Double Standards
 

If we look on the alliance page, we can see quite clearly 1up's number of members in tag: 55.

Now if we go into 1up's public channel (#public) then we can see the topic: 1up Round 18 Recruitment: Closed

Now unless 1up are playing a similar round to the one a few rounds back where they promised to win on a 66% memberbase compared to other alliances (and managed it too) then it seems we have a significant number of their members out of tag.

Now that's fine.

They did it last round.

It'll be done in the future too, I expect.

It's perfectly legitimate.



My concerns arise from the closing of a number of scanners/covoppers though. They were closed because of "persistent covert opping of 1up planets".

These planets were playing for themselves or friends, and weren't in a tag. Yet because they were deemed to be "support planets" because they happened to covert op 1up one too many times, they were closed.

If these were the rules and this was consistent, I (and I'm sure a lot of others) wouldn't mind. It'd be just and fair.



Yet why are 1up allowed to keep these support planets in tow that they haven't added to their tag, when these scanners/covoppers are closed for doing nothing more than targetting one alliance a bit more than others?

It seems like "one rule for 1up, one for everyone else" really :(

Re: Double Standards
 

There is a big difference between being a support planet and not being in tag.

And why would a large number of planets supposedly playing for themselves only covert-op 1up planets?

Re: Double Standards
 

When it was Daous Dava, all attacks were recalled. On occasions, though, just selective parts of fleet are removed. Of course it's different rules for different people, who would have invented bias or discrimination if it wasn't?

Re: Double Standards
 

They didn't only covertop 1up planets. It was decided that "a lot of their targets were 1up" though. I don't know how you quantify "a lot", I guess that's for PA Team to decide.

There isn't much difference between the 1up planets not in tag and the "support" planets. The support planets were doing minimal damage to 1up with a few covert ops. The 1up planets not in tag (I'm sure) have done more damage in total to various alliances than those scanners/covoppers.

Yet they remain open?

Re: Double Standards
 

Stop reading the Daily Mail tk.

Re: Double Standards
 

There is a difference between support planets and planets out of tags. Your cov oppers were FOR SURE support planets, our planets out of tag (if we have them), may or may not be support planets, thats up for you to prove it before come whinning on AD.

Re: Double Standards
 

This discussion is so round 15.

Stop exploiting the alliance member limit with every trick possible and / or get things hard-coded into the game that such exploitations cannot happen and you won't have such discussions.

For now simply live with the fact that such rulings are out there. Whether one likes them or not is a different question. Personally I do not like but can understand them.

If attacking together were a reson to consider someone a support planet, Angels and Omen should be closed for being support alliances

PS: Where is Kargool's post ? :(

Re: Double Standards
 

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.


So you can have those members out of tag, defending and attacking with 1up? But surely they're giving 1up an unfair benefit by attacking and defending with them? So SURELY they're breaking the rules too?

Re: Double Standards
 

And they would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky kids!

Re: Double Standards
 

PA Team already said that in no way they would penalise someone for attacking with someone else, if so, teaming ups in big targets would be considered, for oone of the attackers, to be a support planet. Defending could be, if this planet that is defending never entered our tag, coz if he enters laters, we didnt win a thing, actually, we just lost, the eta -1 part. But as defending may give us some discution, first prove they are defending planets in the 1up tag or being defended by planets in 1up tag, you must understand that we cant work with superstitions and predictions, if you some prove say it, if not, shutting up is the ebst option

Re: Double Standards
 

Rubbish. Only if there are more than ten of them (which is the number of planets 1up would be able to add) would some become support planets. The whole rule was designed to prevent alliances from utilising a greater number of planets than the tag limit allowed.

Whether all their planets are _ACTUALLY_ in tag is entirely irrelevant. So long as the total number of planets performing attacks/defence/cov-ops etc for 1up at any one time is 65 or less, there is no issue. I don't know whether 1up have more than 10 untagged working for them. If you believe they do, then you must find grounds to prove it.

eXilition using extra (non tagged) cov op or def planets would make those planets support planets because eXilition are already quite clearly at their limit tag wise.

Re: Double Standards
 

Yeah but you're forgetting about the "fake planets" 1up has added into their tag to keep their Average Score down, and appear weaker than they actually are. So there are more than 65 members.



I believe you're looking for this thread!



So it's perfectly ok to do quite a bit of damage to a planet by stealing 25% of his roids and decimating his fleet as an out-of-tag planet, but to steal a small amount of his resources or blow up an amp here or there is completely unreasonable and results in the closing of your planet?

That's ridiculous.



And yet, 3 rounds on, the problem still hasn't been resolved? Doesn't that tell us something? :(

Re: Double Standards
 

1 - you are forgetting the exi just added all of their planets to tag, its doesnt make 24 hours yet, and here you are whining.

About attacking or not etc, go ask PA Team, there are some round that they said this already, all PA player should be supposed to know it already, at least the active and integrated ones.

