[quote poster=hanlong; 14639; 261508]and i never told you that was what we agreed.

did i say "oh yah i agreed to standard" pact?

i said

"[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever"

i also said

"[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
"

you know why? because i thought you copied SoF's pact like I INDICATED here:

00:31:45: <Don_Hanlong> the term i want is same as sof's

you changed it to "AT WAR"

didn't i say this many times already?

i already told you many times to stop pulling shenanagins.

why did you change it to at war (which is not understandable) from defending a FDP (which is understandable) if you wanted peace?

just explain to me why.. give me an honest answer. [/quote]

I am sorry Hanlong and Laf, however technically you have broken a pact.

You yourself state that the term is "AT WAR" with an FDP.

Well Evo was not at war with Rival when you broke the pact. They had made no hits on rival inbetween the first hit from Rival until your hit first hit on EVO, they made no post on AT acknowledging or advising they were in a state of war and anyone was policing for them.

As far as the earth community knows Evo may of decided to ignore the state of war and wait 48 hours before declaring back.

As such, by the policy terms you have stated in this thread, which even though evo are disputing, you have broken a pact with Evolution and as such you should ceasefire immediatley and make ammends or admit that you have broken a pact.

I would also like to state for the record, and I have told H4 and imag leadership this, I don't like evo, their leadership are full of trolling idiot netters who twist fluff worse than most woman and up until recently (kudos) have never really offered their allies (more importantly imag) any assistance at all. I would much prefer if imag was closer to laf than evo just personally, however im just a lowly aFA, i dont influence politics or make the top decisions, so i do as I am told like a good subordinate should.

In saying this I always speak my mind, and your really have made a mess here, you have tried to be technical without realising that by being that technical you have shot yourselves in the foot, Evo was not at war with rival by the definition of the pact and therefor you have broken a pact and need to rectify this to the earth community to have your trust restored with everyone.

Good post scode :)

Let me refute your assertion with a quote:

"It only takes one nation to make war. But it takes two or more to make a peace."
Harry Truman

Scode makes some good points, but everyone is still missing the point...

Why the fluff is LaF continuing to start wars for no reason? Did it have a rason to fight Evo again? What is the reason? The only thing I have seen is.. we could, so we did.

Why do people accept this bullfluff?

April 2011: LaF leads MD and LCN in gangbang of SOL for no stated reason. Probably because of 1 on 1 war 12 months earlier where they got their ass kicked.

Oct 2011: LaF hits a netting Evo for no reason. It is assumed it was because Evo 'cussed' them in their country names. LaF breaks pact to do so.

Jan 2011: LaF hits a demoralised and continously gangbanged SOL out of protection having prepared from turn 100 for no stated reason apart from reasons they already used in previous wars.

All the while we are focused on what pacts they are breaking and not asking why they think it's OK to just gangbang and hit alliances for no reason?

IScode, I don't know about you, but as far as common sense is concerned, if A is at war with B, then B is not at peace with A. B might choose not to retaliate, but that's irrelevant, both A and B are in a state of conflict, a state of war.

Or do we need to start defining what "at war" means in pacts now?

bonus

Laf solo gangbanged SOL this set HanIong? thats pretty amazing!

As for the other sets, perhaps if you had been an alliance leader yourself you had known when and why and other stuff and perhaps your alliance would accept another PACTED alliance using country names like evo did, i know for one that i never would and wouldnt give a fluff even if they had an FDP id take that as an act of war

What about NaturalS Pontius pirate, did they cheat or? i dont remember them having any sort of deletions or shady behaviour actually? id be happy to see some evidence tho

as for han1ong again, yes bad move by SOF to call FDPs in when the other side clearly doesnt want an even war, breaks pacts and in person tell me that they didnt want an even war why should I play nice back? if people wanna call in allies to do things like that i will happily do the same if anything they should just be happy i didnt call more tags in on them.

fluffF

meh, nevermind

So you happily accept that you're a pactbreaker for being in SoF during NaturalS? If you want to call anoniem a cheat for being in Elitez?

interesting point scode, i didn't see it that way. but that is another angle and is a valid and reasonable one. again this depends on how people define "at war".

i always assumed if one is attacking another, they are at war even if the other side doesn't hit back. so what you are saying is if someone wars you and you never hit back, you aren't at war with them? interesting idea though nontheless....

as a example this reset, SOL actually did 0 hits on us after we FSed, does this mean LaF and SOL never warred this reset according to what you just said?

well there are more reasons why this is done, but kj won't post the rest of the logs i was trying to refer to, so this is why :D

More to do with Ivan being a hypocrite bringing something up from 10 years ago whereas saying stuff he did 2 years ago is irrelevant

uuuuuu

Yes i was in sof when that happend, along with 50 others and? I didnt have more to do with that choice then the other 50 and I dont see how that discussion is relevant in this?

