Red Dawn I

[BringMeTheHorizon]

They have absolutely no right to exercise control over a team, I don't care what their particular situation is.

What makes anything right or wrong, to have that right? Is it right to them to exercise control over a team and protect its members, of the team, from tech raids? No, that's horrid!... Or like Yellow Number 5, was that right? Or what about GOONland security, was that right? Or the pink bus doctrine, protecting people from raids. There have been many incidents before the red sphere being "saved". Just because you don't like what they did to there sphere doesn't meant they have no right to. Its like saying the the members in BLEU had no right to make blue better in there eyes. Or with OUT and the closed senate races, they think its the best thing to do for there sphere to don't have a sanction war.

[Vilien]

Who decides who has "rights" to control or not control anything? What makes it not right?

Blatantly violating one's right to freedom of choice of affiliation is wrong. The Moldavi Doctrine is nothing more than a demonstration of "we can do what we want because we're bigger than you", which is quite rapidly losing its core support.

What makes anything right or wrong, to have that right? Is it right to them to exercise control over a team and protect its members, of the team, from tech raids? No, that's horrid!... Or like Yellow Number 5, was that right? Or what about GOONland security, was that right? Or the pink bus doctrine, protecting people from raids. There have been many incidents before the red sphere being "saved". Just because you don't like what they did to there sphere doesn't meant they have no right to. Its like saying the the members in BLEU had no right to make blue better in there eyes. Or with OUT and the closed senate races, they think its the best thing to do for there sphere to don't have a sanction war.

Protection from tech-raiding is what any alliance offers its lower ranked members. Revenge Doctrine is not on trial here; in fact, any doctrine supporting the freedom of the unaligned is positive in my book. Declaring that you own a sphere is the right of no man, no alliance, and no bloc, as much as it is not my right to attack you and steal from you simply because I have the power to do so.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

Protection from tech-raiding is what any alliance offers its lower ranked members. Revenge Doctrine is not on trial here; in fact, any doctrine supporting the freedom of the unaligned is positive in my book. Declaring that you own a sphere is the right of no man, no alliance, and no bloc, as much as it is not my right to attack you and steal from you simply because I have the power to do so.

You missed my point, they took the steps to achieve protection of all red member nations not just there own, with a no alliance and no raiding stance on red. Every one has the right to do what they want, not because might makes right, ModusOperandi has the right to be an opportunist vulture. Who are you to deny the right of anyone who wants to do what they want. I wont stop ModusOperandi from doing this but ill keep my stance firm on the matter. Oppressive or not, who are you to say they cant do it. You are advocating support to people who want free senate and a free sphere by any means to do so, because no one should stop them. So would you not give someone the same right to try to achieve a limited sphere and limited senate. Or only give the right for someone to do what they want if it fits the current political spectrum?

Edited May 1, 2009 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Vilien]

You missed my point, they took the steps to achieve protection of all red member nations not just there own, with a no alliance and no raiding stance on red. Every one has the right to do what they want, not because might makes right, ModusOperandi has the right to be an opportunist vulture. Who are you to deny the right of anyone who wants to do what they want. I wont stop ModusOperandi from doing this but ill keep my stance firm on the matter. Oppressive or not, who are you to say they cant do it. You are advocating support to people who want free senate and a free sphere by any means to do so, because no one should stop them. So would you not give someone the same right to try to achieve a limited sphere and limited senate. Or only give the right for someone to do what they want if it fits the current political spectrum?

First, I fail to see how allowing no other alliance on red protects red team nations. Yes, I assert my right to say that Pacifica cannot keep an entire team under a stranglehold. Having a free senate, and a free sphere, is the right of all people, and no one should be allowed to tread upon that right.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

First, I fail to see how allowing no other alliance on red protects red team nations. Yes, I assert my right to say that Pacifica cannot keep an entire team under a stranglehold. Having a free senate, and a free sphere, is the right of all people, and no one should be allowed to tread upon that right.

By your statement you also assert that its ok for them to do it because its there right to do so, in their view.

