Sebastian

Greetings world. Sometimes one is nostalgic. As R.O.C.K.ers we still dream about the day when we were still R.O.A.Dies. Some of us have decided to take action and do something about it. Without further adieu, I am proud to present the statutes of the Royal Order of Allied Duchies(R.O.A.D.) [quote] [center][size="5"]Statutes of the Royal Order of Allied Duchies[/size] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg_%281997-2003%29.svg/450px-Flag_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg_%281997-2003%29.svg.png[/img] [b]Motto:[/b] [size="1"][i]By divine right [/i][/size] [/center] § I: [b]Membership[/b] To be accepted into the Royal Order, one must fill out the specified application form and be accepted by the Grand Duke or the Chamberlain. Applicants that wish to reside in a sphere other than Yellow must be accepted by the Grand Duke. § II: [b]The Grand Duke[/b] The Grand Duke leads the Royal Order by royal prerogative and appoints the Privy Council at his will. He must appoint an Heir-Apparent that will take over in his absence or abdication. The Grand Duke will be considered absent if he has not shown signs of activity for forty-eight hours. If the Grand Duke is inactive for five days without giving notice he shall be considered abdicated. § III: [b]The Privy Council[/b] The Privy Council shall advice the Grand Duke. It consists of the Aide-de-Camp, the Chancellor and the Chamberlain. - The Aide-de-Camp shall communicate orders from the Grand Duke to all of the Allied Duchies, and advice him in times of war. - The Chancellor shall entertain foreign dignitaries and oversee the diplomatic conduct of our members. - The Chamberlain shall maintain order in the Ducal household and safeguard the economic wellbeing of the Allied Duchies. The privy councillors may appoint deputies to assist them in their duties. If the Grand Duke is unable to respond within reasonable time, the Privy Council may in urgent matters rule in the Grand Duke’s name through a simple majority. If they wish to declare a State of War or cessation of hostilities unanimous consent is required. § IV: [b]Limited State of War[/b] The individual duchies of the Royal Order may declare a Limited State of War against individual nations. They may not do so if the nation reside in the yellow sphere, or is under protection, of a Foreign Entity consisting of more than three members. Should the conflict escalate the individual duchy may not reasonably expect any aid. § 5: [b]Nuclear policy[/b] It is the right and duty of all members to become nuclear capable. The preemptive use of these weapons must be approved by either the Grand Duke, the Chamberlain or the Aide-de-Camp. If however one of the following scenarios play out, a nation is free to retaliate by going nuclear. These are as follows: a) If a the member is attacked by a nuclear weapon b) If member has it's nuclear arsenal destroyed by foreign spies. § VI: [b]Changes to these statutes[/b] These statues may be changed may be changed by the Grand Duke with the consent of the majority of Duchies in this Order. § VII: [b]Ratification[/b] [i]We hereby pledge to uphold these statutes and declare the Royal Order of Allied Duchies for founded.[/i] [center]Grand Duke Sebastian I of Sandtorv[/center][/quote] Our government is as follows: [size="4"]Grand Duke[/size] Sebastian I of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001264]Sandtorv[/url] [size="4"][size="3"]Privy council[/size][/size] [i]Aide-de-Camp[/i] Mappy of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001277]Zeprinzicus[/url] [i]Chancellor[/i] Neforatu of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001267]Decedere[/url] [i]Chamberlain[/i] Bojje of [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1001274]The Holy Empire of F[/url] Our forums is located at http://s4.zetaboards.com/ROAD/index/ Our IRC-channel is #ROAD at Coldfront. Our colour sphere is [color="#FFFF00"]Yellow.[/color] We are protected by SUN( ), so don't do anything stupid. Once we get properly established, we look forward to fighting and interacting with the TE community.

I especially enjoyed the part about liking the colour yellow. ---- Thanks for protecting us SUN. You are awesome.

[quote name='Erixxxx' date='29 May 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1275091195' post='2315067'] I am proud to see how Death Before Dishonor has grown to become selfsustaining in such a short time. Protecting you guys has truly been an honour, and that you want to continue relations with us makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. o/ DB4D o/ VA [/quote] It always makes me warm and fuzzy to see a yellow alliance do well, especially one like DB4D that I know has none of the colonialist attitude.

As a yellow patriot I find this to be truly awesome news!

Well, I see your position, and I understand we're on completely different levels here, so there's not anything to be gained from arguing. Still, I disagree with you blatantly dismissing it as non-comparable. They were promised protection from tech raids, when you join an alliance you're promised the same protection. Because of recent events, they no longer get that protection, when an alliance disbands, they can no longer provide that protection.

Hush you, we're busy taking sides and yelling at each other and stuff. Seriously though, words are empty. Now if that apology was followed up by reps to the red nations, it would have been a honourable way to handle an apology. I would've just considered it an honest mistake from a decent fellow.

I said right now. I don't consider it dishonorable because NPO claims ownership to Red, but because up until recently, nations on Red enjoyed protection like they would've if they were in an alliance. Thus, it's comparable to attacking a disbanded alliance. You do consider that dishonorable right?

