A Question of Authority.

[Earogema]

Says thanks.

Says it all, thanks.

[Deruvian]

Then why doesn't someone do something about it?

Nobody would want to cause friction for such a matter. If this were like the real world where land is limited then things might be different. However any other team may have an unlimited number of nations. In fact keeping the doctrine untouched actually helps other spheres gain trade partners because alliances that would have sprung up on red choose to reside on other colors instead!

[Qaianna]

Nobody would want to cause friction for such a matter. If this were like the real world where land is limited then things might be different. However any other team may have an unlimited number of nations. In fact keeping the doctrine untouched actually helps other spheres gain trade partners because alliances that would have sprung up on red choose to reside on other colors instead!

As I said earlier ... there's nothing forcing people to be on Red. And I highly doubt that the New Pacific Order is controlling the road out of Red in case members there prefer other colours. And as cited earlier, there is no benefit to trying to attack the Order for it. Even as an enemy, there is no material gain.

And random attacks on things tend to make people more defensive, in their minds justifying the further control. Attacking something held justifies the hold on it. At this point in the world stage, there are other colours to inhabit.

No material benefit, minimal morale benefit, no foreign relations benefit, no civil rights benefit due to the fact they can leave Red whenever they feel like ... um, why is there a challenge to the colour? I have to ask ... what are the 'inherent' rights to a colour to begin with? The only one I can think of that doesn't carry some sort of obligation is Grey, which is the point of it. All the others, you're under the sway of a Senate that you have minimal choice in to begin with. As well as existing powers. Don't tell me that, say, the Pink Warrior Network would appreciate an alliance showing up on Pink and throwing raving senators into its senate.

Colours should be allowed to gain their own identity, I will agree. Over time, Red's identity has been 'Protectorate of the New Pacific Order'. If Red nations really object, then let them approach Pacifica and tell them what they want. Otherwise, all of this discussion we make is as much empty air.

[Tlelaxue]

Morals typically come from a religious doctrine or philosophical work, but seeing as there are no religions

The followers of the Orange Catholic Church are deeply offended by your comments.

[Earogema]

As I said earlier ... there's nothing forcing people to be on Red. And I highly doubt that the New Pacific Order is controlling the road out of Red in case members there prefer other colours. And as cited earlier, there is no benefit to trying to attack the Order for it. Even as an enemy, there is no material gain.

And random attacks on things tend to make people more defensive, in their minds justifying the further control. Attacking something held justifies the hold on it. At this point in the world stage, there are other colours to inhabit.

No material benefit, minimal morale benefit, no foreign relations benefit, no civil rights benefit due to the fact they can leave Red whenever they feel like ... um, why is there a challenge to the colour? I have to ask ... what are the 'inherent' rights to a colour to begin with? The only one I can think of that doesn't carry some sort of obligation is Grey, which is the point of it. All the others, you're under the sway of a Senate that you have minimal choice in to begin with. As well as existing powers. Don't tell me that, say, the Pink Warrior Network would appreciate an alliance showing up on Pink and throwing raving senators into its senate.

Colours should be allowed to gain their own identity, I will agree. Over time, Red's identity has been 'Protectorate of the New Pacific Order'. If Red nations really object, then let them approach Pacifica and tell them what they want. Otherwise, all of this discussion we make is as much empty air.

This begs the question though.

If a color chooses its identity, then what allows the NPO to attempt to remove a popularly elected senator?

Edited February 12, 2009 by MegaAros

[mike717]

NPO has the right to remove a popularly elected senator, just as red has the right to vote for a non npo senator.

im surprised we have to go over this again.

NPO owns red because it claims soveriegnty over it, and can back up that claim. Nothing more and nothing less. Why would anyone care enough to do something about it when 1) they can't and 2) even if they could it would be easier to set up shop elsewhere.

It's not right or wrong, it just is.

[Earogema]

NPO has the right to remove a popularly elected senator, just as red has the right to vote for a non npo senator.

im surprised we have to go over this again.

NPO owns red because it claims soveriegnty over it, and can back up that claim. Nothing more and nothing less. Why would anyone care enough to do something about it when 1) they can't and 2) even if they could it would be easier to set up shop elsewhere.

It's not right or wrong, it just is.

So it's not moral then?

Then I suppose you voted no.

[Qaianna]

This begs the question though.

If a color chooses its identity, then what allows the NPO to attempt to remove a popularly elected senator?

The same thing that allowed that popularly elected senator to get in: having more population. The tyrrany of numbers, as those determine who's in and who's out. The Order's votes count the same as anyone else. They just tend to organise better. Just about like any other democracy, if you think about it.

[Earogema]

The same thing that allowed that popularly elected senator to get in: having more population. The tyrrany of numbers, as those determine who's in and who's out. The Order's votes count the same as anyone else. They just tend to organise better. Just about like any other democracy, if you think about it.

Yes, but a democracy doesn't attempt by force to remove its competition.

Well good ones anyway.

[Bilrow]

I voted no since the Moldavi Doctrine is not a treaty.

