Is this like when the riots or godzilla happen? :P

The 50% clause is irrelevant. The broken clause was "Alliances in the coalition will not sign UNAPS or DP's with "warring clans" unless they provide UNAP/DP to all in the coalition".

I am pretty much sure that Mehul tought at a wargame when designing earth!
Than he fluffed it with ignorance!

Coke and similar brands sell so fast because they have in turn people purchase them because they have seen a celebrity or notable individual use such product and ultimately becomes a situation tantamount to a herd of buffaloes running in unison.

If people knew what they want, and wanted, politicians would be out of business before tomorrow morning.

Wannabe politicians screwd up this game - and now they fight on this board. This is to clasic ...

Anyway that netting pact made my day! Funny ... to funny!

EVO signed 0 peace treaties with any alliances, because EVO were never at war with any alliances.

EVO had a breakable pact with SOL, if SOL FSed any of EVOs allies.

So, Xinhuan you are wrong on multiple accounts.

Thanks though.

http://i43.tinypic.com/1gpwf5.jpg

Hanlong: Are you denying EVO had a breakable pact with SOL? EVO didn't create this bad blood.

I signed a breakable pact with SOL and told Makinso specifically that if SOL FSed the likes of LCN, LaF etc. then Evo would immediately void the pact and FS SoL in your defence; however it was Evo that was FSed.

There's no denying it, but ofc you can palm it off with banal jpegs :)

Im not going to get into the whole argument about the first laf vs evo war thing because personally that pact was so badly formulated because both tags wanted it that way

however in the attempted gangbang that followed EVO did break a UNAP to hit sof along with sol/tie so EVO calling LaF pact breakers is kind of funny

my 2 cents

Ivan
Survival of the Fittest

you pacted SOL against the pact, thus the pact was voided.

http://i43.tinypic.com/1gpwf5.jpg

there was confusion in the evo/sof pact.

i told chevs evo would stop hits immediately if he wanted. nothing was said.

anything else ivan? i seem to remember a NaturalS tag under your watch *cough*

see the problem anoniem?

you have too long of a memory and you keep on beating on the dead horse.

so back to my original question.

when can we all move the fluff on so we aren't going circles again?

you even mentioned that we should stop going in circles earlier, can we move on then? :P

my jpegs aren't banal, this whole line of conversation is

edit:

DEAR LAF/EVO,

plz stop doing this

http://i43.tinypic.com/1gpwf5.jpg

IT FEELS LIKE IM BILL MURRAY AND ITS GROUNDHOGS DAY

signed,

trifeys poor brain

Hanlong.

Read what I say instead of trying to spin my words mate...
Let me clear some things. If SOL/Evo/MD wanted to GB LaF this set. We could have. We decided not to and all go our own way. (I'm still unsure how you have interpreted that as my stance being I have never tried in the past?)

I never said gangbang is bad in my entire post nor have I pointed fingers at anyone apart from or for 2 things.

1) I said take accountability for the losses gangbanging, warring in general or forcing tags to net against their will causes on either end instead of trying to justify the damage it does. Understand and accept the vicious circle of this game and act accordingly. Like us you've gangbanged take accountability for your actions like we have. I'm not saying anything along the lines of your post.


2) I said LaF losing MD as a core ally says something about LaFs behavior as a tag in some way or another. Only MD/MDs leaders know for 100% why they made this decision. I also said I'm very sure it was not a decision they made easily or with a smile as there was nothing for them to gain on it apart from a ton of risks.

You're constantly trying to divert from what myself or other Evo/SOL leaders are saying and trying to spin it into Makinso/KJ or SOL + allies are bad. For what reasons I'm still unsure.

SOL/EVO Full Defensive Pact
We agree to come to the defense of each other if requested to, within 48 hours, unless relations with the target are, uNAP, LDP, or FDP.
All hits are dealt with on a case by case basis and discussed by FRs.
During war before hits are retalled, FR's will discuss.
Both alliances assume 72 hours responsibility for countries that detag from their tag.
If a SoL country tag jumps into an alliance that you are at war with, SoL will kill it. If a country from your tag jumps into an alliance SoL is at war with, you will kill it.
24 hours notice of any tag change, or addition, notification must be via ICQ, or email, and have a response back confirming.
Neither alliance will FA an alliance the other is at war with. If this happens, FR's will discuss a course of action.
Clause 1a SOL and Evolution will both avoid aggressions towards each others DPs. If aggression in the form of a first strike does occur from SOL on an Evo DP then Evo have the option to void this pact with a 24 hours notice.
Clause 1b: This pact lasts from the 1st of August 2011 untill the first august set in 2012 (depending on the start date of that particular set).
Clause 1C: clause 1a will be rediscussed every set until both parties feel a true form of trust is established between The Sons of Liberty and Evolution. If both parties don't come to a unanimous decision on a change within the pact, then the pact will remain the same.


