..2 sets in a row now.



Hanlong Wang






Hanlong Wang







Send email
Find email

Add to contacts
To




































Ok signed for the uNAP for this reset.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:33:10 +0000


signed BattleKJ, HoW of Evolution

I also propose we sign a standard laf term uNAP for the remainder of the set.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:44:03 +0000


sounds good



signed Don Hanlong, Don of La Famiglia







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:56:57 +0000


all good? and a standard unap for the rest of this set?

hello gangbang

false

hello edited logs.

thats so 10 years ago..

Does anyone really care anymore?

1 more time and i'll just have to assume that evo likes the naughty sex.

thats low

but dont they say

"fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice, shame on me"?

what KJ forgot is he added this:

- The uNAP can be voided if one of the parties of this pact is involved in a war with one of the other parties FDPs

not me to the pact.

you are at war with Rival aren't you?

you were the one that added it, i said to copy SoF's pact with you, but you changed this line KJ

That is in next sets pact.

lol. #epicfail EvO leadership.

where did you say that? show me logs

you never specific those terms are only for next reset. you just said standard pact terms for this one, and i said ok (as your logs showed)

and those are the terms that YOU gave me.

FAIL

We signed a standard term uNAP (LaF's terms) for this set. Idiot.

From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:56:57 +0000


all good? and a standard unap for the rest of this set?

and those are LaF's terms for evo because that's what you agreed with me for the future resets.

you also lied to me btw. i said very clearly to copy SoF's pact which only applies if FDP is FSed. you changed it to "at war" on me thinking i wouldn't see it.

why would you do that unless you want this to happen.

think kj

you can't blame me for lying to me, and then failing.

I was going to respond to hanlong's post but he keeps editting it. Kind of funny how the pact terms are apparently changing minute to minute. You're a lying piece of fluff hanlong.

kj is a lying piece of fluff

i told him specifically to copy SoF' pact term, and he changed it on me and now he's playing dumb.

i also warned qzjul specifically to get kj to stop threatening our FDPs because i don't want fluff like this to happen, but kj won't stop

it's nothing personal. LaF just wanted to netgain heh

That is not your standard term uNAP. Your standard terms are in the pact you copied to me first of all. =) The clauses you're saying are in place are not even practical for this set and you know so... Stop lying.

you have no idea kj, you will see how much of a lying piece of fluff you are to everyone in this community very soon

Well once you're done editting the pact terms that were finalized weeks ago maybe the rest of us can debate whether or not you break a pact.

kj is also lying to you slagpit and the rest of the evo leadership.

this is nothing against you or any other Evo. this is solely all on KJ and also a FDP asking us for help.

How can someone be lying but not even be aware that they're lying? Brilliant argument there champ.

Haha, so true Slagpit.

Oh really? You posted on AT (but later editted it out of your post) that LaF needed to disclose her FDPs to EVO in order to break the pact for that reason. Considering that Laf lied to EVO and said that RIVAL and laf were not pacted, even if we go with your obviously wrong interpretation you're still a lying fluff.

I'm here for teh lulz.

I don't know if this is real or not, but the idea of pact breaking really irks me.

There should be an understanding between 'ALL' alliances about pact breaking so we can get back to meaningful pacts again. Far too often we see pact breaking with no real penalty other than a war the offender probably wants anyways. Then everyone lines up and pacts them again the next set. I think that all alliances should make a joint effort to agree to ban pacting of pact breakers for several resets, and the pact breakers should be used for server farm land for several resets. Obviously they will try to fight back, but without back up they would be broken down. The wasting of 2 or so resets being farmed would I'm sure make alliances leaders keep to their word. If you sign a pact you should keep to it, even if you screwed yourself my signing it. You can always take retribution in following resets right?

Anyways this isn't anti LaF spew, as I don't know if KJ is serious or not. I just hate hearing about pact breaking. It is worse than running multi's in my opinion. At least multi's give land to the server. lol

[22:27] <Don_Hanlong> we probably want the same terms
[22:27] <Don_Hanlong> netgainers and all
[22:27] <Don_Hanlong> etc.
01[22:28] <BattleKJ> ya
[22:28] <Don_Hanlong> i dont think we ever had a problem wiht pact terms
01[22:28] <BattleKJ> nope
01[22:28] <BattleKJ> we will add the two stepping fluff

