mdnss69 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1294832443' post='2573063'] Nope. At least you understood what I was trying to say. Kudos. Would this be an appropriate response to the above quote? BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW. [/quote] This is like arguing with a pre-schooler on crack cocaine. [quote name='nippy' timestamp='1294832443' post='2573063'] Ah, good. So, just like Fernando you've decided to ignore the intent of the thread and create your own land of makebelieve so you could feel good about shunning it. Talk about inflating egos! [/quote] ... I've already told you. Now go re-read it. Edited January 12, 2011 by mdnss69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1294834441' post='2573082'] I don't care. [/quote] Yes you do and Archon does. It's the purpose of this topic. Make it easier for MK to be sanctioned ITT. You care, stop lying. Lying is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1294812316' post='2572822'] The point of the thread isn't really about MK losing the sanction, it's about the statistical standing of the alliance that would receive it. [/quote] I for the first time agree with you, I believe the sanction race should be on the alliance score only, having a set number of nations to be in said alliance to me is silly, with the ever dropping number of nations everyone will soon become elitist. MK should remain sanction even if they drop under 200 nations, as they have earned the first to do so with their alliance score. EDIT: I asked Lebubu his views on the issue, can someone tell me what meow meow meow, means ? Edited January 12, 2011 by Timeline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I agree with all the stuff Archon said. Though this is more of a result of member diffusion amongst many little alliances rather than overall numbers reduction. Which is the same thing that has made the MDP web look like a Gordian knot. Seriously, only two alliances with over 400 members left. That's just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='mdnss69' timestamp='1294834741' post='2573084'] This is like arguing with a pre-schooler on crack cocaine. [/quote] Oh, come now...you're not [i]that[/i] bad. I'm still wondering what there is for you to be smug about. It certainly isn't anything apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294834783' post='2573085'] Yes you do and Archon does. [/quote] I'm honestly convinced that you just post to raise your post count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Scigirl543' timestamp='1294816088' post='2572914'] In the interest of redirecting the thread away from its original purpose: How many alliances are left in this game, anyways? [/quote] The problem is just that. Too many alliances. Eitherway, some alliances have decided that they do not want to be mass-recruiting alliances and that's not just fine, it's good. But there's the consequence of probably not getting the sanction. And whining about the sanction limit is just stupid - they decided to play the game that way, they don't get to change the rules because of their in-game options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugby Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Bah, all you silly stat-huggers, how dare you not become bloated masses like those of us on top? Also, I hear someone is in need of a few hundred ghosts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Good. I'm sick of seeing that pip anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The inherent pettiness in this thread is disappointing. Yes MCXA will gain sanction, No I don't think its that big of a deal. Don't like MCXA having sanction, then start a war, We'll likely be on the losing side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1294842594' post='2573113'] The inherent pettiness in this thread is disappointing. Yes MCXA will gain sanction, No I don't think its that big of a deal. Don't like MCXA having sanction, then start a war, We'll likely be on the losing side. [/quote] You think a bit too highly of your alliance. See this thread isn't about MCXA getting sanctioned, it's about the 19th alliance in score getting sanctioned. Edited January 12, 2011 by Lord Gobb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Alexander Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Peh the views on ghosting and bloatedness here just sicken me. Thiers nothign wrong with being a little big boned, everyone needs a little love. [img]http://images.clipartof.com/small/13039-Cute-Loving-Cow-Couple-Dancing-Together-Clipart-Illustration.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Its ok MK, sanction status doesn't mean !