Hehe, I just gave you as worthy answer as that remark of yours deserves.

Once more, let me explain you the facts:

1) If there was no NAP with you and 27, because your leader changed his mind, then there wasn

> [Jedi] HappyJedi wrote:

> oh yeah... for everyone saying "get a new leader and mark tryme rogue and kill him off bla bla bla"... Tryme now has more votes than he did before so good luck with that

No matter. You paid a hefty price for it. It was a two way deal to us. Either you dishonor Tryme with those actions and thus agree that what he did was wrong, or you will lose loads of planets and your round will be ruined. Either way, we win.

Easy, make one galaxy a NAP free zone and try it out.

Too bad mods would need to be active and checking every possible illegal NAP. Not going to happen.

They can

[21:32] <@away> we cant let 27 alone
[21:32] <ACDC> we won't let 27 fight 32 alone
[21:32] <Zanharim> not going to happen

[21:41] <Zanharim> so, we must either fight as an alliance or PNAP as an aliiance

In between here we decided that 27 can have a choice if they want to PNAP or fight 32, because they were not present in convo. At some point Tryme told he will PNAP, but only if he doesn

@Tryme :

Lol, how you get that screwed? Are you repeating that mantra to yourself until you believe it to be the truth and the only truth?

Or are you hoping that ppl will read only your lies and think you

Well, you

Ppl need to learn to talk/write properly. Words have meanings for a reason.

There is a huge difference in cancelling and breaking a NAP and also in attacking and trading planets. I agree though that something similar is happening in both cases.

Mistakes happen and typos are common, but the mistake is not in the reader

Not trolling this time...

I haven

Yeah Tryme, that

Tryme, just read the IRC convo again. We negotiated a NAP and made pretty clear that we won

I didn

If there was alliance NAP, how could you have NAP with us and not with 27?

And this also clearly state that they are differen NAPs...

[23:07] <@away> our nap is done
[23:08] <@away> 29 is pnaped with 27 and 25
[23:08] <@away> 25 is pnaped with 32
[23:08] <@away> 27 and 32 are going to finish the nap now or go to war in a few ticks
[23:08] <@away> i gtg
[23:08] <@away> as there is no war

I told you that I will start finding any possible loopholes from NAPs from now on... have fun.

Also there is no statement in our PNAP that one fam could not void it partially. So, if we would have a reason, we could void our PNAP with 29 and let 27 and 29 be PNAPed still. You should make better NAP next time and include all kinda things from simple clauses to force majeures.

Isn