I'm only posting this for the sake of truthfulness.
LAF are claiming that evo refused to FS sol; however the COALITION CANNOT FS ANY ALLIANCE UNLESS IT HAS 66% SUPER MAJORITY. THEREFORE EVO DID NOT BREAK ANY TERMS AND IT IS LAF THAT ARE THE PACT BREAKERS.

+++++++++++
Preamble:
+++++++++++
Friday 29th July 2011
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: i like SOL
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: actually
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: well let me clarify that
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i have nothing against htem
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i just want them to be more on par with the rest of the server
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: so we dont have to spend so mcuh time worrying about the bs they try to cook up every reset
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: im fine with netgainig 3 resets then fighting a prearranged war with SOL to take my turn doing so with all the netters
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: or whatever

[Are LaF on par with the rest of the server? Or do they only war when they have 5 alliances backing them or when they have a pact then break it and FS early into a reset?]

+++++++++++
Below is EVO/LAF pact:
+++++++++++
Anti-BLINDSIDING Coalition PACT (with uNAP terms)
--Terms--
The coalitions purpose is to prevent netters from being blindsided during netting sets by alliances engaging them for the express purpose of having an easy war. Past examples include SOL -> Collab, SOL -> Evo, SOL -> LaF, and others. The emphasis is towards unprovoked wars, or wars provoked by minor slights that would otherwise have been ignored had the aggressor not badly wanted a war. The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war.

-----> The agreement will be unbreakable auto-renew; however if an alliance fails to hold up their end of the agreement (ie does not enter into war), then they will be immidiately dropped from the coalition and will not thereafter be allowed to resign unless a UNANIMOUS vote by other alliances allows their reentry.<------

New entrants to the coalition must be admitted by a UNANIMOUS vote of the existing parties.

What constitues a blindside will be voted on, with a 50% majority required to commit the coalition to war.

Alliances in the coalition will not sign UNAPS or DP's with "warring clans" unless they provide UNAP/DP to all in the coalition; warring clans may be those commonnly known as "warring clans" or those listed before the set & pacting begin; if an additional alliance becomes a problem they may be listed for futher inclusion in the "warring clans/aggressors".
++++++++++++++++++

1) No alliances were ever listed as problem alliances/war alliances before a reset began.
2) LaF never requested EVO to FS any alliance.
3) LaF signed a pact with SOL last reset (hypocrisy).
4) EVO had a BREAKABLE pact with SOL, if they hit our allies.
5) Our pact is auto-renewable and unbreakable.
6) The pact states 50% majority; however there are only 2 alliances in the coalition, so they CANNOT be a 50% majority with only two member alliances.
7) " The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war."
Is it just me or is half of 100% equal to 50%, and not 66%?

Jun/08/11 20:20:59
qzjul: sign the coalition terms ?
Hanlong Wang: yes
qzjul: signed! qzjul, evo vp
Hanlong Wang: k signed hanlong LaF don :P

[I've inserted the above confirmation because SolidSnake is claiming that certain things such as the 66% super-majority are not in the pact when his Don Hanlong is the one who signed the pact.]

++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS RESET
++++++++++++++++++++++

From: hanlong
To: anoniem
Subject: RE: renew uNAP
Date: Oct 3rd, 16:02
Message Body:
? not sure what you are referring to. our old pact stands unless explicitly cancelled. unless you want to sign two pacts for one reset? not sure how that works

----------------------- Original Message[Anoniem] -----------------------
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P
++++++++

--
[The key word there is *explicitly* cancelled, so our pact apparently stands when it suits LaF and when it doesn't they will break it without warning and FS evo.]
--

==================================================

SSnake is claiming we have a FOP, but all we have is a UNAP with an extra-Anti gangbang coalition pact, which if you look at the terms none of which were broken.

If anybody would like me to bring up some stuff about Lord Tarnava's running suiciders on EVO or about LaF dropping members to win avg nw against their ""FOP"" buddies EVO then please feel free to contact me. Or i can put you in contact with some of the members from evo that have quit earth entirely due to the actions of laf over the past 3 resets.

OH BUT REMEMBER IT'S ONLY SOL THAT FS ALLIES, BREAK PACTS AND GANGBANG INNOCENT NETTERS.

DEATH TO SOL.


P.S. for the sake of completeness:
Do you understand what a 50% MAJORITY is.

