|
|
29 May 2006, 13:38
|
#551
|
Legion Idle Master
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 425
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitros
always nice to know the rules of a game..
..when the game is already over
|
Well unless i read this wrong this was discussed in a room with the alliance reps at the beggining of the round? I was awiating somone to respond with somthing like this
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
p3nguin Founder
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 13:38
|
#552
|
Vitriolic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #public
Posts: 1,506
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitros
always nice to know the rules of a game..
..when the game is already over
|
I think Assassin was clarifying things that were decidede pre round in that post and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
But i can openly clarify if i see planets, joining tags, donating resources then being kicked as another form of a support planet and i have never said anything otherwise. So, if i find anyone doing this action will be taken against them (and i have done so so far this round)
|
Means that any planets guilty of breaking the rules have been dealt with consequently.
__________________
Chief [ 1up] Chimp.
<@JBG> by the way is mazzelaar a community account that everyone in 1up logs into when they're feeling angry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood
mazzelaar has always reminded me of a hungry hungry hippo. Except instead of eating marbles he just bites the heads off new AD posters
|
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 13:39
|
#553
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Well well, i pop back for old times sake, and see a storm a brewing.
If yiou are gonna ahve alliance donation coded in, how difficult is it that when you join/leave an alliance, your ships production/saved res is set to zero.
This simply allow the same feature, but it cant be abused.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 13:40
|
#554
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldoran
this is utter bollox, Lokken.
If, you join the tag for 1 tick to donate 1 mill resources and then leave the tag again ... and you do this on a frequent basis, every week for instance, then you are imo a support planet.
Now, I agree it's not cheating because again PA crew screwed up by making a gaint loophole for abuse, with a huge sign pointing towards it.
Mind you that I talk in general and in no way know or even care about whether any alliance applies this or not.
|
The point is you read the rule, do something because it looks perfectly within the rule and then the multihunters rule against you.
That is why I've always believed that the rule is absurd. There is no common sense, only something happening followed by a decision by the multihunters as to whether something is illegal or not. I prefer certainty and to keep mh discretion to a minimum.
Quite honestly, get rid of the alliance fund, what a silly feature.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 13:51
|
#555
|
Legion Idle Master
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 425
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
The point is you read the rule, do something because it looks perfectly within the rule and then the multihunters rule against you.
That is why I've always believed that the rule is absurd. There is no common sense, only something happening followed by a decision by the multihunters as to whether something is illegal or not. I prefer certainty and to keep mh discretion to a minimum.
Quite honestly, get rid of the alliance fund, what a silly feature.
|
As far as im aware the rule makes perfect sense as i have explained all the way through this thread. It speaks of an unfair advantage, what you speak of how ever you look at it IS an unfair advantage. It doesnt state becuase there in tag for one tick means there part of the alliance. I think perhaps you need to read through the statement again on the eula regarding the support planets.?
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
p3nguin Founder
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 14:30
|
#556
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
As far as im aware the rule makes perfect sense as i have explained all the way through this thread. It speaks of an unfair advantage, what you speak of how ever you look at it IS an unfair advantage.
|
Unfair advantage in this game seems to be "tactic within the rules that no one thought of yet"
Defence planets can be coded out of the equation if people don't want them (I see nothing wrong with them)
You can stop having an alliance fund to stop donations dead. It is not a necessary feature, and does more harm than good.
Suddenly you don't need the rule, discretion is not necessary.
Certainty pervades as a result.
People need to decide what kind of game they want rather than trying to get rid of things they don't like because there will always be something else people want to 'ban'.
Quote:
It doesnt state becuase there in tag for one tick means there part of the alliance. I think perhaps you need to read through the statement again on the eula regarding the support planets.?
|
On the face of the rules (because they are so open), it is not illegal, it is simply managing an alliance tag and its fund within the remits given. The support rule basically says anything is legitimate until the MH decides otherwise. In which case, it isn't illegal up to that point. So in short, it isn't actually a rule, it's an absolute power of discretion for the multihunters.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 15:39
|
#557
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Being in an alliance for 1 tick to donate all resources to isnt classed as being IN IT. have they attacked while being in the alliance? have they defended while being in the alliance? Are they involved with the alliance other then supplying them with a fund resource? The answer to those are most likely no. The only way you could use this argument is if they were ALWAYS in the tag. not just for one tick. I beleive exi, when this rule was introduced, were also kicking members in and out of tags to make the eta for defence. This was throwned upon. May i ask what the difference is now?
|
Common-sense would say you were correct - but the rules of PA aren't set by common-sense, they're set by PA crew. As Assassin has now confirmed in this thread he told alliance reps that a planet can join a tag JUST to receive resources - then leave the tag and act as a scanner outside of it. By any common-sense definition that would be about the most blatant example of a support planet you could have - yet it was explicitly approved pre-round.
If you can join a tag purely to receive funding so that you can continue to operate as a support planet (scanner) then logic would seem to dictate you can do the same just to donate resources. We already know that if a member of your alliance gos inactive and donates resources (while in the tag) that's perfectly fine - so is there some arbitrary number of ticks a planet has to be in the tag for before they can donate resources?
