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.

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.

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.

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 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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't speak for my alliance.

Rumor has it my alliance is grateful.

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.

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.


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.


I lol'ed.

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.

I don't see why this is a problem.

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

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.

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.)

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.

Oh it is overused and quite often a cop out. But let's take a look at the recent thread that - probably - triggered that: Invicta's DoL (Declaration of Love) for NPO. Before Archon posted, I was the highest ranked Shroom (I'm MK's LHE - MoFA in non Shroomish) to have posted. I had doubts about your intentions but gave both alliances my honest congratulations. People conveniantly skipped my post and assumed the other posts from Shrooms were an official stance of some sort ... Yes, both their posts and mine reflect on our alliance but if those Shrooms had said "I don't talk for my alliance" before expressing their opinion, it would have said everyone a whole lot of time. Save from the usual MK haters, that is.

Meh, I prefer to look at this subject on an individual occurring basis. Overall I would have to say I don't mind it when people use such an explanation. There are times when I would definately be in agreement with you but I wouldn't curb everyone's ability to speak their mind. That is pretty important to maintain.




The problem is, we do indeed represent the membership of our alliances. When you see a good number of folks from a membership all stating similiar opinions and you see not a single differing opinion then some might make the assumption that such is how the alliance as a whole pretty much feels. Yes, that is a very large assumption because it is quite possible that others in the alliance that feel differently simply don't wish to speak upon that opinion and decide to keep it to themselves. Especially so in the case that you provided, but we did indeed see MK members come out and give their cordial congrats to Invicta and NPO which only proves that in the end making assumptions about an alliance as a whole from the postings of a few members from that alliance can prove to be faulty reasoning. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it won't continue to happen.

That is something we have to keep in mine while we post.

I have this theory that everyone in MK has a position in government, I've yet to meed a 'Shroom that doesn't have some sort of deputy assistant to the deputy of internal affairs position.

I'm aware. Call it narcissistic, but I like using myself as an example.


Actually, that wasn't really the trigger. It was this. And I really don't see why it's so often necessary to say "I don't speak for my alliance" when most often people are speaking from their opinion. Why is it that people can't specifiy "I am speaking for my alliance" instead? Seems a heck of a lot more useful to me.


Oh, I'm fine with people speaking their mind. Again, I like the trend of stuff coming on to the OWF. I just hate it when people think they can absolve responsibility for their statements by passing it off as mere opinions. Opinions are the basis of actions, after all.

Fair enough.

I think a lot of it comes from when people disagreed with someone who was more hooked into the treaty web than they were, a comment like "So, does that represent your alliance's official position? I'll keep that in mind." was pretty much inevitable.

And people wanted and want to avoid that line of conversation enough to simply try and preempt it by saying ahead of time that it was just their personal opinion.

I'm probably wrong, but that's how it seemed/seems to me.

Ah, I think I've seen that line before. Well, stupidity begets stupidity, I 'spose. People going around making stupid empty threats leads to people going around making stupid empty answers.

People fish for ammunition all the time on these forums so they can use your words against either you or your alliance at some future date, much as this fellow enjoys doing.

I'd like to thank the OP in reminding people to be conscious of the words we use and to consider how they reflect our alliance.

I believe that people should have the right to speak their mind and don't consider anything said, even by government members, to be official policy unless prefaced by a statement saying it is. However, there's no denying that in the back of our minds is the association that what and how a person states their opinion can be indicative of the frame of mind of the general membership as a whole.

As MoFA, I try to conduct my affairs on the forums as an embodiment of the voice of Zenith. However, I, too, sometimes forget (especially when bored) that the things I say reflect on the alliance. I’m glad this post has brought that point back in focus. The OP is a poignant reminder of the need to use care when choosing our words.

I don't think it's ever been about "This is my opinion so na-nana-na-na-na, you can't touch me." I hold a great many opinions, for example. If the situation were appropriate for me to express some of the choicer ones at the end of the day, they are my opinions. I mean, I could be wrong on this, but it sounds like you wouldn't mind seeing people get attacked over their opinions. Which I kinda hope I am wrong on, cause I'm pretty sure I have one of those choice opinions over the advocacy of a world thought police force.

I disagree with the OP completely. I'm the MoFA of my alliance, and if I speak a personal opinion, I don't want people to think it's TCI's official stance on an issue. I think I'm allowed to speak as two things; a player of CN and the MoFA of TCI.

I have this theory you just don't like MK nor do you know the faintest thing about us. You just like to talk out of your arse.

You forgot about me

I was trying to be funny, I guess I failed
Talking out of your arse is harder than you think, or at least making words that are intelligible.



What's your govt position?

Speaking for something, and speaking as a member of something are two entirely different things.