Also if you would, for !@#$% and giggles. Check out NPO's NS and then check reds total NS. It's about an eight million difference. So eight million ns is protected by random aid and trade sanction and from raids.

[Vilien]

By your statement you also assert that its ok for them to do it because its there right to do so, in their view.

Also if you would, for !@#$% and giggles. Check out NPO's NS and then check reds total NS. It's about an eight million difference. So eight million ns is protected by random aid and trade sanction and from raids.

It isn't their right to do so, please read my posts.

Name a team that has an issue with random aid and trade sanctions, and you might have a point. Also, I said that I supported the Revenge Doctrine, and that it has nothing to do with the Moldavi Doctrine. Again, read my posts.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

It isn't their right to do so, please read my posts.

Name a team that has an issue with random aid and trade sanctions, and you might have a point. Also, I said that I supported the Revenge Doctrine, and that it has nothing to do with the Moldavi Doctrine. Again, read my posts.

Oh i have read your posts, i'm using both doctrines together to support my opinion. Yellow had problems with random aid sanctions, from Auric Armada on FAN, started a sanction war. I'm sure i could look back in history to find sanction wars relevant to my point. But to make red a peaceful place and not be involved in red sanction wars, they locked the spehere. So its there right to defend there home from any attacker, on there home ground. So why is it not there right to do what they feel necessary to keep there home, red, safe?

Edited May 1, 2009 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Vilien]

Oh i have read your posts, i'm using both doctrines together to support my opinion. Yellow had problems with random aid sanctions, from Auric Armada on FAN, started a sanction war. I'm sure i could look back in history to find sanction wars relevant to my point. But to make red a peaceful place and not be involved in red sanction wars, they locked the spehere. So its there right to defend there home from any attacker, on there home ground. So why is it not there right to do what they feel necessary to keep there home, red, safe?

Should any alliance have the right to lock its sphere for "safety" concerns? There hasn't been a real sanction war since 2007, unless I'm missing something. You are justifying tyranny with the promise of safety, and yet, not even safety is guaranteed by the Moldavi Doctrine. It is simply a show of strength, nothing more.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

Should any alliance have the right to lock its sphere for "safety" concerns? There hasn't been a real sanction war since 2007, unless I'm missing something. You are justifying tyranny with the promise of safety, and yet, not even safety is guaranteed by the Moldavi Doctrine. It is simply a show of strength, nothing more.

My own views aside on the matter, yes i see it as perfectly fine to lock away a spehere to protects ones interest, be it in there nations or protecting nations. Now do i like it, no, but they have the right to do it. Again there was a sanction war on yellow last year... during summer '08. See why Auric Armada disbanded, it was because the sanction on FAN members to stop them from being able to keep a nation within the top 100 for a senate. Thus leading to FAN infiltrating there alliance. Im not arguing the effectiveness of the Moldavi Doctrine, im advocating there right to do it.

Edited May 1, 2009 by BringMeTheHorizon

[Vilien]

My own views aside on the matter, yes i see it as perfectly fine to lock away a spehere to protects ones interest, be it in there nations or protecting nations. Now do i like it, no, but they have the right to do it. Again there was a sanction war on yellow last year... during summer '08. See why Auric Armada disbanded, it was because the sanction on FAN members to stop them from being able to keep a nation within the top 100 for a senate. Thus leading to FAN infiltrating there alliance. Im not arguing the effectiveness of the Moldavi Doctrine, im advocating there right to do it.

And thus, any alliance has the right to declare ownership of their sphere. That's a recipe for success.

Regardless, Pacifica will be losing the Moldavi Doctrine one way or another.

[ModusOperandi]

Oh i have read your posts, i'm using both doctrines together to support my opinion. Yellow had problems with random aid sanctions, from Auric Armada on FAN, started a sanction war. I'm sure i could look back in history to find sanction wars relevant to my point. But to make red a peaceful place and not be involved in red sanction wars, they locked the spehere. So its there right to defend there home from any attacker, on there home ground. So why is it not there right to do what they feel necessary to keep there home, red, safe?

