This is where I stand (H/C war)

Well, I was using myself as the standard of ego, so it is pretty easy to see you as humble.

HonoredMule wrote: I've never once been accused of humility.

BlindScribe wrote: 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

The details you enumerate there are all ok.  The problem arises mostly from other inappropriate and/or out-of-order steps not mentioned.  There are a number of things we'd expect from someone who stands as one of us and thus claims a position of loyalty:

• First and very foremost, stay abreast of events and the information that is made available.  It's hard to be a functioning member of the alliance if you don't know what's going on in it.  Or if you're going to be completely oblivious, maybe don't demonstrate this in public so it looks like your alliance doesn't tell you anything.
  
• Second, give higher allegiance to one's current alliance and teammates than past acquaintances.  Where loyalties still conflict, disclose such to your alliance and hold a neutral position.
• Respect the appointment of authority (which simply means do not attempt to perform a leadership role to which you've not been appointed either by selection or election, such as diplomat).
  
• When presented with something unknown, get the facts before passing judgment.  That of course can apply anywhere, but when the case is being made against your own alliance, surely you'd ask for your own alliance's version of the story before presuming guilt.
  
• When in disagreement with your alliance, speak up to your alliance.  All of it.  Keeping "subversive" viewpoints buried may be what other alliances want, but Harmless members know we don't go for that spiderweb of 1-on-1 dealings nonsense, nor for covering up disagreements.  That kind of hidden baggage weighs an alliance down and fragments it into pockets of divided loyalties, which heralds back to the issue with loyalties outside the alliance.  There's supposed to be unity and solidarity.
  
• When in disagreement with your alliance and while still a representing member of that alliance, do not take up a role as secret advocate for the enemy.  A public stand of neutrality/conscientious abstention is somewhat disloyal to your alliance too, but depending on how it's performed could fly somewhere in the vicinity of acceptable behavior for a current member.  While a public statement did prompt the counter-statement to be made public as well, this is the least of the issues.
  

If there is a difference between member and alliance which cannot be resolved, it is appropriate to part, after which the only remaining expectation is that the ex-member not share intel or otherwise abuse privileges tied to the prior membership.

But while you are a member of an alliance, that alliance as a whole deserves your first consideration in all matters.  Imagine if some key members told Harmless representatives they thought Harmless was in the right and all of Consone were 100% wrong--that they would try on Harmless' behalf to convince Consone to surrender--and then contacted Consone leadership and said "hey, I have no idea what's going on, so what's up with this?"

One last point.  I can see how Harmless can be accused of failing to control the message diplomatically speaking, but you should understand that we've not really tried to do so.  Honestly I'm surprised to see that there are even people left like yourself who bear a shred of objectivity and/or have intelligent questions or discussion.  I normally wouldn't be bothering to carry any post-statement discourse at all.  The last time I was here, the forum's atmosphere had devolved into utter despotism and inane punditry.  I left because there was simply nothing worth being here for.

Yet even if that has changed, the fact remains that nothing is decided or controlled here--not even public opinion.  Word-of-mouth and alliance-to-alliance dealings still carry the greatest weight and volume of information among the older alliances at least.  Heck, before war broke out there was more activity and participation in Harmless's Embassy alone than the whole of these forums.  Anything that takes place here and now is just a puppet show and parade for the new faces.  And as much of a chaotic flurry as this seems, it also is just the same old song and dance from so many times before, and it's participants all comfortable in their familiar and well-practiced roles.  Who in their right mind would lose sleep trying to control a propaganda war when there's no prize for winning?  All those kind of prizes were handed out over the previous 3 months to 2 years (depending on how big a picture you're viewing).

BlindScribe wrote: Right here in this thread...I forget who, but it surely seems a valid point, based on how the message got away from H? so quickly in this latest incident.  Bottom line...where diplo is concerned, you either control the message, or it controls you (that's another kind of power)...H? has failed to control the message. You can point to any number of reasons why this is so, but often, the simplest explanations are correct.  H? is an alliance of warriors.  Diplo is...meh.

BlindScribe wrote: as your own folks have said...this isn't really your strong suit.

Who was saying this?