RE: Pact‏


To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
















22/12/2011






Reply ▼















Hanlong Wang

















Add to contacts
To




































Ok signed for the uNAP for this reset.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:33:10 +0000


signed BattleKJ, HoW of Evolution

I also propose we sign a standard laf term uNAP for the remainder of the set.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:44:03 +0000


sounds good



signed Don Hanlong, Don of La Famiglia







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:56:57 +0000


all good? and a standard unap for the rest of this set?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: RE: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:24:01 +0000



Change that Two Stepping from SoF to LaF heh






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
To:
Subject: Pact
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:09:43 +0000


uNAP Between Evolution and LaFamiglia.

This uNAP will auto-renew from the start of the Feb 2012 set for the duration of 3 sets.

-Retaliation Policy-

-200% Land:Land On all grabs
-1:1 On all DHs (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-3:1 On all specials (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-Compounding 2:1 or 200% Land:Land On Retal on Retal (Whichever is more)
-The window during which retals will be performed shall be 48 hours from the time of the hit, unless otherwise agreed to by FR's
-1:1 On Declaration of War, if and only if an attack is made while the declaration is in place.
-Standard reps formula is: ((75*number of week into the reset)*(lost acres*1.2))
-200% Land:Land negates any lost production payable, as future production will be more. Special cases may still be discussed between representatives from both alliances.
-Unlimited Retaliations and/or Killing of the offending country may be discussed anytime after the 4th attack of any kind in a 24 hour period.
-48 hour retal period which begins after FRs make contact on anymore then two attacks.
-During times of war reps may be discussed in place of retals
- Alliances are responsible for a country�s actions while untagged if that country was tagged in said alliance within 72 hours prior to the first attack.
-Alliances are responsible for compensation of lost production/future stockpile generation on losses greater than 2000 acres/buildings per individual country. This clause only takes effect after the 1100th turn has been played by the defender. Damages are to be repaid in the form of bushels and cash only. This clause only applies in cases where defending countries exceed 13,000 acres prior to the attack(s).
- Formulas for repaying lost production/future stock:
-Rep-Cashers: Stocking until the last 72 � 96 hours of any set (depending on when set ends). 175% Bus/Res Tech, and 87% Military tech. Cash all turns, and a total of 300 CS(So, if land is 20k, you minus 300 and then divide by two to figure out the specific amount of ent/res zones). Multiply each day remaining in the set by 78 turns, using current market price for bushel rate. Use a set in stone military for each country, say: 200k spies, 200k troops, 1mil turrets, 200k tanks. So basically: 175% bus/res tech, 300 CS, 87% Military tech, 200k spies/troops/tanks 1mil turrets, all turns cashed, 40 dollar bushel price, Stocking until 26th or 27th.
-Tyr-Farmers: 216% Agri tech, 87% Military tech, same Military #'s, 150% Bus/Res tech, cash all turns, stock until 26th or 27th. Bushel price is current market price.
-Tyr-Techers: Tech all turns, 165% bus/res tech, 85% Military tech, TPT is 1/4 of Total Land - 300. Decreasing Tech value, starting at 3k the First week of 2nd month, 2500 2nd, 2k 3rd, and 1500 for the last week of the set. Bushel price at current market value, and military same as above.
- Compensation will be made in the form of reps rather than retals in cases where attacks are made on a country within a 6 hour period of joining the allied tag.
*prices and formula are subject to change as game mechanic changes are announced.

-Two Stepping and Suiciding-

- LaF and Evo agree not to two-step each other. Two-stepping is when Alliance A grabs an untagged or another alliances' country when that country has hit alliance B four or more times in a 4 hour period, while being unprovoked and vice versa. land:land or 1:1, whichever is greater, will be taken against the offender.
- A country is considered provoked only when it has been hit four or more times and even if this is the case the retaliation has to be taken against the offending country rather than another alliance member if it is to be exempt from two-stepping.
- Both alliances are responsible for any country that has spent a week in their alliance until it has joined a new alliance. If that country suicides on the other alliance they are required to help kill the country and reparations for losses and future losses will be calculated between FAs depending on the circumstances with fairness in mind.
- If a suiciding country has spent less than a week in the offending alliance, then the 72 hour tag responsability applies (exluding time spent in vacation).

