lol stop trying to spin the truth.

I'm just repeating what Hanlong told me -- and that was that the purpose was to make sure LaF+SoF could always beat SoL+Evo+MD+whoever else they were able to bring in by knowing what their plans were and preparing the right strategy to beat them. SoF was a required piece of the puzzle; Hanlong told me that explicitly numerous times before and after the issue came to light, but SoF didn't have knowledge of where his intel came from. LaF would not be able to win a wider war alone, even with the intel, without SoF there to provide additional muscle and Hanlong himself admitted to "propping SoF up" for a while when you were floundering.

However, the only folks smearing SoF are your own leaders, yourself included, because you're making me post more clarification that I already posted months ago and had already fallen off the boards. If that doesn't paint you in an especially good light, sorry... but you made your bed, go lay in it. That's what you keep telling others, eh? :)

But stop acting like these are even "allegations" I'm raising; Hanlong just told me what he did and why he did it and I am repeating that to the group to try and end this discussion once and for all. If you're too ignorant to understand SoF's role as the muscle behind Hanlong's planning (which was done using illegitimate data) then perhaps you were duped, but at least own up to that. I've always assumed SoF didn't know about the source of the intel (I'd hope that at least Martian would tell me, and I know he still has head access in SoF) but you guys should have definitely understood that the illegitimate intel certainly helped your side win wars that probably otherwise would have been more of a nailbiter... and that helped you gain members and ran folks from the losing side.

The stuff qz and I are posting isn't spin; it's the primary data we have had access to (either through server logs or talking to the instigators).

I'd just shut up and let this thread die if I were you guys :p

Really ? you tought this is the best time play the "silly" card ?

Alliances that gained advantages :

1. Sof
.
.
.
.
5.Rival
6.rest of hanlong`s puppies

Alliance that lost:
1.Sol
2.Md/Evo
3.on a lower scale PDM and RAGE

lol@pang

Yer largely overestimating the amount of "help" SoF got by hanlongs access not that im very suprised

hey you remember when you hacked the earth2025 servers and gained illegal information that you used? I sure do

throwing bricks in glass houses ftw Id just shut up and let this thread die if I were you

Ivan

and here comes Sof's muscles. Because we can`t talk about the brain when Ivan is involved ...

SoF's rise did not start until I joined it in Feb of this year and has absolutely nothing to do with Hanlong. Are you trying to credit Hanlong for recruiting members to help SoF rise from 43 members to 86 members in 2 sets? That was my work. I am better at recruiting than any of you, you just don't like that so you try and somehow credit it to "cheating".

Why do I need to let the thread die? I do not need to let the thread die because I do not have anything to hide.

How did Hanlong prop up SoF? By giving Flamey moral advice? Just because Hanlong said something it does not make it fact. He might have only been saying it to you in jest, who knows.

SoF was not in a healthy state prior to Feb of this year as everyone knows. Trying to credit our resurgence to LAF is ignorant at best.

Yes sure Hanlong's intel would have been handy had a server war or larger conflict arose, but it didn't. So how did SoF benefit?

well maybe Hanlong overestimated LaF's importance to SoF's rise.... but like I said, I am repeating the discussions with Hanlong that he said (and even wanted us) to provide so that the rest of LaF wouldn't take the fall for the actions of a few. I am doing so because SOF LEADERS KEEP WANTING TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I did not have visibility into SoF/LaF relations beyond what Hanlong has told me. However, the way he said it (and frequency that he said it), I would gather that he was not saying it in jest.

I personally think that SoF's resurgence is based on a lack of morals and playing the game like selfish pricks rather than as positive contributors, but that's just my personal opinion. That was what I always thought made alliances like SoF stronger -- acting more like SoL always did. "Finding" wars, planning wars you definitely won't lose, hitting ppl while they're down, blindsiding folks, etc, etc, etc... :p
SoF's troughs are when they try to do good things (ECM war or any time they try to net, for instance). Helmet's signature says everything I need to know about how SoF works. And that revolves around joining together to destroy your enemy -- often to the point that they have no fun and leave the game.

