on suiciders in general i think people should only be allowed to have 1 account and after a set all countries made by a single account should have a common identifier regardless of privacy settings, whether to identify with a name or from set to set would be more invasive

tag dropping is silly, silly to win by it, silly to get upset by it, silly to use success with it as a metric, but when we forget what went on in sets gone by we still see the headline numbers

i remember a lot of sets where we would calc who could drop who and finish where in both tnw and anw, in particular i remember a lot of tnw races where you would have to not drop people to avoid losing tnw

but this is one of those issues where some people hide things and some people do them blatantly, i think it would be fair to say evo tends to trim members earlier for whatever reason and laf tends to do it later, this makes laf sometimes look like more of an aggressor but perhaps a more honest aggressor

i believe the bracketed section in the posted pact is not part of the pact but that doesnt really matter since its saying if we think something is going to happen we should deal with it in an efficient proactive manner

it really boils down to a conflict between the "if you hit my dp i can cancel pact" and the "i can cancel pact if you pact someone who refuses to pact me" concepts

at first it may seem like theres no difference but the ways in which you have to netgain vary significantly, having to be prepared at all times is vastly different to being able to react after something happens

i signed a pact with someone that got renewed later on 'same terms' but it leads to problems because people forget original terms or why something had weird terms, such as a ceasefire unap, then sets later one side or both expects it to contain their normal terms but the stakes are high and disputes arise (different case btw)

i think the real issue is here that Evo, LaF and LCN had the nerve to call there "anti-gangbang" pact a coalition pact:p

i always thought those 2 went hand in hand together:p

+ 3 clans does not a coalition make:p

your crazy kids!

sounds like you got played btw anon.

they even asked you if you would be any good in a war this set just to make sure it was well timed!!

genius @ work!!:p

I think that was the most coherent post I've ever seen from enshula. usually when he posts in our forums I have no idea what he's saying

LaF you guys are hilarious :)

Let me get this straight.

- LaF wanted to gangbang SOL again this set
- EVO refused and that was LaF's ground for voiding the pact

I'm trying to contain the laughter here. Surely I have misread.

Apparently LOL

Really its quite simple, you called us out with country name such as "LaF can kiss my HootHoot" "LaF can suck on my bellsprout" "I BEEDRILLn LAF IN THE ASS"

So since hlw had already resigned this pact last reset, I looked at the pact.

a: its not a unap (unbreakable non-aggression pact), there is nothing relating to it being unbreakable anywhere within the pact.
b: you acted in violation of the terms of the pact by signing a pact without discussing it with us/us getting the same deal
c: you further broke it, as i expected you would knowing you had already pacted sol, so you would either break a pact with us by refusal, or break a pact with them by agreeing to it (which obviously i knew wasnt going to happen having dealt with you on previous occasions).
d: Those 66% super-majority notes are not in the pact that was signed, and i can only assume are notes added by qz after the signing of the pact, although you would have to ask him about that.


As angry/annoyed as you may be, you brought this upon yourselves, although im sure you will dispute that.

I'm reading this -

Poor widdle LaF couldn't hack a few decidedly funny country names and got their panties all twisted.

You guys are cancer and I hope whatever happens to your crap can alliance this set is vicious. You know when your high ranked mouthpiece Pangeae isn't here busting his bell end to defend your stupidity, you're in the wrong.

Tell me dagga, what would your reaction be to "sol can kiss my HootHoot" "sol can suck on my bellsprout" "I BEEDRILLn sol IN THE ASS"

etc as an alliance wide theme? You would see it as someone calling you out...

This sums up how I feel about this war.

SS

dagga is not in SOL :)

How can tell you tell when a LaF member is lying? Whenever he posts on AT.

LaF members come to AT to promote LaF and for no other reason. Of course they won't care about the truth. Take last set, diez was $12B and 350 turns ahead of hanlong, yet a bunch of LaF clowns claimed that hanlong would have won if he hadn't been topfed once (despite diez being topfed three times in the same period). It really doesn't make sense to say such obviously wrong things until you understand their motives.

Seems kind of funny for hanlong to cry so much about a single grab from an allied tag just to break a pact this set just for fun, doesn't it? Hanlong: please don't respond with a wall of bullfluff.

I really don't have much to say that hasn't already been said here.


I DO have to say, though, that even though it feels nice to tell my upper leadership "I TOLD YOU SO", it gets kinda monotonous after the 4th or 5th time.


