k, i am patient. i just dont understand why this thread went back to NaturalS and Elitez and Imag back to here when the point that still stands is still here.
about pact, yea there makes sense. especially since is a multi-side pact. i see nothing wrong in signing a 3 set pact from next set but have another one for the rest of this set.
Autocorrect, i am glad you posted in another thread also, to prove that your logic has flaws. i was thinking of answering your posts in the other huge thread but it would have taken us away from the subject.
- first of all, there is no way you can be 100% sure you are the target of the other party.
- second, even if you were sure, by declaring you renounce the rights to call someone in defense and instead you give them that advantage (so you'd be dumb to do that).
- and third and most important: if at least 1% of the alliance leaders would think as you do, we would have wars based on future predictions and preemptive counterstrike for year 2k13.
and this thread goes up and down and stirring everything else but the real fact!
Evo has a pact signed with LaF from feb for 3 sets (that one containing the void clause. if that would be signed for this set also, it would have been clear the pact was voided, not broken)
but they also had another pact signed with NO void clause. And laf broke it.
That's still the side i am seeing since everyone else is busy throwing dirt at others instead of posting some actual facts / logs to confirm or deny this last thing.
i was posting based on what i saw. if laf has another part of the conversation which leads to another pact signed or the one not containing the void clause not being signed, then yea i am posting on what KJ wrote. and as it looks from what he wrote (because only him posted logs about the pact, logs about KJ's personal attitude or background i don't care about), you broke the pact signed for this remainder of the set. not the one to take effect from the end of this set onward (for 3 more sets).
and yea i am minding the war, this has absolutely nothing to do with our war, it has something to do with LAF's image as a clan and with it's FA department.
"What you do could be compared to a guy claiming he says all the truth after he read the republicans program."
as i said. that's all i saw regarding the pacts. i am claiming things based on what i saw, if you have something else to show (about this set's pact) then prove me wrong by posting it.
then why'd you sign other pact for the remaining time of this set? that brings us back to the point. the one containing the void clause was for the next 3 sets (not this and next 3 sets).
as i saw, the pact terms containing the void clause were to be used from next set. this one you have signed on different terms and i dont recall them having a void clause
"I am evo VP and I don't blame rival at all for FSing us due to us aiding iMag. We are iMag's FDP and we're unpacted with RIVAL, so fair play. Said that a few times in this thread already.
One thing I'd like to make clear is that we didn't at all make iMag FS rival. iMag decision is taken by iMag alone.
Don't let me start another reading comprehension course for you, bro."
perfectly said. i do not blame Rival for FSing Evo, i just don't want things to be said by PG when they aren't true.
thats a load of stuff in here but i have found this summed up by someone really nicely"
"LaF broke a pact to hit EVO? Yes.
LaF had reasons to do so? Evo didn't have the best intentions with that clausule
I would say this happened because KJ wanted to be a smartass."
i am only interested in the first part. i do not care if laf had reasons (they were not legit). i don't care who wants to be a smartass. i do not care if hanlong is white, asian, gay, smells bad, lies usually, has a lump feet, etc. if a clause was found in pact that "this gets voided if hanlong is one or more of the following white, asian, gay, smells bad, lies usually, has a lump feet". then that would be good to post logs and fluff.
otherwise i don't care how KJ is how hanlong pisses how i scratch my head. it's totally irrelevant and that can only make the player's image bad but the fact that LAF broke a pact still stands.
i don't see where you going with the changing it to "at war" clause next set? did you sign? if you did, why does it matter now?
VOIDING a pact is legit disregarding the clause you do it for (if specified in pact terms, ofc)
BREAKING a pact means you just want to forget you sign that pact without any "legal" clauses written in the pact.
i dont know about others and i don't think LAF will care much (since we're no big threat to you) but if this still doesnt show that you DID NOT BREAK this set's uNAP, i will insist Imag has absolutely no FA relations on the future because they obviously mean nothing to you.
Session Start: Sun Dec 18 20:02:30 2011
Session Ident: PG
[20:02] Session Ident: PG (Earth-Empires, iTavi) ()
[20:02] <PG> yes
[20:02] <iTavi> cool lol
[20:03] <iTavi> hard to find you
[20:03] <iTavi> you hiding from me?
[20:03] <PG> jup
[20:03] <iTavi> great
[20:03] <PG> lol
[20:04] <iTavi> so, wanna renew the unap?
[20:04] <PG> not this set
[20:05] <iTavi> k cool
[20:05] <PG> sorry
[20:05] <iTavi> no prob. i thought so since we've been reaching you that hard
[20:05] <iTavi> and marco can't sign things
[20:06] <PG> yaeh im the only one doing pacts
[20:06] <PG> so i can keep tract of what happenign
Session Start: Sun Dec 18 20:11:06 2011
Session Ident: ibujke
[20:11] <iTavi> yo
[20:19] <ibujke> hey
[20:19] <iTavi> rival doesnt want pact? i guess they'd want to hit us? dont know why
[20:19] <iTavi> so should we?
[20:19] <ibujke> hit them?
[20:20] <iTavi> yup
and i see no voiding clause in here:
"[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> all we have to do
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> is hit your FDP first no?
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> then its void
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> lulz
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> im just talknig up right now
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> cuz im pissed off
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> no
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> standard clause pact this set
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever"
We enter this war against EVO with very little bad blood between our Clans in the past.
we suspect that EVO harbours ill will toward us, in the form that they have had IMAG blindside FS us.
Even though they were easy enough to deal with, we again have proof that EVO has continued to FA IMAG countries so they could continue to hit our restarts.
So in what we feel is justified defence, we will now remove the head of the snake instead of playing silly buggers with the tail.
EVO, consider the war begun, the battles will be many and memorable, but we will prevail in the end, and we hope no ill feelings will continues to linger after the smoke clears.
RIVAL hereby declares war on EVO in defence of the right to exist without underhanded aid to its enemies.
-PG-
when you want to make a point you should have at least some kind of vague proof to back that up.
we did not hit Rival for anyone except for us (Imag).
as a matter of fact we only hit you because (as stated in the war dec) you declined our uNap when 2 sets ago we were trying to go on a friendly stance with you guys.
i will ask pang to restrict mobile access to only patron status (bought with a small fee of $10 bucks / month) :P
that should at least pay my salary and i will be able to afford a smartphone :))
)