Klown, I do not think Sol and Laf had a current pact between each other

Refer to this thread, voiding a pact for a bogus reason is just an even more dishonest way of breaking a pact.

Oh well. Flex LAF, while you have the ability. Just remember, memories are longer than a single set (most times anyhow).

It was already voided last reset. You guys agreed to this already.

go LaF

I did not void it. Maki did not void. Praetor did not void it. And while I spoke to multiple laf FA's this reset, both sides have talked as if it still existed. I was first told the claim that it was voided is when I spoke to you guys this reset, and yet when I look back at the logs I have always said "It can be voided by either side, but I am glad it has not..." etc etc.

Maybe someone thought in Laf that SOL did void it and everyone just went with it.

I would like to see the logs of this event.

this.

The server may stand up and say "no", but that's all it will ever do, and LaF will never change.

do we have to bring up the logs again on why you guys made us sign this "offensive" pact clause in the first place?

you guys must have short term memory loss or something

so it was only ok for SOL to use it to attack but not vice versa? you guys never answered to us why you guys wanted that pact in the first place and explained the logs to us or anyone else on AT.

Regardless of right or wrong being the biggest, most powerful alliance on the server earns you the ability to do whatever the hell you want. If Laf wants to hit you and won't suffer politically why shouldn't they? They earned their spot. You got out played. Don't cry.

It was a pact that was agreed to by both sides not just a single party. Whether or not there was "evil" or "good" reasons for any part of the pact, the point is that it was not voided. Additionally, we wanted the pact because you guys decided to FS us based on poor reasons right before christmas holiday while SOL was completely inactive. Let us not forget as well that the war this CF pact was for was because SOL didnt give Laf a unap, and yet this set we wanted to give them a unap. I digress though... I am not arguing that you dont have right to void it, you do. I am argueing that it was not voided at all. Besides that, it seems that there was a 24 hour notice to void the pact that had to be given (correct me if I am wrong).

The specific issue I am bringing up right now is that LAF nor SOL voided the pact. There for, the pact still exists.

Additionally: I find it funny that you said that we MADE you sign it, when the ball was completely in your court considering that the pact was a Cease Fire Pact to stop LAF from killing off SOL during the holidays.

The pact still exists?

Tell that to the thousands of hits LaF has made in SOL's general direction.

Derp. -_-

I've been away for a bit vacation and RL restraints.


LaF you are drawing at straws. The only real reason I see for this FS is trying to prevent us from regrowing to true strength or simply because you want to. Like I've said before in public I don't care if you declare on us it's part of this game. But be honest and truthful about your reasoning for war and don't try to misinform this community with your clouded judgmental posting and ill gotten gained "evidence and info".

You are simply misguiding this community on what has been said between the two of us and what has not been said. We made it very clear to you that we had all intentions of going for a normal uNAP this set to ensure netting for LaF as we did not want conflict. You deflected all of Jimans attempts to negotiate this or you have stalled him. Never were their talks of the pact being actually voided or not being in place. I do not understand how this reads into SOL is going to FS LaF or LaFs allies.

As for us targeting your allies Jiman offered Rival a uNAP. Rival never replied from what I read. Once I again I do not see how this reads into SOL will FS LaF or LaFs allies.

To me this looks like another laf coup de misguidance where you are trying to spin SOL as the big bad bully who wants to gang upon on other tags while we have been doing nothing or planning nothing in the sorts. We've been open about what we want to do or going to do and what we are looking for from other tags on the server.

LaF you are spinning info and going on "facts" that never happened or occurred. We can go on and off about this but we both know the logs that went on between us.

So straighten yourself up and act like a true man and either back off or be honest and clear about your intentions, (trying to whipe us out).

and yes by this I'm saying LAF once again illegitimately broke a pact.

So the pact was in place, in addition SOL offered UNAPs to Rival AND tried to confirm the UNAP with LaF (which was never broken).

SOL also tried to arrange a SOF v SOL mutually agreed war, yet hanlong is still on here as if he has a shred of credibility.

Someone said it above, but when will the rest of the server stop putting up with this fluff? When will you realise the grubs who run LaF FR are playing you like a fiddle?

