Political Situation

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Agerus

but did you NAP various other alliances... yes or no?

The honest answer to your question is no.

But don't assume that I'm answering a different question to the one you asked.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

So you're saying these three will be the first alliances ever to break the standard PA trend of staying in one mass lump not attacking each other and stagnating the round or kicking one alliance out and seeing which of the remaining two can get all the roids first?

first ever?

Are you serious?

examples: WE V ET, P V FM (although they didnt do a very good job), FoS V Xeta.

The facts are there, you are trying to twist them. Insomnia want to win. Hydra want to win. LCH want to win. They aren't just going to let you run away with victory, as much as you want to.

Everything seems to be poised fairly evenly atm, and thats how it should be at this stage. If they weren't co-operating, your alliance would have won already.

[furball]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

So you're saying these three will be the first alliances ever to break the standard PA trend of staying in one mass lump not attacking each other and stagnating the round or kicking one alliance out and seeing which of the remaining two can get all the roids first?

I suppose that it's got to happen some day. But I just don't imagine it happening this round, I really don't. Not without public commitment to break up the block from HIL HCs.

Does it serve LCH's interests to leave the block? No, it does not. Gate brought up FAnG's behaviour in Round 10.5, when they prevented the FPM block from being dissolved for a long time. Right until Phraktos committed suicide.

How about Hydra, should they leave the block? To win, they'll have to, but I don't think they will. They seem more closely tied to LCH than Insomnia, and I am yet to see any strategic nous coming out of their HCs. Jonas makes clear their disorganisation, and I get the feeling that if they were hit properly for a few nights running, even more members would jump ship. Certainly none of your members seem especially happy bunnies. Picking up most of PA's battle groups may do wonders for your score, but not for morale or a sense of togetherness.

Insomnia are my favourite alliance at the moment. Jonas made perhaps the first honourable post in the entire thread, and that's kinda sexy. The best strategy for them is to get Hydra booted and roided to the ground with them and LCH, and then to turn on LCH. In this I think they could be quite successful, they seem to have quite good relations with most other alliances, especially the strong ones such as NewDawn. I'm not sure that LCH have yet been forgiven for screwing up Round 12 either.


Of course, this all depends on 1up being taken down by HIL. As good as you guys are, I don't think that you can hold up all round if attacks continue to be as well co-ordinated as last night's were. You may have to block to survive at the present time, or you can go back to Round 6/FLTV strategy, laying low until one out of HIL makes a push for #1. I'm sure the plans have already been made.

[Agerus]

all I can say I saw Hydra planets attacked by Insomnia, LCH planets hit by Insomnia and Hydra attackin LCH planets etc.

while I also saw 1up not hitting ND planets and the whole rest of the gal had incs, strange, isnt it?

[Jonas]

It wouldnt be the first time 1up use smaller alliances to gain themselves. Not saying its a bad tactic, its actually a good one. The thing is, 1up say nothing aslong as they are winning and can use whatever tactics they like. However when someone else use tactics that 1up has used to win before, they make it seem like such a cowardly act, while infact attacking the leading alliance for rounds, even if we did teamup with another alliance for a few nights, was taking a huge risk(I even lost 860 roids in 4 ticks cause of this ). and imo was a brave and correct move to ensure fair gameplay for another 5 weeks.

-Jonas-

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

first ever?

Are you serious?

examples: WE V ET, P V FM (although they didnt do a very good job), FoS V Xeta.

.

Did Eclipse and ToT split and end stagnation?
Did FAnG and Mistu split to end stagnation?
Did FoS split and end stagnation?

I perhaps worded my post incorrectly. When did a block ever split into even sides where a winner could've come from any one of the splitting factions? In every case so far the split has hugely favoured one side or the other.
I could possibly buy into WE Vs ET for that title but P Vs FM was bollocks from beginning to very short end and FoS allied NOTDEAD straight away so is hardly the best example around.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Agerus

all I can say I saw Hydra planets attacked by Insomnia, LCH planets hit by Insomnia and Hydra attackin LCH planets etc.

while I also saw 1up not hitting ND planets and the whole rest of the gal had incs, strange, isnt it?

