Näktergal

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1317342533' post='2812247'] Does this mean the world can now assume the entire Polar/Legion part of the treaty web no longer exists? Because that's what it looks like right now. We've had Legions protected forums spilled onto the OWF, UINE rolled, and now UPN Rolled, and nothing can seem to get the frozen north to budge.[/quote] Considering we've basically entered a period of CN politics wherein diplomacy is a farce and most CBs are bad jokes at best, and it seems perfectly obvious that any number of people would like nothing more than to throw a few more punches at Polaris, I have no idea why people just don't check their shorts, find their stones, and just man-up, cut the crap, and just DoW without all the pretend and "clever" maneuvering. Lately it's been like Polaris is the pretty girl in school, and the rest of you are all the shy kid asking her friends if they think she likes you, and if they'd be willing to ask her out for you. Why not just go right up to her and ask her to dance? Make your move. Better do it before the hunky quarterback asks her out to prom, and you guys wind up having to go with your sister.

[quote name='Nestea' timestamp='1313180398' post='2778768']Nak from the FCC[/quote] My ego-sense is tingling! I'm still around. I'll probably be here until the digital sun of CN dims down to little more than cold cinders. I have a long history of never knowing when to leave a sinking ship. I only pop up on the OWF like once every 6 months or so these days, though. I'm in Créole now, and I spend most of my CN-related time hanging out on our alliance forums and making snarky comments about everything. [quote name='ControlVolume' timestamp='1313181800' post='2778792']Do you also go into a convenience store and loudly announce how you haven't shopped there for several months, and how you remember old products from back in the day?[/quote] To be fair, most people don't loudly announce all of the products they bought in the store and wish everyone still in the store goodbye and good luck when they're leaving, either, but people do that all the time in CN and no one sees that as a odd thing.

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1312404708' post='2771131'] now you can go back to 2 more 'fun' filled years of being irrelevant and isolated.......yay? [/quote] I tried being relevant, it wasn't any fun. Sitting on our porch and yelling at people to get off our lawn is way more enjoyable! [quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1312410490' post='2771185'] And here I bet that up until now, they didn't even know that their sole purpose of being here and running their nations was to entertain chefjoe. [/quote] Actually, we made that our secret mission statement about 16 months ago, we're just terrible at living up to our goals. [quote name='conistonslim' timestamp='1312418350' post='2771312'] Congrats on your anniversary Créole! Before you ask... No. You can't have Jyrinx back. [/quote] Oh, don't worry. We'll have him back. Just as soon as PROJECT ICY DOOM comes to fruition. Wait. I mean, hey, look over there! ~scampers off and hides~

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1295665682' post='2590528'] Kind of funny to see people believing me when it benefits them and then claim I'm lying when it paints them in a bad. You're all pathetic.[/quote] To be fair, "believing" blatant lies or ignoring obvious truths when it's convenient and then loudly proclaiming them to the world when it isn't describes something like 75% of all politics that have ever happened in CN. And probably at least half of the various CBs that have been used over the years. It's hardly a new phenomenon, and has little to do with you personally - if anything, this specific case is just sort of sad and disappointing compared to some of the more sophisticated drama of the past. Most wars in CN start because one side sees an advantage in it and begins trying to manufacture or latch on to an excuse to go to war (no matter how ridiculous). Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1293645089' post='2557436'] I missed your posts. [/quote] I forgot my password for a few months. Just remembered it again. Shame I can't go back and comment in some of the threads I've seen in the past that I wanted to post in but couldn't.

