The Neutral Manifesto

[Yarko]

Omni-Tek will enforce it's laws anywhere on Rubi-Ka as before.

Let me know the next time you enforce your laws in Tir, I’d like to watch.

As I said before, the fact that we shouldn’t allow any of the factions to enforce police actions is actually a proof of our neutrality and hence the opposite of a declaration of war. Not that I expect you to understand this, but I’m sure your superiors will.

[Negs]

Makes me think though. Is it actually about time we bring back the old "tagging" for the respective organisations which make up the current "neutral" community? Possibly one before or after our organisation names stating what we really are? like *NEUT* and *AFIL* or something so those in the outside world knows who we are at a glance. *shrug* Just an idea though.

You may be onto something here. But as I see it, to most people they will stereotype as always because that is the easiest thing to do. The clans, hell even within their own council there is a WIDE variety of legacies each participate may favor, but they get blanketed to one stereotype, same with Omni's and Neuts. The problems aren't the systems, but human nature in itself. If the omni's and clans took the time to get to know those within the Neutral community they would see how wrong most of their assumptions are. They will know no matter what no blanket "manifesto" can ever capture what is it to be neutral. All is see is this to appease to outsiders. As Neutrals we don't have to prove to anyone who we are. We are who we are, deal with it.

[Yarko]

You may be onto something here. But as I see it, to most people they will stereotype as always because that is the easiest thing to do. The clans, hell even within their own council there is a WIDE variety of legacies each participate may favor, but they get blanketed to one stereotype, same with Omni's and Neuts. The problems aren't the systems, but human nature in itself. If the omni's and clans took the time to get to know those within the Neutral community they would see how wrong most of their assumptions are. They will know no matter what no blanket "manifesto" can ever capture what is it to be neutral. All is see is this to appease to outsiders. As Neutrals we don't have to prove to anyone who we are. We are who we are, deal with it.

While you are right that all sides always are stereotyped, both the Clans and OT –even with the differences in approach – have a unity up to a certain level. While the Sentinels make pretty clear where they stand, even the Pilgrims oppose Omni-Tek’s restrictive policies.

The question is, do we neutrals have such kind a unity? If we want the factions to capture what it is to be neutral, don’t we have to answer that question first? It is true that knowing someone will avoid prejudice, but can we expect the factions to meet with all neutral organizations, maybe even all individuals? How else can we make clear what we stand for? We are who we are, but who are we?

If you would be so kind as to answer these questions: what is it to be neutral and what assumptions do the factions wrongly make?

[Virta]

Let me know the next time you enforce your laws in Tir, I’d like to watch.

As I said before, the fact that we shouldn’t allow any of the factions to enforce police actions is actually a proof of our neutrality and hence the opposite of a declaration of war. Not that I expect you to understand this, but I’m sure your superiors will.

They will probably be very sympathetic to your cause when you start shooting at Omni-Tek troops in defence of your neutrality.

[Nyadach]

If you would be so kind as to answer these questions: what is it to be neutral and what assumptions do the factions wrongly make?

To be honest, I don't see the factions making a wrong diagnosis of what the so called "neutral" community is. The problem is more that the "neutral" community isn't as a whole neutral. Some are, but most aren't. Thats the issue in all this really which I think has got many upset with the manifesto. They aren't neutral, and won't live by neutral ethics. Yet they also won't live under Omni or Clan rule. They are thier own unique entities...they are the unaffiliated.

To define what it is to be truely neutral though:
Neutrality (ny ōō tral’Ə tē) n. 1. a being neutral 2. a status or policy of a neutral nation, group or party.

Neutral (ny ōō trƏl) adj. 1. not taking part in either side of a quarrel or war 2. to be shot at by anyone yet not to be able to start a fight 3. not one thing or the other; indifferent 4. having little or no decided colour or faction 5. To be neither Omni-Tek nor Clan 6. Chem. Neither acid or alkaline 7. Elec. Neither Negative or Positive – n. 1. a nation, group or party not taking part in a war 2. a neutral person 3. a neutral colour 4. Mech. A disengaged position of gears – neu’trally adv

Anyhow, its pretty easy from that to work out what a neutral is...but also to understand that many people living in the neutral community, sadly aren't neutral.

[Kari]

It's starting to sound like the "Real Neutrals" are a community of one.

[Nyadach]

It's starting to sound like the "Real Neutrals" are a community of one.

