Planetarion Forums - Taking a long overdue piss on 1up's propaganda bonfire

F0rk · 2 Jul 2004, 01:11

Where to start? Firstly apologies for the time it has taken to respond to 1up's propaganda.

I am glad that so many of you have seen through their guise of claiming that MISTU/FANG and maybe others have 'blocked'. From previous rounds of political experience I am sure that many of you will see this as their 'excuse' later on in the round to state " 'They Blocked first,' so we had to take some action "

To set a few records straight:

1. MISTU is not 'allied' or 'NAPPED' with FaNG or any other alliance for that matter, nor do we have joint channels or whatever else has been said on 'the thread', with any other alliances.

2. Our members are free to attack who they want as the in-game alliance feature stops them from attacking each other. (The only time we had to get someone to recall so far was when they were attacking someone that had applied to join us). We do try to avoid members hitting gals that also have other MISTU members in though.

3. We have no joint battlegroups with other alliances. Our attacks are run in channels on our own server and these channels are only accessable by our members. If you need any form of proof on this matter have a chat with any of our members or any of your spies, as I assume we have a few on board with us. Regarding this 'joint battlegroup' either: (a) quit creating your propaganda, (b) get better intel or (c) do both

4. We have been attacking 1up as other alliances will also have (suppose it was easier to try to tie us with Fang as we were allied at the end of last round, so easier to try to make it stick.) [n.b. read points 1 and 2 again] MISTU have spoken with HC of other alliances and it seems they were also gunning for the top alliance as were we. We havent coordinated attacks with other alliances . (As previously stated in point 3 we do our own thing).

5. We have been having incoming from early on from both 1up and LCH. One galaxy with a few of our members in has been hit several times by 1up, but surprisingly none of the LCH in there came under fire even though propaganda grandmaster Sid has 'informed' us that the only friendly planets in his arbiter are 1up.

No need really to say much more except to leave you with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by furssie

Let's summarize the events:

1. A fiction story came up saying mistu and co. are blocking,
2. public bought it, even if mistu and co. are loosing roids.
3. 2 top alliance concentrated attacking mistu and co.
4. mistu and co. continues to loose roids - public stiill buying the fictional cooperation.
5. top alliance continues to sneak up the ranks widening the gap day by day.

6. Teh win! \o/

xtothez · 2 Jul 2004, 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

5. We have been having incoming from early on from both 1up and LCH. One galaxy with a few of our members in has been hit several times by 1up, but surprisingly none of the LCH in there came under fire even though propaganda grandmaster Sid has 'informed' us that the only friendly planets in his arbiter are 1up.

None of the 1up raids I've been in have had planets reserved before picking opened. And I've been in alot of raid channels.

F0rk · 2 Jul 2004, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtothez

None of the 1up raids I've been in have had planets reserved before picking opened. And I've been in alot of raid channels.

<x> btw
<x> we got incomins from 1up last morin
<x> and LCH in my gal :9 didnt get incoming again
<x> so seems LCH 1up tho not napped
<x> but @least avoiding each others
<Fork> that is a NAP :P
<x> yep

x is not online atm so I am not going to say who he is. he will hopefully come forward and give his account

Zh|l · 2 Jul 2004, 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

<x> btw
<x> we got incomins from 1up last morin
<x> and LCH in my gal :9 didnt get incoming again
<x> so seems LCH 1up tho not napped
<x> but @least avoiding each others
<Fork> that is a NAP :P
<x> yep

x is not online atm so I am not going to say who he is. he will hopefully come forward and give his account

Funny that, for I don't recall seeing any targets reserved as N/A which would indicate such a thing.

Eddie_V · 2 Jul 2004, 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Funny that, for I don't recall seeing any targets reserved as N/A which would indicate such a thing.

claimed in advace by an officer/HC and then not launched upon, easy as that, problem solved

Zh|l · 2 Jul 2004, 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie_V

claimed in advace by an officer/HC and then not launched upon, easy as that, problem solved

Except there are things called jgp's and news scans which would sort of defeat this.

Linkie · 2 Jul 2004, 03:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie_V

claimed in advace by an officer/HC and then not launched upon, easy as that, problem solved

Yes, in 1up officers always claimes before all the members.
Isn't that how every alliance does it?

