At least you hope it was legitimately gained...

Well I can never know exact what Evo/SOL leaders knew but I've not seen or heard anything to suggest they had any illegitimate information.

And unlike some at LaF and SoF excuses like "I have a spy with MD heads access" doesn't work on me.

You may question methods and strategy that is well within your right.

But the thing I believe Alliance leaders have forgotten in recent years is that one of the biggest components of politics is diplomacy. These days diplomacy seems to be orientated around manipulation and the feeding of false information.

Once upon a time if an Alliance was under threat of losing a war they had no answer to (or allies to support them) their leadership would do what was necessary to negotiate a way out of it. Usually pacts would then come into play. Sometimes negotiations would not be successful but often they were. There has been little to no negotiations for many sets, only determination and stubbornness.

It is my opinion that Alliance Leaders need to do what is in the best interests of their members and not their ambitions.

I tell you now as a Head of SoF, any Alliance that has approached me to negotiate has always been met fairly and honestly.

Not that i am in any position of that sort for my alliance ( or will ever be ) but i`ll rather donate my left nut and my right eye before coming to 90% of Sof (ignorant, full of themselvs) heads.

My impresion based on facts i`ve noticed on AT is that the only person to whom you can talk decently there is Murf. And the retired "mod martian" who`s an example to follow for this comunity.

Even the way you put the problem here "approached me to negotiate" rings a bell. Why don`t you approache them to negotiate ? because you are big and scarry ? You just acomplished being the bigest and meanest alliance in EE - is not like you were and will be like that 4ever.

Politics and dimplomacy of this game are dead and buried. You can`t aproach certain persons in various alliances because you risk to see the convo on AT or insite of the moment "adversary". Neither you can`t discuss open about fluff - for the same reason + others. Dignity reached the buttom low ...

I always discuss things honestly because I know there is always the chance things can be exposed on AT. If you conduct yourself with integrity then you have nothing to hide.

There was no post pertaining to MD or SOL on our head's board or any other board for that matter. Ask qzjul or yank yourself, though it doesn't seem like you care for the answer anyway :)

Considering that I have no reason to lie about this I don't see why you are questioning the validity of my statement.

It's harder to believe that yourself, eugene, h4, ssnake, son goku, don tob etc knew nothing about hanlong/tc cheating... were hanlong/tc the only ones with access to your head's board? didn't it seem strange that hanlong kept falling into secret information/chat logs/fs times etc from other alliances? heh

lostmonk: I enjoy playing the game. I actually find having most of the admins/mods 'campaigning' against us an added challenge, which makes winning taste even sweeter. It doesn't matter how much hard work they put into the game, it doesn't mean they are immune from criticism and my claims are far from baseless. Furthermore, this isn't North Korea, I'm free to post here just like all SoFers are. If you don't like my posts add me to the ignore list.

Arsenal: If my biggest fault in life is being foolish and gullible, then I'll die happy. I don't know how else I was supposed to react. I receive one log showing that you signed FDPs with our enemies, undermining our genuine peace talks, while talking about isolating SoF to neutrality; and another log revealing how you telling SoF that you put pressure on Evo to CF us was all a ploy. I'm sorry that it wasn't my first instinct to accuse LaF of hacking boxcar and it not being a possibility than an ex-MD was unhappy. And as it happens he didn't hack boxcar, but was given access.

I may be have foolish/gulliable/decieved/wrong...etc, but I'm not the one who dropped 3 FDPs, FSed 2 and signed FDPs with their enemies in the last few months.

If you looked at the logs flamey MD was aiming at LaF not SoF. Infact as you correctly state I was trying to get SoF to remain neutral.

For example MD kept its SoF FDP and had out clauses in our Evo and SOL pacts for SoF.

Furthermore, this was after I had first approached Ivan with my suspicions and was basically ignored.

But these things don't get reported because it doesn't suit the narrative.

