Statalyzer Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 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. Might may not make right, but might makes CyberNations. That's all that matters. Who cares if might makes "right" when "right" does not save you? Being right in CN is often like being right when in a crosswalk - if a truck hits you, you had the right of way, but you're still dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Most likely, his own subjects. This makes no sense in the context of this conversation. Uninspired as always, Corinan. Thank you for this. I'll try not to lose any sleep over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 lol your sig gets me good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Well no not really But is it really worth fighting when you can just set up on another sphere. NPO have been there for a long time so they dident have to kick anyone off to make that policy. Its there loss in the trade department Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guus87 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Okay, Maybe Am I misunderstanding a few things? 1.Is NPO looking for attacked none's or are attacked none's coming towards the NPO ( main difference). 2.Why can't we just pass the sphere towards the alliances that are the biggest. Every alliance a own sphere. 3.Why didn't I see this earlyer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 "Is the Moldavi Doctrine right?" To the 797 red nations who reside on AA none and live in peace the Moldavi Doctrine is the best thing since sliced bread. To the enemies and detractors of NPO it is wrong. The first thing that would happen if the policy was dropped or the NPO destroyed would be decimation of red nations on AA none. Just something for opponents of this policy to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) The NPO could protect red team nations without declaring that it solely existed there. Edited February 13, 2009 by Madmonkey24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The NPO could protect red team nations without declaring that it solely existed there. It would be more difficult with another major alliance on red, especially if they didnt get along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Morality is subjective. You might disagree with the intent of the Moldavi Doctrine or, conversely, you might agree with it - but you can't say for certain whether or not it is "morally just". Anyhow, if equating "morally just" to "agreeable", then I would say no; I do not agree with the Moldavi Doctrine simply because I feel alliances should be able to form on whichever color they would like. I understand the NPO's reasoning behind the doctrine, of course, but I still disagree with it on a personal level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 It would be more difficult with another major alliance on red, especially if they didnt get along. Where would another major alliance get the sheer chutzpah to stop the NPO from protecting innocent nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleh32 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 It's not right because nobody should be allowed to determine whether or not you can have your alliance on the red team. I don't care how big or bad your army is. The only thing "right" about this is that NPO at least sticks up for the nonaligned nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Morality is subjective. You might disagree with the intent of the Moldavi Doctrine or, conversely, you might agree with it - but you can't say for certain whether or not it is "morally just". I am quoting this so I do not need to type it out again. I have seen many debates in my time over this, and honestly all has been said about it. A lot in this thread alone, which was quite constructive to bring views on the matter. Basically, NPO came to red while the sphere was still in its proto phase and claimed it. Other alliances of the time played along (as they too had similar aspiration on heir own spheres) and it remained as such to this day. Do you find that "morally just" or not is up to you. I can not really go into that, as said, no universal morality or code of rights to determine this, then the one we create. We can express our thought on the matter, I can only say on my part that I see no obstacle for this practice on red or on any other sphere then the ability to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 To the 797 red nations who reside on AA none and live in peace the Moldavi Doctrine is the best thing since sliced bread. To the enemies and detractors of NPO it is wrong. The first thing that would happen if the policy was dropped or the NPO destroyed would be decimation of red nations on AA none. Just something for opponents of this policy to think about. Laughable. Just ask other spheres that have free senate policies, and that actually must cooperate with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The NPO could protect red team nations without declaring that it solely existed there. I have to agree with Alterego below you on this one. Let's say for discussion's sake only that the Really Energetic Despots set up on the Red sphere as a sizable force, with the New Pacific Order not objecting. Then an unaligned red nation gets raided. Its ruler, for discussion named T Practice, needs to bring this to the attention of the protectors. Where does he go? And let's say in this example that NPO and RED both see the attack, so Practice has no need to go to someone. They have to coordinate their efforts, or the raider gets to make 'lurn2stagger' posts to everyone. Even for the raider ... NPO and RED show up asking what's going on. Who do you grovel before? (OK, this'd likely be Pacifica as it is now, but work with me here.) And 'ownership' of a sphere is usually shown in the Senate; many colour-based treaties have some sort of senate provision. United Jungle Accords has recently opened up a bit, but it still has some guidelines on what you should do there. And if I turned pink and started sanctioning randomly, how long would it be before Pink Warrior Network showed up with a few cruise missiles? It may be fun to debate morality, but again whose morals are being trodden on? And until there's a real material gain in going in to wrest it away, I don't see it happenning. And personally, it doesn't seem that bad given the Revenge doctorine. They own it, they run it, they protect it, and if they execute brutal purges it should've come to light now. Well, if they execute brutal purges of anyone too popular.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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. VG Coalition did not qualify under the definitions that NPO uses for the Moldavi Doctrine as an alliance. Numerous other micro-alliances have existed on red on a similar basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 VG Coalition did not qualify under the definitions that NPO uses for the Moldavi Doctrine as an alliance. Numerous other micro-alliances have existed on red on a similar basis. Eh? Really? It had like 30 or so members though, mostly on red. Whatever I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Before discussing whether the doctrine is moral, define morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Laughable. Just ask other spheres that have free senate policies, and that actually must cooperate with one another. They cooperate because they have to, every alliance with the military and political power to control a colour has tried it. My post talked about protecting nations on AA none you have ignored the post and the fact that none nations on any colour but red are constantly attacked. I assume this pleases you because you don't seem to mind and appear to want the same for red unaligned nations. How about an alliance that thinks it can decide who cant control red? Who are you to say who cant run the red