Oct 17th 2011, 7:05:28
I'm only posting this for the sake of truthfulness.
LAF are claiming that evo refused to FS sol; however the COALITION CANNOT FS ANY ALLIANCE UNLESS IT HAS 66% SUPER MAJORITY. THEREFORE EVO DID NOT BREAK ANY TERMS AND IT WAS LAF THAT IS NOW ACTING THE ROLE OF AGRESSOR AND PACT BREAKER.
+++++++++++
Preamble:
+++++++++++
Friday 29th July 2011
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: i like SOL
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: actually
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: well let me clarify that
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i have nothing against htem
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i just want them to be more on par with the rest of the server
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: so we dont have to spend so mcuh time worrying about the bs they try to cook up every reset
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: im fine with netgainig 3 resets then fighting a prearranged war with SOL to take my turn doing so with all the netters
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: or whatever
[Are LaF on par with the rest of the server? Or do they only war when they have 5 alliances backing them or when they have a pact then break it and FS early into a reset?]
+++++++++++
Below is EVO/LAF pact:
+++++++++++
Anti-BLINDSIDING Coalition PACT (with uNAP terms)
--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.
-----> 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".
++++++++++++++++++
1) No alliances were ever listed as problem alliances/war alliances before a reset began.
2) LaF never requested EVO to FS any alliance.
3) LaF signed a pact with SOL last reset (hypocrisy).
4) EVO had a BREAKABLE pact with SOL, if they hit our allies.
5) Our pact is auto-renewable and unbreakable.
6) The pact states 50% majority; however there are only 2 alliances in the coalition, so they CANNOT be a 50% majority with only two member alliances.
7) " The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war."
Is it just me or is half of 100% equal to 50%, and not 66%?
Jun/08/11 20:20:59
qzjul: sign the coalition terms ?
Hanlong Wang: yes
qzjul: signed! qzjul, evo vp
Hanlong Wang: k signed hanlong LaF don :P
[I've inserted the above confirmation because SolidSnake is claiming that certain things such as the 66% super-majority are not in the pact when his Don Hanlong is the one who signed the pact.]
++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS RESET
++++++++++++++++++++++
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[Anoniem] -----------------------
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P
++++++++
--
[The key word there is *explicitly* cancelled, so our pact apparently stands when it suits LaF and when it doesn't they will break it without warning and FS evo.]
--
==================================================
SSnake is claiming we have a FOP, but all we have is a UNAP with an extra-Anti gangbang coalition pact, which if you look at the terms none of which were broken.
If anybody would like me to bring up some stuff about Lord Tarnava's running suiciders on EVO or about LaF dropping members to win avg nw against their ""FOP"" buddies EVO then please feel free to contact me. Or i can put you in contact with some of the members from evo that have quit earth entirely due to the actions of laf over the past 3 resets.
OH BUT REMEMBER IT'S ONLY SOL THAT FS ALLIES, BREAK PACTS AND GANGBANG INNOCENT NETTERS.
DEATH TO SOL.
P.S. for the sake of completeness:
Do you understand what a 50% MAJORITY is.
You also had a 50% MAJORITY OPPOSING some so called war. If you wish to break a pact because diez said no to us FSing SoL, then you need to EXPLICITLY say so.
[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week
[12:43am] S|snake: i need to know definitively pretty quickly
[12:43am] diez: we are definitely netting this set
[12:43am] S|snake: so is it absolutely out of the question you hitting sol with us
[12:43am] diez: majority wants to net
[12:44am] diez: so even if we somehow went to war, activity will be very low
[12:44am] diez: and we'll lose members too
[12:44am] diez: hopefully you understand that, being the other netting tag and all that...
[12:45am] S|snake: laf war alot, so we're pretty used to this scenario, my main thing was to avoid dragging LCN into it since they've warred so much lately
**********************[12:46am] S|snake: if you cant, you cant, and we'll find some other way, but eug just told me we were fop'd so we may as well ask****************
LAF are claiming that evo refused to FS sol; however the COALITION CANNOT FS ANY ALLIANCE UNLESS IT HAS 66% SUPER MAJORITY. THEREFORE EVO DID NOT BREAK ANY TERMS AND IT WAS LAF THAT IS NOW ACTING THE ROLE OF AGRESSOR AND PACT BREAKER.
