Seeing the good and the bad in H?

Not just H, but every alliance is a collection of individuals, with a range of different attitudes and behaviours. Many alliances and players might deny fair play to someone much smaller than them, when there is something to gain out of it, or when they are in a particularly hypocritical mood. 

When you make a logical argument, some people would say you are doing this because you have an "axe to grind" or that you are "biased" against them. Much like a person wearing coloured glasses seeing everything in one colour.

In last few days there were instances of H members alleging Kurdruk of making "pithy, condescending and dismissive" against H, grinding "valar axe" against H.. etc. It was after one of such allegations that he was forced to make this thread to clarify his stance. 

One can only hope such people will take off their Godwin's glasses and see things for what they really are.

...or both.  I am curious what is your price?  To utter the truth for example, and not a reich-spiel blathered by der kommissar.

H? are a large collection of individuals, with a range of different attitudes and behaviours. And when they act as a unified alliance they understandably do not tell everyone exactly what their objectives and plans are. Therefore, any attempt to simplify H? as being evil, a threat to Illy, bullies, etc., is ridiculous: one cannot generalise about a broad range of individuals, whose group objectives are not open for public scrutiny. Likewise, anyone who wants to pretend that H? are all the lovely defenders of Illy is in a similarly weak situation.

More broadly, this is also true for other Alliances - and I made this mistake myself: twice I've found myself concluding that particular alliances were all odious warmongers, because of the behaviours of one or two individuals (fortunately, the second time I caught myself, and thought "I've made this error before!" before any harm was done.)

I have said before, and I stick with this, that H? are best understood as the feudal masters of Illyria. This is a descriptive term, intended to indicate the basis of their power. It is not an excuse for knee-jerk liberal calls for the overthrow of the oppressor - H? are not oppressors, but the source of their power derives from a feudal basis.

Individuals within H? have behaved in ways that I regard as the ideal for players of Illy (like chivalrous knights, to continue the feudal analogy - real role models.) I have also witnessed behaviour and seen utterances from H? members which I regard as odious (akin to the cliché of thuggish feudal barons).

H? includes three people who easily make it onto my "top ten list of people I respect in Illryiad": Createure is a good candidate for my most-respected player, and I have a lot of time for SunStorm and Kumomoto. That does not make me blind to way that other members of H? have behaved. I have been mildly sickened by some of the things I've seen from H?'s players, but that doesn't lessen my praise for some of Createure's past actions, for example.

With regards "the war" (yawn! - sorry, but it's relevant) I don't believe that anyone really knows why the alliances that declared war on Valar (last year?) did so. I've heard propaganda, excuses, blindly repeated half-lies, honest proclamations and genuine insight all mixed up over this, but in reality sorting truth, lies and misunderstandings on this issue is beyond mortal power. My best guess suggests four very different motives from the different alliances involved. One motive (which I attribute to Curse and Champs) I regard as understandable, perhaps laudable, and I greatly respect the way that they prosecuted that war. Two other motives, I regard in fairly negative terms. The fourth motive was what I presume to be H?'s, and I am entirely ambivalent about it. If I occasionally grumble about the jackal pack who followed H? into that war,  I absolutely do not number H? amongst them. Having said that, I was in the middle of that farce, and I still understand it no better than anyone else, so it seems an unhelpful episode to form any really strong opinions over.

I'm aware that the above won't be good enough for some people. No doubt the H?-haters will conclude that, because this isn't a bile-filled call for revolution, I'm obviously sucking up to H? or am a paid apologist for them. And no doubt there will be people in H? who are outraged that I am not fawning all over them, and will take that as proof that I am insidiously attempting to undermine H? They're both wrong, but I can't stop people with extreme opinions sticking to them.

At best, the above might help people, perhaps new players who are just seeing fragments of extreme opinion from either "side", have a more balanced view of the situation, and understand that Illyriad is a hugely complex tangle which nobody has clear visibility over - and so for them it might work as a call for moderation.

At worst, next time someone gets on a H?-are-the-saviours/enemies-of-Illy bandwagon, hopefully I can just paste a link to this post, and save having to type another long answer to the same old hymns.