BlackHole...
you are not even allowed to type the name Stones. not before or now.

that behind us, to get to the chase of the discussion, try to grow a sack.. not even looking for grapes... just a couple of tiny BBs would actually suffice.

SOL has grapes... come stomp them, then you earn the right to "wine".

hit, war, or STFU already man!

And it's cute. Not exactly dialectic.

I once considered what would happen if I ran into someone like me, then I concluded we'd be best friends because I like myself. Sometimes I read something I've written years ago forgetting it's mine and I think "this guy scares the fluff out of me, if I disagree with him I'm probably wrong", then I realize why people in my life either get upset or yield. With me, what I want or what other people want, or their ego - it's all meaningless. Only the truth matters. That is the sacrifice that must be made if one wishes to be correct.

SOL has no balls. It has adopted the aura of a Karen. It has lost all concept of what it is to be a man, which it once knew.

I'll type stones all I want. I single handedly lead their team to hits against Merc/Sol/Sof targets, when they were only capable/comfortable hitting RAGE targets.

They are great people. But make no mistake, without me leading them in warchats, they would have been no where near as effective as they were. I think anyone famililar with the situation would back up that statement.

Does LaF agree that you carried them on your back to victory? LaF was only the flag bearer?

Black Hole has confirmed what everyone here has posted and what TC has denied that LaF is NO GOOD at war. As Black Hole as truthfully stated; HE was a NEW/NOOB player with 0 experience and yet he contributed more to the war on LaFs side than 90% of the so called ELITE Veteran LaF players.

As stated by Black Hole he was the only reason why LaF won 1 out of 3 battles. I personally agree with Black Holes truthful statement of facts. Without Black Hole and Resist LaF is nothing. After BH & Resist/JL left the server; LaF had no other option but to get on their bat phone and call for GDI to save them!

Btw, GDI aint saving you from me!

Thanks for the land GDI ELITE player #49!


https://www.eestats.com/alliance/country/49

Slight mischaracterization of what I said.

We OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have won the war without LaF. They had the numbers, and the stronger countries. And they ran more war chats against bigger targets, more successfully. They also had the superior planning skills.


What I said was when the teams were even (which to my knowledge only occurred when my team and stones also joined the war) we beat you guys. LaF still was the strongest alliance in that fight. But I do believe the LaF guys will confirm that myself and my team played a substantial role in that victory.

I do not believe LaF would have won the war without us. In part because of the warchats I ran. In part because of the damage that my team sucked up, while continuing to hit back. But we obviously wouldn't have won without them either.

And I also believe that my leading of warchats made Stones more effective in that war, a statement that I think Stones would agree with as well.

This man preaches facts! Without Black Hole and his team LaF would have gone 0 - 3 instead of 1 - 2. I would like to vote that BH be nominated as the new Don of LaF.

I don't believe it was mischaracterized, but my question remains.

I see you are still going on about SoL pact breaking. As I said before, the 12 month pact that we offered to LaF was made 2 days before Clan GDI was publically announced. Gerdler had knowledge of it when he agreed to the pact and concealed it from us. It had a significant impact on the pact and the pact would not have been suggested or agreed to by SoL if we had known of it. We therefore declare that pact invalid and void due to Gerdler's misrepresentation by concealment of material facts.

Furthermore, I keep hearing from you guys about how the players in SoL, Mercs and SoF fail to self-moderate, hence we are griefers who need to be controlled by coded protection for netters. In fact, you didn't trust our offer of a 12 month pact, or it wasn't enough, and you still asked for Clan GDI to be implemented by Qzjul. LaF had not warred in 2 years, and the other main netting clans hadn't warred in many years, so self-moderation was never a problem.

We don't accept that any clan should have protection from war, because this is a war game and always has been. Clan GDI removes a key element of the game that has been in place since the start of Earth 2025, and is written directly into the game description. In my opinion, The people who have taken on the stewardship of this historical game have a duty to maintain the game in its original spirit that supercedes the desire by LaF to have protection from attack, or even LaF's survival.