..and yes, the alliances who ignored the recent past where they've been tagkilled without any explanation and decided pact out to netgain.. Why?

welp can't change whats happened now, just gotta do our thing.

makinso has some memory loss apparently:

<Makinso> I can put in a 55 - 60 member SOL
<Makinso> most likely
<@Arsenal> To my next point
<BattleKJ> Do you care about a 'fair' 1v1 with LaF or do you just want to kill them?
<Makinso> lol
<Makinso> I think the point is kill
<@Arsenal> We need a strong sense of LaF's current pacts and any long term pacts
<@Arsenal> To that end we need to quietly go about finding out their pacting situation with our allies
<@Arsenal> and Compile a list
<@Arsenal> MD will fight fair unless FS'd, in which case we may call in the political power.<Makinso> knowing hanlong
<Makinso> he'll try to end it quick
<BattleKJ> are you going to try pact up LCN?
<@Arsenal> Hanlong is so politically fluffed he has no idea.
<Makinso> if we have the oppurtunity to neutralize LCN
<Makinso> we should<@Arsenal> Yes I might KJ, I think LCN would jump at taking a uNAP right now.
<Makinso> they would pact us as well I believe
<Makinso> knowing we have a 3 set deal with LaF
<Makinso> :P
<BattleKJ> im fairly sure they would have pacted sol this set if you asked them
<BattleKJ> as evo kept on telling them to
<Makinso> I think we pacted







<Makinso> Honestly
<Makinso> anyone wanting a deal out of this
<Makinso> you should give
<BattleKJ> rival hit sol last set, and rejected our pact this set
<@Arsenal> Yea
<Makinso> the more you're able
<Makinso> to single out LaF
<@Arsenal> I'm not saying don't hit them
<Makinso> the better



you were saying that sham of a pact you signed with us 2 resets ago was actually valid? lol



plus to confirm how this pact was already void, SOL said this specifically to us:

"As our current pact can be voided by either side since we engaged in conflict with known FDPs already, the current pact can be broken by either side (if they desired so)"

plus you were the one that wanted to "shove this down our throat"


<Makinso> - 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.
<Makinso> I'm looking to shuv this down his throat
<ArsenalMD> ya
<ArsenalMD> who do u have LT's with?
<Makinso> none yet
<ArsenalMD> lol good
<Makinso> im tryin to convince Hanlong to take the pact
<ArsenalMD> ok
<ArsenalMD> that looks good to me
<ArsenalMD> :-p
<ArsenalMD> gives us flex
<Makinso> I think I did it




remember? :P instead of shoving pacts down people's throats in ways to circumvent it with lame void clauses, don't cry when we use your formula against you....

if you think it's lame, don't shove it down other people's throats then. you were the one that wrote these terms, and you were the one that wanted to use it against us. am i not correct?

"As our current pact -> can <- be voided by either side since we engaged in conflict with known FDPs already, the current pact -> can <- be broken by either side (if they desired so)"

you should makinso why he wrote those terms in the first place.

i didn't know it said only SOL -> can <- use the pacts but we can't. if you wanted it to be that one sided, then write it that way ;P but i doubt we'd accept it ;)

he already said it a few times, but he just bothered sharing with you all.

he thought it was cute to surprise the rest of us ;)

he also thought he can avoid answering any questions last reset and hope it goes away, but he decides to bring it up again this reset, so i'm all ears ;P

I don't see any issue with that log except for the illegitimate and grubby way you probably got a hold of it.

Not like you filth bags haven't been plotting against Evo and/or SOL for the last 18 months. Logs would exist of exactly that conversation in reverse from you when you were scheming to break the Evo pact.

Your disgusting record speaks volumes. LAF are the only alliance who continually breaks pacts. Grubby logs prove what, SOL was pacting you then going to drop the pact and hit you the reset after? We don't break pacts, MD doesnt break pacts, Evo doesn't break pacts.. Hell, SOF doesnt break pacts (or at least havent for a long time)

Grubs.

"<@Arsenal> Hanlong is so politically fluffed he has no idea."

You're so fluffed hanshorts!

I felt I needed to reqoute this.

O also, you didnt use anything against us. You broke pact terms illegitimatly in your claim that your fighting SOL and their evil intentions. From what I see, SOL offered Laf a unap to avoid war since Laf said on multiple occasions you wanted to net. We offered lafs allies a unap too to avoid your intentions of wanting to war us "for no reason" once again.

