MISTU storm into 3rd....

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Treveler

I also suggest that the merging alliances have a combined number of 100 or less for one week before they are allowed merge.

Why? Under my proposed system there would be no extra advantage to the alliances over their kicked members than an alliance normally has over its kicked members.

[Treveler]

Yeah, its just that I want the merging feature to be a tool to increase you memberbase, not to increase your average score/roidcount by kicking your smallest members and replace them with larger ones through a merge.

[newt]

Originally Posted by Remy

Hilarious........

I was actually sad enough to laugh irl at some of the kal / phil^ posts Makes me wish I was still playing so I could sit on IRC 24/7 and lolly roffle about it all with my fellow geeks. sigh.

Find it incredible that PA team will merge two alliances to improve their quality of game 'slightly' whereas they won't merge unlucky galaxies to improve their quality of game 10-fold. Anyone actually planning on playing r12? :/

And as for kal saying it was more or less ok for alliances to kick their inactive members - yes it is. But as they wouldn't have kicked them without the promise of a merger - PA has really ****ed up. Believe it or not, you're meant to look out for the best interests of the inactive paying customers as well as the active ones. d'uh.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Yeah, its just that I want the merging feature to be a tool to increase you memberbase, not to increase your average score/roidcount by kicking your smallest members and replace them with larger ones through a merge.

That's a heavily biased moralistic standpoint. Designing a game to be 'ethically correct' usually ends in pretty boring games. I really think that the rules should be balanced and open-ended. Frameworks for players to work within, if you will.

[Sonnenbomber]

@Kal: Thanks for answering my question.

@PA-Team: This is just a break of your own rules. Remove the 72hour delay or make your "good will" action unhappen. It doesnt make a differnce if 2 allys merge or a singe player wants to change alliance as long as the 72hour delay rule is in force. Rule is Rule. When a Game Crew/admins aren't able to follow there own rules, they should retire or at least make their faults unhappen.

@All other ally HCs: Wait (maybe 24hours) what PA Team will do, if they dont make the ingame merge unhappen or remove the 72hour delay for changing alliance, you should teach Mistu, Phraktos and PA Team you don't accept this by bashing Mistu down. I guess you know how to do and coordinate that.

@Kjeldoran: Nice to see you flaming 1up and LCH again. But dont you understand they dislike a breach of rules by PA admins themselve?

@All: Can anyone tell me where Heartless and the "heartless loyalists" joined after they defected from FAnG?
(just asking for personal interest)

Regards
Sonnenbomber
Planetarion Mentor

[Hesekiel]

Im not really interested in these (or any other) alliances merging, i think it's nothing special anyway. what i am (i should be) concerned is the question if the PaTeam truly manipulated THEIR OWN rules or not.

They were supposed to create the rules _before_ the round started, not while it's already ongoing.

weird things happen, im sure if i was running the PaTeam, things would go perfectly instead of this utter BS.

[Hesekiel]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Yeah, its just that I want the merging feature to be a tool to increase you memberbase, not to increase your average score/roidcount by kicking your smallest members and replace them with larger ones through a merge.

having you alliance merged with another is called politics. having that done without obeying the rules is called cheating. thats where id draw a line.

[Darky]

PA in merging shocker

To shock you even more, Spinner moved certain ppl into certain gals when he got asked to, i so hope he gets dumped again from Jolt for next round

[Hesekiel]

I wanna see evidence.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Jester

That's a heavily biased moralistic standpoint. Designing a game to be 'ethically correct' usually ends in pretty boring games. I really think that the rules should be balanced and open-ended. Frameworks for players to work within, if you will.

You might have a point, but I strongly believe that "merging" your way to the top is a possibility that should be avoided. Generally speaking I dont want merging to be alowed at all, unless every member go through the 72 hour periode.

[Sonnenbomber]

Originally Posted by Hesekiel

I wanna see evidence.

read the thread

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Leinad

congratulations u understood the meaning of a merger.
What else would u do in a merger, keep the worse members?
Sometimes i really have to question the intelligence of ppl posting here. I dont even get ur point do u want to say us that MISTU or Phraktos arent allowed to kick their members whenever they want to for whatever reason?