"SoF/LaF picked out alliances to alienate with extremely uneven numbers"

Been taking lessons from Karl Rove, anoniem? You and your allies are the ones who bully alliances - not SoF or LaF, you know it, and the server knows it.

The assertion that either LaF or SoF bully simply doesn't fly.

The burden of proof is on Evo and SoL to prove that they do not bully alliances.

Human nature never allows for a war to be a fair fight.

If not fair, at least being close to fair. lol

Indeed, I knew you were not plotting against us. I knew about the clauses that protected SoF, but that doesn't make it all alright. The manipulation involved to keep us neutral was all too apparent; from undermining our peace talks, to the staged performance about putting pressure on Evo.

I am aware you had a convo with Ivan long after I had seen the logs, but I cannot comment if there was an earlier convo; but signing a FDP with an alliance that had spent a year trying to build up a coalition against us and another who had BROKEN a pact with us the set before; then finally only telling us the day before war when you were desperate goes beyond any normal behaviour from a FDP.

Yet, even though I knew this, I didn't drop MD, or organise any anti-MD coalition, we just let you go ahead with your 1vs1 with LaF, knowing LaF would probably win and maybe things would go back to normal after that set. In a way you signed a unap with them and all things were looking good, but the scandal broke out and we agreed that LaF should take the beating. But we also stated that we didn't want it running into this set and you agreed, but said you could not say the same about SoL/Evo.

Yet, this set, we were told to drop LaF or face being dropped/downgraded or given unacceptable clauses in our pact. That is where we drew the line; enough was enough. We were not backing down on our position that we would defend LaF from these two alliances, whose political motivations were apparent before any ounce of principle. These two alliances who have lied to us/openly badmouthed us in the past few sets were not going to escape a war with us regardless anyway.

Despite all that... it was still you who FSed us. =)

#1, I never said you shouldn't criticize or post. But your claims are completely baseless, since all the admins, not just pang, have seen the evidence of what hanlong and TC did and you are trying to spin it as Pang trying to pull some fluff. THAT is where you cross the line from criticizing to being outright disrespectful.

Hanlong told me a few sets not to upset Pang. He told me Pang was the counterbalance to the influence of the Evo admins, but having them all against us is bad news.

Maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but a week after Pang politically declared against Hanlong, a week after Evo realised their site had been hacked after hacking LaF, the cheating scandall... maybe it has more credence than one would think.

I also have the right to be a disrespectful as I want; especially to someone who obtained information about me including my IP to track my countries, even if it was years ago.

So your basis for making allegations, is because hanlong, a proven cheater, recommended something to you. This is really the best you can do? I can understand sticking by your friends, but when you find the condom he used to fluff your girlfriend, Id think youd wonder at that point.

Well then Flamey if it is ok for you to make baseless accusations then it would be ok for me to say that SoF houses cheaters because Hanlong told you guys he got the information directly from the database?

I have no evidence to support these claims but under your rules I can say them right?

Making claims of mod/admin bias without having any proof of it will only make the mods/admins stop devoting their free time to this game and ensure that it fails...

Ok, same page all good.

1. Feel free to post all the baseless accusations you want, it is no skin off my back.

2. Who says I don't have any proof?

3. Is it just me, but has Pang/Detmer been blaming SoF/Laf for PDM's fluffty diplomacy for the last 3 sets or not? If that's not admin/mod bias, I don't know what is and hell, have you not been reading the thinly veiled threats to delete SoF countries two weeks back?

...So they will stop developing stuff if they don't get their way, infact I think I saw a thinly veiled threat about that a while back. My response is, I don't care. It wouldn't be worth playing if we had to conform to the admins politics just to get them to develop stuff. Well not that much development is going on anyway...

More threads need to be like this.

Full of insults and propaganda? I think not

I didn't read most of the thread, but isn't this the same situation LaF put other clans in without even numbers?

No.

The actually talking back and forth that has been occurring.

