***Disclaimer: This is a loaded question.**

Okay as many of you may know there are two major aspects of this game, at least on the alliance servers:

1. Netting
2. War

With the given state of our community of which we of AT only represent a small percentage of the total players (I don't see 600 individual posters here) we do have a major influence of the political environment of the game. Before we even think about new players we have to sustain current players. If we cannot sustain the current player base how can we ever expect to gain and retain new people? It's not logical to think otherwise. So why can't we dive into the root issue here? Why not try? I'll throw out a few ideas and you all, AT, can build upon it.

1. When a warring alliance hits a netting alliance for no reason
2. When netting alliances push absurd retal policies onto other clans who have no power of fighting back
3. When people cheat

I have a strong opinion on each of the 3 above topics however choose to withhold that from you, AT at this time. I will jump in and post my thoughts but not without you! So the goal of this thread is to talk about one of the 3 above topics, good or bad. Pro netting or pro warmonger all is fair game. Please however refrain for trolling (TAN).

Just kidding TAN I luubes you! But seriously no trolling. <-- Yes I know that is troll bait!

/me is not touching this with a 10 foot pole.

I wrote some drunken stuff about this once, essentially this game will never be stable over any long period of time unless:

1. All clans engage in the goal of 'winning'

Be this by dominating the networth charts, or actually trying to win wars. Clans that exist just to screw around without actually trying to win are the real problem here. If the war clans are actually concerned with coming out victorious, then the netters can actually fight, both in war and politically. If the warclan just acts for the sake of "were bored", the netters have no recourse to do jack and eventually the netters will get sick of it and leave.

2. New players come in at a rate that outpaces or keeps even with those that leave.

This one is all about the land and the untagged players. Everyone can pretty much figure out what happens when land becomes really scarce, so i don't need to explain that one.

People cheating can have the biggest impact but unless its RD vs old Sof type cheating it wont ruin many peoples games...


War clans hitting netting for no reason multiple times loses a lot of netters from the game

Netting clans with absurd retal policies at least gives the other clans a chance to retal etc or get pacts and finish their sets, and I doubt that a 48 hour retal window causes many to quit. Thats the only netter "absurd" retal policy I can think of. I wont speak of Sol's absurd retal policies which are worse than netters.

netters are like little kids.... if they dont get their own way they pick the bat and ball up and go home.... killers tend to have a more carefree approach...

but u need both to keep the game going...

Agreed with bsnake on the last point :P they should compete more with eachother though

If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?

You can kill two birds by taking one horse to water.

The phenomenon of the "random war alliance" is a direct result of unfair bottom feeding and retal policies on the part of the large netting alliances over many years.

I'm undecided as to whether these alliances are beneficial or not for this game in its current state. However, to suggest that they are to blame for this game being in the state that its in is ludicrous -- you're simply looking for a scapegoat.

In the history of this game, how many "random war alliances" have existed? There's iMagNum for sure, then there's alliances like RAGE and SoF who've fallen into is as they've shrunk, there's a bunch of short lived alliances that didn't amount to much. But who else? And what theme connects all of these alliances?

To me, the theme that connects them is that they're powerless. iMagNum's rarely garnered even a modicum of respect from most of this community, was often mocked, and rarely had any influence. Major alliances typically only behaved this way nadiral point of their influence. The fact that most alliances behaving this way simply didn't survive speaks volumes as to their influence. It's often true that, en mass, the least influential can wield tremendous power. However, the alliances we're describing here have never (except in the very recent history of the game) constituted more than even a tiny fraction of the player base.

The truth is that the major alliances of this game have usually been netting alliances and have never been alliances dedicated to unprecipitated attacks against the netters. Those are the alliances which have set policy and defined the environment of this game. They are the group of alliances that have been able to impact the game drastically enough to be a significant cause of player loss.

Before we look anywhere else, look there.

I know that netters have, historically, been the powerful majority within this game. I recognize that the "random war" alliances have never been popular amongst that majority. I also recognize that, as the game has lost players, the "random war" alliances have grown proportionally to the game as a whole and no longer seem powerless. Therefore, it is easy to blame this historically unpopular group that's gaining power for many of the problems facing this game. Let's remember that these issues began while the "random war" crowd was almost entirely powerless. If we're seeking to place blame, we really ought to look at those who held sway within the game when the haemorrhage of players was at its worst.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

War and Peace anyone?


/me smacks foog...

what he is trying to say is.........


Imag kick arse and we don't care what you think..... Come join us!!!!

Simple and to the point....

You are clearly the guy with no clue fooglmog. Netters ruling the politics? They have ALWAYS been second hand to the war clans. IX/Sol/Arrow/MD anyone? All the biggest clans in the games history have been war clans also.

The random hitting of war clans is the result of bottomfeeding? Are you kidding? I hope this is a joke rather than pure ignorance. Bottomfeeding has to do with untaggeds. Unless you think they are the ones that become imag/sol etc and hit for little to no reason then your crazy.

And netting alliances retal policies? Sol has the worst retal policy in the game right now. If laf or evo had it people would go crazy.

But ok, you can keep your ridiculously biased innocent naive viewpoint and lie to yourself.

I'm the first to admit that conflicts between certain War alliances for large periods of the history of earth2025 completly and utterly dominated the politics of the server to a point in some cases, where netting alliances lived and died on the warrers whim and had to provide help to warring alliances to ensure their survival.

Though the very definition of a netting alliance is one that is weak in war. alliances that are strong at both.. would fall into the complete alliance category, and these were able to ensure their peaceful netting through strength and not through reliance on IX/SoF/Rage/Arrow/SoL etc.

Utlimately the strongest alliances ever, were those that dominated both Facets, e.g. MD in the golden age.

What exactly makes our retal policy so bad? Specifics would be appreciated. As it is the only retal policy i have to answer too or have ever answered too it seems fair to me.

now to the point of the thread:

The way we win the set is the factor here we need to look at. If there were a goal that all clans alliances and untaggs had to shoot for then maybe politics would just have to adjust. an undisputed champion type of scenario.

Maybe there can never be a balance in the game due to the polar nature of netting and warring. I would hope there would be some middle ground for the good of the game.

Netters have always ruled the politics. All of those alliances have done well in war, it's true. None of them are the Omega variety of netters. However, if you look at the policies they've introduced to the game they were all to help their netgaining in the resets where they chose to do so. For pete's sake, IX is the alliance which introduced clan wide retals. That had nothing to do with getting better at war.

Historically, these alliances have been the power houses in coalitions of netting alliances. The policies of those coalitions were set to enforce netting practices. You can call those alliances "war alliances" if you like, but in the end that point is moot. None of them are/were alliances which fit into the category that's being complained about. My point was that the alliances which "wage random wars against netters" have been a powerless minority within this game and so shouldn't be blamed for its problems. If you want to nit-pick around the edges, that's fine.


You reveal right at the end that you completely understand my point... yet still begin this paragraph by making fun of an argument I never put forward.

It's not that iMagNum, and those like it, hit netting alliances because bottom feeding exists. These alliances exist because of bottom feeding. Players tired of trying to compete outside of the major alliances and feeling like they weren't being given a fair chance. Maybe with more skill they could have made it, but the fact is that they felt like bottom feeding was robbing them of the chance to compete. Those are the players who either quit or decided to join/form alliances like iMagNum.

If there was no bottom feeding, you wouldn't have these alliances. You'd have had a lot of mediocre netting alliance, some of which would have eventually learned how to be competitive.

Though, if you think bottom feeding is something only untagged countries have dealt with, then you have a very short memory when it comes to the history of this game.


I don't think I'm naive, I'm sure I'm not innocent and I'm not known for lying. As for biased? Hell yes. I'm biased by experience. I'm biased by the fact that I've spent 10 years in alliances that had no influence within this game, yet are now being blamed for all that's wrong as if they've had the power to define everything about this game by divine edict.

Unfortunately for you, biased people can be right. I've given my position, and I will defend it. If you disagree, find fault with the arguments. The bias of the person making them has no impact on their validity... even if he is clearly (as you so petulantly began your post by pointing out) the "guy with no clue".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

You dont think IX put those in to find themselves war? Protecting land is something even a warring clan should desire anyways. IX was never a top tier netting clan so dont compare anyone but "golden" age MD to a netter who could have dominated politics.

