Maurice, have you asked your leaders who they planned to hit this reset?

"...We did however include clauses to ensure we could protect our allies."

You never had a policy of pact us or else, just "clauses" to ensure you "could protect" your "allies," aka your block as borne out by the RD logs fiasco.

If you're going down the path of hypocrisy then you're going to be here until you die talking about different players, alliances, pro-cheating/anti-cheating, pro-block/anti-block, yada yada. And you're going to be called out on it by others whom are also hypocritical. It's a waste of breath.

My beef was over the block done through diplomatic force. You want to dictate the terms of other alliance's pacting to ostensibly protect your allies, fine, but don't cry wolf when they join together and start opposing you. My suggestion to my alliance has been to avoid blocks. And from what you say, it seems like you guys are moving away from this strategy, perhaps by choice or by necessity.

So this is all much ado about nothing.

Damn I wish I wasn't in Pakistan so I could read all the whining from everyone.

At least you haven't been kidnapped!

Souly, I will answer that question.

I have had good relationships with current SOF leaders, including Chevs and Aponic, who I highly respect...even if we are currently on different sides of the fence.

At least you haven't been kidnapped!

Hopefully your leaders address it before you find out through someone else...

The question i am trying to get an answer to is who could you have hit if you pacted us? Limits your options doesnt it? I am not assuming any specific clan but it is very limited. Either all of this sappy "we love the little clan" is all bullfluff propaganda or you guys were hitting an ally...i thik we can all agree that civil war was off the table

Not at all, it has been floated many times to the members since i have been in sof and most members are down for a good civil war.

A lot of bragging rights between the divisions at the moment.

I of course would of detagged and suicided netters due to the new restart rules i would of had a fantastic set.

Not at all, it has been floated many times to the members since i have been in sof and most members are down for a good civil war.

A lot of bragging rights between the divisions at the moment.

I of course would of detagged and suicided netters due to the new restart rules i would of had a fantastic set.

There is alot of butthurt in this thread.

Makes me laugh.

So Sov, apparently you did create the situation, and punished LCN for not playing ball your way.

AND in True Sov Fasion, when LCN didn't play his way,

He hit LCN:)

Bullying a smaller alliance for not doing exactly what he wants. Like ICN and Monsters. (3 examples in one set)

So despite not having all the information, (for good reasons as I wasn't actively playing at the time.) Your Tried and True methods are so predictable, all the information isn't neccessary.

Which is why things are the way they are.

1. You've never seen me scheme to burn down the server.

2. You've never seen me plot to create a server war for the fun of it. Intentionally bringing in allainces that don't want any part of said war.

3. You've never seen me take an alliance and bully someone 1/3rd my size.

I much prefer 1-1 wars, and have a track record that backs this up.

Viclar......where is my moneys and laaaaannnnnddd????

Table, you are mostly correct.

Except, for a few things.

Here are 3 area's where Sov and I differ.


1. You've never seen me scheme to burn down the server.
2. You've never seen me plot to create a server war for the fun of it. Intentionally bringing in allainces that don't want any part of said war.
3. You've never seen me take an alliance and bully someone 1/3rd my size.

I much prefer 1-1 wars, and have a track record that backs this up.

1. Preplanned ECM war vs SOF...out of which Monsters FDP with SOF rose..
2. War with TIE, where SOF and Rival both wanted to gang bang TIE, and I made it a condition of Monsters coming that Monsters get to take TIE on 1-1. BTW Mosnters were 20 and TIE 28 members beginning of that war. It resulted in a fun war both sides remember fondly.
3. AFter multiple sets of issues Monsters hit a similary sized Imaginary numbers. I can't remember who was bigger...only that (no surprise) Monsters had better built countries. Again 1-1. Similar sized war.

That was my 3 wars in Monsters.
Last Reset, LCN took 2 FS's from RD and Rival.
This reset, LCN hitting a similar sized Rival.

Compare that to SOF's reign of terror the last 2-3 years. That's where we differ.

At least you haven't been kidnapped!

In Deci's last set at LCN they also decided to blindside PDM for no reason at all and without PDM provoking them one little bit. This decimated PDM and I offered to help PDM recover at this point and gave them minor assistance. After deciding not to renew LCN as a FDP we were still happy to give LCN a UNAP on the basis that if we rebuilt relations we could return to a FDP.

Around the same time we learned of a coalition being put together by MD (and Imag) targeting Rival and RD from a few MD allies and were delivered lots of logs of discussions and leadership meetings about planning of this conflict with LCN looking to take on Rival (LCN leadership declined knowledge of this planning and we have no evidence of their direct involvement other than MD leadership making plans for LCN to hit Rival). Looking to avoid a server type war at the time we decided to intervene and at our ally's request we wanted to include a break clause for Rival in our pact with LCN to deter LCN from hitting Rival.

Trumps is correct, SOF placed conditions upon their pact with LCN that they choose not to accept

LoL sov.


A well displayed action of your transparency by waving Mdevols question off.

The biggest difference between you and me is that if I were even playing for LCN it would probably have over 45 members by now.

We didn't even talk to LCN about a pact. You are just an idiot. I talked with Servant about his perspective on SOF, which he has vocalized here. Being that he was so against parts of our leadership team, we did not engage further in talks about a pact. Maybe this coming reset we will enter discussions.

SOF did not try to impose any conditions while pacting. In fact, we were quite reasonable in accommodating some small alliances in modifying our standard pacts for them. Go ahead and put your foot in your mouth dude.

LoL sov.


A well displayed action of your transparency by waving Mdevols question off.

I am not going to be the one to post the logs that your leaders know exist that show otherwise Maurice....

They can try to dismiss me as a "puppet" all they want but in the end they made their bed and now they have to sleep in it.

and no, there was not going to be a civil war.

Oh, just out of curiosity what is your country name this reset Maurice?

BuckeyesSmashEugene, right? Oops.