Verified:

Peanut

Member
147

Oct 18th 2011, 5:07:03

SOL is ranked to high.

enshula

Member
EE Patron
2271

Oct 18th 2011, 5:28:56

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".


its not exactly complicated, if pacting is not being done in a way that works for both clans then whats the point of the pact? if the point is to work together for mutual interest then laf warring sol could work out great for evos mutually inclusive interest :)

evo has said they were pacted out this set and pacted to sol, laf are not pacted to sol

anyone want to claim sol isnt a warring clan? maybe one thats hit both evo and laf?

diez

Member
1340

Oct 18th 2011, 5:32:32

I also feel my words have been twisted somewhat.

Tertius

Member
931

Oct 18th 2011, 5:32:54

They already stated that it was a breakable pact to defend LaF if necessary, thus not a UNAP or DP. Where is the problem? As mentioned before, did LaF really want 140 on 50 without warning their allies to be war-prepped? It doesn't make sense, enshula.

locket

Member
6176

Oct 18th 2011, 5:34:10

Originally posted by Slagpit:
I have to wonder who would be leading these joint evo-laf warchats. Would it be laf's head of war who has suicided on evo at least three times in the past four months? SS broke the pact because he's a cowardly fluff who pisses in his pants at the thought of a fair fight.

Hanlong: you were $50M NW behind diez, you were topfed once, then you almost beat diez despite these laf clowns claiming that the mass amounts of FA/land/loans didn't even make up for your losses. Does that make any sense at all?

There's no need to even go into the messy details. When you see a group of people lying over and over, it's just easier to assume that they're lying all of the time.

slagpit... language! Dont make me get the soap.

Also, I am pretty sure Hanlong is quite capable of calculating his destock at either given land value so I think that perhaps you should take his word on that one ;) not that you will.. because I am sure you think Hanlong is telling lies for some unknown reason.

Xinhuan

Member
3728

Oct 18th 2011, 5:51:24

You guys aren't getting it. The request for Evo to FS SoL was not the cause of the void pact.

The request was only to find out if SoL is pacted to Evo, which diez confirmed - and that is the cause of the void pact - that Evo is pacted to a warring clan without everyone else in the coalition also getting the same pact.

You guys are fixated on the 50% or 66% or whatever clause; it has little relevance.

Pain

Member
4849

Oct 18th 2011, 5:58:51

Originally posted by Xinhuan:
You guys aren't getting it. The request for Evo to FS SoL was not the cause of the void pact.

The request was only to find out if SoL is pacted to Evo, which diez confirmed - and that is the cause of the void pact - that Evo is pacted to a warring clan without everyone else in the coalition also getting the same pact.

You guys are fixated on the 50% or 66% or whatever clause; it has little relevance.


so what about last set when LaF pacted SOL and did not have EVO pacted as well? would you have been fine with them breaking the pact and FSing you guys?

Your mother is a nice woman

hanlong

Member
2211

Oct 18th 2011, 6:05:02

Originally posted by Slagpit:
I have to wonder who would be leading these joint evo-laf warchats. Would it be laf's head of war who has suicided on evo at least three times in the past four months? SS broke the pact because he's a cowardly fluff who pisses in his pants at the thought of a fair fight.

Hanlong: you were $50M NW behind diez, you were topfed once, then you almost beat diez despite these laf clowns claiming that the mass amounts of FA/land/loans didn't even make up for your losses. Does that make any sense at all?

There's no need to even go into the messy details. When you see a group of people lying over and over, it's just easier to assume that they're lying all of the time.


that's cool. i calculated myself to finish around 270-280M before i was hit. if he was going to finish 320M but finished 270M that's not my fault... if that's what you mean by "50M ahead".

i actually put him at 290M nw and myself at 275M to be exact when we were both originally going to start stocking around the 60k mark. so no, i wasn't going to beat him nor did i ever claim that. but saying 50M is nice tall tale you were telling. we did both finish shorter than what we should've had if we were left alone, so take it for what you want.

i'm 100% sure i know how to calculate my finish since i played pretty much the same type of country for three resets in a row and each time my finished nw was right around the mark of my estimated nw. but sure, we can all believe what you say instead. this isn't even an argument other than your attempt to troll.