I agree totally with the point baout weaker members - which is why I can't understand the exception being made for the kicked ones. Members kicked for inactivity/general crapness from other alliances have to wait 72 ticks, so I can't see why an exception needed to be made. It irks me that some Mistu are now roiding their kciked members - but purely because it means easy roids for Mistu, not for any moral reason. If the members were kicked for poor activity then they get no sympathy from me: if they were kicked just to make room that would be a different issue - but noone's suggested that.

Originally Posted by Leinad

There were 2 alliances, one struggling this round ...

Phraktos weren't doing all that well either.

Originally Posted by Leinad

... so they decided to merge (and this doesnt mean the name must be changed or even the command) and to make this possible (due to ingame 100 member rule) MISTU had to kick a few.
Now someone tell me what the problem is. The rules are about "joining" an alliance not about a merger and thats something different.
This whole thing here is just poor propaganda.

Here's where some people had a problem with it. Recruitment is generally where you take in only people at member level, or into lower ranked officers' positions. Merging is where a new alliance is formed by combining both the membership and leadership of two alliances to form one new one - albeit due to ingame restrictions they may keep the name of one of the original alliances.

Some nasty cynics have suggested that this was just recruitment dressed up as a merger - and following the ingame merger, all Phraktos HC were demoted leaving just the original Mistu command. It's further been suggested that there's now going to be some token ex-phraktos as HC to try to pull the wool over PA crew's eyes.

If some Mistu HC could confirm that in fact there were always ex-Phraktos in command positions following the merger then i'm sure a lot of the doubts of some people would be assuaged - and a lot of the criticism may go away. Until that rumour's dispelled, I can't see the gossip that this was just recruitment of members dressed up as a merger going away.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Treveler

You might have a point, but I strongly believe that "merging" your way to the top is a possibility that should be avoided. Generally speaking I dont want merging to be alowed at all, unless every member go through the 72 hour periode.

I'm going from the assumption that you believe merging somehow cheapens the game and the accomplishments of others.

The same argument led to the ban on farming*, the 100 members limit on alliances, the score limit on attacks and probably more prohibitions I've forgotten. The problem is that none of these things are inherently evil, nor do they cheapen the game. Farming is a clever way to gain roids, but farming will never win you the game. Having more than 100 members in your alliance doesn't guarantee anything. (ZAVA or UNITY anyone?) Having your tiny planet obliterated by some git with big planet is sad, but guess what? Everyone runs that risk. That's why we join alliances, stay up all night to reload the overview and whatnot. It's part of the game.

But all these things have been outlawed because people argue that they cheapen the game in some way or another. I think it's a dangerous road to go down.

Merging for victory is not possible. Mistu might possibly be able to mess up one alliance or another's round, but unless they join a block with at least 2 other top alliances, they aren't going to win the round. And if you're in the poor alliance (hi 1up) that mistu decides to throw their newly acquired members at then tough noogies. They outmaneuvered you using a known, if not published, feature. Cudos to them.

* Obligatory disclaimer: I never farmed. In a large part because I could always find something better for my fleet to do.

[Jackal2112]

It's amazing how single players have to wait 72 ticks whilst those players in alliances don't have to wait.

I'm not shocked, I'm not surprised. I don't expect anything else from PA team.

It's just another 'midround PA team c0ck up'. Happens every round.

It's just another reason why people should stop playing this game.

[Phil^]

single players wont have to wait 72 hours to join an alliance as they wont be IN one to begin with

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Jester

I'm going from the assumption that you believe merging somehow cheapens the game and the accomplishments of others.

The same argument led to the ban on farming*, the 100 members limit on alliances, the score limit on attacks and probably more prohibitions I've forgotten. The problem is that none of these things are inherently evil, nor do they cheapen the game. Farming is a clever way to gain roids, but farming will never win you the game. Having more than 100 members in your alliance doesn't guarantee anything. (ZAVA or UNITY anyone?) Having your tiny planet obliterated by some git with big planet is sad, but guess what? Everyone runs that risk. That's why we join alliances, stay up all night to reload the overview and whatnot. It's part of the game.

But all these things have been outlawed because people argue that they cheapen the game in some way or another. I think it's a dangerous road to go down.

Merging for victory is not possible. Mistu might possibly be able to mess up one alliance or another's round, but unless they join a block with at least 2 other top alliances, they aren't going to win the round. And if you're in the poor alliance (hi 1up) that mistu decides to throw their newly acquired members at then tough noogies. They outmaneuvered you using a known, if not published, feature. Cudos to them.