As far as I could tell, Assassin's comments meant that PA team were pretty much throwing away any notion of a "support planet" role this round. Let's look at what HE approved:
1. Scanners DO carry out a repetitive action - scanning.
2. It's not for their own planet's benefit - in earlier rounds this could have been debatable as they got XP, but this round they don't even get XP if they scan repeatedly.
3. He's said not only is it fine for them to be out of tag and scan for an alliance - but they can pop into the tag occasionally for donations to fund their scanning.
If that's not a support planet then it's pretty hard to see what is - yet the above scenario was approved by Assassin in front of all alliance reps before ticks even started.
And no, 1up didnt do that - nor did we swap planets in/out to donate resources. Until we tagged up we also had spare slots so members could be added to send/receive defence then kicked the same tick.
We didn't have 10-20 of these small planets either - I think we had 8 total. We could have kept them in tag all round, with our scanners outside the tag and played precisely the scenario Assassin described. But rotating scanners in/out of tag is too much like hard work - so we've kept them in all round.
My comments on having 100 resource donators you cycled in and out was a logical extension of what Assassin had approved. It's not something we did - or even considered doing - I was just pointing out how PA's team effective statement of "we don't actually care if you have more than 60 members and the extra ones can even be rotated to interact with the alliance fund" could be taken as a carte blanche to have as many planets on your team as you wanted.
PA team need to either throw away the alliance or insist that ALL planets who work for an alliance, in whatever fashion, must never amount to more than 60 at the same time. While their rhetoric suggests they want an alliance limit, the specific of things they approve indicate that they clearly have no commitment or intention of actually implementing such a limit.
And those people who WANT a hard-coded limit need to realise what that actually entails: a ban on out of galaxy/alliance/cluster defence, a ban on rejoining or interacting with the same alliance more than (say) twice and delays after joining a tag before you can use alliance fund or receive/send defence (would only need a 2-3 tick for the defence delay).
You'll note that I've not included scanners in any of the restricted actions - as I don't see any realistic way of limiting who a scanner can scan. Unless, of course, PA team were to change scan so that they worked as (I think) they were meant to work - so you either JGPed your own target or waited till ETA 1 for a news-scan.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 15:46
|
#558
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Just to clarify one small thing. My previous post may make it seem like there's a choice between having an alliance limit and not having one. The situation isn't as blank and white as that.
It is possible to have no alliance limit - but a limit on how many planets can be in tag. That caps the number of planets which can be counted for an alliance's score without limiting the number of planets they can have on their team.
I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that this is NOT PA team's intention, for two reasons:
1. What little information I can find on the reasons for it suggst it's to level the playing field - and only an absolute cap on number of playing members achieves that at all.
2. Only SOME of the full planet count for alliances with over 70 ingame members count for score already - so clearly the ingame limit isn't set purely to limit max planets counting for score.
But relying on PA Team's actions to be consistent with their expressed intentions is probably optimistic of me - so the third option DOES need to be considered as being possibly their real intention.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 15:52
|
#559
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
On the face of the rules (because they are so open), it is not illegal, it is simply managing an alliance tag and its fund within the remits given. The support rule basically says anything is legitimate until the MH decides otherwise. In which case, it isn't illegal up to that point. So in short, it isn't actually a rule, it's an absolute power of discretion for the multihunters.
|
This has always been one of the things I really hate about PA. The rules are deliberately vague - when with half an hour's work they could be made crystal clear. All we end up with every round is vague waffle about "fairness" - and everyone has their own ideas of what is or isn't fair.
It could be easier if the support rule, famring rule, multiing etc were all grouped together into one new rule: something like -
"Don't do anything that you think a multi-hunter might not like. As if you do, you might get closed - and then, depending on how good your debating skills are, you will either get deleted or reopened."
At least everyone would know where they stood and noone could claim they hadn't broken a rule - as being closed would be proof enough of guilt in itself.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:27
|
#560
|
PA Ancient
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ventnor, Isle Of Wight
Posts: 1,060
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Common-sense would say you were correct - but the rules of PA aren't set by common-sense, they're set by PA crew. As Assassin has now confirmed in this thread he told alliance reps that a planet can join a tag JUST to receive resources - then leave the tag and act as a scanner outside of it. By any common-sense definition that would be about the most blatant example of a support planet you could have - yet it was explicitly approved pre-round.
If you can join a tag purely to receive funding so that you can continue to operate as a support planet (scanner) then logic would seem to dictate you can do the same just to donate resources. We already know that if a member of your alliance gos inactive and donates resources (while in the tag) that's perfectly fine - so is there some arbitrary number of ticks a planet has to be in the tag for before they can donate resources?
As far as I could tell, Assassin's comments meant that PA team were pretty much throwing away any notion of a "support planet" role this round. Let's look at what HE approved:
1. Scanners DO carry out a repetitive action - scanning.
2. It's not for their own planet's benefit - in earlier rounds this could have been debatable as they got XP, but this round they don't even get XP if they scan repeatedly.