You also had a 50% MAJORITY OPPOSING some so called war. If you wish to break a pact because diez said no to us FSing SoL, then you need to EXPLICITLY say so.

[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week
[12:43am] S|snake: i need to know definitively pretty quickly
[12:43am] diez: we are definitely netting this set
[12:43am] S|snake: so is it absolutely out of the question you hitting sol with us
[12:43am] diez: majority wants to net
[12:44am] diez: so even if we somehow went to war, activity will be very low
[12:44am] diez: and we'll lose members too
[12:44am] diez: hopefully you understand that, being the other netting tag and all that...
[12:45am] S|snake: laf war alot, so we're pretty used to this scenario, my main thing was to avoid dragging LCN into it since they've warred so much lately
**********************[12:46am] S|snake: if you cant, you cant, and we'll find some other way, but eug just told me we were fop'd so we may as well ask****************

I would like to hear LaFs side to this. According to SS, the war was voided by Evo.



Unless there was extra conversations that occurred between leaders, I do not see that has occured.

Jiman - according to Solid Snake, Jesus Christ is a Muslim, Pang is Gay and I am retarded. Come on. He says, she says.

yes, i want to hear what exactly laf claims as 'breach of pact'.

Till then...detah to hypocrite.

i don't really see the problem here anoniem. i really am out of the loop recently and busy with rl, but you actually personally requested my response here since i arranged most of those pacts and can answer the questions (since most are related to previous resets).

[quote poster=anoniem; 12874; 227179]I'm only posting this for the sake of truthfulness.
+++++++++++
Preamble:
+++++++++++
Friday 29th July 2011
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: i like SOL
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: actually
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: well let me clarify that
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i have nothing against htem
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i just want them to be more on par with the rest of the server
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: so we dont have to spend so mcuh time worrying about the bs they try to cook up every reset
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: im fine with netgainig 3 resets then fighting a prearranged war with SOL to take my turn doing so with all the netters
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: or whatever [/quote]

i don't see what's the problem or point here? is there something i said wrong in that chat? i just said what i thought and reading it again i still think it is a valid point.

now here's where things go different:



you should ask your own VP. it was asked. you said no. do you guys really don't communicate with each other?



see below since it will be answered there



we did too. so what's the hypocrisy here, unless you are hypocritical also?

From: Makinso
To: hanlong
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pacting
Date: Aug 5th, 09:53
Message Body:
Looks fine to me.

Signed,
Me myself and I for SOL ;-)

----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
i just want a DP clause:

This pact is unbreakable unless one of the parts declares war on the other part's LDP or FDP. In this case, the pact may be declared void.



EXCEPT...



1/2 = 50%



wait you just said it was 50% here, but it doesn't apply to #6?



yes i did sign it on 6/8.

[quote poster=anoniem; 12874; 227179]
++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS RESET
++++++++++++++++++++++

From: hanlong
To: anoniem
Subject: RE: renew uNAP
Date: Oct 3rd, 16:02
Message Body:
? not sure what you are referring to. our old pact stands unless explicitly cancelled. unless you want to sign two pacts for one reset? not sure how that works

----------------------- Original Message[Anoniem] -----------------------
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P
++++++++

--
[The key word there is *explicitly* cancelled, so our pact apparently stands when it suits LaF and when it doesn't they will break it without warning and FS evo.]
-- [/quote]

yes i didn't want to sign a uNAP, i said i was continuing our old pact. and i said that. again what is the problem?

i didnt do much this reset, was kinda bummed out and busy with rl (notice how i didn't post for a while).

but i just found the convo ss had with diez

and we asked him to help us out according to the pact terms but he said

"[18:48] diez: anyway, I made it clear that we can't help you guys this set, sorry
"

on Oct 15, 2011, two days ago.

could've just said yes =)

Do you understand what a 50% MAJORITY is.

You also had a 50% MAJORITY OPPOSING some so called war. If you wish to break a pact because diez said no to us FSing SoL, then you need to EXPLICITLY say so.