* Obligatory disclaimer: I never farmed. In a large part because I could always find something better for my fleet to do.

As I’m pretty tired atm (just got home from work) I cant find the energy to construct a line of arguments as to why I think pa is a far better game with these regulations/rules. But it is a fact that I find pa to be alot more enjoyable now that alliances are hardcoded and farming is illegal etc.

Since these regulations are, in my opinion, a success I believe that further rules are needed when new ways to exploit the system is found.

[Kal]

we havn;t broken our own rules, there have been several cases over this round and last round where alliances were merged. We made 2 mistakes - not putting this in the manual, and not designing proper controls. The first of theese has been corrected and the 2nd is being worked on.

[Leinad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I agree totally with the point baout weaker members - which is why I can't understand the exception being made for the kicked ones. Members kicked for inactivity/general crapness from other alliances have to wait 72 ticks, so I can't see why an exception needed to be made. It irks me that some Mistu are now roiding their kciked members - but purely because it means easy roids for Mistu, not for any moral reason. If the members were kicked for poor activity then they get no sympathy from me: if they were kicked just to make room that would be a different issue - but noone's suggested that.



Phraktos weren't doing all that well either.



Here's where some people had a problem with it. Recruitment is generally where you take in only people at member level, or into lower ranked officers' positions. Merging is where a new alliance is formed by combining both the membership and leadership of two alliances to form one new one - albeit due to ingame restrictions they may keep the name of one of the original alliances.

Some nasty cynics have suggested that this was just recruitment dressed up as a merger - and following the ingame merger, all Phraktos HC were demoted leaving just the original Mistu command. It's further been suggested that there's now going to be some token ex-phraktos as HC to try to pull the wool over PA crew's eyes.

If some Mistu HC could confirm that in fact there were always ex-Phraktos in command positions following the merger then i'm sure a lot of the doubts of some people would be assuaged - and a lot of the criticism may go away. Until that rumour's dispelled, I can't see the gossip that this was just recruitment of members dressed up as a merger going away.

Sid i dont say that its a good thing what happened but 1up/LCH ppl abuse this situation now only as propaganda vs MISTU and gets blamed for using an option the admins obviously included.
We can also discuss the meaning of a merger and a merger doesnt require that there is a new name or HC's of both alliances are commanding, that might be ur personal definition though it happens often its not a must.
And its more than simple recruitment, Phraktos stopped to exist, the HC's agreed to it and a huge part of Phraktos members came to MISTU, thus its a merger while the Phraktos part didnt want a new name or a changed command.

[Sonnenbomber]

Originally Posted by Kal

we havn;t broken our own rules, there have been several cases over this round and last round where alliances were merged. We made 2 mistakes - not putting this in the manual, and not designing proper controls. The first of theese has been corrected and the 2nd is being worked on.

You did. If 1 member changes ally or 10 or 40 is the same. Its joining an alliance. At least it should been seen from Admin crew that way. If allys call or make that as merge, its just another declaration without regarding happenings in the several allys. But this we cant proove anyway. We just can decid the basic conditions and rules of the game. Of course I know what merging means and what way it happens, but I dont see what's the difference from an admin view. As Game admin, you should see "joining another alliance alone" and "joining another alliance with 30 people" as the same. Everything else is unfair to normal players. If you want to get seriousness back, remove the 72hour delay time or implent such a "merge function" for ingame allys like it was suggested before. But giving 400ticks after roundstart an information out, ingame merges gets supported by Admins is everything else than seriousness. Or just stop it completly. Because of when 1up, LCH and VSN eg decid really at the roundend to merge their cores at roundend, YOU CAN'T REFUSE IT. Game admins have to be neutral and have to make sure all alliances and players have the same rights and equal chances (regarding to game itsself). If you dont handle that way, PA admins would influence the game happenings directly what means a abuse of power.

PS: Check yourself, there aint written anything about it till yet.
http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/manual.pl

[Crazeh]

So, with the new rules... for those that cba to play next round, you create an alliance of 200 members, in 2 groups, and when 4 weeks or more of round remains you merge the two better halves... Suppose you can also have as many members you want, and merge the better planets at the end...

The new version of blocking?

Go PA...

[newt]

... you do realise how incredibly unlikely that is to happen?