3. He's said not only is it fine for them to be out of tag and scan for an alliance - but they can pop into the tag occasionally for donations to fund their scanning.
If that's not a support planet then it's pretty hard to see what is - yet the above scenario was approved by Assassin in front of all alliance reps before ticks even started.
And no, 1up didnt do that - nor did we swap planets in/out to donate resources. Until we tagged up we also had spare slots so members could be added to send/receive defence then kicked the same tick.
We didn't have 10-20 of these small planets either - I think we had 8 total. We could have kept them in tag all round, with our scanners outside the tag and played precisely the scenario Assassin described. But rotating scanners in/out of tag is too much like hard work - so we've kept them in all round.
My comments on having 100 resource donators you cycled in and out was a logical extension of what Assassin had approved. It's not something we did - or even considered doing - I was just pointing out how PA's team effective statement of "we don't actually care if you have more than 60 members and the extra ones can even be rotated to interact with the alliance fund" could be taken as a carte blanche to have as many planets on your team as you wanted.
PA team need to either throw away the alliance or insist that ALL planets who work for an alliance, in whatever fashion, must never amount to more than 60 at the same time. While their rhetoric suggests they want an alliance limit, the specific of things they approve indicate that they clearly have no commitment or intention of actually implementing such a limit.
And those people who WANT a hard-coded limit need to realise what that actually entails: a ban on out of galaxy/alliance/cluster defence, a ban on rejoining or interacting with the same alliance more than (say) twice and delays after joining a tag before you can use alliance fund or receive/send defence (would only need a 2-3 tick for the defence delay).
You'll note that I've not included scanners in any of the restricted actions - as I don't see any realistic way of limiting who a scanner can scan. Unless, of course, PA team were to change scan so that they worked as (I think) they were meant to work - so you either JGPed your own target or waited till ETA 1 for a news-scan.
|
Ok i didnt think i would be posting on here again but it seems that somone is wanting to debate.
Now Sid im a little confused as how you can clarify from me allowing scanners to be outside of tag (we have allowed this since the support planet rule was implemented, if i have to drag up the old forum posts about not only last rounds guidlines and the actual support planet rule post ?) This has not changed. We cant prevent scanners from playing the game out of tag. They are not offering an unfair advantage other then they are scanning. If i am failing to understand how that would effect 1up for example if ND had a scanner outside of tag, how would that effect your alliance directly as being unfair if ND (these are purely examples and not real just picking 2 random alliances out of my head) had scanners outside of the tag? The support planet is regarding providing an unfair advantage. This was brought in becuase of the planets before had fleets and where ofc being involved with defence/attacks while being outside of tag. Thats a Support Planet, not a scan planet. A scan planet has no need for ships and no need to get involved other then for scans alone.
Now this has bin the case as i mentioned since the support planet rule was implemented, but only now you argue the case? I cant stop planets from signing up, not wanting to be within tag due to not being active and of course wanting to do scans. That i feel is dictating what players canand can not do to much. As for joining the alliance to take resources for scans from the fund, may i ask how that is the same as your post reffering to allowing 100 planets outside of the tag to soly hop in and out to donate TO THE FUND? Donating to the fund which can they be donated to the tags members is not even close to resources being donated from the fund to scanning planets (for scans nothing else) I fail to see the comparison there. So this sugestion about allowing 100 planets to jump in and out of the alliance to donate to the fund was never approved. And i am still awaiting the name of the person that aproved this. Becuase as i stated ealier it had nothing to do with myself.
Now atm we can log who joins what alliance, how many resources they donate and then of course when they leave the alliance again. This works for the scanners. As i made clear, if a scanner joins the alliance and recieves funds (which i might add i did tell them it wasnt consistantly allowed to keep doing it) i can ofc see what they use this for. if its for scans to be it has no unfair advantage on any other alliance other then it can scan. So as i said above to compare that scanario to people joining to donate TO THE FUND i simply dont see the comparison i am afraid. Nore to the definition of a support planet.
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
Ever been attacked by a p3nguin? You get left a bit black and white!
p3nguin Founder
Last edited by Assassin; 29 May 2006 at 16:35.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:38
|
#561
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
Ok i didnt think i would be posting on here again but it seems that somone is wanting to debate.
Now Sid im a little confused as how you can clarify from me allowing scanners to be outside of tag (we have allowed this since the support planet rule was implemented, if i have to drag up the old forum posts about not only last rounds guidlines and the actual support planet rule post ?) This has not changed. We cant prevent scanners from playing the game out of tag. They are not offering an unfair advantage other then they are scanning. If i am failing to understand how that would effect 1up for example if ND had a scanner outside of tag, how would that effect your alliance directly as being unfair if ND (these are purely examples and not real just picking 2 random alliances out of my head) had scanners outside of the tag? The support planet is regarding providing an unfair advantage. This was brought in becuase of the planets before had fleets and where ofc being involved with defence/attacks while being outside of tag. Thats a Support Planet, not a scan planet. A scan planet has no need for ships and no need to get involved other then for scans alone.
