Are you saying that this isn't what at is for o.O

I remember when I used to rent video games, but then we were like...

6 dollars to rent
30 dollars to buy

Better off saving and buying.

http://www.youtube.com/...XLsCQ&feature=related

Are you still in this war? shoo shoo.

If that was going to be the case, laf would not have warred in the first place. Alliances only last until laf can gauge they have the upper hand. duh/

Laf never cheats, they just push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, then everyone copies them. Then laf turns around and says it was acceptable behaviour, which by that stage it is.

is legal in Canada?

nobody buys snuggies

congrats.

The problem is that they don't exercise control on each other but their stability is directly connected.

lol. The end of the evil known as netgaining forever. Then people will stop fighting over land and doing silly topfeeds.

Netgaining only ever leads to conflict and war.

We should just apply Laf's old judgement from 2002, "your 20 member group is too small to be classified as a clan, therefore we will farm you and not recognise retals"

EDIT: from the wiki
Laf 2010 "5 people in a tag ain't an alliance. Go play team."

Same old laf that we love.

interesting maths.

I quite like the current moderators/admins :(.

as a soler I could never stay mad at a sofer.

you can't just rare candy or the stats are lower, you have to level them to 50, hit them with all the stat boosts and then use rare candies.

soon the other guests for both sides will join this random party and we can all get dancing and drinking

They are American, you can include unrelated legislation when you try and pass an act.

:*( just read a random log I hadn't seen before from 2008 about a Soler admitting to being a spy for tie. :/ depressing.

oh still in userlist, nvm then...

Session Start: Sun Jul 19 16:07:34 2009
Session Ident: #solfr
[16:07] * Now talking in #solfr
[16:07] * Topic is ' -Prae's Office=- | Steeps smells Praetor`s pink thong | SoL Public Foreign Relations Channel | All Complaints go to Praetor. All Compliments go to Steeps | And the Praetor said : Tho shall not pact , Thy kingdom come, they will be done.|[11:21] <Steeps> prae sucks'
[16:07] * Set by digi on Tue Jun 23 11:53:06
[16:07] * Joins: nightwolf (-)
[16:07] <Evolution> welcome to the french branch of SOl
[16:07] <nightwolf> what?

Blame Mickster, he declared unaps that weren't written up in the correct legal jargon to be invalid.


I was agreeing with you before slagpit but posted before your post was loaded.

If coalition terms do not void the pact, then Laf broke the non-void unap this reset.

+1.

I think you are correct. Evo was foolish for thinking there was even a pact this set, war was always going to happen.

You mean Laf broke the pact last reset?

EDIT: Sorry you aren't supposed to point that out thats why its not mentioned. hurry edit your post so they don't see it

[12:47am] S|snake: assuming they did, it would appear that they are isolating us for sure
[12:47am] diez: we have zero FOP lol
[12:47am] diez: evo nets, not attacks
Quits: diez () (Ping timeout)

[12:47am] S|snake: Ahah, caught you, our fictional context of war was merely a pretext to confirm your alliance against us in said fictional war. Pact void good sir. I will see you on the battle field.

Your source is the person that you are waring because they can't be trusted?


[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week

Meanwhile in Sol;

[10/6/2011 4:46:16 PM] Makinso: This set we plan to do a late arranged war. So far it is still uncertain who our sparring partner will be.

Opposite of planned early fs = uncertain arranged late war?

Laf FA prolly were aware of this from Sol FR.

EDIT: Evo would have known this too. So Laf rocks up and slaps Evo in the face basically. wtf.

Laf and Evo know Sol is not planning an early war? Laf asks Evo to join in against a fictional war? Won't join in against Sol in a fictional war, therefore must be on the fictional other side = pact void.

In Australia its reported as both a lock out and a players strike.

Thats part of the reason why I am asking whats going on.

From what I gathered, both sides were blocking each other, owners made an offer and it was rejected by players.

[quote poster=SolidSnake; 12874; 227937]
[18:47] S|snake: out of interest, did sol pact you guys this set?
[18:47] diez: looks like we have a unap

+1 for more lies.
[/quote]

[18:47] diez: out of interest, did sol pact you guys last set?
[18:47] S|snake: looks like we had a unap

+1 for validity of information on the internets
-1 for quote fail qq.

In other words break up is due to problems in the bedroom?

Oh my bad.

1.) Laf hates Evo. Could just war with Evo anyway but;
2.) Needs reason/justification to bring in allies against Evo to get 166% majority

BORING. TOO SIMPLE.