PA team have been amazingly retarded on all this but no need to post inane drivel like that.

[Colt]

Originally Posted by Treveler

When this mistake has already happen, I think its fear deal that the pa team deal with those unfortunate members who was kicked, and the community deals with mistu as it sees fit.

and how is this MISTU's fault?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Sonnenbomber

PS: Check yourself, there aint written anything about it till yet.
http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/manual.pl

yes there is...

http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=11

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by Sonnenbomber

You did. If 1 member changes ally or 10 or 40 is the same. Its joining an alliance. At least it should been seen from Admin crew that way. If allys call or make that as merge, its just another declaration without regarding happenings in the several allys. But this we cant proove anyway. We just can decid the basic conditions and rules of the game. Of course I know what merging means and what way it happens, but I dont see what's the difference from an admin view. As Game admin, you should see "joining another alliance alone" and "joining another alliance with 30 people" as the same. Everything else is unfair to normal players. If you want to get seriousness back, remove the 72hour delay time or implent such a "merge function" for ingame allys like it was suggested before. But giving 400ticks after roundstart an information out, ingame merges gets supported by Admins is everything else than seriousness. Or just stop it completly. Because of when 1up, LCH and VSN eg decid really at the roundend to merge their cores at roundend, YOU CAN'T REFUSE IT. Game admins have to be neutral and have to make sure all alliances and players have the same rights and equal chances (regarding to game itsself). If you dont handle that way, PA admins would influence the game happenings directly what means a abuse of power.

PS: Check yourself, there aint written anything about it till yet.
http://jpaweb01.planetarion.com/manual.pl

u r really offering utter bullshit to public...
and as u beeing mentor u should watch on offerin this crap to public

u start big philoshopy here
this things happend in this/last round but suddenly when mistu did it is big problem to everyone (read 1up/lch and their friends)...as Leinad siad up, PHR just stop existing...and they agreed (it seems) they will join mistu ...rest of ppl was utter inactives, and some ppl just decided to play SOLO or just quit...or maybe try to get in some other allaince but from 50 ppl who where very bad overall 22 best of them joined so maybe 10 more was in hard position rest of them hardly even noticed what was happening really and u can say whatever u want


and that crap with top members from 1up vsn lch merge together is somin tootally difrent
and i doubt some ppl would like it...but if they feel, they (not u), then should do it let them try, doubt 90% of them would like that kinda of crap "WIN".

[Sonnenbomber]

Originally Posted by Crazeh

So, with the new rules... for those that cba to play next round, you create an alliance of 200 members, in 2 groups, and when 4 weeks or more of round remains you merge the two better halves... Suppose you can also have as many members you want, and merge the better planets at the end...

The new version of blocking?

Go PA...

Fine the rules are finally up. But well, the allys can merge that and win a round that way. otherwise you have to kick all members that wont be in new core ally and have to be without alliance for 72ticks. Altogether I still dislike the idea PA Team does it manually. It includes a high risk of disposal, but we'll see. If it dont work, it only makes more allys and player to quit (again) and thats why Iam still against this rule and possibility. Next weeks will tell us...

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Leinad

Sid i dont say that its a good thing what happened but 1up/LCH ppl abuse this situation now only as propaganda vs MISTU and gets blamed for using an option the admins obviously included.
We can also discuss the meaning of a merger and a merger doesnt require that there is a new name or HC's of both alliances are commanding, that might be ur personal definition though it happens often its not a must.
And its more than simple recruitment, Phraktos stopped to exist, the HC's agreed to it and a huge part of Phraktos members came to MISTU, thus its a merger while the Phraktos part didnt want a new name or a changed command.

Please stop saying LCH are abusing this situation.
No LCH HC responded in that way in this nor in any other thread about this merger.

If we say something you can quote us, but please don't "invent" things we said.

[newt]

Originally Posted by Spirit

snip

phraktos kicked a load of members that would otherwise not have been kicked had the merge not been promised by PA-team.

those members were then kicked so phraktos could merge. [ the big difference between this and lch last round you retard]

they have at least 72hrs out of alliance protection - and whether they were inactive ****s or not, they paid jsut as much money to planetarion as the idiot ranked #1. So hence deserve not to have PAteam **** them over.

ok phils sorting this out, but its much more worrying that PAteam didn't even think about that :\

Or at least this is the main problem I have about all this anyway :\

[ps, personally, its nice to see an unbiassed person who can think for himself in the mentors team :\ PA isnt a facist dictatorship you know - though sometimes I have my doubts]

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by Colt

and how is this MISTU's fault?

i is not Traveler is just pissing round and saying that big guys should kick MISTU is utter crap he is just jelous or whatever..and like to bitch and moan and wank... "teach lesson mistu.." what a child...like he said
"i will shouw u when my dead come back...buaaaaa"

who the **** is he to say that...anw

Trav:
go back to hole where u come from
what a lame ppl can be found on this forums...

