Now with KillerPoodle's post for the general public, I will state my opinion on the matter as well.  No doubt many will feel that I have been corrupted, but I can accept being rejected by the community if it comes to it.

When these attacks began (the RHY/ABSA ordeal – for which I knew nothing about until it hit the forum), I was shocked that ABSA had jumped in as quickly and recklessly as they had.  I even made mention of this in my early posts.  I was asked by my leadership to refrain from posting on this topic.  They have only asked this of me once before, and I respect their requests of me as much as they respect my opinions and insights.  When war was declared, I became a pariah among many.  Messages came to my inbox asking what I was still doing in Harmless.  Please understand, these were all meant with the best of intentions, and I respect the players who were truly concerned with my future in this game were I to continue in this alliance.  

For this short moment, I would like to provide some background information regarding myself and Harmless.  When Lorre left {P A}, as well as Corwin, Artorious, Artacia, and every other remnant of old {P A}, I was completely crushed.  I once told Lorre that if I ever did leave, I would probably go join Harmless.  Was it because they were #1?  No.  Whenever I was having troubles in the game, needed advice, simply wanted someone to talk to, or was being harassed by others – Harmless was there.  They were strategic, well organized, and a very mature group of players.  Sadly, these qualities were lacking in the alliance I was in.  If I had it to do all over again, I would not have chosen differently.

Now recently I have been left to question where I stand in regards to this RHY/ABSA ordeal.  Apparently I am guilty by association.  And yes, the actions of the alliance began to devastate me.  How could we be reinforcing RHY’s sieges that were made on members of ABSA who had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict.  I was reading the forums and searching for answers.  I responded to the messages I had received and asked players not to judge me for the actions of my alliance, and I told my alliance that I could not in good conscious send any troops for this cause in addition to making known my opinions/objections.  Where do my loyalties lie?  Do I sacrifice my morals or my alliance?

Furthermore, I kept reading through the forums and I became disgusted by the malicious words that were being said.  Most of which were coming from my own alliance!  How is it that we feel the need to stoop so low as to turn the name of a Confederation into a mockery of soupiness.  Though this started as a simple joke, for me it has gone too far.

And lastly, there has been talk in the forums about conspiracies and hidden agendas.  As KillerPoodle stated in the forums, “We don't attack random folk just because they happen to be in an alliance we are having a disagreement with.”  I was partially aware of what was going on, and I asked my leadership to simply come clean about all this rather than let people speculate.

With all this compounding, I was prepared to part ways with Harmless.  I asked the people who had contacted me to be patient because I was contacting my leadership regarding how I felt.  And I am glad I did.  Almost immediately the name calling ceased.  Additionally, I have had time to breath and look at things for what they are.  Although some in my alliance might have simply kicked me for even hinting at leaving them, Harmless took the time and effort to write this post (http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-full-story_topic4334.html) for the public.  I respect and admire them for taking this step.

------------------------------

Now I am going to openly state how I feel and where I stand on all this.

First, it is exceedingly tragic that RHY targeted players who weren’t even involved in the dispute.  But what is even more tragic is when you stop to think that this could have all been prevented.  No, I am not going to go into who is right and who is wrong on the whole “rare mine” dispute, but when alliances are in the stage of diplomacy...pull your heads out of your @&$ and be diplomatic.  The leadership of ABSA had their chance and blew it.  RHY had opened up communication and made know what they felt was appropriate for the unmerited attack.  Why then would you ignore this as if you thought they would back down once the deadline hit?  I had a similar dispute once, and when the deadline hit I sent out my siege (this siege story was made public on the closed Consone thread, and I will be referencing it again).  So in all reality, this is a very tragic event in that the leadership of ABSA caused their own players to lose cities.  The only wrong step those players made was that they trusted their leaders to actually do their job.  For those players who lost cities from this, I am truly sorry.  

Secondly, I am frustrated with my alliance’s choice to aide in the destruction of those cities, but I am even more frustrated with the actions of the Consone alliance which has brought this about.  I want to be abundantly clear here because I truly went to great lengths to expose such problems which I felt Consone might potentially be facing.  I will compile (without the colors) some of those comments I made:

SunStorm wrote: “There is great potential as long as this Confederation draws a line as far as military involvement is concerned.” “If you go down that path of using military action where you have no business and are lacking all the facts, then your Confederation will have failed at their goal.”  “If any military action is made by this Confederation, there will be repercussions beyond what anyone can imagine.” “I wouldn't expect these 11+ alliances to have laid out plans for how to deal with every situation, but I was hoping that some of these scenarios and examples would press this Confederation to address real issued before they ever arise.” “Your intentions may be good, but are you ready for the backlash of evil that will arise once you all band together on a matter?”

