Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eventual intent is that looting from a body where you don't have "rights"* will cause a criminal flag. One thing they've talked about (in the blog "Blood on the Tracks" and "Gypsies Tramps and Thieves" is a "Thief" flag. A little more recently, in "Some Good Reason for Your Little Black Backpack" they dropped the redundant "thief" flag and referred to only a generic "criminal" flag.
*I'm guessing if you took a rep hit for the kill, you'll have rights, plus things like fatal blow, most damage, maybe in the company that got the kill and did some damage, but at the moment it's all speculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I come across a husk of someone I don't know in the wild. Guess what, I'm going to check to see if they have anything worth looting. But then, I'm playing a rogue.
I would probably check the husk even if it was someone I did know but might refrain from taking anything just for curiosity sake if I am on good terms with them. At least check to see if they plan on coming back to retrieve their stuff. If I am on bad terms with them, then I will take anything that looks valuable. Even that 1cp.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, to discuss the matter of honor:
You Have What You Hold: Once it falls from your cold dead fingers, you don't hold it anymore; once you pick it back up again, you do. Trying to lay a claim to goods which you don't hold is in direct contravention of the River Freedoms.Which is fine. The thing that concerns me throughout this thread is what I am hearing from various players is tales of you saying "you tried to help the victim until the victim (myself) started being a jerk." If this is some rumor you are trying to spread in roleplaying terms throughout your settlement and the world, that's fine. But it seems like you are spreading this out of play, and both you and I know exactly what happened - it's pretty simple. You found my corpse, looted it and bailed without saying a word.
When we talked later in whispers, you said you ran because you would have decimated me in combat and I'd just be dead again.
I'd like to keep things clear.
Which means Thod wasn't trying to extort anyone. He was simply asking for me to be made whole, and you refused. A valid choice. But lets not poison player's ears with OOC rhetoric.
I never claimed to try to help you, to anybody. I also took exactly zero action to spread it. Thod spread that story, presumably based on your story to him, and Thod has caused this to spread further.
And to be clear, I left because I couldn't get anything more without attacking you, and I chose not to.
I didn't even think that you would consider fighting an option, considering your experience (specifically, that you were carrying lots of stuff when you decided to PvE). I stand behind what I actually said, which was "You didn't want to fight me."
Which is not what Blodwulf said he would say, which was "hey", but apparently that makes all the difference.
Also, I also stand behind my characterization of Thod's actions as extortion (or, if you want to be a pedant, possibly blackmail). Across multiple channels of communication, to multiple different players, Thod strongly implied that a payment from myself personally, from Phaeros, or from the Everbloom Alliance would cause him not to make this post.
...Needless to say that Decius right now won't come out well in the comparison. ...... I wanted to give you an ahead warning as Theodum will try to squash Decius Brutus intergity in character as hard as possible. Some players will take this as personal insults as they will read it ooc. Especially as I expect other parties to throw oil on the fire after I post. ...
... Should Phaeros want to make repatriations(sic) for one of there(sic) members - let me know. I won't have time to write the piece today - and something like this needs a little bit of word smithing.
I don't hold it against Thod; it is a PvP game after all, and it isn't clear enough to him that I actually want the site that Emerald Lodge occupies held by a strong group that is neither affiliated with the EBA nor aggressive towards it. It would have been great if EL could have been neutral, but it is equally strategically valuable to have EL independent but non-expansionist.
And to reiterate, I will not pay any form of blackmail or extortion, even when the price to be paid appears less than the cost of not paying, because the actual cost to me is the nominal cost plus the ability to credibly precommit. That is because it means that anyone who considers blackmailing me should notice that it has an expected negative outcome for them, causing them to not perform blackmail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Cheatle
How does the closing of the borders work in practise? We have considerable amounts of goods in Hammerfall - are we allowed to move them to a different place. Is there a time line?
We can always sneak in and steal our goods back from the Hammerfall vaults if you confiscate them - no problem.
I'm not yet sure how to reply to the clusure of the borders in game.
Closing the border for Phaeros and Brighthaven would be counterproductive as we have friends and benefectors there that we like and we don't want to exclude them because one of your leaders is unable to say sorry for an action he has done.
Yes - I deliberately leave out Hammerfall and Keepers Pass. They have done nothing against us and I will not reciproke against them because EBA bans us from their lands.
The only sad part will be Hammerfall. At least during EU times it seemed it was EL people who made the difference between a ghost town and actually meeting people there.