[Razorback]

Spirit must be rumads gimmik account, he makes the same insane typos.

[Dark-Strider]

I'm under attack now :/

Im not insinuating it's any Mistu people but im not to roid fat. :/

Sometimes I just feel like quitting this game.

Maybe i deserved to be kicked out of Mistu, but i'm not doing to badly I feel. And im very irc active imo.

Oh well, Life just generally sucks. :/

[2540 INCOMING HOSTILES] <---- If these are Mistu members. Thnx, just give me one more reason to quit PA.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Spirit

u r really offering utter bullshit to public...
and as u beeing mentor u should watch on offerin this crap to public

u start big philoshopy here
this things happend in this/last round but suddenly when mistu did it is big problem to everyone (read 1up/lch and their friends)...as Leinad siad up, PHR just stop existing...and they agreed (it seems) they will join mistu ...rest of ppl was utter inactives, and some ppl just decided to play SOLO or just quit...or maybe try to get in some other allaince but from 50 ppl who where very bad overall 22 best of them joined so maybe 10 more was in hard position rest of them hardly even noticed what was happening really and u can say whatever u want


and that crap with top members from 1up vsn lch merge together is somin tootally difrent
and i doubt some ppl would like it...but if they feel, they (not u), then should do it let them try, doubt 90% of them would like that kinda of crap "WIN".

im sure this all made sense in your head, but it caused me to keep reading the same sentence over and over again as i kept losing where i left off.

[A2]

Right... I admit to only having read the first couple of pages of this thread, but I was at work for about 11 hours today and i'm a bit tired.

I will stand up and say that it was me who merged these 2 alliances, exactly the same as the 2 alliances that were merged last week (Tides of Fire and Valhalla). Any alliances requesting it will be treated exactly the same.

In order to merge alliances we look for 3 discreet things:
1) 100 members or less between the 2 alliances.
2) 2 HC from Alliance "A" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.
3) 2 HC from Alliance "B" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.

This allows 2 alliances which are merging into ONE new alliance to combine without disadvantaging members from either side.

regards,
A2

[Leinad]

we all know ppl arent discussing this whole thing cause of principle but cause 2 "major" alliances merged, there were other merges and noone cared and now we get this pathetic "show" of ppl claiming how unfair it is and so on just to create a bad image on MISTU and for some pa staff bashing.

[Spirit]

Originally Posted by Newt

phraktos kicked a load of members that would otherwise not have been kicked had the merge not been promised by PA-team.

those members were then kicked so phraktos could merge. [ the big difference between this and lch last round you retard]

they have at least 72hrs out of alliance protection - and whether they were inactive ****s or not, they paid jsut as much money to planetarion as the idiot ranked #1. So hence deserve not to have PAteam **** them over.

ok phils sorting this out, but its much more worrying that PAteam didn't even think about that :\

Or at least this is the main problem I have about all this anyway :\

[ps, personally, its nice to see an unbiassed person who can think for himself in the mentors team :\ PA isnt a facist dictatorship you know - though sometimes I have my doubts]

u r not paying to be in alliance ffs, U retard!
and if somebody is kicked for been inactive his problem not Allaince problem... every allaince can kick whenever they want ppl started to wank about some phrk ppl who they dont even know

and prolly all of that kicked ppl wan't even noticed that...and u @ once start to worry for them give us a brake of that lame attitude and crap u r saying...

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Psi_K

You people all sound like little girls because 1up and LCH can't sit on the top alone.

idiot

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Spirit

u r not paying to be in alliance ffs, U retard!
and if somebody is kicked for been inactive his problem not Allaince problem... every allaince can kick whenever they want ppl started to wank about some phrk ppl who they dont even know

and prolly all of that kicked ppl wan't even noticed that...and u @ once start to worry for them give us a brake of that lame attitude and crap u r saying...