[Qaianna]

Yes, but a democracy doesn't attempt by force to remove its competition.

Well good ones anyway.

It's not a true democracy, anyway. There's a requirement of being in the top 100 nations on your colour. As an example ... well, regardless of how you, Trotsky's Revenge, Jason 8, or Shane Price might feel about me, I'm not becoming a Green senator anytime soon. Organise whatever campaigns you want, bribe everyone on Green to vote for me. I'm not in because of the top 100 restriction.

Which means that if you're someone that also draws hostile military attention to yourself regularly, you will struggle to remain qualified becuase of the top 100 bit. If you don't like it, sadly, the options I can see are either play nice or submit prayers against it.

[Earogema]

It's not a true democracy, anyway. There's a requirement of being in the top 100 nations on your colour. As an example ... well, regardless of how you, Trotsky's Revenge, Jason 8, or Shane Price might feel about me, I'm not becoming a Green senator anytime soon. Organise whatever campaigns you want, bribe everyone on Green to vote for me. I'm not in because of the top 100 restriction.

Which means that if you're someone that also draws hostile military attention to yourself regularly, you will struggle to remain qualified becuase of the top 100 bit. If you don't like it, sadly, the options I can see are either play nice or submit prayers against it.

True as that is, think of that limit as an "age" limit, like in certain real world nations.

If you meet those requirements, you shouldn't be forced off though.

[Qaianna]

True as that is, think of that limit as an "age" limit, like in certain real world nations.

If you meet those requirements, you shouldn't be forced off though.

The requirements aren't mere age, though. One of the requirements is, fundamentally, 'be someone who's able to stay in the top 100'. This is, in essence, a way to hold a senator in check: if you fail to serve your sphere, in come the bombs. And if you want to be a Red senator, your constituency is going to be largely New, Pacific, and Order.

I can't think of it as an age limit due to the fact that it's really not age.

[Earogema]

The requirements aren't mere age, though. One of the requirements is, fundamentally, 'be someone who's able to stay in the top 100'. This is, in essence, a way to hold a senator in check: if you fail to serve your sphere, in come the bombs. And if you want to be a Red senator, your constituency is going to be largely New, Pacific, and Order.

I can't think of it as an age limit due to the fact that it's really not age.

Fair enough.

I still think is absolutely unjust to prevent a senator from coming to power because you have the forceful means of doing so though. I cannot wrap my head around using means of force to stop a democratic process, and then saying it's completely moral.

Since the OP is a question of morality, I have to say no.

I personally disagree with the top 100 nation system, but I can see why it's there.

[Qaianna]

Fair enough.

I still think is absolutely unjust to prevent a senator from coming to power because you have the forceful means of doing so though. I cannot wrap my head around using means of force to stop a democratic process, and then saying it's completely moral.

Since the OP is a question of morality, I have to say no.

I personally disagree with the top 100 nation system, but I can see why it's there.

Think of it as a check against the tyranny of numbers, then. A senator can really muck up trades and economies. And when brute numbers are imposing unfair attacks, one must resort to the weapons available. Which happen to be ... well, weapons.

Answer me this: How did we get to where the New Pacific Order can be seen as a minority, outvoted, and having to defend itself militarily as an underdog?

[Earogema]

Think of it as a check against the tyranny of numbers, then. A senator can really muck up trades and economies. And when brute numbers are imposing unfair attacks, one must resort to the weapons available. Which happen to be ... well, weapons.

Answer me this: How did we get to where the New Pacific Order can be seen as a minority, outvoted, and having to defend itself militarily as an underdog?

But that's still not quite "moral."

As for a senator mucking up things: People would just stop voting for them.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Red over all makes for a stable haven for the unaligned nations on Planet Bob, for the simple reason that if they get raided, they have the right to recourse under the Revenge Doctrine. Protecting [by waving a stick around or whatever you wish to call it] the unaligned from being robbed is always good in my book, whoever does it.

The other Doctrine, exclusivity of the red sphere, does not bother me, personally i feel other spheres with multiple entities offer more dynamic situations and keep things interesting. Also, trading between alliances on same color spheres does have a tiny side-effect of getting people to talk to each other, even if it is just the individual nations that form the trade circle, or alliance tech ministers talking to each other. Interaction for mutual gain is never a bad thing.

Ultimately it is a case of what each alliance prefers. Red is home to Pacifica, they wish exclusivity, it does not really bother anyone or spoil their experience on Bob, so i do not see the harm in it.

[Unko Kalaikz]

What right gives the NPO to make such bold claims unchallenged?

Probably the fact that nobody challenges them. :lol:

[He Who Has No Name]

The only basis for their claim to sovereignty over Red is force. They have shown that they are willing to escalate their use of force to whatever level necessary to maintain their unilateral claim of Red.

"Might makes right" was cast off by every great social thinker in human history. Socrates, Aquinas, Hobbes, and Burke all treated with equal disgust the concept that the man with the biggest stick is right. Socrates gave his life in the fight against such a barbaric concept. Genghis Khan, someone who easily could have claimed moral superiority over vast territory through force of arms, didn't bother; he admitted openly that he was evil.