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293633950' post='2557306'] It's hardly being set, I think that's been the case as long as it's occurred; might makes right 'n' all that. [/quote] Ehh, it's kind of unrealistic (if not opportunistic) to view it that way. Honestly, I'd say it's more a case of when you engage in something that is generally seen as being pretty dishonorable in wartime by a majority of the rest of the world, you kind of forfeit the right to complain when your enemy turns around and does the exact same thing back to you in retaliation. Balancing the pans isn't even remotely as bad as skewing them in the first place. (In a way, it's almost like two alliances agreeing in advance not to nuke each other, then one alliance nukes first, and whines when the other guy nukes back. You don't GET to complain at that point - and the first guy IS still in the wrong. The reaction does not invalidate the initial fault, though the initial fault does tend to justify the reaction.) I'd also say that this isn't a sign of things to come or precedent for future crapiness, because the e-lawyers of the Cyberverse are clearly going out of their way to establish that doing it should be seen as a very big no-no, closing that particular door to future use. Expect future DoWs to include clauses that anyone joining a war after the start of hostilities can be treated as rogues - it's pretty much inevitable at this point. But fair and just law doesn't work by retroactively punishing people who did something before it was made an official offense in the first place. Which is why the nations that joined NEW aren't currently being forced to negotiate separate peace agreements or being ZIed for roguery (which is absolutely what would have happened to them if they WERE treated like rogues in this war). They're currently being treated as honest (if defeated) combatants, which is probably more than any AA-jumpers can expect in the future. Much like how all truly effective systems work, a questionable issue arose, it was dealt with improvisationally on the fly, and steps will be taken to create procedure for dealing with (or preventing) it in the future. Far from a failure of politics or yet another example of "the guy with the biggest stick makes the rules", I'd actually say this is probably going to be one of the fairer outcomes in any CN dispute.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1286889494' post='2482317'] Article 2 is kinda interesting, being a kind of intel supremacy clause. Oh well; it's not like the bloc members have traditionally been in the habit of signing PIATs anyway, but this agreement really would make them pointless. [/quote] It's hardly the first bloc with some sort of "priority" clause of that nature. And if one or more alliances involved eventually wound up withholding info in support of an outside ally, it wouldn't even be the first bloc where one or more members completely ignored said priority clause when they found it convenient to do so.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286582843' post='2479219'] Pretty much this. Getting flamed on the OWF isn't [i]that[/i] scary, certainly not something that should put an alliance (and its MoFA, whose job it is) off posting.[/quote] Whether or not it SHOULD scare any alliance out of posting and whether any given alliance feels they actually accomplish anything of substance by posting - and whether or not whatever they accomplish is even remotely worth the hassle - are two entirely different things. This CDT issue obviously has its own unique spin (ie, it's already been said they wanted to get everything that needed to be done finished up before making anything official, and even from personal experience, it's worth noting that alliances and blocs that fall apart mostly due to apathy are going to be the LEAST likely people to bother announcing it anyway), but most of the alliances who seem to feel that the OWF has turned into a minefield with no worthwhile reason to bother enduring it also tend to feel that the "public information" aspect of their responsibility is completely fulfilled just by updating their treaty list on the Wiki. Which, like it or not, IS a way to get the same information out there without having to slog through the muck to do it. And that's without even bothering to get into the question of just how much of the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense we all do on a regular basis is actually somehow fundamental to the political process, and how much of it is just the social contract we all came up with over the years, and entirely open to revision or reconsideration. There's very little that says we all HAVE to keep doing things the way we always have, simply because that's how we always did them. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286582843' post='2479219'] And I don't really agree that things are much worse, either. The difference is that now we have two sides doing it, not one side doing it and one side too scared to poke their heads above the parapet and post at all, as was the case under the Initiative and the Continuum/One Vision hegemony.[/quote] To be fair, we've ALWAYS had at least two sides doing it. There was a considerable period of time prior to the "hegemonic era" when people on both sides of the web were more than willing to mouth off, and even during that era, there were always people in opposition who were willing to voice their opinions (either because they had nothing to lose, or simply didn't care if they lost what they did have). If anything, at least part of the problem seems that in the old days, there was at least SOME attempt to keep interaction somewhat diplomatic during peacetime, and most of the really vitrolic propaganda and abuse was saved for wars. But now, most people seem to be in a "wartime mentality" even when they're not at war. Maybe it's just because we're all getting old and bitter. Maybe it's because most of the cooler heads have already long since been run off. Maybe it's because without a major threat to intimidate people, no one cares how abusive they might sound anymore. Maybe it's because people in general are starting to feel like caged rats with a flood coming. Or maybe it's just the natural evolution of a large socio-polititical collective over time, as old blood and old wounds keep being toxic with not enough new blood to help wash it away. Who knows? But I'd definitely say the overall mood today is [i]much[/i] worse than it was in the past - even compared to times when the prevailing mentality was basically "Don't say anything too controversial or the boogeyman will come and get you in your sleep." [quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1286584606' post='2479238'] I don't think someone with a nation of a year in age should be able to comment on today's affairs if he is trying to imply that they were different 3 years ago.[/quote] Is it okay if someone who's been playing for more than 4 years says the same thing, though?

