The AUT Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) Well, having fought on behalf of Polaris for the last war instead of being in an alliance that helped contribute to treaty cancellations to Polaris and using that as excuse for this recent turn of events I have something to say. I don't know who you think you are to use such remarks when you helped aid in Polar's downfall in the last war. Why? Because now you find it convenient to do so? As if you didn't have the option to stand by Polaris, you ran. You ran, and you ran to the same alliances that you are now breaking free from due to lack of respect and "avenging Polaris." So now, you make that stand. And why is that? Simply said because now you have a shot to win it all. Where were you all last war when you said E-ZI was horrible and FAN must be freed? Where were you then? But because it is now convenient to bring them up you do, and play to the crowds of Planet Bob while those who know what's happening watch on in disgust. Ragnarok, you signed this treaty with Pacifica to be on opposite sides of Polaris to avenge past grievances. When that treaty no longer suited you, you simply got rid of it. And now you've signed a treaty with Polaris and cancelled on Pacifica. How funny the thought, how hilarious the move. I'll leave those in Vox, FAN, and the others to ponder this thought. Think about it and analyse it. There is no change, just a movement using you as a rallying point. Heh, I guess I should say good luck? Edited April 11, 2009 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 It's the way people roll in this game, sadly. The reason FAN should be released isn't because it is now convenient, it's because they have suffered enough and deserve to play properly again. Well, that's the opinion of some, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reachwind Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 People tend to flock to the side they see as being the potential winner in the next round. The path of safety is always more appealing than the path of danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I am not sure if you've noticed, but there have been pervasive regime changes within the alliances included in your diatribe. Both Polaris and Ragnarok are very different alliances today than what they were at the time of the noCB war; it is only logical that new friendships could take form. Not to mention, the nature of the relationship between one alliance and another comes down to the friendship, or lack thereof, between the respective governments. Yes, Ragnarok has signed an MDOAP with Polaris, a former opponent. Polaris has also signed an MDOAP with Valhalla, another former opponent. Perhaps old grievances can be put to rest, and it is possible for new grievances with separate alliances to form in their place? The Cyberverse is fluid. Dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted April 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I am not sure if you've noticed, but there have been pervasive regime changes within the alliances included in your diatribe. Both Polaris and Ragnarok are very different alliances today than what they were at the time of the noCB war; it is only logical that new friendships could take form. Not to mention, the nature of the relationship between one alliance and another comes down to the friendship, or lack thereof, between the respective governments. Yes, Ragnarok has signed an MDOAP with Polaris, a former opponent. Polaris has also signed an MDOAP with Valhalla, another former opponent. Perhaps old grievances can be put to rest, and it is possible for new grievances with separate alliances to form in their place? The Cyberverse is fluid. Dynamic. That may be true, but using the "to avenge Polaris" excuse by certain alliances is downright ridiculous. And even if it was in the past and they're new alliances, aren't past grievances left to just the past? Or is it just convenient to use any excuse to back up any sort of action? Again this is a question I'm trying to figure out so thank you for your response, I didn't quite understand it perhaps because I'm a simple individual but it is apreciated nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Who exactly is looking to "avenge Polaris"? Many alliances on the other side gladly rolled Polar and I don't doubt that they regret doing so. However, that was the bond that brought many alliances on the side of the Coalition together. Aside from that link, they saw almost everything else differently, and agreed on very few things. Like WUT, the Coalition could only exist as long as there was a common enemy. That common enemy is gone, so naturally there differences are going to result in increased tensions and animosity towards each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Who exactly is looking to "avenge Polaris"? Many alliances on the other side gladly rolled Polar and I don't doubt that they regret doing so. However, that was the bond that brought many alliances on the side of the Coalition together. Aside from that link, they saw almost everything else differently, and agreed on very few things. Like WUT, the Coalition could only exist as long as there was a common enemy. That common enemy is gone, so naturally there differences are going to result in increased tensions and animosity towards each other. What this fine gentleman said. In fact, I've had multiple Coalition leaders personally express regret at how they behaved and the decisions they made at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 People grow balls when it's the cool thing to do, not the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I am not sure if you've noticed, but there have been pervasive regime changes within the alliances included in your diatribe. Both Polaris and Ragnarok are very different alliances today than what they were at the time of the noCB war; it is only logical that new friendships could take form. Not to mention, the nature of the relationship between one alliance and another comes down to the friendship, or lack thereof, between the respective governments. Yes, Ragnarok has signed an MDOAP with Polaris, a former opponent. Polaris has also signed an MDOAP with Valhalla, another former opponent. Perhaps old grievances can be put to rest, and it is possible for new grievances with separate alliances to form in their place? The Cyberverse is fluid. Dynamic. Polar's government is almost identical to what it was when that war started, actually, which just further drives home the point that the war was waged for a man that had left the alliance behind him. Anyway, I don't think anyone's looking to "avenge Polaris". It's not like they're dead or anything. People grow balls when it's the cool thing to do, not the right thing to do. Then it seems prudent that a few cool people should "grow balls" and lead others to do so by example, eh? Now where are we going to find cool people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithis Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 This isn't a new trend in CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slevin Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 RV has the answer. Aut, it's just the way the wind blows these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowen70 Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Seems like an overly simplistic take on what drives opinion in Cybernations. As RV eloquently stated RoK for example is a completely different AA in terms of leadership. I haven't heard anyone talk about Polaris and vengance. I don't think people particularly regret humbling Polaris, now they have fallen it is not surprising that new friendships are being formed. There have been a lot of wars in CN that have led to closer friendships. Each great war can change the political landscape of planet Bob considerably and treating political landscapes as though they existed in a vacuum doesn't take into account all the other variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Its OOC but we still talk like we are IC Politic is a machine people think they have control over. Most will turn on friends subconsciously using metal gymnastics that makes them think THEY are the ones being betrayed or have better morals before (if ever) they realized their mind is playing tricks on them. Human beings have a drive to conquer their environment no matter who is in the way, or that powers peaceful/aggressiveness. Most are waiting for the NPO to be out of the way, not because its "evil", they are waiting for it to be out of the way so they can start working against the next alliance in the hierarchy, unless they are that allaince, and you know what changes then, NOTHING they become same damn thing with another name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.