Please stop posting, your writing ability is giving me a headache.

[Dark-Strider]

Originally Posted by Spirit

and prolly all of that kicked ppl wan't even noticed that...

Sure I haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by Forest

Fine, ive said my piece, i will let jolt decide on the next course of action.

No more posts form me.

MAKE A WAR DECLARENCE POST PLZ PLZ PLZ!!!
"1:1:1 and fans, we are now at war, start up your war machines"

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by A2

Right... I admit to only having read the first couple of pages of this thread, but I was at work for about 11 hours today and i'm a bit tired.

I will stand up and say that it was me who merged these 2 alliances, exactly the same as the 2 alliances that were merged last week (Tides of Fire and Valhalla). Any alliances requesting it will be treated exactly the same.

In order to merge alliances we look for 3 discreet things:
1) 100 members or less between the 2 alliances.
2) 2 HC from Alliance "A" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.
3) 2 HC from Alliance "B" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.

This allows 2 alliances which are merging into ONE new alliance to combine without disadvantaging members from either side.

regards,
A2

the main problem is point 1. Both alliances kicked members, to let the merger happen. This is SO open to abuse, and if MISTU were winning with 4 weeks to go, I would seriously consider joining a 'super-alliance' of the best members of each alliance, just to stop them, out of your incompetence.

you can surely see, its not a merger, its 22 lonely phraktos members joining MISTU.

Originally Posted by The_Fish

the main problem is point 1. Both alliances kicked members, to let the merger happen. This is SO open to abuse, and if MISTU were winning with 4 weeks to go, I would seriously consider joining a 'super-alliance' of the best members of each alliance, just to stop them, out of your incompetence.

you can surely see, its not a merger, its 22 lonely phraktos members joining MISTU.

Good point, now just remove the alliance shit and lets go back to the peace full r1 manual \o/

[furssie]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I agree totally with the point baout weaker members - which is why I can't understand the exception being made for the kicked ones. Members kicked for inactivity/general crapness from other alliances have to wait 72 ticks, so I can't see why an exception needed to be made. It irks me that some Mistu are now roiding their kciked members - but purely because it means easy roids for Mistu, not for any moral reason. If the members were kicked for poor activity then they get no sympathy from me: if they were kicked just to make room that would be a different issue - but noone's suggested that.

Oh my. Congratulations! You are so clueless, not to mention trolling.

As a matter of fact, i dont believe you're irk - you wanted to make the public believe mistu is a big bad wolf. Why will you be irk - you arent one of the 7 inactive member kicked by mistu.

mistu didnt roid a single ex-member's roids, where's the person whining for that incident. Kindly please direct us to that player? The point is, you're as pissed as the inactive player that got roided? Not to mention, that player or players as you humoruously claim is/are non-existent.

Last i heard, there's an ex-1up member that got kicked and roided. Why are mistu not 'irked' by your tactic? On the other hand, you are so 'irked' by an imaginary incident.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Some nasty cynics have suggested that this was just recruitment dressed up as a merger - and following the ingame merger, all Phraktos HC were demoted leaving just the original Mistu command. It's further been suggested that there's now going to be some token ex-phraktos as HC to try to pull the wool over PA crew's eyes.

When an information/rumour passed unto you - you seem to believe it quite quickly. But i can't blame you, the rumour is a nice piece to exploit.

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

If some Mistu HC could confirm that in fact there were always ex-Phraktos in command positions following the merger then i'm sure a lot of the doubts of some people would be assuaged - and a lot of the criticism may go away. Until that rumour's dispelled, I can't see the gossip that this was just recruitment of members dressed up as a merger going away.

Crucify PA crew and all, but i dont see the point why mistu/phraktos should be blamed for this - or even owe AD a statement to defend themselves. It's not illegal to recruit and merge.

What if mistu/phraktos stand in this PA crew stunt is = lame. Just like what you're whinning about. It's not impossible that deep in them they are surprised why PA crew allow this, hence they could be on your side disagreeing on this.

[Frisky]

Clarification please.

Hypothetical. I am one of those guys who plays solo, and have my own alliance 'tag' ingame.

Does this mean i can join an alliance without the 72 tick penalty, because it is, by every definition i can think of, technically a 'merge'? If not, why not?

