there you go, finally SS explained.

now thinking back (sorry because i was busy that time and not really following) i think ss was upset that SOL was open to hit us and evo pacted the other side against the wishes of what that our pact was supposed to be about (us sticking up together against warmongers trying to take advantage of us as we indicated when me and qz signed that pact to begin with), so SS used the loophole to get out of it.

it still smells of Makinso trying to manipulate one netgaining alliance against another which is his game plan since the start of EE and we're all still falling for it like idiots and taking turns FDPing SOL just so we can netgain for the short term without thinking of the long term consequences.

if i was actively calling the shots that time, i wouldn't had hit Evo that reset though.

lemon curry?

The problem with SS's explanation is that he didn't break (or void, whatever) the uNAP because Evo pacted SOL...he broke it because Evo was winning Triple Crowns and needed an excuse to downsize Evo's membership, and used that clause (which LaF itself violated the set before, IIRC) to do so.

But it really doesn't matter anymore. LaF apparently doesn't really care about the community, for its leaders refuse to own up to past mistakes. ONE leader apologized for LaF's transgressions 2 resets ago, but that doesn't change the fact that Evo are down to ~40 members from ~70 members 2 sets ago, nor does it change the fact that LaF are still dealing with the fallout from that decision. Whether LaF can continue to hold their dominance over Alliance can only be told by how the future unfolds.

you have proof of this? i don't remember one conversation i had with ss where he said "i want to hit evo because they are winning ANW/TNW".

and what do you mean "one leader". i'm the Don. i speak for all the leaders when i apologize. you want every LaF head to post here? don't be ridiculous nukevil ;)

So your going to assume you know my reasoning better than I do? You thought you were oh so clever pacting both sides, but when it comes to bite you in the ass, im the bad guy? Evo made a political gamble that didnt pay off, blame me all you like that's on you guys not on me.

if anything nukevil you guys never apologized for trying to FDP both sides so other netgaining alliances can take the fall/hits from SOL instead of you.

very likely if things played differently and SOL crushed us while you safely watched we would be the ones going from ~70 to ~40 and your tune will be different.

Actually, IIRC, Evo's pacting of SOL was accidental--it may have been a different reset, not sure-- (one FA not knowing not to pact SOL), so there was no "playing both sides", despite what you keep trying to spin. But keep trying! No need to stop now!

And, at this point, I should probably remind both of you to read my signature, and take that to heart before going much further with this.

P.S. Hanlong, one Don cannot apologize for the actions of another Don. It makes such apologies pretty much meaningless ;)

oh one more thing nukevil

the community is growing. just because evo didn't doesn't mean the community isn't

we have more players now? pang told me all metrics were up.

also another interesting tidbit which i remembered after reviewing old logs.

arsenal told me in front of a group chat with multiple alliances the reset SOL hit MD/LCN for us to hit evo and i told him no. from the logs where arsenal/makinso said they worked together for many months already and combining this fact i am led to believe they were already planning to trick LaF into hitting Evo to start off this current saga.

Wasn't EVO still like 60ish last set?

yah a lot of them joined Neofed from what i know. overall the population of this game is still growing.

i didn't know Evo = the community. ;P

nukevil is probably just trolololzing us ;P

<3

There's so many directions to go with this statement!

All the mad and tears in this thread are delicious.

Hobo, where is bobo and lobo?

Still doesn't refute my main point--that LaF doesn't have nearly the support it would have had they left Evo alone...but I guess, they don't really need the support as long it's their server they're playing on :).

ROFL SS's explanation has not much to do with the "why" and more to do with the "how" that war happened, but the fact that Evo keeps referencing "LaF just did it cause they couldn't beat us in ANW" is just stupid, and is only going to add to the anmosity that lead to the FS to begin with. But hey, why should I expect you to learn anything from all of this, it's not as though you have in the past (we keep pointing out that the time we FSed you prior to that, while SS was Don, was for the exact same reasons).

Evo has beat us in netgaining in the past and LaF didn't reply by FSing you lol. The whole argument is just fallous. We've already made it clear that the reason why we FSed you was because you keep pushing us via AT trashtalk, country name selection, etc etc. Guess what, that kind of stuff pisses members off. When members get pissed off, wars happen.

Rather than recognizing that issue, in your infinite widsom, your strategy is to ignore it and continue to verbally prode us. Oh yes, that will do a good job keeping you off our radar in the future...

And another of LaF's leaders thinks it's OK to break a pact mid-set instead of dropping at the beginning of next set! Wanger also still thinks I play this server, let alone in Evo. News flash, I'm not arguing for Evo's sake. I haven't logged into the Evo site--nor have I created and played a country on this server--since the end of last reset. And I don't intend to do so anymore.

this wasn't the first time "SS had got laf to fs evo"

it always happens when you are getting spanked in netting and can't handle it anymore. fine, so be it. man up and stop with the lies.

ss is a piece of a fluff and always will be. as for H4 - we all know just how intelligent he is. he can't even detag the right amount of countries to win avg nw.

