Planetarion Forums - Angels?

Paisley · 19 Feb 2006, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Do you mean they got to number #2 with a shot at the number #1 spot without fighting any fights? Shit man that's some pretty good political manuevering there.

Hence the boxing clever bit.

qebab · 19 Feb 2006, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Not a single alliance will concentrate incs on Angels for a while, they are not seen as a threat (currently) to the bigger alliances, its not worth their effort to hit Angels.

All of a sudden, these 3 fleeters get huge score gains, get re added to the tag and they sneak into the lead.

IF thats what they are doing, would be funny to see tho, and a sure fire way to get the uni attempting to kill you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Well, in the last 2 rounds my alliance (at that time) was superb at picking its fights, its just the fighting that wasn't impressive. I have to say, I am in a good position to comment on other alliances political (or lack of) skill

You two need to see my posts in light of the previous posts in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

If however they had of followed your plan and picked a fight with every man and his dog they probably wouldnt of even finished in the top5.

I didn't say they should have fought more fights, it was never even implied. I am saying that an ex-NewDawn member/officer is hardly the right person to tutor other HC's on wich fights to pick. Read the previous page in this thread.

Please note that "picking fights", the term that The_Fish used, differs quite a bit from "Political manuevering". I never contested that NewDawn played clever politics last round, did I?

Paisley · 19 Feb 2006, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I didn't say they should have fought more fights, it was never even implied. I am saying that an ex-NewDawn member/officer is hardly the right person to tutor other HC's on wich fights to pick. Read the previous page in this thread.

Baring in mind that the_Fish is no "Joe Noob" And will be an assest to any ally he chooses to play in.

Game^ · 19 Feb 2006, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I didn't say they should have fought more fights, it was never even implied. I am saying that an ex-NewDawn member/officer is hardly the right person to tutor other HC's on wich fights to pick. Read the previous page in this thread.

Please note that "picking fights", the term that The_Fish used, differs quite a bit from "Political manuevering". I never contested that NewDawn played clever politics last round, did I?

Talk about contradicting yourself, at first you say ND officers shouldnt tell others which fights to pick, and then you go on to that ND played a good round politically. I thought which fights you pick IS politics, and surely if ND played good political rounds they are in a position to lecture others.

Comparing Angels and NewDawn, im sure both alliances would agree that Angels has the edge in terms of actually "doing" the fighting, whereas NewDawn have the edge in terms of deciding who to fight.

Game^ · 19 Feb 2006, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

Baring in mind that the_Fish is no "Joe Noob" And will be an assest to any ally he chooses to play in.

Hes not talking about The_Fish though, hes quoting him but actually refering to "Joe ND officer/HC". Im getting a tad lost with his logic :/

Grog · 19 Feb 2006, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

No. Tell me, did they pick any fights at all? If so, what fights? The end of round one versus eXilition was bound to inevitable, and thats the only fight they started themselves that I am aware of.

Well then you have no idea what was going on.
Since I picked all of NewDawns fights in round 15 I feel quite qualified to respond to this.

Lets see.
First when we noticed a lot of xVx incoming we targeted xVx.
Only for a night, but we hurt them hard enough that they showed up on AD whining about it.

Next we were getting a lot of LCH incoming, so we targeted LCH.
I believe they lost about 18% of there roids to us in a night & they promptly showed up, assuring us they'd rather have NewDawn win then anyone else & asking for a NAP. (if they hadn't backstabbed us on this nap later on, then the war vs exi wouldn't of been nearly so one sided)

Later on we were getting a lot of subh incoming (exi having there flak hit us to try to slow our growth while they were fighting angels/1up) So we spent a couple days hammering subh. Ali to his credit didn't ask for a NAP, but rather got pissed off & increased the incoming on us. By the time we quit targeting subh they didn't have a planet left over 400 roids.

Then 2 different times when Angels & 1up were getting the upperhand with exi we stepped in & attacked Angels. Effectively turning the tide of the war & assuring the continuation of the war. So niether side could gain the upperhand & we could avoid having the winners of it turn on us.

Then when we thought we had reached the point where the only possible winners of the round were us or exi, we started a war with exi.

We possibly spent a couple days to long hitting angels before we started on exi, but we wanted them in a position where we knew they couldn't pass us.
Unfortunately that also meant they had gone largely inactive & weren't as much help vs exi as we hoped they would be.