TheRat · 2 Jul 2004, 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie_V

claimed in advace by an officer/HC and then not launched upon, easy as that, problem solved

Being 1up Military Officer, I have a few comments on that.

1) Officers/HCs NEVER EVER preclaim targets, ifanct we try to avoid attacking (or claiming if you will) in our own raids.
2) 1up has a galaxy nap with all galaxies containing 1up, galaxies not containing 1up are free to attack. When a galaxy is targetted, all planets are attempted covered.
3) Ive seen a preclaimed target ONCE since I started as a 1up officer (seen my share of targets you can prolly imagine), and that was for a scanner who really needed the roids to do his work.

-TheRat

waffle · 2 Jul 2004, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Funny that, for I don't recall seeing any targets reserved as N/A which would indicate such a thing.

So you have partaken in every galaxy raid 1up runs? I for 1 have seen raids with targets marked as N/A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Fork stop being a twat.

You are one to talk. :/.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

Right Fork, following your analogy this means that if a galaxy raid on a gal is not 100% covered it means theres a NAP between the attacking alliance and the alliance of the planet that is not being hit. How very LOGICAL!! Maybe you forgot that in almost every galaxy raid 1-2 planets are left untaken, for various reasons, either too small, no roids, tough fleet. So what if that one person happens to be LCH, or any other alliance ffs!

This is in no way proof of the fact theres a NAP between these 2 alliances!

True, there could be the possiblity of planets not being taken in a raid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

PULLEEZZ - get a brain, before I dish out a list of your so-called NAP's between alliances, which would be solely based on the last 3 attacks on my gal in which certain planets were not hit.

PULLEEZZ - get a brain. You just totally contradicted yourself with everything you just said above this line.

McIvan · 2 Jul 2004, 09:06

For goodness sake, waffle. They're (a) tiny (b) in vacation (c) still in initial protection or (d) closed. That's what an N/A is for.

Zh|l · 2 Jul 2004, 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffle

So you have partaken in every galaxy raid 1up runs? I for 1 have seen raids with targets marked as N/A.

I haven't seen any NA in the raids I've seen, and I know for a fact how our targetting is taking place. I do wonder what you hope to achieve my inflaming things.

Jackal2112 · 2 Jul 2004, 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by waffle

PULLEEZZ - get a brain. You just totally contradicted yourself with everything you just said above this line.

Waffle, do you know what 'sarcasm' is? If you did, you'd understand why I wrote that last sentence.

Synthetic_Sid · 2 Jul 2004, 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

<x> btw
<x> we got incomins from 1up last morin
<x> and LCH in my gal :9 didnt get incoming again
<x> so seems LCH 1up tho not napped
<x> but @least avoiding each others
<Fork> that is a NAP :P
<x> yep

x is not online atm so I am not going to say who he is. he will hopefully come forward and give his account

Well I won't be holding my breath waiting for him.

I'd estimate we have 80-90% of mistu coords and about 50-60% of LCH. Of the ones have, there's no galaxy which has mistu in and has an LCH planet at #9 spot. Of course (assuming you're telling the truth) it could be a planet we haven't identified the alliance of - or an LCH in a galaxy where we haven't identified the Mistu. No targets are pre-booked in our attacks (except for 1 planet yesterday which most definitely WAS attacked) and officers running an attack are not allowed to take targets until last - to avoid any accusations of bias.

I can think of a few explanations for what you're saying:

1. You're lieing. I note that between your first post and the one i'm quoting it's already dropped from "none of the LCH planets (plural)" to "#9" - maybe by your next post it'll have changed to "actually they all got hit".
2. You're being lied to.
3. Planet 9 was one of those targets that noone wants to hit - too few roids, too balanced a fleet or whatever.
4. The planet is closed - have you tried checking that isn't under admins' protection - we always leave those alone in our attacks.

Barrow|Pony · 2 Jul 2004, 05:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1. You're lieing. I note that between your first post and the one i'm quoting it's already dropped from "none of the LCH planets (plural)" to "#9" - maybe by your next post it'll have changed to "actually they all got hit".
2. You're being lied to.
3. Planet 9 was one of those targets that noone wants to hit - too few roids, too balanced a fleet or whatever.
4. The planet is closed - have you tried checking that isn't under admins' protection - we always leave those alone in our attacks.

Re: the ":9" in the original quote.