There is also another powder keg left. This time it involves a Brighthaven member. Please give me a time that is suitable for me and you to chat. Shouldn't take long. I just want to ensure I have my facts right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never claimed to try to help you, to anybody. I also took exactly zero action to spread it. Thod spread that story, presumably based on your story to him, and Thod has caused this to spread further.
And to be clear, I left because I couldn't get anything more without attacking you, and I chose not to.
Excellent. I wanted that to be clear. I am glad to hear that you weren't telling an altered version of what happened.
[QUOTE ="DeciusBrutus"]
I didn't even think that you would consider fighting an option, considering your experience (specifically, that you were carrying lots of stuff when you decided to PvE). I stand behind what I actually said, which was "You didn't want to fight me."
Which is not what Blodwulf said he would say, which was "hey", but apparently that makes all the difference.
It seems like there was a characterization made that you were doing something "wrong," such as griefing or some sort of out of game-related issue. I want to make it clear that I had no problem with your in-game actions at all. Nor did I expect charity or kindness. I think you played your character the way you play your character. It's entirely possible that I didn't want to fight you, but I should note that going 1v1 against a player (even one with more PVP experience) is not the same as stumbling into an overpowering horde of critters.
Also, I also stand behind my characterization of Thod's actions as extortion (or, if you want to be a pedant, possibly blackmail). Across multiple...
It is possible to me that Thod was simply seeking restitution, which seems like a reasonable course of action if he felt that one of his band had been stolen from. His methods or words may have been misconstrued, but I think his heart was in the right place. Something gets taken, you want it back and rather than slaughtering that individual, you ask them for repayment. He wanted justice for one of his people. You don't feel you should pay anything, which is fine. But by not paying, you eliminate that as an end to the matter and thus Thod felt the bounty was a good idea. Certainly, this has gone far beyond anything any of us wanted.
I do think, in many ways, we are dealing with a mechanic that was not foreseen. You suffered no loss of reputation for outright stealing. But it's possible that this type of theft was meant to be more of a victimless crime by the developers. Perhaps they, too, feel that a corpse lying about is just a cache of stuff waiting to be taken. Had there been a game mechanic consequence, I think this whole experience might have been different. Or perhaps not. It's hard to say as we all play a game that's 25 percent completed. Also, I think we are dealing with a PVP ethos that's yet to really be attempted in a game and in many ways, that's exciting because all out PVP often leads to a horrible game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I come across a husk of someone I don't know in the wild. Guess what, I'm going to check to see if they have anything worth looting. But then, I'm playing a rogue.
I would probably check the husk even if it was someone I did know but might refrain from taking anything just for curiosity sake if I am on good terms with them.
The problem with "looking" at the contents of a husk is it causes the "gathering" animation.
So someone viewing you might think you're also taking from the husk as that has no additional animation.
Not a problem, if you don't care what people think, but with friends it is best to just not look. If they had a nice item and can't find it after seeing you do the "gathering" animation... well...
We all know there's a 25% chance each item gets destroyed, which leaves another 75% chance of new-found distrust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before we discuss the etiquette of husk looting, the victim (present and future)should bear these tips / warnings in mind:
1. Never carry what you can not afford to lose
2. Expect that returning to your husk is as dangerous if not more so, than the circumstances that got you killed in the first place.
3. Don't over encumber yourself
4. Don't expect the reputation system to protect you
5. You are never safe
Husk Looting Etiquette:
1. You have what you hold
2. If you don't loot it, someone else most certainly will
3. A husk "belongs" to no one, unless you wish to make it so
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius
The part you really seem difficulty to understand my position is not what happened but where it happened.
This was inside the core 6 of Emerald Lodge.
This at a time just after EBA publicises it's rules what other people are / are not allowed to do in their regions.
It was the where that made it unexcusable unless an appology was given - not the what. As settlement leader in a PvP game that is about regional control I'm doomed if I don't take action if such an incident happens at my door step - no matter who has done it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
The Etiquette of visitors and friends
1) As a guest I behave when inside their settlement or close by
Apart of that - I wouldn't expect anything else as your rules if I'm outside my area however outside is defined.
EBA should put looting rights in their declaration that describes what is / isn't allowed in their lands.
Edit: Oh Bluddwolf - probably add a sentence about looting while figthing escalations. Your rules imply that when a comrade dies that you just should take what he dropped and I'm pretty sure that would be universally be frowned upon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
I agree.
Common practice in TEO is, if you die, you have lost everything on your husk, and unless you were transporting something important its not worth going back to check. Usually if its important they wouldn't be running alone.