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Winters Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I've been following this development for a while now. MK has 2 small nations close to deletion according to another player. I posted this yesteday on our forums: MK is [b]*this*[/b] [size="1"](3 members)[/size] close to loosing sanction. [b]8 [202] (-2) Mushroom Kingdom : 39.80 --> 39.74 (-0.06) [/b] The next two eligible alliances? [b] 19 [223] (-2) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance : 23.45 --> 23.38 (-0.07) 20 [233] (+2) Random Insanity Alliance : 23.02 --> 22.99 (-0.03) [/b] Yep, the Sanction skips all of these due to lack of members: 14 {166} (+0) The Order of the Paradox : 31.12 --> 31.17 (+0.05) 15 {176} (-1) FOK : 30.20 --> 30.04 (-0.16) 16 {89} (-1) Umbrella : 28.40 --> 28.42 (+0.02) 17 {184} (-4) The Democratic Order : 25.85 --> 25.53 (-0.32) 18 {189} (+0) Federation of Armed Nations : 23.77 --> 23.80 (+0.03) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='kevin32891' timestamp='1294845264' post='2573131'] Its ok MK, sanction status doesn't mean !@#$. [/quote] But it should and it could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yeah, it's pathetic to see the sanction skip over 5 other alliances to an alliance with absolutely terrible stats. I'm sure many of those being skipped don't really care, but it's a terrible misrepresentation when you go to that drop down menu look at the names and then look at the all alliances page and see that based on what the drop down menu means, there should be 19 alliances listed, rather than 12. System is flawed, everyone knows it, nobody listens, Fernando makes an ass of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 An alliance currently considered the top dog in CN not sanction? There is something wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) The fact that anybody is still posting along the lines of 'lol archon you just want sanction' has either not read past the first post (actually scratch this one because you're still dim if you don't get it), or is purposely ignoring the obvious argument in this thread. Edited January 12, 2011 by Drai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Sometimes I wonder why people from MK, Umbrella, GOONS, VE, etc. still bother posting here due to the ignorance of the content of any posts and instant opposition to anything bearing the 'wrong' pip or sig. Then I imagine what this place would be like, especially at war time, without those people and thank god we don't take any of the nonsense personally and still play a part in the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sam Winters' timestamp='1294845506' post='2573137'] [b]19 [223] (-2) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance : 23.45 --> 23.38 (-0.07) 20 [233] (+2) Random Insanity Alliance : 23.02 --> 22.99 (-0.03) [/b] [/quote] Please gain a point, RIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenacres Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Sanctions don't mean as much as they once did. It was once something to strive for, still is, but more alliances are content to just exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1294848570' post='2573162'] Please gain a point, RIA. [/quote] I'm trying my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 So far a sanction is good for: 1. Getting your flag in-game (this is good) 2. Being listed as one of the alliances in the drop-down menu (this has become irrelevant since treefinguy came up with a greasemonkey script to add alliances of your choosing in Umbrella's birthday thread) 3. Maybe name recognition? Some people may consider that a bad thing. 4. Pips on the forums. I guess this is cool. At the point the discussion should really be: what would make the sanction valuable? At this point, if you're in an unqualified alliance that has your flag through a TE run, trying to gain 200 members and/or gain your score just to get a sanction is pretty much only going to give you a forum pip, which isn't worth it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote name='Sam Winters' timestamp='1294845506' post='2573137'] I've been following this development for a while now. MK has 2 small nations close to deletion according to another player. I posted this yesteday on our forums: MK is [b]*this*[/b] [size="1"](3 members)[/size] close to loosing sanction. [b]8 [202] (-2) Mushroom Kingdom : 39.80 --> 39.74 (-0.06) [/b] The next two eligible alliances? [b] 19 [223] (-2) Multicolored Cross-X Alliance : 23.45 --> 23.38 (-0.07) 20 [233] (+2) Random Insanity Alliance : 23.02 --> 22.99 (-0.03) [/b] Yep, the Sanction skips all of these due to lack of members: 14 {166} (+0) The Order of the Paradox : 31.12 --> 31.17 (+0.05) 15 {176} (-1) FOK : 30.20 --> 30.04 (-0.16) 16 {89} (-1) Umbrella : 28.40 --> 28.42 (+0.02) 17 {184} (-4) The Democratic Order : 25.85 --> 25.53 (-0.32) 18 {189} (+0) Federation of Armed Nations : 23.77 --> 23.80 (+0.03) [/quote] This is a very informative post and gets to the heart of the matter. Everyone else who says otherwise just likes listening to the sound of their own voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 MK members should make another AA and let this happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts