Vulpes' claim of ambiguity holds water. I have agreed and do that defectors are not entirely covered under the treaty. With that said, Vulpes I would ask that you agree or at least consider the fact that the proof here shows intent to acquire information that does fall under the treaty. What this means is you sought information from someone who offered it that should not have. I think we can all agree that things would be better off if ex faction members didn't spread information like this, and the treaty is seeking an end to this sort of behavior. If you really do want to make the claims that what you did or were doing were justified, I would ask that you admit to the fault that is here. Was any information Alex could have offered worth it? I have to say that this argument of saying the treaty is not specific enough should have spurred further questioning sooner than it allowed acting this way. Think of it like this, the law says you're not allowed to step on someone's private property, but it doesn't say you can't fly a drone over it. You're still breaching their privacy by using the drone, and the point of the private property was to keep privacy sacred. If you didn't know for sure that this would be acceptable, you should have asked.