Think theres about 7 or 8 last time I counted

[Ryeloth]

I have to disagree. I think _most_ of the organizations would qualify as Neutral. They don't jump into the Clan-Omni war. They operate independently of Clan and Omni. They take it to either group if one faction or the other attacks the towers they own, but don't generally go attacking some other groups towers without provocation. They don't resort to terrorist acts just to get the message out.

I agree that some of them would probably not qualify. Should those who are not Neutral in action, fit under the banner of Neutral? Obviously, if we are going to differentiate ourselves from those who commit horrible acts like kidnapping little kids and killing them, then we need a definition that says "Yes, we consider your affiliated with this group, rather than another." Perhaps the Neutral Manifesto should have been called, "the Manifesto for those who really want to be Neutral, rather than just call themselves such."

Basically, that is what is being said by a lot of people. Some fit the definition. Some don't. The real question is probably, does the definition provided in the Manifesto fit those people who are really neutral vs. those who aren't really neutral, but don't have a seperate "unaffiliated" faction flag available to them in the game. If it does, great. If not, then it needs to be modified, and people should specifically say how, why, and what words need to be changed/added to make it clearer.

At one time, this would have might been very simple to solve by just saying, "Those organizations and people associated with the Neutral Council are considered neutral." Unfortunately, the Neutral Council no longer exists, so each organization, city, and group has to attempt to work together in this mass discussion format. Perhaps, once the new Mayor of Borealis is elected, the Newland Council and the Borealis governing body can get together with the Neutral organizations and reform the Neutral Council to discuss such matters, but until something like that happens, it looks like we have to work with the current format.

I've heard some people yammering about how this is the Newland Council's attempt to cram our definition of Neutrality down there collective throats. I hear the complaint, "The Newland Council doesn't speak for all Neutrals, so shut up."

My response to this is that I don't think people bothered to listen to Yarko. They took a cursory glance at the manifesto and blew it off, so they didn't have to think about the real issues. The Newland Council is perfectly well aware that we don't represent anyone other than the citizens of Newland. We are also perfectly well aware that Newland is a part of the Neutral community. As a part of the Neutral community, we threw the manifesto out to the community, so that it could be discussed by all, and decided upon by all. It was written with this process in mind.

Now, admittedly, what is really happening? The community in some way is sifting itself. You have one group who fits the definition, and a lot of little groups that have variances one way or another. Many of those little groups, rather than attempting to speak about what they think needs to be changed, instead try to spout out about how we are all different shades, the Newland Council is trying to RULE US ALL, and other things like this that distract from the real issue. Of course Neutrals are a diverse group. The manifesto allows for a great deal of diversity, but it also goes to saying that some things just aren't neutral.

If you are a neutral org. allied with Omni against the Clans, then you aren't really Neutral, are you? You are an organization not controlled by Omni, but allied with them, who attacks the clans, and is forced to use the Neutral faction flag because you don't have any other method to say you aren't a part of the Omni-Tek corporation or the Clans. If this is your org, then you shouldn't be considered Neutral. Feel free to swap the Clan and Omni-Tek in the previous example with the same result. These groups cause real problems for those who are actually Neutral because we all get hit with the same brush by the other factions, which reduces are ability to effectively work with the other factions politically.


I'm going to throw out some situations, and my own personal opinion on them.

Now, I'm not saying that a Neutral can't have a disliking for one group or the other. I know several people who dislike some clan organizations and some omni organizations because they rushed in and blew up some of our bases and towers before the defending org. gave the clan/omni group a bloody nose to remind them to leave us alone. I've been known to take a disliking to certain groups who continually attack our bases over and over again for several months for no reason at all, just because they can and they don't like us... but you see what I mean hopefully.

Now, let's talk Aliens. If the Aliens attack your city and your clan and omni friends come to help you bash in some Alien brains, then you are still a Neutral. The Aliens are enemies to all of Rubi-Ka, just like the cyborgs who wanted to kill everybody if they didn't submit. Certain issues require all factions to work together to overcome a common foe, and the Manifesto doesn't cause problems with these kinds of world wide agreed upon actions.

If you want peoples opinion on whether a situation is Neutral or not, throw it out there and let people comment it. Some of you may disagree with what I've said above about what is or is not Neutral. Go ahead and say so. If you agree, say that also.

[Nyadach]

I dunno Ryeloth. If they defend, and give those attacking a bloody nose. Fine by defination you remain neutral. If you systematically keep going after one factions towers than it doesn't matter if you are working for the other faction of not. You aren't neutral. Fine you are still unaffiliated.