(see how i've kept off of this thread, but clearly the trash spewing from some of your mouths needs to be addressed.

thank you for playing the wheel of fortune.)

Okay everything hlw said was a lie.

It was me that wanted evo dead so i bribed hlw into getting laf to FS evo for 2 sets. :)

actually it was arsenal's idea originally for LaF to FS evo originally because he thought Evo was lame trying to police for MD without them asking in the SOL vs MD/LCN war.

i told him no though, probably one of the main reasons why he got all pissy with LaF.

ps i think its almost log time again, let me search for those logs for this ;P

Thank you Anon for providing a direct example of what I'm talking about. I tell you why we hit you, and you ignore it and continue to do exactly what I said caused us to hit you.

I'm always interested in looking at logs if it'll give more information into how or why the current events are taking place.

Theres so many lies in that statement I don't know where to begin. =) Try not to turn your opinions into things I have apparently said.

yes, because you are the big man, and im meant to be afraid of you. give me a break.

hlw: please post those logs. it will be of great interest to me.

So....

All SolidSnake, hanlong had no involvement.

I think the issue is that LaF thinks people discussing their poor attempts to win ANW at the last seconds of the set is trash talking. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Also, as facts seem to keep changing, recall that when LaF blindsided Evo that first time, it was because Evo wasn't willing to join LaF in a FS gangbang of SoL which led to the dispute over when one member of the "anti-gangbang coalition" could call in the others. It required a majority and additionally required that there was proof that a warring alliance was about to hit, and thus could only be a pre-emptive strike, not just any random FS.

I'm pretty sure LaF didn't supply Evo with any proof of an impending FS and of course we all know that 50/50 does not allow a majority for either party, which is why Evo did not consider themselves to have broken the pact. I'm pretty sure the terms of the pact with SoL had a clause for defending, though I long lost access to Evo's embassy, but it's probably in all of those old posts.

Not to mention, when SS was trying to "trap" diez into voiding the pact, diez was referring to having a uNAP with LaF and not SoL, but rather than clarify SS ran with it (which seems to happen a lot with LaF, they read what they want to read in a pact, even after it is explained that's not how it works).

I try to not be biased against LaF in general, but when I come on here and read history being re-written, it's really hard. Though I do admire how well hanlong seems to politik and control the puppet strings while I'm simultaneously disgusted by it. The game at its finest honestly, I'm just not a fan of the shady tactics, but it definitely makes things interesting.

Solidsnake is a disgrace for going against the wishes for the honest hanlong.

I totally agree, from the reset prior to LaF hitting Evolution the first time.

<marco>: if we war evo next set, laf offered to fa all of our restarts
<marco>: whatchya think
<Heinrich>: interesting
<Heinrich>: if we war evo next set
<Heinrich>: we're going to need lots of FA for restarts
<marco>: IF

So prior to LaF hitting us, LaF had already offered to help Rival out with FA against Evo whom LaF had the 'anti-SOL' pact with. Interesting hanlong.

So hanlong, you were actively leading LaF the set prior. Why were you offering RIVAL FA if they hit us the following set?

But really? Eouldn't your FA to Rival if they did hit us go against the terms in the pact you had with us? Unless you never had any intention of honouring a pact with us in the first place.

Lots of ifs and buts here.... maybe you care to explain? Before you say you didnt know about it, which you can if you wish, the next section of that very conversation is Marco copy/pasting a conversation he had with you. =)

i have 0 context of that chat kj.

i wasn't even a part of it as you can see.

what henrinch and marco says unrelates to me.

i posted logs of what YOU said. why are you asking me about something other people said ;P

You don't try hard at all to be unbiased. You always are.


And Anoniem... when will you ever smarten up? Considering you are THE contact for much of Evo matters being hFR you would think you would learn how to shut your mouth. I prefer you not to though.

also there's nothing in our pact that reset that mentioned anything about FA sent, so i don't where you are going with this argument KJ


--Terms--
The coalitions purpose is to prevent netters from being blindsided during netting sets by alliances engaging them for the express purpose of having an easy war. Past examples include SOL -> Collab, SOL -> Evo, SOL -> LaF, and others. The emphasis is towards unprovoked wars, or wars provoked by minor slights that would otherwise have been ignored had the aggressor not badly wanted a war. The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war.

All alliances in the coalition will enter into war (preferably simultaneously in a large strike) against the Enemy; after they are sufficiently beaten down, farming may commence. NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.

The agreement will be unbreakable auto-renew; however if an alliance fails to hold up their end of the agreement (ie does not enter into war), then they will be immidiately dropped from the coalition and will not thereafter be allowed to resign unless a UNANIMOUS vote by other alliances allows their reentry.

New entrants to the coalition must be admitted by a UNANIMOUS vote of the existing parties.

What constitues a blindside will be voted on, with a 50% majority required to commit the coalition to war.

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".

Good, hanlong, now post the terms of the standard uNAP that was also in place back then.

