Originally
posted by
Atryn:
MD was definitely "on the rise" when we decided to take on LaF. We were so high on our growth rate (breaking 70 members) and our desire to prove our capability that we arranged for a 1v1 with LaF, which we lost.
The greatest tragedy in all of this was that the arranging of that 1v1 made it an "unfriendly" 1v1 instead of a "friendly" result. I don't like arranged wars and we wanted the element of surprise. Well, we went to great lengths and totally screwed it up. Not only did we lose the element of surprise, we also lost ground with some key allies (including but not limited to SoF).
We LATER learned that much of the "screw-up" and loss was attributable to hacking and cheating. Not all of it, we had made plenty of mistakes, but much of the info stolen and used against us was accessible via hacking methods. We remain convinced LaF's leadership at that time acted inappropriately and used these methods against us.
We were, frankly, astounded when SoF refused to disavow LaF for even 1 set over those actions. Instead they joined up with them to ensure LaF could continue to dominate the server and suffer none at all.
I think I understand SoF's reasons for supporting LaF, even if I disagree with them. I certainly understand LaF's anger with MD for our "attempt" to drop them and take them on in a 1v1 war. To say we didn't hope to beat them to a bloody pulp would be false -- but to say we intended it (at the time) in an unfriendly way would ALSO be false. What turned it unfriendly (for MD, not LaF) was the cheating, hacking, etc. and the failure to acknowledge all the benefits that came from it.
I am too recently returned to comment on the rest of dagga's assessment of SoF's actions before I got back. But I don't think I would characterize SoF as a "leech" based on the past 5 sets. I just disagree with their choices.
Yes, MD was on the rise and it was obviously an attempt to try and cement your place as #1 alliance at the expense of LaF. However, the logs are 100% clear that it was unfriendly/an attempt to knock LaF back down to a 40/50 member alliances over the course of a few sets. You were prepared to manipulate your allies to do it, but your right in that nobody would have found out if it wasn't for Hanlong having Boxcar access.
However, having boxcar access is not cheating. Immoral, yes, which is why I wouldn't host a site not owned by my own alliance. Hacking is much more of a grey area, but Hanlong didn't hack boxcar, he was given access and no matter what anyone says Pang knew of Hanlong's access, which was fine until he fell out with LaF. Furthermore, I remember the admins backing down about Hanlong doing stuff in the database and the admin who outed him happens to have hacked the db in Earth2025, but nobody cares, especially you guys who were FDPed with the alliance he was in and are closest allies with now.
I also don't understand the point about us not letting people kill LaF for one set, because we did do that last set. We did not interfere and LaF died. You told us that you only wanted LaF for that set, but could not control Evo/SoL if they wanted to have a go at LaF. Fair enough, but when it came to this set we were told to drop LaF and unap SoL/Evo/PDM or sign clauses to protect sol/evo/pdm. Hence you moved from we cannot stop SoL/Evo to we will protect your enemies SoL/Evo, who SoF were going to hit no matter what, mainly due to threads like these from their leaders/members. I see that SoL is eager for further beatings from us in the future.
EE Patron