You must have skipped half the comments. This back and forth should have been happening for ages already if everyone would have gotten off of their ego trips then.

Oh it has been going on for ages but its pretty hard to have a conversation when 1 side doesnt listen ie

YOUR HARRASING EVO

WE FSED THEM BECAUSE THEY BROKE A PACT WITH US AND TRIED TO GANGBANG US WITH SOL/TIE

The following has been posted about 3000000 billion times and yet for some reason people doesnt seem to understand it and im sure im going to get to post those lines yet again on some thread

Anyway some nice posts by Flamey

2. If you have proof why have you not posted it?
3. Detmer just became a mod recently so you can't claim mod bias for stuff he has been apparently doing for "3 resets".

I'm not talking about admins no longer developing the game because "they don't get their way" I'm talking about them not wanting to develop a game when they are constantly accused of having bias in their admin duties. Developing an open source project can be thankless as it is let alone having people fluff and moan without any facts that you are using your admin powers inappropriately.

If you don't like the amount of development that is going on why don't you contribute and try and make a difference. I love it when people complain about something they get to do for free while others donate their time. If you want to see a change, change it yourself.

'And the retired "mod martian" who`s an example to follow for this comunity"...
Me an example to follow for anything??.. all bad lol:P


Regarding development. There is still development going on. Most of it right now is beefing up back end stuff and beefing up the game mod tools. Front end stuff that you'll see is still being worked on and we're hoping to run some beta testing on a change for next set. I'll announce publically once there has been any kind of decision regarding this/direction to go.

For the record Pang was going to go inactive for the summer prior to anything happening between pdm/sof. His inactivity really has zero to do with any kind of game politics.
And as for the rumors that all the staff is pro-evo or whatever, just keep in mind that who gets to be a board mod/game mod is almost entirely my call. Pretty much qz/pang don't overide me in this regard. I wasn't picking people taking politics into account. Also note that none of the board moderators can see your country info/access the game db or anything like that. All they can do is delete/ban which in the event of abuse of power can very quickly/easily be reversed.
Also note that I can see everything that happens to the game db. The only difference between myself and qz/pang is that I do not have write access to the game db/code (or su on the machine but you know..) If I thought that the admins were actually in a deliberate biased and malicious manner I would resign pretty much immediately.

As to all these rumors about admins conspiracies.. you guys really overanalyze things. Having been an alliance leader myself I know how easy it is to get emotionally attached to game politics and what goes on and how it some things can make you go on long angry rants. Sometimes mods (admins) go over the line in terms of posting and they need to be gently reminded to back off because of their position.. but that's as far as it ever goes.

And yes.. I see logs of everything.. so does ceiling llama.
So lets give this a rest ... please... I'm begging you.

I AM BIASED OF MARTIAN!!!!
TEAM MARTIAN FTW!!!
If you are not on team martian.... I will delete you every set!!! (this is a joke...PP and all else :P )

P.S. Alin...martian is not retired.

Having been told publicly we're going to war for 6 months, we're not interested in even wars. We want wars that are over in 2 weeks so we can go play something else for the remainder of the reset. Next set, another 2 week war, repeat. If you think we're interested in sitting in a war chat room everyday for 6 months, think again. It takes effort running warchats.

Evo/SoL's FS on LaF is not even, because one side had the surprise and prep advantage, even if the country numbers were even. No fight in EE is really even unless its a mutual FS at the same time, with even numbers, and both parties had equal amounts of time to prep for it. If you wanted an even fight, you could have asked/arranged it instead of using "but we have even numbers" as propaganda to an uneven fight.

In fact, that's the whole point of a First Strike - to gain an initial advantage by striking first.

Isn`t he kinda retired from Sof ? ( like not involved to much in game politics and stuff ?)