Those were all direct quotes from my posts (pages 9-13 on the closed Consone thread).  I asked (and even referenced to the fact that I had asked) more than 10 times for Consone to officially speak regarding their plans for military involvement.  I laid out some key points that I felt were crucial to Consone’s future and well-being.  Those three major ones being:

SunStorm wrote: Alliances/players will continue to function and work out their own problems among the other alliances/players - Consone will not be stepping in to meddle or dictate how others should play. Consone will strive to defensively (not aggressively) help the weaker alliances and players when they are clearly and blatantly being oppressed by others. Actions made rashly by individuals and alliances within the Consone Confederation will be handled on a case-to-case basis and Consone will remain entirely neutral if the individual or alliance is found to be at fault.  (That is, they will not continue to aid and defend someone that is guilty of war crimes.)

Now I can spin this all day saying: “This mine dispute did not involve ABSA and that they stepped in to meddle in the on-going issue between RHY and SkB – ABSA was not the being blatently oppressed by RHY – those actions made by ABSA were rash and Consone did not remain neutral concerning this alliance.”  I could call you all out on the hypocrisy here; but then again, Consone never officially confirmed these points which I had been asking clarification on.

This is where my frustration stems from.  I saw the good in this confederation.  I took the time to point that out in my posts.  I even endured public ridicule for pressing you so hard on those issues which I saw as potential problems.  I have never once used your Confederations name as a mockery.  I truly hoped it would work out for you...but I also saw how horribly this would turn out once there was a challenge presented.  For ABSA (an alliance in Consone that is not involved in the dispute over a mine) to launch an attack while the two alliances that are directly involved (RHY and SkB) are close to sorting the whole mess out was a bad move.  Their refusal to use proper diplomatic channels caused those sieges to be sent – this cannot be denied.  Now Consone responds in a predictable way and attacks those sieges.  I am sure I would have done the same, but it only served to escalate the matter.  Had no other alliances gotten involved, this would have been between RHY and ABSA (The two alliances who should be rightfully fighting it out even now). 

I will once again post the warning I made throughout the Consone thread regarding the town I sieged:

SunStorm wrote: “There are varying reasons why this would fail as a military confederation.  Mainly, there is never any "Just War."  Both sides always argue that they are fighting for the right cause.  My reasons for attacking someone may not look "just" in another's eyes, but I would not be attacking unless I felt justified.” “What if someone was under siege and you felt like they needed help? . . . I once laid siege to a player who attacked one of my siege camps on another inactive and unaffiliated player.  (FYI, I was still in {P A} at the time.)  I gave him 3 days to respond and reimburse my losses . . . The player sent me a rather rude and disrespectful reply.  I stuck to my word and waited three days...then sent out a siege to his city. . . . Had someone attacked my siege on him - oh, I would have been very upset.” “Again, If my siege had been attacked because someone felt the need to meddle and police against injustices (Yes, I was a larger player sieging a smaller), then I would have been furious.”  “I have not seen Consone police anyone.  I was not stating that I had.  I am simply speculating that if it begins it will end badly.  I am trying to look down the road when a major issue does arise (as it inevitably will).”

This has now become a reality.  Actions have been taken where they were not needed and this whole ordeal has spiraled out of control.  Consone has failed in what they had hoped would be a glorious reign of peace; and no, I take no joy or pleasure in this.  I only wanted the best for you, but I will not side with you on this one – especially after my urging you to clarify your military stance and pressing you to look towards possible (unfavorable) outcomes.  All of this could have been avoided.  (~_~)

Although it seems like I am solely speaking to Jasche, this is not the case.  One man cannot govern and speak for so many (although he is the person to speak “officially” for Consone).  I have appreciated every post he has made because I find them to be well thought out and eloquently written.  I have a great respect for him in taking on the public responsibility of addressing issues relating to Consone.  I want to be completely clear on this, it is a HUGE burden for anyone to lead even ONE alliance...let alone 11+.  I cannot even fathom how stressful this must be.  For that alone, you have my deepest admiration and respect.  No, Consone surely has a counsel in which these issues could have been discussed and considered.  It would have behooved Consone to discuss the possibility of an all-out war prior to its onset.  In that sense, this might have been stopped had Consone furnished a policy in which diplomatic channels would always precede attacking a 3rd party who is in negotiations with someone else.  

