[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Newt

It took 5 alliances to gangbang CT continuously for them to lose the round. When was the last time something like that happened in pa? So its fair to assume CT hc are very unlucky that it did happen. If it didn't, they win the round by an absolute landslide and all members are quietly content/deliriously happy. But it did, and problems within the alliance become apparent, people get unhappy, some leave, and so forth.

So what? They made poor choices when the shit did hit the fan. Who cares if they were unlucky that it happened?

r23 with exilition. At tickstart they napped the 2nd best alliance (despite claiming to be totally solo - but thats politics isn't it!). exi cruise ot victory totally unopposed, no wars, no nothing - jsut getting as many roids as possible with minimum activity. Is that how pa should be played? "no, but its not down to exi hc to do anything..." don't nap alliances at tick start?!? What does the fact you enjoyed r23 have to do with it being a terribly boring round for the rest of planetarion? If K-W had gone "huh? I enjoyed r24, great round, Good game everyone" would you have replied "oh, ok dude!". No, you would have gone "so what if you enjoyed r24?! 90% of your members didn't..." but they would have done had a miracle not happened and those 5 alliances joined forces. I jsut think CT were very unlucky (if you're someone who thinks exi played a good round in r23). I personally think t hey got what they deserved for napping urwins so early.

It means that I didn't see the need to demand changes in exilition which is what you asked me why I didn't do...

I don't think exi played a particularly good round in r23. The sole point I actually explicitly talked about was people pnapping the main opposition during wartime and nothing been done about it. It might just be me but I don't really remember that happening in exilition and certainly not to the extent that both normal members and HC knew about it.

Tbh, I really can't see any difference between exi and CT - apart from a huge gap in average quality (throughout the alliance from members to the command team). But surely you can't be laying into CT just because of that, not like they can help it.

I wasn't.

You seem to be complaining that CT didn't play the politics field better. They should have fortified more allies (like exi did) to make 5 alliances ganging up on them an impossibility. And then the round becomes very boring for all but those involved in ct...

No, I wasn't talking about that either. I understand you're taking time out from a very busy day to reply to me here but honestly it would help if you read my posts.

But like you said, your stance seems to be "if every alliance does its best for its members, then the round in general will be exciting" (cba finding the quote). Is this true?!?!?!?! And are you implying that exi kept its members happy in r23?

Not all of them and not all the time. I was implying that exilition made some better political choices during r23 than CT did during r24.

You were by far the most active DC in exi, was your opinion worthless? but it doesn't matter either way, you enjoyed the round - doesn't matter if the vast najority of pa found it ****ing dull (I'm willing to bet that they did!)

Who said my opinion was worthless? I just said I was doing enough that I didn't feel the need to take on even more.

Ahhh well, I jsut feel sorry for CT. I know I'm not being a hypocrit in any shape or form when I have a go at them for last round, can't help but feel that most of you are though.

I'm surprised you've managed to read enough of this thread to actually find out anyone was talking about CT. Judging by the vast extent to which you've managed to misrepresent my opinions I thought you'd just thrown darts at a wall in order to decide what you'd be posting about.