IMO the only fight we went wrong with was the timing on exi, in hindsight we should of hit LCH first, but unfortunately I trusted them to keep the NAP & the backstabbing by them once we started on exi was enough to assure our quick demise.

Cannon_Fodder · 19 Feb 2006, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Do you mean they got to number #2 with a shot at the number #1 spot without fighting any fights? Shit man that's some pretty good political manuevering there.

Militarily, it was considered (and then proven) that ND if attacked were 'relatively' easy meat, so the other 3 alliances concentrated on each other, regardless of the lead ND had. Considering that, ND could have posted endless 'yo mom is so fat' jokes on AD about the other alliances HCs, and they still wouldn't have gotten targetted, politcally they played it well, but it was either that or utterly stupid.

qebab · 19 Feb 2006, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

Talk about contradicting yourself, at first you say ND officers shouldnt tell others which fights to pick, and then you go on to that ND played a good round politically. I thought which fights you pick IS politics, and surely if ND played good political rounds they are in a position to lecture others.

I stated quite explicit "I never contested that NewDawn played clever politics last round, did I?", seeing that some people seemed to read that into my posts. I never said the played a poor, or a good round politically. I might have said on a previous point that they did good choices though, I am not quite sure...I did, however not write that they did poor decisions, nor did I say they should've done things differently. I am not the right person to judge that.

As for your second point, surely, napping the 5 best alliances (for example) would be a political manuever, but it wouldn't be to pick a fight? These are different terms, in my opinion. Perhaps we can agree that picking fights is a part of politics, then.

You say ND are in a position to lecture others. Does this mean every random ND person are in the position to lecture others on this? The people who did those decisions, would be, perhaps, but taking a guess, the average ND peon had no say in those matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

Hes not talking about The_Fish though, hes quoting him but actually refering to "Joe ND officer/HC". Im getting a tad lost with his logic

Not refering to the average HC so to say, no. What The_Fish said, or implied, was that since he was in an alliance that was good at picking its fights, he was in a position to tell others what fights to pick, or how good they were at picking fights. Perhaps I should have said that from post 1, but my point was that this is flawed logic, unless he was the one to make those decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...

Thank you for clearing that, perhaps there were more things happening that I was not aware of, then. I won't "accuse" you of not fighting again

Paisley · 19 Feb 2006, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Well then you have no idea what was going on.
Since I picked all of NewDawns fights in round 15 I feel quite qualified to respond to this.

Lets see.

Next we were getting a lot of LCH incoming, so we targeted LCH.
I believe they lost about 18% of there roids to us in a night & they promptly showed up, assuring us they'd rather have NewDawn win then anyone else & asking for a NAP. (if they hadn't backstabbed us on this nap later on, then the war vs exi wouldn't of been nearly so one sided)

Later on we were getting a lot of subh incoming (exi having there flak hit us to try to slow our growth while they were fighting angels/1up) So we spent a couple days hammering subh. Ali to his credit didn't ask for a NAP, but rather got pissed off & increased the incoming on us. By the time we quit targeting subh they didn't have a planet left over 400 roids.

I always wondered what the score was with ND and LCH for R15...Now I know.
However an inaccuratey with the subh bit. ND hit Subh on an ally basis FIRST. Also Ali didnt get pissed as he did try and speak to ND for a peaceful solution. ND was having less of it to quote a high ranking ND member " A slap on the wrists " was due to subh. In which Ali said to subh BCs you know what needs to be done. Ali as a last resort decided to go for war and only when diplomacy failed.

Something I mentioned earlier in this topic if ND had choosen their diplomacy routes differently who knows.

By the Way ND never could get me down to 400 roids even when they were naming their fleets "hello paisley" right upto the last week of R15 still finished with more than 1k of roids.

Game^ · 19 Feb 2006, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I stated quite explicit "I never contested that NewDawn played clever politics last round, did I?", seeing that some people seemed to read that into my posts.

So they played well politically then?

Quote:

As for your second point, surely, napping the 5 best alliances (for example) would be a political manuever, but it wouldn't be to pick a fight? These are different terms, in my opinion. Perhaps we can agree that picking fights is a part of politics, then.

Yus it would be a manuever, and also there are alliances outside the top5 you know. Subh were a key figure in EXil's success........

