Melchior Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 The thread title says revenge doctrine, and the OP says Moldavi doctrine, and the poll seems to refer to Moldavi.Which is it? Well, had you read the question for this discussion, there's not much doubt that we're talking about the Moldavi Doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triskelli Posted February 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 If every alliance in the game moved to Red tomorrow, the NPO would have no credible foundation from which to argue against their supposed trespass. If every nation outside the NPO disappeared tomorrow, their claim to Red would have the same basis as it does now: "we say so". When their claim is exactly as strong when they are the most powerful among many as it is when they are alone in a void, it means their claim has no root of justification in a social contract. And that means it is worthless. Then why keep it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Because they live there. Possession is 9/10 of the law or something to that effect. I'm not sure if that is the answer you were hinting at though. Yes, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triskelli Posted February 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'll have to disagree on a few items here.On 'might makes right' ... how does right survive against wrong without its own version of might? And to continue my discussion with Mr Aros ... why should the New Pacific Order itself face the prospect of removal from its colour? If the rest of the world went to Red and tried to force Pacifica out, and if you claim that using force to send a group off its colour is wrong, then the rest of the world would be wrong for forcing an alliance off its colour. It's a very tricky area, although to be honest the conditions of the world render much of it moot. Why invade Red? And 'making a statement' can be done easily, and with more success, with words rather than with antagonistic actions. And if you think that you have to resort to thuggery to impose your version of right ... um, isn't that might making right? It's a Taoist belief that "Virtue without Power" is worthless. On the other hand, "Power without Virtue" is just as worthless. I do not think that the NPO should be cast from red; it need to merely cast out it's assumption that it has special rights over any other alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I do not think that the NPO should be cast from red; it need to merely cast out it's assumption that it has special rights over any other alliance. It's as if you ignored my point completely. How are were operating under the assumption that we have special rights over other alliances? If any other alliance wants to be on the red team they have every right to attempt to take it from us. They will of course fail, but it's their right to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triskelli Posted February 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 It's as if you ignored my point completely.How are were operating under the assumption that we have special rights over other alliances? If any other alliance wants to be on the red team they have every right to attempt to take it from us. They will of course fail, but it's their right to try. Because you have explicitly stated that YOU, and only YOU are to have Red senate seats, even if another wins a seat by popular election. In a competitive and equal world, is that fair? You say that you welcome any challenges, but you seem to relish their defeat. Is that a moral way to treat the vanquished? Someone in this very post said that the Moldavi Doctrine is justifed because "[You] got there first. Is that truly a right? So yes, it's safe to assert that Pacificans believe their alliance is more equal than others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) It is not like any of their treaty partners wish to move to red. Beyond that why should they weep over a war that another alliance brings to them? Is it fair? It isnt like it is the only color out there. Would they relish defeating their foe that attempted to challenge their claim? Why wouldn't they? This game thrives on conflict. You aren't really bringing up any new points to change the discussion. They claim it, their treaty partners recognize such and that is enough for them. Another says that the doctrine is worthless, how is it worthless when the entire world respects it and does not cross it except with condemning words on the OWF. They do not care for your condemning words so I suppose you just have to do something about it. Edited February 12, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Vox Populi did indeed succeed in taking a Red Senate seat from the NPO (two?, I wasn't around at that point). What we were answered with was enough slander to make a small country cry. Fornunately, Vox Populi is more than a small country. Regardless, teams actually affect this game very little, besides the minuscule happiness bonus between trading partners. I can understand wanting to control all three senate seats, because that provides actual power. Not allowing any other alliances to reside on the red team is nothing but Pacifican ego getting out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Vox Populi did indeed succeed in taking a Red Senate seat from the NPO (two?, I wasn't around at that point). What we were answered with was enough slander to make a small country cry. Fornunately, Vox Populi is more than a small country.Regardless, teams actually affect this game very little, besides the minuscule happiness bonus between trading partners. I can understand wanting to control all three senate seats, because that provides actual power. Not allowing any other alliances to reside on the red team is nothing but Pacifican ego getting out of hand. Well, actually you guys took a senate seat temporarily. Your senator was quitting and you couldnt maintain. That is hardly moving an alliance to Red and challenging this Doctrine in a serious manner. I can honestly say that during my time in the NPO during your "takeover" it was a nice distraction but it certainly wasnt a major challenge to the Moldavi Doctrine. Temporary attacks upon NPO