i made no such claims about politics whatsoever. you are, as usual, an idiot.

also, you are making assumptions that laf would not have paid. just prior to titanium's stupid suicide i was just complaining to someone about having to pay a stupidly high amount of reps to him over another one of candy's stupid actions.

since no discussion ever occurred, we will never know what would have happened.

Euglaf, when are you guys going to pay me the reps for suiciding me 7 years ago

You are as usual an asshole :)

You did mention political solutions in that it would be solved by two people discussing fluff and coming to an agreement. I was referring to that as a political solution. I dont know why that is hard to get and I dont know why you are being a prick but whatever.

If there's any big techers left...they're going to make a killing:) cheap bushels, expensive tech.

that's because you're describing diplomacy and not politics.

politics would be me telling every alliance on the server that i will kill neofed/rd for the rest of their existence and i want them to stay out of the way.

diplomacy is me going to neo to discuss an amicable solution to a problem so that politics don't get out of hand (such as above situation).



here's another tip: different words have different meanings.

http://eteacherchinese.com/things-know-about-chinese

But then again...I was pretty sure we were talking english here. I am normally wrong though. :P

Here is a tip. You dont have to be a fluff your entire life. There are ways to say things without being an asshole. Maybe try it sometime.

fluff laf. They pull this fluff every set on smaller clans. Go neo!!!!!

I actually agree with this... He is selfish in LaF also. Enough said.

Jan 25th 2014, 1:33:12
that's because you're describing diplomacy and not politics


a disinction without a difference, much?

Im gonna have to disagree with you Eugine had it not been Neo and mabye a bigger alliance I could see a "reasonable" solution reached.

Tell me whats the reps on 31.5k acres building costs, lost stock (roughly 11-15 billion selling bushels privately)

Then discredit a players win because he won with reps paid to him at 150% L:L "which he wouldn't have earned legitly"

Sorry bud but ive seen LaFs dirty little tricks, declare war and farm smaller alliances and back out of a war screwing RD over. Thankfully RD had some of the best cheaters In the game to win a war that shouldn't have happend. Yout a bunch of back stabbers so sorry if the history books coverd in blood but actions speak louder then words.

Im sure many players can attest to LaFs uncooth actions over the years. If a LaFer cant win no one can is all ive seen over the last year. Sept the one set Soda won with some sneaker play then even LaF could beat. You have alot of good players in there and suggest they take a close look at what YOUR alliance actually stands for. Publicly and internally behind the Colors/Dons that run the show.

You still owe us reps euglaf, even after all this you will pay us 20 trillion dollars due by the end of next set.

^^http://www.youtube.com/...Is&list=RDjTmXHvGZiSY

Cable why would I eat my own words?

I know what candy did was bad, but what some of the guys in neo did was just as bad if you ask me.

daaaaamn look at all the hits!

Well I have been a top fighter of both RD and LaF so I would like to offer my country to either side in exchange for $4 billion in cash and 100mill bushels; which is enough for me to finish top 10.

Whoever pays first gets me for next resets battle.....

lol that won't get u in the t100 mate :P

but ur welcome back to LaF anytime :)

I never said anything about Neos actions, they have declared war on LaF over Candys actions so in fairness what Neo did was defend their tag from LaF. How this plays out over the next few weeks only time will tell, and as I stated there are good players in LaF who didn't deserve to see weeks worth of work ruined over one persons actions. Unfortunately 80% of Neo was prepped for this very moment knowing LaF was rumored to treat us like a 3rd rate alliance. Only difference to me is war broke out with two weeks left instead of earlier in the set.

So my thoughts on this, what Neo did was stick up to an alliance whos political leader openly attempted to ruin one of their best countries. I don't expect there to be any relations next set, and plenty of love lost between the two. Only difference is killing the smaller alliance is a hell of lot harder and alot less effective....

ouch

Pacts doesn't really mean anything now-a-days.

They broke a term? Let's FS them!

bonus

Looks like LaF won't have to worry about finding land next set.

pacts doesn't mean what? doesn't mean the same as english, as in pacts don't mean what?

Lets see how many changes there are next set Symac ;) Suiciding is awfully strong and was impossible to stop with just a few people doing it. Id imagine it would be rough trying to net through a war right now.

LaF continues to be a LaFable alliance.

Damn, this is brutal. I was looking forward to seeing where everyone's countries would end up. =(

Osso wins!!!!

Yes it does. Any FA worth there salt knows this. its how the attacking alliance makes up for there mistake from the member that ensures the pact is secure and ensures reps to keep the pact valid. When its the HFA that makes the grab its an automatic break as the HFA is well aware of who there alliance is pacted to and what type of pact, they also know that you should not break this pact.