Sure you're not getting confused with Round 13?

ND are not allied to 1up. They've made this clear again and again.

I get the distinct impression that LCH/Hydra/Insomnia are only working together on attacks, not NAPing each other. Perhaps some of their HC ask for cross-attacks to be recalled (I know I would) but nothing more than that. Of course, Jonas' post is almost all we have to go on.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Agerus

all I can say I saw Hydra planets attacked by Insomnia, LCH planets hit by Insomnia and Hydra attackin LCH planets etc.

while I also saw 1up not hitting ND planets and the whole rest of the gal had incs, strange, isnt it?

Come speak to me on IRC. Or even, chat to Wishmaster. As Hydra HC, I think the fact he would support me in claiming 1up hit me, is pretty good evidence. I do have the incoming records stored in my journal too, if you're interested.

[furball]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

WE V ET

By that time, VVOMM was truly dead. The game had stagnated. WE and ET were always two distinct sides (i.e. it was clear who would go with who). No one alliance ever pushed for the win.

Originally Posted by The_Fish

P V FM (although they didnt do a very good job)

Tactical suicide.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Did Eclipse and ToT split and end stagnation?
Did FAnG and Mistu split to end stagnation?
Did FoS split and end stagnation?

I perhaps worded my post incorrectly. When did a block ever split into even sides where a winner could've come from any one of the splitting factions? In every case so far the split has hugely favoured one side or the other.
I could possibly buy into WE Vs ET for that title but P Vs FM was bollocks from beginning to very short end and FoS allied NOTDEAD straight away so is hardly the best example around.

I answered your post correctly, you said no block had ever split properly before, I corrected you.

However, this situation is different to previous rounds, it is not just those 3, in fact, they are not even winning atm. 1up is. They are merely attacking 1up to bring them back down.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Agerus

all I can say I saw Hydra planets attacked by Insomnia, LCH planets hit by Insomnia and Hydra attackin LCH planets etc.

while I also saw 1up not hitting ND planets and the whole rest of the gal had incs, strange, isnt it?

1up has no NAP with ND. When I set targets for AGs, planets are split into 3 categories:

1. Planets not to be hit.
2. Planets that are the main targets - these are members of hostile alliances and planets which show in our tools as having repeatedly attacked 1up.
3. Planets that *CAN* be hit but don't need to be.

ND planets who are in 1up galaxies and have accepted planet naps with 1up would fall into category 1 (not sure if there even are any of these)
ND planets that have repeatedly attacked 1up would fall into category 2.
All other ND planets would fall into category 3.

This is absolutely identical to the way in which members of most alliances in the game are treated by 1up when i define our targets.

Out of interest, who are you to be able to specifically identify the alliances of attackers? And, given that you seem to think you are entitled to question me, when are you going to reciprocate and state the official policies of your own alliance?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

However, this situation is different to previous rounds, it is not just those 3, in fact, they are not even winning atm. 1up is. They are merely attacking 1up to bring them back down.

I'm pretty sure you're flogging a dead horse there. No-one is disputing that (other than LCH command). the issue lies in whether they will be breaking whatever agreements they have and turning on each other when 1up are no longer in the lead. I for one doubt this very much.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I'm pretty sure you're flogging a dead horse there. No-one is disputing that (other than LCH command). the issue lies in whether they will be breaking whatever agreements they have and turning on each other when 1up are no longer in the lead. I for one doubt this very much.

I for one think they will. Thats IF 1up do lose the lead though, which is by no means certain.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Jonas

It wouldnt be the first time 1up use smaller alliances to gain themselves. Not saying its a bad tactic, its actually a good one. The thing is, 1up say nothing aslong as they are winning and can use whatever tactics they like. However when someone else use tactics that 1up has used to win before, they make it seem like such a cowardly act, while infact attacking the leading alliance for rounds, even if we did teamup with another alliance for a few nights, was taking a huge risk(I even lost 860 roids in 4 ticks cause of this ). and imo was a brave and correct move to ensure fair gameplay for another 5 weeks

Well, I'd say that no other alliance has tried to match 1up on AD. No-one ever made enough out of them using smaller alliances, in fact the only alliance ever criticised for this was eXilition. The opportunity has always been there.

