astronaut jones space adventures

I'm sure there are quite a few honorable alliances out there. You just have to look in the right places for your friends and allies.

what lol

what lol

Basically I was saying, without trying to be direct, that I joined NpO because I trusted them and thought they were a good alliance, only to have their leader tell TOP that he wouldn't defend MK if TOP attacked them, he gave them his word he wouldn't... and then to turn around and defend MK because TOP attacked them.

So, yeah.

I'm sure there are quite a few honorable alliances out there. You just have to look in the right places for your friends and allies.

I'm sure there are, too, but who wants to be in TDO or WTF, or GPA? Those are the only alliances off the top of my head that I can say aren't petty, arrogant, opportunistic, hypocritical, or downright liars.

If you know of more, by all means, let me know.

Actually, that's rather true. The only alliance you can trust is the one that wants to stab you in the front.

The rest of them are just biding their time.

I'm honored?

Well AJ, your fomer alliance (NpO), are firm in their belief they haven't used their allies, been petty, hypocritical, or heaven forbid liars.

link

Rather than get into a long drawn out arguement with the virtuous NpO, over this I simply elected to let it go, but I'm pretty sure many have drawn the same conclusion as yourself.

I'm sure TOP feels extremely appreciated as a friend of the NpO.

I'm honored?

<3 you CSM. Brutal honesty.

But can you even trust yourself?

This war has made me ask myself what it is I trust... in myself. Do I trust my judgment in every situation? I think I can say I trust that I will do the right thing as I see it at the time, but I cannot say that this is the same thing as the trust you are looking for.

One more comment, this one about as OOC as it gets, but it fits here quite well:

Psalm 146:3-4

3 Do not put your trust in princes,

in mortal men, who cannot save.

4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;

on that very day their plans come to nothing.

Substitute nation leaders for princes and we have some interesting things to think about.

But can you even trust yourself?

This war has made me ask myself what it is I trust... in myself. Do I trust my judgment in every situation? I think I can say I trust that I will do the right thing as I see it at the time, but I cannot say that this is the same thing as the trust you are looking for.

The only way I can be certain as to whether I trust my own decisions, is if I stop playing by everyone else's rules. If you stop playing by their rules, you no longer have to worry about what will happen if x does y to z. You no longer have to worry about people lying to you.

I think what you said is a part of the trust... but it's ... not the whole thing. The trust I'm speaking of comes from integrity and truth.

The only way I can be certain as to whether I trust my own decisions, is if I stop playing by everyone else's rules. If you stop playing by their rules, you no longer have to worry about what will happen if x does y to z. You no longer have to worry about people lying to you.

I think what you said is a part of the trust... but it's ... not the whole thing. The trust I'm speaking of comes from integrity and truth.

I think we are close to talking about the same thing.

Let's say I tell you I will send you 50 tech tomorrow. Tonight my nation is attacked and I lose the ability to send that tech. Am I now less trustworthy? Does this put my integrity in question?

That is a very basic example.

Let's take it to the war level:

Let's say I tell you I will support your alliance taking a particular action in a war. As you are preparing to attack information is leaked of our agreement and the reason for the war is resolved when the peace agreement I offered publicly many days ago is accepted. Further, even though you and I agreed on fighting together in that war, your declaration of war expressed broader complaints than what I was fighting for. The result of that is those you attacked see no reason to settle your front of the war in peace.

The problem is that you have chosen to make the war about something more than the war I was fighting. The result is the place where your assistance was offered and accepted is no longer an issue in the enlarged conflict.

Seeing the nature of the war change so radically, is my integrity really in question if I now enter the war on a new front opposing the alliance I told I would support in the first front? Consider also that I did reenter the war to support a different alliance who came to my assistance who did not post a declaration of war that overreached the aims of the war.

I do not know if this is an accurate representation, but it is somewhat how I see it with the information that is currently available to us.

AJ, stepping away from IC for a moment, you hit the nail on the head. The only way you will find that trust you are looking for is to surround yourself with long term friends who have had a like vision through out the years and various alliances.

I am very disappointed the \m/-NpO was hijacked. It was a classic good vs evil conflict and is now polluted by those with their own agendas, at least when \m/ raids we are up front about it (generally we want to grow at the raidees expense) where as the current leaders of this war, on both sides want to to also grow out of others expense (be it growth by acquiring others possessions or by beating others down until they are the smaller alliance, but do so speaking out of the side of their mouth without coming close to speaking the truth.

GL, PS get a treaty or ten members for your alliance are we will raid you, just saying

AJ, stepping away from IC for a moment, you hit the nail on the head. The only way you will find that trust you are looking for is to surround yourself with long term friends who have had a like vision through out the years and various alliances.

I am very disappointed the \m/-NpO was hijacked. It was a classic good vs evil conflict and is now polluted by those with their own agendas, at least when \m/ raids we are up front about it (generally we want to grow at the raidees expense) where as the current leaders of this war, on both sides want to to also grow out of others expense (be it growth by acquiring others possessions or by beating others down until they are the smaller alliance, but do so speaking out of the side of their mouth without coming close to speaking the truth.

GL, PS get a treaty or ten members for your alliance are we will raid you, just saying

Oh I know, and I don't even think you have to surround yourself with friends, just like minded individuals. If you surround yourself with 10 or 20 or 30 people who tell you from day one that they'll never !@#$%^&* you, never lie to you, stick to their word and their character and always be truthful and up front about everything, in other words they'd have integrity of character, then that's all you really need. Doesn't matter if you like em, so long as you can trust em.