Re: Double Standards
 

This isn't an Exi vs 1up debate. Don't turn it into one.

It's about the double standards and ambiguity of the PA team's decisions to allow some planets to stay open and others to be closed, even though their impact and the "benefit" they give to their alliance is pretty much the same.

PS i'm not an active and integrated player of PA? :salute:

Re: Double Standards
 

Ofc it isnt a 1up vs exi debate, it never were, just take a look at the first post, its as clear as water


for those who didnt understand, add [sarcasm][/sarcasm] to my first phrase

Re: Double Standards
 

and this issue is the death to pa if it continues but ofc as long as its 1up involved anything targeting 1up are support and all the out of tag 1up dudes are "just out of tag"

pa admins isnt bias really they are so damn moronic they actually think its ok to treat ppl diffrently.

and to the mh team you guys suck for not even look up planets that looks shit on a simple newsie.

Re: Double Standards
 

If it came across like that, it wasn't meant to. We've really got enough of those threads swimming about, we don't need any more.

The thread is more about "The rules need to be less ambiguous". One rule can't be applied in one instance with one group and ignored for another group. The benefit to the alliance is pretty consistent in both cases yet one group has been closed and one hasn't.

It needs to be all or nothing - I don't have a problem with them closing those planets if the rules are consistent. It's when they aren't that it becomes a bit dubious.

Re: Double Standards
 

Yes. It tells us that you can scream, whine and bitch about it as much as you want - pa team is unwilled to change it; and therefore your only choice probably is to stop playing this ****ing boring game (like I did, more or less - there are so many more funny and interesting games out there).

Re: Double Standards
 

TomKat, ok sorry, I'll shut up ...

Re: Double Standards
 

You're so negative Heartless!

Re: Double Standards
 

They say a pessimist is an experienced optimist. ;)

Re: Double Standards
 

Wow Tomkat, just Wow.

1up, not being complete morons, are fully aware that allowing out of tag 1ups to defend intag repeatedly would be a rule violation which is why it is against 1up rules aswell. Meanwhile organizing attacks together does not a support planet make.

If you want a clarification about how the rules work, why dont you ask PA team or the multihunters to clarify instead of slandering 1up in an attempt to equate two things that obviously arent the same and prove this double-standard theory of yours.

Re: Double Standards
 

I'm not trying to slander 1up.

I was using it as an example of how the multihunters haven't been consistent.

It looks like I was right anyway. Hopefully those scanners/covoppers are goign to be reopened. Like I said - it's all or nothing.

Re: Double Standards
 

This was done last round. It was allowed. In both ways.

Debatable. It's been fairly obvious that there's been extensive avoiding of the tag limits in the past, and sometimes it's been punished for sometimes not.

Re: Double Standards
 

It's all insane really. Last round 1up urinated from a great height on the concept of alliance limits. This round presumably everyone is doing it. The funniest thing about this is that if those planets had set up a tag and joined it and then covert-opped 1up planets to death then it would be allowed.


A great many rules in a games, like many physicians, is a sign of malady.

Re: Double Standards
 

I could link to a whole plethora of threads on this, but trying to persuade PA team on this is like talking to a wall.

Myself and JBG want the free market in planetarion for great justice but they are all commies in beta :(

Re: Double Standards
 

Trying or not...

But it isnt an example of that.

1up out of tag planets are not acting as support planets and are not violating the support planet rule, they are also not doing anything even remotely like what the cov-op planets are doing. There is no reason in the univerese for multihunters to treat out of tag planets the same as cov-op planets, and I struggle to imagine what made you equate the two in your head.

Whether or not a cov-op planet qualifies as an illegal support planet has little to do with out of tag planets. They are two different issues.

Re: Double Standards
 

I agree by the way that the support planet rules are a mess, and arent particularly fair. But the premise of this thread is absurd.

Re: Double Standards
 

Interesting, my reading of the rule and according to what a multihunter told me this round, defending repeatedly from out of tag into tag qualifies as cheating and could cause closure. I certainly havent seen it happen, but at the same time I havent been testing the multihunters.

Re: Double Standards
 

Shame ...

I think PA should allow farm, multi, support and everything else, when someone is got against rules and are closed, always appears some retard from the Team to reopen it.

Re: Double Standards
 

But if it was someone in 1up who was closed and then reopened, the member of the Team who did it would be praised for their sense and general heroism, am i rite?

Re: Double Standards
 

The support planet rule is based on "giving an unfair benefit or advantage to an alliance".

Having planets out of tag playing for you (even if it is just attacking) gives you an unfair benefit/advantage.

Can you really not see that?

They help cover galaxies. They help fleetcatch. They help in reducing the chance of defence from an alliance by attacking members there.

In fact in my eyes the potential damage caused by a bunch of guys covert-opping is much much less than the potential damage from "proper" players attacking and defending as normal.

Re: Double Standards
 

I cant repersent any 1up when I talk here ofc, just myself, so I wouldnt praise him, I'd think he is retard if I knew the guy was cheating, I just dont like cheaters.