BMTH,

By deciding to use both doctrines together you are manipulating this debate and trying to corner us against a wall; let's argue facts, shall we.

The Moldavi Doctrine - prohibits the creation of any Red alliance and the movement of any other alliance to that sphere.

The Revenge Doctrine - protects the Red unaligned.

Now, no one is saying that protecting the Red unaligned is wrong; we are saying that prohibiting the creation of any Red alliance and the movement of any other alliance to that sphere is wrong.

If you insist on arguing with yourself over the Revenge Doctrine, please take your antics to the Water Cooler.

Whilst we can use facts to back up our argument, you are relying on metaphysical allegory.

The Red sphere, via the prohibition on other Red alliances (see above, the Moldavi Doctrine), lacks the population, trades and economic weight of the great majority of other spheres; by stopping anybody else from forming a community on Red, the NPO has relegated the Red sphere to a statistically below-average rank when it comes to all of the important factors with relation to other teams.

Why has the Moldavi Doctrine done this? Because even the power of the #1 ranked alliance hasn't been enough to enable Red to flourish like other teams who have the advantage of having multiple alliances put in their individual efforts that produce a collective benefit.

Do you doubt this? If so, where are your facts?

If you speak with any IO he or she will tell you that they have had formal and informal reviews to gauge the benefits and disadvantages of the Moldavi Doctrine to the NPO; if such a policy was so wonderful, as you ascertain, why would the enforcer of such an initiative consistently question it on an annual basis?

Secondly, we are not arguing against the benefit of having the unaligned protected; that is rhetorical. What we are saying is that having more alliances on Red will enable more Red Nations to prosper because various communities will be contributing their efforts to the betterment of the Red Team's common good.

Besides, who says that those alliances won't cooperate together to enforce the prohibition of tech-raiding on Red anyway?

You are trying to argue semantics because you are mad; no matter how many times you call me an "opportunistic vulture" (and no, putting those words together does not make you clever) it still won't hide the fact that you are obviously losing this argument.

Now, I have spent a year on Blue, a year on Orange and been on Red for a while; we know what we are talking about.

Edited May 1, 2009 by ModusOperandi

[Homura]

Blatantly violating one's right to freedom of choice of affiliation is wrong. The Moldavi Doctrine is nothing more than a demonstration of "we can do what we want because we're bigger than you", which is quite rapidly losing its core support.

Every nation has the unfettered ability to be on whichever trading sphere they choose or under whichever alliance affiliation they choose. The New Pacific Order's Moldavi Doctrine does not change that. However, preventing another red-based alliance from existing is not a violation of any right that exists and under no rational analysis could it be considered "wrong".

[ModusOperandi]

Every nation has the unfettered ability to be on whichever trading sphere they choose or under whichever alliance affiliation they choose. The New Pacific Order's Moldavi Doctrine does not change that. However, preventing another red-based alliance from existing is not a violation of any right that exists and under no rational analysis could it be considered "wrong".

Fascism, eh?

[Vilien]

Every nation has the unfettered ability to be on whichever trading sphere they choose or under whichever alliance affiliation they choose. The New Pacific Order's Moldavi Doctrine does not change that. However, preventing another red-based alliance from existing is not a violation of any right that exists and under no rational analysis could it be considered "wrong".

I suppose the GOONland Security Act was also tolerable. I suppose that it could be the right of any blue alliance to decide that blue was "their" color, and declare that no other alliances could exist on it. Of course, both of those were and would be frowned upon. It is my right, and yours, to choose with whom you affiliate yourself. It is my right to choose if I wish to be the member of a red team alliance that is not the NPO. Yes, there is something wrong in denying the most basic of freedoms to other individuals.

[Homura]

Fascism, eh?

While your basis of reality is centred on idealism and relies on simplistic labels which often have no true meaning other than to conjure up images of despair to counter challenges to it, they fail completely when simple logic is applied. The way the world works doesn't fit into the perimeters you've drawn, therefore it must be some evil plot.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Katsumi

[ModusOperandi]

While your basis of reality is centred idealism and relies on simplistic labels which often have no true meaning other than to conjure up images of despair to counter challenges to it, they fail completely when simple logic is applied. The way the world works doesn't fit into the perimeters you've drawn, therefore it must be some evil plot.