Quote:

You say ND are in a position to lecture others. Does this mean every random ND person are in the position to lecture others on this? The people who did those decisions, would be, perhaps, but taking a guess, the average ND peon had no say in those matters.

Of course it doesnt mean "joe member" is in a position to lecture, but lets face it The_Fish wasn't that in NewDawn now was he.

Grog · 19 Feb 2006, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

I always wondered what the score was with ND and LCH for R15...Now I know.
However an inaccuratey with the subh bit. ND hit Subh on an ally basis FIRST. Also Ali didnt get pissed as he did try and speak to ND for a peaceful solution. ND was having less of it to quote a high ranking ND member " A slap on the wrists " was due to subh. In which Ali said to subh BCs you know what needs to be done. Ali as a last resort decided to go for war and only when diplomacy failed.

Something I mentioned earlier in this topic if ND had choosen their diplomacy routes differently who knows.

By the Way ND never could get me down to 400 roids even when they were naming their fleets "hello paisley" right upto the last week of R15 still finished with more than 1k of roids.

I didn't say that subh was solely targeting us when we went after them, we were simply getting more subh incoming then we found acceptable.
:-) I believe I was the one who told Ali it was a slap on the wrists.

Ali did come to talk to me before we launched that night, possibly hoping for the attack to get cancelled. I wasn't going to call it off & he decided to fight back instead of talking about a peaceful solution after we had done a large scale hit on you guys.
I didn't like it much, but he did earn my respect for his stand. (although if you weren't already in bed with exi I don't know if he'd of had the same determination)

We hit you guys for 3 or 4 nights & then reached the point where we just couldn't find enough subh targets worth hitting to continue. So saying there were none over 400 roids may have been a slight exageration.

Later in the round subh did ofc recover nicely & i'm sure had lots of nice targets.
:-) We were just occupied with other things by then.

qebab · 19 Feb 2006, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

So they played well politically then?

I'm not in the position to judge that, am I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

Yus it would be a manuever, and also there are alliances outside the top5 you know. Subh were a key figure in EXil's success........

Notice the "for example" in paranthesis. I could have said everyone in bottom 50. It was a fictive situation, and I never said subh were not an important part of the round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

Of course it doesnt mean "joe member" is in a position to lecture, but lets face it The_Fish wasn't that in NewDawn now was he.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

Not refering to the average HC so to say, no. What The_Fish said, or implied, was that since he was in an alliance that was good at picking its fights, he was in a position to tell others what fights to pick, or how good they were at picking fights. Perhaps I should have said that from post 1, but my point was that this is flawed logic, unless he was the one to make those decisions.

Game^ · 19 Feb 2006, 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I'm not in the position to judge that, am I?

Did they finish the rounds higher than they should of based upon their memberbase in your opinion?

If so then surely they played a good political round......

Quote:

Notice the "for example" in paranthesis. I could have said everyone in bottom 50. It was a fictive situation, and I never said subh were not an important part of the round.

Yeah, I took that a bit too literally, sorry

cypher · 19 Feb 2006, 20:57

after reading quite a bit of this i can't believe how stupid some of you actually are

1up played shit last round and had quite some shit members
exi played nice and had quite a few back up planets/alliances
ND didn't fight anything proper till the end and before that they only really picked on small allies or angels which was already at war. (saying 1up/angels had the advantage at times is utter crap as we never did)
ND might have played politically correct, but when wolfpack did the same it was called fencesitting no matter how much you like to sweet talk it.
ND also never really had a real chance of winning as exi always knew they could take them out when they wanted too.
LCH avoided most incomings but they were rebuilding and they did that quite well as they had no intentions to win.

flame away

End of the day even tho everyone would like certain alliances to play differently it's the choice of their HC's tho so who gives a damn?

p.s. Fish is a nub :P ( <3 fishie )

qebab · 19 Feb 2006, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Game^

Did they finish the rounds higher than they should of based upon their memberbase in your opinion?

If so then surely they played a good political round......

Yeah, I took that a bit too literally, sorry

No, that doesn't mean they surely played a good political round. It means I think they played a good political round, it doesn't make it a fact. Some people present opinions as if they were facts on this forum, I try to avoid it, even though I'm not so good at it. But, there is a very wide difference between an opinion, and a fact.

For the record, in my opinion, ND played clever, even though I don't think they have the biggest cojones.

Apology accepted for that other thing.