sphere, you aren't even a red nation and you think you should decide how the sphere is run while telling others they cant or shouldn't run it! Talk about hypocritical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) No, only if they pay for using it, which they obviously don't, they don't have the right to do it. But, with power come benefits. Edited February 13, 2009 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentV27 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 This is an issue that has been addressed many times before, and every time it seems it degresses from a logical conversation to just a bunch of weaklings saying "We will comply because death awaits the dessenter". In reality there is nothing to justify this doctrine. However, injustice is only enforced by those willing to stand against it. When something perceived as being unjust is brought forth by the world's sole superpower, there are few that are willing and able to stand against it. The issue with the Moldavi doctrine is that it has been ignored in the interest of peace, as most ignored injustices are. When you get right to the source, it is not the power of the New Pacific Order that creates this injustice, it is the cowardice of the greater populace and their "more important" interest in peace that prevents them from identifying and opposing the injustice. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people that dislike the Moldavi doctrine, and there is no doubt that it's creator and enforcer is powerful, however the issue is not whether it is just or not, it is whether a sizeable force is willing to oppose it with firmness. Please take note that this is my own personal view, not that of my alliance, and any apparent implication that people should rise up agaisnt the NPO is purely coincidental. In no place do I advocate this, I merely state that things perceived to be injust shall remain in action until people act in opposition. This is logic, not a condemnation of the NPO or their doctrine. In other words, nothing will happen unless the world can be convinced to abandon peace in the interests of irradicating a perceived injustice. It is my perception that the world has decided that this is not a gross enough injustice to warrant a Sixth Great War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 I voted no since the Moldavi Doctrine is not a treaty. I also voted no for this reason. I personally don't care much what NPO does on red, because most of their so-called power there is just apathy on the parts of everyone else. If it really became an issue that raised peoples' ire, they'd be forced to make a calculated retreat from that position. As we proved a few months ago, their claim of ownership of the Senate seats there is a specious claim at best and only exists de facto because no one cares to challenge it. Most people don't care about the Moldavi Doctrine because red is one of the worst colors to have your nation in, and by this time most people have written it off as useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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 It's not so much that they face tangible problems because of it, except for rogue senators such as King Zog. King Zog was able to get a Senate seat because NPO had easily dominated the Senate before (never really had to work on it) and they were only one alliance (a large one, but still only one) to have enough votes to keep all 3 seats and raise the bar of the top 100. Vox could not have done what they did on aqua, blue, or orange or other colors with numerous significant alliances. IIRC King Zog wasn't even in senate range on aqua or orange. However the bigger loss is in lost opportunities. Color relationships are natural foundations for interaction and making alliances. Color allies also offer more trading opportunities and make finding trades easier. Now it may be worth the practical losses in order to be able to use color dominance as a symbol of authority, but there are tangible practical disadvantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleh32 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 This is an issue that has been addressed many times before, and every time it seems it degresses from a logical conversation to just a bunch of weaklings saying "We will comply because death awaits the dessenter".In reality there is nothing to justify this doctrine. However, injustice is only enforced by those willing to stand against it. When something perceived as being unjust is brought forth by the world's sole superpower, there are few that are willing and able to stand against it. The issue with the Moldavi doctrine is that it has been ignored in the interest of peace, as most ignored injustices are. When you get right to the source, it is not the power of the New Pacific Order that creates this injustice, it is the cowardice of the greater populace and their "more important" interest in peace that prevents them from identifying and opposing the injustice. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people that dislike the Moldavi doctrine, and there is no doubt that it's creator and enforcer is powerful, however the issue is not whether it is just or not, it is whether a sizeable force is willing to oppose it with firmness. Please take note that this is my own personal view, not that of my alliance, and any apparent implication that people should rise up agaisnt the NPO is purely coincidental. In no place do I advocate this, I merely state that things perceived to be injust shall remain in action until people act in opposition. This is logic, not a condemnation of the NPO or their doctrine. In other words, nothing will happen unless the world can be convinced to abandon peace in the interests of irradicating a perceived injustice. It is my perception that the world has decided that this is not a gross enough injustice to warrant a Sixth Great War. The problem is, those of us who are against it don't have power to challenge it, and those who do have the power are too cowardly to do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The problem is, those of us who are against it don't have power to challenge it, and those who do have the power are too cowardly to do anything about it. Those who do have the power like this set up. That means its one less color sphere that alliances are not likely to settle on. It seems like most other major alliances like a plethora of choices for resource trades. NPO chooses to control a sphere at the cost of less trades for NPO members. Its still possible to get a decent trade set up but it definately takes a little longer. The only people here making a big stink about this are people fighting this with an idealistic argument. Those of power to take this on are not thinking in an idealistic manner towards this but instead with a realistic viewpoint. With an NPO controlled red it only helps the major colors bring more aligned nations to their major trade spheres. I personally think that if the NPO allowed other alliances on red if those alliances would vote for their senators that it would actually make the red sphere and NPO stronger, that is if they trusted the alliance to vote for NPO senators. That is a realistic viewpoint though, making an idealistic argument that it is morally wrong for NPO to control red in this game is a far stretch considering it was a common thing to try and do in the past. NPO was the only one to successfully continue such, that just makes them successful not immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 The problem is, those of us who are against it don't have power to challenge it, and those who do have the power don't care enough to do anything about it. Fixed that for you. I thought I already covered this? Even if you are against it, you are (almost by definition) not in Red and therefore you have battles that are more worth fighting. 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.