Everyone seems so upset that 1up are using AD to its full potential. It's just another facet of alliance interaction (along with IRC and in-game). No wonder 1up have the first and last word on so much when neither LCH or Hydra choose to comment or make offical statements. The end result is that you bend over and lube yourselves ready for an onslaught any time 1up/Sid like creating one. There's almost more posts from ND folk and myself than the people this thread is addressing! At the end of the day, you're making the rope to hang yourselves with. It's hard to pity you when you do this.



super-ninja edit - this post is directed only at LCH/Hydra, not Insomnia. The fact that it quotes Jonas is incidental.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Remy

Well, i normally dont react much on AD, but this really surprised me. Usually you at least have SOMETHING right when you babble, but this even surpasses Zhil, and thats quite a feat

1 Firstly, we should take it a compliment that alliances feel the need to gang up vs us this early in the round.

My comment: Last round you formed a 5 alliance block before ticks.

2 We always expected it from LCH - blocking is their way of life and they're realistic enough to know they lack the quality to compete at the top solo.

My comment: It's not our way of life, it's our way of reacting to your blocking actions last round, the round before that, AND the round before that. We allied or napped with Exil last round, and before that 2 rounds with VSN. Is that a block? In your first 1up round you stated that anything bigger then 2 was a block i think i remember.

You personally, as co-leader of Fury, have been blocking, napping, allying and sliming our ass off constantly. Just because its called 1Up now doenst delete your history.

About the solo/quality thing, i don't care what you think :-)

3. If they'd just stuck to working with Hydra that would make life interesting,

I know Hydra-Rain from the forums, not anyone else from Hydra (at least not to my knowledge). We have not been approached and have not approached hydra.

4. .... but are now also working with Insomnia

A person i knew from ely now in insomnia asked me to have LCH attack a 1up planet after him, as a personal favor. That was today. You are referring to that? For the rest, i dont think they have been approaching us or vice versa.

5.That makes 3 top 10 alliances - with a combined score/roids of more than double ours - all working together to attack 1up.

So, thats just your false point of view. Last rounds we had a lot of incs too, we didnt whine.


___________________


Sid, you are well known for twisting the truth to your own liking and to reach goals that benefit you and 1Up. (Its called propaganda) You even made a remark that LCH will deny any of this. By making that remark you try to discredit any answer we give. Well, i don't give a rats ass (Sorry TheRat :P)

Why you wud post this on AD can have several reasons:

- You try to discredit us by point the blocking finger at us, how ehvul we are
- You try to make yourself look like the victim, and again we are ehvul
- You miss all the attention and thought of some random sentences
- You try to disctract attention from your own blocking machinations by accusing us of it.
- You try to get the blood of your members cooking in fury against the ehvul blockers

There are other reason why you get attacked by more then one alliance:

- 1Up arrogant behaviour in the past has drawn too much hostile attention for the coming 10 rounds.
- Some alliances simply target the highest ranked alliance
- 1Up s coord list has leaked and alliances use that to the fullest (not that im aware of such a list tho)

Finally, why did i even care to react? Because you discredit LCH too much. Personally, i dont think you are worth noticing, but i can imagine some of my members being truely offended/hurt/pissed.

btw, i didnt bother to read the rest of your post, this part i reacted on was enough rubbish for one round

Would you care to clarify, retract or apologise for any of this? Or is this still the truth according to LCH HC?

[Kargool]

HIL? Harstad Idrettslag

Damn, i see 1up has their work cut out.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Yes. At a certain point we talked to LCH and made sure gals werent doublebooked(as both was clearly hitting 1up already anyway). They still seem to be by ToF anyway :P

And of course you still attacked one another members in those galaxies? Ah no, you attacked all the planets in there except the lch/insomnia (and for a while Hydra) ones. Isn't that what most people refer to as a "NAP"?

And aren't alliances that coordinate attacks and are napped generally referred to as "allied"? Or even as a "block"?

Just trying to clarify the terminology, given some of the denials made in this thread.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

So what you are effectively saying is that you're simply sticking your nose in without the knowledge to back any of it up.

