|
|
28 Aug 2004, 14:50
|
#1
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Fencesitters
Ok - this thread is your chance to name and shame the fags and other undesirables who chose instead of fighting in r11 to sign an NAP with 1up purely for their own personal benefit - whatever is done with the list is entirely up to those who read it, I don't suggest anything in particular unless anyone has any good ideas and wants to get something together. Obviously, if people choose to attack them, it renders their whole idea of signing an NAP pointless - even if people don't, this thread will be an amusing shitlist none the less.
Having consulted with Jester, we don't want coords, only IRC nicks and alliances, and if you want to remain anonymous, I'm happy to take pm's and post the nicks on this forum.
We may, however, allow coords if people agree that we should post them, in the general interest of the game.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 15:02
|
#2
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
We may, however, allow coords if people agree that we should post them, in the general interest of the game.
|
Anyone who wants can announce, publicly, in this thread that they object to the posting of coords, and we will not allow it. On the other hand, if there are no protests and there is a general consensus for, I won't object. There are other mods, all with more seniority than me and they can all overrule this decision. So no whining if they do.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 15:20
|
#3
|
Its time to roll the dice
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The barn
Posts: 876
|
Re: Fencesitters
The HC sits on most of the intel. Some HC`s have accepted the nap.
I hope, but dont think you will get any accurate info in this thread.
__________________
Real life peon.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 15:24
|
#4
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Don't worry, we'll do our best to keep it accurate.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 15:57
|
#5
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: Fencesitters
Long list
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 16:27
|
#6
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadar
Long list
|
Care to add to it?
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 16:44
|
#7
|
Heh, Leeds !
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: In The Redfern
Posts: 3,790
|
Re: Fencesitters
I think that you should also allow a 'right to reply' so said 'Fencesitters' can explain to their alliance members why they chose their course of action.
~Vaio~
__________________
The George Harrison of BlueTuba
Yes, I know he is dead !
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 16:49
|
#8
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Of course, this is an open forum, for all forms of alliance related discussion.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 17:02
|
#9
|
Heh, Leeds !
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: In The Redfern
Posts: 3,790
|
Re: Fencesitters
Then a pole so we can vote on who was the biggest fencesitting twat of all
~Vaio~
__________________
The George Harrison of BlueTuba
Yes, I know he is dead !
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 18:22
|
#10
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Fencesitters
every none 1up player in the top 15 galaxies with more than 1000 roids?
dumb thread......dumb joke.....
edited:
after without realizing that i stepped on toes i didnt mean to step on:
[20:37] <Chimpie> the hole thread is a joke, what i ment, also ment that you cant generalize all the "fencesitters" cause there is nothing wrong in trying to get a good rank
[20:39] <Chimpie> except for when you're in a top5 alliance and your alliance is at war with 1up, then i think of them as fencesitters/sellouts. The mistu, vsn, lch and hr planets, as they all had a chance to help their alliance to #1 spot, instead they sold out and played 1up puppets.
or something like that.
To all those i now again stepped on toes of. Who cares, less than a week left
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
Last edited by DrunkenViking; 28 Aug 2004 at 19:43.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 18:29
|
#11
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
every none 1up player in the top 15 galaxies with more than 1000 roids?
|
Yes, but who are they? Do you have their nicks? Surely some of those players don't have an alliance. Maybe others have gotten above 1k roids after it became clear (I mean really clear) that 1up had won. See this article.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:04
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
|
Re: Fencesitters
How about naming and praising ppl who have been stabbed in the back by so called 1up gal m8s
i expect the following to be deleted but it would be a shame if my whole post is deleted
some extracts from a gal forum posted by a 1up member
X:Y(ONLY planet 2 may be attacked. If any ingal def gos to eta 4 notify HC to have them added)
X:Y((ONLY planet 4 may be attacked. If any ingal def gos to eta 4 notify HC to have them added)
X:Y((May attack all except #5)
X:Y( (ONLY planets 7/10 may be attacked. If any ingal def gos to eta 4 notify HC to have them added)
X:Y( (All except 2/4/10 can be hit)
X:Y( ((ONLY planet 10 may be attacked. If any ingal def gos to eta 4 notify HC to have them added)
ppl who have stood by the principle that ur gal should be deffed and fallen foul of this dispicable backstabbing policy on the part of 1up are worthy of a mention.
needless to say i know how i will treat any member of 1up who has the good fortune to be in a gal with me next round
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:05
|
#13
|
Heh, Leeds !