[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week
[12:43am] S|snake: i need to know definitively pretty quickly
[12:43am] diez: we are definitely netting this set
[12:43am] S|snake: so is it absolutely out of the question you hitting sol with us
[12:43am] diez: majority wants to net
[12:44am] diez: so even if we somehow went to war, activity will be very low
[12:44am] diez: and we'll lose members too
[12:44am] diez: hopefully you understand that, being the other netting tag and all that...
[12:45am] S|snake: laf war alot, so we're pretty used to this scenario, my main thing was to avoid dragging LCN into it since they've warred so much lately
**********************[12:46am] S|snake: if you cant, you cant, and we'll find some other way, but eug just told me we were fop'd so we may as well ask****************

PLEASE show me some logs of evo/laf where there was a list of alliances NOT to pact?

good night hanlong.

so that's the problem

should've just said 51% / 49%

50%/50% makes it retarded to argue about it then

cuz we are both right =)

see you on the battlefield then

<3

i'm done here. i actually don't know what went on this reset really so you are asking the wrong person. but i answered all your points to my logs of anything from the previous resets you asked about.

good luck to your reset

LOL @ 50% majority.

"The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war."

you acted preemptively against the only other member without having a 66% majority.

we are not both right. you are a piece of fluff and are therefore unfit to quantify what amounts to being correct.

nice pact breaking =)

nice.. name calling =) cool

Come on. give me a better excuse to fight scums like LaFfers...

1. you prepped for war.
2. you asked your 'ally' to help you with your 'war'.
3. your ally is not obliged to help, by the letter of your pact.
4. you FS you ally.

Weee. Great way to be friends.

Nah, great way to be 'ally'. Anyone UNAP with LAF? Oh yeah, the pact that can be broken at Laf's convenience.

just fyi if you just want to insult me and call names go for it. i won't have hurt feelings because really you are just venting some anger on me on things i didn't even do =)

i don't really care. just like most of those threads you make up calling LaF names and crap that i don't even bother. like i said b4 i posted i was trying to tell clarify some points that looked like you needed my clarification on since it dealt with stuff i did when i was active and stuff the previous few resets :P

again, good luck.

then why are you here commenting on things you "didn't do"?

get yourself a dictionary before you post anymore tripe.

he wants to post coz you're 47 posts above him!

and LaFers don't want to lose even in most number of posts.

oh sorry about pointing out some things that were obvious to me just from reading your post. i don't have to post anymore if you don't want me to. i'm sure you rather talk to ss anyways ;P

whatever.

omg bertz u are right.

anoniem does have me barely beat hMMMMMM

must spam more?

Perhaps he enjoys watching anoniem talk himself into a frenzy

Oh and bertz I have the Laf backing in the anoniem post war, not Hanlong. I > anon ;)

Wow, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. LaF didn't have the 66% super majority to preemptively FS a war alliance so they void the ANTI-BLINDSIDING clause so that they can BLINDSIDE their former ally. Just wow.

That'll show those evil warring alliances that think they can ruin netting sets in EE... see they can't have any fun if you go ahead and ruin the netting sets for them!

try laughing and crying at the same time. its tougher than you think.

THE COALITION CANNOT FS ANY ALLIANCE UNLESS IT HAS 66% SUPER MAJORITY. THEREFORE EVO DID NOT BREAK ANY TERMS AND IT IS LAF WHO ARE THE PACT BREAKING SCUM.

As you can see above hanlong agreed that he signed such a pact and by doing so has confirmed that LaF have broken the terms.

who said that was the reason? did i say "LaF cancelled the pact with evo because they didn't act on 66% super majority?"

i don't know exactly why, but i can see a few parts that ss might have excercised which could be valid

the 50% majority which can go both ways (so i really hate arguing on this one)

or the

Alliances in the coalition will not sign UNAPS or DP's with "warring clans" unless they provide UNAP/DP to all in the coalition; warring clans may be those commonnly known as "warring clans" or those listed before the set & pacting begin; if an additional alliance becomes a problem they may be listed for futher inclusion in the "warring clans/aggressors".

and you did admit you have a pact with SOL, but we did last reset also so it is kind of wishy washy (as you could've broken it on the same grounds last reset).. but it still doesn't remove it as a valid reason too.

would i make an exact answer? well its 1am here and ss is probably sleeping right now so i won't know until i ask him if you really cared that much :P

Bonus

my 2 cents and this is it.... but having a pact between 2 clans with the figure of 66% in it is retarded in the first place. If it doesn't have a third member it shouldnt exist either way.

Also this brings up the question, it seems both LaF and Evo had breakable pacts with SoL in the case of being hit by them, so LaF had already decided to go back on their word and break one of their pacts. Either to FS SoL (not in defense of an ally) or to FS Evo (because LaF are asshats).

