Seriously though

[[i2k]Xy]

has LCH, mistu and vision given up on taking down 1up? Please get your fingers out of my ass, and start blocking fs.

(blablabla)

[Vaio]

yes they have, that's why ND keep getting hit by them

~Vaio~

[Nadar]

lol Xy

[furssie]

But... but.... They all signed Sid's proposal not to block

[Brimstone]

Yes, 1up have proved their the best etc etc, NO BLOCKING Blah Blah, now someone get moving and take them out. Its simple logistics... 100 versus 700+ means big battles, lots of people going into Vac mode, lots of suiciding and a hell of a lot of fun.

START ATTACKING 1UP fs!

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Brimstone

Yes, 1up have proved their the best etc etc, NO BLOCKING Blah Blah, now someone get moving and take them out. Its simple logistics... 100 versus 700+ means big battles, lots of people going into Vac mode, lots of suiciding and a hell of a lot of fun.

START ATTACKING 1UP fs!

Well done, I think you managed to uncover a tactic no-one else has thought of. I'll get the calc and the defence channel notices ready shall I?

[Hicks]

Fleets grounded !

It's quite funny how you guys sell Mistu/Vision/LCH so short, they aren't retards they started cooperating ages ago, although they seem to have given up now.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Fleets grounded !

It's quite funny how you guys sell Mistu/Vision/LCH so short, they aren't retards they started cooperating ages ago, although they seem to have given up now.

co operated against whom tho?

[LocknLoad]

Yea 1up ask for no blocking but it seems they have the most Naps in the universe. Yes i know its not blocking but just as bad. I'm sure most Naps will be broken just as soon as they run out of other targets tho.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

Yea 1up ask for no blocking but it seems they have the most Naps in the universe. Yes i know its not blocking but just as bad. I'm sure most Naps will be broken just as soon as they run out of other targets tho.

Which alliances do you think we have Naps with?

[LocknLoad]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Which alliances do you think we have Naps with?

Did I say alliances?

[[i2k]Xy]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Fleets grounded !

It's quite funny how you guys sell Mistu/Vision/LCH so short, they aren't retards they started cooperating ages ago, although they seem to have given up now.

I dont believe that is true :[

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by LocknLoad

I'm sure most Naps will be broken just as soon as they run out of other targets tho.

Its getting that way - I belive they've altered their policy to killing anyone who launches on a 1up gal, even if they recall immediately, believing its a regular target

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Its getting that way - I belive they've altered their policy to killing anyone who launches on a 1up gal, even if they recall immediately, believing its a regular target

We extended a policy of no incoming until hostile for planets from other alliances in 1up galaxies. I personally do not call this a NAP. I see it as a means to keep ridiculous galaxy politics, which often upset more than one apple cart, on the back burner and remove some of the pressure of galaxy politics which we all know exist in top galaxies.

With the glut of intel about we know it is both simple and quick to find out if these planets are attacking a 1up planet, thus we believe that any planet that now launches on a 1up planet, given the information available to them, is now performing a hostile act and shall be treated accordingly.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

We extended a policy of no incoming until hostile for planets from other alliances in 1up galaxies. I personally do not call this a NAP.

Why is a policy of no incomming not a NAP?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Why is a policy of no incomming not a NAP?

The opinion was my personal one. I see a NAP as something whereby both parties cooperate to for a common good and by both parties I mean alliance. In this instance 1up are calling the shots simply to save hassle for ourselves and to ease politics for our members in mixed galaxies where friction between the galaxy members would do us more harm than good. However, if the agreement is broken, then there is no bargaining, retals or discussion at any sort of level. It's over, plain and simple.

Like I say, it's my own personal view on the situation. People will call a spade a spade but because of the one sided nature of the agreement I don't think it's quite as simple as just calling it a NAP, as this insinuates other things.

[The_Fish]

well, NAP stands for Non aggression pact. That is what you have. No two ways about it, they wont hit 1up, you wont hit them.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

well, NAP stands for Non aggression pact. That is what you have. No two ways about it, they wont hit 1up, you wont hit them.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence and try to explain why we have the policy we do any further than what Rob has posted in a different thread.

Got nothing better to do while the games down?

[G.K Zhukov]

That smells like a NAP

[JonnyBGood]

Frankly I'm appalled 1up haven't been hitting every planet from 1:1:1 down to 51:2:10 in rotating order.

[rshih]

I've tried, most are too small tho

[Hicks]

Or in vacation

When have alliances ever not given other planets in their own galaxies NAPs ? I'm quite glad we do it, saves a lot of nasty internal galaxy arguements. It's hardly our fault that certain alliances seem unable to force their members to hit us or their BCs and HCs to hit us for that matter.