I never attempted to trap diez into voiding the pact, the pact had already been voided, I simply was looking for him to verify that fact, which he did. Not to mention were I trying to "trap him" as you put it, there was no "majority" clause as you claim there to have been.

And as far as the anw title goes, evo farmed/dropped (4?) members 2 resets prior to steal anw from laf, laf returned the favor. Laf didnt start the member dropping evo did. A fact you always seem to conveniently forget.

there was none. that was the only terms we signed.

from the sol pact that apparently voided ours (evo/laf pact):
"clause 1a to: SOL and Evolution will both avoid aggressions towards each others FDPs. If aggression in the form of a first strike does occur from SOL on an Evo FDP then Evo have the option to void this pact with a 24 hours notice."


according to SS the coalition pact made evo and laf FOPs. evo didn't break any pact.

no war alliances were stipulated before the reset began, and even if you do try and count sol then i had a pact i could break with them in defence of any of evo's FDPs, whereas sol did not have that option.

i guess it shows how clued up you really are.

We shall see Hanlong when I am back on my computer. I understand the easy option is to deny involvement so far. Naturally you want to deny lying but you have so many lies spread with so many people some of them are tired of it. Unlike you I didnt need to program a tool to track websites the logs I have were handed to me willingly.

before you continue i just want to know are you posting these opinions as a MD member or a Evo member?

i fail to see how you can be a Evo head and a MD member at the same time, as i was told by the people around you.

or are your old RD habits of playing in multiple alliances at the same still not dying hard?

I'm feeling deja vu

@SS: I really enjoy that right before you posted, Hanlong posted the terms which state the clause of super-majority and majority, which you claim not to have been.

Additionally, my whole point was that he didn't verify that fact and that you asked him two questions and then mixed and matched the answers according to what you wanted to hear.

I don't remember which set you're referring to. One set we had one member self-delete because he had a death in the family (which we learned later) and he had no clue what time of set it was. The other set I believe you're referring to, LaF dropped members, so one of the Evo heads dropped the same amount (maybe it was KJ?) but in comparing all aspects (aka, if LaF had dropped the same members they did, but Evo had dropped none) Evo still won ANW. That was partially why some of us in Evo leadership supported rules on when members can be dropped (at least 10 days prior to set end) and also that they can't be farmed in tag, even though plenty of other alliances allow it, because honorable netting is important to Evo.

@locket, broken record, why not disprove something if you think it's incorrect. Of course I'm biased against lying, I'm sorry if you think that means I'm inherently biased against LaF. It's your actions, not your name, which bothers me.

Reset 9, evo dropped i believe it was 4 countries, and proceeded to farm them while they had stock on hand (and continued to run turns, from memory this happened 7-10 days before the end of the reset, but i would have to go back to find exact dates). The anw gain resulting from this drop, won evo anw that reset (although laf attempted to counter this eos the drop was 2.2m? (going by memory) anw less than evo did. Which if you then add the nw gain of stock transfer/land LaF's anw loss of .5m nw was bs).




I guess it just further goes to illustrate my point that I was never voiding on that basis in that I completely forgot that term even existed.

I am posting as someone that for the last 2 resets you have actively tried to have removed from leadership in an alliance that you have never had any involvement in whatsoever.

I am posting as someone you called out by posting logs containing things I have said.

I am posting as a messenger for other people that want me to post various logs and comments you have made "privately" in the last several months.

Log this log that!!! when will you people learn :P

jesus christ, i have forgotten how much i missed this stuff... /me digs out his troll helmet ,and puts it on

Then why do you ignore the lies that your lovers in Evo tell?

And KJ, I think you should pick one hat and stick with it ;)

You were close, it looks like 3 countries that I could find. One had been an inactive for a long time and was getting farmed by untags, we were all too big to retal on those untags and since he never responded, we dropped him. In fact it looks like LaF were the ones who benefited the most from that:

http://www.eestats.com/alliance/oldcountry/204/614

Two of the others were quitting and had friends in the tag; they offered their land to them privately and leadership didn't find out until seeing it in the news. One of them also ran turns, and if you recall it was KJ who farmed him and then was severely chastised on AT by many, including myself. While everyone agreed it was dumb, technically there was never a written rule about it, so we then added it the very next set. However, that person who quit was detagged a month before set end and deleted shortly after:

http://www.eestats.com/alliance/oldcountry/204/225

The last one was detagged only 8 days before set end so I guess you've got me there.

http://www.eestats.com/alliance/oldcountry/204/173

If there's more that were dropped, I don't have the tools to find them, but there are not others that were farmed. I would hardly call that Evo farming 4 dropped members to win ANW. Especially since LaF members gained more acres on all of those guys than Evo did.

the majority thing only said 50% which is horrible wording

usually people say 51% or 50% +1 vote

2 parties therefore 1 party = 50%, but whether its a majority is the same sort of question as whether the pact should be invalid if their is no such thing as a 50% majority, basically each side will take the view they prefer

the other part evo likes to quote is in brackets and says something like supermajority or 2/3 and was never in the pact it was only on evos site

That's why I can't quit this game. Too much drama.