I know the standard operating procedure for LaF is to obfuscate threads that make them look bad by posting lame jokes over and over again, but seriously, you know that everyones sees you as the douchebags that you are, right?

How did Evo void the unap with Laf?

http://forums.earthempires.com/...318835224&z=sg-is-fat
Laf's official policy is there. Please refer yourself

and i'm going to sleep.

good night =)

i dont make "lame jokes" to obsfucate threads, i do it because you guys are getting too personal and worked up and i was hoping some rumor would make you guys realize in the end its still a game =)

in other words "more pew pew less q q"

and locket is right

SG is too fat. that chipotle is bad for you :P

Anon's 1100th post. love that

They were just looking for small flaws in pact to make some reasons for dec.
LaF vs. Evo war is clearly inevitable. It's just that LaF don't want a fair fight. Just look at locket.
With 2000+ posts, it's just not fair! See you in the battlefield.
(i have no future in posts war)

lol well im lucky I didnt face nukevil.. Pretty sure he is near unbeatable ;)

god locket u do spam too much

you have twice my post count.

i surrender to locket. please give me a ceasefire :(

We are LaF, we are legion. Ive been member of the cult for years, and i got killed a lot, i lost countries that diez is dreaming wet dreams about, man once i fluffing lost a 36k acre country 20 days into the set, I never cry, LOOK AT ME IM A REAL MAN. No i will go give my woman some love.

I just study too much and studying=me getting distracted here..

the truth is all in the original post, so hanlong/locket can try as they might, but there posts just add further fuel to their douchebag bonfire.

How is it that my posts add fuel to any fire? you are raging on here and I am simply using it as distraction from being productive and having a semi friendly banter with whomever is involved. You should take a break from posting.. you are always so angry.

haha i took out my dog b4 hitting the bed and had to read this again

since you made a post and i must win the post war i'll make a response again

you can call me a douchebag (as i said name calling doesn't really bug me), but you can't say "truth is all in the original post" when i already refuted some of your points, some of which you later agreed upon yourself.

but i really want to give you an honest take of LaF/Evo relations in the past few reset.

i genuinely wanted to patch the bs going on between us. it turned out so gay and hopeless in the end that i gave up and i let others take care of it. i literally lost all hope and just events over these past 2 reset really turned me off for the game.

take a note that i'm trying not to be biased (but inevitably i'm a LaFfer so i will have bias towards them, but i'll gladly point out our flaws too)

things were going peachy between us until the LT suicide allegations. i actually approached you guys saying some LaFfers didn't restart and there might be a possibility but i don't have any proof and was hoping you guys would help me find proof.

you guys used this against me and started to slander LT and LaF all over AT. i largely ignored it but i remember usually i would post "please provide the proof".

i really want to see that proof still :(

second thing that i assume went south was the untag retal incident. i still don't understand why you guys hit an untagged that had 27M jets and don't expect to get retaled? responsibility for suiciders who detag doesn't mean protection from getting retaled... i'm sorry. yes 72 hour tag responsbility for suicides is valid, but PS retaling grabs done on countries who grab them isn't a suicide. i was a little peeved you msged me while i was in nyc on vacation and you treated it like it was the end of the world when eugene told me he already answered you, and you were seeking a different response?

HOWEVER despite all that i do agree it was a douchey thing to drop members to try to win ANW if a tag admin did indeed drop just to win anw. if that happened i apologize completely. i told a member who didn't play for weeks not to drop himself when he asked me about whether he should drop. he finished like 35M nw. maybe there was members who didn't want to play and didn't bother asking and just dropped themselves? i don't know who did the dropping honestly. did they detag themselves? did some tag admin do it? i know i didn't drop those 2 guys eos (i wasn't even online during that time) can you guys let me know who did it? or is that too hard too? i mean it is taking you a while to find those "LT cheating/suicide allegation" proof that i really want to see also.

and using LaF hate theme this reset? realy? ....

if you stop being so confrontational and actually logically communicate and accomplish things, things would work out better.

i communicated every single point to you and you could've processed it in the way i assumed you would and things would turned out much different (provide me proof instead of using my speculation which I PROVIDE YOU aginast myself into LaF slander fest, etc.)

sure i could've said all these out in public earlier, but really most of AT doesn't want to hear whining so i spared them the expense.