Sov, old enemy old pal.
Try recruiting when the cheating guy is FSing your alliance set after set with illgotten info.

When i rejoined this game somewhere at the begining of this year - Sof was a shadow ( i think you were under 40 members ).

Nobody blames Sof raise, your skill to recruit, or other Sof skills - but the fact that you supported and are still supporting a "cheater" creation.

ya that's a shorter summation of my post, however I hate agreeing with Alin :p

You are entitled to think what you want about our politics ;)

But I will say this, any Alliance that has approached me wanting genuine friendship we have been open to. We just don't take too well to what we perceive as hostilities towards us. People don't like it, but that is the game we play ;)

Unlike other Alliances SoF is promoting membership growth, and not only for ourselves but with other Alliances also. As an admin you should be supporting us :p

then why did you keep sending Ivan out to do FA work? :)
Oh ya, it's because you're just saying doesn't actually add up :p

and I read that as "we spin things how we want and kill whoever we want whenever we want", which I think aligns more with my post....

Alin your argument would fly if SOL was not losing members itself after successful sets where it was not FSed. SOL went from 85 members to 64 members after a SUCCESSFUL set.

Yes SOL was FSed by LAF and it hurt. But you could have finished with a successful set after gangbanging LAF and built from there. But alas your leadership decided to start picking a fight with Rival and SoF intervened.

The only Alliance that can seriously claim it lost members as a direct result of Hanlong's shady intel was MD.

You are letting your emotional perspective affect the reality of a situation.

I didn't send Ivan to anyone. Ivan and I work differently, we would both agree to that.

Some Alliances don't like Ivan and deal better with me, and some Alliances prefer dealing with Ivan over me. I will admit the outcome can be different depending on who you talk to.

The downside of the PDM/SoF situation is that when I was dealing with you I was only new to the team. If you look back through your old messages I told you things would be different moving forward and they are.

I was very upset about PDM's attitude towards SoF and myself following the first war because I had fought hard for PDM on the Heads forum and had many heated arguments on your behalf. Then you just discarded me.

Since I'm hating on SoF a lot, I will also hate on SoL:

SoL's strategic decisions have been piss poor throughout the whole of EE and they should look to replace their upper level leaders and find a better direction.

They didn't do anything like what Hanlong/TC did, but for the whole of EE SoL's leaders have typically been instigators against people who didn't want to fight or the first people to carry the grudge torch from round to round. I hate both of those things -- although you definitely shouldn't forget those who wronged you; it's just not necessary that every war becomes an existential conflict.

Belive me i have no emotional feelings for this game at this point after all i saw in the last 6-7 months i have spent here.

sov: we found out flamey had an account in PDM (from antoher SoF head who was pissed), so that sort of made us more angry since it showed that SoF had longer ranging plans to hit us, and far more intel than we expected.

we also got intel (from hanlong! so we're guilty too! doh!) that you were one of the ppl who topfed us to push us to war, and that your internal rhetoric didn't match what you were telling us.

that was a game changer.

SOL suffered what, 2 weeks of pain at LAF's hands? SOL was also not hacked by LAF so how shady intel benefited LAF's FS on SOL is a mystery.

I am not saying what Hanlong did was not wrong, but I think too many of you are using Hanlong as a scapegoat.

sol shared planning with evo, evo posted it, hanlong stole it from evo...

i think you're just looking at specific events to try and find things that didn't involve cheating, which, imo, is clutching at straws...

I know you're not talking to me there (as I do actually know the whole of the story, probably far more than you), butas I said, I think that LaF+SoF would have won the conflict without the intel, but it just would have been a much BETTER conflict for everyone. It could at least be one that we talk about now in a better light than this.

I would be happy to show you everything I said within SoF prior to the first war.

Every Head in SoF knew that I would leave if SoF FSed PDM that set. I had promised that to PDM and I intended to keep it.