---------------------------

[22:35] <Don_Hanlong> i want the rep repayment
[22:35] <Don_Hanlong> based on production
[22:35] <Don_Hanlong> that LaF loves
[22:35] <Don_Hanlong> and also 200% L:L
01[22:35] <BattleKJ> eh?
01[22:36] <BattleKJ> fluff, lets just look at our last pact and use those standard terms then add this other fluff
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> i mean
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> the standard pact
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> we always sign
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> yes
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> our last pact hast that
[22:36] <Don_Hanlong> you guys agreed to the standard LaF pact terms
01[22:38] <BattleKJ> can you send me your standard pact earth forum message? or email?
[22:41] <Don_Hanlong> sending it now
[22:41] <Don_Hanlong> http://mibpaste.com/7F3HE2
[22:41] <Don_Hanlong> and we are adding in the two-stepping clause also like what SoF has

--------------------------------

And the killer for Hanlong;

Session Start: Thu Dec 22 22:52:26 2011
Session Ident: Don_Hanlong
[22:52] Session Ident: Don_Hanlong (Earth-Empires, BattleKJ) ()


[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> please let me know Yank's thoughts
[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> :D
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> heh
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> we have a standard clause uNAP for this set
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> which you signed already :)
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> all we have to do
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> is hit your FDP first no?
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> then its void
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> lulz
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> im just talknig up right now
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> cuz im pissed off
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> no
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> standard clause pact this set
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> that clause is there starting next set

Unfortunately there would be no arbitrary way to show "this person broke a pact" unless all tags upload the text of all agreements to an unbiased site somewhere.

Soviet: You should just remove the Imaginary Numbers from your sig. and put your new (old) alliance instead.

Considering that the laf and sol war was ended on the condition of laf and evo pacting for several sets to avoid future wars and that hanlong keeps editting his posts in which he claims what the pact said, I think you can easily deduce whether or not a pact was broken.

Session Start: Thu Dec 22 22:52:26 2011
Session Ident: Don_Hanlong
[22:52] Session Ident: Don_Hanlong (Earth-Empires, BattleKJ) ()


[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> please let me know Yank's thoughts
[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> :D
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> heh
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> we have a standard clause uNAP for this set
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> which you signed already :)
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> all we have to do
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> is hit your FDP first no?
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> then its void
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> lulz
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> im just talknig up right now
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> cuz im pissed off
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> no
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> standard clause pact this set
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> that clause is there starting next set

Just putting extra emphasis on this one log. You asked to check if what you're claiming to be the case is infact the case 2 weeks ago. You were told its not. You didnt dispute the fact then, why are you trying to dispute it now?

I'm still an iMagger.

i know this post wont get read, but here it goes


looks to me that both sides tried some trickery in their pacting, and both sides misunderstood eachother based on this trickery.

keep the pacts simple and honest and you wont have these problems

At least LAf and Rival will be letting Evo attack buy leaving some oil on the market.

for once I agree with Ford

bah, they're rivals and honesty doesn't apply. they have to merge if they want complete honesty.

i have been quoted 3 times in a row


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


bucket list event checked

ok, i see no void clause in here: http://mibpaste.com/7F3HE2

and i see no voiding clause in here:
"[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> all we have to do
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> is hit your FDP first no?
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> then its void
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> lulz
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> im just talknig up right now
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> cuz im pissed off
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> no
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> standard clause pact this set
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever"

is there something we're missing, LAF?

wonders if nested quotes actually qualify for a bucket list....

fluff yeah they do

This is decent sunday night entertainment, please keep it up.

Last set people claimed LaF's pact breaking was interpretable, perhaps even legitimate.

There can be no shadow of a doubt this set. Plain and clearly for all to see, LaF have broken a pact.

Don't you get it? Aside from the issue of you being factually incorrect, nobody cares. Reread that: The clarity of your communication actually means MORE than any random "detail" you may fixate upon.

i never knew "whatever" is a confirmation that i agreed with him

and be careful what you wish for kj

i'm going to shove logs so far up your ass, it's going to hurt.

i already showed a few alliance leaders these logs. none of them see your side.

i already told everyone who cared to ask. this is nothing to do with evo, this is all KJ's doing.

Did you custom edit the logs for each alliance leader or did you edit them once before you talked to anyone?

just wait, you guys will have the juicy details soon =)

wow, and here I was thinking that in order to make a case to your members to break a pact and FS a tag for no reason, that you'd need this stuff ahead of time as proof

sounds like you're just making fluff up, I'm sure it'll be a very creative spin job. the "KJ is the boogeyman defense" has served you decently well in the past