-Detagging of Members to win ANW.-

-Evo and LaF both agree not to coordinate the detagging of members with less than 14 days left in the set. We will also try to ensure that our active members do not benefit from the detagging of the inactive members and will try to enforce a no-grab policy on these countries. Where this policy is breached, if the oppossing alliance feels that the particular situation benefitted the active member too much actions will be taken to punish the offending member.


- This pact has a voidable clause for boths parties FDPs. FDPs are to be listed at the start of the set, or this pact. The uNAP can be voided if one of the parties of this pact is involved in a war with one of the other parties FDPs

Thats exactly what was in the email. Exactly what I said in the previous post. Next.

thank you kj for saving me time =)

"The uNAP can be voided if one of the parties of this pact is involved in a war with one of the other parties FDPs"

and that's the term that we agreed on that we are invoking.

let's move on kiddies.

galleri: yes rival declared and hit first, and were in a state of war with Rival, as what evo wants. that's why you don't add these kind of stupid terms ON PURPOSE and should've kept it at "in defense of" which would be "same as SoF's"

so you still haven't answered my question. why did you change LaF's away from SoF, when i specifically asked

"SAME AS SOF"

KJ - in my interpretation, saying that a pact will "auto-renew as of February 2012" means that February 2012 is the first set of the auto-renewal, meaning that the previous set is the first set under the pact. If thats the case, then the "- This pact has a voidable clause for boths parties FDPs. FDPs are to be listed at the start of the set, or this pact. The uNAP can be voided if one of the parties of this pact is involved in a war with one of the other parties FDPs" clause is applicable during this set and it along with the rest of the terms will be auto-renewed in February, April, and June. Otherwise February wouldn't be the start of the auto-renewal. February will be the initial pact which will auto-renew beginning April. That's the way I read it at least.

thank you =) im sure outside of completely biased people (aka laf and evo) more neutral people can see what is going on and decide.

that's why i want full disclosure =)

TL;DR

Haha....

SPIN HANLONG SPIN

This uNAP will auto-renew from the start of the Feb 2012 set for the duration of 3 sets.

We signed that pact I agree. Clearly we can both be seen agreeing, then I requested a standard term uNAP for this set. To which you agreed.

Even you're not under the impression that, that is a standard term uNAP. You know from our IRC conversations and when you posted the link to standard LaF terms exactly what was meant =) Of course you can now claim youi didnt understand that =) I guess that would then make you on par with my nickname for the Rival Leader! ;) But its okay because I know you're not one of them, you're just trying to snake your way out of another LaF are pact breakers thread. Even though you know exactly that is what you are! This time you cant even blame it on SolidPrat

i also agree that mrford hit the point.

we should just sign only normal uNAPs then none of this bs will happen.

can we cut the bs now KJ? <3

you still have more logs you didn't share, but like i said i only address what you share kj.

please do say more so like i said in a reset's time we can have a good laugh at how fail you were in your attempt to manipulate the players in this game

You haven't posted anything Hanlong. You keep on calling me a liar, yet you've done nothing to prove that. At least when I call LaF pact breakers, I back up what I have claimed with proof.

oh what you posted is good enough so far, please continue posting more irc logs

you have to see that me posting it will get slagpit and anoniem coming out saying how i doctored logs or some fluff.

so at least we can just discuss instead of having auxiliary commentary that isnt necessary. so i need you to post more. you still haven't posted everything

So did Hanlong sign the standard pact or not?

If he did, then there is no room for him to defend himself.

Read what you sign or don't sign at all.

kj still needs to answer my question..

why did you change the pact from "at war" from "defend FDP"?

i assumed this was why (you threatened Rival and want us to jump in now), but looks like i was wrong. since you were so adamant you want this for next reset instead of this reset.

you have some other reason why? please fill me in kj =)

Of course he did. Interestingly I shared the exact same sequence with Flamey (A SoF Leader) and he doesnt seem to be under the assumption that our 'special' pact is in place now. He is well aware that we signed SoFs standard uNAP with them for the remainder of this set.