Now this has bin the case as i mentioned since the support planet rule was implemented, but only now you argue the case? I cant stop planets from signing up, not wanting to be within tag and of course wanting to do scans. That i feel is dictating what players cant and cant do to much. As for joining the alliance to take resources for scans from the fund, may i ask how that is the same as your post reffering to allowing 100 planets outside of the tag to soly hop in and out to donate TO THE FUND? Donating to the fund which can they be donated to the tags members is not even close to resources being donated from the fund to scanning planets (for scans nothing else) I fail to see the comparison there. So this sugestion about allowing 100 planets to jump in and out of the alliance to donate to the fund was never approved. And i am still awaiting the name of the person that aproved this. Becuase as i stated ealier it had nothing to do with myself.
Now atm we can log who joins what alliance, how many resources they donate and then of course when they leave the alliance again. This works for the scanners. As i made clear, if a scanner joins the alliance and recieves funds (which i might add i did tell them it wasnt consistantly allowed to keep doing it) i can ofc see what they use this for. if its for scans to be it has no unfair advantage on any other alliance other then it can scan. So as i said above to compare that scanario to people joining to donate TO THE FUND i simply dont see the comparison i am afraid. Nore to the definition of a support planet.
|
Here's the short answer to your point. The support planet rule was introduced to prevent alliances "getting around" the alliance limit. Having scanners outside the tag also gets around the alliance limit as much (I'd say more) than sending defence does. IF the support planet rule was only meant to apply to defence then why the fk doesn't it refer to defence instead of to "repeated actions designed to benefit an alliance" - or whatever the wording is?
The definition used applies far MORE accurately to scanning than to defence. Are you really saying the rules give a definition which very clearly covers scanning - yet it's not meant to cover scanning at all?
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:42
|
#562
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
Donating to the fund which can they be donated to the tags members is not even close to resources being donated from the fund to scanning planets (for scans nothing else) I fail to see the comparison there.
|
Donating to the fund and receiving from the fund ARE directly comparable. As you can't see it, let me show you:
Alliance X has 50 members, 10 scanners, 10 donator planets.
Scenario 1: Members + scanners in tag, donators added briefly to donate as/when they want.
Scenario 2: Members + donators in tag, scanners added briefly to receive donations when they want.
Both scenarios have EXACTLY the same planets doing EXACTLY the same things with EXACTLY the same net result for the alliance. Yet you say 1 scenario is ok and the other isn't?
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:45
|
#563
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Donating to the fund and receiving from the fund ARE directly comparable. As you can't see it, let me show you:
Alliance X has 50 members, 10 scanners, 10 donator planets.
Scenario 1: Members + scanners in tag, donators added briefly to donate as/when they want.
Scenario 2: Members + donators in tag, scanners added briefly to receive donations when they want.
Both scenarios have EXACTLY the same planets doing EXACTLY the same things with EXACTLY the same net result for the alliance. Yet you say 1 scenario is ok and the other isn't?
|
only guilty ppl defends themselves with that frenzy m8 are you guilty of it?
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:47
|
#564
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
he's not defending himself, he's making assassin look like an idiot for his ridiculous allowances
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:49
|
#565
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
only guilty ppl defends themselves with that frenzy m8 are you guilty of it?
|
1up didn't do EITHER of scenario 1 or 2 given in my post. I'm just trying to point out how Assassin saying 1 scenario is legitimate and the other isn't makes no sense at all.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:52
|
#566
|
PA Ancient
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ventnor, Isle Of Wight
Posts: 1,060
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
I personally dont see scan planets offering an unfair advantage. Your correct being outside of the tag does avoid the tag limits. But again, it doesnt offer an unfair advantage. How can you determin if for example an idle planet sitting in the universe is a certain scan planet for a certain alliance? There are many free planets in the universe at the moment, if we check there history they do scans for many alliances not just one specific allie. Unless its blatently obvious its almost hilighy unlikly to say 'oh yes thats a 1up scanner'.' The support planet was brought in not only for the alliance limits but also to the fact the planets were being involved with the status of play (attacks/defence)
Now this goes for allowing planets in and out of tag to donate TO the fund. When this fund was spoke of i knew somthing along these lines was going to happen. So now we have to most likely either remove it or hard code somthing in to prevent it from being abused.
Now here is the wording of the eula:
(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.
Now, i agree your correct about the scan planets being out of tag. But as i said its unlikely to detect scanners to a certain alliance without it being quite obvious. And as i said 'result as an unfair benefit' i dont how a scanner is an unfair benefit as scanners do not effect the form of play between other alliances.