Ahahaha blackhole you are so full of yourself. You and TC should be best friends

Fraudulent Misrepresentation- A contract is not considered valid unless all parties are in agreement to the terms. If the expressed terms are not accurate, then any agreement is based on a false premise and the contract is invalid.

Rephrase the question. Because you said 'does laf also agree', and I don't agree with your question as it was stated. I don't know who does.


If the question is 'does LaF also agree that LaF would have lost the war had Resist/JL not been in the war as well'?

I'd love to hear the answer to that question. I would agree with that statement.

Gerd? Gains? I'm curious their opinions.

You need to stop using big words with this boy. He ain't read gooder.

I'm starting to get a feeling you are a mouth breather that needs to go touch grass and apologize to some trees for wasting oxygen.

Last reset my tag was hit by LaF without any provocation, one country killed and another hit with no communication. This set I cannot hit them because the game has been changed to protect them. I don't see the point trying to bring back players when the fun has been taken out of the game.

LaF does nothing without provocation. Hit them back last reset.

The only thing that impacted the pack was due to the bug with spyops being skipped on the initial implementation, which SOL exploited (not laf).

You guys seem to think that part of the implied agreement of the pact was that after it expired we would war again, and thus because you will not be able to do so due to ClanGDI that the pact was made in bad faith. You also seem to think that part of the pact terms was that LaF would continue to be open to be hit by people outside your tag (like mercs(?) people in the bomb tag).

Well there are no such clauses in the pact, so nothing at all was voided. You were not deprived of any material advantage of the pact b/c of Clan GDI therefore there is no material breach. You are trying to use words you don't understand and legal terms that simply don't apply.

Let me help you understand, if I agree to give you $100 tomorrow in exchange for something today, but I know that before I can pay you that a new law will be passed that makes it impossible for me to pay you, then there is a material breach. But no such circumstance exists here, you were deprived of exactly nothing promised to you in the pact.

If you wish to do so, you must point to the clause in the pact which LaF violates by *joining* clan GDI. There is nothing you can point to to even begin to make that argument. Nor is there any clause which voides a pact in case of server changes (who would even think of such a thing).

I stand by what I said. Misrepresentation by concealment of material facts integral to the contract are grounds for declaring the contract void due to fraud. We didn't break the pact, we declared it invalid and unenforceable on moral or legal grounds. If you signed a contract of sale for a house, and you knew there was a cracked foundation but failed to disclose your knowledge, you would be in the same position; misrepresentation and fraud.

Having dispensed with the bullfluff contract, which you signed while still sucking up to Qzjul for total protection from attack by anyone ever, we attacked you with harmful spyops for causing this bullfluff Clan GDI mechanic to be implemented. We oppose your position on Clan GDI. I consider it to be an existential threat to the game. You can look that one up.

Clan GDI is not a material fact integral to the contract. Your just saying random things. Point to the clause materially impacted by it please.

It is a material fact, because if LaF is able to avoid all attacks by joining Clan GDI, that makes the pact with us unnecessary. It is material because we would have not signed the pact if we had known of it. And it is material because it is an issue of such critical importance to the nature of the game; Clan GDI is an existential threat to the game and our enjoyment of it.

So shove your bullfluff pact, signed under false pretenses and with deception on your part, up your ass.

Judging by what happened this reset it's simply false to say it was unnecessary. It was quite necessary - if your were capable of keeping your word. The rest is opinion, you don't get takebacks with contracts because you didn't do your due diligence, in fact pacting before it came out allowed you to get your preferred pact terms. Also no one really thought it would happen until it was announced.

Sorry you have no legitimate reason, certainly not one that would pass why actual legal muster.

Your defense, also, even if valid, would have required you to communicate such a breaking of the pact immediately, rather than hide it. You didn't (as far as I know), which means you actually forfeited the right to break it for any of those reasons. And also because LaF materially relied upon your word, even if you were valid in breaking it, you are liable for all the damage that came from it.