IX dosnt fall into the category of blindsides or hit for little reason repeatedly? Do you forget about arrow so soon? A netting alliance is an alliance that nets more than it wars and does a good job at it. None of arrow sol sof ix rage are in that category.

And those players join netting alliances just as often foog. Those players that formed imag etc are ones who like to kill stuff and did not wish to be in the big pushy alliances. It is not bottomfeeding that created clans like imag.

And if there wasn't bottom feeding you would not have more netting clans. You would have more war clans as people would grab eachother and end up warring. Thats quite simple.

You can claim imag has no influence in this game, as I am pretty sure you play there, but their 30-40 someodd members are more then enough nowadays to be a significant manpower force even if you dont play politically much. But I guess you would rather it seem that every issue in the game is the netting clans fault... right.. it is their fault they get hit for little to no reason repeatedly....alright.

Oh and if imag only exists because of netters I believe you should start paying tribute to us in the form of FA etc. Perhaps land donations?







Oh and anubis I am speaking of the policy where if a clan hits sol 2 times on seperate countries or some such it is escalating retals the same as if 1 country did the hits on one guy. I believe that is essentially what I last read.

You may describe IX's actions in any way you see fit. They are not an alliance that participated in the style of play that's being complained about here. Nit-pick around the edges all you like.


It's true that a lot of people who got bottom fed ended up joining big alliances. But I think you're wrong in suggesting that bottom feeding didn't directly lead to a lot of the recruits that iMagNum and similar alliances had available. It's certainly what got me there.

In early 2000, when I left UCN, I wanted to spend some time in a small alliance where I could learn some of the netting strategies I hadn't touched before. I tried a few places, but they all had one of two issues. Either they were farmed to death and there was no way of knowing if a strategy was competitive or not... or they were so concerned with ANW that they wouldn't let me learn how the game worked myself.

I wasn't inherently attracted to the war aspect of the game. I really didn't enjoy the SoL v. UCN war at the end of 2000. But bottom feeding kept me from actually being able to play the game and experiment while trying to be competitive. So, I ended up in iMagNum where I could compete all I wanted despite bottom feeding.

I certainly became fanatical about war... up until about 2004 or so. I definitely enjoy it now... but it's definitively bottom feeding that took me personally along this path. It just so happens that the day I joined iMagNum was also the first day that it existed. I know that I wasn't the only person attracted there because of bottom feeding. And in the 10 years I've known Beltz since then, I've become good friends with him and know for a fact that bottom feeding was at least one of the reasons he chose to make an alliance dedicated to war without reason.

Mostly the "love of war" is something we instill in the people who join iMagNum. It's not something they come with. They join for other reasons. In my experience, being tired of getting bottom fed was a common one for many years. Therefore, I don't think that I'm far off the mark in suggesting that clans like iMagNum would not exist if not for bottom feeding.


You may have more wars... but not more war clans. Instead, you'd have netting clans who would go to war to defend their right to netgain the next reset. "If they keep hitting us like this, it will ruin our netting reset. Instead, let's FS them and go to war so they know not to do this next reset". But that's a war with a reason... which I don't think anyone would claim is bad for the game.

You're right. We do -- *now*. My point is, though, that we can't be blamed for the mass exodus of players from this game because our influence inside this game didn't exist until after they'd already left. Several of the earlier posts in this thread seemed intent on blaming us (random war alliances, not just iMagNum) for the departure of players.

The decline of the game is the fault of those who had power, in so far as it was anyone's fault at all. Until very recently, those "who had power" did not include the "random war alliances" that several posters in this thread seemed intent to blame.

However, you're right in saying that "it is [not] their fault they get hit for little to no reason repeatedly...." -- Of course, I'd be equally correct in saying "it is [an untagged players'] fault they get [LGed] for little to no reason repeatedly...." I happen to think that the latter senseless attacks have lost us far more players than the former. Neither of us has real numbers though, so feel free to disagree.


We paid our dues in land. It was called 2003-2006 when we were bottom fed constantly in reset after reset. It stopped us from building strong countries, and getting into fair wars like we wanted to. Made it so we couldn't play how we wanted to... sort of like what we do to netting alliances now.

Of course, iMagNum switches targets every now and then and lets most alliances get through a reset the way they want. No one ever showed that courtesy to us.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'm tired so i only read the first sentence. And yes IX was accused of doing exactly this. AGAIN I will point out what they did to arrow. That lost the game one of the biggest clans in the game. Anyways back to half asleep studying.