Grog · 19 Feb 2006, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

after reading quite a bit of this i can't believe how stupid some of you actually are

After reading your reply I can't believe how biased you are.
(actually I can believe it, considering who it is)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

ND didn't fight anything proper till the end and before that they only really picked on small allies or angels which was already at war.
ND might have played politically correct, but when wolfpack did the same it was called fencesitting no matter how much you like to sweet talk it.
LCH avoided most incomings but they were rebuilding and they did that quite well as they had no intentions to win.

So when ND only picks fights where they're likely to succeed, you call it fencesitting.
When LCH does it, it's a job well done.
It's obvious you can't look at it from an unbiased viewpoint Cypher. You want to think the worst of ND, so you do.
No we didn't help fight exi when you so desperately wanted us to, but we weren't playing the round to help out Angels or 1up. We were playing it for NewDawn.
We did what we had to do to give us an opportunity to win.
No we didn't have the finish required to carry it out, but at least we put ourselves in a position to have the opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

(saying 1up/angels had the advantage at times is utter crap as we never did

Well sandmans & exi HC had a different opinion on that.
There's no doubt in my mind that if we hadn't jumped in to help take the pressure off of exi that there would of been a different end result in the round. It was a choice between fighting exi or angels for the win at the end & we figured it would be easier to get 1up to help us fight exi then Angels.

NewDawns round 15 result wasn't haphazard, we didn't stumble into it.
We followed the political situation & made the decisions we felt were of the most benefit to us.
There was a LOT of pressure on us to help kill off exi early, & the easy choice to make would of been to go along with it.
Would we have ever had an opportunity to win the round if we had helped Angels & 1up kill off exi like they wanted us to?
I think the obvious answer there is no.

Kargool · 19 Feb 2006, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

No we didn't help fight exi when you so desperately wanted us to, but we weren't playing the round to help out Angels or 1up. We were playing it for NewDawn.

So you learned something from NoS r13 after all?

jerome · 19 Feb 2006, 22:36

because that was the first time an alliance played for their own selves...!

Chika · 19 Feb 2006, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

After reading your reply I can't believe how biased you are.
(actually I can believe it, considering who it is)

So when ND only picks fights where they're likely to succeed, you call it fencesitting.
When LCH does it, it's a job well done.
It's obvious you can't look at it from an unbiased viewpoint Cypher. You want to think the worst of ND, so you do.
No we didn't help fight exi when you so desperately wanted us to, but we weren't playing the round to help out Angels or 1up. We were playing it for NewDawn.
We did what we had to do to give us an opportunity to win.
No we didn't have the finish required to carry it out, but at least we put ourselves in a position to have the opportunity.

Well sandmans & exi HC had a different opinion on that.
There's no doubt in my mind that if we hadn't jumped in to help take the pressure off of exi that there would of been a different end result in the round. It was a choice between fighting exi or angels for the win at the end & we figured it would be easier to get 1up to help us fight exi then Angels.

NewDawns round 15 result wasn't haphazard, we didn't stumble into it.
We followed the political situation & made the decisions we felt were of the most benefit to us.
There was a LOT of pressure on us to help kill off exi early, & the easy choice to make would of been to go along with it.
Would we have ever had an opportunity to win the round if we had helped Angels & 1up kill off exi like they wanted us to?
I think the obvious answer there is no.

Grog, I like your posts train of thought, and TBH, I think Newdawn performed nicely in RD 15. But you sound silly saying that you would have rather fought Exil 1 on 1 than Angels. Saying you had a better chance fighting exil, while watching them keep 1up/angels at bay, is/was kind of dumb.

Troll · 19 Feb 2006, 22:49

I believe he said we'd have a better chance at getting 1 up to help us kill off exi than angels.

OFC it didn't quite work as planed but comming #2 2 rounds ina row when your alliance used to be a joke isn't a bad thing

Chika · 19 Feb 2006, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troll

I believe he said we'd have a better chance at getting 1 up to help us kill off exi than angels.

OFC it didn't quite work as planed but comming #2 2 rounds ina row when your alliance used to be a joke isn't a bad thing

yer, he did say that. I agree, ND went from fighting lame wars with HR (who sucks now as you see) to ending top 2. In 2 very active rounds I may add. BUT, 1up was pretty dead all round. Putting that much faith in a dead alliance that has about 4 active planets, was a very bad decision.