Edited By: hanlong on Oct 18th 2011, 6:12:09
See Original Post
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

BattleKJ

Member
1200

Oct 18th 2011, 6:14:15

[quote poster=Slagpit; 12874; 227732]I have to wonder who would be leading these joint evo-laf warchats. Would it be laf's head of war who has suicided on evo at least three times in the past four months? SS broke the pact because he's a cowardly fluff who pisses in his pants at the thought of a fair fight.
[quote]

LOL.... Joint Evo warchats with LT leading? Sounds at least like a warchat everyone in Evo would be attending...!

Tertius

Member
931

Oct 18th 2011, 6:18:20

Originally posted by Tertius:
They already stated that it was a breakable pact to defend LaF if necessary, thus not a UNAP or DP. Where is the problem? As mentioned before, did LaF really want 140 on 50 without warning their allies to be war-prepped? It doesn't make sense, enshula.


Xinhuan, maybe you're not getting it?

diez

Member
1340

Oct 18th 2011, 6:19:41

For the record, I never confirmed anything. Seems like my word is taken out of context (or twisted).

anoniem

Member
2881

Oct 18th 2011, 11:34:36

Originally posted by Xinhuan:
You guys aren't getting it. The request for Evo to FS SoL was not the cause of the void pact.

The request was only to find out if SoL is pacted to Evo, which diez confirmed - and that is the cause of the void pact - that Evo is pacted to a warring clan without everyone else in the coalition also getting the same pact.

You guys are fixated on the 50% or 66% or whatever clause; it has little relevance.


Xinhuan, I'll assume you are retarded.
1) LaF prior to the reset beginning Hanlong stated no alliances not to pact.
2) LaF have declared war on more alliances than SoL over the past few resets.
3) You need 66% vote in order to FS another alliance pre-emptively.
4) SoL and Rival had no intention of hitting LaF
5) 50% majority vote is needed if either LaF or EVO are FSed in order to come to your aid.
6) You spoke to diez and then less than 24hrs later you FSed us, so you were always planning on FSing evo no matter what.
7) EVO have a BREAKABLE pact with SOL.
8) LaF clearly have no interests in netgaining, and prefer to blindside or gangbang their allies while pact breaking.

If you would like any more points as to why you're an idiot or why your alliance is made up of the scum of earth empires then i'll be happy to type up a few more bullet-points.

Thank you for reading and good day.
re(ally)tired

d20

Member
270

Oct 18th 2011, 12:06:48

so long. i skipped stuff after 50% majority.

just to reiterate, from dictionary.com, majority = the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total.

so... how can 50% (half) be a fluffing majority! :D

+bonus!

CC

Member
135

Oct 18th 2011, 12:08:25

i wonder why at some stage of my Earth2025 life, i thought the likes like Eugene, xinhuan, enfor4r, hanlong, actually make sense sometimes..and only idiots like pang, lord tarnava and solid snakes that ruin it for Laf. I guess i was wrong. it's all da same.

same ol' turd.

same ol' BS.

just say it - you re bored, and wanna war but too fluff to fight a real war...so 'brilliantly' deceived evo to believe that you re not FSing us. :) it's not that hard. fluff is easy to be loved and believed.
Canterbury Crusader (CC)
Evolution

NukEvil

Member
4314

Oct 18th 2011, 12:31:04

I'm sorry. I really am. But I have to post this.

In early June of this year, Evolution and LaF signed a coalition pact because certain war alliances had been picking easy fights with (i.e. BLINDSIDING) netting alliances. Seemed good at the time, although I did think it odd that only Evo and LaF had chosen to take part in this "coalition" (which was nullified anyways because of the whole "super-majority" thing, which is why nobody in EVO really cared about it). Several possible names for this coalition were passed around, but my personal favorite was "The Elite Anti-Blindsiding Alliance Group (TEABAG)".

Anyways, I have posted the first paragraph in the "coalition" pact terms for your enjoyment.


Originally posted by TEABAG:

--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.



So basically, LaF signed a pact that was designed to either prevent or punish alliances for blindsiding netting alliances--during a netting reset--for the express purpose of having an easy war, with the emphasis towards unprovoked wars, or wars provoked by minor slights that would otherwise had been ignored had the aggressor not badly wanted a war.

...and then used the same pact to...blindside a netting alliance--during a netting reset--for the express purpose of having an easy war, unprovoked or provoked by minor slights that would otherwise had been ignored had the aggressor not badly wanted a war.