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: In The Redfern
Posts: 3,790
|
Re: Fencesitters
I believe there is a member of Vision's HC in a 1up galaxy that has a planet nap. It has been confirmed by 2 1up players to me personally and denied by a couple of Vision HC members.
Some are not telling the truth
~Vaio~
__________________
The George Harrison of BlueTuba
Yes, I know he is dead !
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:11
|
#14
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG
How about naming and praising ppl who have been stabbed in the back by so called 1up gal m8s
ppl who have stood by the principle that ur gal should be deffed and fallen foul of this dispicable backstabbing policy on the part of 1up are worthy of a mention.
needless to say i know how i will treat any member of 1up who has the good fortune to be in a gal with me next round
|
I don't quite see how this is backstabbing. They set some terms, gave the members a choice: either abide by them, or risk attack. It's very simple, there is no bad guy in this case. No one is evil for putting their planet ahead of their alliance, but members of alliances such as Vision deserve to know that their HC would rather save his own ass than assist his planet. Not because it's evil of him, but because he's setting a bad example for his alliance and demonstrating that he might* not have the alliance's best interest at heart. That latter one is pretty detrimental, but then alliances aren't really democracies, are they?
* Keep in mind that VsN get a top25 ranked planet. This is worth something. I guess. Depends on where you're looking from.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:22
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
|
Re: Fencesitters
I used the term backstabbing because some ppl have deffed all members of thier galaxy including the 1up members and when they continue to do so for other members of thier gal in a different alliance from 1 up they are then treated to a day or two of serious attention without the loyalty ie deffense from the 1up members of thier galaxy that these poor unfirtunates have shown to all. this policy of 1ups which i'm glad u are not denying exists will ruin any trust in galaxy for 1up members next round. And my point was re the topic let us not only shame the fence sitters but praise the loyal gal members, i know which i want in any gal i am in during future rounds. I also think that 1up have shoot thenselves in the foot by implimenting the policy that in gal deffing is an act of war. i think the level of thier victory this round (and it is probbly well deserved) unfortunately has lead to an arrogance i find personnaly distastefull
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:27
|
#16
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Then you should have said that in the first place
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:36
|
#17
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Fencesitters
Who exactly is the backstabber if your* the one who is breaking the agreement**
*used yourself as an example, disregarding the fact that if you were an actual 'victim' or not.
**agreement to not be hostile to 1up in either a] attack a 1up planet or b] defend against 1up in-gal.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 19:59
|
#18
|
Howling Rain
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 125
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
[20:39] <Chimpie> except for when you're in a top5 alliance and your alliance is at war with 1up, then i think of them as fencesitters/sellouts. The mistu, vsn, lch and hr planets, as they all had a chance to help their alliance to #1 spot, instead they sold out and played 1up puppets.
|
like we in HR went for nr1 rank \o/
atm to be rank5 is already high if you ask me...
__________________
W00F!
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 20:09
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
|
Re: Fencesitters
mmm let me guess...... ur 1up ryzekiel, ok when was the agreement made if at round start then yes i agree
or had ur 1up members bin deffed allready then the condition was imposed? and since when has deffing in gal been hostile, what ever happened to the dont attack in gal if ally is in there, why does that little green msg appear at the botom of gal screens, ok so all is fair in love and war, call me a nOOb and fool enough to have been taken in, what i am saying yet again re the thread is lets not just shame the fencesitters lets praise the poor idiot nOObs who have continued to deff their true gal m8's and fallen foul of 1up and remember next round, hell the goal post has been moved, then ok i'm not whinging, i've allready said the 1up victory was deserved what i am saying is know ur enemy, even if he appears to be ur friend at first
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 20:23
|
#20
|
U've been Moderated
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: getting sex0red by pretty women
Posts: 1,510
|
Re: Fencesitters
if you stop 1 second to think... any top alliance won't allow it's members to def against their own attacks...
any planet being hostile to a certain alliance will end up on that alliance's hostile list...
what is 1up doing so different then? exactly... nothing.