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1286569881' post='2479077'] I look forward to a glorious future of unannounced wars, treaties and surrender terms. [/quote] Considering the current state of the game, that might actually be an improvement. If nothing else, things would be more interesting.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1286568312' post='2479061'] I disagree, this is merely the natural progression. Originally, announcements used to contain the reasons why the announcement was being made, along with a lengthly treatise on their feelings about their decision. However gradually the reasons became shorter and more vague, until eventually they simply morphed into the classic "Reasons communicated in private" or "you know why". We have simply gone that next step further and now the announcement itself has been "communicated in private". [/quote] What you are saying doesn't even remotely contradict what he's saying, though. A case could easily be made to suggest that the reason [b][i]why[/i][/b] announcements in general have progressed from elaborate explanations of circumstances to terse statements of fact to people no longer announcing things on the OWF at all is because most major topics have a tendency to devolve into massive troll-fest where everyone shows up, whips out their agendas, and proceed to urinate on anyone and everyone they don't like. It's always been true (and especially during wartime, when who's hailing and who's trolling in any given topic was rarely determined by what was actually being said as much as by which side the topic creator was on), but it's absolutely gotten worse over the last year or so. We've reached a point where most people don't seem interested in honestly reacting to events as much as they're desperately looking for an excuse to insult people they already dislike, so why should any self-respecting alliance go out of their way to try and justify themselves to the OWF and give the trolls what they want? I've heard multiple people holding some degree of authority in one alliance or another flat-out state that the OWF has essentially become worthless. Bypassing it entirely and contacting people you actually like/respect via private channels is mostly just a way of avoiding the childish games and high school politics the public forum has long-since devolved into.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285004392' post='2459040'] Raiders look to exploit others resources for personal gain, although it requires attacking the other person, while trades and aid are done without there being an attack. Thus, traders and aiders are cowards as well, yes? [/quote] Yes, because a pre-arranged deal where two parties share resources and both profit is [i]EXACTLY[/i] the same as an unprovoked attack meant to extort resources from someone so that one party can benefit at the expense of the other. The terms "symbiotic" and "parasitic" come to mind here.

I think raiding IS morally wrong, but I also think that morality in general is just about the last thing any alliance of sufficient size is going to weigh when deciding whether or not they should do something. Community standards notwithstanding (and community standards =/= morality), as long as their is tangible benefit to the practice, and the consequences seem minor, there will ALWAYS be people more than willing to happily crap all over other people for their own benefit. This is just human nature in general. Basically speaking, a Tech raid is just about the nation-level equivalent of a mugging (except most muggers have the decency to not act like it's the victim's fault or start a long-term vendetta against anyone who actually dares to fight back). And if you are the sort of person who can honestly say that you consider muggings morally acceptable because the Weak do not deserve to keep anything they cannot defend against the Strong, then you are honestly not someone I think should be allowed to be walking the streets. That being said, the concept of Tech raiding doesn't tend to bother me as much as it might. Maybe it's just because I'm resigned to the knowledge that "Might" will always be more valued than "Right", maybe it's just because it's so ingrained in the reigning culture that it almost seems like a fantasy to imagine a where people DIDN'T do it, or maybe it's just expecting people in general to live down to my lowest expectations. I don't know. I do tend to think less of people who do it - and even worse about those who do it and act smug/abusive towards anyone who doesn't like it, or whine to allies and call in back-up to help clean up the messes they create when they start a fight they can't easily win on their own (it's thug mentality, pure and simple), but not so much that I'm filled with righteous outrage or compelled to go off on tirades about how it's a vile practice that needs to be stamped out. Tech raiding IS, and will likely be for the foreseeable future. No one should ever make the mistake that it's somehow MORAL, though. Any definition of morality that can include Tech raiding is hopelessly broken.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1283546152' post='2440685']Large AAs aren't shrinking because they're being looted of members by a plethora of micros, their loss in membership is directly correlated to the massive loss of nations that [i]even exist[/i].