[Optional military clauses and bandwagoning.]

I can see - and somewhat support - the use of the term bandwagoning to describe alliances completely disconnected from the current conflict joining in late solely for the purpose of trying to gain cred with the winning side.

On the other hand, the term is definitely used far too often, and usually in cases where it doesn't (or shouldn't apply). Whether it be an alliance that feels so strongly about a cause that they're willing to choose sides without a treaty forcing them to do so, or one that is willing to enter immediately but is asked by allies to wait until later rounds for tactical advantage, or joining a war late due to an inability to get the war machine moving in the span of 20 minutes, or so on. Essentially, I'm willing to accept almost any justification that doesn't boil down to "we jumped in late, at little risk to ourselves, in hopes of reaping great rewards".

CN politics in general has gotten far too rules lawyer-y, to the point where the legalize absolutely tends to trump common sense, to the point of stupidity.

[The Undefeated]

Yay, I get a mention!

Though, literal meanings aside, I'm still fuzzy on how someone can accomplish every goal they had going into a war, totally rescue the people they went in to defend, and get out without having to pay a single rep or meet a single term, yet be considered "defeated" at all.

Sure, it may have bordered on a Pyrrhic victory... but if you get everything you wanted and walk away bent but not broken, is it really a loss?