__________________
Titans forever and ever.
<Forest> i fuc*ing hate password sharers, i will log into macs bros account and get scans every 2 mins
<Tempestuous> cypher just happens to be the world's cutest creature
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 20:24
|
#21
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG
mmm let me guess...... ur 1up ryzekiel, ok when was the agreement made if at round start then yes i agree
or had ur 1up members bin deffed allready then the condition was imposed? and since when has deffing in gal been hostile, what ever happened to the dont attack in gal if ally is in there, why does that little green msg appear at the botom of gal screens, ok so all is fair in love and war, call me a nOOb and fool enough to have been taken in, what i am saying yet again re the thread is lets not just shame the fencesitters lets praise the poor idiot nOObs who have continued to deff their true gal m8's and fallen foul of 1up and remember next round, hell the goal post has been moved, then ok i'm not whinging, i've allready said the 1up victory was deserved what i am saying is know ur enemy, even if he appears to be ur friend at first
|
Yes, i am 1up. As my access in #public would suggest. Though, i`m only an insignificant peon with a loudmouth.
Right, i probably am not supposed to explain alliance policies on the PA forums, thus i`ll try to explain with as much simplicity used as possible and refrain from much references to policies. But, it`s quite clear you`ve just misunderstood the agreement, and are either incapable or just ignorant regarding the methods of hostile acts and the variations of alliance policies regarding catering of galaxies in random rounds.
PS. Noone`s calling you a n00b, you won`t see many people call anyone a n00b really, unless it`s a bit of general ribbing between friends. This isn`t r1/2/3/4 anymore. :|
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 20:32
|
#22
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: Fencesitters
Hehe, Chimpies quotation off IRC could only have been from irc, as if it was a forum post he surely would have thought about what he was saying?
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 20:47
|
#23
|
Zhil's Monkeyboy
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 125
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG
How about naming and praising ppl who have been stabbed in the back by so called 1up gal m8s
i expect the following to be deleted but it would be a shame if my whole post is deleted
..... *snipped out junk* ...
ppl who have stood by the principle that ur gal should be deffed and fallen foul of this dispicable backstabbing policy on the part of 1up are worthy of a mention.
needless to say i know how i will treat any member of 1up who has the good fortune to be in a gal with me next round
|
*sigh* Idiocy reigns supreme again.
Assuming you are correct, which I will not say either way... The planets involved had performed overtly hostile actions, and so had basically pissed in our pond. The offer was then revised so IF the rest of the gal wanted to maintain their protection and rank, they then could make the individual choice as to whether they wished to maintain such protection.
Suffice to say, this is a problem of a lack of balls relating to the players who treasured individual rank more than alliance or galaxy loyalty, and so left their other alliance members alone when we came after them. Trying to twist it so that it's an issue relating to 1up policy is erroneous and makes you look like a fool.
No one put a gun to the galmembers heads, they were given a choice, their own alliance / galaxy, or protection from 1up attacks.
No prizes for guessing which most took :|
Nova
__________________
Chemical Brothers - Loops of [1up] - Music to MO to...
Last edited by Blacknova; 28 Aug 2004 at 20:54.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 21:01
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
|
Re: Fencesitters
please as i have tried lets stick to the topic of the thread, i have avoided insults, and stated my feelings and my reasons for them, most of this disscussion has degenerated into what has bin hashed out in other threads, it has been shown that ppl dissagree with me , ok i do not want to get drawn into a protracted slagging match, i wanted to express my thoughts, and have done so in my first 2 posts, ty all for ur interest and responses
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 21:05
|
#25
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Fencesitters
this is not a slagging match, please describe the history of occurences of 1up and your gal so i/others can point out simply how it correlates to 1up policy and what you might`ve missed etc.
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 22:36
|
#26
|
Pr0nstar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Look at Galstatus
Posts: 1,006
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by cypher
if you stop 1 second to think... any top alliance won't allow it's members to def against their own attacks...
any planet being hostile to a certain alliance will end up on that alliance's hostile list...
what is 1up doing so different then? exactly... nothing.
|
im sorry to say for myself, but cypher - that what you said is the winner i certainly fully agree
__________________
Ascendancy FTW !!!!!!
