Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 As opposed to what a MADP or MDoAP bloc can do? Can't such blocs be abused? Mutual aggression on anyone they like? Come on Tyga, everyone knows we're much more likely to abuse power than other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleda Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wouldn't alliances who openly declare to be against "bandwaggoning" in wars ( or at least the part of "getting involved with no treaty ties") have to agree to this doctrine? Bandwaggoning is only a construct , the doctrine seems to be mearly a written account of natural law . Anyone can attack anyone else for whatever reason they may have or no reason at all .... it is as it should be . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Come on Tyga, everyone knows we're much more likely to abuse power than other alliances. Good point. This doctrine is an outrage! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gondor Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I"m not going to lie, I like this doctrine because of it's guts alone. Although with that in mind, it is sorta useless. Because really, it just says. We'll attack you if you attack other people. Maybe. Although of course it could become very bold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pericles8th Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Leviathon, hasty words my freind, hasty words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfg4ng Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... We might take you seriously if you posted some substance relevant to our doctrine, but no your too busy thinking of unclever and irrelevant comparisons. Edited August 11, 2009 by Joshuajames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... This is the best you came up with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... I have yet to check the race today, what place is the Federation of Buccaneers in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I suppose that was meant to be insulting, but the mere fact that we showed up in the Sanction Race before we hit our five month anniversary is pretty indicative of our greatness, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorkingClassRuler Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Congrats on a sound policy, and clearly a thought-provoking one at that. Sure it's common sense and apparently something everyone can already do, but few alliances actually have a whole Doctrine to back up their words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Oh ok. Well you need not worry. People tend to watch everything we do. Or so you like to think, anyway. Personally, I believe that NSO hasn't been getting as much attention as it expected, and has therefore been acting in such a way as to try and snatch at some of the spotlight. See: recruitment from neutrals. This having been said, I certainly read this announcement, and read everything NSO puts out. But then, I read pretty much everything anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Congrats on a sound policy, and clearly a thought-provoking one at that. Sure it's common sense and apparently something everyone can already do, but few alliances actually have a whole Doctrine to back up their words. Few alliances need to write up a doctrine because they feel they haven't been getting enough attention. That's probably why you haven't seen this policy written up by any alliance despite many already practicing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Congrats on a sound policy, and clearly a thought-provoking one at that. Sure it's common sense and apparently something everyone can already do, but few alliances actually have a whole Doctrine to back up their words. We're certainly not like most alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I could imagine three reaons to issue this new Doctrine (none of them is about gaining attention, by the way - come on...) To "justify" a NSO intervention in wars that "didn't involve" them.I don't however see how NSO's enemies in said wars would consider NSO's intervention to be "justified" - thus maybe applying lighter "punishments" - in case of NSO's defeat. I also don't see the Siths looking for justifications...But maybe this Doctrine is really such narrowly scoped, and I am just overestimating it. To be able to throw NSO's weight in any crisis with a readily available justification for intervention, to be shown to potential rivals to (help) scare them. This is more Sith's like... To stir the pot of established conventions, to try initiate a change towards a less entangled "treaty web" (more "freedom" for everybody). This is even more Sith's like, and it also has the remarkable characteristics to be completely in line with NSO's past communications. It is also perfectly consistent with Article IV, thus I place my bet on this third guess. Article IV This doctrine shall be considered null and void once it is recognized by the rest of the Cyberverse that those rights which it guarantees are, in fact, guaranteed not by it but rather are intrinsic to all alliances. Article IV is by the way horribly vague. What the heck means to be "recognized by the rest of the Cyberverse"? I guess that it's just part of its "strength" (vague statements can be adapted to many situations). Kudos to you, Ivan Moldavi, you're really an innovator and an excellent global manipulator. A Maker, I dare say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 [*]To stir the pot of established conventions, to try initiate a change towards a less entangled "treaty web" (more "freedom" for everybody). This is even more Sith's like, and it also has the remarkable characteristics to be completely in line with NSO's past communications. It is also perfectly consistent with Article IV, thus I place my bet on this third guess. That would be a good bet to make, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 That would be a good bet to make, sir. I'm truly disappointed that you didn't try to provoke me! (One between you and me must be growing old. Or both...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'm truly disappointed that you didn't try to provoke me! (One between you and me must be growing old. Or both...) I don't pick fights with someone when they're correct. Still, I don't recall going toe to toe with you in the past that often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted August 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow, I am sorry but what order are you again?? Oh, yeah the one not even mentioned in the race anymore... What is this "race" that you speak of? Surely you aren't suggesting that we should concern ourselves with the infra hoarding "sanction" status so many others fall all over themselves with? Give me a couple hundred nations with backbone, character and zeal and you can take the multitudes that hide behind their treaties and run at the first sign of a fair fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Hail the Dark Lord 0/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Few alliances need to write up a doctrine because they feel they haven't been getting enough attention. That's probably why you haven't seen this policy written up by any alliance despite many already practicing it. I'd be interested in a link to all the wars declared between parties not holding a treaty. You said there are many of them since many alliances are already practicing this policy. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 To stir the pot of established conventions, to try initiate a change towards a less entangled "treaty web" (more "freedom" for everybody). This is even more Sith's like, and it also has the remarkable characteristics to be completely in line with NSO's past communications. It is also perfectly consistent with Article IV, thus I place my bet on this third guess. Hey, someone got it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'd be interested in a link to all the wars declared between parties not holding a treaty. You said there are many of them since many alliances are already practicing this policy. Thanks. Off the top of my head I can only think of three: LUE in GW2 (debatable), MK in the Shark War and NSO in the Karma War. I think the main reason it doesn't happen much if because if two alliances like each other enough to defend one another, why not sign a treaty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'd be interested in a link to all the wars declared between parties not holding a treaty. You said there are many of them since many alliances are already practicing this policy. Thanks. He wouldn't be able to come up with many because there hasn't been many. It was a throwaway comment meant to slam us, nothing more. 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.