Why not keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're tlaking about instead of sticking your oar in when you blatently either

A) Have absolutely no idea whats going on

or

B) Just bullshitting us all

How on earth can you say this is a propoganda thread if you know none of the particulars that it is referring to.

ok, 1 last time I'll try to explain ...

Do I have the knowledge to back up whether we blocked or not? NO, I don't. Did I at some point either deny or admit we blocked? No I didn't.

What my REASON to post here isn't to jutify anything. Nor to admit or deny anything. I'm SIMPLY SAYING that Sid's post is a PURE PR TRAP.

With that I mean that NO MATTER WHAT ANSWER, LCH will come out as the bad ones (either blockers or liars) and 1up will be the victime (of being blocked against or lied against). That is the only and I repear ONLY reason why I posted.

Don't write here that I justify the answers of ANY other LCH HC. I don't, I post as Kj and nobody else.

Even a person who NEVER played PA and read sid's post can conclude that LCH cannot come out of this thread as the good guys. Maybe that's the purpose of this thread, ifso then well played on the PR end.

I am not and NEVER will be responsible for the answer and posts my fellow HC make!!

[Mek]

sid...fs...your a complete hypocrite

round 12.. you said (not exact quote)

"were not allied with ND we just hit the same targets"

if it was good enough for YOU back then why shudnt it be good enuf for us

dont critises us for crap youve pulled urself m8

Mek

[The_Fish]

Actually Kj, I think Insomnia come out looking like the good guys, for being honest.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

ok, 1 last time I'll try to explain ...

Do I have the knowledge to back up whether we blocked or not? NO, I don't. Did I at some point either deny or admit we blocked? No I didn't.

What my REASON to post here isn't to jutify anything. Nor to admit or deny anything. I'm SIMPLY SAYING that Sid's post is a PURE PR TRAP.

With that I mean that NO MATTER WHAT ANSWER, LCH will come out as the bad ones (either blockers or liars) and 1up will be the victime (of being blocked against or lied against). That is the only and I repear ONLY reason why I posted.

Don't write here that I justify the answers of ANY other LCH HC. I don't, I post as Kj and nobody else.

Even a person who NEVER played PA and read sid's post can conclude that LCH cannot come out of this thread as the good guys. Maybe that's the purpose of this thread, ifso then well played on the PR end.

I am not and NEVER will be responsible for the answer and posts my fellow HC make!!

So.......

You post on a topic you know nothing about yet still expect to take your opinion to heart. How about you stop sidelining this thread with uninformed rubbish?

How can it be a PR trap? Sids post either is fact or fiction. There's no middle ground. They either lied initially or they didn't.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Would you care to clarify, retract or apologise for any of this? Or is this still the truth according to LCH HC?

plz rephrase .... Remy is not speaking on behalf of the entire LCH HC, nor am I.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Actually Kj, I think Insomnia come out looking like the good guys, for being honest.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Mek

sid...fs...your a complete hypocrite

round 12.. you said (not exact quote)

"were not allied with ND we just hit the same targets"

if it was good enough for YOU back then why shudnt it be good enuf for us

dont critises us for crap youve pulled urself m8

Mek

Maybe you should dig out the exact quote rather than relying on your rather dodgy memory?

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

plz rephrase .... Remy is not speaking on behalf of the entire LCH HC, nor am I.

Does anyone speak for LCH? Or will it continue to act like a headless chicken?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

plz rephrase .... Remy is not speaking on behalf of the entire LCH HC, nor am I.

What a pile of shite. Thats like saying Tony Blair isn't speaking on behalf of England. He either is HC or he isn't.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

plz rephrase .... Remy is not speaking on behalf of the entire LCH HC, nor am I.

OK, insert the word "an" before "LCH HC".

Are you suggesting that there's two types of LCH HC? The ones that post lies and the ones that don't post anything? Is there one who posts the truth who could clear this up?

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Maybe you should dig out the exact quote rather than relying on your rather dodgy memory?

fine i think i will...be back in 5 mins :P

[furball]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Actually Kj, I think Insomnia come out looking like the good guys, for being honest.