Re: Double Standards
 

well somehow they got a higher chance of beeing reopent if you are in your allie so your reply is a bit odd m8

Re: Double Standards
 

I think this is a private matter of the closed planets and the support/multihunting team. There should be no need to comment it on Alliance Discussions. Even though I hope this won't turn into something bigger which might leave a large dent in PA memberbase for the next round.

Re: Double Standards
 

and do precisely what they would do if they were in the tag regardless
infact, the only benefit of leaving them out of tag is to obfuscate the total and average score - making it that much harder to track down all coordinates.
leaving them out of tag has the disadvantage of not being able to take advantage of the alliance eta benefit as well, something youve overlooked.
the only way it could be unfair is if there were enough of them out of tag to go over the alliance limit - and im pretty certain thats not the case.
Do you have proof in any way to show otherwise?

the covert op planets however, couldnt be added to exils tag even if they wanted to. they are at their limit

Re: Double Standards
 

Agreed - sorry, I should have stuck this in Planetarion Discussions.

That'd be why people are turning it into a "defending 1up" or "1up vs exilition" thread, I'd guess :(

Re: Double Standards
 

It would be nice to have some kind of statement that is a definitive explanation of the whole support planets rule and that covers examples we've already seen.

A little while I had a fun little whine about the whole round 16 situation, where the impression I was given (in a having-to-be-removed-from-an-alliance-or-be-closed sort of way), was that if one tag is perceived to be supporting another tag, the planets will be closed... even if the support is not benefitting the 'supported' alliance and even if it is not a repeated affair.

Since there are precedents whereby mh have completely ignored the wording of the rule (although the players in question managed to change tack significantly to avoid closure), it would be nice to have a nice shiny announcement that can be used for reference.

Re: Double Standards
 

This doesn't make sense though. 1up last round unquestionably had more total players than the alliance limit allows and nothing was done about it. It's inconsistent, which I believe is tk's point.

Re: Double Standards
 

The problem with the support planets rule is not whether you've broken it or not, it's how good you are at playing with words.

Naturally 1up would therefore be best placed to get around it, although their paranoia in this thread is a bit misplaced.

Re: Double Standards
 

What unfair advantage could you possibly be talking about?

A planet being in or out of tag has no bearing whatsoever on the success of an attack. There is no advantage, faiir or otherwise.

There is only an unfair advantage if the alliance is getting around the member limit by using untagged members or if untagged planets are escorting 'real' members. Have you any evidence of 1up doing either of these things?

By this logic, if 2 alliances coordinate thier attacks and work together, every member of those alliances should be closed for cheating. Which is why PA team long ago drew the line on this issue and said that attacking together was not in itself a violation of the rules.

But this 'bunch of guys' does not exist. The planets you are referring to are not 1up planets outside of the alliance limit functioning as support planets. They are actual members of the alliance who just havent tagged up yet. And even with this being the case, they are still avoiding fleet conflicts that would violate the support planet rules.

Planets that havent tagged up yet and external cov op planets are not the same thing and shouldnt be treated as the same thing.

Re: Double Standards
 

Or you could have 100 planets out of tag all attacking and contributing to the alliance, but at the chosen time just cherrypick the highest scores.

That sounds like it's unfairly benefitting the alliance to me.

(obviously 100 is an extreme number, but I hope you understand my point).

PS I'd forgotten how retarded neg-rep and pos-rep is on AD/PD. If someone disagrees with what you say (usually because they feel you're insulting their alliance) then they neg-rep you. Good one guys!

Re: Double Standards
 

No, tk specifically referred to 1ups out of tag planets this round.

Re: Double Standards
 

If you're going to resort to "I want proof! Where's your evidence?!" then I can't be bothered to continue this discussion with you Germania.

As I said in my above post, the main benefit/advantage of hiding your members is that when the time comes, you can choose the ones with the highest score to join your tag.



So by your logic, if all those scanners/covoppers had made a nice little alliance called "WE HATE 1UP AND WILL COVOP THEM ALL DAY LONG" then it'd be perfectly legal and allowed? But because they aren't tagged up anywhere it's cheating?

I see.

Re: Double Standards
 

The rules are the same this round as they were last round.

Why was it perfectly acceptable last round but it isn't this round?

Again - another example of the inconsistencies of the rules.

(and please can you stop taking this personally and making it about 1up? It's getting a bit tedious :( )

Re: Double Standards
 

Tomkat the entire point of your original post is that 1up and exil are being treated differently. You titled it 'Double Standards'. It was you who made this a 1up/exil issue.

Re: Double Standards
 

I'm interested, if all these covert-op planets got into a new tag and covert-opped 1up planets would they be closed? Would anyone here object to that?

Re: Double Standards
 

yes, i understand your point - however you need to show thats going on.
i could say the exact same thing about any alliance i wished to but without any proof to back it up, my complaint is useless.

Re: Double Standards
 

He also specifically referred to this round as well.