[Synthetic_Sid]

Time to clear a few things up i guess. It's been asked in this thread when our policy on galaxy NAPs etc started. So here's how it worked:

1. When the round started 1up's policy was that our members could attack any galaxy that had no 1up members in. Our own galaxies were left totally alone - even if people in it were hostile - as with our coords not known there was no way others in the galaxies could avoid hitting 1up members, and we weren't about to give out our coord list. The sole exception to this was that members were always allowed to retaliate (or get others to retaliate on their behalf) at any planet actually currently headed on attack to a 1up member.

2. When our coords became fairly well known, and our members' galaxies knew they were 1up, our policy became more formal. We needed to recognise the fact that some planets wantedt o attack us along with their alliances - but at the same time avoid the situation of our members unnecesarily (and excessively) roiding gal-mates of our members who had no dsire to become embroiled in a war against 1up. This was designed primarily to allow us to focus our efforts on the alliances actively at war with us - without us having to target members of smaller alliances in our galaxies and unnecessarily generating ill-will towards our members. This policy was implemented and clarified well before 1up had won the round.

3. Our policy since then has remained the same. To maintain their protection galaxy members have to comply with 3 simple conditions:
a) Not attack 1up. We used to allow the occasional mistake, but reduced this to a near enough zero-tolerance policy when we published a list of all galaxies with 1up in, so galaxy members knew they could attack anywhere outside those galaxies without further checking - or within them by getting individual planets checked by 1up HC. The restriction ahs always been only not to attack 1up members - if the non-1up in our galaxies want to fight other non-1up in a different gaalxy then that's not our concern.
b) Not participate in galaxy attacks on 1up galaxies that include attacks on the 1up there. Attacking the non-1up in a galaxy while friends/alliance mates not in 1up galaxies attack the actual 1up members is particpating in an attack on 1up.
c) Not defend in-galaxy vs 1up. Of course the only time 1up would attack the galaxy would be against someone who had chosen not to take part in (or not to honour) any agreement with us. Out of galaxy defence has never been banned - it would be unreasonable to do so.

4. In general planets have never actually had to agree to our terms - they've been assumed to do so until they demonstrate otherwise. Recently Vision HC apparently ordered their members that they must cancel any agreement they had - or risk being kicked out. At this stage our members were told to ask all Vision in their galaxies specifically whetehr they wanted to keep their protection or not. Only one Vision member in a 1up galaxy said he wanted to lose his protection - and he changed his mind the next day. That said, approximately 6 Vision members (mainly small ones) in 1up galaxies did attack 1up over the next few days and lose their protection.

I'm not prepared to post a list of all the galaxy members who have made agreements with 1up, however I'll make an exception in the case of one individual. His usual nick is "Porno" and he's Vision Military Exec or some-such. He was one of the Vision members who voted in favour of them joining LCH+Mistu in attacking 1up. He also was responsible for choosing the specific 1up targets to be attacked by Vision. Throughout all of that he never atatcked 1up himself. Actually, that's not entirely true - he did once attack a 1up member who'd recently joined 1up amd just exiled and hence wasn't at coords known to be 1up. When he found out target was 1up he recalled at ETA 1 - despite there being no defence against him. He has also repeatedly told Vision members that he has no agreement with 1up - but after Vision HC's orders to cancel any agreements with 1up he confirmed he still wished to receive our protection.

I've no intention of cancelling our agreements provided the galaxy members in question keep their part of the agreement. It wouldn't achieve anything - other than giving our members a few more easy targets - and I value keeping my word more highly than I do a few more 1up t100/t10 places. That applies even to porno - detestable though I find his amazing level of hypocrisy.

If anyone wants to know which planets have 1up protection, just ask a 1up member you know to identify which planets may be attacked in a specific 1up galaxy - a full list of targets which may be attacked (by 1up members) in 1up galaxies is listed on our forums. It's not considered sensitive information - as obviously those galaxies need to know which planets are likely to be hit by us and can't be defended ingalaxy vs us.

Our policy was designed to try to give our members the best chance we could of cooperating with theit galaxies - while at the same time balancing that with our need to be able to attack hostiles. Specifically I didn't want to see members of smaller alliances in our galaxies getting roided by us while larger hostile planets were left alone.

Given the chance most players' level of greed is such that they'll take the easier targets rather than the ones that serve tehir alliance's aims the best. This policy along with other polcies we adopted served to focus our fleets where we, as an alliance, most needed them to be. Yes, the policy was designed to help 1up - as, hopefully, are ALL policies we've adopted. That some individuals seem to see this as somehow low is slightly disturbing: are we supposed to tell our members to attack planets in 1up galaxies who have no desire to be at war with us?

Perhaps the next individuals who want to criticise out policy would like to explain what their own alliance's policy is? Then maybe we can debate the relative merits of the alternative policies - and maybe people would like to consider how those different policies work in practice if you happen to be a member of a smaller alliance stuck in a galaxy of one of the relevant alliances. It's also been claimed in this thread that other alliances all have a similar policy. That's actually not true. LCH/Vision have a policy of allowing attacks on all planets other than LCH/Vision in their galaxies (their alliance agreement includes a broad agreement not to defend ingalaxy vs one another ). I'd argue that 1up's policy is actually far more small-player friendly than the alternative - it HAS to be as planets can decide they want the alternative policy. I'd also argue that our policy is actually less stagnating as it allows smaller alliances to pursue their own objectives/wars with a % of their planets left totally alone by the winning alliance.

Anyway, hope that's cleared our policy up. If someone wants to debate it further I suggest starting a new thread rather than continuing to derail this one.