Jump to content

A Question of Authority.


Triskelli

Revenge?!  

448 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines continue to exist because of two things:

- The NPO is strong and so it can enforce things unilaterally without them being 'right'. Revenge is enforced against the will of some of its aggressive allies, as can clearly be seen by the reaction to the Maroon Church, CNARF and arguably Y5 and even the CTC.

- Nobody cares enough about Red to cause a scene to try to get rid of it. This is also why Y5 succeeded for some time (and were FAN better at diplomacy, it would have been a lot longer). There is no reason for a nation or alliance to choose a small, autocratic colour when there are several which have better economies and more friendly politics.

I support freedom of residence and freedom of political choice on all colours, so I don't like the Moldavi Doctrine. But it is not something which it is worth making an issue over. The Revenge Doctrine on the other hand is protecting the innocent from attack and in principle I approve of it (as I did the other examples I mentioned earlier).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I'll answer your question with another question. What right does a nation have in claiming sovereignty over the land within its borders? You think on that, young one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason nobody challenges NPO on it is that it's not worth being rolled over. They do have authority to take the entire team and that authority is the ability to enforce their claim.

I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

The additional problem I see with people arguing about the morality of it is the fact that all morality is grossly subjective. That makes the only real objective way to look at it a question of ability. Of that, there is very little question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer your question with another question. What right does a nation have in claiming sovereignty over the land within its borders? You think on that, young one.

Land can be created out of thin air whereas there are only a finite number of spheres in which nations can choose to reside in. That is to say the claims made to each nations land is "I have mine and you have yours".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Land can be created out of thin air whereas there are only a finite number of spheres in which nations can choose to reside in. That is to say the claims made to each nations land is "I have mine and you have yours".

OOC: Yes, but I was thinking in more real world terms. I guess I should have stated that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

The additional problem I see with people arguing about the morality of it is the fact that all morality is grossly subjective. That makes the only real objective way to look at it a question of ability. Of that, there is very little question.

The whole point of being objective is to not be influenced by other factors or bias, there is nothing objective about siding with whoever has bigger guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boris, your argument would hold more water if it wasn't for every RL nation having laws that are based around morality. Yes, morality is subjective, but that does not mean it has no use. In fact the clashes between different people idea of morality is one of the things that keeps the politics in game interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

In this case I think the "Might makes right." match perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines continue to exist because of two things:

- The NPO is strong and so it can enforce things unilaterally without them being 'right'. Revenge is enforced against the will of some of its aggressive allies, as can clearly be seen by the reaction to the Maroon Church, CNARF and arguably Y5 and even the CTC.

- Nobody cares enough about Red to cause a scene to try to get rid of it. This is also why Y5 succeeded for some time (and were FAN better at diplomacy, it would have been a lot longer). There is no reason for a nation or alliance to choose a small, autocratic colour when there are several which have better economies and more friendly politics.

I support freedom of residence and freedom of political choice on all colours, so I don't like the Moldavi Doctrine. But it is not something which it is worth making an issue over. The Revenge Doctrine on the other hand is protecting the innocent from attack and in principle I approve of it (as I did the other examples I mentioned earlier).

Actually we never got a problem with FAN during Y5 but with GOLD. They were the ones having the worst diplomats.

I always enjoyed there, "Declare peace or get rolled by FAN" attitude.

If you don't like it, either join another color or make an alliance in red. Come on seriously, no one outside the NPO actually cares about not being able to have an alliance in red, the only reason it is argued over and over again is because people want to piss off CN's alliance #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines are just. The NPO took the Red Team, the NPO have the Red Team, and there is no morally-justifiable reason to try and take the Red Team back.

But, like the humble Socrates before me, I realize that I know nothing.

>_> Socrates was a HUGE troll. He used his "realization" to argue that no one but him possessed any wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Revenge Doctrine is undoubtedly just. The Moldavi doctrine is not really something you can assign morality to. You can say their enforcement of the doctrine is just (the don't just shoot first and ask questions later). But is it "moral" to not allow an alliance to colonize red? Sure, if you really need an answer. There are a dozen other teams to occupy, most of which are superior anyways (in terms of trades, unity, etc).