/me hugs Alin

its ok bro, its not your fault.

martian is not involved in SoF whatsoever. He is like a guest with full access but he does not participate.

martian visits SOF site for the women. :D

I'm laughing so hard at all these ridiculous SOF posts. Im seeing things like ' winning is sweet' etc etc.. You girls have forgotten what it is like to wina war. Winning wars because hanlong told you when to hit is not winning a war. Having one legitimate victory (over a depleted PDM) in TWO years is disgraceful. MONSTERS have a more defensible war record than the disgraceful New SOF.

You guys dropped the ball and have become an embarrassment to the old SOF. You are in bed with LAF and RD and never get engaged in a fair fight you might lose. Scorpion was the one leader that made SOF a feared and respected alliance. Covering for the inept Helmet.

Do us all a favor and bring someone like that back. Helmet is a joke and Sov is a retard.

Xinhuan: 6 months of no pact =/= 6 months of war.
It is an attitude like that that is causing this game to go backwards.

Sov: It is somewhat hypocritical of SoF to attempt to tell other alliances how to pact and who to pact/not to pact, but get pissy when others do it to them don't you think?
At the very least, Ivan has admitted here on the boards to SoF telling NA not to pact sol or sof would attack them, which SoF then did, and let's not forget the now infamous pact that was offered to PDM, in which you tried to dictate to us how we were allowed to pact basically everyone on the server.
"Originally posted by Helmet:

Good post. In regards to the statement above SoF has made if very clear that we agreed with them being banned, we agree that they should never be in Laf again and we let evo/sol/md gangbang them last set when the entire alliance (sof) was itching for war.

I felt the above was fair, but beyond that the line was drawn and I made it very clear to anyone that talked to me. The anti-laf side doesn't get to tell SoF and especially not Laf what a fair punishment is. They don't have that right. I stood idle and let them have their retribution and they got greedy for more. They are not going to dictate who we ally with and they're not judge/jury/executioner for this game."

Why is it ok for SoF to attempt to do this, but not for others?

You are grasping at straws to try and make an irrelevant point.

I was not around for NA so I played no role in that nor would I have approached it like that.

You are exaggerating the PDM clause. We had a simple anti-landtrading clause which was in most of our pacts, but rather than negotiate it PDM decided to play stubborn and go on a war footing.

Sov falls down so easily when asked one question:

Apart from bullying PDM, what has SOF achieved apart from relying on allies and sucker punching whenever they have the chance.

The answer is: OOPS let's change the topic.

Sov: it's an entirely relevant point.
How is it ok for SoF to dictate how others are allowed to pact, if it's NOT ok when others tell SoF the same thing?
Given that when said pact was offered to us, only a few coutnries in PDM and RD were landtrading out of the whole server, claiming that it was a standard "anti-landtrading" clause is a bit ridiculous, when it is solely aimed at two alliances.
I would say that's an obvious and blatant attempt to dictate how we could pact RD all in all.

"We had a simple anti-landtrading clause which was in most of our pacts, but rather than negotiate it PDM decided to play stubborn and go on a war footing. "

The following is your own comment:
"Yet, this set, we were told to drop LaF or face being dropped/downgraded or given unacceptable clauses in our pact. That is where we drew the line; enough was enough. "

the following is Helmet's comment:
"They are not going to dictate who we ally with and they're not judge/jury/executioner for this game."


So again, it comes back to it's ok for sof, but not anyone else.
The point is relevant because it seems SoF/LaF feel that they are allowed to play by a different set of rules to everyone else within this game. That it is ok for them to dictate to others, but not for others to dicate to them in the face of wrongdoing.

I was mainly responsible for the NA situation. SoL was building a coalition in the longterm to fight SoL and NA was a threat, if not that set, but in future sets. SoLs influence in NA was very high after SoL pretty much saved them from disbanding by killing imag.

It took 2 sets of war for us to hash out a peace deal that satisfied NA's desire to net in the future and SoF to feel reassured that they would not participate in any SoL coalition.