You can not argue that three grabs is not a breach of pact when it is the HFA making the grabs as the HFA is aware of not only the pact but the pact details, it is only not a breach when it is a member who does not have access to that information and the FA dept tries to resolve the issue.

An FA dept can not resolve an issue that is created by the head of that department.


Your semantics are 100% incorrect and you have no idea how pacts or how an FA should conduct itself.

Chinese takeaway and ready to go!

I am sorry but are you serious???? I ask you this as a neutral member in this conflict. Politically and diplomatically are really trying to claim that LAF's HEAD FA's action do not constitute an act of war.

Head of Foriegn Affairs is one of, if not the most powerful position in an alliance. There responsibility is to act on behalf on there alliance. Any action from a HFA should be and will be considered the intentions of the alliance.

To try and claim as per one of your other posts that the actions of the representative of your alliance is the actions of a 'stupid member' is not only disgusting, it is insulting, its insulting to the intelligence of this community as well as ANY alliance you have an agreement with.

If you honestly wanted to resolve this and wanted to play the innocence card you would of come on here damning the action of your HFA, advising that he is temporaraly suspended from his postion and tried to resolve this incident with the alliance effected.

The fact you tried to defend your HFA, shows that you not only support him to break pacts with alliances but you encourage it.

If LAF really does not support a head of your alliance's actions you will condemn his actions, advise you will work in private to resolve the situation and reinforce the fact you do not break pacts and that these actions were not acceptable.

Honestly, I am probably in the history of this game, one of the most inexperienced FA's in this game, but this fluff is simple, I wouldnt care if this was SoF, I would be telling them the same thing, this reeks of arrogance, not to mention amateur hour, like you dont know how to conduct yourself with other alliances. You really need a lesson in pr and how to set a good image for your alliance cause this 100% fluffing bullfluff if you think you can defend yourself publicly here.

on a side note, i fluffing hate rd(neofed) and wouldnt care if you killed them, but to insult every alliance in this game, not to mention your allies with how you have handled this really fluffs me off.


There is absolutely no way you can lay ANY blame on neofeds retaliation when the initial action is from one of the most influential leaders of your alliances.

You fluffing disgust me in the way you have tried to handle this.

YOUR HFA MADE THE HITS!!! DO YOU NOT fluffING REALISE THIS???

fluffing hell the more I read this thread the more you fluff me off with your arrogance, like your leaders can do what they want and there will be no retribution, are you even in charge of laf or are you only a puppet doing what you are told by the leaders.

Jesus man grow some balls and make some fluffing tough decisions for fluffs sake, dont be a fluff and defend your alliance no matter what...

this is fluffing embarrassing for you, thats 100% for sure.

I'm not going to get into the details of this one except to say that unless the pact specifically has a clause saying that no attacks are to be exchanged between Alliances then no matter how many landgrabs are made then there is no basis to break a UNAP.

LAF's actions do not constitute a breaking of a UNAP unless they refuse or fail to pay reps as per the pact.

I see no justification for Neofed to break a UNAP based on present evidence provided. I believe this is the first time since LAF got gangbanged after the Hanlong affair that I have seen a UNAP broken in this game without the activation (to some degree or other) of a clause written into the pact.

Pacts in this game are a point of honor between Alliances and they need to be adhered to per the terms that are signed. It is like signing a contract IRL. No matter what the principle is or the perceived reasoning, it is unacceptable for a UNAP to be broken unless it is done so within the terms of the pact.

regardless of that Sov, its the HFA, they know the intentions of the pact, and to triple tap goes against the intentions of the pact, therefor breaking the pact, trying to defend that is insulting.

I disagree. The intention of the pact is in the terms of the pact. If it is not in the terms, then there is no reason to break it.

In Earth2025 the original NAPs were being broken at will by Alliances. By 2002 NAPs were basically superseded by "UNAPs" as the main pact of choice between amicable Alliances, with a key component differing from a NAP - The word "Unbreakable". There is a reason why it was called Unbreakable, because they were not meant to be broken. Unless specific terms of the pact are violated and not adhered to then there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for breaking the pact.

If it is to be that "the spirit" or "the intention" of the pact are the determining factors of whether a pact should be broken then UNAPs are therefore useless and basically any Alliance would break them at will because that reasoning can be used so broadly that it is easily exploitable by anyone.

For example - I could break a UNAP with Omega because they looked at me in an unfriendly manner which was against the "intentions" of the pact which was that we are to be friends.

If it is not in the terms then there is no basis for breaking it. Any breaking of a pact is really inexcusable.

Whilst Neofed might have genuine disagreements with LAF, they are bound by the unwritten code under which Alliances operate which are that pact terms are to be followed and pacts are not to be broken.

