indeed,as long the conquest is recorded in stat sites(grepostats for example) any city that changed hands is a conquest,the attacker/conqueror isnt responsible for the inactivity;-)I beg to differ. Inactive players are still the responsibility of the alliance. If they are inactive, you should have kicked them. TE conquered 3 cities that were identified as being part of your alliance. The conquests may have been unfair or uncontested but that doesnt change the fact that a conquest is still a conquest and the fact that TE conquered 3 of your alliances' cities.