The manifesto does cover neutrality. Which is why those who actively go on about how it doesn't fit thier version of neutrality, aren't by definition neutral, and would only fit in the unaffiliated description. But as the definations go, a neutral can be unaffiliated, yet an unaffialiated might not be neutral.

As for the Borealis elections...we can but see what happens. It would be best if neutrality won the elections, but if it does it wouldn't be long till those who are unaffiliated, yet not neutral will just disregard it...if not instantly. It's a hard line to make people with a belief that they are independent from the Clans and Omni, who are forced due to how the ICC runs the registration process on Rubi-ka to be seen as neutral, even though they aren't. Its also hard for those who are as you put it, get tarnished with the same brush for thier actions. Its not fair for either partys in our community.

The only solution that I can see is that we all agree to some kind of self "tagging" system using the *neut* and *unaf* tags, or something similar. We will then atleast know where we all stand, as will the Clans and Omni. As it currently is, we're as split as ever over really what we are. And before we can really communicate strongly, and clearly with either of them, we need to first learn about ourselves. And from that bring together a cohesive form.

[Berael]

The way I am seeing this right now is currently there are three ways of viewing or defining neutrality that have come up. Defined quite broadly they are:

1. Those people who will not take part in the OT/Clan conflict because helping one or the other is a sign of support.

2. Those people who disregard the OT/Clan conflict as irrelevant and treat everybody they meet based on their own merits.

3. Those people who have a strong interest in the OT/Clan conflict but do not wish to join either side and in fact consider themselves a third side.

Now if we consider the speech made with the presentation of the manifesto and a couple of comments there:

While it is true that the house of neutrals has many doors, something we should always cherish and preserve, it also makes it hard for the factions to see who we are. To understand where we lay our loyalties.

[The Neutral Manifesto is] designed with only one purpose in mind and that is, to put the neutrals on the map, to make clear what we stand for and what it means to be a neutral.

A tool, we feel is acceptable to the broad majority, if not all, of neutrals, and that makes it very clear to the factions that we are an independent people, with our own agenda and goals and not a loose hanging part of one of them.

First off, if I interpreted the first quote correctly it would mean that Yarko acknowledges that there are many ways to be neutrals, or at least that there are many different aspects of neutrality on RK. That idea goes against what has been said here; namely that there is only one way to be neutral, which is the first definition above.

Secondly, the stated purpose of manifesto is to define Neutrals, yet it only seems to include the first kind of neutrality as a part of it. I say this because in a discussion of this with Yarko he said that the first two points of the manifesto are the most important and define what it means to be neutral, while the rest define how this neutrality is maintained. The reason I say that it excludes the other types of neutrality I mentioned is because in the case of the second kind, those neutrals may well be impartial but their individual interests may take them to help one side or the other for what ever reason. Even though those neutrals would see it as simply a personal act others could see it as an act of support. In the third type, they are clearly not impartial and do get involved.

This point is also illustrated by Nyadach's comment concerning the number of "true neutrals":

Think theres about 7 or 8 last time I counted

Now there are a lot of people (many more than 8) in Borealis and Newland wearing a neutral tag, many of them who are firm in their belief of their neutrality, but who do not correspond to the first type of neutrality (and maybe yet another undefined one). If there are only 8 people at most who correspond with the first type that is supported by this manifesto then how can you claim that this represents Neutrals? Further yet, how can you claim that it represents the "broad majority"?

The conversation here has been turning and looking at defining people as neutral and unaffiliated, but given the above information that seems to be an extremist mind set, as the people who are living, working, and being neutral live by many different idea of what it means -to be neutral-. Those people are who define what it means to be neutral as much as the people who are Clan define what it means to be Clan. Strict dictionary definitions are not up to the challenge to deal with the real set of events that are in play in the world. Nor do those static definitions hold up against the creation of knowledge and meaning by people, which is a dynamic activity happening every day.

If you don't believe me take a look at a little bit of history. The Sol Banking Corporation has been a prolific manufacturer of weapons and armaments for several hundred years. It was an instigator and active participant of the Corporate Wars. Now with their naming being 'banking corporation' you would expect them, by definition, to be a bank; not an arms dealer. This is clearly not the case and its because Sol has defined its own meaning to its title. So while they may be a bank on one hand, they also expand their definition to include their weapons dealing and large armies.