LaF can munch on a bowl of my nuts. They'll just have to get in line to do so.
I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

Revolver

Member
259

Oct 18th 2011, 12:46:22

Originally posted by Slagpit:
I have to wonder who would be leading these joint evo-laf warchats. Would it be laf's head of war who has suicided on evo at least three times in the past four months? SS broke the pact because he's a cowardly fluff who pisses in his pants at the thought of a fair fight.

Hanlong: you were $50M NW behind diez, you were topfed once, then you almost beat diez despite these laf clowns claiming that the mass amounts of FA/land/loans didn't even make up for your losses. Does that make any sense at all?

There's no need to even go into the messy details. When you see a group of people lying over and over, it's just easier to assume that they're lying all of the time.


at the moment, its definitely not SS peeing in his pants. Since he's not the one calling in 2 allies.

anoniem

Member
2881

Oct 18th 2011, 12:53:06

wait a minute aren't rival going to FS laf this set?

i thought that was one of the reasons laf broke an unbreakable pact with evo.


lulululululululul
re(ally)tired

ArsenalMD

Member
560

Oct 18th 2011, 12:53:48

This is going to be my only public comment on this whole situation given I've had about a thousand people ask my opinion.

I've been aware of these pact terms for some time and found them to be frankly ridiculous. It does not surprise me that there is a dispute over it and the pact is so poorly (perhaps purposefully) written that it was open to abuse from both sides.

Everyone whose been around earth long enough knows that there are some people and alliances you can trust to play in the spirit of agreements and friendship and others that you cannot - that is why long term friendships are formed (Omega - MD for example)! Sounds like you guys were never friends...

It's almost as if you are all bad lawyers.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 13:03:27

As has been said already, this was never about sol, we had no intention of warring sol. Its quite simple, evo go all over at calling us out, they call us out in their country names, they bad mouth us to anyone that will hear it. Meanwhile, we hear they've pacted sol, which is against the terms of our pact as detailed bellow.

Originally posted by :

All alliances in the coalition will enter into war (preferably simultaneously in a large strike) against the Enemy; after they are sufficiently beaten down, farming may commence. NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


That creates an opportunity to void the pact, we chose to take it. End of story.

Also two lies being spread on here.

1:
This whole "(super-majority, ie 66% ?)" that isnt even in the pact, that is a note qzjul made on his side after the pact was signed (one that was never even attempted to be communicated to laf.). There is no where in the pact that mentions 66% at all. The only mention is 50%, 50% = LaF or Evo.

2: There was no unap. There is no mention in the pact of it being unbreakable what so ever. Hence it could be deemed a nap, or a fop or what ever you want to call it, except a unap. Terms within the pact were not abided to by evo, thus giving reason to void the pact. Personally, the only difference i see between nap/unap is that overtime people started to break nap's so signed unap's.

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 13:06:24

Translation from laf and Evo side about alliance:

1.)Laf wants to war Sol, but hates Evo. If Laf wars Sol, Evo wins networth crown and gloats (somehow unacceptable). Therefore in order to war against Sol, Evo must war as well so they don't win the netting reset. (Alliance condition 1; Laf wins netgaining)

2.) Laf doesn't enjoy war, so a part of Laf's alliance is that war requires 166% advantage plus a FS (150%) = 250% advantage. (Alliance Condition 2; Laf wins war)

3.) Condition 2 was not met, so Evo declined in order to win netgaining reset.

4.) As a result condition 1 was not met for Laf so Laf declared war on Evo.

5.) Declaring war on Evo requires condition 2 to be met, which means they got one of their 'alliance' members to agree to war with Evo.

Zero sum games require four players, Who is the fourth player??
Laf may have initiated backstab but by deduction there is another anti-Evo clan in the alliance. Actually I don't have a clue who, though the betting has begun.

According to what I have read, Lafers are saying Evo was wearing rose coloured glasses for thinking that the alliance was to their benefit as well. Laf isn't 'wrong' they are just 'strategic', 'everyone knows alliances should only benefit yourself' *cough* sociopaths */cough*.



Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 13:08:37

My conversation with diez was purely to get an evo head to confirm their pact with sol, and double it up with a breaking of another term of the pact by saying they wouldnt fs when requested to (which i knew they couldnt anyway since they signed a pact with sol.)