[aNgRyDuCk]

First of all, the alliances, in this game have worked to achieve whatever rank they currently hold. Truth is, MISTU and Phraktos were not doing well, and had no business in the top 5. Everyone here knows that.

A merger has no pre determined "have-to's". Just like when Companies merger, there is no written law stating a name change has to be made, or a change in the chain of command has to be made.

With that in mind.....We now have to figure where the 72 hour rule comes into play. 2 sides to this.....

1. All Phraktos players that left their alliance to join another should by rights all have to wait 72 hours before alliance protection can be provided , and furthermore, the score should not be included in the overall score/ranking of the alliance they chose to join.
or
2. All Phraktos players who joined MISTU should have that 72 hour period waved because they are infact not joining a new alliance, they remained in their old alliance and their was a changing of the guard so to speak.

Now which is right or wrong depends on how you view the situation, and in viewing, doing so with an un-biased attitude.

My alliance has worked hard to be top 5, we have had struggles as anyone else. For me to sit here and say that we haven't been spread pretty thin ship wise at times would be untrue. We have worked very hard to provide satisfactory attacks and defense for our members, some old long time members, some new members. We have made a commitment to our members to provide strong logical leadership, and to play Planetarion fairly and per it's rules. I am proud to say that we have done so effectively, and I believe no one could really argue that. Therefore, in my opinion, our spot in the top 5 is rightly earned.

The same could be said (in each alliances own view) for 1 UP, LCH, VsN, and ROCK , who faught for, and held the top 5 spots prior to this merger.

Two (not one) struggling alliances wanted to merg, their reasons for this are their business, no one elses...and in effect DID NOT meet the guidelines set by the PA team. Their total member count exceeded the 100 member guideline, and therefore, they DID NOT QUALIFY for a merger. They then slammed their lower ranking members in order to fall within that guideline. This may be morally wrong (and in my personal opinion a perfect representation of the character of both commands), but it is in fact the right of their chain of command to do so. they kicked members, at which time they did qualify for the merger according to the rules and guildelines set forth by the PA team. And under those circumstances, this merger was perfectly legal.

Was the rule itself put in place for this merger to take place?.... no. As A2 has explained, the same rules were applied to ToF and Valhalla.

Was the rule made known and made part of the manual that outlines the rules and guidelines of Planetarion?.... NO

Was the rule "created" to satisfy a situation that occurred?....yes, apparently

Anytime you are in command, or in charge of something, things happen that are not clearly outlined in the "manual", or the "Uniform Code Of Military Justice" or the Constitution of the United States" (I use those examples because I am American and familiar with both). At that point, you make concessions that in effect are meant to satisfy the "people" or the "membership" or the "overall player base"...call them concessions, amendments, or whatever.. they happen.

So did the PA Crew act without regard for the player base?....in this instance, I personally don't believe they did.

Did the PA crew apply rules to MISTU/Phraktos that have not been applied to other alliance? again, they did not.

If a member who is not performing to alliance standards, or plays unfairly, is kicked from my alliance, or any other alliance, for whatever reason...he is not granted a waiver for the 72 hour waiting period to join another alliance. These players should not be granted a waiver for this either.

Is this rule, as it has been created and applied faulty ? very possibly (however that is another debate)

My personal opinion is that MISTU has low character as an alliance and a command staff, and I felt that way prior to this incident. They acted however within the terms and conditions of the rules. You'll have a hard time arguing otherwise, like them or not.

They are merely another target for me and my members to take roids from and smack around, simple as that....

[Shev]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

My personal opinion is that MISTU has low character as an alliance and a command staff, and I felt that way prior to this incident. They acted however within the terms and conditions of the rules. You'll have a hard time arguing otherwise, like them or not.

How exactly do I have low character due to a decision made by my HC? Up until this point, I agreed with everything you posted - you then felt the need to degrade it by insulting me and a load of other people you don't know for no apparent reason.

I've said before I don't think that the 72 hour rule should be waived for mergers. It's PA team who decided it didn't need to be, yet this makes me of low character?

[Fyodor]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. 4 pages of this garbage. Fact is, the PA crew have voided the 72hr rule for alliance mergers before. Weve all known they did it and i dont believe anyone on AD freaked out about it to much. Now that it involves 2 higher ranked alliances, the ants come out of the woodwork.