So where does this leave me?  I have no desire to leave the alliance I love.  I will stay in Harmless until they decide they are tired of looking at me.  I appreciate all the concern players have shown over my choice – whether I would seek out another alliance or not.  My resolve is strong and I am willing to take whatever attacks or blights players have in store for me; however, I will not involve myself in this dispute.  Since this whole thing could have been prevented by not attacking, I also chose not to attack.  This goes for magic and diplomacy as well.  Feel free to check my stats and see whether or not they alter during this war.  

With that said, I will attack sieges if they are made on members of my alliance and I am close enough to do so.  If I am outright attacked, I will add the attacker’s name to my alliance’s list of possible targets.  I may even launch a siege of my own in response.  I will defend myself, and I will hold my ground.

I wish everyone the best.

I don't even know where to begin. I think you have covered everything very well. You have always been someone I have looked up to, even now.

I have been asking everyone why all the hard feelings against H? when in almost every post you can substitute the words Harmless for Consone and Rhy for Absa and still get a post that makes sense.

I do think H? has been a little harsh in some of their comments lately, and I would like to see them take their more familiar method of poking holes in the understanding of the uninformed rather than taking pot shots at people. That said, I think that Harmless? and Consone have been very symmetrical in this. It would be difficult to find something you could say about Consone that didn't easily apply to Harmless?, and it would be just as difficult to find something you could say about Harmless that didn't apply to Consone.

I recently held a chat with Rill about this very topic, though I don't think I made myself very clear It seems this might be a better approach then the methods I took.

The only thing I can say for certain given the information I have is that Consone has been better behaved on the forums that I can see, however, every level of escalation of this event was first taken by them as well. Some might say actions speak louder than words, and if this is the case the actions of Consone and H?  should be judged as such.

I am digressing, I wish to thank you for a wonderful post and I hope that noone will visit your cities that shouldn't. I support your view of events and believe it to be honorable.

Excellent post. It, H?'s actions mentioned in resolving your concerns, and you are a great credit to Harmless. Thank you for the well thought out and balanced post.

~Vanerin

~Vanerin

Edit: silly grammer stuffs

It's only a game and when people are pissed off they have all chances to quit it, unlike real life where you can't do anything like that. Never did I speak of metrics... the only nonsensical thing I can read in this post is your opinion (presented as a matter of fact) about Illyriad not being only a game.

Its a game, but the TIME we put in is not, a "game" if you spend time in it is a part of your life, and your life is real, so your game life is real.

H? I hope for a good war, show us some action!

This summary doesn't include SkB's perspective on the "negotiations".  Is that fair?

The bigger point is:

What I hear you saying is that if any confederate of any member of Consone feels that negotiations are not working out and calls on said member of Consone for help that Consone member should try to restart negotiations per Consone rules (laws?).  Also, Consone should do likewise before assisting a Consone member from attacks.  Is that true and fair?  You also believe that before H? attacked Absa and Consone, it too should have tried to restart negotiations.  Is that also correct?  Do you think H? attacked Absa when the active members attacked or when members left to join RHY to attack Absa?  Are those members welcome back into H?

http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/History/1179" rel="nofollow - http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/History/1179

I think Absa did mess this up.  I think Consone messed up and I think H? has messed up.  I think Neytiri messed up and Messer and Hugie but so too did Dave888 and lots of members of RHY.  I think SkB messed up.  I know I've said lot's of things that I think are a mess and I'll probably be attacked at some point because of them (I'm on that list, right).  Russian Blue messed up too, she trusted the wrong people, so too did Zebazga, Skim Milk, Snapdragon, Calisi.  It's a leap to justify an action because the target isn't flawless.

An alliance or confederation is only as good and just as it's members.  If an alliance or confederation has secret members or members that can leave and do as they like and return, what is the point of alliance rules?

We can talk about rules, but does H? have rules.  I was curious after all your posts and I looked for them.  How many people reading your posts have read the Diplomacy section of H?s alliance page?  It has things that may be rules, but nothing they would go on record stating is actually a rule.  If something stated actually is a rule, the document goes on to state there may or may not be a repercussion for that rule.  Furthermore, those repercussion are at the discretion of H?  #1 alliance, no rules.  That's a precedent.  According to the posts you've made, not a good one.  Essentially, no promises given, no quarter asked, no quarter received.  That would be easier to write.

