1: What the hell?  Archangel, you really overestimate me.  Want my references on previous IC history?  The fact that I'm leading a family inherently means that family is doomed to failure. 

2: I don't give a damn if you think I'm trying to win, frankly.  If you think I'm trying to win, then there's no point in you protesting my family being in the game.  If you don't think I'm trying to win, you're doing a shitty job at pointing out the flaws of the arguments in favor of my family being in the game.

3: If my points are rubbish, go ahead and go through them, one at a time, and show me the error in my ways.

4: Doesn't matter if there was a set number of families, as I stated previously.

5: Frankly, I don't know what the hell you "want to hear" because I hardly know what the hell you're saying.  First, it was "You don't want to win, so you shouldn't be allowed in the game," and now it's "you want to win."  Make up your mind. 

Happy birthday! 

Thanks for the support. 

> Archangel wrote:

> zarf, last time the number of fams was limited, i dont see why they wouldnt be again this time

How did they limit it?  A strict maximum or a maximum based on the number of families, i.e. "Since 8 families want to join, we're setting up 2 galaxies in prelims.  Therefore, max 8 families," which wouldn't affect anyone anyway?

In addition, you would have to show that there is already X+1 families trying to get into the ICC, with X being the maximum.  Otherwise, still no harm done.

On top of that, you would still need to address what I said above.  Otherwise, the advantages far outweigh the possible harms to that family, especially when they had just as equal a chance of getting into the ICC as I did.

Nope!

Chees?

You would be active enough to bank but not to attack?

How would you like to be a hardcore attacker in my family? 

Nope!

llama?

My itchy eye

Check the drafting thread.  There's lots of people drafting families, including me. 

And one more thing: I could easily do exactly what I want to do with this family, yet still fit in the paradigm of "wanting to win."  How?  Through the use of particular words in my original post.

Some possible ways to fix this:
Instead of "roles," specifically seek out people with histories of betrayal, novice status, or doing overall stupid things.  They'll fit the role.

Instead of "we don't want to win," "we want to win, but let's face it: the competition is pretty damn good, so we probably won't.  But the fun is in playing the game."

Just by rearranging my original post a little bit, I could do everything I wanted without breaking your rules.  Now, at the point where you're complaining over my method of presentation, isn't that kind of bullshit?  Hell, I could argue that by drafting certain people in your family, you no longer care about winning. 

This family was recently attacked by Nolio as not being allowed to go in the tournament.  Time to defend myself:

1: There's no bright line between when someone wants to win and when they don't.  If I deliberately drafted the most retarded people in the game, would I still "want" to win?  If I didnd't make an effort to coordinate a family, would I "want" to win?  Hell, if I was in last place with no hope of winning, would I "want" to win?
2: There's no limit to spots in the ICC, so we're not kicking anyone out of the game.
3: This gives an opportunity for new people to join the ICC without worrying about screwing up a good family.  Do you think any family that "wants" to win is going to draft the newest people?  I create a more open environment, looking only for people who want to have fun! 
4: It's a damn game.
5: If we use our family to give an unfair advantage to one family or another, it's either an illegal alliance, in which case I would get banned, or it's just like any small family in a world of large families: nothing more than the game at work.