Reunion FDS !
Proud to be Founder and Member of VisioN
Honoured to have been [1up] Member
VfL Bochum >*
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 22:46
|
#27
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Fencesitters
If you're going to try and derail the thread by whining and moaning, **** off. This isn't 'there are loads, lol' this is a name and shame, so please stick by what was asked
if you know of fencesitters, don't like them, and want to name them do so, if you don't well you don'. I couldn't give a shit who's policy is what, this thread is purely to name and shame those who have signed up these NAPs, as i'm sure there are quite a few players who would like to be informed.
And yes, this was partly for amusement, but it still provokes a topic of interest relating to a hot topic in PA.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 22:51
|
#28
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Fencesitters
Just to reiterate, this isn't about one alliance's policy - this is to do with the way certain individuals choose to play.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 22:58
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
|
Re: Fencesitters
so the rule is ally first and gal second, thats cool as long as everyone knows
i aint whinging
please read my first 2 posts
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 23:20
|
#30
|
Pr0nstar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Look at Galstatus
Posts: 1,006
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG
why sorry to say legator?
|
hm lol, because i dont like that cypher is right ?
i think you shouldnt give 1up the blame for some lamers who napped us...also i doubt there are many as i surely think they would have been kicked and rapped by their allies.
__________________
Ascendancy FTW !!!!!!
Reunion FDS !
Proud to be Founder and Member of VisioN
Honoured to have been [1up] Member
VfL Bochum >*
|
|
|
28 Aug 2004, 23:55
|
#31
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOG
so the rule is ally first and gal second, thats cool as long as everyone knows
i aint whinging
please read my first 2 posts
|
last post off-topic from myself regarding this:
ofcourse alliance > gal in a random round, heh. In a private round, things change depending on various factors.
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 02:34
|
#32
|
Evul Critter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: York
Posts: 255
|
Re: Fencesitters
I have a nap with 1up, how does that make me a fencesitter?
I'm in an alliance that has a neutral standing with 1up and a hostile standing to lch/mistu/vsn. So why should i attack 1up and make my alliance an new enemy?
Just because lch/mistu/vsn are too crap tactically to have a plan for this rnd doesn't make the people involved with 1up's strategy part of any 'shitlist.' I agree the members of lch/mistu/vsn that decided to take the nap and not fight 1up are perhaps stupid but anyone who is in an neutral alliance can take it as he wants, the nap is voluntary and not something i 'signed up' too either.
People are just jealous because 1up are winning and their strategy was crap, when will people stop whining and realise that 1up had a damn good rnd and their players did really well. the Nap isn't the reason why they won its just a small part of a bigger picture. Its funny how people always attempt to find something wrong with an alliances strategy, what about lch/mistu/vsn, who were all clearly in agreement to go against 1up in the beginning, doesn't that seem like a block. Blocks are evil if they win or lose imo.
anyhow, i'll enjoy my nap for another 6days
zakoff
__________________
Critters own....
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 03:02
|
#33
|
pe0n
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kindom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,347
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by zakoff
I have a nap with 1up, how does that make me a fencesitter?
I'm in an alliance that has a neutral standing with 1up and a hostile standing to lch/mistu/vsn. So why should i attack 1up and make my alliance an new enemy?
Just because lch/mistu/vsn are too crap tactically to have a plan for this rnd doesn't make the people involved with 1up's strategy part of any 'shitlist.' I agree the members of lch/mistu/vsn that decided to take the nap and not fight 1up are perhaps stupid but anyone who is in an neutral alliance can take it as he wants, the nap is voluntary and not something i 'signed up' too either.
People are just jealous because 1up are winning and their strategy was crap, when will people stop whining and realise that 1up had a damn good rnd and their players did really well. the Nap isn't the reason why they won its just a small part of a bigger picture. Its funny how people always attempt to find something wrong with an alliances strategy, what about lch/mistu/vsn, who were all clearly in agreement to go against 1up in the beginning, doesn't that seem like a block. Blocks are evil if they win or lose imo.
anyhow, i'll enjoy my nap for another 6days
zakoff
|
I can't blame ppl from smaller alliances to accept NAPs like this. There was no agreement between LCH/Mistu/VsN to go against 1up in the beginning. Those alliances tried to play on their own. Ofc this failed and they started to NAP after then.
__________________
round 5 noob
round 6 noob
round 7 noob: rank 6.198 25:20:25 - VoC member
round 8 noob: rank 4.112 7:2:3 - TFD member
round 9 rank 941 23:1:9 - TFD HC
round 9.5 rank 860 22:7:3 - TFD HC
round 10: rank unknown (was #1 for a while) 5:2:5 - Vengeance pe0n
round 10.5: rank 683 19:10:2 - VGN member
round 11: rank 138 8:8:4 - VsN member
round 12: rank 515 - VGN 'special attack officer' -> jumped ship to Rock
round 13: rank 85: NoS
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 03:31
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: Fencesitters
Time to clear a few things up i guess. It's been asked in this thread when our policy on galaxy NAPs etc started. So here's how it worked:
1. When the round started 1up's policy was that our members could attack any galaxy that had no 1up members in. Our own galaxies were left totally alone - even if people in it were hostile - as with our coords not known there was no way others in the galaxies could avoid hitting 1up members, and we weren't about to give out our coord list. The sole exception to this was that members were always allowed to retaliate (or get others to retaliate on their behalf) at any planet actually currently headed on attack to a 1up member.
2. When our coords became fairly well known, and our members' galaxies knew they were 1up, our policy became more formal. We needed to recognise the fact that some planets wantedt o attack us along with their alliances - but at the same time avoid the situation of our members unnecesarily (and excessively) roiding gal-mates of our members who had no dsire to become embroiled in a war against 1up. This was designed primarily to allow us to focus our efforts on the alliances actively at war with us - without us having to target members of smaller alliances in our galaxies and unnecessarily generating ill-will towards our members. This policy was implemented and clarified well before 1up had won the round.
3. Our policy since then has remained the same. To maintain their protection galaxy members have to comply with 3 simple conditions:
a) Not attack 1up. We used to allow the occasional mistake, but reduced this to a near enough zero-tolerance policy when we published a list of all galaxies with 1up in, so galaxy members knew they could attack anywhere outside those galaxies without further checking - or within them by getting individual planets checked by 1up HC. The restriction ahs always been only not to attack 1up members - if the non-1up in our galaxies want to fight other non-1up in a different gaalxy then that's not our concern.
b) Not participate in galaxy attacks on 1up galaxies that include attacks on the 1up there. Attacking the non-1up in a galaxy while friends/alliance mates not in 1up galaxies attack the actual 1up members is particpating in an attack on 1up.
c) Not defend in-galaxy vs 1up. Of course the only time 1up would attack the galaxy would be against someone who had chosen not to take part in (or not to honour) any agreement with us. Out of galaxy defence has never been banned - it would be unreasonable to do so.
4. In general planets have never actually had to agree to our terms - they've been assumed to do so until they demonstrate otherwise. Recently Vision HC apparently ordered their members that they must cancel any agreement they had - or risk being kicked out. At this stage our members were told to ask all Vision in their galaxies specifically whetehr they wanted to keep their protection or not. Only one Vision member in a 1up galaxy said he wanted to lose his protection - and he changed his mind the next day. That said, approximately 6 Vision members (mainly small ones) in 1up galaxies did attack 1up over the next few days and lose their protection.
I'm not prepared to post a list of all the galaxy members who have made agreements with 1up, however I'll make an exception in the case of one individual. His usual nick is "Porno" and he's Vision Military Exec or some-such. He was one of the Vision members who voted in favour of them joining LCH+Mistu in attacking 1up. He also was responsible for choosing the specific 1up targets to be attacked by Vision. Throughout all of that he never atatcked 1up himself. Actually, that's not entirely true - he did once attack a 1up member who'd recently joined 1up amd just exiled and hence wasn't at coords known to be 1up. When he found out target was 1up he recalled at ETA 1 - despite there being no defence against him. He has also repeatedly told Vision members that he has no agreement with 1up - but after Vision HC's orders to cancel any agreements with 1up he confirmed he still wished to receive our protection.
I've no intention of cancelling our agreements provided the galaxy members in question keep their part of the agreement. It wouldn't achieve anything - other than giving our members a few more easy targets - and I value keeping my word more highly than I do a few more 1up t100/t10 places. That applies even to porno - detestable though I find his amazing level of hypocrisy.
If anyone wants to know which planets have 1up protection, just ask a 1up member you know to identify which planets may be attacked in a specific 1up galaxy - a full list of targets which may be attacked (by 1up members) in 1up galaxies is listed on our forums. It's not considered sensitive information - as obviously those galaxies need to know which planets are likely to be hit by us and can't be defended ingalaxy vs us.
Our policy was designed to try to give our members the best chance we could of cooperating with theit galaxies - while at the same time balancing that with our need to be able to attack hostiles. Specifically I didn't want to see members of smaller alliances in our galaxies getting roided by us while larger hostile planets were left alone.
Given the chance most players' level of greed is such that they'll take the easier targets rather than the ones that serve tehir alliance's aims the best. This policy along with other polcies we adopted served to focus our fleets where we, as an alliance, most needed them to be. Yes, the policy was designed to help 1up - as, hopefully, are ALL policies we've adopted. That some individuals seem to see this as somehow low is slightly disturbing: are we supposed to tell our members to attack planets in 1up galaxies who have no desire to be at war with us?
Perhaps the next individuals who want to criticise out policy would like to explain what their own alliance's policy is? Then maybe we can debate the relative merits of the alternative policies - and maybe people would like to consider how those different policies work in practice if you happen to be a member of a smaller alliance stuck in a galaxy of one of the relevant alliances. It's also been claimed in this thread that other alliances all have a similar policy. That's actually not true. LCH/Vision have a policy of allowing attacks on all planets other than LCH/Vision in their galaxies (their alliance agreement includes a broad agreement not to defend ingalaxy vs one another ). I'd argue that 1up's policy is actually far more small-player friendly than the alternative - it HAS to be as planets can decide they want the alternative policy. I'd also argue that our policy is actually less stagnating as it allows smaller alliances to pursue their own objectives/wars with a % of their planets left totally alone by the winning alliance.
Anyway, hope that's cleared our policy up. If someone wants to debate it further I suggest starting a new thread rather than continuing to derail this one.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 05:24
|
#35
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henck
like we in HR went for nr1 rank \o/
atm to be rank5 is already high if you ask me...
|
still no reason to be lazy tho true, i'm impressed by your rank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
Hehe, Chimpies quotation off IRC could only have been from irc, as if it was a forum post he surely would have thought about what he was saying?
|
i never think..... i enjoy spelling my guts out before overanalyzing everything. Ofc might not be fair on hr since you're actually overachieving quite a bit compared to expectations. Still, like i said, no reason to be lazy
i just want what every other player wants....action. and i can only see small battles and no war. wtf kind of round is that? so i throw some responsibility on everyone in position to change that not my job, nor in my right. But i do.
Glad to see veneratio fighing us somewhat anyway, good someone except 1up got the spirit
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 11:20
|
#36
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Care to add to it?
|
I don't have any and will not make any either. But the 'Long list' post was me being ironic as there wasn't any list
You know, there's two kind of idiots. The one who doesn't understand the joke and the one who explains it
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 11:45
|
#37
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadar
was me being ironic
|
OMFG, Nadar is BigBadWolf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 12:38
|
#38
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadar
You know, there's two kind of idiots. The one who doesn't understand the joke and the one who explains it
|
Oh I got it, I just didn't think it was funny.
In addition to Porno, his galmate Thorm (also Vision) has been avoiding attacking 1up.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 14:26
|
#39
|
Sh33p h3rd3r
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 132
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
4. In general planets have never actually had to agree to our terms - they've been assumed to do so until they demonstrate otherwise. Recently Vision HC apparently ordered their members that they must cancel any agreement they had - or risk being kicked out. At this stage our members were told to ask all Vision in their galaxies specifically whetehr they wanted to keep their protection or not. Only one Vision member in a 1up galaxy said he wanted to lose his protection - and he changed his mind the next day. That said, approximately 6 Vision members (mainly small ones) in 1up galaxies did attack 1up over the next few days and lose their protection.
