(warning, wall of text)



Why do you keep pressure on this change which obviously you had gain from (well if there hadn't been a mess up with another pact also in effect anyway, if there's two pacts, the stronger one has to be the right (unless the other one contain negative clauses, but then it's to messy to be practical anyway)). And if and when it's in place, why would it make any differance to Evo whetever they FS or get FS'ed? They tried to get Rival to FS them, to avoid the clause which you say they removed (or introduced a weaker version of).




And it's a formal offence to not fullfill your asumption that people read between the lines? You're not obligated to fullfill your pacts if the other side did not interpret you correctly, even though you admitedly used bad wording and then signed the pact after having it displayed for you?

[quote poster=hanlong; 14639; 261508]and i never told you that was what we agreed.

did i say "oh yah i agreed to standard" pact?

i said

"[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever"
[/quote]

And that was after already signing the said pact. It's pretty bad to have the attitude "whatever" to signed pacts.



Getting old.



Too add even more confusion, it seems that you may not only have had 2 pacts, but 3 :P

The one hanlong complains about because of its abigious start, a standard unap, and a standard LaF unap. While the first may be in effect or not, the other two are clearly not since they're for "the rest of the set", and "the remainder of the set".



You also said you will be posting a lot of logs, while at the same time critizing BKJ for not posting the stuff you want?!?.



You over use that HanLogic way too much. Where does this insinuation of Evo signing a pact just so they can break it come from? You see no other reasons to sign a pact?



You had the interpretation that you ONLY broke ONE of SEVERAL pacts?



I think many will by their own.



It will probably be too late. Many will already have spent hours reading stuff which heavily favours your antagonist.



You don't have high standards if it's enough for you that you yourself think you havn't broken any pacts.

===

End of thread...

Knowing I'm prone to be biased since having Evo as allies and having fought for them, I'd like to think due all the confusion last set that I had no fluffing clue who had the moral high ground. I was in for our defense on Evo by pure honor to the DP.

This set it's pretty clear though. Sure, the FA negotiation clearly had some bad ambiguities and missphrasings, and the fact that 3 pacts seem to have been signed is a mess. This is on both sides. However, to me it seems regardless how you turn it, LaF broke 1 or possibly 2 of 3 signed pacts.

Hanlong makes no statements about the mail convo being wrong, but in his defense instead focuses on the one pact which wasn't broken and possibly not even in effect.

Evo had my country (well, countries) in this dispute last set, they have my heart and soul for the following ones.



I'll surely use my influence in imag to have them spend their sets dying, or atleast hitting countries tagged imag, for a while.