P.S. I heard SoF's name being posted somewhere in relation to this little war. I honestly hope that SoF isn't slimy enough to condone and support pact-breaking alliances in their foreign policy. Most of us can remember what happened the last time that happened.

This gay ass crap has to stop. Thanks evo for not continuing the ridiculousness.

Laf - ss, hanlong, sam and other "great" leaders of Laf ,

don't get us wrong. no one in evo is a tad a bit upset on the war itself. LoL. In fact, many of us are VERY HAPPY to kill you again and again (in the game i mean). Let's face it, we hate each other guts. Rubbish like what you guys pulled on lens last set is a reason enough to war you, if not the several doves in evo had their way.

but your lame lame excuse, and the hypocrisy of Laf (nothing new though) is laughable...and as much as you enjoy all this attention on AT - we enjoy seeing you squirm in horror, for not able to walk/trample over us. Let's see how we come back and haunt you now.

sincerely, yours,

still alive.

I got lost 1/3 of the way down the original post.

i did not say i would've won... i said techers were too strong last reset and that's why the t3 were techers.

you are the one that's posting a bunch of bullfluff.

i also never said i was going to beat diez necessary, i just said at 9/7 i was 65.8k and i was on track for around 280M nw and i fell short. that's all... (and 280M isn't enough to beat 320M+ techers).

but i like your biasedness. i can be stupid and say "oh everytime an evo is posting on AT he's lying" but that's just being a troll

i dont think i made it even that far

nice of dagga to summarize it all :)

sup hanshlong

Shocked! I thought you had more posts then me! :P

Hi slagpit

Sounds like a potential Country Theme for next set to me!

blah blah blah

Can't you guys just war, and talk later ? Honestly, If you pull the same effort in war, as you did in AT, i believe, EVO still has a chance to win although been FS'ed.

awwww... did we hurt your feelings SS?

i was told there would be no math.


lcn should be ranked 11th


crack brownies


trife
lcn guy

holy fluff there needs to be a relevance sorting like device on this thing. is there unbiased cliff notes?

Evo is upset because LaF broke a pact and FS'd them. Apparently it was over Evo not wanting to FS SoL.


Bonus PTS!

You realize that every time you make me read a giant wall of text, a bunny gets fluffED!

So Laf didn't have the guts to take on SoL by themselves, and of all of Laf's allies, they felt Evo was the one they should ask to help them against SoL?

And because LaF is so scared of SoL, they can't take on SoL 1v1, or even find another friend to help them against SoL, but instead they'd PS one of their allies who was in full netting mode?

SOL would not break a pact over this... I have always seen SOL hatred country names, I dont think we once acted on it.

It seems to me that this situation is based on a built up of tension over many resets between Laf and Evo. The fact that the pact was not cancelled by laf (since it was there intention was to FS evo) just makes Laf look bad to other alliances. It is a unfortunate move on Lafs part that could effect there other pacts in the future. Time will tell though.

Evo was willing to attempt to seal things and net i out, Laf felt that war was the answer.

In the end, the pact should not of been renewed.


Mmm, not much more too it then that I think...

*eats popcorn and watches Evo and Laf go at each other*

Yeah, pacting and then FSing is just cheap tactics.

Laf has tiny balls, cant wait to squeeze em.

that is all.

I thought my country name was pretty clever myself. I'm sad that LaF did not feel that way. I was told they enjoyed the buttsekz?

Classy!

My 2 Cents from a SoF perspective.

If SoF signed a retarded breakable pact with retarded clauses that basically could force us to go to war with any alliance on the server or else be FS'd by alliance X we would be the laughing stocks of the server.

Also, if alliance X then came to us (knowing they have been war prepping all set) and said hey lets go FS alliance Y (who we are allied with) I think a few bells would have gone off in my head.

SoF probably would have instantly gone on red alert, contacted alliance Y and jointly FS'd alliance X within 48 hours.

My question then would be...who cares if alliance X broke the pact or not, we feel they did, they feel we voided it, but how the hell was SOF so friggin stupid? I mean we at least would have not had 80% of our tag with 0 troops.


Baffling.

Chevs, do you think its fine to break a uNAP with an alliance you want to FS?


In your example, your saying that the other alliance should of broke the pact themselves.

Why does the pact even exist if it ends up being meaningless that reset?