I'm not prepared to post a list of all the galaxy members who have made agreements with 1up, however I'll make an exception in the case of one individual. His usual nick is "Porno" and he's Vision Military Exec or some-such. He was one of the Vision members who voted in favour of them joining LCH+Mistu in attacking 1up. He also was responsible for choosing the specific 1up targets to be attacked by Vision. Throughout all of that he never atatcked 1up himself. Actually, that's not entirely true - he did once attack a 1up member who'd recently joined 1up amd just exiled and hence wasn't at coords known to be 1up. When he found out target was 1up he recalled at ETA 1 - despite there being no defence against him. He has also repeatedly told Vision members that he has no agreement with 1up - but after Vision HC's orders to cancel any agreements with 1up he confirmed he still wished to receive our protection.
|
The problem with this is Porno aka Mickimus(sp) on NG is Vision HC so if he doesnt give up his nap why should the members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
In addition to Porno, his galmate Thorm (also Vision) has been avoiding attacking 1up.
|
In addition Jester, Panik another vision member, is in that gal
__________________
Roiding No More
eXilitionAscendancy
*****************
Do not make me get out the paddle!!! "
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 15:43
|
#40
|
Supreme ETY Pe0n
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Great Yarmouth, UK
Posts: 134
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaio
I believe there is a member of Vision's HC in a 1up galaxy that has a planet nap. It has been confirmed by 2 1up players to me personally and denied by a couple of Vision HC members.
Some are not telling the truth
~Vaio~
|
It was denied by every Vision HC EXCEPT Porno himself (from what I saw).
Also some may have noticed that Porno went AFK for nearly a week after I brought the situation to other Vision members attention.
That was as much as admitting to it in my eyes.
__________________
Korenchkin
EnTitY CEO
#EnTitY
'Just a bunch of harmless n00bs'
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 16:20
|
#41
|
Retired?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 289
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
every none 1up player in the top 15 galaxies with more than 1000 roids?
|
Just for the fun of it, i'll try to create that list. Other alliances then vsn, lch, mistu is left out. Some of it might be wrong.
VsN
------
Forestal
DeLoS
Harm
Porno
Thorm
Panic
Garm
Major_Buzz
LCH
------
gmufc
Samynix
Saint
Zanetti
Gur4n
Mordrag
snowie
Kane
Gr[afk]nd
Markes
Valor
zero0
Argent
^MDK^MAN^
MiX
MISTU
-------
Geezer77
Dustman
Morphin
*edit: This is NOT a list with planets whom have napped 1up, its a list with lch/vsn/mistu planets in top15 gals who have more than 1k roids..
__________________
Played since round 3 in various alliances: G-II, Elysium, The Brotherhood, NewDawn, VisioN & more
Current status: Will never play again ever!
I was 3:2:2 in round 10 \o/
Last edited by Eventh; 29 Aug 2004 at 23:10.
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 16:25
|
#42
|
Evil inside
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,631
|
Re: Fencesitters
This is so r3.
__________________
<Germania>but you called Fury a bully, and that is terribly unfair
<Hicks>Occassionally individuals do things without Executive consent
<Dreadnought>You cant whois on Eclipse server without a registered nic, which mr ****stirrer doesnt have.
<Almeida> well i like to grow fat myself too, and when i have enough ships then i can engage in big battles
<Nantoz> Zhukov for Lord Protector!
<Jakiri> (Windows)XP was fine on release
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 16:38
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 369
|
Re: Fencesitters
Shame shame that list of folks is large enough for a nice little battlegroup that instead of sitting with their pud in their hand they could have done something. Wussess?
__________________
r1 ??:??:?? Phalanx_WLF of Kadan
r2 9:23:1 Axis_WLF of Kadan : Blluetuba/Legion
r3 6:24:1 Axis_WLF of kadan : Legion/WolfPack
r4 201:15:1 Octavian of Ostia : Wolfpack
r5 13:6:2 Sun Tzu of Art of War : Legion Command
r6 33:13:?? : Legion Command
r7 15:19:12 Unknown soldier run over by a wagon : Legion Command
R8: 28:8:9 Niccolo Machiavelli of Revera Legatus : TITAN COMMAND BC
R12 ??:??:?? 1up Military Officer
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 18:02
|
#44
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Confœderatio Helvetica
Posts: 323
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axis_WLF
Shame shame that list of folks is large enough for a nice little battlegroup that instead of sitting with their pud in their hand they could have done something. Wussess?
|
Well, they actually DO something.