Obviously i couldnt void the pact on hearsay, i had to have evo confirm their pact situation.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 13:10:38

Originally posted by Evolution:

1.)Laf wants to war Sol, but hates Evo. If Laf wars Sol, Evo wins networth crown and gloats (somehow unacceptable). Therefore in order to war against Sol, Evo must war as well so they don't win the netting reset. (Alliance condition 1; Laf wins netgaining)


LaF has no interest in warring sol, it was only ever about evo. Sol just happened to be the alliance which related to evo's breaking of our pact. Nothing more nothing less.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 13:12:35

Also I love how slagpit can post whatever made up fluff he likes about me, and yet when i post things he has actually done I get banned... great admin we have there.

anoniem

Member
2881

Oct 18th 2011, 14:10:35

yeah, and you have a great head of war that likes to cheat and run suiciders.
re(ally)tired

anoniem

Member
2881

Oct 18th 2011, 14:13:52

Originally posted by ArsenalMD:
This is going to be my only public comment on this whole situation given I've had about a thousand people ask my opinion.

I've been aware of these pact terms for some time and found them to be frankly ridiculous. It does not surprise me that there is a dispute by LAF over it and the pact is so poorly (perhaps purposefully by LAF) written that it was open to abuse from LAF.

Everyone whose been around earth long enough knows that there are some Solidsnakes, Lord Tards, Hanfluffsolongs, and LAF you CANNOT trust to play in the spirit of agreements and friendship and others that you can like EVO - that is why long term friendships are formed


fixed your post arsenal.
re(ally)tired

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 14:17:44

Originally posted by hanlong:
that's cool. i calculated myself to finish around 270-280M before i was hit. if he was going to finish 320M but finished 270M that's not my fault... if that's what you mean by "50M ahead".

i actually put him at 290M nw and myself at 275M to be exact when we were both originally going to start stocking around the 60k mark. so no, i wasn't going to beat him nor did i ever claim that. but saying 50M is nice tall tale you were telling. we did both finish shorter than what we should've had if we were left alone, so take it for what you want.

i'm 100% sure i know how to calculate my finish since i played pretty much the same type of country for three resets in a row and each time my finished nw was right around the mark of my estimated nw. but sure, we can all believe what you say instead. this isn't even an argument other than your attempt to troll.



Yeah, I don't put a lot of faith in NW calculations done by someone who's only motivation is promoting himself. Diez was fully built, you were around 1/3rd built. Diez had more tech. Diez had more turns. Diez had more stock. If I post a mathematical proof of the $50M NW figure will you finally quit the game like you keep saying you'll do? Debating with liars isn't worth that much of my time otherwise.


Originally posted by SolidSnake:
My conversation with diez was purely to get an evo head to confirm their pact with sol


Yeah, too bad diez never said that.


Originally posted by SolidSnake:
LaF has no interest in warring sol, it was only ever about evo. Sol just happened to be the alliance which related to evo's breaking of our pact. Nothing more nothing less.


Wow, it's almost like you told obvious lies to EVO and then were shocked when they didn't want to commit to a war effort that made no logical sense and that LaF had no plans of carrying out. Besides, Laf pacted SOL last set. OMG PACT BREAKERS?!?

Originally posted by SolidSnake:
Also I love how slagpit can post whatever made up fluff he likes about me, and yet when i post things he has actually done I get banned... great admin we have there.


I didn't make up anything, LaF has only fought two remotely fair wars in EE and they lost both of them. If you don't like being called out for scummy actions why don't you stop committing them? No one in LaF had a problem when I used to bash SOL for similar stuff, so deal with the consequences of your actions.

Speaking of consequences, once LaF throws you out again for incompetence you can always do more untagged suiciding on EVO. Have you been practicing lately?

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 14:59:38

Originally posted by SolidSnake:
Originally posted by Evolution:

1.)Laf wants to war Sol, but hates Evo. If Laf wars Sol, Evo wins networth crown and gloats (somehow unacceptable). Therefore in order to war against Sol, Evo must war as well so they don't win the netting reset. (Alliance condition 1; Laf wins netgaining)


LaF has no interest in warring sol, it was only ever about evo. Sol just happened to be the alliance which related to evo's breaking of our pact. Nothing more nothing less.


Originally posted by SolidSnake:
My conversation with diez was purely to get an evo head to confirm their pact with sol, and double it up with a breaking of another term of the pact by saying they wouldnt fs when requested to (which i knew they couldnt anyway since they signed a pact with sol.)

