To whom it may concern.

Here we are again, honestly even in my wildest fantasies I did not expect us to meet again so soon. Unknown to me and the rest of the "virgin calculator mafia", KJ and friends however had other plans.

While negotiating a cf between laf/sol sof/evo, Hanlong simply offered a unap with the option to void in defense of a fdp, the same deal all around. Evo however you had other plans, and changed the term to option to void if a war occurs with any fdp (i.e. offensive not defensive). Peculiar but not an issue in of itself. (the term kj inserted
"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 ")

You then proceed to threaten rival on a daily basis? Now I know first hand that evo's fa's arnt the most sensible of folk and regularly speak before they think but now we're thinking, something is amiss. So we arrive at one of two conclusions, your heads are incompetent and signed an offensively breakable pact (despite our assertion it should be defensively breakable) while actively making threats which may facilitate a breach of said pact, or you are actively looking to void our pact.

Regardless of which of those options you actually are, laf declares war on evo, in defense of rival.

This time it really is nothing personal, a lot of the negotiations had to do with not allowing the friends of either side to get screwed on a cf deal, you seem to have forgotten that.

[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> please let me know Yank's thoughts
[23:03] <Don_Hanlong> :D
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> heh
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> we have a standard clause uNAP for this set
01[23:03] <BattleKJ> which you signed already :)
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> all we have to do
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> is hit your FDP first no?
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> then its void
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> lulz
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> im just talknig up right now
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> cuz im pissed off
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> no
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> standard clause pact this set
[23:04] <Don_Hanlong> whatever
01[23:04] <BattleKJ> that clause is there starting next set

had we wanted to hurt rival, we would've FSed them already by now.

LaF was out for blood this set so they would hold onto any kind of war they could get.
Rival had their set ruined, some of them are uber fat, but a little too many of them died to even try to netgain.


Taking those 2 into consideration, EVO FAing Imag wasn't the brightest idea, however, I have to ask, RIVAL asked Evo to stop and they refused? or they never asked.


That would clear this little mess and allow us neutral pieces of people to understand.

Lol @ LaF Logic

While i cant verify the authenticity of your logs slagpit, two things

a: there is no term in the pact that says this term only starts on x date and so the only agreement on all terms, is immediate.

b: that shows kj informing hlw it startes on a certain date after it is signed? thats like me saying i signed the unap but didnt i tell you? it starts 4 years from now.

another masterful LaF AT spin-job at work...

nice PS on me too, fluffing amateurs

If you don't even know what kind of deals the leader of your alliance signed then why the hell should I debate this with you? You aren't even qualified to post a declaration of war.

SolidSnake: Please clarify what you mean exactly, as that makes no sense to me!!

But I will try make it more clear by posting the pact that myself and Hanlong signed for next set... I hope it will clear up some of your doubts.



Dr. BattleKJ [HoW]





Posts: 1995




Donor!


3 Set uNAP with LaF
Dec/22/11 0:33:35
As with the SoF Pact please store this here for now, again I am bolding a clause that *I* insisted upon with Yanks approval, I cannot explain it to you guys properly right now, but please trust in Yanks and my judgement.

uNAP Between Evolution and LaFamiglia.

This uNAP will auto-renew from the start of the Feb 2012 set for the duration of 3 sets.

-Retaliation Policy-

-200% Land:Land On all grabs
-1:1 On all DHs (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-3:1 On all specials (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-Compounding 2:1 or 200% Land:Land On Retal on Retal (Whichever is more)
-The window during which retals will be performed shall be 48 hours from the time of the hit, unless otherwise agreed to by FR's
-1:1 On Declaration of War, if and only if an attack is made while the declaration is in place.
-Standard reps formula is: ((75*number of week into the reset)*(lost acres*1.2))
-200% Land:Land negates any lost production payable, as future production will be more. Special cases may still be discussed between representatives from both alliances.
-Unlimited Retaliations and/or Killing of the offending country may be discussed anytime after the 4th attack of any kind in a 24 hour period.
-48 hour retal period which begins after FRs make contact on anymore then two attacks.
-During times of war reps may be discussed in place of retals
- Alliances are responsible for a country�s actions while untagged if that country was tagged in said alliance within 72 hours prior to the first attack.
-Alliances are responsible for compensation of lost production/future stockpile generation on losses greater than 2000 acres/buildings per individual country. This clause only takes effect after the 1100th turn has been played by the defender. Damages are to be repaid in the form of bushels and cash only. This clause only applies in cases where defending countries exceed 13,000 acres prior to the attack(s).
- Formulas for repaying lost production/future stock:
-Rep-Cashers: Stocking until the last 72 � 96 hours of any set (depending on when set ends). 175% Bus/Res Tech, and 87% Military tech. Cash all turns, and a total of 300 CS(So, if land is 20k, you minus 300 and then divide by two to figure out the specific amount of ent/res zones). Multiply each day remaining in the set by 78 turns, using current market price for bushel rate. Use a set in stone military for each country, say: 200k spies, 200k troops, 1mil turrets, 200k tanks. So basically: 175% bus/res tech, 300 CS, 87% Military tech, 200k spies/troops/tanks 1mil turrets, all turns cashed, 40 dollar bushel price, Stocking until 26th or 27th.
-Tyr-Farmers: 216% Agri tech, 87% Military tech, same Military #'s, 150% Bus/Res tech, cash all turns, stock until 26th or 27th. Bushel price is current market price.
-Tyr-Techers: Tech all turns, 165% bus/res tech, 85% Military tech, TPT is 1/4 of Total Land - 300. Decreasing Tech value, starting at 3k the First week of 2nd month, 2500 2nd, 2k 3rd, and 1500 for the last week of the set. Bushel price at current market value, and military same as above.
- Compensation will be made in the form of reps rather than retals in cases where attacks are made on a country within a 6 hour period of joining the allied tag.
*prices and formula are subject to change as game mechanic changes are announced.