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
Ever been attacked by a p3nguin? You get left a bit black and white!
p3nguin Founder
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 16:53
|
#567
|
PA Team
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 677
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Then I see no other way then refuse both scenarios.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Have a nice Day-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#multihunters
----------------------------
Former HC - Conspiracy Theory -
----------------------------
- Proud to have served as -
- High Commander and CEO -
[]LCH[] ...lets change history
----------------------------
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:01
|
#568
|
The Dance King
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 66
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
I
Now, i agree your correct about the scan planets being out of tag. But as i said its unlikely to detect scanners to a certain alliance without it being quite obvious. And as i said 'result as an unfair benefit' i dont how a scanner is an unfair benefit as scanners do not effect the form of play between other alliances.
|
My point of view is:
- scanners in tags results
+ hardcore players in tag, thats results
+ fleets and ships for def / attack
since the alliance limit is 60, 10 more players is 15-16% more attack / def power
And, the scanners will say who will land who will recall with theris JGPs, so they have a very important task.
About the alliance, when I played as a scanner, I mainly only scanned of my own alliance, once or twice for a noob in a pulic channel asking for it.
__________________
R12 - First round in MISTU
R13 - Second round as HR's DC (when we were covering something)
R14 - 1up's MO
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:02
|
#569
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
Now, i agree your correct about the scan planets being out of tag. But as i said its unlikely to detect scanners to a certain alliance without it being quite obvious. And as i said 'result as an unfair benefit' i dont how a scanner is an unfair benefit as scanners do not effect the form of play between other alliances.
|
I think if they join an alliance tag and receive donations then you don't need to be a genius to guess which alliance they scan for.
The fact that something is hard to detect isn't, of itself, a reason to make it legal. If that were the case then using VNC to control other people's planets would be allowed - after all, your track record on detecting that isn't exactly brilliant.
The issue of "unfair" is more debatable. But ultimately if an alliance has its scanners out of tag then it DOES have an "unfair" advantage over one who doesn't - as it has that many more non-scanner members in it.
Claiming that scanners do not effect the "form of play between other alliances" is either disingenuous or plain ignorant. Why do alliances bother with scanners in the first place if they have no effect?
The reason for having scanners outside the tag instead of inside it is to increase your alliance's score and allow you to have more active members. If increasing your alliance's score and having more active members has no effect then what DOES have an effect?
Note: I'm in no way trying to claim scanners outside of tag should be punished THIS round. I'd just like to see some clear, consistent and non-arbitrary rules in place for next round.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:03
|
#570
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
1up didn't do EITHER of scenario 1 or 2 given in my post. I'm just trying to point out how Assassin saying 1 scenario is legitimate and the other isn't makes no sense at all.
|
funny how you can dictate the head of mh to do stuff you want then acording to the eula he can close whoever he wants more or less
so now then we are on about the mh job btw, how do you guys see on the production bug that some ppl do to lower their value to attack ppl under the bashlimit?
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:03
|
#571
|
Pr0nstar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Look at Galstatus
Posts: 1,006
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
only guilty ppl defends themselves with that frenzy m8 are you guilty of it?
|
for you its only a big topic because its 1up, aint it ? its something personal for you, right ?
these stupid rules should be removed or made crystal clear. everything in the middle just causes confusion and even more bitter people than there are already in pa
__________________
Ascendancy FTW !!!!!!
Reunion FDS !
Proud to be Founder and Member of VisioN
Honoured to have been [1up] Member
VfL Bochum >*
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:08
|
#572
|
ND
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Amazingstoke
Posts: 2,235
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
1up outsmarted you all... get over it.
__________________
[ND]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:10
|
#573
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
only guilty ppl defends themselves with that frenzy m8 are you guilty of it?
|
Wrong. Only guilty people avoid talking about what they've done.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:15
|
#574
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
so now then we are on about the mh job btw, how do you guys see on the production bug that some ppl do to lower their value to attack ppl under the bashlimit?
|
I can't for the life of me understand why PA team want people to do that - but apparently they do. Otherwise they'd just disable ordering ships during the tick in the way that launching fleets is disabled.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:17
|
#575
|
SiNíng is a lifestyle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Woodenshoeland
Posts: 241
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
I personnally think that scanning should be dragged into OOGOOA rule. So if you want scans, make sure you have a scanner intag or ingal. Best way of rules is having them black and white, with no grey areas.
__________________
Cloggystyle should be one of the SiNs
Now serving the DarkLords
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:17
|
#576
|
ND for life
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 94
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Donating to the fund and receiving from the fund ARE directly comparable. As you can't see it, let me show you:
Alliance X has 50 members, 10 scanners, 10 donator planets.
Scenario 1: Members + scanners in tag, donators added briefly to donate as/when they want.
Scenario 2: Members + donators in tag, scanners added briefly to receive donations when they want.
Both scenarios have EXACTLY the same planets doing EXACTLY the same things with EXACTLY the same net result for the alliance. Yet you say 1 scenario is ok and the other isn't?
|
There is actually quite a big difference imo. In scenario 2 you have the "real" members in the tag donating to the alliance fund and then these resources being taken outside the tag. This directly lowers the score/res available to an alliance's tag. Scenario 1 does the exact opposite of this. Scenario 1 ends up with a gain in the score/res available to an alliance's tag. The only possible way you could say they are the same is if you take into account the indirect benefits of the resources used by the scanner. However as you didn't mention this I'll assume your debating skills let you down for once.