I'd like to point out that the arrival of new players would probably bring a lot more "random war" clans into the picture than we've seen before. This would most likely come from two sources: those that get farmed because they aren't well-versed in clan politics (and don't know that these forums are pretty important in that regard) and decide to band together to go apefluff on their attackers, effectively or not; and those that don't consider this game as a second home and therefore don't care too much about what they do in it, at which point the idea of starting trouble "because we're bored" becomes a lot more appealing--after all, such a player wouldn't care what becomes of his country if he's only playing on a whim. I expect a lot more trouble from the latter kind of player, because if new players are warned beforehand that clan servers are more than difficult for most untaggeds, they won't venture in here until they've found a clan that's willing to protect them (or at least try to), whereas troublemakers simply won't care.

Of course, that leads to a question: are troublemakers necessarily "bad"? I admit, I'd get pissed if my set were to end with random nukes coming in my direction, but I have to admit, it adds to the game's appeal in that it makes a successful set that much better--at least for me.

Obviously, though, this thread is about keeping current players happy. That all depends on the nature of the new influx. If we get a lot of troublemakers, current players are either going to adjust or quit, and they--we--won't much care for it. Hopefully we'll get enough serious players (or players that we can make more serious than they initially are) to make up for the other kind.

that love of war is what made me.......

and even though not many people in 1a know about my exploits in this server(cause i never posted or said a words about them) my exploits are well known in FFA

so much so that the worse this server used to come to me and ask for help to make a point in FFA....

and why was that.... cause FFA had the same issues,big clans kicking the small ones because they could......

if you kick back they loose the want to annoy you.... and to that point i ahev only had 2 allainces in 1a i have played with in 10 years playing.....

for all its faults imag has kicked the norm in this server and that is because we do as we please, are we the best or make the best choices.... No..... but we play how we want....

Fooglmog that might have been the reason Imag started, but Imag doesn't war anyone because they are currently being bottom fed upon. Since Imag isn't being bottom fed anymore it has lost it's reasons to war yet they still war every set.

Imag exists for warring. i doubt you will ever see a set when we will NOT war :) Yes, the reasons aren't there anymore but we are as we were formed and we will always be this way.

Riiiight, I remember some of that. Near the end of 2005, you started farming Evolution during our war with SoF, then FSed Evo right after our war with Rage a couple sets later for no apparent reason. Cue the next year or so of Evo destroying Imagnum over and over again until we moved to EC, which was at the end of 2007.

Successful netting alliances must walk a fine line between fighting too much and appearing to be weak. Some netting alliances have been more successful at this than others. I think we (in the Omega) do a pretty good job of backing our netting sets with a war set here and there to show that we will be more than others bargained for if they decide to hit us or think about it. In Omega it's our goal to get along as well as possible with everyone else.

When it comes to wars, the fighting alliances need to fight each other at least every few sets. Leave the netting alliances completely out of the equation and the netting alliances will then wage their own kind of warfare against one another. The competition for ANW/TNW can be every bit as fierce as a war.

or even netter vs netter wars; evo's had our fair share of them; vs LaF, vs LCN, and erm maybe that's all but there could be more that i don't remembers

Other than LaF, which is a special case unto themselves due to the political web that they have woven over the years, no netting clan has ever exerted the kind of political influence on the game that Sol, Sof, IX, MD, UCN, Rage etc. were able to. Of those - only MD and to a lesser extent UCN were able to put together what I would call genuine netting efforts. Most of what I think of as pure netters (DBD, DU, Cult, Ska etc.) were only able to survive by staying below the radar of the war-tags. The real enigma is that clans like TIE and Omega that were able to be relatively successful at both netting and war. The landscape is littered with what I call social tags (ICN, MKR, NEO, Exodus, Clowns, RAG and many others) that were never especially good at eaither nor did they seem all that concerned with it.

The sum? A tags success is much more directed by the community it is able to sustain and the ammount of energy that its leaders are willing to expend. Short term success or failure at netting or war are not that influencial in a clans survival if it is well led and well organized. The concept of 'winning' is pretty damned ambiguous, typically being defined by whoever wants to claim it. Does survival and having a good time count as winning? If so, then LCN, Omega, and iMag are certainly every bit as successful as UCN, MD, IX and Arrow.

