at the same time avoiding the situation where planets in our galaxies start to believe they can abuse the fact they have a 1up in their galaxy to attack us withour fear of retaliation. As I said earlier - it's not a black and white situation as some would portay it: there's a balance to be aimed at between two competing interests.

Claiming that you MUST attack your own galaxies because there';s no other targets is ludicrous. Claiming that there's something morally wrong about doing it - or that you owe some duty to people in galaxies with your members in is equally false.

To Rob (I think) : There may not have been private galaxies for ages, but there ARE private buddypacks.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Ali

Didnt say we never hit a planet with a Subh ingal we are saying it's not our policy. There are always exceptions to the rules or errors made.

I don't think anyone claimed that it was your policy to hit galaxies with Subh in. The claim is that you don't have a policy of avoiding them. The two things are different - but appear very similar to those on the receiving end.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Others such as Kargool seem to claim there's something inherently wrong about hitting galaxies with your members in - yet fail to explain why it's wrong.

I think I made myself quite clear why I dont want to hit galaxies with TGV members in it but let me make abit more indepth explanation. I feel it creates an enviroment in the galaxy making people think that the person sitting there as the member of the alliance hitting it is a spy and is constantly reporting what they are doing to defend themselves (in some cases they do also, but as I also said, being in a TGV galaxy doesnt neccessarly mean you can act in any way you want. If we see people who are trying to hit TGV to great extent we to take action, as I assume everyone else would have done in such a situation.

The moral question wich for me takes presedence over anything else is that our members might feel very uncomfortable with their alliance hitting their galaxy, and I want my members to feel safe about the fact that aslong as their galmates isnt hitting TGV to great extent we wont harm their last line of defence.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

From my perspective I try to avoid hitting galaxies with 1up in purely for the sake of our members there - not because I feel we owe anything to the rest of the galaxy. I believe attacking your own galaxies just for roids leads to ill-will towards your members in there and can end up depriving them of ingalaxy defence and the cooperation of their galaxy mates. But at the same time you can't allow people who happen to share a galaxy with one of your members to have free shots at your members - so a procedure needs to be in place to allow retaliations on attackers from within 1up galaxies.

I think that this is a more detailed version of what Kargool said, while being fairly similar to our own policy as well. No-one's going to let planets in allied galaxies attack members without consequences. The difference is that Subh and Angels will hit non-hostile galaxies with members in as long as they're roid-fat. From what you're saying, 1up/ND/TGV/VGN will only hit those galaxies when there is some direct intention behind it - not just for profit.

Good will is vital in galaxies to an alliance, especially when it is rare for an alliance to cover all its nightly incomings.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kargool

We've also stopped reporting all subh incs to the galaxies where we are with subh, since Subh is hitting their own galaxies.

Put it this way, IF you get incs from subh in a subh gal you have been a naughty boy/girl. Might explain the bitterness eh kargool?

Not only wont I report TGV inc due to experience of TGV members I have had in my old gals ( /me waves to darret the 3 fleeting, ingal spying wonder.)
I will just shave, wash and then exile the member and save alot of time and effort.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by buddies

Put it this way, IF you get incs from subh in a subh gal you have been a naughty boy/girl. Might explain the bitterness eh kargool?

Not only wont I report TGV inc due to experience of TGV members I have had in my old gals ( /me waves to darret the 3 fleeting, ingal spying wonder.)
I will just shave, wash and then exile the member and save alot of time and effort.

Hmm.. And you say that I am bitter?

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Hmm.. And you say that I am bitter?

I am just pointing out that someone must have encourage their members to spy ingal for free jpgs so that they could hit TGV gals.

Mind you dont fall off your high horse.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by buddies

I am just pointing out that someone must have encourage their members to spy ingal for free jpgs so that they could hit TGV gals.

Mind you dont fall off your high horse.

As far as I know Darret was never told to do that. I do know that he threefleeted, wich was why he didnt get defence either. At that time, threefleeting was no big deal for us, as we had room for them ingame. I dont think he plays PA anymore anyways.

However, i got no problems with it if we did do that. You declared war remember?

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Kargool

As far as I know Darret was never told to do that. I do know that he threefleeted, wich was why he didnt get defence either. At that time, threefleeting was no big deal for us, as we had room for them ingame. I dont think he plays PA anymore anyways.

However, i got no problems with it if we did do that. You declared war remember?

Only because you (your ally) went hostile on us first...

Hence the point you attacked your own gals...
as there was subh and tgv gal m8s in the last round.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by buddies

Only because you (your ally) went hostile on us first...

Hence the point you attacked your own gals...
as there was subh and tgv gal m8s in the last round.

I finally went through my logs to find out what the hell you were on about. Finally i found out.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7271/ups1pd.png

As you can see, it even wasnt us who were attacking your galaxy..

[Ali]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Some alliances do hit galaxies with their members in (examples being Subh and Angels)

I double checked after reading and we did not have any organized attacks on galaxies with Subh in them, scanner or not, though I did not check through retals which wouldn't matter if Subh was in gal or not. I am assuming we may have less care about Subh in galaxies from your post outside of our organized main attacks (retals, etc).

