On the Bandwagon

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

I see no bandwagonning. I see the activation of various defensive and aggressive treaties. If this is bandwagonning I'd be very interested to know what precisely treaties are for.

[Venizelos]

in the noCB war the rations were 7:1 for the hegemony.

in this one they are around 1.8:1 against NPO.

you call that bandwaggoning?

this effort to equate Karma and the (former) Hegemony is simply sad.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Venizelos

[Gabe Logan]

I'm very surprised by the massive hatred against pacifica on these forums these past two days. I can understand it from nations and alliances that lost wars in the past few years, but there seem to be uncountable others (mostly in small alliances) that have absolutely no reason to react like this.

What you're not accouting for is that many of these small alliance members were at one time in larger alliances and have been wronged by the NPO in one form or another. This is a revolution, and imho, anyone who is against the oppression and tyranny the NPO has imposed will step in to help ensure they never have the chance to do it again. That's not bandwagonning. That's taking a stand.

[New Frontier]

Would you care to name those bandwagoners?

Sparta seems to jump out at me.

I love how everyone takes a "for me or against me" stand here. In case anyone's wondering, I think it's about time NPO got their lumps. I've been wronged by them as much as anyone. That doesn't mean I'll become a fan of bandwagonners and cowards.

[Rebel Virginia]

As I think I made clear earlier, I have no idea whether Karma plans to unite after the war. However, I do know that there are far too many bandwagonners, and that's something I cannot support, regardless of side.

I don't see Karma being able to unite even if it wanted to. There's a fair amount of animosity between Superfriends and Citadel. Like I said, temporary wartime coalition, sort of like the one against Polar. Once the enemy is removed differences will surface and the cycle will continue.

[njndirish]

Just a question, when was the last global conflict which did not have revenge on the mind of one of the sides?

[New Frontier]

Just a question, when was the last global conflict which did not have revenge on the mind of one of the sides?

Two wrongs, one right, etc etc.

[rabonnobar]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1452385

Yet another example. Pathetic.

[Margrave]

Doesn't anyone else here feel as though the anti-NPO coalition is no better than the Continuum ever was? Certainly there are several alliances that have held true to their convictions always, people like MK, GR and most of the Superfriends. Others have had a true change of heart, due to government and membership changes. However, they've been reinforced by a group of flip-floppers who are merely suctioning themselves onto the strongest side.

Anyone that knows me knows I'm not the hegemony's biggest fan, but anyone with a brain knows that I'm certainly not defending them here as a sycophant. If that's what I was, I'd be posting something completely different.

At some point, everyone in this game is going to own up for their treachery, of that you can be sure. Things like this don't just get swept under the rug.

I believe Great Wars 2 and 3 tell that story fairly well.

No, I don't. It was time for this war, and I'll be damned if someone calls me a bandwagoner just because I want in on the action. This stupid idea that joining a war you approve of in order to get some wartime is wrong needs to go die in a fire. I will declare on who I want to and when I want to, and if you want to make that into a moral judgment on my right to fight for what I believe, you can sod off.

[Ravnica]

Doesn't anyone else here feel as though the anti-NPO coalition is no better than the Continuum ever was? Certainly there are several alliances that have held true to their convictions always, people like MK, GR and most of the Superfriends. Others have had a true change of heart, due to government and membership changes. However, they've been reinforced by a group of flip-floppers who are merely suctioning themselves onto the strongest side.

Anyone that knows me knows I'm not the hegemony's biggest fan, but anyone with a brain knows that I'm certainly not defending them here as a sycophant. If that's what I was, I'd be posting something completely different.

At some point, everyone in this game is going to own up for their treachery, of that you can be sure. Things like this don't just get swept under the rug.

I believe Great Wars 2 and 3 tell that story fairly well.

I expect you're right. My point isn't that Karma as a ruling body (if you'll be able to unite after the war, or if you even want to) will be as tyrannical as Pacifica. I'm not sure I even have a point. This is simply the rambling of a crochety old !@#$%^& who detests bandwagonners.

Honestly? If you think people are bandwagoning, you should name names instead of blindly pointing fingers. And, automatically, Karma's bad because it's something that opposes NPO? Ohshi-- Karma's only as bad as NPO and cronies if they impose such sinister war terms and act tyrannically. A lot of people loved V in V for Vendetta because he stood for something. You seem to be the opposite.

Most are opportunistic scum, let's not mince words.

Pacifica stands virtually alone against the world.

If Pacifica didn't have such overinflated ego and quasi-tyrannical "We own the game" attitude, maybe things would be different. In other times, what I just said would get me curb stomped and probably my alliance as well. See how things have changed.

Hey, if you say "they're as bad as NPO!" enough without any supporting arguments or evidence I'm sure it will magically become true.

wait no it won't

Thank you for saying that. It's pretty shameful to just say people are "bandwagoneers" and then compare the people on the Karma's side of the fence to Pacifica. hurr hurr classy tyranny lol

Would you care to name those bandwagoners?

Honoring agreements != bandwagoneering

[Ogaden]

I apologize for my outburst earlier.

[Jens of the desert]

I understand where you are coming from, but then I must remind myself of the last 2 and a half years or so. It consisted of curbstomping and waiting for the next one to occur. These were the most boring times on CN and I look forward to seeing something different, even if similar in a strange way, but still different.

[kingzog]

I liked the old Cheyenne better.

Also, I've yet to see a Karma leader seriously suggesting they would impose some kind of draconian never-ending slavery or disbandment on the NPOor its allies. The worst comments have come from the rank-and-file, who are demanding blood. Their leaders are being moderate, as leaders should.