If we take this Manifest to be a document that defines neutrals as they are today and as they act in their world, it is clearly a flawed creation. Well crafted yes, and in many ways pertinent to us today, but it does not stand up to the rigor of reality. In which case the Manifesto must be refashioned so it -does- represent all neutrals.

On the other hand if we understand this manifesto to be the work of one man and his vision of how neutrality -should be- it is something else entirely. To this end the manifesto is an irresponsible use of power by the part of its creator or creators. Sponsored and presented by the Newland Government, even regardless of its supposed separation, constitutes a political act that colors how Newland should be viewed.

[Yarko]

The manifesto isn’t based on my vision on neutrality. It is based on neutrality as it has been over the long course of human existence. The project is indeed mine, with extensive help from my fellow Newland City Council members. But if you feel for one moment that it is an irresponsible use of power, I’m afraid you simply don’t comprehend the scale of things and neither have you understood anything of what has been said.

Major Nyadach’s statement does seem rather sarcastic to me. If there where indeed only a handful of “true” neutrals left, nothing of this would make much sense.

While it might make sense for people to have an interest in the conflict, but yet not wish to join sides and to consider themselves a third side, it also is the cause of some major problems.

For instance, in what way does it justify our existence? The first neutrals where Omni-Tek employees and Clanners, who became fed up with the politics of both sides of the war, and disassociated with both sides. If not legitimacy, there certainly can be appreciation for this attitude. While being a third faction would allow us a great freedom, at about 9% of the total population we also would be a much weaker faction then either Omni-Tek or the Clans.

The ICC lease of 28708 recognizes Omni-Tek, and Omni-Tek alone, as the superior governing body of Rubi-Ka. Any personnel, not affiliated with either Omni-Tek or the Council of Truth (the latter only as long as the Tir accord was valid) is considered under Omni-Tek contract and subject to Omni-Tek law. All terraformed areas on the planet are under complete Omni-Tek control and subject to the ICC lease.
Newland City was granted neutral status by the first Council of Truth in an addendum to the Tir accord. The Tir accord however was annulled. “Neutrals should be wiped off the planet” and “if I had the resources available, both Newland City and Borealis would be blown to thousands of pieces in order to eradicate this breeding ground for thoughtless indifferent drones they have created.” Does this ring a bell?

Legally, there are no neutrals or neutral cities. About 3 years ago, Phillip Ross said: “The ICC, and Omni-Tek, still considers the neutral population of Rubi-Ka to be employees of the Corporation.”

There is a delicate balance between the Clans and Omni-Tek. There is no balance whatsoever between Omni-Tek and neutrals and between the Clans and neutrals. I know neutrals successfully defended their possessions in the past and without doubt will do so again in the future. The question however is, if ever Omni-Tek or the Clans, rightfully or not, come to lay claim on what we consider to be ours, would we be able to withstand them? Both have well oiled war machines and an overwhelming majority. I have my doubts.

The question is also, if neutrals by their actions tilt the balance between Omni-Tek and the Clans, would they leave us untouched? Again, I have my doubts.

I don’t call for neutrality for the sake of it. Neutrality is a strategy for survival. Of course, neutrality doesn’t necessarily prevent anything. It does however give us some sense of legitimacy. And this is of the utmost importance if we ever want to be accepted by the factions and by the ICC as an independent people. This is not something you can do as an unaffiliated, unless you have the military force to impose your conditions, which we have not.

Yes, neutrality means taking up our responsibility and it does limit our freedom of movement in some ways. But what is the alternative? To become yet another warmongering faction? Because if you don’t convince the factions of our reasonableness, you will need to fight. And you will fight a lost battle.

If I say that the house of neutrals has many doors, I mean that neutrality can be experienced in many ways. There are those who are ignorant, there are those who are advocates; there are those who will fight to the bitter end to defend our neutrality. But these, all of these, are neutrals.

Those who will not take part in the OT/Clan conflict, because helping one or the other is a sign of support, and those who disregard the OT/Clan conflict as irrelevant and treat everybody they meet based on their own merits, should –if they take the time to read- have no problem with the manifesto whatsoever.

Those who consider themselves a third side, without consideration for our heritage, without consideration for our history, without consideration for our status and our future, and even without consideration for our people, are not neutrals. There is not more then one way to define neutrality and to take a de****able example like Sol Banking, who once jointly where driven of the surface of our planet by both Omni-Tek and the Clans, and who where the instigators of a war that claimed the lives of one hundred and twenty million people, is low and I hope for Mochams sake not the general attitude of what we call neutrals. It is not the people who define neutrality, it is neutrality that defines the people!