I agree, as I said earlier

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Jonas

A block is 2 or more alliances of decent size going together to ensure the win for one, or all of the involved alliances.

2 or more alliances with the aims of becoming #1 attacking current #1 to make sure they dont outgrow the rest is not a block. Its a short-term cooperation.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

What a pile of shite. Thats like saying Tony Blair isn't speaking on behalf of England. He either is HC or he isn't.

No, it's me not willing to be held responsible for what another Hc says.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Jonas

short term cooperation

Bingo - let's hear the definition of that now

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Jonas

A block is 2 or more alliances of decent size going together to ensure the win for one, or all of the involved alliances.

2 or more alliances with the aims of becoming #1 attacking current #1 to make sure they dont outgrow the rest is not a block. Its a short-term cooperation.

So by your definition a block is what you're currently doing - just if you do it for a long time?

And how does a block ensure the win for "all of the involved alliances"? Surely only one alliance can actually win?

And if your block knocks 1up down, who is going to win the round other than the members of your block - even if you then split up? Isn't that "going together to ensure the win for one, or all of the involved alliances."?

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Bingo - let's hear the definition of that now

Guess its any gain/gain situatiion that ends as soon as the short-term goal is reached.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Guess its any gain/gain situatiion that ends as soon as the short-term goal is reached.

Ok - let me rephrase. What criteria have to be fulfilled for all agreements between you and any other alliances to be cancelled?

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

So by your definition a block is what you're currently doing - just if you do it for a long time?

And how does a block ensure the win for "all of the involved alliances"? Surely only one alliance can actually win?

And if your block knocks 1up down, who is going to win the round other than the members of your block - even if you then split up? Isn't that "going together to ensure the win for one, or all of the involved alliances."?

You seem to think we're here to ruin the round of 1up, while I've told u and others we attack 1up because u were getting too far ahead. theres no chance 1up is getting knocked out of the picture...

ND was part of 1ups wins, dont u agree?
Altho you got the glory, they sure did alot to help u get there, and were part of the win.

And whoever made u think we're gonna let LCH win?

-Jonas-

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Ok - let me rephrase. What criteria have to be fulfilled for all agreements between you and any other alliances to be cancelled?

Almost there

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

No, it's me not willing to be held responsible for what another Hc says.

Actually, Kj's HC title is more like Spanish / British King / Queen titles

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Actually, Kj's HC title is more like Spanish / British King / Queen titles

for this round it sadly is, I'm aware of that

[Gio2k]

So to sum this up:
-LCH and Insomnia are hitting 1up and have coordinated their attacks lately.
-Hydra are not coordinating attacks with LCH / Insomnia afaik.
-LCH and Insomnia are not a block according to our definitions, due to the temporal nature of the coordination. If 1up wants to call us a block, go ahead, it doesn't change anything. 1up has less roids but still 100k score avg above the second alliance, and 9M score over LCH. This arragement between alliances is not to kill 1up completely, but to slow them down and make the round interesting.
-As long as 1up is the top alliance, you can expect most alliances hitting them, either in a coordinated fashion, or not.

Do we agree?

(EDIT: On an unrelated sidenote, 100 posts \o/ YAY me )

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So to sum this up:
-LCH and Insomnia are hitting 1up and have coordinated their attacks lately.
-Hydra are not coordinating attacks with LCH / Insomnia afaik.
-LCH and Insomnia are not a block according to our definitions, due to the temporal nature of the coordination. If 1up wants to call us a block, go ahead, it doesn't change anything. 1up has less roids but still 100k score avg above the second alliance, and 9M score over LCH. This arragement between alliances is not to kill 1up completely, but to slow them down and make the round interesting.
-As long as 1up is the top alliance, you can expect most alliances hitting them, either in a coordinated fashion, or not.

Do we agree?

(EDIT: On an unrelated sidenote, 100 posts \o/ YAY me )

I agree that LCH and Insomnia are currently allied (you forgot to mention the napped part).
I agree that you don't believe that Hydra are coordinating attacks with LCH/Insomnia.
I agree that by YOUR definition you aren't a block (your definition presumably being Jonas' one - which is approximately that it's not a block if the people in it agree it isn't a block).
I agree that 1up can expect coordinated incs.

