Unknown Smurf Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 In the topic about accountability it came down to will MK be rolled or not? Well, I honestly don't know, but the general consensus seems to be that they will, its just a matter of time. If and when that happens someone will step up to fill the void, they might not have a supreme grasp of the world like NPO did, or not even the most power like MK does/did, but they will hold a majority of power. For whatever reason, most people believe what the hegemony (either one) did was wrong, but I must ask, without the privilege of hindsight, would you have done it any differently? In the most recent war, when you found out that your ally, NoR, was going to go to war with an ally of C&G, putting your position on top of the world in jeopardy, would you risk political capital to start another war with CSN/SF just to secure your position? Hell I don't know if I would actually do it considering previous rhetoric of 'friends before pixels' that brought my alliance to that position of power, but I know the thought would be damn tempting. If you would have done it differently, how would you have? It is impossible for an alliance to hold power in this world without creating enemies, and as time goes on, the number of enemies increases. The only feasible way to win is to do what many great victors have done (the most notable of which is Dumbledore, at least to y'all ) and step away from the throne once victory has been achieved. But how would one do that in this world? I don't know. What I mean to say is, what MK has done is not all that bad, and I've only recently come to realize this. Because put in their shoes, you would have done the same thing (atleast the IC actions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.