:9 is a failed smiley. close to "

". i'd put forth that he was not referring to planet #9.

Jackal2112 · 2 Jul 2004, 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

<x> btw
<IRC LOGS>
x is not online atm so I am not going to say who he is. he will hopefully come forward and give his account

Right Fork, following your analogy this means that if a galaxy raid on a gal is not 100% covered it means theres a NAP between the attacking alliance and the alliance of the planet that is not being hit. How very LOGICAL!! Maybe you forgot that in almost every galaxy raid 1-2 planets are left untaken, for various reasons, either too small, no roids, tough fleet. So what if that one person happens to be LCH, or any other alliance ffs!

This is in no way proof of the fact theres a NAP between these 2 alliances!

PULLEEZZ - get a brain, before I dish out a list of your so-called NAP's between alliances, which would be solely based on the last 3 attacks on my gal in which certain planets were not hit.

Jackal2112 · 2 Jul 2004, 01:24

Right. Why do i sense a lack of proof in about every post on Alliance Discussions

Shev · 2 Jul 2004, 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomKat

(From the previous messed up thread)
I like the way that LCH have come forward and officially declared they are going solo, dispelling any rumours of it.

But FAnG and MISTU HC haven't posted in here once (strange for FAnG HC to not post on the boards - Is KJ on holiday, or has he been banned from AD by his alliance?) to tell us they aren't cooperating. Just a couple of their members going "omg lies, you know nothing!!", when they know zilch about the alliance's politics anyway.

Wonder if we will see 1up accepting this then?

xtothez · 2 Jul 2004, 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

Right. Why do i sense a lack of proof in about every post on Alliance Discussions

They have to try and "piss over our bonfire" on AD because we're pissing all over them ingame.

Before lokken posted it.

BoredOfThis · 2 Jul 2004, 01:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

MISTU have spoken with HC of other alliances and it seems they were also gunning for the top alliance as were we.

heh

i can imagine it now

*nick Fork

/query LB|away p.s. we are attacking these 1up gals tonight xx:xx xx:xx x:xx

<LB|away> how coincidental as we are attacking the rest of the gals
<Fork> btw u didn't see me, right?
<LB|away> ofc

Chaos · 2 Jul 2004, 02:11

I didn't see anywhere up there that you attack FAnG when doing Ally attacks.
did you just forget to mention it? or don't you organize ally attack on FAnG ?
(Not trolling or flaming , honest and valid question)

Eddie_V · 2 Jul 2004, 02:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos

I didn't see anywhere up there that you attack FAnG when doing Ally attacks.
did you just forget to mention it? or don't you organize ally attack on FAnG ?
(Not trolling or flaming , honest and valid question)

if it's not in the ingame alliance it is being attacked when interesting enough I would say

Shev · 2 Jul 2004, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos

I didn't see anywhere up there that you attack FAnG when doing Ally attacks.
did you just forget to mention it? or don't you organize ally attack on FAnG ?
(Not trolling or flaming , honest and valid question)

There was a MISTU attack that waved a FAnG gal last night. Question answered?

§pa¢e¢ook¦e · 2 Jul 2004, 02:49

lol zh|l, no members keep themselves busy jgp a whole galaxy to see if everyone launched

and aside to that mostly only officers or HC does that which means if an officer or hc takes the target still no1 knows or wont be bothered to check it and then if they did whats a member got to say to their hc or officer ......
member : "officer" you took a target but didnt launched on it naughty naughty !¡
officer : none of your business or you get kicked ....

i can even remember some others did it less obvious in r10.

Hicks · 2 Jul 2004, 02:54

Fork stop being a twat.

Eddie_V · 2 Jul 2004, 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Fork stop being a twat.

You first

Velta · 7 Jul 2004, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie_V

You first

That'll be the day.

Synthetic_Sid · 2 Jul 2004, 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

1. A fiction story came up saying mistu and co. are blocking,
2. public bought it, even if mistu and co. are loosing roids.
3. 2 top alliance concentrated attacking mistu and co.
4. mistu and co. continues to loose roids - public stiill buying the fictional cooperation.
5. top alliance continues to sneak up the ranks widening the gap day by day.