Fact is there are now 4 alliances with a legitiment shot at #1. And there are a few behind them who can play spoiler. Everyone has been moaning for a round that doesnt stagnate since as long as I can remember. Well here it is. The fact that the PA crew facillitated that should earn them positive recognotion, not negative. I think they did it for the benifit of the game.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Shev

How exactly do I have low character due to a decision made by my HC? Up until this point, I agreed with everything you posted - you then felt the need to degrade it by insulting me and a load of other people you don't know for no apparent reason

As your reasons for merging are your business, my opinions of your alliance AS A WHOLE are my own ....after dealing with you through previous PA happenings... it is not an attack on you personally....if you chose to take it as one, go for it, not gonna lose any sleep either way... and I'm still going to take your roids

Your decision to kick your lower ranking members was morally bad in my opinion, and I would never treat a member of my alliance that way in order to achieve what you did....thats my personal opinion, as I stated in my original post

I am merely one player, with one opinion...why would you be concerned about what I thought? you obviously were not concerned with your own members.

[Devlin]

Originally Posted by A2

Right... I admit to only having read the first couple of pages of this thread, but I was at work for about 11 hours today and i'm a bit tired.

I will stand up and say that it was me who merged these 2 alliances, exactly the same as the 2 alliances that were merged last week (Tides of Fire and Valhalla). Any alliances requesting it will be treated exactly the same.

In order to merge alliances we look for 3 discreet things:
1) 100 members or less between the 2 alliances.
2) 2 HC from Alliance "A" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.
3) 2 HC from Alliance "B" to mail me with the request containing the names of the two alliances that are to be merged and the name of the new alliance.

This allows 2 alliances which are merging into ONE new alliance to combine without disadvantaging members from either side.

regards,
A2

So, we could take the top 20 1up members, top 20 LCH members, top 20 VsN, top 20 ND, and top 20 FAnG. Have each alliance kick all the other 60-80 members, and have you merge them into 1LCHVsNDFAnG? This is the same thing Phraktos and Mistu did only on a larger scale in order to emphasize my point.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

As your reasons for merging are your business, my opinions of your alliance AS A WHOLE are my own ....after dealing with you through previous PA happenings... it is not an attack on you personally....if you chose to take it as one, go for it, not gonna lose any sleep either way... and I'm still going to take your roids

Your decision to kick your lower ranking members was morally bad in my opinion, and I would never treat a member of my alliance that way in order to achieve what you did....thats my personal opinion, as I stated in my original post

I am merely one player, with one opinion...why would you be concerned about what I thought? you obviously were not concerned with your own members.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that anything that goes on in MISTU is in any way affected by what I think, feel or do.
It wasn't lower ranking members that were kicked either, as far as I'm aware, it was inactive members who were not defending other MISTU members. Are you saying you think worse of every alliance that removes members not contributing to the alliance? Because that would leave a very small list of alliances(read none).

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Shev

You seem to be under the misapprehension that anything that goes on in MISTU is in any way affected by what I think, feel or do.
It wasn't lower ranking members that were kicked either, as far as I'm aware, it was inactive members who were not defending other MISTU members. Are you saying you think worse of every alliance that removes members not contributing to the alliance? Because that would leave a very small list of alliances(read none).

Your saying then that every Phraktos and MISTU member who was kicked had not sent defense, or attacked with their alliance?

I'm saying I think the decision to kick lower ranked members merely to make room to merge and raise the ranking on the alliance board was morally wrong, I said nothing more or less...

follow along will ya

[Shev]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

Your saying then that every Phraktos and MISTU member who was kicked had not sent defense, or attacked with their alliance?

I'm saying I think the decision to kick lower ranked members merely to make room to merge and raise the ranking on the alliance board was morally wrong, I said nothing more or less...

follow along will ya

You're obviously just trying to troll for a response now, so I don't see much point in trying to have a sensible discussion. Unfortunately i'm a sucker for responding to being insulted.

You didn't just say that the decision was morally wrong in your first post, you said that the entire MISTU alliance - and therefore all it's members - were of low character.

I also can't garuntee that all the members kicked from MISTU - around 7 I believe - had never defended or attacked, and never tried to. There are however in every alliance(that's right, even your own - whoever it is) standards in terms of defence and attacking participation that the HC expects to be kept to by the members. All alliances kick members who don't live up to these - be it between rounds in some cases, and during them in others.