Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Well the discussion was more or less about if stagnating the round would come with a price.
The fact that "Vikings" were thrown out of "TGV" is just a example on how bad attitude to fair play can affect a alliance in the next round of PA.
|
a) It wasn't due to stagnating the round, it was due to the fact we kicked 9-10 members on the last day, as there was a strong rumour Apprime were gonna kick members in the last tick to make us win. Our HC team felt apprime deserved the round win, and none of us wanted to win through apprime 'sacrificing' theirs, so we decided to kick members until we were below FAnG as we knew Apprime wouldn't sacrifice their win to them. Kargool didn't agree with this, as he felt it was cheating the end rankings. He even approached me multiple times that round on how well we were doing on politics, standing by our agreements.
b) If stagnating came at such a significant price, shouldn't the same price have hampered our ability to recruit members for r52, especially with what was going on with our namechange?
BTW, i am not claiming there is no price to creating a stale political environment, but it's hardly as big as you suggest, especially for r51/52 a whole lot of other internal issues were faced by us, which was what led to our struggles in r53/54. And as Londo suggest, perhaps not seizing the chance we had in r51 would have come at an even bigger price (and with the knowledge of our internal issues, i'm inclined to say it would have)