Obviously i couldnt void the pact on hearsay, i had to have evo confirm their pact situation.


Oh my bad.

1.) Laf hates Evo. Could just war with Evo anyway but;
2.) Needs reason/justification to bring in allies against Evo to get 166% majority

BORING. TOO SIMPLE.


Uno Rules Apply. Laf uses yellow Reverse against Sol; Evo's turn, Evo responses with yellow skip on Sol; Laf Turn, Laf uses draw four on Evo. Colour is changed to red. Evo has a hand full of new cards, but laf has the lead.

Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 15:04:39

Originally posted by Slagpit:

Originally posted by SolidSnake:
My conversation with diez was purely to get an evo head to confirm their pact with sol


Yeah, too bad diez never said that.


[18:47] S|snake: out of interest, did sol pact you guys this set?
[18:47] diez: looks like we have a unap

+1 for more lies.

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 15:13:03

[quote poster=SolidSnake; 12874; 227937]
[18:47] S|snake: out of interest, did sol pact you guys this set?
[18:47] diez: looks like we have a unap

+1 for more lies.
[/quote]

[18:47] diez: out of interest, did sol pact you guys last set?
[18:47] S|snake: looks like we had a unap

+1 for validity of information on the internets
-1 for quote fail qq.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

SolidSnake

Member
867

Oct 18th 2011, 15:15:14

Originally posted by Evolution:


+1 for validity of information on the internets


annoniem posted quotes from the fluffing conversation you nublet. You have the whole damn thing.

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 15:21:49

Originally posted by SolidSnake:
Originally posted by Evolution:


+1 for validity of information on the internets


annoniem posted quotes from the fluffing conversation you nublet. You have the whole damn thing.


Your source is the person that you are waring because they can't be trusted?


[12:42am] S|snake: from what i gather sol/rival hit early next week

Meanwhile in Sol;

[10/6/2011 4:46:16 PM] Makinso: This set we plan to do a late arranged war. So far it is still uncertain who our sparring partner will be.

Opposite of planned early fs = uncertain arranged late war?

Laf FA prolly were aware of this from Sol FR.

EDIT: Evo would have known this too. So Laf rocks up and slaps Evo in the face basically. wtf.

Laf and Evo know Sol is not planning an early war? Laf asks Evo to join in against a fictional war? Won't join in against Sol in a fictional war, therefore must be on the fictional other side = pact void.

Edited By: Evolution on Oct 18th 2011, 15:35:06
See Original Post
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

BattleKJ

Member
1200

Oct 18th 2011, 15:29:25

[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
[12:46am] diez: are we? lol
[12:47am] S|snake: out of interest, did sol pact you guys this set?
[12:47am] diez: looks like we have a unap
[12:47am] S|snake: assuming they did, it would appear that they are isolating us for sure
[12:47am] diez: we have zero FOP lol
[12:47am] diez: evo nets, not attacks


WIN

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 15:35:17

Yeah, you posted it out of context. Diez was saying that LaF and EVO had a UNAP.

Real solid FA work there buddy, breaking a pact because you apparently don't know how to read.

Do we need a disclaimer? "Players without basic reading skills may not fully be able to enjoy the game."

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5712

Oct 18th 2011, 15:42:02

I think we also need a disclaimer saying: "We are not responsible for mental of physical anguish caused by the players or staff of Earth Empires."
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 15:45:40

[12:47am] S|snake: assuming they did, it would appear that they are isolating us for sure
[12:47am] diez: we have zero FOP lol
[12:47am] diez: evo nets, not attacks
Quits: diez () (Ping timeout)

[12:47am] S|snake: Ahah, caught you, our fictional context of war was merely a pretext to confirm your alliance against us in said fictional war. Pact void good sir. I will see you on the battle field.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

lenshark

Member
177

Oct 18th 2011, 15:45:45

i assumed that's taken from diez's copy of the convo. diez is a noob, change your timestamp to include seconds and milliseconds. :P

Son Goku

Member
744

Oct 18th 2011, 15:50:04

double post

Son Goku

Member
744

Oct 18th 2011, 15:50:21

Originally posted by Son Goku:
First of all, that's a horrible pact.

NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


Am I the only one who sees that as a breaking of this "pact"? Why is no one mentioning this?