I do agree that the rules regarding support planets (and cheating in general) do need to be far clearer and be far less at the MH's discretion. I also think that 1up have been a little hypocritical this round in their use of donations from the small planets (whatever was done with the res). This is because I feel that getting donations from planets you know won't be a part of your alliance at the end of the round is a way of gaining an unfair advantage (even if it is a very small advantage) and 1up in general have been the loudest on AD about anything at all that bends the rules.
I don't think that 1up have done anything particularly wrong this round, they have just been slightly hypocritical and I do agree that there is definately a clarification of the rules needed.
__________________
'Soaring where angels fear to fly'
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:20
|
#577
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clogg
I personnally think that scanning should be dragged into OOGOOA rule. So if you want scans, make sure you have a scanner intag or ingal. Best way of rules is having them black and white, with no grey areas.
|
It's not quite that simple unfortunately. If a scanner has 1 pod and attacks a planet are they allowed to JGP it? If so, then are they allowed to pass that scan to other people who "happen" to be on lower ETAs?
Personally I'd be more inclined to make JGPs only show fleets on the same ETA as yourself - and make building amps a necessary factor for consideration by anyone wanting to do well. I'd then make building deflectors take twice as long as building amps so noone could make themself immune.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:23
|
#578
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy
This is because I feel that getting donations from planets you know won't be a part of your alliance at the end of the round is a way of gaining an unfair advantage.
|
And taking scans from planets which you know won't be in your alliance at the end of the round is fine?
Your talk about where the donations go and where the score ends up is meaningless. Scanning DOESN'T give score. So whether they scan while inside or outside of the alliance, noone gets any score.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:30
|
#579
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
funny how you can dictate the head of mh to do stuff you want then acording to the eula he can close whoever he wants more or less
so now then we are on about the mh job btw, how do you guys see on the production bug that some ppl do to lower their value to attack ppl under the bashlimit?
|
that's also shit, but the pa team has deemed it a 'feature' if i remember right ages ago.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:31
|
#580
|
ND for life
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 94
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
And taking scans from planets which you know won't be in your alliance at the end of the round is fine?
|
I never said I agreed that scan planets should be allowed, I was merely pointing out that the 2 scenarios you pointed out were not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
Your talk about where the donations go and where the score ends up is meaningless. Scanning DOESN'T give score. So whether they scan while inside or outside of the alliance, noone gets any score.
|
Ok, as you say, scanning doesn't give much/any score so it doesn't matter whether it is in tag or not. However getting donations from planets that aren't intag does increase the alliance's score as a consequence, whatever these resources are used for. If these resources are used for scans then the gained score is as a result of not needing to use other members' res for the scans and if the donated resources are used to build ships then obviously the extra score comes directly from those.
Donating res to scanners may not result in a net change of score for the alliance whether it's done intag or not but you can't argue against the fact having members join and donate res does result in a net increase of score for the alliances and therefore the 2 scenarios are not the same.
__________________
'Soaring where angels fear to fly'
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:31
|
#581
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
I can't for the life of me understand why PA team want people to do that - but apparently they do. Otherwise they'd just disable ordering ships during the tick in the way that launching fleets is disabled.
|
well its a bug and exploiting bugs known or not known are against the eula so why do ppl get away with it?
got 2 ppl in mind who have done it on a daily basis most of the round
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:36
|
#582
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
I see this as a simple issue if people think defending out of tag is so dreadful:
For hard coding:
If you are in an alliance, you can only defend in galaxy and in your alliance (with the ETA benefits). You can only be defended in galaxy and by your alliance (with the ETA benefits).
If you are out of tag, you can only defend people in galaxy and those not in a tag (with no ETA benefit). You can only be defended in galaxy and by those not in a tag.
If people want to move in and out of tags that's their choice and their loss of the requisite advantages of either situation. You can combat planets being moved in tag for defence in one tick by putting a time delay between the time they are accepted and the time they are actually added to the tag. I'd suggest 4 hours to be sufficient. Likewise you could do it for leaving alliances to prevent planets being kicked out to benefit from a pool of out of tag defenders.
The alliance fund feature should be removed, it's too open to abuse. Scanners out of tag aren't really a big problem then (if they ever are a problem).
The main gripe I have is what you do with attacking.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:38
|
#583
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
well its a bug and exploiting bugs known or not known are against the eula so why do ppl get away with it?
got 2 ppl in mind who have done it on a daily basis most of the round
|
It's not a bug it's a feature. PA team CHOSE to only disable fleet launches during the tick NOT to disable ordering/cancelling ships.
IF the manual said you couldn't order during the tick or IF the manual said you never got a full refund when cancelling an order then it would be a bug. It doesn't - and it isn't. A design flaw - maybe (though that would require there being some design in the first place).
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:39
|
#584
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I see this as a simple issue if people think defending out of tag is so dreadful:
For hard coding:
If you are in an alliance, you can only defend in galaxy and in your alliance (with the ETA benefits). You can only be defended in galaxy and by your alliance (with the ETA benefits).