You state your frustration because you see the good in Consone.  What is that good?  Is there good in H?  Do you feel as KP does that Consone is composed of anti-H players?  Is it most members in Consone or just a core.  Will you please tell the poor manipulated masses in Consone who those players are and if they are in Absa?

Speaking of KP, I read his post in response to your praise.  I read 9 paragraphs vaguely discussing the history of Illy and the genesis of the current situation is summed up with "they acted like ass holes".  Superficially, it seems insightful, but then I thought about what it said and it wasn't really insightful.  Why is it that H? members will not examine the details of the genesis of the current conflict?

RHY was negotiating (if you don't shed more light on the meaning and context of this word in this part of the conflict then this isn't really meant to be a fair discussion) and Messer sent troops, and told RHY troops were coming (is this agreed on), RHY left the troops there because Messer had no right to do that.  It all went from there because Absa wouldn't negotiate.  It seems to be a big deal that Messer wasn't in SkB.  It seems to be a big deal that Messer and the big guys in Consone did not transfer to SkB like Phym did before sending troops.  Is that Absa and Consone's biggest mistake?

As a newish player, I think HM's post contained some interesting points.

Do H? members not know who their own secret allies are?  I thought the allies were just supposed to be secret to outsiders?  Some kinda...double-secret allies?  This seems like one potential downside to non-public relationships.

HonoredMule wrote: The position you're taking is one that finds fault with the blasting cap in this explosion while ignoring all the actual payload.

I'm not sure this analogy did you much service.  I guess you must be talking about some sort of payload that is inherently unstable, and the blasting cap is only necessary for a more reliable detonation?  I don't really know anything about explosives, but I just watched the episode of Mythbusters where they tried/failed to detonate C4 using everything but a blasting cap.  

Isn't it kind of like saying it's the guns fault if you shoot someone?  I mean, I guess technically you couldn't "shoot" someone (with a gun) if you didn't have a gun.  But likewise, guns don't usually go around shooting people themselves.

HonoredMule wrote: Maybe you need to review who we are as an alliance.  Keeping the powder wet is simply not our priority.  Quite the opposite, burning it off before it's too big to contain is.

Can I quote you on this?  I mean, again?  Some other time(s)/place(s)?  I hear from other people's forum signatures that you're quite quotable, and I found this excerpt particularly illuminating.

Although i agree with some of your points regarding the absa and rhy situation and see that you have taken your own quotes from the Consone thread, i do feel that it was wrong of you to voice your opinions and views against your own alliance.  

At the end of they day, they were your fellow team mates and your allegiance should of been with them first and foremost regardless of how much you wanted to speak your mind.

Anyway, all the best with your new endeavours 

 

Billy Shakespeare

"be true to the ones that  you are joining or dont join at all"

STAR of FORSAKEN 

In general, that makes sense.  I'm sure intelligence leaks and spying are a concern in any team-based competitive game where you're allowed to have more than one presence (account, avatar, whatever) at a time.  I'm just not sure of the scenario in which keeping allegiances secret is beneficial.  I guess if you anticipate conflict, it can help mask your true military strength, and I'm sure there's an array of cloak-and-dagger type other uses.  

I just wonder if this time it worked against you (unless you were looking for a fight, as some suggest).  People might think twice about trying to take liberties with known-associates of H? -- or maybe Consone doesn't care and would take liberties anyway.  I don't think anyone not involved in H?/Consone has a very solid idea about the number of preceding  incidents people had regarding inflexible Consone diplomacy.  A dozen?  A hundred?  Is it the same people over and over, or a significant number of seemingly random people?

Just to be sure I'm following the chain of logic here:

* In this thread, we've concluded that this isn't "just a game" (cos of the blood, sweat, time, tears, and money put into building your cities)

* We know (not from this thread, but just from experience in general) that things change over time (agencies, countries, alliances in a game, etc).

