If you guys are going to keep breaking uNAPs left and right.

Then it's probably for the best if you guys just use the old term NAP.

Because, let's face it, no matter what the circumstances is, the term is UNBREAKABLE Non Aggression Pact.

I don't care that your alliance thinks that this was some crazy event, and should be special. But this isn't anything more routine than a few players getting caught 'cheating'.

If you guys just wanted an excuse to break the pact, then just say so.



It's like the Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object.

You just can't have it both ways.






I'm not defending LaF, I just hate it when people go back on their words, like leaving the groom at the altar.

yea i agree.. but uNAP's have always been broken from the day they were created.

I always thought voiding pacts for reasons relating to cheating is pretty standard and acceptable. But I agree with your sentiment.

Watcher = Hanlong

but he forgot his trademark emoticons :)

restart the reset everytime someone gets busted for cheating.

He has a point though. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction.

I'm not sure who Watcher is, but he does have a point.

don't give alliances cause to break.
if a leader signs a pact with someone then is found to be a cheat, who says that he or his alliance are going to honour said pact? head booting has been used by alliances before to 'invalidate' a pact signed by their former head and FS.

uNAP's have always been broken, alliances find ways to break them... "you hit me 5 times randomly this set til the middle of the set.. my friend's sister was knotcked up by your cousin..."

when two heads are found to be cheating for an alliance, its pretty good cause for revoking the uNAP.

If he has a point, then where was he when LaF kept voiding pacts?

Breaking the game rules that pacts are based off of breaks the pact nub.

Think of the game rules as a "class" in any programming language, and that the pacts between alliances "extend" that "class", which means pacts carry over those hard coded rules to abide by to keep the pact valid and add additional rules between the two or more alliances that sign. Dunno why this is hard to understand for some people.

There was a clause in our pact that if you aid an enemy during a war the pact can be broken - Laf aided an enemy during war and thus the pact was voided by Laf.

And yes (per LI's post above), breaking game rules to give an alliance a competitive edge is certainly cause for termination - we cannot be expected to be held to a contract with an alliance that is illegitimately accessing our internal communications and country builds.

Stick to what you know watcher, which sounds like not much.

I can honestly say I do not know who Watcher is?

Not that I think watcher is Hanglong but the irony is that hanglong himself was very clear in his statement vs muppets

"we will not pact alliances that are caught cheating"

Well there you go, you set yourselves up prefect didnt you ;)

All AT has now been pwned, lol

As archaic said, PDM had a lawful and legal reason to void the pact as per the terms. And please note there is a big difference between being legally entitled to VOID a pact, and breaking a pact. One is legitimate, the other is not.

uNAPs have terms in them that can make them voided. so no pact is really unbreakable


so pffft

Laf cheating scandal should be the only ever valid reason that's logical to break a UNap. Why you guys made it sound unbreakable and then break it is beyond me. Only special circumstances such as head of tag caught cheating warrants enough merit for a revoke.