It would be immoral if EVERY team had such doctrines, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Revenge Doctrine is undoubtedly just. The Moldavi doctrine is not really something you can assign morality to. You can say their enforcement of the doctrine is just (the don't just shoot first and ask questions later). But is it "moral" to not allow an alliance to colonize red? Sure, if you really need an answer. There are a dozen other teams to occupy, most of which are superior anyways (in terms of trades, unity, etc).

It would be immoral if EVERY team had such doctrines, however.

Ok, so if one does it and it's not immoral, how is everyone doing it immoral. That makes no sense on its face.

I also quibble with your assertion that 'the Moldavi doctrine is not really something you can assign morality to.'

Morality is inherent in any action or activity. Whether one takes such into consideration is not dispositive on the subject and is not relevant for purposes of such an inquiry. The Moldavi doctrine, just like any doctrine enunciated by any alliance or individual is either moral or immoral completely dependent upon the moral code through which one views the doctrine.

Morality is merely the analysis of whether one is conducting themselves in accordance with their code regarding right and wrong.

For instance, NPO clearly feels that it is right that they control the red sphere. Through Francoist thought (and Admin knows I'm no expert) such a doctrine is moral because it comports with NPO's code of right and wrong.

Now, someone else may determine that their moral code believes that freedom of choice in picking a color/trade sphere is right and curtailing that freedom is wrong.

So who's right? Both are. Based on the fact that morality is the judgment of right or wrong it is implicit to determine what code you are following, as shown above.

Now of course the question of absolute right and wrong is implicated. However, such is far beyond the ken of the current discussion and as such, I will not delve into it further here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Haha, this.

I am personally against any and all limitations of freedom of spheres, like the Moldavi doctrine. However, in that specific case, I think the NPO is punishing themselves plenty with the lack of nations on red, which would otherwise be there, if they did in fact allow alliances to reside there.

Edited by Starcraftmazter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer your question with another question. What right does a nation have in claiming sovereignty over the land within its borders? You think on that, young one.

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.

SpoiL and Starcraftmazter do have a point, Red is a very popular color and I would not be surprised to see that Sphere in the top 3 if the NPO allowed other Alliances onto it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

SpoiL and Starcraftmazter do have a point, Red is a very popular color and I would not be surprised to see that Sphere in the top 3 if the NPO allowed other Alliances onto it.

Their loss that they don't, which is why it isn't challenged very often because NPO's enemies realize that NPO keeping other alliances off red isn't very beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And I quote the OP's poll.

Is the Moldavi doctrine a morally just treaty?

Sure it's incorrect in saying it's a treaty, but we know what he's inquiring here. So yes, I'm talking about moralism because that was the question posed.

A true debater is on topic whether he believes in the topic at hand or not.

EDIT: Woah, that was a typo.

Edited by MegaAros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their loss that they don't, which is why it isn't challenged very often because NPO's enemies realize that NPO keeping other alliances off red isn't very beneficial.

I keep hearing this myth, and have to say that if this was the case, wouldn't NPO have opened up red to other alliances if it presented some sort of strategic problem?

Seems to me it hasn't considering they haven't lost a war since GWI. To think that NPO has ignored something problematic for such a long period of time strikes me as wishful thinking.

And frankly, when there was another red alliance, it DID present an issue strategically with sanctioning of certain members. Whether you think it is wrong or right, not allowing any other alliances on red hasn't hurt the NPO strategically, quite the opposite actually.

VI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: How is this a moral issue?

A: It really isn't.

So then you voted No?

Enough of this. If the Moldavi doctrine has no moral basis because it is not a moral doctrine, then obviously it is not a moral doctrine. That's all that needs to be said.

The burden of proof to vote yes is to say that the Moldavi doctrine is moral. If it was never founded on moral basis, then you must vote no. Now giving the alternate reason that has nothing to do with moralism is fine, but you must still negate.

Also, I hate you people just saying that moralism doesn't apply. All philosophies are about life, and thus, are all applicable to any situation. The philosophy can be changed, melded, and in most cases, must be changed and melded. I'm no moralist, but you cannot dismiss the moral part of the argument by claiming moralism cannot be in the discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on the red sphere since I joined CyberNations. I'm not a member of the New Pacific Order, and they don't bother me with random things that doesn't concern my stay on the red sphere - unlike Vox Populi.

What right does any nation have to claim the land they own? There is no difference - when NPO was established, they took the red sphere as their home, and they're filling out the room quite nicely. They live amongst unaligned and aligned nation, and everybody is happy. If they're not, nobody is forcing them to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...