They hit the non-1up's in 1up galas while members who don't have the nap team up on the 1ups.
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 18:06
|
#45
|
used to register
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 979
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid
b) Not participate in galaxy attacks on 1up galaxies that include attacks on the 1up there. Attacking the non-1up in a galaxy while friends/alliance mates not in 1up galaxies attack the actual 1up members is particpating in an attack on 1up.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entium
Well, they actually DO something.
They hit the non-1up's in 1up galas while members who don't have the nap team up on the 1ups.
|
I find that somehow contradicting. If they DO attack galmates of 1up ppl, then apparently 1up cancells the NAP with the involved planet.
__________________
R1: ??:?? | R2: 51:6 | R3: 37:12 | R4: 186:13 | R5: 13:17 | R6: 1:25
R7: 15:14 | R8: 34:4 / 52:10 ¤ | R9: 16:2 | R9.5: 34:6 / 41:6 ¤
R10: 2:2 | R10.5: 15:4 | R11: 28:8 | R12: 22:9
Damn, outdated and too lazy to edit, retired now
-----
Started playing again Still too lazy to update though
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 18:20
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 537
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eventh
^MDK^MAN^
MiX
|
Haven't checked your entire list - certainly the majority of the ones you listed are correct. But these 2 definitely don't fence-sit (though they are in a 1 up galaxy). Even when MiX was t10 he refused to fence-sit - ultimately he got roided for 3 ticks by a rather complicated fake attack and then lost most of his fleet landing a rather ill-advised attack. Branding him as a fence-sitter is untrue and entirely fair to him - he has my respect for doing precisely the opposite.
You should also possibly consider distinguishing between those who have fence-sat all round (e.g. Porno) and those who didn't do so until it was clear 1up had won. To clarify on that issue, we used to allow planets to regain their protection - we no longer do that.
__________________
Synthetic Sid
[1up]
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 18:51
|
#47
|
l337 Beyond Repair
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16
|
Re: Fencesitters
Sid - personally, I believe 1up granting protection is just as dishonest/dishonorable/disgusting as people seeking/accepting that protection. In effect 1up has used its dominate position to break down other alliances' loyalty, which is completely unacceptable. It is unhealthy for PA in general.
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 19:00
|
#48
|
Retired?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 289
|
Re: Fencesitters
Another interesting list would be top100 planets/planets in top15 gals who have joined 1up during the round. And wich alliance they left.
__________________
Played since round 3 in various alliances: G-II, Elysium, The Brotherhood, NewDawn, VisioN & more
Current status: Will never play again ever!
I was 3:2:2 in round 10 \o/
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 19:18
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Confœderatio Helvetica
Posts: 323
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Martok
I find that somehow contradicting. If they DO attack galmates of 1up ppl, then apparently 1up cancells the NAP with the involved planet.
|
I'm not sure when 'case b)' has been established... but obviously many people didn't/don't know about it.
|
|
|
29 Aug 2004, 20:05
|
#50
|
Vitriolic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #public
Posts: 1,506
|
Re: Fencesitters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quanticles
Sid - personally, I believe 1up granting protection is just as dishonest/dishonorable/disgusting as people seeking/accepting that protection. In effect 1up has used its dominate position to break down other alliances' loyalty, which is completely unacceptable. It is unhealthy for PA in general.
|
The lack of balls/honour/loyalty cannot be blamed upon 1up. Like Sid said MiX did exactly what any HC would've expected of him and he has my respect. Stop trying to protray us as big bad wolves we gave them the option of war or fencesitting and they made thier own concious choices.
__________________
Chief [ 1up] Chimp.
<@JBG> by the way is mazzelaar a community account that everyone in 1up logs into when they're feeling angry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGood
mazzelaar has always reminded me of a hungry hungry hippo. Except instead of eating marbles he just bites the heads off new AD posters
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:45.
| |