A Question of Authority.

[Triskelli]

As I am sure you are all aware, the New Pacific Order claims soverignty over the entire Red trading sphere, and oversees the development of Red alliances.

My humble query to you, the masses, is this;

What right?

What right gives the NPO to make such bold claims unchallenged? What right allows TOTAL control over the Red senate seats and it's alliances? What right makes the removal of productive competition Okay?

To look at it, it seems that sheer Might makes the right. But you, dear reader, hopefully know that might isn't right, and that because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you should DO that thing.

But, like the humble Socrates before me, I realize that I know nothing. So, I give this question to you, so that you may decide:

"Is the Moldavi Doctrine right?"

~Triskelli

*EDIT*

Changed main discussion topic from Revenge Doctrine to Moldavi Doctrine*

Edited February 12, 2009 by Triskelli

[Trinite]

WiTIdE?

Who would want to go to red anyway? Black is way hotter.

[Commander Benji]

If someone waves a big stick at you, you will probably say "Yes" to a lot of thing.

If that big stick represents the largest alliance in CN, you may even say "Yes, sir".

And if this large alliance tells you to stay out of the red sphere... you say "Not a problem".

[Delta1212]

It's not a treaty and you should fix the poll so people can't vote for both.

[Triskelli]

If someone waves a big stick at you, you will probably say "Yes" to a lot of thing.

If that big stick represents the largest alliance in CN, you may even say "Yes, sir".

And if this large alliance tells you to stay out of the red sphere... you say "Not a problem".

But that doesn't make it justifyible: just easier to avoid the topic all together.

This, however, is a breach of independent liberties and free choice, wouldn't you agree?

[Commander Benji]

But that doesn't make it justifyible: just easier to avoid the topic all together.

This, however, is a breach of independent liberties and free choice, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, I wasn't justifying, just trying to sound cool. >_>

In short, yes, I would agree.

[Delta1212]

You could make a case against the Moldavi Doctrine. Not so much against the Revenge Doctrine.

[Triskelli]

If someone waves a big stick at you, you will probably say "Yes" to a lot of thing.

If that big stick represents the largest alliance in CN, you may even say "Yes, sir".

And if this large alliance tells you to stay out of the red sphere... you say "Not a problem".

If not a treaty or official document, then what is it?

[Delta1212]

If not a treaty or official document, then what is it?

It's a doctrine. A doctrine and a treaty are very different things.

[Ferrous]

An interesting question. What is "Morally Just" is a very subjective inquiry, so this could be an interesting debate.

If we had religions in the Cyberverse, then this question would be easy to answer. Morals typically come from a religious doctrine or philosophical work, but seeing as there are no religions, and few well-written philosophies that exist outside of Francoism and Voxism, we are left with a void or a chaos that would describe the international sphere. And yes, I'm aware that I'm using language that Vladimir uses, sue me. It works.

Without any codified moral philosophy for the greater public, your question cannot be ultimately answered in the affirmative or otherwise, given that each individual will subject the question to their own personal morals which are likely to not match that of everyone else. That said, I think you're really just looking for personal opinions, so I'll venture mine.

First, let's look at what the Revenge Doctrine is. Basically, it says that if you tech raid a red nation, in an alliance or otherwise, they are protected by the NPO, free of charge. Even without the context of the Moldavi Doctrine (which the Revenge Doctrine simply reinforces), we are essentially pitting the morality of tech raiding versus the morality of protecting those who choose not to be in an alliance. If we choose to accept that tech raiding is in fact moral, then there is no reason why the NPO's actions to defend those nations should not be moral. After all, one nation is committing their forces to attack a weaker nation, while the NPO commits their forces to defend that weaker nation. Accepting one as moral and the other as not would simply be a double standard. On the other hand, if we accept that tech raiding is immoral, then the only appropriate response would be to do what the NPO has done, which is to act against immoral acts like tech raiding.

Now, if you wanted a really interesting conversation, you should ask if the Moldavi Doctrine is moral. That discussion would hold much more promise.

[Triskelli]

Now, if you wanted a really interesting conversation, you should ask if the Moldavi Doctrine is moral. That discussion would hold much more promise.

I think I shall do just that, because that was the question I really wanted to ask; My chronology was merely mixed.

Because it is objectionable to say that all candidates for the Red Team senate ahould belong only to the NPO

But in response to your statement, it is part of the natural cycle in CN to have wars.

Wars, no matter the scale, could not exist without a causus belli

This cause is always in the immediate interest of the agressor.

Because there are no geopolitical or strategical benefits between nations, the only benefit is through supplies "stolen".

So, to increase one's chance of survival, it is only natural to engage an opponent smaller that oneself

On a small scale, this is Tech Raiding; Evil and Immoral

On a Large scale, this is a Great War; Glorious and Patriotic

But because of MDPs and MAPs, there is no chance of war between alliances except for the actions of rouge nations.

Who tech raid.

So, tech raiding, while not moral, it is neither immoral, much like a hailstorm. A force of nature, if you will.

And has it ever been considered moral to tamper with natural forces?