[/quote] The saddest part is, even if it [i]were[/i] true that the main reason why there are no 1000-member alliances left in the game is solely because the available membership is now diluted across a far larger pool of available options, it still doesn't alter the fact that people are confusing cause/effect here. It wouldn't be the case that the only thing keeping the smaller major alliances of today from achieving the heights of glory and prosperity that the older, larger alliances did ~3 years ago is that too many smaller alliances exist and have stolen all their potential members - a multitude of smaller alliances now exist because those major alliances have utterly failed to engender the sort of environment and culture that attracts said members in the first place. Or, to put it another way, if some members of the "elite" alliances are upset that there are so many smaller alliances detracting from their potential recruitment, they'd be far better off actually improving themselves to the point where all those would-be individualists would flock to their door and beg to be let in, rather than pissing and whining about it and implying that the best solution is to take steps to eliminate the ability of newer players or more casual players from ever actually forming a smaller alliance. Then again, it's always easier to complain about the flaws one sees in other people than to fix one's own flaws, so it's not as if this is entirely surprising behavior regardless. But no, by all means continue your discussions on how to force microalliances and neutral alliances to disband so their uprooted members can be harvested into your own alliances instead. I'm sure you're newfound nations will love you for it, and would never consider being disloyal or mostly inactive out of spite. No, indeed, clearly the best possible way to re-invigorate declining alliance activity and the game as a whole is to force people into narrower and narrower visions of the "appropriate" way to play the game, regardless of how they might actually feel about it.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552180' post='2440769']We are just one, controlled by Archon. Now that you're done being "witty", do you have anything to add to the conversation? C&G isn't just one alliance because we're completely different[/quote] Congratulations - you just figured out the point he was making. The reason why C&G is multiple alliances - namely, that each one has its own unique culture, identity, history, and means of viewing the world - is not somehow trumped by the overlying fact that they share similar political beliefs. In the same sense, while various neutral alliances exist, the fact that they ARE neutral doesn't somehow trump every single other aspect that makes them unique groups. [quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']Interesting points. Even if you put way too much into my words. I merely asked what the differences between GPA, WTF and TDO were.[/quote] I'm not just specifically replying to your words and your words alone, though, as much as I'm addressing the issue as a whole, and how it relates to the topic we're currently discussing (as per the topic title/first post/trend of discussion). You can consider the post of yours I quoted as being a jumping off point for related ideas, directed at people who DO feel the way I implied. As for the direct response, you basically asked what the differences were in a way that implied you were skeptical that any exist at all. My reply implied that such is a somewhat naive point of view to have. Of COURSE there are differences, even if they aren't immediately obvious to outsiders who never actually spent much time trying to find out what those differences are. [quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']That being said, if you think NPO, MK, TOP, GOONS, PC, \m/ or NSO all look the same, you're either being dense on purpose to prove a point or you're not paying attention. I may not like all of them but at least they make the game interesting.[/quote] All of them together? No. But you're also being deliberately obtuse if you're going to deny that, say, TOP and the NPO have any number of superficial similarities of style and political method to anyone who doesn't examine either closely, or that alliances like GOONS, \m/, and PC have very similar cultures and political ideologies that look very much alike from the outside. Is that to say that GOONS and PC are identical in every way? No. But it does suggest that surface similarities aren't always the best possible way to completely judge and condemn entire groups, or suggest that one is completely superfluous because a similar group already exists. [quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']I may not like all of them but at least they make the game interesting.[/quote] On the other hand, one person's interesting is another person's annoying. How many players were driven away by the way the NPO played the game when they were in power? How many people actively dislike the GOONS now (and/or disliked their original incarnation)? How many people hate the very aspects of the game that you enjoy, or vice-versa? Now why should your opinion hold any more weight than theirs does? Sometimes, that sort of dislike some of the more active alliances can generate will spur interesting interaction or outright wars. Sometimes, it just spurs disinterest and frustration which leads people to hate the game and stop playing. But again, is that any reason to say that particular style of play should be outright banned? Why does there always seem to be such a drive on the part of some CN players to enforce some sort of One True Way to play the game, condemning every other possible style as being heresy? Why is it so unacceptable to say that some people like