If you are out of tag, you can only defend people in galaxy and those not in a tag (with no ETA benefit). You can only be defended in galaxy and by those not in a tag.
If people want to move in and out of tags that's their choice and their loss of the requisite advantages of either situation. You can combat planets being moved in tag for defence in one tick by putting a time delay between the time they are accepted and the time they are actually added to the tag. I'd suggest 4 hours to be sufficient. Likewise you could do it for leaving alliances to prevent planets being kicked out to benefit from a pool of out of tag defenders.
The alliance fund feature should be removed, it's too open to abuse. Scanners out of tag aren't really a big problem then (if they ever are a problem).
The main gripe I have is what you do with attacking.
|
What about in-cluster defending?
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:43
|
#585
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
What about in-cluster defending?
|
I don't see clusters as relevant any more. Do they still have incluster ETA?
I'm not sure what's the point of it if you can't attack in-cluster with the bonus (and old style clusters should certainly not return, the game is too small)
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:47
|
#586
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I don't see clusters as relevant any more. Do they still have incluster ETA?
I'm not sure what's the point of it if you can't attack in-cluster with the bonus (and old style clusters should certainly not return, the game is too small)
|
In-cluster defence ETA bonus still exists. Remove that and galaxies can just be given a number instead of 2 coords.
I've been a big proponent of introducing MORE "geography" to PA for a long time - as that, more than anything, could reward players for the effort they put into the game rather than for how good the alliance/block they belong to is.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:53
|
#587
|
you know you want me
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I don't see clusters as relevant any more. Do they still have incluster ETA?
I'm not sure what's the point of it if you can't attack in-cluster with the bonus (and old style clusters should certainly not return, the game is too small)
|
Incluster ETA's for defence, yes. Which is rather useless, seeing as no one (out of ally tag, that is) defends incluster. You still see (old school) MoC's unaware of the current gaming situation trying to form cluster allies, but mostly it just ends up in cluster nap's made futile after a couple weeks, due to "backstabbing", although it's usually just a random ***** doing a raid.
I woulnd't mind seeing a comeback of cluster alliances, I remember them functioning back in the days, and if they did so, quite well too.
Problem is focus has shifted completely onto alliances, what with alliances attacking their 'own' galaxies, making cluster alliances completely obsolete. It simply can't function, because there'll be backstabbing o'rama in no time.
__________________
R1 - R9.5 + R13 - R16 = 1337
Alliances: [Conc] [NRK] [ETY] [Guild] [Reunion] [HR] [Insomnia] [Ascendancy] & others...
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:55
|
#588
|
Andre LiNoGe
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Coventry, UK
Posts: 21
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
look at all this whinging who cares if 1up cheated? they deserve it if they managed to do it without getting caught. i dont like 1up but i cannot argue with there plans as they turned out to be the best alliance this round.
gg all
__________________
R2 BDU/HLS
R3 BDU
R4 EL
R5 Elysium
R6 TX
R7 vVv
R13 VGN
R14 Reunion
R15 LCH
R16 Subh
R17 Angels
R18 NewDawn DC
R19 NewDawn DC
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:55
|
#589
|
you know you want me
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
In-cluster defence ETA bonus still exists. Remove that and galaxies can just be given a number instead of 2 coords.
I've been a big proponent of introducing MORE "geography" to PA for a long time - as that, more than anything, could reward players for the effort they put into the game rather than for how good the alliance/block they belong to is.
|
By more geography, you mean parallels and smaller galaxies? e.g. setting a maximum of 12 players pr. galaxy would introduce a much bigger universe.
__________________
R1 - R9.5 + R13 - R16 = 1337
Alliances: [Conc] [NRK] [ETY] [Guild] [Reunion] [HR] [Insomnia] [Ascendancy] & others...
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:56
|
#590
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
The question about geography is how you do it. There used to be galaxies (my own galaxy did this in round 7) who took a very short time to mop up their clusters (when we had 15 playersx15 galaxies clusters and the game was a lot larger) and condemned many players to a bad round within the first two weeks of play (and admittedly, us to a lot of incoming from the rest of the universe).
You need geography to be quite 'big' to have a positive effect in this game. This game could probably handle, say 3 clusters of 30 galaxies of 15 each or 4 of 25 galaxies each. I'm not sure it can be done with the universe so small.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 17:59
|
#591
|
NE
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 828
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
What would be nice would be to really emphasis on Cluster Alliances, maybe make more benefits for them? and half way through round switch to para alliances or something, proberbly far fetched, but new and some old players struggle to establish themselfs because of alliances dominating the game. new players and well established players would be forced to work as a team for the good of the galaxy.
__________________
PEACE.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:07
|
#592
|
Legion Idle Master
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 425
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy
There is actually quite a big difference imo. In scenario 2 you have the "real" members in the tag donating to the alliance fund and then these resources being taken outside the tag. This directly lowers the score/res available to an alliance's tag. Scenario 1 does the exact opposite of this. Scenario 1 ends up with a gain in the score/res available to an alliance's tag. The only possible way you could say they are the same is if you take into account the indirect benefits of the resources used by the scanner. However as you didn't mention this I'll assume your debating skills let you down for once.