Quoting the summarised version to save on time so i can get off to bed:

1. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..
2. Wasn't aware blocking/allying put force-fields around your roids preventing roid-loss.
3. Fork acknowledges that Mistu deliberately focussed on 1up - what are we expected to do? Attack someone else?
4. Noone ever said it was a good block

5. Kind of hard to sneak up the ranks when you're already #1

Shev · 2 Jul 2004, 04:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

1. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..

Is equally easily applied to your explainations of why 1up and LCH seem to attack common targets and not each other.

(Why is this debate still going heh - it's not like either side will convince the other, and 1up already have the rest of the board muppets convinced)

Tomkat · 2 Jul 2004, 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shev

Is equally easily applied to your explainations of why 1up and LCH seem to attack common targets and not each other.

I've been party to, and run, quite a few attacks in 1up.

I can say with 100% conviction, and no hidden agenda, that I have never reserved some targets as friendly, or been told to. And noone has been asked to recall because we're hiting a friendly.

I check in the arby. If it has 1up, it isn't a valid target. If there are no 1up, then it's all go and free to hit.

Simple as that.

Twist my words how you want, but anyone reading that knows exactly what I mean. I'm not trying to hide something behind my words. I have no hidden meaning.

Unless by some freak coincidence we share every galaxy with LCH, then 1up has no qualms with hitting planets that belong to LCH.

Chaos · 2 Jul 2004, 04:03

ehh. no

Leinad · 2 Jul 2004, 04:38

nice block u got there 1up.

Zh|l · 2 Jul 2004, 04:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leinad

nice block u got there 1up.

Lego rocks

ComradeRob · 2 Jul 2004, 04:46

I think some of the people posting on this thread should be forced to play Risk until they 'get it'.

Achilles · 2 Jul 2004, 05:00

That game would take longer than playing Zhil :-/

Vaio · 2 Jul 2004, 05:18

For an alliance that is so totally against blocking, does anyone else find it ironic that some of the leadership of 1up invented it in round 2 ?

~Vaio~

Achilles · 2 Jul 2004, 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaio

For an alliance that is so totally against blocking, does anyone else find it ironic that some of the leadership of 1up invented it in round 2 ?

~Vaio~

Don't go off topic.

That has nothing to do with Risk.

Gerbie · 2 Jul 2004, 05:31

What's the problem here? FAnG is definately losing. If I were FAnG HC I'd say: we are losing. 1UP is aparantly doing better than us. We are getting bashed. We have no other option to survive then block with X.

Do you realy think that would be sufficient reason for 1UP to block? Or for LCH? Syn_Sid already said he wouldn't block if 2 others did. He claimed he could still outplay them. Let him prove that. Same thing for Rock and Wolfpack: if you are losing bad, you should block.

When counterblocks of sufficient size were formed in previous rounds it was always after stagnation set in. Be in time this round plz.

Helix · 2 Jul 2004, 05:36

at the time that FAnG and MISTU were first accused of their supposed block FAnG was #2, or recently dropped by that good night of roiding by LCH. Since then FAnG has been losing roids faster than a 15 year old looking at pr0n for the first time. MISTU has not done any better. At this point a FAnG / MISTU block would not have nearly the same impact as it could have had 4 days ago.

Forest · 2 Jul 2004, 07:51

Fork

Nice words but please remember.

I pissed on Icy's bonfire, after drinking all her punch.
She stabbed me.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

Lord_Thunderball · 2 Jul 2004, 08:01

Guys guys guys..... Stop it.... I can't take it anymore!

Sid, Tomkat, TheRat I see you defending 1up's honor over here.. Nothing wrong with that. You are typing stuff like.. I can tell you I never do this, i've never seen that and it's not like that.
Sure this all can be true, but c'mon, if i'm on the other side (Mistu/Fang) why should I have any reasons to believe you? you are the enemy? I can post stuff(Like Eddie_v) did, which are valid explainations and stuff that has happenend before. So all you are saying might come out of a good heart, but I(and others) cannot verify your statements, your the enemy so why the hell should it be true? <-- This is not my opinion, I just want to state how useless those post are.