Did Maki have the intention of the pact being broken to FS laf? Maybe. Was that the case in the end? No. You dont care about that though. You want to use any bad context in any form possible to give reason for your actions.

I do not see SOL breaking pacts. I do not see SOL FSing an alliance for no reason. You, as well as others, asked me to change SOL for the better. Our actions speak for themselves. You wanted to take advantage of our none aggressive behavior.
You wanted to take advantage of my none aggressive behavior. I dont apperciate that.

If the netting alliances out there believe I was making progress just for it to be lost by Laf taking advantage of SOL, please speak up. Let Laf know that you feel laf's choices was incorrect. Dont lay silient. Be your own alliance, do what you feel right. If you think Laf was right in there actions, that is your choice as well.



*goes to read Simcity 4 guides*

When was the last time LaF fought a war for a reason other than the following:

(a) You were saving turns so we hit you in case we were the target!!
(b) You insulted us on TEH AT!!
(c) You insulted us with your country names!!
(d) We stole logs that showed you might drop a pact in the future and hit us!!
(e) Ok, we ran out of reasons, so we're not even going to try.

We're at (e) at the moment.

Speaking of Sim City 4 Guides.. I'm hoping the new Sim City come out sooner than expected.

Han how did you guys get those logs again?

Hanlong going on old logs which you already fought a war over + which we're ill gotten gains I still don't understand lafs actions. And from which we never executed any of the plans mentioned in those logs.

Trying to pin point everything SOL said did or thought in the past year? on simply that 1 log is silly and far below your intelligence level. You are insulting yourself if you truly believe posting that will justify your actions again? That means the server can gangbang laf for all said and done in the past 10 years?

You claim this is for here and now posting those logs makes it reek of just digging up the old grudge to hit SOL once again with outstanding numbers.

It is funny to see LaF has turned into exactly what they've so self proclaimed try to keep other "warring tags" from becoming. LaF at this point I see you as nothing more then a clown that is trying to make himself look funny by laughing at his own jokes.

With all due respect but I know a lot of you LaFfers and you guys are better then the ridiculous process of thought you are being currently given.

Think someone uploaded them somewhere and he found them using a google search?

Cypress.

He claimed to have gotten it through a torrent site which got shut down. It's a ridiculous claim we all know it. Those logs were ill gotten gains. By a mile.

I'm glad to finally figure out dagga logic! When he breaks pacts, SOL double-secret-fingers-crossed-never-really-meant-it!

Of course, that could never apply to anyone else, because dagga is the only humanoid whose fingers cross. He is The Final Decision Maker, and I for one am humbled just to be in his presence.

Please reveal more of your infinite wisdom!

100% false.

Ohh

Google search. LMFAO.

Unsympathetic, SOL doesn't break pacts so I wouldn't know what it is like.

I hope they improve upon simcity 4. Reading through a lot of guides right now and a lot of rules are hidden about how to create a city. I mean A LOT. I dont want the game to be dumbed down, but that doesnt mean they have to hide all the dam rules of the game.

whats my age again

The server didn't care when LaF broke/voided its pact with Evo and blindsided Evo (twice), it doesn't care now that SOL is feeling the same pain, and it will continue to not care until LaF is the only alliance still playing on this server.

SOL and LaF fought over that?

more like you never explained why, so we are warring over it now ;)

and stop playing stupid, i even showed you guys the google search.

searching for makinso on google brought you to logs. just because it is not on mediafire anymore you are claiming stupid now?

ill-gotten means my ass. i didn't know using google was considered wrong :P if so, then i "ill gotten" information everyday :P

ill gotten gains? The method we obtained them somehow makes them less valid?

This isn't the real world, we don't need to ensure to follow proper evidence collecting procedure to ensure nobodies rights are being violated etc. So I really don't get why you are bothering to use such a line of argument, it is just stupid.

so as usual Makinso, your only answer to the plotting was how it is a crime to use google and to crawl mediafire. :P

still the same "let's avoid the problem at hand"

So it's taken 24 hours but now you've changed the reason for the war. lmao

Someone call George W Bush!

how was the reason changed? :P


1) SOL was looking for a war
you saying this changed in the last 24 hours?

