The Dangers Of The “No Loopholes” Term

One of the most commonly used terms, often included in both war declarations and peace treaties, is also among the most ambiguous. No loopholes. Fuelled by the leaders’ insecurity, indolence, or simply meticulousness, the term may turn out to be a double-edged sword for your army and the whole community.

Ever since the creation of Club Penguin Armies, the community rarely witnesses a war without claims about the terms being breached. Some even go as far as suggesting that armies put more effort into proving their enemy is breaking the rules than actually fighting. We often hear the “warfare is dying” statement as well. While some terms, like the prohibition of multilogging or bringing allies to battles, are easy to comprehend, others, like the “no loopholes” rule, are very ambiguous and pose a challenge to interpretation. As a result, the requests for the admins to interfere in the war became a cynically overused tool.

What is a loophole?

Not only the interpretation of the term can be a challenge, but even the definition of the loophole itself. The leaders often describe a loophole as something that is not in the set of rules. According to the Cambridge Dictionary:

This interpretation seems to be the easiest to exploit. Does anything that a leader omitted in the war declaration become illegal? Definitely not. If the involvement of allies was not mentioned, it doesn’t mean they are forbidden to help. Earlier this year, we saw Special Weapons and Tactics invade more freeland to avoid losing the war. Does it make it a loophole only because the rules or the war declaration doesn’t mention it? Most probably we could find different opinions in the community. Another example from the recent war – should invading your allies be prohibited, or is it just a war tactic? Even some people who led the community for years couldn’t make a clear stand. During World War IX, it was also suggested that an intention defines a loophole, but proving the intentions behind any action will always be difficult.

corruption and bias

The No Loopholes Term’s ambiguity makes it vulnerable to exploits. The frequent requests for the admins to decide whether this specific rule was broken, create an ever-growing space for them to act on their personal liking. The bias may be conscious or unconscious. However, it would still be a lesser evil than corruption. Corruption often takes place when the people in charge believe no one will hold them accountable. Unfortunately, if both sides of the conflict have valid arguments, misconduct cannot be proven easily.

The necessity to often take the most important decisions, instead of the armies resolving their issues on the battlefield, allows the league’s administration to shape the political scene as they please if that is their wish. On the other hand, even if no corruption or bias takes place, the ambiguity makes it easy to issue such accusations. A war ending thanks to the No Loopholes Term often leaves a bad taste, no matter the winner.

Art of War Decline

Modern warfare suffers from numerous regulations. While complaining about dying art of war, some leaders set terms intended to kill their competition even before it starts. It is hard to tell whether the insecurities or the laziness are to blame. However, as a result, the wars are basically just a number of practice battles. Any clever move attempted by either side of the conflict is labeled a loophole. In such an environment, it becomes impossible for truly gifted leaders to rise, or to train new capable ones. This, in my opinion, is one of the main reasons why the community perceives most wars as boring. We drag everyone else down due to fear of defeat or an exhausting conflict. Is it surprising that some armies view war as more of a chore, and the costume events become a much more appealing option?

Double-edged Sword

Another issue is leaders lazily copying others’ war terms. A practice that may result in having to follow a set of rules that doesn’t align with the army’s needs. If you interpret People’s Imperial Confederation invading Templars during WW IX as a loophole and believe it should cost them the victory, PIC would essentially become victims of their own terms. The modern art of war means being as meticulous as possible, leaving no room for the opponent to be smarter. Unfortunately, that also affects the declaring army. If you don’t want to plan the war, don’t start a conflict hoping that the “no loopholes” term will save you.


What the community needs right now is not people who spend their days in the league’s main chat, complaining about how armies are dying or how everything was better in the past. For better or for worse, the scene evolves, and we need to adapt to it but do so appropriately. Longing for the war spirit to come back while clinging to what is safe and comfortable is a contradiction in itself. We cannot expect positive change if we fall into detrimental habits that give us the illusion of control and stability. The prevailing mindset often rewards mediocrity and blocks leaders from achieving their true potential.

The issue of the No Loopholes Term extends beyond its harmful effects alone, as it disrupts warfare itself. A significant number of wars these days find their end in a rules breach rather than on the battlefield. Some leaders go as far as putting more effort into coming up with new accusations against their opponents rather than fighting fairly. Interestingly, it’s not uncommon for leaders to recognize their opponents’ intelligence once the war has ended, despite previously criticizing their ideas as cheating. If our community continues down this path, we risk losing the very elements that make our army experiences enjoyable.

More Information

Filed under: Editorials & Opinion | Tagged: , , , ,

Mchappy is interning at Club Penguin Armies as the Chief Executive Producer. Max held him at gunpoint to finish his biography.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We'll never share your email with anyone else.