And now matter how you angle it pontius, i love that yer defending cheating compared to breaking a pact yes sof has broken 1 pact the last uhm 8 years that i can remember right now, feel free to prove me wrong on the other hand plenty of alliances other then SOF has done that im im pretty sure theyve done it more then once as well

And if we are to count cheating, landfarms, other fluff i think you'll have huge problems finding a cleaner alliance then SOF

so really fluff away somewhere

*Besides the fact that you were "leader" of NaturalS and then subsequent leader of SoF? But don't bother responding to that, there are massive logical flaws in your argument even without that.

Do you have specific evidence of Anoniem himself being deleted? If you as a leader in SoF can't be held accountable for SoF's actions, how can you call ano a cheater for being a member in Elitez? (or at least call him a hypocrite for calling others cheaters) Unless you have specific evidence of him being deleted or cheating...

Which I doubt you do. Because usually you say things without thinking about them for one second. Or you just lack the facility for making logical arguments.

lol ive been a leader in sof since 04, havnt made every single call since then actually

Anoniem knowingly played in a cheating alliance, if he got deleted himself or not doesnt really matter awhole lot to me he played with them thus he supported it etc

And the difference between the 2 of us is that i know things before i say them while you just have an opinion about things instead of facts

Wow brilliant satirical post by Autocorrect. Well done.

Why argue and fight? Why not join SOL for their 75th reset instead? I am certain it will be a blast.

Basically Anoniem played in a cheating alliance 10 years ago (well about 5/6 if you count GNV which you should), so you contend he shouldn't talk about cheating.

But you've still done nothing to counter the fact that you were a leader in a pact breaking alliance (notice how you didn't leave SoF after they broke the pact?) yet I still see you regularly giving your opinions on which alliances are breaking which pacts to gangbang which alliances.

Anyway arguing with you is completely pointless. Because simple logic isn't your forte. I'm done here (at least on this topic. more than happy to troll your other contributions :) )

Indeed, SOF broke 1 pact a few years ago EVO has broken 2 in the last year or just over a year troll bout that for a bit

And yes its pointless since we will never agree, on the other hand in general i dont agree with people as stuck up as you are and since you rather bring up a tag breaking a pact once then a tag breaking a pact once whos being lead by a bunch of former cheaters is up to you

fluff!

Just thought this post deserved some more consideration. Who said fee beer?

erm correction breaking a pact twize in my last post, i dont wanna edit fluff

also kinda funny how anoniem ended up in 2 cheating tags in a row, must be a coincidence that he first played with skyelitez and then ended up in GNV weeeeeeee

Your tl;dr was tl;dr.

Actually Ivan wasn't a leader in sof constantly since 2004. He was gone for some sets while I was prez. I CAN NITPICK!!:P

Ivan also didn't really have much input into sof's FA until late 2007 or so.. I think. I did a lot of it on my own under the table so to speak (queue joke)
:P
So don't blame him for my stunts :P

BUT MARTIAN DOES EVERYTHING IN THE NAME OF fluff

TLDR

ooglyboogly

Ivan, what pact did you have with Rival last set that allowed you to call them in to hit SOL?

lol, that long post by Autocorrect is sooo far off.

BONUS!

where's Lvan... i remember that impostor also :D he needs to answer to haniong

also Scode:

"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
"

i re-read it again. it never says "at war" it says "involved in a war". i said at war here to summarize on AT, but the actual phrase in the pact was "involved in a war", and that was the term you are trying to make a point with here.

evo was also technically involved in a war with rival when they were FAing imagnum countries.

and when rival hit evo, they were definitely involved at that point.

it really is a really badly worded void clause written on kj (on purpose?).

hanlong, it also says the FDP's in question have to be listed in advance of the pact taking effect, for that clause to be used. Which never happened.

you are correct. but i believe i already told KJ rival and sof was our allies, so i dont think KJ would think this is such a big secret.

it's not like Rival was some secret ally of ours that you guys didn't see coming... i even told you guys about this for a while.

actually KJ came to me at the beginning of this reset regarding rival and them being our allies.. he knew they were our allies before we even signed this pact...

Xinhuan, hanlong and autocorrect. bear with me as i am on my cellphone but yes unless side b confirms they are at war then technicaly they are not at war. hanlong if sol did not hit laf at al and did nt post an anouncment like for example someone policing for them, then no i woule not of considered sol to be at war with laf only laf to be at war with sol which is 'technicaly' two different things. I use as an example a set when i was pres of imag. we wanted to hit evo or monks or some other pansy netting alliance and ix hit us pre-emptivly to save their ally. we ignored ix and fs'd our target we never considered ourselves in a state of war with ix because we were ignoring them. In no way before laf hit evo did evo announce publicaly or as far as im aware, in private to laf, that they considered themselves at war

yea but the term says

"involved in a war"

not "at war" scode.