-Two Stepping and Suiciding-

- LaF and Evo agree not to two-step each other. Two-stepping is when Alliance A grabs an untagged or another alliances' country when that country has hit alliance B four or more times in a 4 hour period, while being unprovoked and vice versa. land:land or 1:1, whichever is greater, will be taken against the offender.
- A country is considered provoked only when it has been hit four or more times and even if this is the case the retaliation has to be taken against the offending country rather than another alliance member if it is to be exempt from two-stepping.
- Both alliances are responsible for any country that has spent a week in their alliance until it has joined a new alliance. If that country suicides on the other alliance they are required to help kill the country and reparations for losses and future losses will be calculated between FAs depending on the circumstances with fairness in mind.
- If a suiciding country has spent less than a week in the offending alliance, then the 72 hour tag responsability applies (exluding time spent in vacation).

-Detagging of Members to win ANW.-

-Evo and LaF both agree not to coordinate the detagging of members with less than 14 days left in the set. We will also try to ensure that our active members do not benefit from the detagging of the inactive members and will try to enforce a no-grab policy on these countries. Where this policy is breached, if the oppossing alliance feels that the particular situation benefitted the active member too much actions will be taken to punish the offending member.


- 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


Signed BattleKJ
Signed Hanlong

I will highlight one clause here for SS:

This uNAP will auto-renew from the start of the Feb 2012 set for the duration of 3 sets.

To avoid any confusion, that pact was signed to be starting NEXT set. After that pact was signed myself and hanlong signed a standard LaF term uNAP that we had signed with them in previous sets. There were no funky clauses.

11 dead already this is mass slaughter

wow.. 73 vs 37!

God this again... so now you claim we have two pacts one which terms are the same as an undefined reset from the past and one starting next reset? do you ever get tired of inventing fluff?

No, I am saying we signed a pact for next set with various funky clauses, such as;

- 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

In note of having to list FDP's in particular at the start of the set, I asked Hanlong if he wanted to sign a standard LaF term uNAP for this set. He signed it, you broke it.

I am not debating that its maybe stupid to sign a pact for next set and then go ahead and sign a different pact for this set. But that is what we DID do. Hanlong can confirm this as he has the exact same logs as me.

Well I'm sure you'll let us know once you figure out what pact your don actually signed. Actually you won't because you only care about defending laf, but whatever.

Cool story bro. False, but cool.

screenshot or its fake

By saying its false are you implying that I am making up IRC log convo's and emails?

meh heh

im implying that without proof there is no truth!

http://i40.tinypic.com/28tb0h0.jpg

Screenshot of the exchange of emails on hotmail between myself and Hanlong showing a standard clause uNAP was signed this set.

boxcar says there are 33 online LaFers... maybe you should make those private? unless you can filter with clans can see who is online O.O

Unless I am mistaken, laf clearly broke a unap with evo.

Im I mistaken?

Another amusing thing about this war dec is that EVO wanted to pact RIVAL as part of the SOL-LAF negotiations, but LaF claimed that RIVAL weren't their allies so that was off the table.

So yeah, it's painfully obvious that SS is lying. He won't even stand by his don's words. No one should believe a word that he says.

According to what I believe to be the absolute truth that I am willing to screenshot and present to everyone if required, you're not mistaken.

According to SolidSnake and Hanlong you're very very very very wrong always and forever unless you agree with them.

seems like it, then again having 2 pacts signed could had confused LaF, so I'll give them that

now LaF has 3 options:

They either keep hitting Evo like they don't give a fluff and thus break the uNAP they made.