playing the game one way, and that's fine, while other people like playing the game a different way, which is also fine? As long as someone isn't outright cheating or breaking the rules, why should they be forced to conform to a style they clearly don't prefer but others think is "right"? [quote name='potato' timestamp='1283552660' post='2440778']To answer your initial enquiry though: no, yes, yes, yes. You want me to ask them questions? That's what I'm doing here and now. [/quote] To be fair, you're not actually asking them where it would actually do any good, though. You're asking them on a board filled with people who parrot along with each other and self-reinforce existing biases, where the single dominant paradigm of any given moment tends to shout out dissenting points of view by virtue of some people posting far too much and other people not posting enough. Many neutral alliances by nature avoid the main forums to avoid stupid drama, and some of the ones who DO come here have something akin to a gag-order which would prevent them from answering you even if they wanted to. I mean, honestly, I'm probably putting the most energy into defending neutral alliances in this topic right now, and I've never been in a truly neutral alliance in the 4+ years I've been in CN. I can't tell you how the GPA sees the world, or how WTF sees the world, or how any other given alliance sees the world. But I can tell you that just because you can't see the differences doesn't mean they don't exist, any more than all "lulz" alliances were/are the same, or all "srs bzn" alliances were/are all the same, and so on. And I can tell you that I've known people in the GPA and people in other neutral alliances, and that it's easy to see that some of them probably wouldn't fit in different neutral alliances. I absolutely know some people who consider themselves neutrals who would be thrown out of the GPA in less than a month because their ideology would massively clash with the dominant culture. If you were actually interested in the answers, rather than simply throwing the questions out as a challenge meant to express and reinforce what you already believe, you'd be asking them of the actual neutrals in question, on their own boards. If you went to the GPA boards and asked individual members to explain why they're part of the GPA as opposed to any other neutral alliance, or what they perceive as the difference between the GPA and other groups (and if you didn't phrase your initial post in a way that comes across like a blatantly insulting attack thinly-veiled as sincere interest), you'd probably get any number of actual answers.

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I don't think Admin should do anything I ask of him. I was merely suggesting what people's opinion are regarding my comment.[/quote] You asked what people thought, and then immediately followed up by pretty clearly indicating your own stance in multiple posts that followed. I'm merely doing the same and pointing out why I disagree with the idea of admin not "allowing" any sort of political viewpoint, let alone neutrality. You obviously seem to believe that the sheer existence of neutral alliances is somehow detrimental to the game itself (and have as much as said so outright). I'm obviously pointing out that I believe that premise to be utter garbage. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']In reality, everyone should have the right to play the game as they wish but that doesn't exactly make the game any more fun.[/quote] Even aside from the fact that what is and isn't "fun" is an incredibly subjective question (and the fact that you don't get to be sole arbiter of what is and isn't fun, or even what is and isn't "acceptable" fun), how would admin not "allowing" neutrality somehow make the game more fun for people who have pretty clearly expressed an interest in remaining neutral, for whatever reason? Would forcing the GPA to sign treaties somehow magically make every GPA member enjoy CN more? Would it make the game more awesome for everyone else? Would it result in an influx of new players who didn't want to sign up when there were neutral alliances, but oh boy, NOW it's going to be great? And again, would whatever benefit you gained from doing so somehow offset the number of neutral players who simply decided to up and stop playing the game because they didn't like the change? [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I know that. My only valid point to that initial statement is that I think other alliances deserve the PiP's on the OWF's because non-neutrals tend to be more vocal on the forums and the neutrals.[/quote] If that's your logic, why not abolish in-game sanctions entirely and award forum pips based on the amount of posts the members of any given alliance have? That would be the fairest method for making sure pips aren't wasted on alliances that don't post very much. Of course, we could always say that's way too hard for board admins and mods to administer, so why not just have any alliance that wants a pip submit the names of their top 10 posters, and whichever alliances have the most posts that way get one? As it stands now, Fark ( a non-neutral alliance!) generally avoids posting in quantity on the forums but are sanctioned in-game and have a forum icon. Should that be revoked because it's not fair to alliances that post more? If not, why should neutral alliances be penalized that way solely because they don't play the game the way you think they should? [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']Witch Hunt? Did you read the OP. I even asked about the origins of neutrality on BOB and not one single poster has said anything regarding the "original" neutrals.