So far this is around the 12th incident I have heard of including someone alone and their husk. If you are transporting something important, you should have backup ALWAYS, in case of anything that may happen, like PvE/PvP incidents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Thod, one of the most important skills in politics is understanding whether you're negotiating from a position of strength, or from a position of weakness. If you're more interested in the outcome than in the aesthetics, then it would behoove you to avoid taking an aggressive stance that triggers an instinctive defensiveness. If you're more interested in the aesthetics, then behaving in a way that is more likely to result in you being able to follow your preferred course of action without losing too much face is of course reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey guys, what's happening in here...
*looks up from sparking matches and throwing them at flammable objects* Hey, Tink brought pizza!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
The Etiquette of visitors and friends
1) As a guest I behave when inside their settlement or close byApart of that - I wouldn't expect anything else as your rules if I'm outside my area however outside is defined.
EBA should put looting rights in their declaration that describes what is / isn't allowed in their lands.
Edit: Oh Bluddwolf - probably add a sentence about looting while figthing escalations. Your rules imply that when a comrade dies that you just should take what he dropped and I'm pretty sure that would be universally be frowned upon.
This is covered by #3, "A husk belongs to no one, unless you wish to make it so".
If grouped with members of same company, settlement or ally, then it belongs to them. Not because there is some obligation to do so, it is out of my choice to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I attacked Nihimon first when I saw him attacking my travel partner.I don't know what I could be lying about, I clearly stated I attacked you first? I saw you moving in / attacking (?) my partner.I see you're walking it back now, but you did not see me attack your travel partner because I did not attack your travel partner. I was too busy laughing at the fact that y'all flagged up right in front of the guards.
I'm not walking anything back. You were either attacking or at least appeared to be moving in for an attack. It meant little difference to me at the moment, I opened fire on you when you got close to him. It made no difference to me that I would die at the hands of the guards, you or anyone else.
We are immortal, and death means nothing. Durability loss means nothing. Replacing gear happens so infrequently, it too means nothing. Reputation loss means nothing, because it too happens so infrequently, I'm easily back to max with my current play schedule. I have actually never gone into negative rep, since EE launch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not walking anything back. You were either attacking or at least appeared to be moving in for an attack.
'Round and 'round we go.
You said you saw me attacking your travel partner. I said that was a lie. You changed your tune and now you're saying I was either attacking or at least appeared to be moving in for an attack.
Now you're lying again by saying you're not walking anything back.
'Round and 'round we go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not walking anything back. You were either attacking or at least appeared to be moving in for an attack.'Round and 'round we go.
You said you saw me attacking your travel partner. I said that was a lie. You changed your tune and now you're saying I was either attacking or at least appeared to be moving in for an attack.
Now you're lying again by saying you're not walking anything back.
'Round and 'round we go.
Meh..
You were attacking then, prove that you weren't.
Never mind the fact that the game system does not allow for me to know for sure. There is a chance that you are lying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius
The part you really seem difficulty to understand my position is not what happened but where it happened.
This was inside the core 6 of Emerald Lodge.
This at a time just after EBA publicises it's rules what other people are / are not allowed to do in their regions.
It was the where that made it unexcusable unless an appology was given - not the what. As settlement leader in a PvP game that is about regional control I'm doomed if I don't take action if such an incident happens at my door step - no matter who has done it.
Ok, i don write that much here but i wonder about this, and i'm not sure how to read it.
So, apart from the fact, that the actual "victim" said he has no problem with what actually happened,
Are you saying that, based on the fact that the EBA announced that it will declare a part of the map as its teritory and will try to enforce certain rules there, you consider it unexusable to loot a corpse in your core six?
On what ground?
And what else is illegal in your territory?
And is there a place i can go and read those laws of the emerald lodge?
I don't want to come through there just to be shot at for wearing a green hat or something you know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a few questions concerning "etiquette".
1) If husks belong to no one, yet opening them is harvesting (plus the mobile node rhetoric), and if harvesting in another's territory is criminal, should it be frowned upon/criminal to open any husks in another's claimed territory?
2) If policy needs to be explicitly stated, shouldn't change of policy be explicitly stated too? Case in point, a large portion of the map had a treaty at the beginning of the WoT that was built upon the idea that each settlement "owned" its core six. That treaty may not exist anymore, but why should anyone who would actually cares about other settlements' sovereignty think that policy had changed?
Sorry for being pedantic, the culture of the game is in flux at the moment, and I am just trying to figure it out. This is why GW asked us here, to create a persistent understanding of how we should view the "world"...so we can then share that with the later influx. There is no reason we need be logically consistent, but it is easy to understand how new players might fall into that by default unless we publicly post our expectations loudly and often.