+++++++++++
Preamble:
+++++++++++
Friday 29th July 2011
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: i like SOL
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: actually
[01:24] Don_Hanlong: well let me clarify that
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i have nothing against htem
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: i just want them to be more on par with the rest of the server
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: so we dont have to spend so mcuh time worrying about the bs they try to cook up every reset
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: im fine with netgainig 3 resets then fighting a prearranged war with SOL to take my turn doing so with all the netters
[01:25] Don_Hanlong: or whatever
[Are LaF on par with the rest of the server? Or do they only war when they have 5 alliances backing them or when they have a pact then break it and FS early into a reset?]
+++++++++++
Below is EVO/LAF pact:
+++++++++++
Anti-BLINDSIDING Coalition PACT (with uNAP terms)
--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.
-----> 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".
++++++++++++++++++
1) No alliances were ever listed as problem alliances/war alliances before a reset began.
2) LaF never requested EVO to FS any alliance.
3) LaF signed a pact with SOL last reset (hypocrisy).
4) EVO had a BREAKABLE pact with SOL, if they hit our allies.
5) Our pact is auto-renewable and unbreakable.
6) The pact states 50% majority; however there are only 2 alliances in the coalition, so they CANNOT be a 50% majority with only two member alliances.
7) " The coalition can also act preemptively if there is (super-majority, ie 66% ?) agreement on an aggressors supposed future entrance into war."
Is it just me or is half of 100% equal to 50%, and not 66%?
Jun/08/11 20:20:59
qzjul: sign the coalition terms ?
Hanlong Wang: yes
qzjul: signed! qzjul, evo vp
Hanlong Wang: k signed hanlong LaF don :P
[I've inserted the above confirmation because SolidSnake is claiming that certain things such as the 66% super-majority are not in the pact when his Don Hanlong is the one who signed the pact.]
++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS RESET
++++++++++++++++++++++
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[Anoniem] -----------------------
I'm not asking to be friends. just whether u want to renew the uNAP or not :P
++++++++
--
[The key word there is *explicitly* cancelled, so our pact apparently stands when it suits LaF and when it doesn't they will break it without warning and FS evo.]
--
==================================================
SSnake is claiming we have a FOP, but all we have is a UNAP with an extra-Anti gangbang coalition pact, which if you look at the terms none of which were broken.
If anybody would like me to bring up some stuff about Lord Tarnava's running suiciders on EVO or about LaF dropping members to win avg nw against their ""FOP"" buddies EVO then please feel free to contact me. Or i can put you in contact with some of the members from evo that have quit earth entirely due to the actions of laf over the past 3 resets.
OH BUT REMEMBER IT'S ONLY SOL THAT FS ALLIES, BREAK PACTS AND GANGBANG INNOCENT NETTERS.
DEATH TO SOL.
P.S. for the sake of completeness:
Do you understand what a 50% MAJORITY is.
You also had a 50% MAJORITY OPPOSING some so called war. If you wish to break a pact because diez said no to us FSing SoL, then you need to EXPLICITLY say so.
[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week
[12:43am] S|snake: i need to know definitively pretty quickly
[12:43am] diez: we are definitely netting this set
[12:43am] S|snake: so is it absolutely out of the question you hitting sol with us
[12:43am] diez: majority wants to net
[12:44am] diez: so even if we somehow went to war, activity will be very low
[12:44am] diez: and we'll lose members too
[12:44am] diez: hopefully you understand that, being the other netting tag and all that...
[12:45am] S|snake: laf war alot, so we're pretty used to this scenario, my main thing was to avoid dragging LCN into it since they've warred so much lately
**********************[12:46am] S|snake: if you cant, you cant, and we'll find some other way, but eug just told me we were fop'd so we may as well ask****************
re(ally)tired