[Razorback]

its a well known fact as soon as you start to break up galaxy naps you will take side against your own members.
Ppl will not report incomings on them, ppl will make fake calls or try other nasty stuff and your members will be upset because you "ruin" their galaxyranking or hit ppl they got to know quiet well by then.
The more active the galaxy is and the more active the ppl in it are. the more damage will you do to your OWN alliance, because you will see ppl leaving and ppl choosing their galaxy over their alliance.
Since the pa community shrinked and the rounds went on and on, every member has a history and his natural "team" of guys he gets along with. If you hit the #1 galaxy for easy roids, your own members will be upset because you take part for the #2 gal etc etc. Same can be applied for personal galranks. "look you bashed this xy bc now he says i sold him out and will ruin MY round".

However i do agree that galaxy nap policiy is something which has been done since r3 by every alliance in the game to protect its own members. Be it in blocksplits, or mixed random galaxys.

[Cayl]

Yes, in casual conversation, I call them Galaxy NAPs.

In so much as any planet in a 1up galaxy wants to make themselves more useful wtih asteroids than without (by defending our planets, reporting their incoming, etc) then we'll let them keep them. If they want to attack us for whatever reason, then thats fine too, they get added to our target list.

I'd be surprised if any of the top 4 alliances didn't have a similar policy.

[[i2k]Xy]

vision doesn't. They let their biggest members fk over everything they want.

[LocknLoad]

Visions biggest members that sit in 1up gals also nap them. Bunch of cowards imo

[*donkie*]

Taken from Sid's Proposal

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

For such an agreement to work, a few issues would need to be addressed - starting off with a definition of what constitutes a block. My understanding is that the limit of members per alliance next round is most likely going to be 75. With that in mind, I'd tend to view any pair of alliances working together as a partnership - and any group of 3 or more alliances with a combined membership of more than 100 as a block. What constitutes working together? As soon as your members are forbidden to attack members of another alliance then I'd consider you as part of the same block. If your alliances all share target lists and insist on members only attacking those targets then that would make you part of a block.

So all those planets who have had a "policy of no incoming" are effectvely, by Sid's standards, in a block. There are already 97 members in 1up and I'm fairly sure more than three planets have been given Planetary Nap Status, and as those single planets who have been offered these NAPs span further than 1up and 2 other alliances then again, that constitutes as a block.

Nice one Sid. Wait long enough for people to actually stop reading the proposal and go back on the fundemental values of what it stands for. Now THATS clever.

[The Real Arfy]

Stop looking for loopholes in Sid's arguments and accept the fact that 1up were the best alliance in this round

[yupster]

donkie, did u even read what he wrote? Thats talking about an alliance ordering their members to not attack a certain alliance.

Believe me, that has not happened in 1up.

[*donkie*]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Stop looking for loopholes in Sid's arguments and accept the fact that 1up were the best alliance in this round

I don't deny that their performance this round has been fantastic, and I certainly accept the argument that they've done the best this round. And I'm a student of philosophy and politics - I read statements, find loopholes and provide counter arguments. Its what I do. When I find a problem with an argument I'll present it - whether it is against the #1 alliance or not.

Originally Posted by yupster

did u even read what he wrote?

Yes, thoroughly, but your argument is also flawed. A NAP is still a NAP, whether ordered alliance-wide or planet wide, and it is still stopping people from attacking each other though they're not in the same alliance. And I take it that 1up members do not attack those planets which 1up has a NAP with? So it would appear that members of an alliance[1up] are being told not to attack certain others dispite the fact they are not allied.

And yupster, only last night your ships were heading for a LCH planet[one of only six to be napped with 1up] and you were given orders to recall.

[Hicks]

We're told not to attack galaxies with 1up in unless they've been actively hostile, is this so hard for you retards to grasp ? All 1up galaxies start on planet NAPs, this I'm pretty sure is standard practice unless they’re useless, the reason for this is two fold. If 1up begin hitting member's galaxies when they've done nothing wrong it creates tension in galaxies, galaxy mates are unlikely to report incoming and generally make things difficult for our members, secondly it helps create divisions in other alliances, early out we ripped apart several huge 1up galaxies who had planets who were being hostile to us, after this the rest of their alliances were less likely to act up preferring to betray their friends and alliances in return for little numbers in the asteroid field. It's hardly our fault that your members refuse to attack us, perhaps you guys need to get your own houses in order and kick members for cowardice.

[Salomo]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

That smells like a NAP

it is one

and where there is a NAP there also is a block in creation, and considering how many NAPs there are imo one could well call it blocking

[Cayl]

As things are quiet and well.... boring this afternoon, I'll indulge you.

Originally Posted by *donkie*

And I'm a student of philosophy and politics - I read statements, find loopholes and provide counter arguments. Its what I do.

Does that pay well?

Yes, thoroughly, but your argument is also flawed. A NAP is still a NAP, whether ordered alliance-wide or planet wide, and it is still stopping people from attacking each other though they're not in the same alliance. And I take it that 1up members do not attack those planets which 1up has a NAP with? So it would appear that members of an alliance[1up] are being told not to attack certain others dispite the fact they are not allied.