and for that point that reminds me, i don't know why you always hit AT first instead of msging me for issues anoniem?

why would i message you for issues? you know full well that LT was suiciding on evo.
you know full well you detagged 2 members in the last seconds to steal avg nw.
you know full well it's not the first time you've detagged members in the last seconds trying to steal avg nw from evo.
you know full well you broke a pact when you had no right in doing so, by any stretch of the imagination.
you know full well evo only speak about laf when solidsnake or some other half-wit makes some a derogatory remark toward evo first.
you also know full well you were playing one of those ttrs that were over-grabbing evo a few sets ago, yet you tried to play dumb and blame it on "old vets who just like to grab and i'll make them stop"
you don't accept 72hr responsibility.
in fact, you don't accept responsibility for anything.
you are and will always be dishonourable.

why bother reason with hanlong? He already said he doesn't mind the name calling, or any logic with the decision ot do with Laf. He said it so. He has been busy with RL, so faglong has nothing to do with Laf decision - apart from signing its FA pacts and providing one or two figurehead AT quotes for us to laugh at.

At the end of the day - it's just pure simple truth about Laf and their hypocrisy. THey can't net well, they just detag members. They cheat (because i say so). They dislike suiciders but they are the biggest of suiciders. They scream murder when blindsided - and they only go to war blindsiding others.

I am confused why anoniem is using Laf and disHonourable in the same sentence. Laf is the epitome of Scums and Hypocrisy. We should all applaud them for the brilliant Machiavellian approach that they manage to find Diez to say "no" yesterday and thus fall into their "Devious" PLan.

:)

ssstttttt ... anoniem is trying to make people busy with reading, expecially LAFer, while his comrade is running a warchat. Got you !!!!!

This old trick with hard to understand's chat log, is not working anymore.
You should try some sex talk, and trust me, people will reading it to the end, and forget to stonewall :P :P :P

Wow, you guys are all so riled up... So you are not so good at politics as you thought? Suck it up as a learning experience and find a way to get back at us. Or by all means continue with the fluffstorm. It sure is as amusing as I thought it would be ;)

Evo only speak after Laf has spoken? Waiting for your true leaders to speak I see!

I guess Evo doesn't understand that politics is player-created. A successful alliance isn't one that just knows how to net. It also needs to war well when required, and be politically smart. From all indications, Evo has neither of the last two and only knows how to post on the forums, all bark and no bite to actually FS anyone and make a statement/stand. You can argue over policies all you want, such as with SoF about 2-stepping, but if you don't do anything but make idle threats, nobody will take your chatter seriously.

If we are the scumbags that Evo keeps claiming us to be, how has LaF survived for 12 years?

Lots of people on AT have asked for a war between us, and we're giving one to make a statement. If you failed to recognize you might be blind-sided, and not jumped on red alert the moment SS contacted you to FS SoL, that is your own fault.

At the end of the day, this is a game. And we are having fun. And the riled-up posts just adds to our amusement.

Holy crap, I don't think EE needs warmongering alliances anymore :S

I skipped your self-conceited posts.

Politics? Yes, breaking pacts with no grounds is definitely politics.

Thanks for playing.

P.S. How have LaF survived? Possibly the multies, the RD ties, the bots and all of the above.

Again, I thank you.

Yeah you give one unfair war. lol


Because we never thought uNAP is breakable? rofl

Yeah it's just a game. But because of your silly acts, you just gave some of us the reason to convert the FUN to throwing you out of this game.

berts, believe me. after this set, laf and evo will be best of friends again. it happened multiple times already. :)

Is EVO really getting to LaF so much that LaF feels their only cause of action is to be pact breakers?

Time will tell if it was a good political move or not, seems for a netting alliance it wouldn't be the most strategical thing to do, but well sometimes the desire for instant gratification is too great.

then i don't have to tag evo next set :D

You keep saying we broke a pact, but we really didn't as Hanlong has kindly pointed out several times. Just the act of Evo pacting SoL (without LaF also pacting SoL) already voids the pact. Everything else written in the pact about the 50% or 66% numbers or the requesting FS part is just additional fluff.

Your end voided it first at the start of the reset. If you want to talk about pact breaking, please look at yourself first for pacting SoL.

So keep posting false accusations if you feel that we did, and everyone else will judge by themselves.