Let me explain it:

The 'joke' is suggesting that the NPO be treated like those it has dictated to in the past. If you cannot understand why that's funny, I would like to introduce you to a wonderful word: Schadenfreude. It aptly describes what many feel right now.

That so many buy the NPO's counter-propaganda is simply pathetic.

That goes double for you, Cheyenne.

[New Frontier]

I don't really see where I claimed Karma would impose ANY terms on anyone.

[ztilbeht]

Alliances "bandwagoning" against the Pacific is purely their own fault. They abused their power and now their victims and those hoping to avoid becoming their victims are rising against them. This is a Great Revolution, not a Great War.

Edited April 24, 2009 by ztilbeht

[Detlev]

Doesn't anyone else here feel as though the anti-NPO coalition is no better than the Continuum ever was? Certainly there are several alliances that have held true to their convictions always, people like MK, GR and most of the Superfriends. Others have had a true change of heart, due to government and membership changes. However, they've been reinforced by a group of flip-floppers who are merely suctioning themselves onto the strongest side.

Anyone that knows me knows I'm not the hegemony's biggest fan, but anyone with a brain knows that I'm certainly not defending them here as a sycophant. If that's what I was, I'd be posting something completely different.

At some point, everyone in this game is going to own up for their treachery, of that you can be sure. Things like this don't just get swept under the rug.

I believe Great Wars 2 and 3 tell that story fairly well.

Name those alliances that you think are "suctioning" themselves to the strongest side.

[kingzog]

I don't really see where I claimed Karma would impose ANY terms on anyone.

You're correct and I'm exhausted.

So let me backpedal a bit (wheeeeeee!) and say that I'm seeing none of what you describe. Where is this treachery on the Karma side?

The NPO & Co. made their bed. Now they get lie in it. And when all is said and done, they'll get to make a new bed.

Edited April 24, 2009 by kingzog

[The FSM]

You're correct and I'm exhausted.

So let me backpedal a bit (wheeeeeee!) and say that I'm seeing none of what you describe. Where is this treachery on the Karma side?

The NPO & Co. made their bed. Now they get lie in it. And when all is said and done, they'll get to make a new bed.

I dont believe that Chey is referencing overt acts of bandwagoning by alliances that have in the past few days, I believe he is referencing the many alliances that have fought on the side of NPO in past wars that are conspicuously absent in this war. Over the past 6 months or so there has been alot of reorganizing of the treaty web as alliances sensed that NPO would finally be getting what was coming to them and that it might be time to put some distance between them and NPO& Co. so that they dont find themselves caught on the losing side of a war. Currently the Hegemony is outnumbered by 75 million total NS, the number of alliances in the Karma Koalition is astounding, even if all the currently neutral major alliances were to throw their lot in with the NPO there wouldnt even make up half the difference between the two sides.

Chey was not making this post to decry XXX and YYY alliances as dirty bandwagoners because ultimately there is no way of knowing why XXX alliance changed their allegiance from the last war and decrying them wouldnt be prudent or constructive. Rather I do believe Chey was trying to get people to actually think about whats going on rather than getting caught up in this wave of 'with NPO out of the way everything wrong with CN will be done away with' (a simplification i know, but it proves a point).

The fact that NPO won the previous few wars by astounding margins and is now losing this one by a large margin obviously raised suspicions with Chey, and they do with me and Im sure with many others in CN who have chosen not to voice their suspicions.

The counter argument that all the alliances involved were simply following treaty obligations does nothing to refute Chey's suspicions. Over the past 6 months many alliances have reorganized their treaties so that they can be connected to the winning side and then follow their treaties in.

[Mongrel]

I don't agree that there is massive bandwagoning. I define bandwagoning as either jumping into a sure curbstomp in hopes of harvesting some of the spoils for yourself, or joining a war with no valid CB. I've seen a couple declarations that seem to be just for the sake of getting some punches in, but that's about it. If you define bandwagoning as those who may not have had the courage to fight this all alone, but find that courage when they see the forces that may support them, than I will say that's a bad definition. Wars are not entered lightly, and only a fool would enter a war, with no binding treaties, where defeat was inevitable. So yes there may be alliances who have joined only after seeing that the opportunity for victory was very real, but to act as if they all should have been willing to march their people into destruction with no hope of victory is really missing the point of diplomacy, and leadership.

As for you comparing Karma to the very forces they are in opposition to, I think you're really stretching it. I will say that I find the name Karma a bit of a misnomer. Karma happens, it's not something that others can dish out. However war requires a certain level of propaganda and one-sided thinking on each factions part. The true test will be to see how this ends, and if Karma are the victors, how they form the world that follows.

[Bleh32]

Doesn't anyone else here feel as though the anti-NPO coalition is no better than the Continuum ever was? Certainly there are several alliances that have held true to their convictions always, people like MK, GR and most of the Superfriends. Others have had a true change of heart, due to government and membership changes. However, they've been reinforced by a group of flip-floppers who are merely suctioning themselves onto the strongest side.

Anyone that knows me knows I'm not the hegemony's biggest fan, but anyone with a brain knows that I'm certainly not defending them here as a sycophant. If that's what I was, I'd be posting something completely different.

At some point, everyone in this game is going to own up for their treachery, of that you can be sure. Things like this don't just get swept under the rug.

I believe Great Wars 2 and 3 tell that story fairly well.

There's always going to be bandwagoners who jump on the side that's winning. Some of the same alliances we see on Karma's side would be fighting with The Hegemony had they been stronger.

You mentioned alliances like GR, MK, and the superfriends, as well as other alliances like CSN are staying true to their values and morals and they are essentially the ones running the show rather than the few bandwagoners who jumped in.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Bleh32