Legally you owe us more than you could ever pay.

Geta paid you back by motivating qz to add spy ops and thus enabling full PvE.

He paid you too much.

If I were you I’d hire the lawyer lady that defended Johnny Deep and I’d sue Getafix the Earth2025 alias player for all of the bushels and turrets that he has those round!

no, not my bushels! :,(

Asking the developers if they plan to drop a game breaking mechanic, the day after countries are able to be made is due diligence for pacting? or not including that provision in the pact? That is pretty extreme, even for you.

LaF has everything we care about in the standard pact, but we also have no intention of breaking them so no clauses exist to do so. If SOL wants to be able to break their pacts whenever they like, they should probably add that term so they aren't liable for any damages.

I call out to my friends in Merc and Sol...

have we not always found a way to achieve any goals that we desire?

I will say it has been a pleasure to ride with Mercs these last few sets, and I truly mean that

We are not done yet, not even close to being done.

Sol and Mercs are war-clans and WE WILL find a way to victory set after set!

GLAN GDI, whatever...

we will not leave what we do, we build our war plan, and we will. always been this way, and frankly this always be this way.
LASTLY, we mind fluff about the lame changes but in the end we will wreck your ass!

lol major, your post reminds me of the wailing of a dying cat.

Hi major I enjoyed playing with you as well :D

Hey major,

You are a good dude, and I enjoy our conversations. Always excited to see you pop into chat for small talks

The whole point of this thread is about the Devs dropping massive game breaking mechanics which acted as sanctions. And then when that wasnt enough to appease the whining LaF, they dropped more. Thee reason for bringing up pacts at all was because LaF was acting in bad faith in the pacting. The accusation is that they knew the changes were coming, as they were in discussions about it behind the scene with the devs.

I dont particularly have a dog in this fight because I am not tagged SoL this set or last, so the pacts dont impact me, but working on (and signing) multi set pacts to calm tensions and stop the grudges, while also crying to the devs to implement massive changes to protect yourselves from any attacks to calm tensions in the background is really bad faith.

and QZ using the rationale of "we needed to calm to server down" as a reason for it being rushed, despite it being dropped after traditional FR had already run its course and multi set pacts were signed stopping that tension, yikes. it just felt really suspect from a player standpoint.

We had to hit back because you dragged us into the war, but it was completely unprovoked. All we wanted to do was separate ourselves out and enjoy the game and you hit us, but that's how the game works. You for some reason saw us as a threat and chose to hit us, we accepted that and hit back. Now that option has been removed. We didn't go crying to the game developer stating how unfair it was, we joined the fight and played the game. Now that has gone, the risk has gone, the fear that something could happen at any time, to actually have to defend what you've built. Even worse there's no cost to this change so there's no balance.

Early on in the reset LaF had no idea who was who, so communication of your intent to stay out would have been advised.

TC, you and BH should get your own thread. Then you two could blow your smoke up each others rear end.

somebody sum this thread for me, I dont wanna read it all. I'm amazed you all care enough to write this much!

Side A: The meta of bot farming 5000 hits as FFO without any defense and then oil destocking without any politics or player interaction in a server in which only one strat can win because of bots having control of the market and expenses at high acres preventing C/I and MBR effectiveness is objectively a boring game.

Side B: Sounds better than getting my coconuts rocked every set because of long term grudges maybe like 2 people in each clan actually care about. I'd rather every war dog left this game and I never had to deal with them again. 380k acres in bot hits and an oil destock on FFO has been the meta for 8 years and you don't see me complaining.

It's something to that effect.

Edit: For the record...I'm on side A of the debate, but there's a lot of finger pointing and name calling in the middle which I find annoying.

