[Locke]

This is something that has really come to bug me in the past month or so. Everywhere I see members saying "I don't speak for my alliance," or, "this is only my personal opinion." Last I checked, if you're a member of an alliance, you speak as a member of that alliance. Even if you're only a regular rank-and-file member, you're still a member, your words still reflect upon your alliance, and you should be held accountable to them. It's almost like a "get out of jail free" card: "I'm going to say something unpopular, but look, I'm not speaking for my alliance, so you clearly shouldn't give me flak for it, it's only a personal opinion." If you don't want to say something unpopular for fear of reprisal, don't say it. It's really not that hard. And it especially irks me when government members do it. Why? Because they, of all people, should be held accountable. It is one thing to say "that's not alliance policy," and treat it as such, because obviously not every alliance is 100% unified (well, FAIL and PPF probably are, but that's another matter altogether). However, it's not used like that in a number of cases, it's used to absolve oneself of any responsibility for those words, like it doesn't even count. If I say something, it is as Invicta's Minister of Citizenship; regardless of whether or not it agrees with official alliance policies, it carries weight. Government members are entrusted with and expected to responsibly use that weight. You can't throw off that weight because it's inconvenient. And yes, you can hold me to that too.

This post has been edited by Locke: 18 August 2009 - 07:50 AM

[Freelancer]

I agree to a point, we'll use me as an example, I have no power what so ever at The Brain, however my long standing time here, of course I hang out on the OWF, when I talk I do speak for myself and I'm 100 % percent positive that my opinions are not those who allow me to live under there roof.

[King DrunkWino]

It shouldn't be the place of an alliance to squash independant thinking that they might find inconvenient. A person's personal opinions are just that, personal opinions. If an alliance wishes to put out a formal statement on what it's official opinion is, that's why Alliance Announcements exists. To me, just taking someones opinions and automatically thinking that those opinions are the official stance of an alliance is the worst form of lazy and sloppy thinking.

You speak about accountability of words. Tell me who should be accountable for words, the person who spoke them or an entire alliance?

[Locke]

King DrunkWino, on Aug 10 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

It shouldn't be the place of an alliance to squash independant thinking that they might find inconvenient. A person's personal opinions are just that, personal opinions. If an alliance wishes to put out a formal statement on what it's official opinion is, that's why Alliance Announcements exists. To me, just taking someones opinions and automatically thinking that those opinions are the official stance of an alliance is the worst form of lazy and sloppy thinking.

You speak about accountability of words. Tell me who should be accountable for words, the person who spoke them or an entire alliance?

The person who spoke them, of course. My point is that people don't use "I don't speak for my alliance" as a way of showing that they disagree with established alliance policy, but rather to absolve them of all responsibility for making that statement solely because it's an opinion. Also, whether or not what they say is policy, they still represent their alliance on the global stage, and people will form their opinions of that alliance based on those words.

[potato]

Locke, on Aug 10 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

The person who spoke them, of course. My point is that people don't use "I don't speak for my alliance" as a way of showing that they disagree with established alliance policy, but rather to absolve them of all responsibility for making that statement solely because it's an opinion. Also, whether or not what they say is policy, they still represent their alliance on the global stage, and people will form their opinions of that alliance based on those words.

No. It could also be used as a way of clearly stating that a post isn't an official stance in any way or form. And it can be useful now and then.

[James Dahl]

It should be obvious that someone's opinion is just that, that person's opinion.

Some people pine of the 'good old days' when only alliance leadership was allowed to say anything, which is kind of what you're calling for here. If alliances are held to account for what their membership says, then only the architects of policy would have the right to say anything.

Personally I'm glad those days are over.

This post has been edited by James Dahl: 10 August 2009 - 09:57 AM

[PRES VISHTANY]

i agree to some point but i think every person has a personal point that is not the policy of there alliance and they want to speak out without being held accountable for it so i say to some extent, How are the going to keep there mouth shut?

[Trinite]

Sometimes people speak for an alliance and sometimes they don't. Would you prefer to just guess when they're doing which?

Of course the alliance is judged on the actions of it's members, but knowing that Hyperion enjoys drowning puppies is quite different from know that Spartans enjoy drowning puppies. I generally make the distinction by saying "we" or "I", but if people want to be more clear with a PS, I don't really see the problem.