What impact does this have on 'The Game'? Who knows. The question depends on perspective: are lots of smaller socially enjoyable, politically quiet, well led alliances that lack drama good for the game? History says no - the games peak coincided with periods of dominance by very large warring alliances led by charasmatic personalities who kept the game in a constant state of chaos with their political manipulation and drama. Were Samoan, Helmet, Fingolfin, etc. products of a 10+K player base - or did they contribute to it.

Hopefully I have been able to not answer any of the questions posed by the OP. ;p

RED! :) no real political influence =(
Omega has been good historically at warring for sure


archaic: I like your points there, but I think an aside that should be added was that during the "Samoan, Helmet, Fingolfin" era many of the netting alliances could choose to get involved or not; they were not necessarily involved by default. The warring alliances were the cornerstones of their powerblocks.

absolutely - that is kind of part of the point, the netting alliances were never really big factors in the server dynamics.

I cannot see RAGE leadership on the eve of one of their legendary 10k hit FS sitting chat saying "this is never gonna fly if we cannot get the Cult on board".

if most of server is at war its good for netters and newbies since then they don't get attacked that much (assuming netters don't farm newbies to ground).

Foog: It wasn't meant as a personal attack on Imag, it just happens that Imag is one of those clans. My view is also not set in stone, just contributing to a discussion, you raised quite a few good points that I enjoyed reading.

I usually agree with fooglmog on most things, but I really disagree with him on this one.

Server politics have definitely been dominated by fighters. Likely this is the case beause fighters have a larger need for politics (shoring up allies, figuring out who is on the other side, trying to isolate enemies etc.) netters inherently require less cooperation with other alliances, because netting for the most part can be done in isolation.

Pandora's box, my friend. Once you've created an environment where players will coalesce with the purpose of bringing random war -- you can't go back. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who have to lie in the bed that they themselves made.


I didn't take it as an attack of iMagNum specifically. I know that you were speaking in general terms... but refutations have to deal with specifics. It just so happens that iMagNum is clearly within the criteria you describe, and is an alliance where I understand the specifics.

I just don't think you can assign blame to a specific sub-set of warring alliances when those alliances only formed as a direct result of the policies of those who were more powerful. This is especially true when you consider the fact that whatever damage was caused to this game by that sub-set of alliances is a tiny fraction of the damage caused directly by the same policies that caused them to coalesce.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Yes Foog, sol, sof, imag etc have all formed due to bottom feeding. Blame netters for creating two of the longest living alliances in the game and your idiocy in imag. Blame them for everything that happens. Go back to your tea party hole and blame Obama for the americans not having invented fire or something.

Locket, you're putting words in my mouth. That is not the argument I made. You already made a post which misinterpreted what I said once, and I took the time to correct you. I will not do so again on the same subject. If you actually want to discuss this subject, re-read what has been written and address the arguments as they were made -- rather than as you imagined them to be.

Please, also refrain from personal insults. I am perfectly happy to discuss ideas with you... and perfectly happy for you to point out any holes that you see in my arguments. However, I have been nothing but courteous to you (despite your repeated insults) and would appreciate it if you held yourself to a similar level of decorum.

As for the tea party reference. I'm sorry if it angers you when people disagree with you. I'm equally sorry for you that you're so angered by politics that you assume anyone who disagrees with you must be affiliated with a specific political movement. The truth is that you have no knowledge of my political affiliation or alignment (or, apparently, nationality) and that, even if you did, it would have no bearing what so ever on the matter at hand in this thread.

Just relax mate. Requiem specifically asked for opinions when he created this thread. If you can't hear other people's opinions without getting angry and attacking them, maybe threads provoking reasoned discourse aren't for you and you ought to move on.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I refrain from intelligent arguments since clearly you are so brainwashed you wouldn't understand them anyways. You would ignore peoples opinions and blame everything on every netting clan ever made...including apparently IX? You're crazy

you guys should both calm down a little -- maybe spend a little time away from the thread to cool down? :p

I'm good Pang. Nothing he's said has particularly upset me, I just happen to think this is a worthwhile discussion... but encourage everyone participating to discuss the issues.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

My two min take on the matter without really delving into the historical perspective as some have.