They stop the hits on EVO and pay reps for the damage done.

They pull a 423CC and hit BOTH Rival and EVO, and thus all 3 of them get to war :)

Why does the date on your computer say 08/01/2012?

Cause he is from the future!!!!!


Or cause almost everyone else in the world does Day/Month/Year.

are you for real?

I read it as August 1st! ...spin spin spin

Because its the 8th of Jan!

Anyway I don't believe that LaF have the balls to admit that they are wrong and make amends.

McAfee? and IE?

I always knew you were dumb, but damn.....

This isnt a thread about computer software, its a thread about how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air and how LaF are pact breakers.

gayss

yes we broke a pact.

we broke it using your term.

unless you are claiming it was the previous pact that you are referring to, then we can use the previous one where we can void because you FDPed SOL... remember that one?

so which one is it that we signed.

That made me chuckle at least =P

let me FS you hanshort.... :)

Lol, what you said makes no sense to me hanlong as reference was made to LaFs standard uNAP terms before we signed anything. You even posted your standard uNAP terms on that message wall thing to me.

mibpaste or whatever I posted your link in the other thread.. :D

-Retaliation Policy-
-200% Land:Land On all grabs
-1:1 On all DHs (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-3:1 On all specials (or reps if the damage is extreme or late in the set)
-Compounding 2:1 or 200% Land:Land On Retal on Retal (Whichever is more)
-The window during which retals will be performed shall be 48 hours from the time of the hit, unless otherwise agreed to by FR's
-1:1 On Declaration of War, if and only if an attack is made while the declaration is in place.
-Standard reps formula is: ((75*number of week into the reset)*(lost acres*1.2))
-200% Land:Land negates any lost production payable, as future production will be more. Special cases may still be discussed between representatives from both alliances.
-Unlimited Retaliations and/or Killing of the offending country may be discussed anytime after the 4th attack of any kind in a 24 hour period.
-48 hour retal period which begins after FRs make contact on anymore then two attacks.
-During times of war reps may be discussed in place of retals
- Alliances are responsible for a country�s actions while untagged if that country was tagged in said alliance within 72 hours prior to the first attack.
-Alliances are responsible for compensation of lost production/future stockpile generation on losses greater than 2000 acres/buildings per individual country. This clause only takes effect after the 1100th turn has been played by the defender. Damages are to be repaid in the form of bushels and cash only. This clause only applies in cases where defending countries exceed 13,000 acres prior to the attack(s).
- Formulas for repaying lost production/future stock:
-Rep-Cashers: Stocking until the last 72 � 96 hours of any set (depending on when set ends). 175% Bus/Res Tech, and 87% Military tech. Cash all turns, and a total of 300 CS(So, if land is 20k, you minus 300 and then divide by two to figure out the specific amount of ent/res zones). Multiply each day remaining in the set by 78 turns, using current market price for bushel rate. Use a set in stone military for each country, say: 200k spies, 200k troops, 1mil turrets, 200k tanks. So basically: 175% bus/res tech, 300 CS, 87% Military tech, 200k spies/troops/tanks 1mil turrets, all turns cashed, 40 dollar bushel price, Stocking until 26th or 27th.
-Tyr-Farmers: 216% Agri tech, 87% Military tech, same Military #'s, 150% Bus/Res tech, cash all turns, stock until 26th or 27th. Bushel price is current market price.
-Tyr-Techers: Tech all turns, 165% bus/res tech, 85% Military tech, TPT is 1/4 of Total Land - 300. Decreasing Tech value, starting at 3k the First week of 2nd month, 2500 2nd, 2k 3rd, and 1500 for the last week of the set. Bushel price at current market value, and military same as above.
- Compensation will be made in the form of reps rather than retals in cases where attacks are made on a country within a 6 hour period of joining the allied tag.
*prices and formula are subject to change as game mechanic changes are announced.



Thats what YOU sent ME as "LaF's standard uNAP terms"

lame fluff. lets gangbang Evo cause we suck!

Can i join your cuase too?

TLDR

I only have 1 question. Why did it need to be autorenewed if it wasn't in effect until next set?

LaF FAing SoF was not the brightest idea.

P.S. LaF have broken a UNAP .... wait for it...

TWO RESETS IN A ROW NOW!!!

And...wait for it...NOBODY CARES!!!

For such a long pact you guys sure introduced a pretty big ambiguity. If something start auto-renewing at one point, it implicitly means it was in effect before this point. It auto renews three times, which implicitly means 4 sets of total effect, as in contrast to the three sets total figure given above...