I've already said its a NAP, a galaxy NAP. Who cares what you call it? I won't argue the semantics of what word you use.

Note the italics I added. Galaxy mates of our members are by very strong Planetarion tradition, and encouraged by the game mechanics of PA, considered to be allied until they prove otherwise. When they defend our members, report their incoming, and generally are on our side, they deserve a little consideration.

Ultimately, we are playing the game to our own higher standards. To win by the rules we set for ourselves is the motivating factor. And at the end of the round, when we reflect on the results, it will be only to ourselves that we have to answer.

[Nology]

1up has NAPs? Where do I sign up for that list? I mean if they had NAPs don't ya think they'd be shortening their list of targets. In galaxy NAPs make perfect sense. It helps the galaxy grow stronger and it also helps protect the alliances of those in the galaxy. Now some of us only have one alliance in our galaxy so its kinda useless but I still think its a good idea.

As for the 1up NAPs, like I said, if they did I'd be the first to sign up along with a lot of other people but they don't. Maybe if you earn their respect they'd decide not to attack you or your gal, perhaps they'd even ask a member of your gal (or you) to join. They don't however. 1up is an alliance that has beaten us all at the game and that is that. It's the way things work folks. You got beat so stop trying to find some hole to try and ease your concious about.

[lokken]

The only people to come out badly of the galaxy NAPs are the LCH/MISTU/VsN whoever who make a conscious decision to not do their alliances bidding - they might as well play for 1up if they feel that way.

[The_Fish]

What I don't understand is why, after they've easily won and are now invincible, they don't cancel some of these galaxy naps for the roids and ranks. I mean, taking zo0f out of the top 10 wouldnt be too hard for them, moving another 1up into his place.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

What I don't understand is why, after they've easily won and are now invincible, they don't cancel some of these galaxy naps for the roids and ranks. I mean, taking zo0f out of the top 10 wouldnt be too hard for them, moving another 1up into his place.

What's the point though? PA isn't just ranks and roids. Whoever's zo0f's 1up galmate(s) would probably take offense. 1up would be lambasted with claims that they're 'betraying' those galmembers who have undoubtedly helped them to their position.

It's already crystal clear that 1up has won, why should they add insult to injury?

[LocknLoad]

Its those galmates that betrayed their alliances first by taking the naps. Whats another betrayal or two.

[Jester]

The two 'betrayels' have little to do with eachother.

[Crazeh]

1up owned us all, get over it and start pondering how to avoid it next round

[LocknLoad]

Any alliance that puts together 70-90 of the most active players will own hands down. The only way to counter it is to put together another 70-90 just as active people. Which would leave two very active alliances and 10+- very inactive to semi active alliances.

Outcome:
Less people playing or even careing.

They should have kept the 75 member or even less players per alliance. May have made things a bit more equal.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

What I don't understand is why, after they've easily won and are now invincible, they don't cancel some of these galaxy naps for the roids and ranks. I mean, taking zo0f out of the top 10 wouldnt be too hard for them, moving another 1up into his place.

Jester pretty much hit the nail on the head: there's no incentive for 1up (as an alliance) to break the deal it offered to members of other alliances who share galaxies with our members. All it would achieve is to demonstrate bad faith on our part and piss off our members in those galaxies who worked hard to gain cooperation from their galaxy members.

Having an all-1up top10 would be nice - yes. But I value keeping my word far higher.

Obviously we're taking a far tougher line on those who don't keep their half of the deal, but there will be no cancellations of agreements made by 1up against those who have fully kept their end of the deal.

[Mr_Blonde]

lol sid @ trying to start a war

[G.K Zhukov]

Let me translate: Sid doesnt want to spoil chances for winning next round too.

(Hi salomo)

[Salomo]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Let me translate: Sid doesnt want to spoil chances for winning next round too.

(Hi salomo)

Round 2, 3 and 4 all over again? But where is Legion and who is RB these days?

:-)

[Forest]

RB is 1up clearly.

Legion is fang

Fury is hirr

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Forest

RB is 1up clearly.

Legion is fang

Fury is hirr

no legion ain't

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Salomo

Round 2, 3 and 4 all over again? But where is Legion and who is RB these days?

:-)

Forest is still around..

Indeed, your correct. Its the old trick of galaxy-pacification again. PA politics evole around the same things, round after round.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

PA politics evole around the same things, round after round.

and, after 13 rounds, you still havent the slightest idea what those things are...

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

What I don't understand is why, after they've easily won and are now invincible, they don't cancel some of these galaxy naps for the roids and ranks. I mean, taking zo0f out of the top 10 wouldnt be too hard for them, moving another 1up into his place.

There isnt a top10 alliance in the game that doesnt have a highranking player being gal protected by 1up.

Nice of you to pick out a HR one tho fishy, especially with the hear-say thats been posted about ND on these boards recently:P