Personally, I will probably stick with logically consistent simply because I have a hard time working with discordant ideas. Also, I am not trying to dictate anyone's behaviour...there are perfectly good OOC and IC rationales to violate the above even if true.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Decius
The part you really seem difficulty to understand my position is not what happened but where it happened.
This was inside the core 6 of Emerald Lodge.
This at a time just after EBA publicises it's rules what other people are / are not allowed to do in their regions.
It was the where that made it unexcusable unless an appology was given - not the what. As settlement leader in a PvP game that is about regional control I'm doomed if I don't take action if such an incident happens at my door step - no matter who has done it.
Are you making a claim of territory and describing prohibited behavior? You might have a point under Courts Are For Kings, if you had made a suitable public claim about your territory.
If you want to claim a looting policy in your area, feel free to do so. I suggest also declaring a travel policy, harvesting policy, and escalation policy at the same time.
But you didn't. You just decided to act as though you had set a policy, without even explaining what the policy you didn't set in advance was.
So let's hear it: what territory does EL claim that it's laws apply within, what are those laws, and what is the punishment for violating them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Decius, Didn't the EBA once champion a treaty based upon the policy that each settlement had sovereignty over its core six?
My understanding is that the Tower NAP was to ensure PC Settlements had access to adequate Training. I don't believe it was based on the more general idea that those Settlements had sovereignty over their adjacent hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you making a claim of territory and describing prohibited behavior? You might have a point under Courts Are For Kings, if you had made a suitable public claim about your territory.
If you want to claim a looting policy in your area, feel free to do so. I suggest also declaring a travel policy, harvesting policy, and escalation policy at the same time.
But you didn't. You just decided to act as though you had set a policy, without even explaining what the policy you didn't set in advance was.
So let's hear it: what territory does EL claim that it's laws apply within, what are those laws, and what is the punishment for violating them?
LOL I read this and pictured a devil in a lawyers suit. This is one of the most Lawful Evil things I have heard in these forums yet... *claps hands*
(Note: As you claimed to be TN, your allowed your LE moments so not accusing of not playing your stated alignment)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood, thank you for the clarification.
So there is no confusion, would the statements:
"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."
be true at this point?
Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure this is the right place for a debate about EBA internal policy. We made a public announcement outlining what we felt we owed it to the community to state publicly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) If policy needs to be explicitly stated, shouldn't change of policy be explicitly stated too? Case in point, a large portion of the map had a treaty at the beginning of the WoT that was built upon the idea that each settlement "owned" its core six. That treaty may not exist anymore, but why should anyone who would actually cares about other settlements' sovereignty think that policy had changed?
I always understood the treaty to be that each settlement was entitled to its core six towers, to ensure it could train at least to the level of an NPC settlement. If the intent was that a settlement held sovereignty over the core six hexes and everything in them, including towers, I'm sure my betters would have included that in their treaty.
I've never once been told that every settlement holds exclusive rights to all of the resources in it's core six, though individual settlements have claimed such, and lands further away than the core six. I've been attacked five hexes from Golgotha, for example, traveling in the Northern Cragthorns. (I was killed after I left the Cragthorns, but I didn't expect otherwise.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure this is the right place for a debate about EBA internal policy. We made a public announcement outlining what we felt we owed it to the community to state publicly.
I actually thought the questions I asked were a clarification of the public policy.
@Yrme, that is exactly what I am trying to clarify, what the understanding/justification is/was. I realize I might have been alone in my understanding of the rationale for the WoT NAP. To me, "fair" should never part of a conquest game, therefore I saw it as an attempt to respect each active settlements' sovereignty. Understanding the viewpoints of those involved in a debate is necessary. I realize I was wrong, thanks for the clarification. That is why I asked.
If the intent was that a settlement held sovereignty over the core six hexes and everything in them, including towers, I'm sure my betters would have included that in their treaty.
But, by this logic, there was no intent (at least that I can identify), which is surely not the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Forencith, I'm not sure whether we agree or not.
Whatever their intent, my betters (as I might call them in soft sarcasm, lost to some) failed to shape that intent into words that they would swear to. The treaty appears to cover towers, and towers alone. The treaty says nothing whatsoever about territory, or resources, or the contents of our husks once dead.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Understood, thank you for the clarification.
So there is no confusion, would the statements:
"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."
be true at this point?
Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?
The EBA has not made any policy statements regarding those questions.
Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.
Phaeros does not as of yet have offer official guidance on how citizens should handle husks of strangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood, thank you for the clarification.
So there is no confusion, would the statements:
"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."
be true at this point?
Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?
The EBA has not made any policy statements regarding those questions.
