Jump to content
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    3
  • views
    2,293

Roadie Answers AJs' Questions


Roadie

140 views

 Share

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

You don't. Measurements are scientific. Loyalty is not. One cannot apply scientific metrics to relationships. Bringing friendships into it only acts to further confuse the question. This isn't a sandbox. We are not children and therefore do ourselves a diservice by having the world view of a child. We are soveriegns. Loyalties extend as far as mutual best interests do and no more. Friendship is another matter entirely. We can be friends with those whom have mutually shared interests or friends those whose interests are the antithesis of each other. The former will have each others loyalty (until self interests change - or at least the perception of what's in their interest), the later will not. Friends are friends until they're not. Then they have to learn to get coexist without being friends. Maybe that means one has to kill the other, maybe it doesn't, but either way they will both do what's in their own best interest.

The follow up question is this: Does the simple act of attempting to measure ones loyalty imply that we ourselves are less than 100% loyal to them? I think yes. It implies that we question the loyalty of the other half. Would we not have no use for trying to glean information about someones loyalty if they had any less than our complete loyalty? Does one truly have our complete and umitigated loyalty if we feel we must measure theirs of us? If out loyalty to them was a rock solid certainty, then we wouldn't have any purpose in measuring theirs.

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

A true friend does not attempt to gauge their friends. People do indeed get used the way you say on a regular basis. Though it is not because someone used one of their friends. It's because someone else got themsleves used by confusing frinedship with loyalty. There are more examples of what you say than I think anyone on CN can count or even knows about. Each and every single one should serve as a case study in why CN players need to take a step back and decouple their views of friendship and loyalty. While the two are not mutually exclusive, the correlation between the two is without a doubt not causal. Any correlation without causation is a fluke. Nothing more. However, due to most of CNs players applying to sovereigns the childish worldview I mentioned in my first response, they expose their backs only to catch a knife with it.

Is that really a bad thing?

Not in the least. In fact, I'd say it's an obligate act for all sovereigns.

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

Because fish get caught only when they open their mouths. Sometimes OpSec is important to accomplishing a goal. A goal which should be in the best interest of the alliance, not the individual. When members no longer have complete trust in their govs ability or desire to do what's best for the alliance that cause the desire for more information to increase exponentially.

Beyond that scenario, I'd say most of the players that want more information are just nosey and want to know everything about everything and everybody all the time.

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

Fight for your alliance for that is where your loyalties are due. Beyond that, enjoy talking to friends or whatever it takes to have fun.

 Share

3 Comments


Recommended Comments

I would argue that one's loyalty lies with themselves above all others. That the driving force behind ties and loyalty should be friendship, of some kind anyway, as there is absolutely nothing static about an alliance's membership. Like minded people will flock together, yes, but loyalty for the sake of loyalty when there is no barrier whatsoever to movement is a pretty foolish idea to hang on to.

That is not to say that good friends make good treaty partners, but rather treaty partners should at least be friends in some sense.

As for OPSEC, there's none anyway, and it's stupid for leaders to believe there is, and also for them to call it OPSEC as if they're doing anything other than going "attack this guy at update.. and shhhhh!"

As for being nosy, why is that a bad thing? Why should an alliance risk the nations of hundreds of people without telling them exactly why they're being asked to do so? It's arrogant of leaders, and of alliances, to simply say "do as you're told.. and also shut up, stop asking questions" rather than risk telling the truth to the very people they're supposedly "leading."

Link to comment

I would argue that one's loyalty lies with themselves above all others. That the driving force behind ties and loyalty should be friendship, of some kind anyway, as there is absolutely nothing static about an alliance's membership. Like minded people will flock together, yes, but loyalty for the sake of loyalty when there is no barrier whatsoever to movement is a pretty foolish idea to hang on to.

When you say that ones loyalty lies with themselves above all others, you are essentially agreeing that we are sovereigns. That's the defining trait of a sovereign. Without it, they are not acting as one.

That is not to say that good friends make good treaty partners, but rather treaty partners should at least be friends in some sense.

That would be nice and would make for a much easier working relationship, but that's also where the highest degree of risk comes in. I don't mean to keep getting back on the same hobby horse here, but when when friendship and mutual interests get intertwined, people will forget to pay attention to each others interest and tend instead to presume the friendship is what protects them from getting used.

As for OPSEC, there's none anyway, and it's stupid for leaders to believe there is, and also for them to call it OPSEC as if they're doing anything other than going "attack this guy at update.. and shhhhh!"

Aint that the truth. And my take on it is this: With as little Opsec as there is, in most cases it wouldn't be damaging to give more information to an alliance. However, In some cases I would say alliances problems are sometimes compounded by giving what should be secret information to the wrong people in their own alliance or others in a coalition. Some people like to talk too much. In some cases I would say alliance leaders should give out less information to less people, not more. But, that's in rare cases, not in general.

As for being nosy, why is that a bad thing? Why should an alliance risk the nations of hundreds of people without telling them exactly why they're being asked to do so? It's arrogant of leaders, and of alliances, to simply say "do as you're told.. and also shut up, stop asking questions" rather than risk telling the truth to the very people they're supposedly "leading."

It's bad because nosey people are demanding, selfish pains in the @#$%. If an alliance member is being told to go to war (just using war as an example) and don't trust the reasons they're given or simply want to find out for themselves (I'm that way. I trust nothing fully so I always try to get information for myself), not hear it parrotted to them by their government members, they could simply go on the OWF and decide for themselves.

In defense of the leadership not telling the entire story, sometimes the story goes back so far it could take weeks trying to explain things completely to all members on an alliances forums and still people wouldn't be able to have a thourough understanding. Take this last war with \m/ for example. Or FANs involvement in this current conflict. Those could take forever to explain to someone who wasn't around UJW or the first FAN war.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...