sovereignty that end with everything going back to how it was could hardly be classified as a win. A bloody nose perhaps but a bloody nose doesnt mean one lost a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I'll save everyone a lot of time. No, there's no moral reason the NPO "owns" red. They just do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Well, actually you guys took a senate seat temporarily. Your senator was quitting and you couldnt maintain. That is hardly moving an alliance to Red and challenging this Doctrine in a serious manner.I can honestly say that during my time in the NPO during your "takeover" it was a nice distraction but it certainly wasnt a major challenge to the Moldavi Doctrine. Temporary attacks upon NPO sovereignty that end with everything going back to how it was could hardly be classified as a win. A bloody nose perhaps but a bloody nose doesnt mean one lost a fight. More like their arm was ripped off and some crazed doctor regrew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Red belongs to NPO. It has always belonged to NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deruvian Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) The Moldavi Doctrine is not binding. It is just a set of guidelines that Pacifica follows. The rest of the world is fine with it because A. The NPO claiming Red only strengthens other colors and gives everyone else more trading partners, etc. B. Why risk a war (which will weaken you) whose end result is either defeat or the further weakening of your color sphere? That being said, the Moldavi Doctrine only holds because nobody wants to do anything about it. If for some reason the NPO is isolated and a gigantic coalition emerges with the sole intent and purpose of taking Red back for the masses, then the Moldavi Doctrine will be rendered useless. But nobody cares enough to do this because it simply doesn't make sense. It may not be moral but it certainly is accepted. Why bother about red anyway? everyone knows Blue is the best Edited February 12, 2009 by Deruvian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severus Snape Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Moving to World Affairs (IC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 My personal answer to the question is no. Inharrently nobody has a right to claim a color all to themselves, and in all reality the NPO can not stop alliances from being part of the red sphere, because they phisicaly can not remove nations from the sphere. Nobody protests this or at least not a enough people from the red sphere, because in truth if enough nations became upset with the NPO imperial occupation of the sphere they would be over through. The NPO doesn't hold enough of a percentage of the red sphere to controle it, however given all that the NPO does for the red sphere via the red protection court, senate stability, and simply the economic advantages that exsist with having just one alliance in the sphere, red will not over turn the doctrine. I think out side influance could shake things up for the sphere much like what Vox did with the senate seat as well as simply how large they became, but unless the NPO does something to ceriously anger the nations of red, nobody looses anything by them having sole controle, so while they have no right or ability to keep the sphere to themselves, I see nothing wrong with them acting like they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Well, actually you guys took a senate seat temporarily. Your senator was quitting and you couldnt maintain. That is hardly moving an alliance to Red and challenging this Doctrine in a serious manner.I can honestly say that during my time in the NPO during your "takeover" it was a nice distraction but it certainly wasnt a major challenge to the Moldavi Doctrine. Temporary attacks upon NPO sovereignty that end with everything going back to how it was could hardly be classified as a win. A bloody nose perhaps but a bloody nose doesnt mean one lost a fight. It always a nice distraction that makes the Pacifican attack dogs come at us foaming at the mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Red belongs to NPO.It has always belonged to NPO. I think I see what you did there. And if I did you'd better watch yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Because you have explicitly stated that YOU, and only YOU are to have Red senate seats, even if another wins a seat by popular election. In a competitive and equal world, is that fair? I never spoke of fairness, and no, not all alliances are created equal. The red team is ours because we say it is and have the ability to back our words up with action if need be. This isn't really a hard concept to grasp, but you're just stirring the pot so have fun with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 I never spoke of fairness, and no, not all alliances are created equal. The red team is ours because we say it is and have the ability to back our words up with action if need be. This isn't really a hard concept to grasp, but you're just stirring the pot so have fun with that. Of course, claiming the black team is an unforgivable offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Of course, claiming the black team is an unforgivable offense. I'm not following you. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 NPO controls red sphere. It is stable and under control, thus there is justification of NPO owning the red sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 A bloody nose perhaps but a bloody nose doesnt mean one lost a fight. A bloody nose means quite a lot on the face of a king. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 A bloody nose means quite a lot on the face of a king. You're right, it means someone will be bearing the brunt of the kings righteous wrath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 You're right, it means someone will be bearing the brunt of the kings righteous wrath. Most likely, his own subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 You're right, it means someone will be bearing the brunt of the kings righteous wrath. Uninspired as always, Corinan. Thank you for this. 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.