astronaut jones space adventures

My answers:

- One day at a time.

- One day at a time.

- Art imitates life.

- No.

- Follow orders and, when the war's over, go somewhere more hospitable if that's how you feel.

Maybe it's a symptom of the current political malaise that, after reading your descriptions of the two sides, I couldn't figure out who was who.

How do you measure loyalty in a place where today's friend is tomorrow's enemy?

Don't get bent out of shape over it. Just cause you're friendly with somebody and you end up on opposite sides really isn't that big deal. Unless, of course, they do something stupid to betray your trust, but that's something else.

How do you measure friendship when, time and again, people and alliances are used for their power and influence alone?

It's up to folks to not extend friendships to those that only seek to use them.

Is that really a bad thing?

From a game perspective, no. But it's still kinda !@#$%^ way to be. Eventually, if that's how you are, nobody's gonna trust you and you'll have no friends.

Why is it acceptable to outright lie to your alliance membership and the public at large about everything?

It shouldn't be. Alliances should consider it high treason when a guy in charge deliberately lies to the alliance.

What do you do during war when you find both sides equally detestable for very different reasons?

Mock them both. Point out their BS for everyone to see and make their own decision on.

Why is it acceptable to outright lie to your alliance membership and the public at large about everything?

It shouldn't be. Alliances should consider it high treason when a guy in charge deliberately lies to the alliance.

Is omission a lie? Is keeping members in the dark about true intentions a lie? That's been something virtually every major alliance has done. They omit certain things from the general membership, or they mask their true intentions from them, but is that lying?

Is omission a lie? Is keeping members in the dark about true intentions a lie? That's been something virtually every major alliance has done. They omit certain things from the general membership, or they mask their true intentions from them, but is that lying?

Purposely concealing the truth in the hopes of tricking your alliance into doing what you want them to is lying. Plus, it's really kinda unneeded in most cases. Folks in an alliance should be aware of who their friends and allies are and should know from day one that as a member of an alliance, that player is expected to fight for those allies.

The bottom line is that if you are in charge of an alliance, then you have a responsibility to do right by the people that call you boss. Bullcrapping them to get them to do something that's more in YOUR best interest than the best interest of ALL of your alliance isn't the mark of a leader. Alliancemates don't exist to be your personal army/meatshields after all.

the problem with that king is that some members will not feel at ease with the course of action the leadership will promote to deal with certain situations. but since they know only the part of the story the leaders think they should know, they can never actually find out what is really going on.

the problem with that king is that some members will not feel at ease with the course of action the leadership will promote to deal with certain situations. but since they know only the part of the story the leaders think they should know, they can never actually find out what is really going on.

That's not a good thing in my opinion. If you are leading and your members are uneasy about where you're leading them to, then it's up to you to listen to what they have to say. Maybe they have good points and maybe they don't, but part of the job has to be getting your membership pulling the same way toward the same goal. Not telling them what's up, nah that just don't work for me so much.

A:

-If they're tomorrow's enemy, then they were never today's friend.

-Friends are usually honest enough to tell a friend that they're using them, and then explain why. A friend would understand.

-Use me baby, I'm all yours.

-Don't be so hard on yourself.

-Like the drunk one said, mock them. Or just ignore them.

It sounds to me like you're talking about the same side both times. Could you clarify? I mean, the first one sounds a lot like IRON, GGA, MCXA, TSO, etc. and the second one sounds a lot like the NpO.

A:

-If they're tomorrow's enemy, then they were never today's friend.

-Friends are usually honest enough to tell a friend that they're using them, and then explain why. A friend would understand.

-Use me baby, I'm all yours.

-Don't be so hard on yourself.

-Like the drunk one said, mock them. Or just ignore them.

It sounds to me like you're talking about the same side both times. Could you clarify? I mean, the first one sounds a lot like IRON, GGA, MCXA, TSO, etc. and the second one sounds a lot like the NpO.

The first side you are right about, the second side is CnG/SF. Both sides are equally detestable, but for very different reasons, so it's hard to not want alliances on all sides to suffer.

Purposely concealing the truth in the hopes of tricking your alliance into doing what you want them to is lying. Plus, it's really kinda unneeded in most cases. Folks in an alliance should be aware of who their friends and allies are and should know from day one that as a member of an alliance, that player is expected to fight for those allies.

The bottom line is that if you are in charge of an alliance, then you have a responsibility to do right by the people that call you boss. Bullcrapping them to get them to do something that's more in YOUR best interest than the best interest of ALL of your alliance isn't the mark of a leader. Alliancemates don't exist to be your personal army/meatshields after all.

It's not outright trickery, I don't think, but the motivation behind alliance actions and directions is often masked with, at the very best, the cliff notes version of the truth. At the very worst, the alliance's top brass will know what their intentions are, what they're striving for, and what they're planning, while keeping the membership in the dark until it's time for "war."

People will always claim that there needs to be secrecy within an alliance, especially at or near the top, but at what point does secrecy cross the line over into deception?

the problem with that king is that some members will not feel at ease with the course of action the leadership will promote to deal with certain situations. but since they know only the part of the story the leaders think they should know, they can never actually find out what is really going on.

