Lest we forget.

*humps CHevs*

It wouldnt of been too hard to give the player the option to change the country name to something else.

If you really wanted the name to be changed you could of just changed it to something random and messaged him saying "Please pick a new name," that would of been a more unbiased way of going about it.

I am not sure who Lulzsec is nor do I care.


But if Hanlong is so confident that he knows the IP of both logins, which Admin is sharing their power with Laf?

*pumps Trifey FULL of of caring juice*

*removes DJ spin stamp*

All hail Laf, for they are perfect, and wise. We must hail Laf before they destroy us all.

*bows to laf*


*inserts obvoius sarcasm stamp*

People can make there own choices by reading the logs. It does give a new prospective onto the situation. For me it just tells me that some people lied to me about what there intentions were.

All good :O

And Reckless... yes.... shhh

Yes thank you for ruining our plans to have a mutual war with Sof by denying us a unap so you could war us (as you were planning to hit us all set anyways).

Our plans with Laf was "Leave them alone we dont want to deal with them anymore."


Note: Rereading what was said Idk if hanlong was talking to MD or SOL. O well :O

Great way to netgain by having all your allies (and yourself) a unap with SOL just to war us.


Best netting strat ever. But of course your plan was to put an alliance into a position where you can just farm them until your happy to netgain with all the land you can eat with the new restart changes :O

I remember offering Omega, Sof, Rival and Laf a unap. That would of been a good way of taken care of SOL without dragging allies into more unneeded conflict.

I guess that only Omega wants to stick to netting according to the chat?

>.>

<.<

*licks son goku*

I like that trife guy!

I should go get my multiple chats too. BRB.

O ya you just didnt Void the pact at all. I would of thought that you would AT LEAST say it in your war declare. :D

A pact is created by two people, not just one. I guess you also forgot about the 24 hour notice clause before the pact can be voided. Hee.

Yar I know. I know Omega would step in and help an ally. We are unpacted at the moment (we did offer a unap). As long as Omega isnt involved in a gangbang (or similar) its a truth that cant be ignored.

But you see Laf are special! They can break any pact any way they want! See what they did to Evo and SOL!

Chevs: Always love the idea of going against SOF one on one :-)

Angel1: Open and honest as always.

Mapleson: *humps*

PG: *roar*

Laf: *shakes head*

Yar.

http://xkcd.com/1013/

Lol

If Pangy joins SOL that would be cool. I like pangy.

Hey Chevs! *HUMPS*

Eh, I think saying Laf is a bully is not an appropriate analogy. Please dont misunderstand me, I am VERY happy SOL is involved in a war. There were better paths (like us warring Sof) but w/e War is war.

My issue is that Laf came to me as well as other alliances saying they want to see SOL make better choices. As soon as we start doing that, laf decided (on multiple occasions) to take advantage of a non aggressive approach.

The question is, what now? Should SOL sit back and let Laf attempt to take advantage of SOL? Or plan to defend themselves from Laf being the agressor?

So Ya, bring it Laf. If this is the path you want to make for yourselves, so be it. :-)

(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.

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.

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. -_-

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.

100% false.

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*

Yar I dont like the use of homosexual terms in a derogatory manner either (or simply derogatory terms all together).

o gawd why are you spaming!

Derp. -_-

Congrats. :-)

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.

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.

Anonymous:
1) We were saving turns to prepare for anything to be honest. We had no idea what to expect but after the conflict that occured with PDM and Sof we felt it was needed, "just" incase.

2) We never voided the pact with Laf. LAF didnt void the pact either. From my understanding, laf still has the pact with us and is ignoring it.

3) I have gone through a hell of a lot of effort for the netting alliances out there. I do not fear this war, I fear for netters and this game. I am annoyed that Laf is doing this to there members. To there allies. To this game. It isnt the fact that they dont have a right to defend anyone... but what right do a netting alliance have to hit a war alliance when they themselves dont want the warring alliance to hit netters for no reason?

Doesnt that go against that idea?

The allies that we offered unap too. This must mean that laf allies asked laf to hit us. Right?

Sorry that you were not treated nicely :( *huggles*

Show me where they touched you SOV! ILL KICK THEM IN THE HEAD!

Edit:

O gawd now I get it!
Lol... i am slow.

It looks like your judging SOL on what they think, and not on what they have done. I think a lot of things, I am sure you think a lot of things too.

Wasn't it said that we should "judge people on there actions?". It looks like your judging SOL on how they communicate, and on what they think. I guess I should admit to every type of conversation that I have on every subject, and not on my actions.

You know what I see? I see SOL taking the high road on multiple occassions and the only thing you want to see is the worse of the situation to better your own goals.

That is what I see.
Like you told me, you want to see laf do what ever, and you dont care if Laf wars or not right? Is that why Laf didnt want a unap?

What I see is this: I was told by other alliances SOL has been acting poorly, please change it.

SOL goes ahead and attempts to change their attitude. For the last few sets, that has been our goal (at least mine).

This set we planned to not be aggressive, that was our theme after our awesome mutual war last set.

I guess now that we attempted the "nice guy" path, we should so screw that and just do what ever we want since it doesnt matter what we do?

Awesome.

!!!!!!!!