And as for the raiding thing, I know. It's unavoidable. But let's just say that I already have my next character mapped out, so whatever happens to astronaut jones at this point doesn't matter.

I think we are close to talking about the same thing.

Let's say I tell you I will send you 50 tech tomorrow. Tonight my nation is attacked and I lose the ability to send that tech. Am I now less trustworthy? Does this put my integrity in question?

That is a very basic example.

Let's take it to the war level:

Let's say I tell you I will support your alliance taking a particular action in a war. As you are preparing to attack information is leaked of our agreement and the reason for the war is resolved when the peace agreement I offered publicly many days ago is accepted. Further, even though you and I agreed on fighting together in that war, your declaration of war expressed broader complaints than what I was fighting for. The result of that is those you attacked see no reason to settle your front of the war in peace.

The problem is that you have chosen to make the war about something more than the war I was fighting. The result is the place where your assistance was offered and accepted is no longer an issue in the enlarged conflict.

Seeing the nature of the war change so radically, is my integrity really in question if I now enter the war on a new front opposing the alliance I told I would support in the first front? Consider also that I did reenter the war to support a different alliance who came to my assistance who did not post a declaration of war that overreached the aims of the war.

I do not know if this is an accurate representation, but it is somewhat how I see it with the information that is currently available to us.

To me it's simple though, your word is your word, and if you go back on it, then you can't be trusted. They gave their word to not honour those treaties, and then they honoured them and defended them against the very alliances they promised to NOT honour them to. It's shamelessly ballsy to say "but their declaration went a little further than ours, so therefore it's not the same thing." Your word is your word is your word, if you said it, and you don't do it, then you're a liar. Grub is a liar, straight up and down.

As an example, I told RoK if they didn't attack Polar after dropping the treaty, I would apologize to them for the things I said, and I did. I had no other choice but to apologize to them, because I gave them my word that I would. I also told wurm2112 that I would give him 50 tech plus 1.5m if I didn't come out of peace mode in time to complete his tech deal on time, and I didn't.. so you'll see I've currently got 50 tech/1.5m in cash pending to him.

You gotta keep your word, or else you're a liar. No one in their right mind should trust someone who so blatantly lied the way Grub did, not even his own members.

I was hoping you would disagree with how I characterized the events in my second example since I still don't understand how that makes him a liar.

Unless I am missing something key, his word was given about what he would do in the original war. That situation changed radically when the NpO-\m/ part of the war ended.

In fact, and I am very open to correction, I see him as showing integrity throughout all of this, especially since he even followed the treaty with GR.

I could be wrong, but it is his dogged consistency and not any questions about his integrity that has you upset. For him to have acted as you wanted he would have to have broken his word as codified in a treaty, not the specific promise of a war room conversation, which even there I still don't see how he lied since the fight where he okayed TOP's entry had ended days before he reentered the expanded war.

Hell, maybe I am missing something really obvious here. Has Grub admitted to lying anywhere I have not seen?

I was hoping you would disagree with how I characterized the events in my second example since I still don't understand how that makes him a liar.

Unless I am missing something key, his word was given about what he would do in the original war. That situation changed radically when the NpO-\m/ part of the war ended.

In fact, and I am very open to correction, I see him as showing integrity throughout all of this, especially since he even followed the treaty with GR.

I could be wrong, but it is his dogged consistency and not any questions about his integrity that has you upset. For him to have acted as you wanted he would have to have broken his word as codified in a treaty, not the specific promise of a war room conversation, which even there I still don't see how he lied since the fight where he okayed TOP's entry had ended days before he reentered the expanded war.

Hell, maybe I am missing something really obvious here. Has Grub admitted to lying anywhere I have not seen?

Saying one thing then doing another is not consistency. He admitted that what he said to TOP in the logs presented to the OWF were in fact his own words and the logs in question were true. So, how can saying one thing, then doing that which you said you would not, make you consistent? I would really like to know that.

Because, from where I stand, you're nit-picking in an effort to make him seem like he's not full of !@#$. He is. He flat out lied, and you're saying that no he didn't lie, and in fact I'm wrong for thinking he did because he's so "consistent."

What you're attempting to do is, you're attempting to !@#$ all over my ice cream and tell me it's chocolate fudge. That might work on some, but I'm not an idiot, and I know what's a lie and what isn't. Take your e-lawyering !@#$%^&* elsewhere.

Challenging you calling another a liar is elawyering now? Okay...

Hey I like your independent style and all, but I really think you are being way too simplistic here.

In the world you live in, you'd expect someone who told you yesterday you are his BFF to still be your BFF after you dumped in his ice cream.

In my world you can dump in my ice cream today but tomorrow I will be over it and work to keep the friendship... while keeping my bowl of ice cream away from you.

Weak analogy, but hey, work with what you give me.

Honored, AJ.

I think there are plenty of honorable leaders out there - I'd like to point to the rest of our allies that you didn't list there from Umbrella, FOK, Dark Templar, Athens and Federation of Buccaneers. It's a nice change from the past where the trust and friendship I had in our previous allies didn't really pan out the way I thought it would. You live and you learn. While it was a terrible experience at the time, it's taught me more than my fair share of lessons for my future in CN that's for sure.