[Berael]

It is not the people who define neutrality, it is neutrality that defines the people!

Think again Yarko. Neutrality isn't a 'thing' that lives this lovely little platonic existance, its a concept that exists in the thoughts and minds of people. That concept was defined by people and used by people, and is continued to be used by people under a variety of context. Since it exists in the minds of people it is there to be manipulated and used as it is useful to them. My example of the Sol Bank Corp. is an illistration of the dynamic nature of language and names.

For another example, as I told you in private recently, look at the word heresy. The Dictionary definition that is common today is: A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. In the language that the word originated in Heresy took the meaning of 'a choice' or 'to choose'. The meanings are similar but are obviously different and meant to be taken in a different light. This shows that meanings change over time, and its not because the word itself decides to change, its because the people using the word begin to understand its meaning differently.

People define the meaning of the language they use to describe themselves, there fore they define what it means to be neutral.

[Yarko]

People may change and evolve; the meaning of words may change and evolve; politics may change and evolve.

But if you call yourself peaceful, yet fight at every instance, are you then peaceful? If you call yourself a warmonger, yet are a skilled diplomat who brings an end to all the fighting, are you then a warmonger? If you call yourself a neutral, yet continuously support a side, are you then a neutral?

Peace is and always will be peace, war is and always will be war and neutral is and always will be neutral. If you change the concept, they become meaningless, empty shells…

Still, if you aren’t neutral in the “old” sense, whether you still call yourself neutral or not, it doesn’t make any difference. It is the perception of the sides that counts and that perception is based on our actions. There lays the choice we have to make, a choice that either gives us a right to exist and a future, or a choice that will eventually lead to our destruction. To play around with words won’t change a thing about this.

[Berael]

People are not as dumb as I occasionaly whine that they are. If you don't call peace one thing you will probably call it something else if the concept is still valuable. If you don't call the concept of not taking part in a concept neutrality, neutrality, any more then you will have a different name for it. The problem is that you have to actualy go out and talk to people to find out what it is.

Say you said above, simply staying out of the war doesn't save our future as a people, but neither does excluding people who are valuable in their own right except might not fall into a neat little ideological box. With the Tir accord defunct and Zora at the helm of OT we basicaly have to fend for ourselves, and that would best be done by being inclusive of people.

How should we preserve our future? Give me a little bit... still working on something clever.

[Ryeloth]

The way I am seeing this right now is currently there are three ways of viewing or defining neutrality that have come up. Defined quite broadly they are:

1. Those people who will not take part in the OT/Clan conflict because helping one or the other is a sign of support.

2. Those people who disregard the OT/Clan conflict as irrelevant and treat everybody they meet based on their own merits.

3. Those people who have a strong interest in the OT/Clan conflict but do not wish to join either side and in fact consider themselves a third side.

I disagree with your third point. I know that there are people in group 1 and 2 who considers Neutral a "third side". They are a "third side" that is not involved in the OT/Clan conflict. I think you should probably take that out of your defintion there for a second talking point.

Otherwise, I agree with Yarko. The Neutral Manifesto serves the first two groups, but those who are supporting a side, even if they aren't tagged it, really aren't Neutral. The word Neutral throughout our long History has meant Neutral in the OT/Clan conflict. Now, I admit that during times when Rubi-Ka isn't in open conflict, it becomes an odd definition to define one's self in this manner, but we all know the hostility that exists between the OT and the clans, so it is still valid.

If we take this Manifest to be a document that defines neutrals as they are today and as they act in their world, it is clearly a flawed creation. Well crafted yes, and in many ways pertinent to us today, but it does not stand up to the rigor of reality. In which case the Manifesto must be refashioned so it -does- represent all neutrals.

I'm glad you feel this. Perhaps you could reword the Manifesto as you think it should be and post it for discussion?

On the other hand if we understand this manifesto to be the work of one man and his vision of how neutrality -should be- it is something else entirely. To this end the manifesto is an irresponsible use of power by the part of its creator or creators. Sponsored and presented by the Newland Government, even regardless of its supposed separation, constitutes a political act that colors how Newland should be viewed.