I do agree that the rules regarding support planets (and cheating in general) do need to be far clearer and be far less at the MH's discretion. I also think that 1up have been a little hypocritical this round in their use of donations from the small planets (whatever was done with the res). This is because I feel that getting donations from planets you know won't be a part of your alliance at the end of the round is a way of gaining an unfair advantage (even if it is a very small advantage) and 1up in general have been the loudest on AD about anything at all that bends the rules.
I don't think that 1up have done anything particularly wrong this round, they have just been slightly hypocritical and I do agree that there is definately a clarification of the rules needed.
|
^^ I think this post does some this round up based on the members of 1up. Now i have said this all along this is a great tactic, but i also beleive most of the things sid says are hypicritical. Now everything you said Sid was correct i feel to Assassin regarding the 'Scan planets' being allowed to join and take the resources. One of the arguments you did use though was the fact the support planet rule was brought in becuase of people avoiding the alliance limits with these scan planets correct? Well surely if your kicking members from your tag to allow bigger members that you have hidden all round to give yourself a slight advantage, bassicaly making all other alliances think your not a threat, then isnt that also avoiding the alliance limit and abusing it? Sid you make some excellent points, but somtimes your attitude which comes accross as 'everyone should obey you but ignore the fact 1up is exploiting things exactly the same as every other alliance has done in the past few rounds to avoid the limit'. Even though it was great tactics you have obviously kicked out planets to make room for the bigger ones, meaning you have more planets then the limit.
And as far as the rules go, well. Lets hope next round there are hardcore rules un place. Even if it is finally coded in which many people atm are asking for. It will be a sad day to see it, but with alliances these days exploiting and looking for loopholes every round i feel it has to be done.
Edit: I have removed my last comment. I sounded petty and i do appologise.
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
p3nguin Founder
Last edited by Willzzz; 29 May 2006 at 18:45.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:27
|
#593
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
well its a bug and exploiting bugs known or not known are against the eula so why do ppl get away with it?
got 2 ppl in mind who have done it on a daily basis most of the round
|
I'd say it's about as much a bug as the fact we have scan planets doing jgps for other people. It may not have been intended but pateam knew about it and chose to do nothing about it.
PS It's your imagination will, in the last fifty posts only two other 1up members, excluding sid, have posted.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:36
|
#594
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I'd say it's about as much a bug as the fact we have scan planets doing jgps for other people. It may not have been intended but pateam knew about it and chose to do nothing about it.
PS It's your imagination will, in the last fifty posts only two other 1up members, excluding sid, have posted.
|
sorry m8 i dont get your point at all ???
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:39
|
#595
|
Legion Idle Master
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 425
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
He bassicaly means if PA Team knew of it but did nothing then you cant really say people 'exploited it' as they didnt do anything to stop it although they knew of it. About sums it up JBG?
__________________
Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56
p3nguin Founder
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:49
|
#596
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
(btw is it my imagination becuase i have noticed when ever sid is having a debate with somone he seems to bring an army of 1up posters to the same thread? Reminds me of the old fury days)
|
Quite the opposite. 1up members are told not to post about 1up, our "war" with Omen etc on AD at all. If I removed that restriction then you'd REALLY see what an army of 1up posters is like. You're probably confusing ex-1up members with current ones - in the same way as you appear to be confusing hypocrisy (saying one thing and doing another) with honesty (explaining what you did and why).
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:54
|
#597
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illmaticks
By more geography, you mean parallels and smaller galaxies? e.g. setting a maximum of 12 players pr. galaxy would introduce a much bigger universe.
|
By more geography I mean proper coordinates for planets/galaxies and travel-time based on the distance between them. So you're forced to work with (or against) those nearest to you geographically rather than being able to spend the whole round with next to no contact with anyone other than your galaxy/alliance. And so alliances have to decide who to work with (and against) based on the in-game position rather than based on allegiances predetermined before ticks even start.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:54
|
#598
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
bring back hicks and dreadnought
oh and just curious , but what happened to all the players kicked from 1up to allow the out of tag players join
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 18:55
|
#599
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
well then sid post non of the other lil guys dare to post cos it will take focus of his posts its hard to keep track of his logic as it is without all of the rest posts pro 1up stuff in all colours
|
|
|
29 May 2006, 19:00
|
#600
|
Its time to roll the dice
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The barn
Posts: 876
|
Re: 1up's not-ingame members
The value "feature" will be fixed for next round. I actually got off my fat ass (as a manner of speaking) and contacted the PA crew about it. It is a legal feature this round, but someone smart came up with an easy solution to the problem so next round the bash limit will apply to resources stockers too.
It is however a bit amusing if it is as easy to fix as Sid is suggesting. For how many rounds has this "feature" been a problem now?
__________________
Real life peon.
Last edited by Treveler; 29 May 2006 at 22:19.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13.
| |