Speaking for an alliance implies that you are the voice of your alliance, that what you say is their official position on the matter. Speaking as a member implies that you're merely speaking freely, or speaking .. as a member of that alliance. Words can have consequences, but, speaking as a member of Monos Archein (since I have no power to speak FOR them), I think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Certain alliances allow their members more personal freedoms than others, this includes freedom of speech. If those words are spoken while a member of an alliance, you are merely speaking as a member, meaning.. you're in an alliance, and you're talking, since only a very select few, those in power or those in government, have the ability to speak FOR an alliance.

Don't have one.

Not even a deputy assistant to the deputy of internal affairs?
Well there's my theory shot.

Yes, you failed. Or I'm just in a bad mood and didn't get the sarcasm. Either/or.

As for the speaking out of you arse part, it seems to work perfectly for quite a few members of Planet Bob, to be honest.

I guess typing with their anus would explain the spelling and punctuation.

In my opinion, if you have an opinion you don't want to share for fear of reprecussion, the just...don't share it. If you do share it, be willing to take whatever comes as a result about it, have no fear, and take responsibility for it. I have a great many opinions as well, that doesn't mean I shout them to the world and expect to get off free just because they're opinions. As I've heard it put before "Thoughts have consequences." Now, of course, not all opinions are going to cause terrible things to happen, but if they do, man up to it, they're your opinions.


Just because you are a player of CN doesn't stop you from being the MoFA of TCI.


As I said above, it makes far more sense to specify when you're dictating alliance policy then when you aren't.


It really does.

I didn't get that impression at all. I think he was just saying that he was tired of people using "I don't speak for my alliance" even when it's not appropriate.


As the MoFA of your alliance, your personal opinion feeds that official stance, so clearly you do represent your alliance whenever you say something, even if not in a "this is policy" sense. If nothing else, your tone and attitude certainly do, and that's often more important than what is strictly being said.

If you're speaking in an OOC sense about something then, sure, it doesn't really reflect TCI policy or whatnot, and it is just you speaking as a player, but if you're speaking IC, which is what I think this is mostly about, then you are the MoFA and you can't suddenly stop being that just to say something you otherwise couldnt' say.

Well said.

There really is no way around this matter. You can try to proclaim all you like that your opinion is not the 'official' line of the Alliance but no matter how fervently folks may accept that position, it will still color the view they have of everyone else that wears your AA.

It's simple psychology which really cannot be avoided, and is only compounded when multiple people from the same alliance mimic the same viewpoint. It would be foolish to completely ignore this fact, though how each alliance manages their affairs in light of this fact is up to them. Both membership freedom and membership restraint have their advantages and consequences. Alliance Leaders need to form their policies depending on the expectations of their membership and the general culture of their membership.

As MoFA, I realise that EVERYTHING I say can be taken in an official context and I try to be as careful as possible when in public environments to guard my words properly. If I have an opinion that differs from my Duke's in any given situation, the time to voice that opinion is within the walls of the House... NOT in public view.

And that is not the fault of the person talking, but rather the people listening. Painting an entire alliance in such a bad light because of the opinions of one member is beyond ignorant.

There are a lot of people in CN who are beyond ignorant, especially on this matter.

I agree on this point to a certain extent... However if one is aware of the fact, then they can do something about it themselves to avoid the misunderstanding. I would gladly self-censor if I can avoid a misunderstanding.... but I guess that's just me being a diplomat.

Personally, I'll recognise that elements within said alliance have these viewpoints, but if something concerned me enough I'd make a formal request for a position from the government of the alliance in question and let them deal with the member in question as they see fit.

The trouble comes when multiple members mirror the same viewpoint, though. It can present a number of problems for their alliance leadership's image. Are they paying attention to what their members feel about the situation? Are they feeding propaganda internally that don't reflect their outward stance? Are they being misleading abuot their true stance just so they don't anger the wrong people? Do they have any control over their membership?

I completely fail when it comes to representing my alliance.... I just set that up perfectly for an attack.

Problem is, when an alliance actually uses the AA for that purpose, It often gets told that their posts are insignificant, obvious, unneeded, or that it should have been done in private. When this trend dies down, perhaps you will see more alliances actually stating their official stance on the AA.


I agree that it can be useful, but also that it is a bit overused.




Well then, you're in the minority. I'm the MoFA, and even I don;t completely agree with everything Invicta does.

The more people there are in a group, the less well a single person can represent the entire group. No two people in the world EVER think alike. It is better to represent yourself than let someone with different views do it for you.

To reiterate what Jack said: The whole point of an alliance is to be a gathering of like-minded Nations who share a common ideology and/or goal. If that no longer holds true and your views differ too drastically and consistently from those of your alliance, find a new one who's a better match or get into a gov't position yourself where you can help form your alliance's official position.

No alliance will ever have completely homogenous thought among its members, but you should all at least be headed in the same direction.

It wasn't the stupid empty threats that begat the meme it was threats that were followed through on.


Wow that sentence reads awkwardly, but you know what I mean.

wai wai wiat.

Since when is Machiabelly back? I thought you left?

Edit: also, I see you lurking there Brennan, Stop Following me!