This hardly even dignifies a response. I totally disagree with your last statement here though. I think the Neutral Manifesto shows that the Newland Council is doing it's job. I have heard this topic debated for years among Neutrals. We just brought it directly into the line light, so that it could be thourghly discussed among all Neutrals. Since it seems stupid to sit and complain without offering a possible solution, we discussed (*cough* debated *cough*) it and came up with the Neutral Manifesto as something to propose to the Neutral people for a starting place for the discussion.

[Katralina]

Seems to me that Yarko and JuJu are trying to set a government on all Neutrals and force the NLF to find a new home. Glad I live in Borealis and not Newland!

[Yarko]

Seems to me that Yarko and JuJu are trying to set a government on all Neutrals and force the NLF to find a new home. Glad I live in Borealis and not Newland!

Katralina, don’t be daft…

Do me a favour and read more then the first two words.

[XzSwiftcurse]

Katralina, don’t be daft…

Do me a favour and read more then the first two words.

Ofcourse he wouldn't do that, Katralina! he rather would like to have a bunch of mages running around and defending those who kidnapped and brutaly murdered "his" children.

[Berael]

In response to Ryeloth:

I disagree with your third point. I know that there are people in group 1 and 2 who considers Neutral a "third side". They are a "third side" that is not involved in the OT/Clan conflict. I think you should probably take that out of your definition there for a second talking point.

My definitions of neutrality I posted above are not points or opinions; they are observations on what people believe who call themselves neutral. You do make a good point though within regards to the "considering themselves a third side", and I can see people I know who do this. I'm not going to edit my statement though, as a record for the discussion.

Otherwise, I agree with Yarko. The Neutral Manifesto serves the first two groups, but those who are supporting a side, even if they aren't tagged it, really aren't Neutral. The word Neutral throughout our long History has meant Neutral in the OT/Clan conflict. Now, I admit that during times when Rubi-Ka isn't in open conflict, it becomes an odd definition to define one's self in this manner, but we all know the hostility that exists between the OT and the clans, so it is still valid.

First, I doesn't matter what you believe is or is not neutral, since there are many people who believe many things who firmly call themselves neutral. Many of those people are not represented by the manifesto, thus it is flawed as to its stated function.

Secondly, we are in open conflict. The notum wars haven't stopped because of the problems with the Reds and Unreds in the Shadowlands, or with the constant alien incursions. With OT no longer holding a monopoly on notum mining (via the mandate by the ICC) on Rubi-Ka its hard to say that we are neutral to the play ground brawl of Omni-Tek and the Clans, since it really is a free for all on resources. With the notum wars going on it could be said that there are many many 'sides'. Maybe it needs to be asked: “Neutral in regards to what?”

Perhaps you could reword the Manifesto as you think it should be and post it for discussion?

I have on both points, and since I only have a problem with the second article I only felt it needed to post a correction to that. Since that seems to be forgotten I will post it again:

"Neutrals maintain personal attitudes, rather than factional attitudes, towards world events. Thus, their actions should be understood in this context."

This hardly even dignifies a response. I totally disagree with your last statement here though. I think the Neutral Manifesto shows that the Newland Council is doing it's job. I have heard this topic debated for years among Neutrals. We just brought it directly into the line light, so that it could be thoroughly discussed among all Neutrals. Since it seems stupid to sit and complain without offering a possible solution, we discussed (*cough* debated *cough*) it and came up with the Neutral Manifesto as something to propose to the Neutral people for a starting place for the discussion.

The Newland City Council is the government of Newland city, not of all neutrals. This being the case their concern should be the development and governance of their fair city, not the concerns of all neutrals. The manifesto was presented as an officially announced meeting with the public of the NLCC. Most of the council members were present. The mayor was present. The mayor -approved- of the manifesto in public. This is a political act by NLC, not one by concerned neutrals.

If Yarko had drafted this and spoke among the other neutral guild leaders that inhabit the other cities and presented it to the neutral public as a leader in his organization I would not have this problem, and I imagine nor would many others.

One thing to also consider is that this discussion has been predominately between myself, Yarko, Sir Negs, and Nyadach with some commentary and suggestions from the 'peanut gallery'. Its hardly being debated by all neutrals right now.

[Nuser_]

........ bunch of mages running around and defending those who kidnapped and brutaly murdered "his" children.

*raises a brow*
Please tell me Mr. Chaupin...when was it ever stated by the NLF that we support these murders?
If you spit out accusations like these, please back them up with facts.
It is so typical and so easy to put the NLF into a category isn't it? But it is something else to back up these accusations with facts isn't it?
So please Mr. Chaupin get back behind your desk and do some research before you point fingers