Uno Rules Apply. Laf uses yellow Reverse against Sol; Evo's turn, Evo responses with yellow skip on Sol; Laf Turn, Laf uses draw four on Evo. Colour is changed to red. Evo has a hand full of new cards, but laf has the lead.

Routers with firewalls and firewall software usually contain a filtering proxy/content filter feature as standard.

so... The difference between what is a function and what is a feature can even be considered a philosophical debate.

Translation from laf and Evo side about alliance:

1.)Laf wants to war Sol, but hates Evo. If Laf wars Sol, Evo wins networth crown and gloats (somehow unacceptable). Therefore in order to war against Sol, Evo must war as well so they don't win the netting reset. (Alliance condition 1; Laf wins netgaining)

2.) Laf doesn't enjoy war, so a part of Laf's alliance is that war requires 166% advantage plus a FS (150%) = 250% advantage. (Alliance Condition 2; Laf wins war)

3.) Condition 2 was not met, so Evo declined in order to win netgaining reset.

4.) As a result condition 1 was not met for Laf so Laf declared war on Evo.

5.) Declaring war on Evo requires condition 2 to be met, which means they got one of their 'alliance' members to agree to war with Evo.

Zero sum games require four players, Who is the fourth player??
Laf may have initiated backstab but by deduction there is another anti-Evo clan in the alliance. Actually I don't have a clue who, though the betting has begun.

According to what I have read, Lafers are saying Evo was wearing rose coloured glasses for thinking that the alliance was to their benefit as well. Laf isn't 'wrong' they are just 'strategic', 'everyone knows alliances should only benefit yourself' *cough* sociopaths */cough*.

Are they using the google books digital library?

The ban was so powerful that we don't see that it was edited by a moderator.

Actually its because warring at the end of the reset has a lot more meaning than warring towards the end of a reset against a netting clan.

From a Sol perspective its better to war a netgaining clan at the start of the set, as you are only ruining potential netgaining performance, whereas a lot more consideration is taken as the war approaches end of reset due to the larger impact. Delaying kids from building a sand castle (opportunity cost) isn't as cruel as destroying their sandcastle when built (realised cost).

This perspective comes from our old FR system where reps are exponentially worth more towards the end of the reset. Like wise the impact of war is greater.

If you warred laf at the start of reset, they would prolly only hold a grudge for one year, if you warred them at the end of a reset they would probably hold it for 3 years.

:p

I don't really look at netgaining stats, but don't laf and evo say this exact same thing about each other.

Does that mean their netgaining ability is equal?

well if you include the highest exchange rate in 2009 I was at that pay level of 1/5 of that. Now its been gfc'd to 1/10th, falling next year too.

:(

In some Australian sports the owners didn't have a choice and were forced to have a salary cap, mainly because half the teams would not be viable otherwise. Though the top teams always get in trouble when 'unrelated third parties' give their players houses and cars and stuff XD.

Sending in star players to negotiate directly who have no business sense and can command higher pay that doesn't reflect the average player's income is totally the best move for all the players.

They are also doing it at a time when their fan base is going through rough economic conditions, they will prolly lose ratings/income in the longer term.

Sol has a ten to one retal policy on spam. Solers are banned from posting on AT except for spam retals.

So from what I can gather, NBA players are on strike because they don't get paid 5x what I do in order for them to warm a bench for a season. Oh wait they do.

Is it just about pay or is there some changes to player trading or something?

Its hit the news here but they aren't giving proper details, nor justifying why it is on the news.

I never actually got Mew, if you try the glitch with missing no. in your party all your saved game gets deleted.


rip 152 pokemons

I also traded missing no to my newer pokemon (circa 2002) and lost that game too.

wait a second, haven't any of you noticed the number one problem with this whole issue. Majority of people posting agree with dagga. o.O

hanglong agrees with me <--- end of world predicted same year

At agrees with dagga <--- end of world real date 2012.

I'm joking, I tend to agree with dagga 83% of the time, and support the remainder ;).


I refuse to pass judgment as I haven't heard from all sides. Mainly due to my near afk'ness to the game.

What I would find interesting, is that given Evo has improved their war performance, if Laf starts to lose, would they call in allies on Evo?.

I don't believe it.

*collects side bet from the betting pool 14:1 odds*

boo yah, 25c at 14:1 odds = $3.50 - main bet loss and side bet = 25c proft.

Hmmm damn a Mc soft serve cone costs 40c.

You mean you don't know how to unlock Mew in pokemon red/blue through a glitched battle whilst surfing around the place randomly after glitching the pokemon park event???

I've only seen bits of pieces, my tv in my room is a pos that barely has reception.