Corinan Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 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. Why'd you go and spoil his grandstanding like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orkules Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Morally? No it is wrong to force such control on their sphere and on the people of this game. Politically? Strategically? It is entirely within their right, they have the power and it makes their survival and life on the sphere easier. Never confuse those points of reference as the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleh32 Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 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. Well, I do agree with my quote fix. Probably should've worded that better. Why'd you go and spoil his grandstanding like that? The hell are you talking about? I barely even know what the political climate is like nowadays, all I know is that this "revenge doctrine" is bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 The hell are you talking about? I barely even know what the political climate is like nowadays That sure didn't stop you from jumping on your soapbox and puffing out your chest at us. "Boy if I were just a little bigger I'd show you all what's what!" Come back when you've got something to back up your threats with, because as of right now they're totally empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 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. Even if they didn't. NPO manages to get some 900 or so votes for their senators. Even with a free senate in Red, at most they would lose one senator. But even if somehow they managed to lose two, it would still outweigh the negative effect. At most 1 sanction = loss of 6 trades, considering the impossibility that a rival to the NPO managed to attain even all three of these senate seats and NPO (the biggest alliance) couldn't even get one. And even then, things manage to deteriorate into a state of war. At most, at most a total of 90 aid and trade slots are lost for the duration of the sanction war. Bare in mind, sanction wars are extremely rare, and the impossibility that NPO would lose every one of it's senators is ludicrous. But even then, the effect of temporarily losing 90 trades is only a fraction of the permanent loss of trades caused by the doctrine. Basically, in no way is this beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 (edited) Even if they didn't. NPO manages to get some 900 or so votes for their senators. Even with a free senate in Red, at most they would lose one senator. But even if somehow they managed to lose two, it would still outweigh the negative effect.At most 1 sanction = loss of 6 trades, considering the impossibility that a rival to the NPO managed to attain even all three of these senate seats and NPO (the biggest alliance) couldn't even get one. And even then, things manage to deteriorate into a state of war. At most, at most a total of 90 aid and trade slots are lost for the duration of the sanction war. Bare in mind, sanction wars are extremely rare, and the impossibility that NPO would lose every one of it's senators is ludicrous. But even then, the effect of temporarily losing 90 trades is only a fraction of the permanent loss of trades caused by the doctrine. Basically, in no way is this beneficial. How does having more trade partners not equate as more beneficial? You are going into talking about sanction wars when I was talking about an alliance moving to Red With NPO approval. How would that even equate into a sanction war? Also, for clarification when I said "if the NPO allowed other alliances on red if those alliances would vote for their senators" I meant that the alliance allowed onto red would vote for the npo (their) senators. Yes, I highly doubt NPO is willing to give up one of the senate spots unless it is agreed upon in advance and would have to be quite a powerful alliance. Don't see that happening though as most of the powerful alliances that NPO might work with seem quite happy with where they are now. Edited February 14, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Even if they didn't. NPO manages to get some 900 or so votes for their senators. Even with a free senate in Red, at most they would lose one senator. But even if somehow they managed to lose two, it would still outweigh the negative effect.At most 1 sanction = loss of 6 trades, considering the impossibility that a rival to the NPO managed to attain even all three of these senate seats and NPO (the biggest alliance) couldn't even get one. And even then, things manage to deteriorate into a state of war. At most, at most a total of 90 aid and trade slots are lost for the duration of the sanction war. Bare in mind, sanction wars are extremely rare, and the impossibility that NPO would lose every one of it's senators is ludicrous. But even then, the effect of temporarily losing 90 trades is only a fraction of the permanent loss of trades caused by the doctrine. Basically, in no way is this beneficial. And established alliance on red that was allowed there by NPO would be much less likely to start a sanction war than say an invader like Vox. Rarely have established alliances on the same team sanctioned each other even if they were on opposite sides because neither really has an interest of going down that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleh32 Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 That sure didn't stop you from jumping on your soapbox and puffing out your chest at us. Keyword is barely. I know enough about the revenge doctrine as I stated before. "Boy if I were just a little bigger I'd show you all what's what!" Come back when you've got something to back up your threats with, because as of right now they're totally empty. Yeah. That's kinda the point. My threats are empty cuz I don't have anything to back them up with. And like Bob said those who do don't care enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Keyword is barely. I know enough about the revenge doctrine as I stated before. Clearly not, since you have confused it with the Moldavi Doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleh32 Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Clearly not, since you have confused it with the Moldavi Doctrine. The name confused me because of the poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 The name confused me because of the poll. If something that simple confused you how are you finding yourself capable of making an honest judgement of how such affects the red sphere? It really just comes off as blind hatred of the NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 If something that simple confused you how are you finding yourself capable of making an honest judgement of how such affects the red sphere? It really just comes off as blind hatred of the NPO. That's pretty much at the heart of his grievances with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rg0tt3n 0n3 Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 basically I feel that NPO has the right. They are the strongest alliance in the game and has been for the better part of how long this game has existed. In my opinion, if you have the largest alliance you are inclined to get whatever you want. Also with all three senate seats they could also help other red alliances if needed. They can also aid their treaties with the leverage they have of having the seats. So in my opinion NPO is in the right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imhotep Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Of course the Moldavi Doctrine isn't "morally right". It was created as a means of manipulating the construct of the Red Sphere to the will of Pacifica. And it has done a damned fine job of it. There was a time when other spheres attempted the same. The Legion in Purple, the Worst Alliance Ever in Brown, FAN in Yellow, GOONS in Black. NAAC and Polar went back and forth in Blue, GGA and GPA went back and forth in Green. ODN never declared it but implied it in Orange. IRON basically did the same at some points. It pushes the agenda of the alliance to portray itself as the predominant party in any specific color. It allows for exclusivity. To complain about its "fairness" is simply to point out your own weaknesses. Some years ago a comrade of mine in The Pacific, Pierconium, had this to say about fairness: Fairness is a concept created by the weak to compensate for their unfortunate disposition. The NPO established itself in Red and proclaimed itself ruler of the sphere because it wanted to. It had nothing to do with the concepts of "Francoism" or even pragmatism towards protectionism. It was a power play, plain and simple. And I daresay it was a damned good one and one that I am proud of. To those that continue to speak out against it and other Pacifican policy all I have to say is step up. Step up or move aside, that is how the steamroller rolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Words of wisdom on the part of Imhotep, although Francoism is basically in concurrence with everything he said, and the general philosophy of the Order, Pierconium, and other great leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Words of wisdom on the part of Imhotep, although Francoism is basically in concurrence with everything he said, and the general philosophy of the Order, Pierconium, and other great leaders. What Imhoptep said is not in occurrence with Francoism, because Vladmir didn't say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imhotep Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 For my part, I never attempted to fit into any kind of "francoist" role anyway. It was a tool for wrangling the masses and nothing more insofar as I was concerned. "I gave them law so that I could remove their liberty. I gave them freedom of speech so that I could take their freedom to act. I gave them philosophy so that they would lose identity." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Amazing how after pages and pages of your useless ramblings, and flailing attempts to style yourselves philosophers, one single person can come in here and so effortlessly reduce all your gibbering to nothing. Not long ago Electron Sponge had a wonderful quote in his signature. It would serve you well to consider it. "How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live" Edited February 22, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Imhotep is a complete realist, something I respect him for. As am I, but we take different approaches. )): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Imhotep is a complete realist, something I respect him for. As am I, but we take different approaches. )): The difference being he doesnt really try to label his realist views with another title? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyseto123 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 1 Color under 1 Alliance. What's wrong about that? Only way to assure peace and calm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 1 Color under 1 Alliance.What's wrong about that? Only way to assure peace and calm. I wouldn't go THAT far. When was the last time there was unrest between Maroon brothers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyseto123 Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I wouldn't go THAT far. When was the last time there was unrest between Maroon brothers? Insanity is just building up, eventually it'll explode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycurgus Rex Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I wouldn't go THAT far. When was the last time there was unrest between Maroon brothers? lol, when MDC was there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) The difference being he doesnt really try to label his realist views with another title? I attempt to explain how the world works to make people realize it's acceptable to focus on your nation's self interests; to appeal to logic and thus convert people to my point of view gradually -- the individuals who hold confused and conflicting thoughts about politics but are open to the truth. Sometimes I wonder if Imhotep deliberately wishes to alienate those who do not comprehend politics rather than educate them. )): -- Akthough I can certainly see the use of such an approach. Edited February 22, 2009 by Count da Silva 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.