Jump to content

Smooth

Members
  • Posts

    995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Smooth

  1. [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='04 February 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1265304035' post='2158990']
    [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=65668&st=0&p=1757154&fromsearch=1&#entry1757154"]The Moldavi Doctrine[/url]

    Basically, every alliance in the Cyberverse has the right to declare war on any other alliance for any reason at any time. This assumes that the alliance doing the declaring is responsible enough to understand that taking such action also means that others are liable to do likewise and that there are undoubtedly consequences for doing such things.

    Treaties are convenient means by which some alliances are able to manufacture their way into the soveriegn decision making roles of other alliances. If you sign a treaty with another alliance then by default you surrender a certain level of your sovereignty to that alliance. If you sign a mutual defense pact then you obligate yourself to defend that alliance even if they are miscreant boneheads that can't form two coherent sentences together properly to save their life in most circumstances. If you sign an aggression treaty you surrender an even greater portion of your sovereignty.

    To me, treaties have very little to do with building up a protective barrier around your alliance because the frequency of a supposed treaty partner choosing not to enter or to enter another side or to voice neutrality because of conflicting treaties seems to increase exponentially with every major war while the number of people !@#$%*ing and moaning because an alliance took aggressive action that didn't fit within their parameters of acceptable behavior seems to increase by an inverse amount. The fact that the "you attacked a friend of a friend" argument can even exist and not be laughed off the world stage as a ridiculous and preposterous notion stands as testiment to this trend.

    Overall, I believe the Moldavi Doctrine, whether through direct relation to it or indirect bellicose action without cause, symbolizes the barest roots of warfare in the Cyberverse. It isn't a new concept and has started to be embraced more and more as time progresses. Eventually the Cyberverse will function under it without it being issue or abnormal at all and the Doctrine will cease to be such and simply become the overall reality of conflicts.
    [/quote]

    Oh hi there ego.

    Moving on, though I agree a lot of alliance's do, sometimes, few their treaties a oAoDP's I can say for certain their are a few alliances out there that always do their best to honor their treaties.

  2. I am glad my brothers on the green team come in the defense of their allies when called. I just wish we weren't always on opposite sides. :/

    And I do hope you kick some $@! out there so people stop relentlessly bashing you. Though I hope MHA wins.

    Good luck GGA.

    o/ Green

  3. [quote name='TimLee' date='30 January 2010 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1264910711' post='2146497']
    Remember when we had the North and South Treaty Web?
    Remember when people use to aid fall 3,000,000 to multiple people?
    Remember when things were less political and more literal?
    [/quote]

    + No warchests + No coordination + No staggering

    o/ The Great War Era

    I miss it.

  4. [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1265179197' post='2155842']
    VE, I'm really happy for you, and I'm gonna let you finish, but Fark had one of the best blitzes of all time! One of the best blitzes of all time!
    [/quote]

    I lol'd hard.

    Also... /me facepalms

  5. You know why I love DoW threads? Everyone on the alliance declaring's side is like "WOOH" and while everyone else is like "OMG I USED TO LIKE YOU" and stuff. It happens in every war in every thread. It makes me laugh because, come on, are any of us ever going to change each other's minds? I think not.

    Polaris - Have a good fight, I know we will. We're all just defending our allies here.

    o/

  6. [quote name='Essenia' date='02 February 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1265165536' post='2154382']
    FIST. That was the start of the huge cancellation wave.
    [/quote]

    Yep. I remember it quite well. I believe ES told Ardus to "go ****" himself.

    [quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='02 February 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1265167640' post='2154426']
    Indeed it was. I recall it with much fondness.
    [/quote]

    Oh really? I distinctively remember you trying to suck up to us after that war for what ES did. Singing a different tune now, huh? I wish I still had the logs... I purged myself of all my logs when I quit after the Karma War.

  7. [quote name='chris8967' date='31 January 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1264920779' post='2146981']
    Yes, you would bottom line. I don't care what alliance your in, most likely they would hand you over to us, if not then I would still put in the order to have you crushed.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of ZI pal.
    [/quote]

    With his wonderful allies to back him up. :wub:

    Don't $%&@ with our allies.

  8. [quote name='Mr Damsky' date='31 January 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1264918834' post='2146926']
    Perhaps he didn't know? (Shocking I know for a [b]new[/b] player that just created an alliance to not grasp politics :gasp).

    Perhaps he thought it was funny? (Even though no one thought it was)

    Perhaps he is bored out of his mind?

    Anyway if RoK isn't willing to accept his apology they are just really sad and need to lighten up.
    [/quote]

    Fixed that for you. [s]Also, if RoK isn't willing to accept his apology it is probably because they don't care at all about this. Perhaps.[/s] Disregard that, I've been corrected!

×
×
  • Create New...