Yes I did topfeed PDM. I did that as a compromise as a result of a landtrading argument internally in SoF. Basically the argument was that landtrading was a landgrabbing issue and not a warring one. As a result of that argument I landgrabbed PDM (I was on the anti-warring side).

ok, so I read that as "we need to get PDM to FS us! let's start topfeeding them and make them hit us!" which aligns with what Hanlong told me...

good spin though, but we can debate pdm/sof another time, because I've already fought that fight 3-4 times.

I'm mainly here to provide clarity around what hanlong said/did because it seems to KEEP being an issue folks forget.

I am talking about last set, I think you are talking about a different conflict.

I am not clutching at straws or trying to find examples that did not involve cheating. I am pointing out that the current state of many Alliances is not Hanlong's fault as many people would have you believe. SOL's current position is more of their own doing than LAF's.

Hanlong is a very convenient fall guy for SOL's own woes.

It is a dirty job - but someone must do it!!!

Then there is your problem Pang, you deal with me as if you are dealing with others who do spin. If I tell you I do not want to fight you, I am telling you the truth. If I am telling you that I am going to be coming after you, I will come after you.

Oh ya, I'm definitely not talking about last round. I'm talking about rounds before the cat was out of the bag. but the momentum gained from those conflicts is what allows laf/sof to thrive in conflicts such as this round, so SoL has somewhat of a point... but as time passes, that argument loses steam fast.

LaF, in the end, used the same strategies SoL did to grow in size, retain members and win wars (lesser extent here, though), so it would be hypocritial of SoL to flame LaF too much for essentially adopting SoL's tactics...

/popcorn

I don`t think Sol leaders hacked the game and it`s additional sites. The rest of war dirty tactic? - they prolly did it - as all the alliances of this game ...

SoF and LaF both need to roll over and die, the reasons being:

LaF - Defending Hanlong's actions and justifying it ("oh he cheated, but not that much!"...etc). This is just pathetic.

SoF - Morally bankrupt. Everyone knows this. I'm sure even LaF knows this. The only people who don't are those in SoF. But you don't expect a crazy person to admit they're crazy, do you?

And you wonder why there will not be peace.

No peace because an alliance leader insulted another alliance on AT?


That's never happened before...

Maybe it's been more of a common occurrence here in EE but then again, I do not give much credit to Alliance leaders these days as they do not know how to keep their head down and work on making their Alliance better.

Smart Alliance leaders back in Earth2025 knew when to move on and do what was in the best interests of their Alliance.

You don't deserve peace nor do you want it. Who would you fight if you made peace with everyone? Didn't you say "any Alliance that has approached me wanting genuine friendship we have been open to"? Set after set you provoke PDM. SoF is ALWAYS on permanent DNH, yet you are always grabbing us and fluff. And now you take umbrage.

The best solution here is for all of you to find a new game to play. You defend cheaters, sabotage alliances, bully everyone and fluff on anyone. Everyone in SoF are so cowardly that they can't even fight a 1:1 war THAT THEY ARE ALREADY WINNING without calling in more help.

It's literally laugh-out-loud hilarious how far you've fallen as an alliance. You will always be a weak shadow of what SoF used to be.

TAN, you're kind of torpedoing my point about how every conflict doesn't need to be an existential one...

LaF was a very different alliance when I was there than it is today. It was a very, very different place when I got back into leadership after TC stepped down in like 2006. I assume it will change again based on who is actively leading there and I assume that's true of others as well.

SoF's core hasn't changed since EE began.

Pang, you know for a fact that I do respect you great deal. But I think as an administrator, the principal reason why "trolls seized on the LaF countries aren't legit" rubbish is because of the way you worded your initial announcement of how Hanlong/TC had cheated.