So yes, we agree on a lot of things - especially about what you believe.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Is there one who posts the truth who could clear this up?

I could...

but currently I'm amused by the posts being made here, so will let this continue for my own amusement

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Behe made that declaration post, I along with entire Angels HC said that is was NOT Angels policy.

Originally Posted by Fyodor

And Kj, I didnt make the war post on my own. It was discussed and decided by 3 of us.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

2: I"m not known as a liar. I've not told lies here on AD nor in pm's with pple. If you wanna believe I'm a liar then that's fine but I'd like you to point me to the EXACT post.

I guess that makes Behe a liar then?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Guess its any gain/gain situatiion that ends as soon as the short-term goal is reached.

You DO appreciate that without a definition of short-term, the remainder of your definitions are totally and utterly meaningless? Is 2 rounds short-term? what about 1 round? what about a month? what about a week? what about a day?

"Short-term" means nothing without a contect in which to assess how long is "short", "medium" or "long".

You can't define as "short-term" something which lasts until an objective is met - as if the objective doesn't get met then it's actually "infinitely long-term". Similarly, "temporary" without a specific end date is meaningless.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Bingo - let's hear the definition of that now

Cooperation that will only last for a limited time to achieve common goals, in this case to peg 1up back so they cant run away with the round.

Any cooperation can only be short term for the simple fact we also have conflicting goals, to end #1.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Stifler

I could...

but currently I'm amused by the posts being made here, so will let this continue for my own amusement

Hmm, wouldn't you say exactly that if you were one of the lieing ones?

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I agree that LCH and Insomnia are currently allied (you forgot to mention the napped part).
I agree that you don't believe that Hydra are coordinating attacks with LCH/Insomnia.
I agree that by YOUR definition you aren't a block (your definition presumably being Jonas' one - which is approximately that it's not a block if the people in it agree it isn't a block).
I agree that 1up can expect coordinated incs.

So yes, we agree on a lot of things - especially about what you believe.

You made me chuckle

now let me try

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So to sum this up:
-LCH and Insomnia are hitting 1up and have coordinated their attacks lately.
-Hydra are not coordinating attacks with LCH / Insomnia afaik.
-LCH and Insomnia are not a block according to our definitions, due to the temporal nature of the coordination. If 1up wants to call us a block, go ahead, it doesn't change anything. 1up has less roids but still 100k score avg above the second alliance, and 9M score over LCH. This arragement between alliances is not to kill 1up completely, but to slow them down and make the round interesting.
-As long as 1up is the top alliance, you can expect most alliances hitting them, either in a coordinated fashion, or not.

Do we agree?

I agree 1up are getting hit by coordinated attacks lately, due to their actions/achievements in current and previous rounds.
I agree Hydra cannot coordinate anything
I agree 1up doesnt agree to my defination of a block, however I think they would last round(s)
I agree that aslong as 1up are #1, they will keep getting hit. And as long as they are getting hit, they will make propagandaposts on AD.

-Jonas-

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You DO appreciate that without a definition of short-term, the remainder of your definitions are totally and utterly meaningless? Is 2 rounds short-term? what about 1 round? what about a month? what about a week? what about a day?

"Short-term" means nothing without a contect in which to assess how long is "short", "medium" or "long".

You can't define as "short-term" something which lasts until an objective is met - as if the objective doesn't get met then it's actually "infinitely long-term". Similarly, "temporary" without a specific end date is meaningless.

Its quite hard to assign a time to short term for the simple fact that how would we know how long 1up can keep there impressive lead? As you know fully well yourself, 1up arent an alliance that will just roll over easily.

All that can be done is look at 1ups growth at the end of each day and decide from there

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Stifler

Cooperation that will only last for a limited time to achieve common goals, in this case to peg 1up back so they cant run away with the round.

ALL cooperation in PA is for "a limited time" - or is there some number of days after which it becomes "unlimited time"?

ALL blocks last for a limited amount of time - until they break up.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Scouse

define 'block'

Go go gadget planetarion history books