LOl

OH

so you intend to use it for next reset? so you are a dipfluff who signs 3 reset peace pact to break for the very reset it starts.

NICE :D

so which way is it? do you think we broke a pact? or you are a dipfluff who wants to break the pact instead.

Well, it seems that KJ sent terms that included the you can break the pact for war with FDP yadda yadda. And they signed it, with the agreement that it will auto-renew as of February 2012. Now, in my interpretation, if something starts auto-renewing in February 2012 it means that it must have been in place beforehand because otherwise there's nothing to renew. A renewal is by definition at least the second instance of something. So, if it renews in February, that means it's active in January. However, after this was signed, KJ said that they should sign a standard LAF uNAP for the rest of the set. Presumable this standard LAF uNAP does not have the clause in question. Hanlong then signed this. So really, two pacts were signed for some reason. It can be interpreted or argued either way. In any case it's at the very least an ambiguous situation. I can understand both interpretations of what was actually signed. KJ assumed it was a standard uNAP whereas hanlong thought he had signed the one with the added clause.

i had the same interpretation as hawkeyee. and he's not in LaF. heh

I explained the reason to Flamey on IRC.

The break clauses that I requested were different as simple

SoF are a direct threat to Evolution not our allies.
LaF are a direct threat to Evolution and our allies.

Why wouldnt they be different? You both signed them, you can claim that you wanted the same as SoF but you didnt make that clear and signed it regardless, and even if you did I made it perfectly clear as I mentioned previously that I was open to altering clauses after they had already been signed.

we are now getting somewhere KJ!

can you provide more logs now?

u said you had a reason why its different. let's post them and we can talk about it!

For the record, LaF's "standard" pacts don't have FDP (or FOP) out clauses.

Exactly, which is why your FS on us has broken an unbreakable pact. Idiot!

you did not sign a standard pact with me.

that was your problem.

you are the only dumbass who wants out clauses from me.

everyone else in the world is fine with none of that bs.

Hanlong if you're claiming that you believed what Hawkeye said to be the case, then why did you not provide me with a list of your FDP's or ask me for ours? Quite simply you didnt do that because you KNEW that pact was NOT in place until next set. Stop trying to pick fault with a badly written line of text and try to act less oblivious to clear facts!

I think LaF invented those clauses last set when MD and SoF refused to pact us without their pacts containing those clauses, obviously to cover the LaF FS. NEXT!

why didnt i?

because my gf was fluffING at me to leave the computer.

i meant to do it, i left though without doing it.

i thought i thought you and makinso this. she can probably also testify lol

she was super PISSED.

i told her i was going to take her out to dinner and she sat there for 2 hours watching me "play that stupid text bullfluff game" <-- her words not mine

You also told me at one point when I asking you to get SoF and Rival to pact us alongside LaF that 'Rival are a SoF ally we don't tell them what to do'.

NEXT.

kj

The point of having text of any sort is so that there is no question about what is meant.

The bottom line is that the literal interpretation of the changes you made.. allowed LaF's actions.

You may not like that, you may not have intended that - but those are YOUR changes, not hlw's. So give it a rest, and either ask someone unbiased for help or have someone else do your pacting. This is the second reset in a row you've made this mistake.

we don't tell them what to do.

unlike you, i don't tell my allies what to do.

i give them all the logs/facts/etc. with full disclosure and i let them make their decisions.

you know why? because i treat them as friends.

What allies have we dictated to? None.

But that isnt the point, the point is you made no indication of Rival being your allies at any point, however thats irrelevant as you know and I know we hadnt signed that clause for this set anyway. You're at the end of the road now Hanlong. You broke the standard uNAP that we signed, and you're still yet to say anything to disprove that, and you will be unable to do so with any of these logs that you claim to have. So lets just just stop this conversation. You're a liar. You're dishonourable. You're untrustworthy. The End.