All I can say is that I've had the words 'spirit of the pact' thrown into my face by certain alliances commenting on this thread more times than I can count.

And as Osso said, I'm a bit sad we won't be able to see where people should be ending up. I'm probably going to end up much higher than I should be, and it feels a bit cheapened :/

Tellarion did those Alliances break the pact with you?

I don't really care if the "spirit of the pact" term is thrown around a lot, the fact is that it is no justification to break it.

Breaking a pact without just cause is crossing a line. It basically devalues all pacts any of us sign.

Actually break it? No. Threaten to repeatedly? Absolutely. Refuse to pact the following set and fs us? Yes :/

North Korea does this all the time! Except they haven't actually gone through with a FS yet.

P.S. I am a neutral party in this, I am not playing Alliance server this reset, and do not have a country. Well ok, I have a country, but it is still on turn 99 and "Last Played: 1122.8h ago".

You don't need SDI for North Korean missiles, so it's ok!

If Neo didnt go bananas on LaF they'd be perfectly reasonable in demanding Candy being kicked out of LaF, and reps being paid (we could easily have paid, I have a mediocre trader and still had 700m bushels. That is 2-300m bushels from me alone realistically this set)

Neo chose to believe we would not honour our pact. I think they are as big babies as Candy in this instance, but that's the extent of how much I care. This game doesn't cease to amaze me in terms of how much combined stupid we can create :P

There is nothing out of the ordinary in what you have detailed above. Whilst you are entitled to make judgments on that Alliance based on their actions it does not excuse nor justify the actual breaking of a UNAP (as opposed to only threatening to do so).

I can definitely see your point, but at the same time, this is the HFA of an alliance intentionally fluffing over an 'ally'. If I personally did something like that, it would probably mean instant war for Evo....

I agrees with iscode. Ripping someone out of number one finish with 12 days left is an act of war if you ask me. I don't think neo cares much about reps after realizing it was laf's HFA.

The first UNAP was between LCN and HAN in 1998 to bring an end to the Han LCN war during LCN's third set.

Brink and I intentionally created the multiset pact with Han (also a first) to prevent the farming off our growing alliance by Han.

It also opened the door for LCN to pact with the rest of Rockfamily as they usually didn't pact till you got a pact with one of their alliances.


Two issues here.

1. When it comes to pacts. The Head FA and leader of an alliance are held to a higher level of accountability. If my head FA pulled this stunt he'd either have his ass demoted immediately. Or he'd be paying reps not only. This set but multiple sets. For 2-3x what was owed even if it took him a year. Including paying Back alliance mates.

And a personally apology to the grabbed person and one on at to Neofed.

If he wanted to stay a member.


2. Sov is correct. You have to give someone a chance to honor the pact. With a head FA involved it'd be easy to extend the pact multiple resets to prevent future retaliation for rep enforcement. Only if negotiations failed would NEO have room to stand on. And even then for me unbreakable is unbreakable. (Which is why unaps should not have break clauses ). Limited Unaps should. LUNAPS.

The fact that we have incidents like this happening creating true reasons for differences amongst alliances is a sign that we are moving towards a healthier environment politically for alliances:). That for me is the take away

or CNAP - conditional Non aggression pact


calling any pact that has break clauses in it unbreakable is just stupid

Man i'm so sick of reading all this crap, what you retards don't understand is that LaF has been crossing the line this entire set. Can I get a witness to all the blatant topfeeding that was going on? When LaF wasn't controlling there members? I was topfed 3 times by 3 different LaFers and I was told because we were unpacted at the time that our rules didn't apply. Tell me that's not walking all over someone(pact or no pact) you don't cross people multiple times and not expect harsh feelings. There were other NeoFed's who were getting topfed as well and we did our best to put up with it. But this is what you get when you trespass. There were a few LaFers that were really friendly traders this set and were more than fair, but you ought to try and be that way as an entire clan. I don't care to hear how NeoFed broke a pact either, the Head of Foreign Affairs(LaF) couldn't contain himself and figured since he was making the rules he could just grab whoever he wanted(also because he was looking for another clan for next set). This was building up from the beginning of the set and now we finally went bananas, so this should be a lesson not to FA retards into the top ten and than give them leadership positions sets afterward. Next set it will be fun to see LaF "Farm" us. Were not a bunch of disorganized members that your used to picking on and farming, you mess with us next set and expect to see yourselves getting leveled. We wil use the dirtiest of dirty tactics and low blows from every direction.

Harsh feelings have nothing to do with it. You can have all the harsh feelings you want Syko. Unless specific terms of the pact are violated and not adhered to then there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for breaking the pact.

No justification whatsoever?

Honestly, I would have done things differently, but I'd also probably have lost a member of crap like this. This is the type of thing that leads to people quitting the game.