[Dictator2]

And once again I disagree with you Phil. And although you are trying to ridicule me, I won't reply in kind.
Again, in my opinion, blocks have nothing to do with cowardice when you are a serious player, it has to do with the fact you don't want to join a big alliance and you don't want to fully merge with a smaller one. So, if you want a few players in your alliance to be able to grab top 100 positions, a very logical way to do so is to block and bash.

You tell me Angry, can Rock compete with 1up, 1 on 1? Can Gii compete? Can any other minor alliance compete for lets say, at least 10%-20% of its players in the top 100? I don't think so, and when it does happen it is likely due to either an oversight of Top Alliances' HC or some weird intrigue; and is simply not fair. I think Blocks/Alliances/Battlegroups would level the playing field a bit more, if only a little bit.
(and I say "only" because when u think about it, if it applies to all equally, it really shouln't change the dynamics "too" much)

One thing is that BIG alliances have a higher "average value/score/roids" count; it is another story that they should also claim 90% of the TOP 100 planets.

Again, top alliances will have the right to block as well, legally. IT WILL DEFENITEDLY enrich politics, since when done, it is not looked as a "sin" or reproachable tactic. Quite the contrary, it will reveal the "genius" of HCs.

Again, will be part of the game, coded, and again, that it was bad or that it is still a "bad concept" (certainly hated at least) DOES NOT mean it should remain like that.

And alliances will keep functioning individually, and blocks wont be doing to much defending, it will be mostly an alliance thing.

so, battlegroups:: attack
alliances:: defend
blocks:: create a more complex political map of the universe