As a default I only know of two times where we had had any kind of official attack that involved galaxies with Subh members in them. One was a mistake because the Subh was a new member and wasn't yet on our tools or ingame.

Essentially we agree in having good galaxies for our members and it being a secondary source for defence and help, but personal retals do not have to be double checked by an officer and nor do officers check (most of the time) the intel of a whole galaxy before giving coords to retal.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Claiming that you MUST attack your own galaxies because there';s no other targets is ludicrous.

Which is why we have avoided galaxies with Subh in it. There could be some wrong intel claiming we have done this on a larger scale.

At the same time I do agree there is nothing essentially wrong with hitting peple in Subh galaxies, though it is our policy to not raid the entire galaxy when Subh's are there. There is no point in lieing about whether we do or not considering (imo) it's not essentially wrong but I thought as HC I should clear it up, or atleast what has been implied and said in this thread towards the issue.

It would be unwise to be strict on this point to the limit where it would strategically hurt your alliance, though no alliance would want to rape their alliance members galaxies. At least I would assume that.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Ali

I double checked after reading and we did not have any organized attacks on galaxies with Subh in them, scanner or not, though I did not check through retals which wouldn't matter if Subh was in gal or not. I am assuming we may have less care about Subh in galaxies from your post outside of our organized main attacks (retals, etc).

As a default I only know of two times where we had had any kind of official attack that involved galaxies with Subh members in them. One was a mistake because the Subh was a new member and wasn't yet on our tools or ingame.

Essentially we agree in having good galaxies for our members and it being a seconary source for defence and help, but personal retals do not have to be double checked by an officer and nor do officers check (most of the time) the intel of a whole galaxy before giving coords to retal.


Which is why we have avoided galaxies with Subh in it. There could be some wrong intel claiming we have done this on a larger scale.

At the same time I do agree there is nothing essentially wrong with hitting peple in Subh galaxies, though it is our policy to not raid the entire galaxy when Subh's are there. There is no point in lieing about whether we do or not considering (imo) it's not essentially wrong but I thought as HC I should clear it up, or atleast what has been implied and said in this thread towards the issue.

It would be unwise to be strict on this point to the limit where it would strategically hurt your alliance, though no alliance would want to rape their alliance members galaxies. Atleast I would assume that.

So coffee was lying then.. Oh dear... Subh should try to communicate better..

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kargool

So coffee was lying then.. Oh dear... Subh should try to communicate better..

?

Originally Posted by Ali

I double checked after reading and we did not have any organized attacks on galaxies with Subh in them

Originally Posted by coffee-

Similiar to TGV we also have a no-Subh in galaxy rule when selecting targets. I insist that you persist with your anti-Subh propaganda, if you wish to continue your track record of being wrong.

[coffee-]

Originally Posted by Kargool

So coffee was lying then.. Oh dear... Subh should try to communicate better..

Sorry for asking, however, how was I lying? I do believe my posts, and Ali's big explanation are fairly consistant. I have said we do not target Subh galaxies, a mistake or two may have occurred, but it is our policy to not attack Subh galaxies during regular alliance attacks.

[Travler]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I strongly disagreed with it then and I strongly disagree with it now.

But your not oppossed to waving 1 or 2 targets in the galaxy with a TGV member? Or attacking ship jumpers (TGV Members that left) and fleet catching them?

These breed just as much distrust for the galaxy and can destroy a good working BP. Easier to explain an ally raid than Hit Man style targetting of a couple of individuals.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

To Rob (I think) : There may not have been private galaxies for ages, but there ARE private buddypacks.

My distinction was between private galaxies where it can be reasonably expected that the whole galaxy is on the same side, to random/semi-random galaxies where there will be a mix of alliances, some of which are hostile to each other. Private buddy packs can't control their galaxies and if a galaxy contains hostile planets then it may be necessary to hit it.

Obviously, for any alliance it's better to avoid confrontation. If these planets can be pacified with planet NAPs then it will never be necessary to hit them, and most planets would probably be open to such a deal.

I still think Kargool was wrong, both for condeming the principle of hitting galaxies with your own members in, and for his characterisation of these galaxies as belonging to an alliance simply because they have some members of that alliance in the galaxy.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Ali

I double checked after reading and we did not have any organized attacks on galaxies with Subh in them, scanner or not, though I did not check through retals which wouldn't matter if Subh was in gal or not. I am assuming we may have less care about Subh in galaxies from your post outside of our organized main attacks (retals, etc).

I wasn't talking about retals - no alliance with any sense worries about whether they have members in a galaxy that they retal in. Your member in the galaxy I was referring to has the nick willbert. It may be that he's no longer in subh - in which case I stand corrected and he really should update his galaxy on his change of alliance.

EDIT: In fairness I should make it plain that I don't claim (or believe) that Subh regularly attack galaxies with their members in - just I've seen it happen a few times where the motive was clearly just an attack for roids and not a retal.