Edited February 12, 2009 by Triskelli

[Commander Benji]

we are essentially pitting the morality of tech raiding versus the morality of protecting those who choose not to be in an alliance.

Also, ownership and authority other something that should be equal too everyone.

I say "should be" simply because the red sphere is the only sphere that is "owned" by an alliance. Thus the majoirty do not practice this ownership.

[Earogema]

They have the power to do it, and a bunch of people are content with just that.

It's totally boring and cowardly, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Also, your title isn't quite what your OP is about.

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

Are you talking about the Moldavi Doctrine (we are the only people allowed in the Red Senate) or the Revenge Doctrine (we protect Red nations from tech raids)? The one is mentioned in your topic title, the other in the poll question.

This has left me confused.

[Earogema]

Are you talking about the Moldavi Doctrine (we are the only people allowed in the Red Senate) or the Revenge Doctrine (we protect Red nations from tech raids)? The one is mentioned in your topic title, the other in the poll question.

This has left me confused.

The OP is entirely about Moldavi, but the title is about the Revenge one.

Think of it like the Patriot act.

[Qaianna]

All of this begs a question, seriously.

That question: What do the non-New Pacific Order nations in the Red sphere think of it? Granted, it may be difficult to gauge, given the circumstances.

And keep in mind that the Moldavi and Revenge doctorines are both in effect. We have a copy over here, and the text of Revenge basically says 'Moldavi says we own the place. Revenge says this means we actually have responsibilities to the sphere'.

Some could see the two doctorines as ideal for the hands-off rulers, those who don't like getting involved in politics as such, and especially not random wars that come down the line. Or at least have someone they can send their attacker to for booking.

I'll reread Moldavi, but Revenge cites it as its reason for existing; it seems the two are intended to work together. 'Red is ours, and we'll protect it!' is the intent.

I'm curious if anyone else has tried checking with the Order on making a new Red alliance.

[Earogema]

All of this begs a question, seriously.

That question: What do the non-New Pacific Order nations in the Red sphere think of it? Granted, it may be difficult to gauge, given the circumstances.

And keep in mind that the Moldavi and Revenge doctorines are both in effect. We have a copy over here, and the text of Revenge basically says 'Moldavi says we own the place. Revenge says this means we actually have responsibilities to the sphere'.

Some could see the two doctorines as ideal for the hands-off rulers, those who don't like getting involved in politics as such, and especially not random wars that come down the line. Or at least have someone they can send their attacker to for booking.

I'll reread Moldavi, but Revenge cites it as its reason for existing; it seems the two are intended to work together. 'Red is ours, and we'll protect it!' is the intent.

I'm curious if anyone else has tried checking with the Order on making a new Red alliance.

Vox was red for a while!

Even with a popularly elected senator though, without intent of staring a sanction war, we were pushed off (or they attempted to until we moved). But this topic has been debated to death.

I remember VG Coalition or something of that nature being allowed to exist on red as long as it didn't have any intentions of holding a senate seat.

Edited February 12, 2009 by MegaAros

[SirDelirium]

What is right on Planet Bob is what can be done with your pixels. If NPO can enforce the Moldavi Doctrine with their pixels, the it is right and it is just.

Can we say that it is just if their pixels could not defend the red sphere? No, of course not. The winners decide what is just.

[Triskelli]

But this topic has been debated to death.

Then why doesn't someone do something about it?

[Qaianna]

Vox was red for a while!

Even with a popularly elected senator though, without intent of staring a sanction war, we were pushed off (or they attempted to until we moved). But this topic has been debated to death.

I remember VG Coalition or something of that nature being allowed to exist on red as long as it didn't have any intentions of holding a senate seat.

Might want to work on the draft proposal a little better next time, guys. They might have concerns if your application lists 'Current Wars' as several of their MDP partners. And then there's the fact that they saw getting that senate seat as a problem. Oh well, history is history.

To be honest, the only other alliance I can think of that in any way implies Red presence is the Multi-Colour Cross-X Alliance, and that only due to the multi-colour bit. I can't think of many others even thinking of trying.

I guess one other aspect of it is 'Why fight to get onto Red?'. Many other colours are avaiable that are either stable and fine with new alliances showing up, or lawless and chaotic enough that no-one cares. Personally, I don't see an issue with each colour having its own touch. And, well, that means that Red's unique decor tends to have black and blue flags all over it.

[Virillus]

Did this thread stick a Linkin park song in anyone elses head?

[Earogema]

Then why doesn't someone do something about it?

Not this topic specifically, but the Vox senate seat scandal. I'd just rather not derail the thread into Vox vs. NPO.

Vox's stance is pretty clear on it. The NPO has no right to own all of red.

[Azaghul]

It's not really right or wrong.

Really just hurting themselves mostly, color partners make good allies, trade partners, and also make you less vulnerable to Vox like shenanigans.

[Gatherum]

WiTIdE?

Who would want to go to red anyway? Black is way hotter.

Indeed, for black is the color of charred flesh.

[Sir Donald R Deamon]

I realize that I know nothing

Says it all, thanks. Case closed.