Signed anoniem/Makinso




want to lie more anoniem? this is exactly why our pact was voided. you actively signed a FDP against OUR coalition terms.

there was no opt clause i see for LCN/Omega/etc. of that sort.

still want to say more lies? :P

Lie about what? What are you trying to get out? The problem with you is that you never say what you mean.

Clause 1a SOL and Evolution will both avoid aggressions towards each others DPs. If aggression in the form of a first strike does occur from SOL on an Evo DP then Evo have the option to void this pact with a 24 hours notice.

LCN/Omega are and were EVOs DPs - clause 1A would have voided the pact if SOL fsed one of them.

Have you been smoking some of that solidsnake reefa?

note that we FSed you after this pact was signed.

to tertius: do you see why Evo was FSed now?

i'm setting the record straight here.

1) evo signed this "anti-blindsiding coalition" and then turn to SOL and sign a FDP against the pact terms. they thought they were clever and no one would find out.

2) we THEN FSed them because they voided our pacts.

3) they (sol/evo) tried to GB us and our allies.

4) laf hit sol because of the past trangressions. sof does the same to evo.

5) they pretend to sign peace and instead tried to "surprise" us by having an "ace card" in MD.




can we stop the bullfluff?

you might be right about having a void clause for LCN/Omega since you were FDPed to them. but you weren't FDPed to us, hence you voided OUR pact. that was the whole thing you were lying about just a few posts up. about how you could've voided the SOL pact if SOL hits LaF..


you could've signed us to a FDP also to cover for yourself so our pact won't be voided, but instead you asked me that reset for a uNAP remember? you, anoniem, took the initiative, not us.

think of what you were arguing about and piece the facts together buddy.

SolidSnake posted in your war dec that we were FOPS.

lol, get your stories right and then come back to me.

im telling the mods that laf/evo are spamming AT with stuff thats already been posted a million times

you are both going to be in very big trouble

"If aggression in the form of a first strike does occur from SOL on an Evo DP then Evo have the option to void this pact with a 24 hours notice."

I am not into this political fluff ... but are you blind hanlong ? (since you brought this on the board). I will refree for calling you otherwise than "blind" but the other option starts with "S"

LoL @ Trife

your offer to us (which i did not accept):

From: anoniem
To: hanlong
Subject: renew uNAP
Date: Oct 3rd, 11:29
Message Body:
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P

your term with SOL:


Clause 1a SOL and Evolution will both avoid aggressions towards each others DPs. If aggression in the form of a first strike does occur from SOL on an Evo DP then Evo have the option to void this pact with a 24 hours notice.


our pact:


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".


SOL refused to uNAP LaF that reset.


do we still want to beat the same fluffing dead horse?

it was all on you.

you could've done any of these to avoid being hit by LaF

1) offered a FDP to LaF instead of a uNAP
2) not signed SOL to a FDP triggering

you thought it was cute to isolate LaF against SOL so it would be our turn in EE to take it up the ass from SOL (just like what they did to Evo/Sanct/LCN/LaF one after another).

i thought we had a clear understanding that we need to do something about stopping this cycle (the whole SOL FDPing one netgainers to hit the other netgainers freely) and you agreed to sign up for it by signing that Anti-Blindside pact. and right after on the august reset you decided to FDP SOL for a whole fluffing year. just that the august reset SOL agreed to uNAP us, so we couldn't have voided your pact.

but like clockwork, the very following reset SOL refused to uNAP us. you also refused to FDP us (to allow the void clause to SOL to trigger and you to defend hence keeping our pact intact). and by that + your FDP with SOL, you broke our pact. you had total control to do one of those two things if you didn't want to void our pact (not pact SOL and/or offer LaF a FDP) and you did neither.

i mean i didn't i need to spell this out this clearly for you, but seriously u know exactly what happened, and you know very well yourself LaF was justified in voiding our pact and yet you still keep on beating on when i asked you to stop.

i dont give a fluff about solidsnake's story. i know exactly what went on, and so do you. stop playing ignorant.

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 -----------------------
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P




-----

Did you specifically cancel the pact with any evo heads? No.

*spin spin spin*

Oh and BTW if you didn't renew the pact then it would part of your plan to FS evo, though of course your message above says differently.