So Autocorrect, please enlighten me, since you bring SOL into this thread, why does SOL=Evil ?

i thought the reason why alliances had leaders was because they represented the members of said alliance and that they set the policys and made offical replies to other alliances actions etc, not vice versa ? :)

Hm no Autocorrect you misunderstand; the FDP's you intend to void the pact over must first be explicitly listed.

Secondly, there was another unap that we had, regardless.

Coming from a government policymaker, this wall'o'text downright distressed me.

In that case hanlong you could of dec'd on evo before rival did, Thanks for clearing that up for me. No pact broken if that was the pact signed.

iScode,

"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."

Evo is a party of the pact. Rival is at war with Evo. By definition of "involved", even if we agreed with your argument that Evo is not at war with Rival, Evo is still involved in a war, albeit a one-sided one.

Pact this, pact that.

Who gives a fluff? It's clouding the real issue; LaF's constant gangbanging and fighting dumb wars is driving people from the game and putting the game on a course of never ending stupidity.

Thanks, LaF.

just to be clear. KJ wrote all these terms and sent it to me.

all of the pacts i have written and sent to other alliance leaders never had this problem.

the whole political jungle jim by Autocorrect actually reminds me of this.

i don't know a pact with Evo has to be this complicated, especially when in regards to LaF (they might not do this to everyone else). everyone else is fine with no void clauses or at best "void if x FSes a FDP of y".

Autocorrect: that long post of yours was quite a doozy. If you believe even half of that, I would love to have whatever koolaid you're drinking.

Hanlong: perhaps pacts have had to become complicated after the pact clauses that laf wrote last set were used by LaF to break that pact and FS Evo while they were netting (because laf ALWAYS wants to net right?). Especially after laf had maneuvered their pacts such that many of Evo's allies would not be able to defend them as they honored their pacts with you, despite laf's underhandedness. I think we can all understand that Evo would be more than cautious with you, and of course the misunderstanding and deceit must always be from Evo since it's always LaF doing the blind-siding. Riiight.

Evo has to worry about clauses to be able to defend and be defended as necessary. Sometimes new policies have issues and need to be fixed, but LaF's actions over the past two sets of breaking pacts so they can literally blindside Evo speaks a lot louder than any contrived plan you might try to pin on KJ.

You really have to try to be this dumb, right?

honestly we are beating a dead horse, if there is no trust then why make a Pact?

so suddenly because I said something in a email, I am not allowed to hit you? are you supposed to use that to your advantage? to take advantage of a situation because I shouldn't be able to hit you?

No good will, no pact, if you are going to make a pact just to keep the tension HIGH then don't make one, EVO and LaF should war each other until both are tired of the crap or one is willing to compromise, that is how it should work; if EVO doesn't trust LaF then no amount of conditionals is going to change that, also if LaF feels EVO should kick out (or cut the tongue) of certain members, then no amount of conditionals is going to change that.

Your next pact will be something like

IF slagpit, Anonniem or KJ says a single word about LaF its members or its allies, consider this pact broken.

IF a single untagged suicider hits EVO consider this pact broken.

"after the pact clauses that laf wrote last set"

speaking of last reset, evo wrote that pact also. nice try though. this might explain why you guys were all so adamant this was a LaF led evil plot.

again the point stands, why make such complicated pacts with void clauses?

And I can only guess you are a current member and fanboy of LaF based on your extreme bias?

I have freely admitted that have a bias (I tend to know the inner workings of Evo better than LaF and I know the heads (yank, qz, diez) are not devious in the least), but I also work hard to base my views on fact. I am more than happy to change an opinion that is shown wrong.

I'm sorry if you think that LaF blindsiding Evo two sets in a row (one while Evo had zero war prep and was actively netting) because of "disputes" that LaF had with the pacts is propaganda, because that is known by all.

Additionally, as I have mentioned before, if LaF simply had issues with the pacts and wanted to ALWAYS net as Hanlong has stated, then why not contact Evo's FA and make the appropriate changes without war? Last set, LaF was war-prepping since the very beginning. They obviously did not want to net, and then they tried to trap Evo with their clause with the sole purpose of hitting them (as SolidSnake has mentioned with great pride).

Then this set, according to the logs Hanlong did contact an FA and threatened to hit Evo using the clause in the pact, which the FA then told him was incorrect, because of the standard uNAP for this set and that the clause he was referring to wasn't until the following set.

Is any of that information wrong? The pact breaking is bad, but most members of outside alliances tend to see that there could be misunderstandings, which sometimes they do happen. But how can anyone doubt that LaF wants to war Evo repeatedly when they don't try diplomacy and just blind-side alliances they were pacted to moments before, especially with no regard to fair fights or war prep (the very things LaF previously complained war alliances were doing to ruin the game).

Tertius, logic clearly doesn't work.