* We know (now, from this thread) that H? apparently even keeps its own membership in the dark about who their secret (ubersecret?) friends are 

* We have a guy who joined an alliance thinking they were one thing...found out they were different, and is (apparently) leaving/being shown the door (not completely surprising, given that big chunks of H? membership aren't allowed even to know who their friends are, see above)

And the conclusion is that he's the bad guy?  That he shouldn't have joined up at all if he couldn't "be true to the ones he's joining? (what happens if the ones you join aren't true to YOU? -- if they change, over time, into something you don't agree with (or have some ubersecret you're not privy to, but find out later)? - just asking the question.

I'm very small, and don't have a stake in the war either way.  

One of you big guns could probably sneeze hard in my general direction and kill me, so I'm definitely not looking to pick a fight.

Just trying to understand what I view as a most "unusual" mindset.  That's all.  :)

~Scribe

Much appreciate the reply, HM...thank you.

Out of curiosity, how do you wish he would have handled it?  - He found out that the alliance wasn't what he thought it was, he voiced his dissent, and now, is leaving.

What would you have had him do in place of those things?  (Edit:  Bearing in mind that we've already established that this isn't "just a game" and that this issue, taking place in full public view, was obviously something very important to him, and therefore, also likely to unfold in full view of the public--this isn't something that was ever going to go away in a series of quiet, backroom conversations, I don't think...not based on how much is already in the public eye)

~Scribe

;)

re: diplomacy...hey...whatever you prefer! I am merely asking questions to wrap my brain around the mindset so as to better understand.

~Scribe

I'm a little unclear of how H? treats the distinction as well.  If they consider NAP the same as confed (which I really doubt), then I guess at some point in the future we should expect H? to rush to the Crows' defense (heh, imagine how mad that would make EF).

I had heard that H? is very choosy about their allies, but over the last few days 4 "new" confeds have been added to their diplomacy stats.  Were these groups always aligned with H? and one side was too embarrassed to admit it (the non-H? side, I presume, if H?'s assertions about anti-H? sentiments are correct), or are these allegiances of convenience and the confeds will be dropped once the war is over?

Hmm.  Something interesting I just noted while looking at their page.  None of their Confederations were declared by them, and very few NAPs were.  I assume this just indicates which side initiated the relationship (with the other agreeing to it).  Maybe that's just a coincidence, but if so, it's a pretty interesting one.

Yes...that is true, but we can also glean at least something from the language and the definitions behind the words chosen, can we not? (I mean...that's not going too far out on a limb, right?)

NAP = Non Aggression Pact  implies one "level" of relationship

while

"Confederation" implies quite something else (these, woven into the very fabric of the words chosen to represent them).

Sure...you could call that splitting hairs I guess, but there's some mighty important distinctions that live between those two sets of carefully chosen words, and the devil is always in the details.

Always.

That's why (strictly IMO) you guys get dinged so regularly here, and diplomatically.  

Because in the public arena, words are important.

Sure, sure...you can play as a military alliance.  You can ignore diplo, but IF you do, then it should come as no great surprise when you get dinged....kinda like you are now by in about a dozen different threads.

Believe me, I don't mention this to stir the pot or to cause trouble...as I said from the start, I only wanna better understand the mindset, cos it is very different from my own.  But I do enjoy diplomacy, and I understand the metagame.  In the above, I'm simply pointing out that TO YOU, the two (NAP vs Confed) might be no different in your mind.

But this does not hold true consistently, even within your own ranks (large groups of people kept intentionally in the dark about the true extent and nature of "friendships" as evidenced and supported by several H? posts in this very thread, for example)....so, while you personally might not find much difference between the two, I think it does not put me far out on a limb to say that your opinion is not universally held, and the space between the two explains much (but not all) of the reason you guys seem to struggle in the diplomatic arena, and it's cool.  It's understandable.

By your own admission, it's not something you care about, so it naturally follows that you wouldn't be top notch at it.  $0.02

You have a trade agreement with another, that person gets attack, you cant intervien and fight for your trade ally to protect your trade and the people you have been talking with under a very long time?

BUT and a possible reason for lack of Confed is drawing their friends into the H? empire and put them in that position.  Rather with a nap and being friends they can decide depending on whats happening they can either help or break their bonds. 

I assume they wanted to be on the irrefutably "right" side of this conflict (I mean, who wouldn't?), and that doesn't seem to be the way it's turned out (more shades of grey, at the very least).  If you go around acting shady, people will probably suspect that you're up to no good.  Also, does anyone know if there's an actual term for some sort of an inverted "fair-weather friend"?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/ rel=nofollow - http://www.urbandictionary.com wrote: ]The opposite of a fair-weather friend, a foul-weather friend only seeks you out if they have a problem, need a shoulder to cry on, a ride to town or someone to watch their dog, but otherwise they act as if they don't even know you. They're only your chum when they're glum.