The_Fish · 19 Feb 2006, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

yer, he did say that. I agree, ND went from fighting lame wars with HR (who sucks now as you see) to ending top 2. In 2 very active rounds I may add. BUT, 1up was pretty dead all round. Putting that much faith in a dead alliance that has about 4 active planets, was a very bad decision.

It wasn't as simple as that.

In the final few weeks there would be 3 possible victors. Had we agreed to nap Angels and pound eXi, we then felt eXi and 1up would both rather have Angels win over us, 1up because they leaned to Angels throughout the round, and eXi for backstabbing them.

Had we pounded Angels, which we did, we felt 1up would be motivated enough to help push us over the line over eXilition, I thought 1up were playing hard to get, but they really didn't have the activity and determination to try to help us win. Which is understandable, we didn't help them previously, I thought their hatred for eXi was greater than it was.

Subh were always going to side with eXilition, and we received a fair bit of incs from them before the impending war with eXi.

Grog made all the EA decisions during R15, and did a superb job. He is better equipped to reply than anyone else. Nothing he said can be disputed tbh.

cypher · 20 Feb 2006, 00:29

grog if i'm so biased? why did i say 1up was crap?

trust me... you can ask gate.. i have NOTHING against ND.

Treveler · 20 Feb 2006, 02:14

I honestly don’t see what’s so smart about NDs political moves last round. It was from tick 1 a stalemate between 1up/angels and exilition + flak with Exilition as clearly the strongest alliance. All ND had to do was to avoid concentrating on any side and slowly grow big without hardly getting any incomings.

And when the 1up/angels side was about to lose ND joined Exilition + flak and concentrated their incs on Angels and then they claimed they did this because they thought 1up/angels was winning. Its pretty sad and its most definitely not "well played politics".

Holding a #2 position is hardly a great achievement when your not involved in any of the wars.

"Had we pounded Angels, which we did, we felt 1up would be motivated enough to help push us over the line over eXilition, I thought 1up were playing hard to get, but they really didn't have the activity and determination to try to help us win. Which is understandable, we didn't help them previously, I thought their hatred for eXi was greater than it was."

So you didn’t want to help us in a war we was about to lose, you even roided us a bit whenever you felt like it and in the end you decided to destroy us by hitting Angels full force and then you thought we would help you? Does that really makes sense to you?

Yes you played your politics very well!

Travler · 20 Feb 2006, 04:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Just to keep Tesla happy, I'll concede that Exilition are the best alliance that only plays every other round of Planetarion.

Happy now?

I think that any alliance winning 2 rounds in a row would be very difficult. The NAPs that were in place when the winning alliance won would be difficult to obtain again. Seems like in R15 1up was disliked because they won R14 and from what I could see everyone was gunning for them.

I would like to see Exilition and 1up go head to head 3 rounds in a row and see which alliance really is the best.

Oh and back to the subject of Angels dumping alot of players at once, other alliances such as LCH have been dumping players this round for low scores, inactivity, or simply to make room for favored players. By the time I made this post Angels were back into the top 5 with 47 players.

The_Fish · 20 Feb 2006, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

Holding a #2 position is hardly a great achievement when your not involved in any of the wars.

We were rank #1 for a large section of the round, admittedly we weren't good enough to hold it, but smart political play gave us a shot at victory.

Treveler · 20 Feb 2006, 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

We were rank #1 for a large section of the round, admittedly we weren't good enough to hold it, but smart political play gave us a shot at victory.

What smart play was that if I may ask? The only reason you was able to get to #1 was because 1up/angels and Exil + flak was at eachothers throut from tick 1, and unless you claim that ND somehow triggered this hostility this can hardly be seen as great political play by ND.

And when you desided to involve yourself you made an misstake and made sure one part lost instead of upholding the stalemte. Again, hardly a good political move.

Kargool · 20 Feb 2006, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

What smart play was that if I may ask? The only reason you was able to get to #1 was because 1up/angels and Exil + flak was at eachothers throut from tick 1, and unless you claim that ND somehow triggered this hostility this can hardly be seen as great political play by ND.

And when you desided to involve yourself you made an misstake and made sure one part lost instead of upholding the stalemte. Again, hardly a good political move.

Deciding to stay out of the conflict between the two "blocks" might be seen as a good political move..