Wheres the honor?

I like boobs

Alliances used to get all their pacts dropped for breaking a pact.
Though grudges used to end with each reset as well.

Bonus!

(and lol @ martian :P)

The way I interpret whats going on is, LaF asked Evo to FS SOL. Evo said no. Laf considered pact void at that point, then in the words of the pact "preempted evo". The point I was trying to make was LaF says evo voided the pact, evo says laf broke the pact...whats the point of arguing? does evo think they can convince laf that laf was in the wrong? does laf think they can convince evo they voided the pact? likely not?? people have opinions and they arent giong to agree.

but imo from the way things seemed to have played out, it looks like evo had rosy coloured glasses on, kept netting away with 0 troops even though there were numerous red flags along the way.

shoulda looked at ur pact and saw if there was any possible way that laf could void it the first second you saw them war prepping in my opinion. then when SS and diez were talking that should have been obvious if you said no u were going to get fs'd based on those pact details.


btw on a side note that is the most rediculous pact ive ever seen, how could both sides not think there was a grey area left to interpretation that would undoubtedly cause conflict? maybe something everyone can agree on

What is getting lost in all this BS is the following:

Laf are drawing an extremely long bow to declare the pact null after requesting Evo to join in on a FOP gangbang on SOL - but what's the reason to actually hit them? Sure, they didn't help in your grand plans to hit a war alliance while you had a 70 country advantage again, but to use that as a reason to both drop the pact and first strike is ridiculous.

Call a spade a spade you gutless wonders.

It looks like the pact was an attempt to create a netgaining coalition against warring alliances. Unless I misread.

Edit:

Thanks for the nice reply Chevs.

id love to call LaF alot of bad names, but im not sure if im allowed.
bah

My god there are a lot of words in that first post. You guys are blowing up my AT

Chevs: every word in the pact can be twisted. It depends on how much BS you're willing to go for.

example: "this pact is deemed void if alliance A attacks a DP"
translation "we will kill alliance A if you do one Standard Strike against our DP"

Truth about LaF. That's one of the lamest FS i've seen.
or it's just the game changed or what. lol

The dumbest part of the pact, although alleged or disputed, is the "majority clause" when there were only 2 participants. When I began reading the first post I thought for sure there would be a 3rd party. What kind of FR thinks up or even signs that fluff?

fluff

Chevs I have to agree with Dagga on this. While some who are a bit more paranoid would look for the possibility of a way to break the pact it really is far-fetched and I'd say that LaF did not even meet the criteria to void it. Additionally, that they would go so far as to switch targets and blindside the netting alliance that is their ally for an anti-blindside pact? It's so crazy and dishonorable that I would not have thought LaF would do it.

If I were Evo (and I'm not) I wouldn't have worried about any breaking of the pact, because it looks specifically made so that with two alliances it is a defense only pact(the 50% part) and that with 66% required for an offensive FS means there would need to be a third member alliance to also vote for attack. This doesn't seem to be the case as it hasn't been mentioned, so I really don't see how LaF could have thought in any way this would void it.

Of course we know this is all just a big ruse that LaF is trying to create, because if they really wanted to hit SoL with their allies, then why not convince the allies before the set really gets going so everyone can be war prepped? And even barring that, why would LaF want to have 140 (with Evo) vs 50 (SoL) when they already gangbanged them two sets ago and somehow got a pact out of it. They really had nothing to gain.

And then of course, even if that had been their original plan, why would you blindside your ally instead of your intended enemy? Tensions were high between the two, but this makes LaF look really bad and invalidates the war which means we'll probably see round 2 and maybe 3 in future sets. *shrugs*

I guess if LaF hates Evo enough to ruin everyone's netting for the next half a year and thinks they can take the political hit of being two-faced and breaking pacts then there's not really anything to discuss with them.

I have to wonder who would be leading these joint evo-laf warchats. Would it be laf's head of war who has suicided on evo at least three times in the past four months? SS broke the pact because he's a cowardly fluff who pisses in his pants at the thought of a fair fight.

Hanlong: you were $50M NW behind diez, you were topfed once, then you almost beat diez despite these laf clowns claiming that the mass amounts of FA/land/loans didn't even make up for your losses. Does that make any sense at all?

There's no need to even go into the messy details. When you see a group of people lying over and over, it's just easier to assume that they're lying all of the time.