To the "other" side. Fork started good. As HC he is the one who should state he ain't napping, blocking or whatever. But point #5 (The LCH, 1up assumption) should have been left out. Why make a thread about denying a rumor and then stating one yourself? These so called incidents could be based on so many other reasons then LCH and 1up agreements. And if there is such an agreement I doubt other then the HC knows it, so officers might post within there believes, the might not even know what's happening.
On the other side... One planet not attacked could indeed be an unclaimed planet, someone who didn't launched, a LCH guy who is spying for 1up or 100 of other reasons. You(Fork) was right in making this thread, but then throwing rumors back at LCH/1up brings you to the same level as the rumor machine 1up.... <-- Still love you ofc...

TheRat · 2 Jul 2004, 08:13

If we do not answer, we just give them a reason to believe what is being said.

Lord_Thunderball · 2 Jul 2004, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRat

If we do not answer, we just give them a reason to believe what is being said.

But now the same situation is created as before, and I think Fork hoped to stop it, not continue it. I just wanted to point out that the thing Fang/Mistu where doing in that other thread is the same thing you(1up) is doing now. Maybe Fork wanted to point out that point(smart move).

Rumors often lead to "defensive mode". It's not wrong you are doing it. But if i'm 1up, and spread rumors on the board(True or untrue ones) we doubt the rumor, but also the defensive answers of the accused alliance. Now Fork spread a rumor and exactly the same happens.

Ofc we need some spam on the boards else it would be boring, nothing wrong with that. But often these rumors lead to blocking, and the rumor itself was just a wrong assumption. But this is what PR and politics are all about... Ain't we having fun

Guran · 2 Jul 2004, 17:03

You see me replying in these threads? No.

I couldn't care less what the public thinks. Yeah, I know it makes me a lousy politician, that's why I stay away from here. I didn't know LCH was napped with 1up, and I for one should know. You (FAnG/MISTU) people who think we are, I'm sure you have plenty of LCH/1up coords. Go on and news scan them. I'm pretty certain we have roided eachother somewhere the last days.

I hope noone is stupid enough to believe what they read on AD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRat

If we do not answer, we just give them a reason to believe what is being said.

xtothez · 2 Jul 2004, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guran

I hope noone is stupid enough to believe what they read on AD.

I believe you

ComradeRob · 2 Jul 2004, 09:36

As an MO it's my job to mark certain targets as N/A - I can provide you with logs of every raid I've run, if that would satisfy your curiosity about why they are marked N/A, and I can say with absolute certainty that the only planets ever marked N/A are those too small to hit, closed, or under protection (the PA kind, not the alliance kind).

Rumad · 2 Jul 2004, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

As an MO it's my job to mark certain targets as N/A - I can provide you with logs of every raid I've run, if that would satisfy your curiosity about why they are marked N/A, and I can say with absolute certainty that the only planets ever marked N/A are those too small to hit, closed, or under protection (the PA kind, not the alliance kind).

Could you also provide a list of targets that were taken and not launched upon. It would be interesing to see what ratio of planets you are not hitting or are fake attacked to seem "as realistic" as possible.

Holyboy · 2 Jul 2004, 09:44

would you like a coords list as well Rumad?

Rumad · 2 Jul 2004, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holyboy

would you like a coords list as well Rumad?

the point i was making wazs to show the holes in what he said. Simply there are so many ways to covr up atatcking someoen you don't want to hit that any argumenst to the contrary should at least be supporte by the relevant vidence to refute. Otherwise the denials are no better than the allegations. Hollow and lacking substance.

So in answer to your question - at eas it could be cross refered to memberlists so why not

TheRat · 2 Jul 2004, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumad

the point i was making wazs to show the holes in what he said. Simply there are so many ways to covr up atatcking someoen you don't want to hit that any argumenst to the contrary should at least be supporte by the relevant vidence to refute. Otherwise the denials are no better than the allegations. Hollow and lacking substance.

So in answer to your question - at eas it could be cross refered to memberlists so why not

You have to be god damned fast if you wanna make sure someone in a raid isnt hit, as all the interesting targets are usualy taken within 1-4 seconds after -m. But hell, I guess you are gonna claim that we timetravel aswell?

Game' · 2 Jul 2004, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumad

Could you also provide a list of targets that were taken and not launched upon. It would be interesing to see what ratio of planets you are not hitting or are fake attacked to seem "as realistic" as possible.

We dont "do" faking targets, as due to target classes, their is always someone who can take a target, so they are left untaken until someone wants them, if they arent taken we simply run the risk of them defending.

Now please go and do the right thing, delete your forum account.