[/quote] No, but my reply isn't 100% entirely about what you and you alone said, even if you're the one I quoted to say it. That being said, have you pretty much established a point of view that you consider neutrality to be a horrible thing, that you wish wasn't allowed in the game? Yes. Have you expressed the view that the game would be better if all the neutral alliances didn't exist? Yes. Have you responded to every post in this thread that disagrees with counter-arguments that suggest an attempt to sway people to your point of view? Yes. Have you suggested that the "moral high ground" that it's considered less honorable to attack neutrals should be abolished "for the sake of the game", implying that more people going after neutrals for more spurious reasons would somehow benefit the game? Yes. Have some people in this topic expressed the point of view that the best way to get rid of neutrals is to attack them into submission? Yes. So yes, I stand by my chosen terminology. Pointing to a specific group of players who play the game differently than you do and proclaiming that they make the game worse simply by existing, and asking if you think they should be allowed to play that way is ABSOLUTELY a witch-hunt, whether you're literally advocating attacking them or not. If anything, phrasing it as if it were a mere unbiased question in the first post and then pursuing a specific agenda in the rest of your posts in the thread is somewhat disingenuous. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']Do I like neutrality? No, I think it's useless. But at the same time I can't change it nor am I in a position to change it. The only thing I can do is begin a discussion to see what others thoughts are on the matter.[/quote] And then rather than simply seeing what other people have to say, actively debating with anyone who disagrees with you in an attempt to get them to change their mind. That's less a case of "I want to see what other people think" and more a case of "I want other people to see what I think", shading into "I want to encourage people to think the same thing I do". [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']But I do agree with you that the MDP web is the major reason for the lack of "war", but that's an unchangeable fact.[/quote] Is it? Admin could just as easily not "allow" treaties as easily as he could not "allow" neutrality, so why is one discussion clearly rational and logical while the other is ridiculous and unaddressable? If you feel that neutrality is such a pox on the game that it absolutely needs to be discussed, and that how other people feel about it absolutely needs to be known, why not ask the same discussion about an aspect of the game that does far greater harm? And if you're willing to rail against the lesser evil while the greater evil thrives, then what good are you really doing, other than venting a personal dislike? [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']If your argument is that leaving the neutrals be will preserve the game, please explain to me...Why?[/quote] My argument is more akin to suggesting that NOT "leaving the neutrals" will do absolutely nothing to benefit the game while doing a number of things to harm it. I offer nothing to offset the slow stasis, but what you're suggesting would almost certainly accelerate the decay without solving a damned thing. Like trying to cure an infected toe with a shotgun. If people want to attack neutrals, that's fine - I'm not saying neutrals SHOULD be bulletproof or immune to DoWs. People have declared war on neutrals before, and the time will certainly come when someone else will again. But at least have the decency to not try and disguise it as a moral imperative that's somehow saving the world. It's not, and it never will be. And asking whether admin should "allow" neutrality is basically asking whether or not something which isn't actually a problem should be fixed by a solution which is far, far worse. [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283552316' post='2440772']I would have loved to watched someone try going against Q when all 12 signatories remained. Oh wait, no one did or would ever attempt it. It would be suicide. Just as no one from the other side of the Web would dare to declare War on a C&G or SF member. Yes they can be attacked; however, the success of that attack is minimal. [/quote] Yes, assuming everyone simply woke up one day and decided to attack the entire bloc without drumming up support, seeking allies, or otherwise attempting to cause rifts in the opposing side. Because that's totally how wars are fought in CN. Totally. Do you think all 12 signatories of Q just wandered off on their own for no real reason? Do you honestly think that everyone who walked away later rather than sooner did so having been completely uninfluenced by other alliances and blocs or attempts to turn them against the NPO in general through discussion and PR? Or perhaps, just perhaps, there were multiple people in multiple alliances deliberately cultivating relationships and arranging closer communication with people on "the other side" while simultaneously spreading intel and propaganda which would limit the likelihood of relatively undecided outsiders getting involved on the "wrong" side? And as pointed out, that's a tactic that works on any bloc, if done correctly. Whether a given bloc is neutral or not, regardless of how many treaties they might have, and so on.