Zh|l · 20 Feb 2006, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Had we pounded Angels, which we did, we felt 1up would be motivated enough to help push us over the line over eXilition, I thought 1up were playing hard to get, but they really didn't have the activity and determination to try to help us win. Which is understandable, we didn't help them previously, I thought their hatred for eXi was greater than it was.

I don't understand your line of thought behind this.

1up had been grinded into dust already by this point of the round and when we finally were gaining the upperhand against eXilition, you guys felt that by destroying that chance it would actually 'motivate' us? Additionally, in all honestly, why would I, as a 1up member, want ND to win when they did this action to destroy chances of beating eXilition?

This is where you (as in ND) went wrong I think Fish - you're logic was utterly flawed. Your politics seemed to rely on the good nature of other alliances to help you out when you offer them nothing in return to benefit them - ring a bell perhaps? You still haven't learnt a thing.

That is not to say you didn't do well to get to the point you got - but you slipped on that sword you were dancing upon and cut yourself.

cura · 20 Feb 2006, 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Do you mean they got to number #2 with a shot at the number #1 spot without fighting any fights? Shit man that's some pretty good political manuevering there.

people underestimate the power of initiating.

bwtmc · 20 Feb 2006, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zh|l

I don't understand your line of thought behind this.

1up had been grinded into dust already by this point of the round and when we finally were gaining the upperhand against eXilition, you guys felt that by destroying that chance it would actually 'motivate' us? Additionally, in all honestly, why would I, as a 1up member, want ND to win when they did this action to destroy chances of beating eXilition?

This is where you (as in ND) went wrong I think Fish - you're logic was utterly flawed. Your politics seemed to rely on the good nature of other alliances to help you out when you offer them nothing in return to benefit them - ring a bell perhaps? You still haven't learnt a thing.

That is not to say you didn't do well to get to the point you got - but you slipped on that sword you were dancing upon and cut yourself.

With reference to 1up and NewDawn last round, that couldn't possibly be put any better.

Paisley · 20 Feb 2006, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

1up played shit last round and had quite some shit members

Question... How many different members were they from r14 to r15?

The_Fish · 20 Feb 2006, 11:19

Whatever the difference was, the playing fields were totally different in those rounds, in R14 ND and Reunion both started with less than 40 members and weren't expected to finish much higher than 10th, whereas in R15 Angels, eXi and ND were perceived to be much stronger contenders.

Chika · 20 Feb 2006, 11:45

I will say a statement, and hopefully this will sum up the whole RD 15 thing. Cypher said it best in another thread, but I cba to find it.

3 Men are racing. 1 Retarded, and 2 in good shape. 1.2.3 Go! The 2 men in great shape bump each other throughout the race, trying to hinder the other from winning. One of the men finally trips up the other, and then speeds past the retarded guy.
Not saying Newdawn is retarded, but any retard can lead when the main contenders are busy with each other. "We were #1 most of the round" Is a stupid statement, considering 2 WEEKS (remember 2 week thread) it was predicted that Exil would finish Angels, and then have enough time to kill you guys.
Was it smart to avoid incoming? Yes. Does ND deserve any merit for finishing #2? Ofc. Is ND worthy of making statements like "We held #1 most of round"? No.

cura · 20 Feb 2006, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

... 3 Men are racing. 1 Retarded, and 2 in good shape. 1.2.3 Go! The 2 men in great shape bump each other throughout the race, trying to hinder the other from winning. One of the men finally trips up the other, ...

looks like those 2 other guys are pretty retarded too

Chika · 20 Feb 2006, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

looks like those 2 other guys are pretty retarded too

Not if they are gay.

Paisley · 20 Feb 2006, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

3 Men are racing. 1 Retarded, and 2 in good shape. 1.2.3 Go! The 2 men in great shape bump each other throughout the race, trying to hinder the other from winning. One of the men finally trips up the other, and then speeds past the retarded guy.

Chika for PA commentator

Alki · 20 Feb 2006, 13:47

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chika again.
thats for post #188 made me lol:>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guppy Face

Had we pounded Angels, which we did, we felt 1up would be motivated enough to help push us over the line over eXilition, I thought 1up were playing hard to get, but they really didn't have the activity and determination to try to help us win. Which is understandable, we didn't help them previously, I thought their hatred for eXi was greater than it was.

oh please, if thats smart politics then pa is a thrilling game t.t

p.s. took you and exi to take that many roids:>

The_Fish · 20 Feb 2006, 16:00

Well, thats clearly the point where our politics didn't go to plan, idiot.

cypher · 20 Feb 2006, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddies

Question... How many different members were they from r14 to r15?

i have no idea in all honesty.