Certain ethics and morals of human behavior are accessible to human logic, and humans have an instinctive sense of them. The NPO knows their empire is built upon institutionalized wrongdoing and avarice, and they know others are aware of it as well. The force and terror they use to prop up their tyrannical house of cards does not change the fact that their 'philosophy' is built on a sociological fallacy thrown out centuries ago, and that no matter how big the stick they use to murder those who periodically point out that fact, the NPO is still wrong.

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.

[Unko Kalaikz]

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

Vox Populi has no right to determine NPO's doctrines. So I guess you two will just have to fight it out.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Yes, but a democracy doesn't attempt by force to remove its competition.

Well good ones anyway.

Where do you get this stuff from? How does a democracy lack self interests, or have self interests that somehow cannot conflict with another entity? What is a "good" democracy?

Are we going back to moralism now? I thought we were rolling with nihilism now.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Count da Silva

[He Who Has No Name]

Vox Populi has no right to determine NPO's doctrines. So I guess you two will just have to fight it out.

Vox has every right to challenge baseless claims by NPO.

Say you, Count da Silva, me, and Abe Vigoda sat down to have a royal banquet. None of us are special or powerful or anything, we're just three strangers eating a nice feast.

I declared that only I got to have steak. I don't have any justification for doing so except "I said so".

You reached for some steak and my fist got in the way of your face, very hard, over and over again.

Since I can't hit him down at the other end of the table, do you honestly think Abe Vigoda is not going to point out that I'm a jackass and a bully?

Once you get out of arms reach, do you think you're not going to tell me I'm a lunatic and a greedy thug?

You're certifiable if you say "yes".

...oh, and I get to drive on the street that goes past your house. You don't. I'll punch you if you argue or try to drive on it. Might not be right away, but I'll know you drove on it, and I will punch you until you don't do it again. You'll want to keep that in mind. It's the new Nameless Doctrine.

/satire.

Edited February 12, 2009 by He Who Has No Name

[Qaianna]

The only basis for their claim to sovereignty over Red is force. They have shown that they are willing to escalate their use of force to whatever level necessary to maintain their unilateral claim of Red.

"Might makes right" was cast off by every great social thinker in human history. Socrates, Aquinas, Hobbes, and Burke all treated with equal disgust the concept that the man with the biggest stick is right. Socrates gave his life in the fight against such a barbaric concept. Genghis Khan, someone who easily could have claimed moral superiority over vast territory through force of arms, didn't bother; he admitted openly that he was evil.

Certain ethics and morals of human behavior are accessible to human logic, and humans have an instinctive sense of them. The NPO knows their empire is built upon institutionalized wrongdoing and avarice, and they know others are aware of it as well. The force and terror they use to prop up their tyrannical house of cards does not change the fact that their 'philosophy' is built on a sociological fallacy thrown out centuries ago, and that no matter how big the stick they use to murder those who periodically point out that fact, the NPO is still wrong.

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.

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?

[Blacky]

Dissuading alliances from setting up camp in your own sphere only serves to destabilise it. Even with a whole heap of alliances on the sphere at most they could attain a single senate seat. With 5 sanctions available even in a sanction war the cumulative effect of less trading partners hurts more.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Vox has every right to challenge baseless claims by NPO.

Say you, Count da Silva, me, and Abe Vigoda sat down to have a royal banquet. None of us are special or powerful or anything, we're just three strangers eating a nice feast.

I declared that only I got to have steak. I don't have any justification for doing so except "I said so".

You reached for some steak and my fist got in the way of your face, very hard, over and over again.

Since I can't hit him down at the other end of the table, do you honestly think Abe Vigoda is not going to point out that I'm a jackass and a bully?

Once you get out of arms reach, do you think you're not going to tell me I'm a lunatic and a greedy thug?

You're certifiable if you say "yes".

...oh, and I get to drive on the street that goes past your house. You don't. I'll punch you if you argue or try to drive on it. Might not be right away, but I'll know you drove on it, and I will punch you until you don't do it again. You'll want to keep that in mind. It's the new Nameless Doctrine.

/satire.

My reaction in CN and in RL would be vastly different. BUT;

In CN my duty is to advance the interests of my nation, and the analogy really isnt that good because the doctrine does not reserve all tech raiding (presumably your steak) for NPO to commit... NPO merely protects against raiding on one team. A better analogy would be that man telling me I cannot eat the steak off his wifes plate, since it is effectively a protection arrangement against external aggression.

Or an even better analogy, If I attempt to mug his friend/wife/kid what have you, he promises to whoop my ---. I'm still free to mug all the other people out there. I don't see this as entirely unreasonable.

As to your street analogy, blocking my street would be completely contrary to my interests and probably the interests of my neighbors as well, so your NPO man would not last long. Of course, if NPO acted like that in game they'd never be where they are now. Some alliances that did step on too many toes include \m/, GOONS, Polar and of course FAN, and we saw what happened with them. NPO doesnt do stuff like that for the heck of it, because it would be counterproductive.