Or maybe I'm just the only person on...:

Side C: These changes could be dope if politics and war mechanics get built into the change. (i.e. Players in pacted tags cant break pacts, suiciding and blindsiding gets eliminated, declaring war requires a couple day notification, tag admins are only ones who can declare war, etc.) If you throw in an expenses formula change to reward people for having a high nw and defense rather than punish them for it to make C/I and such viable again, I might just come in my pants.

Derrick is a good dude I will miss this guy

Insightful post Derrick that nobody will read. Well said.

It’s crazy to me that the problem is actually a boring netgaining meta . Only one viable strategy on this server, that is superior to all others . You literally cannot win with any gov or Strat other than FFO.

Instead of making it more interesting for war leaning tags to netgain, the solution was to sanction the entire server and remove the war and spy room.

Quite the radical solution to a simple balance problem

Yeah. As much as I hate agreeing with you, I personally would net more often (...or ever for that matter) on 1a if there was parity amongst strats. I just don't feel like making a bazillion bot hits. Would be dope if a like 60-90k Acre Demo Techer Reseller was viable. I'd love to try my hand at it. It's one of the more fun strats on FFA where you can buy through the bot market.

Here...stealing tech from bots is damn near as viable as teching itself....garbage meta with insanely rich bots supplying the market.

War is far more of a thinking man's meta atm, and I doubt anyone in LaF would have disagreed when they were winning 2 sets ago....that is, unless they weren't a thinking man themselves, and love making 380k acres in bot hits and oil destocking. That's as much of a layman's game to me tho as suiciding because it's the easiest and most fun way to get to stonewall. *shrugs*

I like that war still takes a bit of thought. You can describe it as a string of GS, but the reality is, the work put in for LaF to win that war 2 sets ago, and the amount of thought that went in to it? They'll not soon repeat that. Not until the obese FFO stops winning.

LaF will probably never war again. The reason why is that wars used to mean something, but winning or losing a war no longer matters. Once that was proven with our win two resets ago, LaF didn't even really play last reset and would never have again. The war clans simply aren't able to understand that LaF didn't consider it worth the effort to fight them, that it's not fun, so there really aren't any opportunities left for them to war is regardless of whether clangdi exists or not. without it, we'd just stop playing altogether.

People need to respect and allow other people to play the game how they want, regardless if they disagree with it or not.

People need to respect and allow other people to play the game how they want, regardless if they disagree with it or not.

Agreed

You guys familiar with the Horseshoe Theory of political spectrums from Le Siècle des idéologies? It's an interesting read if you know French. I'm not sure if there's a good translation tho.

Anyways, it asserts that rather than there being a far-left and far-right in a linear fashion, that the spectrum is actually horseshoe shaped, and when you reach the end of either side, you're much closer to the extreme on the other side than moderates are too one another. The sides might even kiss one another a bit when you reach totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc.

This debate, it seems, has a bit of a Horseshoe to it.

Maybe the bots that tag up can be the ones that retal and will fight back with a war.

Does the book provide any modern day parallels? I find it an interesting theory, but I'd like to see some real life examples..

And yet clanGDI takes that allowance away by putting a hard block on the game.

Other clans seem to be able to net peacefully set after set, are they just better at playing in an alliance server?

Who’s this guy?

Ish...

I wanna say it came out around the time I was in high school so it's written by a contemporary political theorist. The theory itself is widely not accepted by......anyone tho. Pretty much every response to the theory by anyone with a phD is just.....no. Still one of those things that comes up in political theory classes, particularly in higher ethics courses.

Generally in that, farthest left would be socialist/communist and far right would be a fascist. And there's very clear differences between those political theories, despite their shared authoritarian nature.

It's sort of like comparing a bad piece of meat to a bad piece of fruit and saying, "these foods are the same. They are both rotten." While they both might get you sick, they happen to come from very different sources. I think most differences in opinion have an ironic Horseshoe arc tho, and it's fun to point out instances of that theory's efficacy. This being one of them. The ol' reach around, as they say.

My #warRoomButtons seem to be broken. Do you happen to know what is going on here?