USa!! USA!! USA!!

Take all my [fantastic] tag points please, i dont [foshizzle] need them anyways.

lol I am thoroughly amused

Tobes...you talk about ic code and nap break but your alliance broke their nap agreement with my alliance first....So it sounds like you want dishonor punished but when it is your alliance doing it, you are outraged at the ones who punish you?

your full of shit. what lee did was shady no doubt and i had no say what soever in the decisions of my alliance

bottom line is 72 had a pnap agreed with personal messages but not signed in game.

now you moan insult personally attack lee for cancelling early, a signed agreement which gives the opposition alliance 48 hours notice to save.

72 broke clear NAP and attacked WITHOUT warning and cleared all shares

this is 10 times worse than what Lee did and MODs need to sanction a ban on 72 leader.

"if the whole world had the mind set of AN EYE FOR AN EYE then the whole world would be blind"

what you've done is just shit

like i said im deleting from this game and the IC community needs to sort its self out

Just know your alliance has caused this... there doesn't have to be an IA for another fam to see you guys are nap breakers.    Actually I look at this as "IC code" in full effect.  Alliance A agrees with specific date for war with Alliance B.  Alliance A breaks agreement with Alliance B... Alliance C, D, E, F, Mutha feakin G look at this BS and step in to show this behavior will not be tolerated.

We are not coordinating with anyone, if you had just waited to war when we were scheduled to war there would be no reason for any other fams to get involved.  You break nap early pretend there is nothing wrong with that, then all of a sudden are shocked that the rest of the galaxy shows you dishonorable actions right back. 

The agreement was WS and Lee would agree on a time when WS had returned.

WS returns and agrees with Lee

Lee ignores agreement he made and cancels NAP 10 days early

Rest of the galaxy turns on the NAP breakers...

Sounds like IC is perfectly healthy to me.

(Tag points please for using no naughty words)

I allready openly said what Lee did was bad WS

Thanks to the mods rules I am unable to get the PNAP with 78 dissolved without Lee's consent on it as well. So there is no viable way for my fam to help punish 78 directly due to the lack of mechanics within this game. However, I can hurt them through 84 by immobilizing them and keeping them from being a factor in this.

When 78/84 (yes both of you, and i will explain in a minute why) broke their NAP with 70/80 it immediately made all other agreements/NAPs to basically be useless. How can anyone trust the word of a NAP breaker? Therefore my hitting of 84 is not actually a NAP break it is merely me hitting an untrustworthy fam that I used to have diplomatic ties with.

If Germany were to attack France it would be breaking their pacts within the UN and also the European Union. By doing so all other countries in the Union would have every right to go to war with Germany no matter their relations with them. Their word would be useless.

@84

You make claims about not condoning 78's actions, not being a part of it, etc etc etc. All you have done is blow a lot of smoke towards people. Fact is if you really disagreed with their actions you would have cancelled them as allies, went to the fams coming for you and requested a separate NAP be instated for your family. Instead, what you have done is to run your mouths in the forum at people, stay allied to the cheaters, and try to distance yourself from the rapage that is headed your way.

It doesn't work that way. As long as you are associated (allied) with 78 you are as much to blame for their actions as you are for your own. You are allies so own up to that fact.

This isn't an issue of game mechanics, it's an issue of fairness.  If 2 families sign a permanent NAP it would not be right to allow 1 family to cancel it if the other doesn't want to.  This is the risk you take when you sign a pnap.

I have to agree with this.  78 has compromised the integrity of their family's NAP agreements, and when there are alliance NAPs involved this unfortunately includes 84.

I don't entirely agree with this.  84 is in a tough spot, and I don't envy what they are going through.  They are showing to be very loyal allies but that means that they are walking into 78's mess.  That is their decision of course.  You are right though, such a decision means that they are also implicitly agreeing to be part of 78's nonsense.

Breaking the alliance would allow them to wash their hands of this mess.  However, that is only a decision that they should make and I don't necessarily blame them for choosing to stick by their Ally, even though their Ally has shown them very little respect.

I am actually suprised the mods have allowed accusations of me being involved in some IA to go on for so long. I was under the impression this was against the rules. (not that I agree with the rule)

72 jumped in as is their right per the statement I made above. Get over it.

@pie
Breaking the alliance would allow them to wash their hands of this mess.  However, that is only a decision that they should make and I don't necessarily blame them for choosing to stick by their Ally, even though their Ally has shown them very little respect.

are you saying Pie you would not BLAME  countries who stayed allies with Hitler ?