Netters tend to contain the players who most farm untags. Thus they are bad for the new players who don't quite know what is going on. Typical rebuttal: this is an alliance server, "untags have no rights"

The warring alliances want to war, usually doesn't even matter whom. When they decide to blind side netting alliances, the most likely player to lose interest in the game is the more veteran netting type, maybe they are knowledgeable about warring, but are too busy in RL for organized kill runs or to be online when under attack. Typical rebuttal: if netters want the right to net in peace, they have to be willing to secure it with blood, etc etc.

I've myself never played in a clan that has had over ~60 members. I haven't in recent times see imag really do anything to these big bad alliances proactively You're mainly just hurting alliances who are smaller than you.

Before I came here I think you had a Laf war or something. Atleast without knowing details I might be able to say it was according to imag spirit.

First set back can't remember what imag did.

Second set I was back imag FSed Fist and Rage, both ~15members. Imag was 30. Sure rage has a history of being a big bad alliance in the past but Fist? I can't atlest remember anything like that when I used to play there.

Then one of your players pissed of LCN and LCN smacked you for end of this and next set. This was caused by one of your members who was a KR target by fist to grab Neo and LCN for ~3-4k acres. LCN didn't like it and you said too bad. LCN killed you this and next set. You we're just as mean to Neo but neo couldn't do anything about it.

Last set you FSed ICN again a midsize alliance. Then forced to war when collab FSed you.

Bottomfeeding vs smaller clans hasn't gone anywhere. I mean laf has been the biggest offender by far. Then coming Sof/Evo far behind (quick glance at Elysium hits). In my opinion Imag could be a good counter force against Alliances having 5-15 big theos/commies farming small clans. If they took a stance that they hit alliances that do such things the game. In my opinion Imag could then be a positive force. Yet Imag has probably pacted all the 3 alliances above.

Maybe the warclans should become intrested in protecting small clans? That will bring atleast at the moment an endless supply of "just" wars for them.

The people who play the game don't really play it for the game itself but for their friends in the game. As a certain alliance stops playing the members of the said alliance decide that they have no reason to play the game anymore and leave probably forever. When something gets an alliance to stop playing it shrinks the memberbase. Imag current tactics of randomly fsing small alliances it can chew increases this. Imag defending these small alliances and giving them power to fight against the bigger alliances in my opinion helps keep them in the game. Ofcourse there is the flip side of the coin when biggish alliances don't get their way and their members quit, but I don't personally have any experience in that so can't comment.

I've heard of clans merging with others to form specialized divisions within a larger umbrella, though I personally have never experienced that. In this case, it sounds like you advocate the opposite approach, with a warring clan (let's take iMag as an example, as it's readily available) gathering a bunch of smaller clans under its umbrella so that they can net while iMag acts as the retal/killer division.

The problem with this theory, I would think, is that iMag can't protect everyone. With the smaller clans/untaggeds being farmed by all netting clans, iMag--a single clan developed for a completely different purpose--wouldn't be able to fend off ten clans at once. It would be a wasted effort, and in the end might hurt iMag membership when members decide they've had enough of this "protection" idea and move somewhere else.

The difference between a warring clan and a protection umbrella is that the war clan looks to fight a limited number of enemies and leave the rest of the server alone, while the umbrella has to look out for threats throughout the server simultaneously. A war clan is simply not built to do that job.

I personally do not play, nor have I played, in a war clan, so I could be inaccurate on a few points here. Please correct me if that's the case.

You're right to an extent gwagers... though toma's suggestion isn't terrible. iMagNum has, several times in its history, chosen to adopt smaller alliances and help them grow. At times this has been moderately successful, but we always faced several problems.

The first problem was that iMagNum, right now, is at the pinnacle of its influence within the game. We've never been a huge power house, and so protecting other clans from the major alliances who were power houses has never really been feasible. Even today, it would be a stretch for us.

The second significant issue was that we still want to war. If we go to war to protect someone, that's all well and good -- but then we can no longer provide protection from any other alliance. Thus the service we could provide was limited.

The third challenge was just as you said. It's difficult to retain an interest within our membership for continuously looking out for the interests of others.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.