I know I might sound biased as Evo is a SOL ally etc but the deal struck between LaF and Evo on CF Terms was for next set. They signed a STANDARD uNAP for this set to avoid any aggression.

Now everything put aside. Let's say LaFs last pact breach was justified last set (which I still think wasn't a very plausible pact breach even by going along the lines LaF was trying to justify it). This one is ridiculous I haven't been there for all the convos but have been part of a few of them. The PM traffic though clearly shows a STANDARD uNAP was signed with no additional terms.

Now normally (everyone has done their share of it) a pact breach doesn't overly bother me it is what it is. But you knew that going into a pact breach would get you into serious trouble and you would need to defend yourself for it for at least the next set. Nowadays people just seem to accept this and just forget about it only to pact the pact breaker again next set just for their own gain??

It's an oddball one that hasn't been seen in the 12 years I've been playing this game....

why would you have 2 seperate pacts signed half way through a set. that in itself is retarted

*doesnt even have one cent*

*flips a nickel toward Makinso*

scode.

The standard uNAP was part of the CF deal for this set. The other was a 3 set pact forged to avoid future wars between the two but still have some protection open for allies.

It's not uncommon dealings

sol now = evo whores

Isn't SoL part of an infamous select club of alliances who have actually FSed a FDP over rumours from a shared GT board?

More than one alliance FSd over a shared board FDP? :P

locket no where have I mentioned I did not have my share. But SOL had to arm itself to the teeth after that to defend ourselves for our actions.

Nowadays people just seem to think it's all fine when it happens and just line up to pact again next set.

Makinso, then why not just make one pact detailing that to save confusion?

SoF has the phrase:

"This pact is only voidable if one of us is proven to have broken an unbreakable pact during the set or is deliberately breaking the terms of this pact."

in all but 2 of our pacts I believe. It may be useful for more alliances to adopt this.

gives me something to read that doesn't involve clicking on useless links.

I dont care about it :P I didn't even know about it before this post lol. Its the past and I wasn't involved so yah, I was just curious if that random situation happened more then once :P Not trolling you :)

I do not know why that didn't happen scode. But that's what in the netherlands we call eating mustard after your meal ;)

Fact remains 2 different ones were in place one for this set and one for next set.. The one for this set was non-voidable.

Who is warring

LaF/RIVAL vs Evo
RIVAL vs iMag

:(((((((((((((((((((((((((

So thoughtful of you, how bout this one?

Rival = LaF whores/fluffs?

lol

galleri, please as a game moderator can we avoid such language.

I've been told (via 3rd parties) of various conversations in this whole affair and some of the very personal language used between FA's has been nothing short of disgraceful.

I won't stand for such behavior, and I have a sneaking suspicion my guys at MD will back me. Those who have participated in this sort of behavior you know who you are, apologise or you won't be recognised as an FA in dealings with MD again.

---

As for the topic at hand, a couple of things:

1. I have to agree with Makinso, pact breaking seems to be a thing that alliances do these days with seemingly little or no consequences. Frankly I agree 100% with SoF's approach.

2. Some of the flaming and arguing is completely unbecoming of alliance FA's (on both sides). I feel sorry for the members of LaF and Evo, because some of the stuff you've been saying is an embarrassment to your membership.

3. And this relates more to the thread started by TAN, +1 to Chaoswind.

Funniest thing is RIVAL is an MD LDP, if they had just come and spoken to us, we would have helped?

Well arsenal there's still time to show everyone what a tough guy you are. I'll even sign a pact with you before MD's FS so you can demonstrate your own contempt for keeping your word.

"It's an oddball one that hasn't been seen in the 12 years I've been playing this game.... "

@Makinso.. no I guess not:P Not even some of the pacting shinanagoats between sof/sol and sof/sol's collaberative shinanagoats came close..:P At least not under my watch:P

I do not mod Alliance, but to keep everyone happy that cannot seperate the tag in my forum name between "mod" and "player", sure, I should of known this was coming since it happens to Slagpit and Pang

Our shinangoats always had repercussions though Green man.

My problem with all this rubbish is people just seem to accept it as common practice now.

I create repercussions! This is a first! Bow to Greenman.

I'm confused why Evo tried to slip a pact term into the LaF pact and then claim it was for next round and beyond only...??

It makes me feel that Evo is really just pissed that LaF out-sketched them before Evo was able to screw LaF over using that same pact term. That being said, why is LaF not reading pact terms fully, if this war is indeed about slipping in pact terms?

Like I said the last time you guys got into a giant war+flame war, no one looks good here. Except PDM, we look marvelous for not being involved. :p

There was no pact-slippage; terms were drafted and modified and proposed and agreed to. There was no intention of screwing LaF; the intention was primarily to get Rival to FS us on their own this reset. Given we were already out of the netting game.

What Arsenal said!

/signed

Lol. What are you World Language Police now?

Shut the fluff up, Arsenal.

Bah us Laffers are avoiding those things Aresenal! <3