You can ask anyone who knows me tho and they will all tell you that i think 1up only went downhill memberwise after r12, seeing as alot of the core left at that round as they had enough after 2 rounds. (and don't even start saying this was cuz they were afraid of exi or any shit like that as at that moment no-one even knew about them.)

jerome · 20 Feb 2006, 18:10

anyone who was 1up r11/12 and also experienced post-that 1up would also think that - the mechanical efficiency didn't seem to be there anymore, probably due to a lack of motivation.

lokken · 20 Feb 2006, 18:53

I have decided that the constant ND v Angels round 15 discussion is a topic that should be ceased.

Mainly as its terrifically old hat, and has been discussed ad nauseam.

It's not enjoyable reading. The issue has been discussed more than enough, and then there's no need to inflict the discussion on the forum users much more.

Needless to say, carrying on this discussion in any new threads will be at your own risk. While I won't take action against people who choose to go on with it in this thread, I'd request you stop, as its terrifically dull now.

Paisley · 20 Feb 2006, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

i have no idea in all honesty.

You can ask anyone who knows me tho and they will all tell you that i think 1up only went downhill memberwise after r12, seeing as alot of the core left at that round as they had enough after 2 rounds. (and don't even start saying this was cuz they were afraid of exi or any shit like that as at that moment no-one even knew about them.)

Nothing as sinister as that, I didnt know either.

cypher · 20 Feb 2006, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

I have decided that the constant ND v Angels round 15 discussion is a topic that should be ceased.

Mainly as its terrifically old hat, and has been discussed ad nauseam.

It's not enjoyable reading. The issue has been discussed more than enough, and then there's no need to inflict the discussion on the forum users much more.

Needless to say, carrying on this discussion in any new threads will be at your own risk. While I won't take action against people who choose to go on with it in this thread, I'd request you stop, as its terrifically dull now.

while you're at it be a good mod and make sure the 1up/exi stuff stops aswell.. as that has been discussed WAY more then any nd/angels stuff... you just don't like it when ND gets discussed

JonnyBGood · 20 Feb 2006, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

while you're at it be a good mod and make sure the 1up/exi stuff stops aswell.. as that has been discussed WAY more then any nd/angels stuff... you just don't like it when ND gets discussed

Don't be a cretin. The 1up/exilition discussions cover a variety of topics whereas with ND/angels it is one specific question, namely that of "political decisions in r15". Also there hasn't really been a 1up vs exilition argument on AD since the aftermath of r15.

Chika · 20 Feb 2006, 22:35

Yeah, people simply ignored the 1up/exil thingy after Exil wtf pwned them. Sort of how good husbands ignore the extra fat that the wife has put on recently.
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO SO **** IT.

Treveler · 20 Feb 2006, 22:52

Where has this been discussed in detail? As far as I know this is the first time were ppl have actually bothered to point out that ND didn’t play their politics well as they instead did pretty poor and messed it up in the end.

When no counter arguments are given from the ND camp the topic is suddenly banned by a MOD with strong ties to ND. It certainly smells a bit fishy to me.

JonnyBGood · 20 Feb 2006, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

Where has this been discussed in detail? As far as I know this is the first time were ppl have actually bothered to point out that ND didn’t play their politics well as they instead did pretty poor and messed it up in the end.

I'm torn between not wanting to look for previous examples and well, not wanting to look for previous examples. So I didn't look for previous examples. I think I'm the real winner here.

Quote:

When no counter arguments are given from the ND camp the topic is suddenly banned by a MOD with strong ties to ND. It certainly smells a bit fishy to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

While I won't take action against people who choose to go on with it in this thread, I'd request you stop, as its terrifically dull now.

What a sudden ban! He's certainly going to ban people for continuing this discussion in this thread! Oh no wait, no he isn't. Instead it's more of an advanced recommendation to not create new threads on the subject or bring it into other threads. After all for some reason it's in this thread about angels kicking a few members temporarily this round. Certainly seems to show the potential for popping up where it shouldn't, doesn't it?

PS I did appreciate the "bit fishy" joke though