351

(523 replies, posted in General)

http://twitter.com/OldFunnyJoker/status/16876170739

352

(523 replies, posted in General)

england has a damn tough route to the finals.

germany, then probably argentina, then probably brazil

353

(13 replies, posted in Community)

chris, don't you mean *when* ?

354

(523 replies, posted in General)

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/06/the-origin-of-the-word-soccer/

355

(523 replies, posted in General)

I'd say our luck is still very much skewed toward the bad side Primo -_-

356

(523 replies, posted in General)

another disallowed goal for the US on a bogus call...

deja vu

357

(523 replies, posted in General)

tell that to france.

358

(523 replies, posted in General)

commonnnnnnnn tie

359

(11 replies, posted in Drafting)

join #arganon and we can chat

360

(523 replies, posted in General)

imo, this more than anything is why soccer hasn't taken off in the us. too much grey area in the rules. i like my sports with clearly defined boundary, time, rules, and consequences. too much is left in the hands of the refs for interpretation, and after all they are only human. and retarded.

361

(523 replies, posted in General)

terrible refereeing. ends in 2-2 tie, but USA would have won 3-2 if not for that terrible call. we'll see if it affects who advances or not. i am raging right now >=|

362

(523 replies, posted in General)

should be 3-2 USA. refs doing their best to not let us win.

363

(523 replies, posted in General)

thanks primo. i'm still learning the rules smile

364

(523 replies, posted in General)

can someone who watched the south africa/uruguay match yesterday please explain to me what the SA keeper did that was bad enough to warrant a red card?

i know middle, that is exactly how it was planned, i was quoting render's post who didn't seem to understand.

366

(43 replies, posted in Community)

best of luck flint

367

(523 replies, posted in General)

spain loses to switzerland ;O

[quote=SnoW

Render wrote:

> Middle wrote:

> All nap problems could all be fixed by programming ingame pnaps to not allow attacks all round once signed. 

48/72 hr naps the same... cancellation of ingame would start a 48hr or 72hr countdown, the conclusion of which would allow attacks to resume.


lol yes but then....who signs at relations first?? I won't tongue

If you implement a counter in the naps, give the leader the option to unsign in the current or in the next tic.
I mean you can agree on a nap, sign at realtions and then the other leader dont sign, so you are betrayed and unable to retal for 48h.

The implementation is not that easy, you should be able to unsign it whenever the other fam has unsigned or hrshrahh..

nah, definatly, thus kind of rules cannot be implemented, it is a matter of TRUST.

The way the new system is planned, it wont work like this. you will be able to attack until both fams sign and unable to cancel until the 48h (or whatever agreed upon) is up. or not cancel if its pnap. but adoross kinda disappeared so dont hold your breath about nap revamp sad

370

(38 replies, posted in Strategy)

fambank is great if your fam doesnt suck smile

371

(653 replies, posted in Universal News)

i dont know you

372

(653 replies, posted in Universal News)

glue is a poofter

373

(653 replies, posted in Universal News)

we are at war now lee tongue

374

(653 replies, posted in Universal News)

Rin wrote:

good pvc probably deserve a few tag points.

however lemme just say this.

Thirdrock is bad.

DIE

375

(13 replies, posted in Community)

happy bday nooblio