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 15:52:28

Originally posted by Son Goku:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
First of all, that's a horrible pact.

NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


Am I the only one who sees that as a breaking of this "pact"? Why is no one mentioning this?


You mean Laf broke the pact last reset?

EDIT: Sorry you aren't supposed to point that out thats why its not mentioned. hurry edit your post so they don't see it

Edited By: Evolution on Oct 18th 2011, 15:54:41
See Original Post
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

TeckMing

Member
578

Oct 18th 2011, 15:54:53

1

Son Goku

Member
744

Oct 18th 2011, 15:54:58

Originally posted by Evolution:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
First of all, that's a horrible pact.

NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


Am I the only one who sees that as a breaking of this "pact"? Why is no one mentioning this?


You mean Laf broke the pact last reset?

EDIT: Sorry you aren't supposed to point that out thats why its not mentioned.


So there's no pact? I'm not seeing the issue then.

Sounds this we've established this pact is a complete joke.

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 15:56:48

Originally posted by Son Goku:
Originally posted by Evolution:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
First of all, that's a horrible pact.

NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


Am I the only one who sees that as a breaking of this "pact"? Why is no one mentioning this?


You mean Laf broke the pact last reset?

EDIT: Sorry you aren't supposed to point that out thats why its not mentioned.


So there's no pact? I'm not seeing the issue then.


I think you are correct. Evo was foolish for thinking there was even a pact this set, war was always going to happen.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 15:57:55

Originally posted by Son Goku:
Originally posted by Son Goku:
First of all, that's a horrible pact.

NO ALLIANCE IN THE COALITION SHALL SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE ENEMY WITHOUT ALL MEMBERS OF THE COALITION GETTING THE SAME PEACE DEAL, UNLESS THEIR LEADERS APPROVE.


Am I the only one who sees that as a breaking of this "pact"? Why is no one mentioning this?


Three reasons:

1) Diez did not say that EVO pacted SOL.
2) LaF pacted SOL in the previous set.
3) SOL is not an "ENEMY" as classified in the pact when they are going around offering friendly wars to alliances.



"So there's no pact? I'm not seeing the issue then.
Sounds this we've established this pact is a complete joke. "

There was a pact and there were separate "coalition terms". You can call the coalition terms a joke if you want, but that still leaves the other pact between evo and laf. You know, the one with the standard "Don't FS the other alliance" type of language?

Son Goku

Member
744

Oct 18th 2011, 16:00:20

You just admitted LaF pacted SOL the previous reset, voiding the pact.

It sounds like a huge clusterfluff that both alliances should have been paying attention to.

Either way, sounds like the pact was void going into the reset, thus making the war perfectly fine.

Edit: And yes, it's very ironic that this anti blind side pact is resulting in this. However, it sounds like EVO should have been following the terms more closely. I know if I was a head in EVO after all the fluff that went down end of the reset I'd be going over that pact line by line.

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 16:04:11

There was a pact and there were separate "coalition terms".

Imagine a piece of paper placed on a table. That piece of paper has the unap. To help you understand the difference, this piece of paper is colored bright pink.

Now imagine a different piece of paper placed on a different table. That piece of paper contains the coalition terms. This piece of paper is colored purple.

Is that clear now? Do the bright colors help?

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 16:04:12

If coalition terms do not void the pact, then Laf broke the non-void unap this reset.

Edited By: Evolution on Oct 18th 2011, 16:09:43
See Original Post
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 16:06:10

Do I need to ask Nukevil to draw a MS paint picture?

Maybe after we handle the tough task of counting (2 agreements versus 1 agreement), we can move onto more advanced skills like reading?

Requiem

Member
EE Patron
7006

Oct 18th 2011, 16:06:32

Why does it feel like you have to be a lawyer to read these pacts? Do you think these pacts may be too wordy for a game?

Evolution

Member
669

Oct 18th 2011, 16:08:44

Originally posted by Requiem:
Why does it feel like you have to be a lawyer to read these pacts? Do you think these pacts may be too wordy for a game?


Blame Mickster, he declared unaps that weren't written up in the correct legal jargon to be invalid.


I was agreeing with you before slagpit but posted before your post was loaded.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.

Slagpit

Member
3692

Oct 18th 2011, 16:10:34

Yeah I get that, the counting and reading lessons are for LaF members only at this time.