Oh great, now you mock people for dismissing points. Wow. Lead by example isn't your strongest side, huh?

Great, you ignore what I said to mock me for a word you used yourself in the post I replied to.

Who's threatening DT? What's asked is that the aggressor from DT, who had the nerve to come here and brag about his opportunistic attack against unaligned Red nations, pays reps to said nations. That being said, how on Bob is the Revenge doctrine bad? Attacking Red right now is like attacking a recently disbanded alliance. Opportunistic and dishonorable.

A one man AA is not an alliance.

In that case, I extend my personal protection towards Merrie. And guess what, I do recognize his attack as a MDP-able relation.

I predicted you'd say so, but come on, don't pretend like this isn't a direct consequence of his tech raids. He attacked a nation that was under NPO's protection. True, it was a fair gamble that they wouldn't enforce that, and in the end, somebody chose to enforce it for them, but it's not as though it wasn't a risk he was willing to take.

Whatever happened to:

Well sir, it was fun debating with you. No matter what your position becomes, I'm glad my point got through. I think we both had to think hard about our stand tonight.

Well, to avoid getting into discussion about repeat offenses and stuff, I'll just limit myself to to say that I think that force is the keyword here. As a gesture of remorse and decency, he really should pay those reps.

We're arguing over whether or not the Revenge doctrine can exist independently from the Moldavi doctrine. If you see the Y#5 declaration: In here, FAN and GOLD extends their protection to both unaligned and aligned yellows, and actually encourages other alliances to come to yellow. I don't see anything about claiming ownership, and I don't see why NPO can't protect Red nations without them claiming ownership to the sphere.

You claimed the Y#5 doctrine to be an example of how sole ownership of a sphere was necessary to protect said sphere. FAN and GOLD declared it together, and never claimed ownership, so that sets a precedent that it is not necessary to own a sphere to protect it. Your argument is that the Moldavi doctrine established the precedence of sphere ownership. That disputes my point how? Edit: Spelling.

What? As far as I know, FAN and GOLD made that decleration together: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=71137 That's right, together. It wasn't coupled with a yellow equivalent of the Moldavi doctrine either. Your citing of a precedent thus goes in the disfavor of your own argument. I'm not saying that the "ownership" of the Red sphere wasn't one of your motivations, but surely that does not mean that the Revenge doctrine is impossible without it.

What I meant was that there is a difference between giving people a taste of their own medicine and giving them a double dose. I edited in some more in my first post to make it clearer, but you responded before I hit the edit button.

The saying is "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye", not "A tooth for a tooth, and then an eye for that". Edit: That being said, I don't necessarily think that Karma should adopt the foul practices that's been used in the past, but I do believe that it may be necessary to fight fire with fire. There's no reason why extreme measures against an evil is hypocritical!

I don't know where to start in this mess. Willirica, just stop. You're reflecting poorly upon yourself and your alliance. You're bragging about attacking nations used to being left alone, nations who haven't gotten used to not living under protection, thus possibly ruining their game experience. I'm baffled. To those claiming that raiding is so god damn righteous that you wish a peace with NPO will include ending their protection of unaligned Red nations, you're goddamn greedy. What's the matter, doesn't the other spheres have enough helpless nations? And don't counter with any of that "NPO only instated the Revenge doctrine because they wanted trade partners!!1!" either. There's quite a big difference between profiteering from keeping unaligned nations safe, and profiteering from curbstomping alliances. NPO is getting their just retribution from the latter, the former should rather be praised than punished. And lastly, to those who say that the Revenge doctrine is only possible because of the Moldavi doctrine, stop saying it. Since when is there no legal grounds for protecting unaligned on your sphere unless you claim sole "ownership" to said sphere? In fact, since when did we have any international laws put in place to warrant the use of such a phrase at all? Whether or not the NPO will choose to uphold the Revenge doctrine without the Moldavi doctrine is a different question. If they choose not to because of that, well, just goes to show how committed they truly are to the Red sphere.

Yelolow, that sphere sucks!

Hey RON, is the mass amounts of NS you are loosing a deliberate plan to mess our targets list up? I wanted to fight now, not to wait for another target! Edit: Yay, I got to fight now.

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade for a spade. If GGA is sick of hearing that they have no WRC's, they should have bought some. If the CoC is sick of being called cowards, then they shouldn't have abandoned their allies, or at least do as MCXA did, and have the guts to admit what they did. If propaganda wins wars, being sensitive about your adversaries feelings is stupid. You also make a blanket claim that spying is foul play. How come? If somebody manages to infiltrate their enemies, kudos to them, it's hard work and well within the borders of roleplay. Hacking is a whole other story, but I don't think that's what you meant. Basically, it looks as though you're trying to take the simulation out of a nation simulator. We're supposed to be leaders fighting a war against each other, not gentleman playing polo. The only thing that's wrong is that the Hegemony side plays the victim card instead of giving as good as they get; Tension makes the game fun. The only part of your post I agree with is that the Hegemony should get lenient peace terms. We can all agree that we don't want players to leave!