This post has been edited by Trinite: 10 August 2009 - 10:34 AM

[SpoiL]

I'm going to keep posting my opinions if you don't mind. Feel free to give me flak for them. If you want to give NSO flak about them, go right ahead. I am all for your right to look silly.

[Jack Diorno]

Every member of an alliance is representing their alliance on the OWF.
If a member of an alliance is expressing his opinion, you would expect that he is part of the alliance because they share the same views, I am in Athens because I agree with everything that Athens does.
If you are posting opinions that are entirely contrary to the leadership of your alliance, then you obviously aren't in the right alliance, someone does not join TPF and start posting a lot of propaganda against the NPO for example.

[zigbigadorlou]

Quote

This is something that has really come to bug me in the past month or so. Everywhere I see members saying "I don't speak for my alliance," or, "this is only my personal opinion." Last I checked, if you're a member of an alliance, you speak as as member of that alliance. Even if you're only a regular rank-and-file member, you're still a member, your words still reflect upon your alliance, and you should be held accountable to them.

there's a reason why I haven't stayed in an alliance for more than 2 weeks since May...
about half the time its this

[kingzog]

I don't speak for my alliance.

Rumor has it my alliance is grateful.

This post has been edited by kingzog: 10 August 2009 - 11:01 AM

[Poobah]

I think saying that you do not speak for your alliance is to show that this is not the official opinion of response from the government of that alliance.

[Locke]

potato, on Aug 10 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

No. It could also be used as a way of clearly stating that a post isn't an official stance in any way or form. And it can be useful now and then.

It can be. My point is that it's far overused, almost to the point of other such famous CN memes as "Sad but necessary" or "Brilliant political move." And oft used incorrectly at that.

James Dahl, on Aug 10 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

It should be obvious that someone's opinion is just that, that person's opinion.

Some people pine of the 'good old days' when only alliance leadership was allowed to say anything, which is kind of what you're calling for here. If alliances are held to account for what their membership says, then only the architects of policy would have the right to say anything.

Personally I'm glad those days are over.

I, for one, don't pine for the "good old days." I wasn't around for those days, so I have no nostalgia. I rather like the trend of people sharing everything here, gives me some good reads, despite people repeatadly claiming that things could be handled through private channels.

kingzog, on Aug 10 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I don't speak for my alliance.

Rumor has it my alliance is grateful.

I lol'ed.

[Heft]

I hate seeing "I don't speak for my alliance" because it usually is just a cop out, either that or completely immaterial.

If you're a regular member then of course you don't speak for your alliance, we get that, but your words do still reflect upon your alliance to some degree, even if it's just the attitude and tone of those words. If you're government then you always represent your alliance, and you can't just change hats whenever you feel like. Your opinion may not be official policy, but it does obviously go into official policy.

[Sal Paradise]

I don't see why this is a problem.

[Aurion]

Locke, on Aug 10 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

If I say something, it is as Invicta's Minister of Citizenship; regardless of whether or not it agrees with official alliance policies, it carries weight. Government members and entrusted with and expected to responsibly use that weight. You can't throw off that weight because it's inconvenient. And yes, you can hold me to that too.

Believe it or not, there are people who post on these fora who aren't alliance government.

[James Dahl]

Heft, on Aug 10 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

I hate seeing "I don't speak for my alliance" because it usually is just a cop out, either that or completely immaterial.

If you're a regular member then of course you don't speak for your alliance, we get that, but your words do still reflect upon your alliance to some degree, even if it's just the attitude and tone of those words. If you're government then you always represent your alliance, and you can't just change hats whenever you feel like. Your opinion may not be official policy, but it does obviously go into official policy.

In democratic alliances, sure. In the autocratic alliances not so much, as alliance policy is whatever the Grand High Fuzzybuttons wants it to be, and could care less what their membership thinks.

[Lord Rune]

Like Heft said. What is said by an alliance member may not be official alliance policy, but it does reflect upon your alliance. And people will look at what you said and judge your alliance on that.

A while ago, Ragashingo posted something about his desire to see brown as a haven from tech raiders. It wasn't long before others were saying that this was GATO policy. (Actually, even when it was pointed out by others, as well as Raga', that it wasn't GATO policy, nor likely to be, it made no difference. So I guess I people will read what they want to, and read into things what they want.)

[Walt Kowalski]

Because if alliances actually took responsibility for what their members say, they'd be unleashing all of the $%&@ wits that they let in who don't normally speak or matter.