We do have that clause with pretty much everyone and have enforced it. With PDM we said we don't like the open list, but fair enough, we don't like the aranged grabbing but fair enough, but all we are asking is that countries dont mass landtrade aka hit each other several times a day to create 1000s of free acres in an instant.

We were totally rebuffed and we took legal but annoying action against countries that had benifitted from what we perceived as unfair actions that made us finishing the set netgaining pointless. As a result you defused all our missiles and denied it. Then you asked Hanlong to go into our site and spy on us. We had a chat prepared to do retals on the countries that failed defuse ops on us, but you took this as a FS chat and hit us an hour before it was set.

But the biggest difference to what we did and MD did (as you want answering) I guess is the fact that we were both free to refuse the terms offered and did... but it was PDM who FSed SoF and it was MD who FSed SoF. Yet, it's SoF who are the aggressive ones.

P.S. Helmet actually offered terms without landtrading clauses right at the end. But your high and mighty leadership was set on war, because you thought you were going to win, especially after the missiles defusing.

And people on the Laf/Sof side feel that your side thinks that exact way Drow.

Want to know why 6 months of no pacts equals a war? Because Laf not being pacted to Sol always is a war. With the current political bull crap going on, if these clans are not pacted then how the hell is Sol going to feel safe that we wont FS them and how is Laf going to feel safe that they wont FS us? It will happen because either us or them will decide that they think the other is going to hit them so they will preempt that. That is why people need to sit down and sign a pact with no loophole crap in it. People have difficulty with this though because it will require compromise which is something that some people are simply not very good at right now.

PDM/SoF is not comparable to MD/SoF.

MD/SoF was, simply put, "drop LAF and pact out and we will kill your ally LAF or our allies will kill you". That is a very very dumbed down version of events. The clause mentioned was that the pact would be void if we fought for our allies. Now remember this was supposed to be an act of one of our closest allies.

PDM was simply a clause to do with landgrabbing. At no point did we threaten PDM with war over it. In fact we offered to drop the clause (a point conveniently forgotten) but your leaders chose to FS us instead. Then after that war your leaders decided not to engage in diplomacy but rather threaten SoF publicly.

None of the mentioned issues are remotely comparable. Maybe details were not included in the original statement but the point remains.

hehe Alin i'm quite shocked you think I'm reasonable to talk to

This war would be much more fun if this forum didnt exist

Murf forgot that AT is more fun than the game, quoting Dragon Lance. lol

lol otbol.

Sorry sov, but it is entirely comparable.
It never made it the PDM command tower or external relations forum that sof offered to drop said clause.
Given that we felt SoF were looking for a reason to beat down on us, a feeling given further by the reps that SoF refused to pay in the prior set despite having multiple people in range, contrary to SoF's claims that "no one could FA" among those being people who SENT pacts in order to supposedly send the FA.
When we then get sent a pact which says "you may not do this or that", yes, we are going to feel threatened.
Especially when you now add it to Ivan outright admitting to threatening NA, then saying they've had no problems since. Of course you haven't. You bullied them into pacting HOW YOU TELL THEM TO!

Then I guess a lot of things never got passed on to your forums, such as me assuring PDM that as long as I was in SoF it would not attack PDM that set and it had no intention to. Shouldn't it be obvious by now that if we intend to FS an Alliance we will do so. We won't sit back and poke it.

Helmet made the offer to Pang 1 day after your leadership exploded over the landtrading clause.

But once again we come to the stubbornness that exists in leadership now. There is no more negotiation.

if it's to your benefit to poke it, then of course you will. Pretty much any alliance would. poke it and provoke it into attacking you, then when you smash it in the face repeatedly, you can claim "but it hit me first"

Honestly, I am hoping for a netting set next set, but unless every single alliance on both sides decides to do so, it will not happen. 1 alliance will start, the ally/ies of the other will come to the other's aid, then the ally/ies of the starting alliance will come in, and we're back at square one.

you all suck ass and LaF is the best ingen protest jävla nollor!

And thus... the need for pacts.