Understood, that is why I was forced to ask. I thought it relevant to the posted public policy.
Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.
I am not sure of the relevance of this. I am only asking in the abstract sense.
Phaeros does not as of yet have offer official guidance on how citizens should handle husks of strangers.
Thanks, I will keep my eyes open...but not hold my breath (not that I am claiming it is necessary or even desirable to dictate anyone's behaviour).
However, again - "The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power." seems to me to be a logical conclusion of the positions expressed, I was just confirming it as such. If it is not, I am still confused about the EBA public policy and supporting statements made here and elsewhere.
But...Since my purpose has been forced from "be constructive to the understanding of situations of this type, for myself and others" to "justify why my question(s) are not an attack on the EBA", I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere...and am going to shut up now.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
However, again - "The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power." seems to me to be a logical conclusion of the positions expressed, I was just confirming it as such. If it is not, I am still confused about the EBA public policy and supporting statements made here and elsewhere.But...Since my purpose has been forced from "be constructive to the understanding of situations of this type, for myself and others" to "justify why my question(s) are not an attack on the EBA", I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere...and am going to shut up now.
The EBA has no policy regarding any claims that might be made by other groups. That's an important difference from what it looks like you are confirming.
Don't construe everything that Cheatle says as EBA policy, and don't construe everything I say as Phaeros policy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.
If the EBA can't make policy that is binding to individual settlement members then its becomes impossible to negotiate with them. Kind of hoping this isn't true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an outsider, it sounds like to me there are a lot of chefs in the EBA kitchen, but they all claim to be fry cooks, and none of them know what is on the menu.
And to think, I was criticized by one of your's for not knowing what members of different companies in my settlement are up to, but we are supposed to be free spirited, chaotic leaning individuals.
Is anyone capable of giving a straight answer, without immediately telling us not to accept what anyone says as an answer?
If no one speaks with any authority, than you have no authority. Since no organization can truly function that way, there has to be one person that is the "decider", there is always just one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is anyone capable of giving a straight answer...?I'm quite convinced that no one in the EBA is capable of giving an answer that you and/or our other enemies will not seek to twist and mock.
But, no one in EBA represents one voice, or there are portions of EBA that will not allow EBA to speak for them.
So, I must infer that there are portions of EBA that may actually be capable of giving an answer, we might not mock or twist. It is also safe to say that an enemy of one member of EBA, may not be an enemy of all in EBA.
I get the feeling that Eric Cartmann would feel at ease in the River Kingdoms.
"I do want I want!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An important distinction--the EBA is an alliance of independent settlements. One does not make agreements with the EBA. One makes agreements with each settlement. The EBA has no authority to enforce any sanctions against member settlements, other than removing them from the EBA. We, as an alliance, work together to establish agreed-upon common ground such as the defense of territory. Member settlements will act to defend on another when required. We support favored trade between member settlements. However, Brighthaven cannot require Keeper's Pass to join them on an assault, nor can Keeper's Pass require Hammerfall to only sell certain items. If you seek a unified EBA voice, you will be frustrated if you come to an issue that each settlement sees in a different light.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct on making agreements with each settlement. We would, of course, keep in mind repercussions that agreements have to other EBA members. Should a conflict arise that pits the agreement terms against EBA terms, we would have a discussion to come to a resolution. It would be unlikely, but possible, that a settlement would favor an independent agreement over the EBA. Such action could obviously result in the settlement leaving the EBA, a matter which we'd take very seriously. Understanding this, the member settlements put much thought into binding agreements that might set them at odds with their neighbors.
I cannot speak for other settlements (as noted) but for Keeper's Pass we would not break any agreement without proper notice and, if appropriate per the agreement, reparations to the other party for a breach of agreement. This also means that one settlement having a KOS list does not imply all EBA members will follow that order. Keeper's Pass, with our focus on non-aggression, does not even place our Bandits and Ne'er-Do-Wells as Kill On Sight. We'd rather inform visitors of the danger, avoid them, and if possible get the offenders to turn to better ways so they can be taken off our list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erian has hit the nail on the head, I think. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the EBA is, and what function it serves. As I understand it, the EBA is just a casual alliance of friends, rather than an entity that can exercise control over any settlement.
Contrast to the Aeonian League. For the most parts, our member settlements are independent in policy and behavior. However, we do have certain agreements that all settlements are required to uphold. These are enforced (although without teeth, but this has yet to be an issue). Thus, you CAN deal with the Aeonian League at a diplomatic level, and expect all it's member settlements to comply with that agreement.
It is a key difference. The EBA is barely more than words and smiles between friends. It is not an entity unto itself.