That delights me on a number of levels!

KillerPoodle wrote: BlindScribe wrote: Again...I don't disagree with you, but also, I don't see why the backlash OF those actions seems to have caught you off guard.  It seems to me to be an entirely predictable response to a chosen course of action, no? I don't think the fact that we didn't advertise our diplo relationships is a significant part of whatever anti-h? sentiment is being expressed.

I know...you guys have expressly said that you're a military alliance.  That diplo isn't something you care much for, or put a lot of time into, so I totally understand that you don't think the way in which you entered into the war (specifically to encompass the "uber top secret confed") has any particular bearing.

That is incorrect, but I completely understand how you arrived at the conclusion.  ;)

I vaguely recall someone giving that impression as well, but on combing through this thread (albeit very hastily) I couldn't seem to locate the exact quote.  Are you sure it wasn't in another thread?  Personally, all these threads are starting to blur together in my mind...

That could well be...there have been so many!  Which rather proves the point, I think.  The messaging war was lost almost before this thing began...that we can no longer keep track of who said what, and when puts the exclamation point at the end of the sentence.

Regardless, I don't think anybody who comes here would argue that H? has, in any way "won" the messaging war, which also proves the point decisively.

I'm not sure they could have, based on what we now know, but there were specific strategies that could have been employed to at least give a fighting chance.

Control of the message does not happen by accident.

I think HM is the most humble soul to walk the land of Illy.  

HM, thank you again for the detailed, thoughtful reply.  I appreciate it and it sheds a great deal of light on things.

Many of your enumerated points not mentioned by me were not not mentioned due to any attempted subterfuge on my part, but rather, because we (on the outside) were not privy to those actions (or lack of), and in at least a couple of cases, the points you raise could be regarded as subjective, and as such probably subject to at least some debate.

As to the rest...you are part of a strong and proud alliance with a rich history.  Of those things, there can be no doubt or denial.  Illy would literally not BE the game it is today, were it not for the actions of your alliance.

That said, you're only as good as your most recent epic (Custer was not remembered for his long and honorable military career, but rather, for his "last stand.")  That is simply the way our histories work, and it's a trait of our own shared memory that has been transferred into Illy.

I can certainly appreciate that you'd pay a great deal of attention to the comings and doings of your own forum, but I would argue that by "writing these forums off" you are, in a sense, playing right into what your detractors keep saying about the alliance you hail from.

I have never been to the Harmless alliance forums.

I come here a lot.

When I come here, I often read about the stuff from here in GC, which tells me that the stuff posted here (visible to a minority of eyes) has ripple effects that reach far beyond the readership here.

It seems (to me) folly to simply write that off, because at the end of the day, no matter how storied your alliance's past, the fact remains that in total, H? consists of 12M population (out of a total 190M).

In other words, there are a whole lot more of "them" than there are of you, and it strikes me that that's precisely why this place is important.

As to what there is to "win," I could ask you the same question about your latest contest of arms.

What do you imagine that you'll "win?" at the end, even if you destroy every Consone town in the game?

Do you think this will dissuade others from growing? (perhaps growing large enough to one day challenge you?)

Do you imagine that the losers in such a contest cannot (or will not) simply create new accounts?

The "prize" such as it is, can be won by various means, of which, military is but one.

The others should not be ignored, lest they deliver a nasty bite when it's least expected, and (based on your own reply, plus the general sentiment of others from your alliance), it seems that this is the preferred course of action for you guys.

Again...I can't very well take you to task for it, because you folks play to your strengths magnificently (it's just that...as I said previously, the diplo/metagame does not seem to be one of those strengths).

Of course, in light of all that, it makes the fact that you've taken the time to come here and have this conversation all the more meaningful to me, so thank you again! :)

~Scirbe

Older players might have the luxury of forming opinions about H? from many months to years of witnessing positive contributions.  But newer players (like me) or people with limited dealings with H? will probably have their views shifted by this war.  And I'm not sure that the current representatives around these parts are painting you in the best light.

Sunstorm is a friend, the alliance he joins doesn't change it.

~Vanerin

If you ever need any help with anything. Feel free to ask :D