That is true to a point, that it is often hard for members to truly know/find out what is going on in the first place. I'm not entirely certain that is good for the alliance in general, however.

It's not outright trickery, I don't think, but the motivation behind alliance actions and directions is often masked with, at the very best, the cliff notes version of the truth. At the very worst, the alliance's top brass will know what their intentions are, what they're striving for, and what they're planning, while keeping the membership in the dark until it's time for "war."

People will always claim that there needs to be secrecy within an alliance, especially at or near the top, but at what point does secrecy cross the line over into deception?

Most of the time it's like that, sure. It's what most call a necessary evil that full disclosure must be sacrificed on the alter of OPSEC. Which is really dumb considering that OPSEC in CN is a joke to begin with.

Now me, I find that I like the Athenian (the historic one, not the CN one,) idea of total democracy. Instead of trying to figure out what needs to be secret and what can get filtered out to the masses, I like the idea of complete and total disclosure. Tell 'em everything, show 'em the logs and your thought process that leads you to the decision you're about to make. Then listen to the membership. You never know who out there will bring up a good point or find a flaw in your thought process. Treat your members like valuable partners in an alliance instead of just the folks you give the orders to.

/Yeah, I know that ideal most likely needs a smaller tight-nit alliance to begin with. But that's how we're rollin' over in The Jedi Order and I admit I'm getting spoiled by it.

And that's the thing, there is no OPSEC, or whatever !@#$%^&* people want to call it to make themselves feel important. There's none. IF you know who to ask and where to go, you can find out most anything before it happens. If you don't, then you're seemingly one of the members that is lied to, or has blinders put on them by their alliance leaders, and only told things that they deem necessary.

Hell, half the time you don't even need to go ask. Basic logic can tell anyone what's gonna happen round here with a much better than average success rate.

Hell, half the time you don't even need to go ask. Basic logic can tell anyone what's gonna happen round here with a much better than average success rate.

If you want to dig deeper, and find the reason why things are happening, you often have to ask. Alliances will often keep even that information from members, under some !@#$%^&* "need to know" policy.

If you want to dig deeper, and find the reason why things are happening, you often have to ask. Alliances will often keep even that information from members, under some !@#$%^&* "need to know" policy.

The WHY of things is easy.

There are a lot of kids that play CN. Even us older fogies are known to have a pre-pubescent slip every now and again.

warning: heavy OOC post:

truth be told, and i'm sure i'll get boo'ed for saying this... i think it's perfectly fine the way it is. people like to take a side and "cover" themselves with perceived honor. they associate with that side (sometimes, it's detrimental, like the cults some peps adhere to and, in time, by association and rites they become brainwashed). most of the times it's normal human interaction. and as humans conflict is inevitable. conflict for land to breed the next generations of our side, for riches and fame within our group or for whatever other reason. of course, when we do it, in time, we start to develop a superiority complex that our group is the best and it has no flaws and the other ones are immoral, evil, blah blah blah. truth be told, most people who are in power will do pretty much the same things to remain in power successfully. of course, after some time, either they or their adversaries will ban these practices so that others cant use them or so that they can rally support to usurp the power from those who are in power. but really... we have been doing it since the dawn of humanity. going against it is wishful thinking.

(note, these are some conclusions i arrived at, not the truth, as the truth is unknown to anyone and everyone is allowed to live their life according to their perceived truth about life)

warning: heavy OOC post:

truth be told, and i'm sure i'll get boo'ed for saying this... i think it's perfectly fine the way it is. people like to take a side and "cover" themselves with perceived honor. they associate with that side (sometimes, it's detrimental, like the cults some peps adhere to and, in time, by association and rites they become brainwashed). most of the times it's normal human interaction. and as humans conflict is inevitable. conflict for land to breed the next generations of our side, for riches and fame within our group or for whatever other reason. of course, when we do it, in time, we start to develop a superiority complex that our group is the best and it has no flaws and the other ones are immoral, evil, blah blah blah. truth be told, most people who are in power will do pretty much the same things to remain in power successfully. of course, after some time, either they or their adversaries will ban these practices so that others cant use them or so that they can rally support to usurp the power from those who are in power. but really... we have been doing it since the dawn of humanity. going against it is wishful thinking.

(note, these are some conclusions i arrived at, not the truth, as the truth is unknown to anyone and everyone is allowed to live their life according to their perceived truth about life)

I think blogs are a mix of IC/OOC... so you'd be safe either way with that comment. I know they're governed by the same rules that the forums are governed by, but you're right in a sense.

But all of that just goes back to one of my previous blog posts, and why do people not use common decency, and why do they not think of others for once before acting? Is it not our job to make this place as fun and enjoyable for everyone, not just ourselves, or our small grouping of friends?

i don't really know... could be... though mind if i ask you a personal question?? what do you think you would gain if the people who can't use common decency would stop?? and really go deep on this one... to a basic feeling. you don't have to answer to me also

i don't really know... could be... though mind if i ask you a personal question?? what do you think you would gain if the people who can't use common decency would stop?? and really go deep on this one... to a basic feeling. you don't have to answer to me also

personally? I wouldn't gain anything, because I don't interact with them. The planet as a whole would benefit from people not being malicious for the sake of maliciousness, and knowing that for as many people that are for you, there are just as many against.