2) We were personally told by SOL our pact was already void due to both LaF hitting MD (a SOL FDP) and SOL hitting LCN (a LaF FDP).
you saying this changed in the last 24 hours?

3) Given SOL's size and talented war skills due to ally obligations we cannot let them pick on our allies
you saying this changed in the last 24 hours?

4) LaF declares war on SOL
you saying this changed in the last 24 hours?



still playing stupid? any more dumb and the webster should have this entry

dagga n. a extremely severe case of mental retardation

just one point of contention, not sure if it affects this thread as I have not read it all. LCN hit SOl in a friendly war, not sol hitting lcn.

If this is not what you are talking about please ignore me as always :P

1) SOL was looking for a war - stupid point, we fight every reset. Moron.

2) We were personally told by SOL our pact was already void due to both LaF hitting MD (a SOL FDP) and SOL hitting LCN (a LaF FDP).
- This has been denied by all of our leaders. If you had logs you would have posted them, because thats the lame fluff you do. Liar.

3) Given SOL's size and talented war skills due to ally obligations we cannot let them pick on our allies
- This is laughable. SOF told you not to hit. Liar.

4) LaF declares war on SOL. ...

Now you are bringing in some tame logs between allies that you suspiciously found using a 'google search' as your new reason...

.. and SOL hitting LCN? Please. Do you think a pact is void due a mutually agreed war?

The fact you think people might listen to your dribble illustrates how much of a retard you are.

Hee, no one disputed the legitimacy of the logs :O Just whether or not they were leaked or laf employes Spys.

If planning for the future is bad, I guess we all are guilty.

Also, shouldnt SOL attempt to try to avoid conflict with laf? You are giving us reasons too obviously, well you are now trying to get into conflict with us. It certainly isnt wrong of us to want to protect our alliance and think about the future.

If your reply is "there are peaceful ways to protect yourselves other then trying plot and to attack laf," well we were doing that. -_-

two resets ago, i wanted to reach a long term peace deal with you.

we signed it with good faith.

you didn't.

you guys never once said that was a problem and admitted, but instead of focused on other things (like how the logs were obtained, etc.).

you can protect your alliance. that was the whole point of the original peace deal. if you were LaF, how would you feel if you signed a 3 reset peace deal with SOL with good intentions but find out later the other side is signing it with bad intentions before the ink is dry?

how would you like if LaF signs a pact while on the side plotting with another alliance on how to fluff SOL up with that "peace" pact at the same time to "surprise" SOL.

never once did you guys try to address this problem. you just hoped we all forgot about it and everything was peachy.

there's nothing wrong about planning for the future

we all do that.

there's something inherently wrong about signing a pact with the intentions of breaking it. that's how you guys designed it.

its also extremely hypocritical to cry foul when it used the way you designed it. if you don't like it, then why design it that way?

1) SOL was NOT looking for a war. I was involved in EVERY talk that has occured recently and we were not going to HIT anyone. Our plans were to prepare for conflict (as we always do late in the set) and set up something with SOF.

2) I said it "can" be voided by either side if they choose to do so and luckily that it was not. Niether side however voided it and gave notice.

3) Let your allies decide if they feel threaten or not. Ive given and offered multiple alliances a unap, and worked closely as possible with them to make sure relations are kept up. Stop speaking for them or acting for them. Are you now saying that you acting FOR your allies? I am getting different stories now.
And What? Can SOL not save up turns now? Where the do you get off to tell other alliances how they should act when it does not even INVOLVE you OR your allies. Are we not allowed to protect ourselves? Holy fluff. Sorry for saving turns! I guess if we didnt save turns we couldnt protect ourselves from being hit by Laf!

wait a minute...

4) Derp. Declaring war doesnt mean you voided anything. Additionally, no 24 hours notice was given from anyone.

(start sarcasm machine)
Yes, because we didnt offer laf a unap to patch things up.
There also wasnt a 24 hour notice clause to void the pact.
And lastly, SOL is the only person to sign the pact!
(end sarcasm machine)

To me it seems that Laf saw errors and flaws in the pact offer and just went with it in HOPE to use them against SOL. Isnt that just as bad? You denied my unap offer so you could go ahead and "break" the pact to hit us. Simple as that. I was told the pact is fine for you guys to net, and this happens? Pfft.