You need to be presenting the facts of the matter (i.e. they accessed the database). Having no evidence of anything else, it was probably best to avoid saying things like "At the same time, though, the dividends from having that info really harmed several alliances and propelled a few others to great heights. That's the biggest shame about the whole thing, IMO... " probably isn't the right thing to do seeing as you ARE an administrator and are in a position of power and influence with regards to the perceptions of the general public with regards to the whole incident. You cannot really be both an administrator and also have your personal feelings involved in this case. I am not trying to berate you, or undermine you by saying this. I'm merely stating that I honestly feel you could have handled the whole situation a lot better.

In either case, I do have to thank you for putting in as much effort you have with the game and keeping it clean. We deeply appreciate everything you've done for the community. :)

I would like to think alliance leaders could move on and stop the petty insults, it does no one any good and it keeps this perpetual cycle of hatred going.

Grow up.

If you believe I have not made a difference in SoF in the last 2 sets you are ignorant.

Maybe if you didn't want peace you shouldn't have been a pansy and sold out your allies. I am sure they appreciate the gesture of abandoning them.

And now everyone can see why this conflict will continue. Bad alliance leaders are bad, and you sir appear to be terrible.

That wasn't an insult to LaF, it was a statement of fact. Anyone objective at all can see that LaFers consistently justify/defend/spin Hanlong's actions.

Sold out my allies? I've been back as leader for 2 days.

And that's real rich, coming from a SoFer. Did you check who is running your alliance?

Then maybe you can negotiate cancelling the pact then. I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

This is why I've stopped playing. Those who actually play openly and honestly get punished, whereas those that cheat, manipulate and lie are applauded for their great political groundwork.

There are just some plain and downright rotten people in this game, who take joy in others misery. This is meant to be a game - fun for the "majority" of it's participants.

I'm not going to overturn something negotiated by my predecessors just days before I took over.

We'll see what happens after two sets, see if things get better or worse relations-wise, then we can discuss afterwards where to go from there.

No lets negotiate cancelling it if you don't want peace. Let's talk.

If *I* don't want peace?? If *I*???

Weren't you the one who was topfeeding us and trying to bait us into a war???

That you have the audacity to even try to push this on me is nothing short of astounding.

Obviously your reading comprehension is lacking. I already said I did not pursue war with PDM that set. The next set however my role in SoF had increased and it was I who was behind FSing you.

You do not want peace and think SoF does not deserve peace so let's talk about cancelling that pact.

I'm going to agree with Sov here.

I dropped the year long uNAP Evo had with SoF, because PDM asked me to. That's also why I became vocal against SoF's actions toward PDM, as I wanted to support you in whatever way possible.

It came to my attention this reset that PDM pacted out without a word to Evo.

I then subsequently decided that my time is best served away from this game, because it appears not only do you have to worry about your enemies, but also your allies who will backstab you in a heartbeat to save their own necks.

P.S. This is not a new occurrence, but in the past (a couple years back) it has been SoL and LaF backstabbing EVO, but I never expected it from an alliance like PDM.

I'm sorry, but you just criticized my reading comprehension, yet went ahead and wrote "You do not want peace..."

Can you please point out to me where I said that in any way, shape or form?

I think everyone else can read your words. I do not think anyone else would interpret your hostility towards SoF as being anything short of that.

Anoniem, it's a shame that is the direction you chose because back then I was genuinely trying to improve Evo/SoF relations. But it is what it is.

get em' Sovy!

Am I hostile to SoF? Yes.

Is SoF hostile to PDM? Yes.

So let's cut the pretences and talk politics. We're pacted for political reasons, not because we like each other. That is how politics works, as I'm sure you know. So taking umbrage at our hostility is pure brinkmanship.

A pact was signed by my predecessors and I will honor it. We'll see if relations improve or worsen by the time it ends. Please stop goading me into negotiating a cancellation - I won't dishonor my predecessors by doing it.

Nobody in LaF leadership has attempted to justify or play down the cheating. You see stuff posted by people not in LaF and somehow attribute it to LaF's stance. Yet another example of you perverting truth in order to scope events to align with your own narrow minded convictions.

If I am mistaken, then I apologize.