And for the love of God, kj: Quit trying to win a conversation.

News flash: Nobody "has" to accept your values or your facts.

Even if you were correct (which, just to be perfectly clear, you are not) YOU CAN STILL BE WRONG. Communication is not just a piece of the puzzle - it is the entirety of this game.

you also ignored a lot of logs :D

we aren't at a conclusion yet KJ :P please post more logs

You're the man with the logs. But maybe you have lost the urge to try to manipulate what I say into something that suits you better =)

"you know and I know"

Wrong, son. Nobody knows - and quit projecting.

"You're at the end of the road now Hanlong."

Wrong, son. You're the one dying.

"you're still yet to say anything"

Wrong. son. Read the thread.

"you will be unable to do so with any of these logs"

Wrong, son. Again, read the thread.

"lets just just stop this conversation"

You first.

"The End."

Well, at least there's something we can agree on.

I'm at a loss as to why KJ should take orders from a little LaF fluff like Unsympathetic.

I shouldnt!

Interesting.....
So the first kill was by Rival. Then AMAZING! The next 10 kills were by LaF. Who joined their fdp because the fdp must of been soooo scared. And needed back up because Evo is a threat. Seems most of the time FDP's are called in when you feel you are losing a war.
Here is how this really looks:
Laf and rival decided to war evo, but let rival kill first so LaF can void a pact in honor of their fdp. Or wait....even better,
PG was raging that Evo, whom is imag's fdp was faing them. So being the crafty little clever girl she thinks she is, went crying to LaF. And came up with this little clever plan. I hope you like Rival and pg lots and lots. It is gonna be a long time, I am sure before either of you see a net set again.

I wasn't born yesterday. Neither was most of the rest this game.

I want to ask you a question Hanlong.

Is this the start of an attempt to force Evolution from the game by warring us continually?

i heard that 4 resets ago from makinso.

"prepare not to netgain for the next 4 resets"

on AT nonetheless so im sure you all read it, no logs needed.

you are right, we haven't netgained for the past 4 resets. we're still doing ok galleri, don't worry about us.

no.

this is the start of an attempt to force evolution to kick your sorry ass out of evo so we can both netgain again.

Your disgraced former HoW disagrees.



John Evolution 20/10/2011 07:02

Quick LT.
John Evolution 20/10/2011 07:02

Come back quick!
John Evolution 20/10/2011 07:02

LaF needs your 2 accounts.
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:12

country dead yet?
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:14

nope
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:14

too bad
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:14

probably soon =)
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:14

for you
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:15

your anxiety over if you are about to be KR'd is prolonged for the time being
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:15

not really
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:16

oh well. tagkill/farm for the next few sets ought to be fun
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:16

sure, I'll try to play for that =)
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:16

But might be too busy
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:16

cool it'll be appreciated there isn't much untagged land left
John Evolution 09/01/2012 00:17

Okay
Lord Tarnava 09/01/2012 00:17

you guys are competent enough to explore for us I would imagine

Oops, ignore the first few messages, those were from a previous conversation! =)

that's why he's a former head of war.

and one day hopefully from all of this once all the dust settles and your alliance leaders see the same thing i did, you won't be their's either.

My name is not maki,
And this is not sol

i did not say you are maki and you are from SOL.

i just said i heard that same thing before 4 resets ago ;)

Who is LaF's current head of war?

Son Goku

he's been our HoW for two resets now.

Seems so.
Dagga nailed it already, laf can not compete with evo netting. Guess break/voiding pacts to gangbang evo 2 sets in a row is going to be the norm now.

But I haven't cheated hanlong. Lets get that straight. You demoted LT as he's a cheat, not because he's gobby. But you want Evo to demote me because I am gobby? =)

SPIN HANLONG SPIN.

This honestly reminds me of last set when Rival declared on SOL in 'defense' of SOF, the aggressors of the war.

I mean what happened to FDPs? Aren't they suppose to be 'defensive' in nature? Since when was the line blurred between FDPs and FOPs when you could go both ways with a single pact?