Which is it - our auto-renewing pact was fine or you wanted to FS evo? I thought it was all SolidSnake.. or are you finally outting yourself as the weasel i always knew you were?

i did not cancel the pact with any evo heads.

i did not renew the uNAP because i thought our pact was fine. i didn't realize at that time you were FDPed to SOL. i told you i wasn't terribly active that time.

ss did however and he had a reason too because you VOIDED it by FDPing SOL for a year without leaving a opt clause to defend LaF, breaking our pact.

god, how much clearer do we have to spell this out for you?

whom did he specifically cancel the pact with? diez?

where in the convo with diez did he SPECIFICALLY void the pact? plz post here.. im eager to see how you dodge the question.

VERY BIG TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ss cancelled the pact on AT as part of the war dec that reset.

Hey Hanlong, I'm actually pretty curious about that pact. I was a leader in Evo during the beginning of that august set (but left midway through for real-life issues) and I don't recall ever seeing that pact posted on our site. As far as I'm aware, we had a NAP with SoL that qz made? This is the first time I've ever seen this FDP (privately or on AT), but August is when LaF also had a pact with SoL, but that comes back to the fluffy coalition terms and whether they were the same or not would need to be communicated between LaF and Evo.

Obviously I can't speak for any pacts that were not posted, but I'm more curious if that was just back dated because I know that Evo did become FDPs with SoL after the initial FS of LaF because obviously they were going to need it after the blindside, but that would have been October. Can you give more info on where you got it and when it happened (chat logs or time stamps etc)?

MUCHO GRANDE TROUBLE!!!!

where was the list of warring alliances? i dont remember evo getting a memo. i dont even see in the pact where it says "if a pact is signed with a warring alliance then this pact is immediately voided"


there was NO war for evo to enter into, unless you wanna post ss's chat with diez where ss lies to diez and says SOL/RAGE/RIVAL are gonna gangbang LAF. when rival and laf are DPs.

rofl.

I believe the mobster is saying you are all in big trouble.

i can dig up the AT post, but Ivan also wrote on that thread that reset (where you guys said you LaF can't war Evo and how LaF broke a pact etc. etc. etc.)... that ivan had a confirmation from Praetor that SOL/Evo was FDPed.

and you knew very well that FDPing SOL without LaF getting at least an uNAP voids our pact.

and SS declared war on you for it, which is fine.

what's not fine was the lying and the year long "pact breaking" campaign that you tried to shove it down everyone's throats that NukEvil complained no one listened to, because of reasons which the neutral alliances already told you about

1) you called them all dumb fluffs and retards for not listening to you
2) you also were lying in the first place because LaF never broke any pact, you set it up on purpose so LaF would void it.

there's chat logs of makinso and kj wanting this to happen. this was like a half a year in the making before the august 2011 reset. we just haven't even gotten there yet.

Tertius: Qzjul signed a pact with Makinso for the following reset, which I realised went against our anti-gangbang pact. So I spoke to Makinso about repairing Evo/SoL relations from years ago, and changed the pact to a DP, while adding in that clause.

I also have logs when I signed that pact - telling Makinso that he couldn't hit alliances such as lcn, sanct and laf.

but ive posted enough proof for one night about the merry-go-round that is hanlong/ss's reasoning.

SOL was actually the only alliance SPECIFICALLY listed by both qzjul and me as part of the pact getting signed. i alreayd posted this log earlier when we were arguing about his in the first time, do you really want it posted again? god you have such a short memory

so what about the fact that evo could void the sol pact if sol fsed laf?

that's the FUNDAMENTAL question, but you've dodged it.

hay guise

plz b sure 2 sign mah petitieon

http://forums.earthempires.com/...n-laf-evo-members-from-at

Epic earth political fail! ...

How? We arent ur fdp. What you tell makinso behind the scenes doesn't change the fact that the way the pacts are worded that you can't break it for a non fdp

Moral Victory is ours once again!

*cheers*

The thing is you actually thought EVO had a UNAP with SOL when you FSed us... lol, so basically you were FSing based on what info? On what grounds?

I guess it's a lot harder to hack chat logs when they aren't on earthempires server.
lulzsec

http://theaxemen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ayecarumbaoj3.jpg

Thx Trife for all the fun! I am having a blast atm!

To be fair, isn't that exactly what you're doing with saying you and qz discussed that SoL specifically was defined as an enemy/warring alliance not to pact? It wasn't specifically stated SoL in the coalition pact, and it wasn't specifically stated LaF in the SoL pact.

Moral Victory is Ours once again!

We have a winner!!!