Using unfettered psychological hyperbole now? Can you walk on water?

[Homura]

Using unfettered psychological hyperbole now? Can you walk on water?

Can you? Because your reliance on hazy standards and the existance of some higher order of Digiterran conduct handed down from who knows where just might give you magical powers.

[ModusOperandi]

Alright, show me where (aside from your might makes right mentality - which, by the way, would unequivocally fit in very well in 1930s Germany) it is stated that every sphere can have multiple alliances but only Red cannot?

You can't.

The fallacy is in your own argument, friend; now, return to your habitual ZI threats and Cyber-bullying (I'm starting to miss that).

Edited May 1, 2009 by ModusOperandi

[Dilber]

This is kinda funny. Assuming that the Moldavi Doctrine is revoked post-war, you aren't really helping your case for us wanting to work with you.

[Vhalen]

Every nation has the unfettered ability to be on whichever trading sphere they choose or under whichever alliance affiliation they choose. The New Pacific Order's Moldavi Doctrine does not change that. However, preventing another red-based alliance from existing is not a violation of any right that exists and under no rational analysis could it be considered "wrong".

So, as an extension of this, preventing any alliance from existing is not a violation of any right, and therefore not wrong. Thus, should Karma want NPO to disband, it's perfectly acceptable behavior? (Not advocating this, by the way, just find it amusing that this argument naturally seems to flow that way.)

[ModusOperandi]

This is kinda funny. Assuming that the Moldavi Doctrine is revoked post-war, you aren't really helping your case for us wanting to work with you.

Clearly, it would be mutually-beneficial for everyone on Red to work together; of course, your's is the first statement anyone in Pacifica has given on this matter so we have had to conduct ourselves accordingly... on the assumption that we would not be recognized.

In a nutshell, we aren't interested in licking anyone's boot heels or traversing political minefields (we don't believe you are either); we are simply a peaceful Red alliance defending our right to exist. For example, as a result of our very charter, we would be obligated to assist you with the rebuild and would do so eagerly even if you didn't recognize us.

Interestingly enough though and to your credit, the only source of vocal opposition we have received with this endeavor has come from individuals who are not Pacifican; leading to a void, on our part, as to what may be Pacifica's opinion on this matter.

Duly noted, of course; you're advice is very appreciated and thank you for your above response.

[Homura]

So, as an extension of this, preventing any alliance from existing is not a violation of any right, and therefore not wrong. Thus, should Karma want NPO to disband, it's perfectly acceptable behavior? (Not advocating this, by the way, just find it amusing that this argument naturally seems to flow that way.)

The political ramifications of such an attempted action notwithstanding, "Karma" can *want* NPO to disband all they want, much in the same way people *wanted* GOONS, FAN, \m/ or whatever to disband but that isn't going to make it happen.

[ModusOperandi]

The political ramifications of such an attempted action notwithstanding, "Karma" can *want* NPO to disband all they want, much in the same way people *wanted* GOONS, FAN, \m/ or whatever to disband but that isn't going to make it happen.

No alliance should ever be forced to disband with the exception of by the will of Admin (peace be upon him); on this, at least, we have found something on which we both agree. :lol:

[Vhalen]

The political ramifications of such an attempted action notwithstanding, "Karma" can *want* NPO to disband all they want, much in the same way people *wanted* GOONS, FAN, \m/ or whatever to disband but that isn't going to make it happen.

Making it happen wasn't the issue. Your argument seems to extend naturally to where it supports the attempt/demands. I kind of doubt you do, so I was pointing out the awkwardness in presenting such a face in the discussion.

[Homura]

Making it happen wasn't the issue. Your argument seems to extend naturally to where it supports the attempt/demands. I kind of doubt you do, so I was pointing out the awkwardness in presenting such a face in the discussion.

Whether or not I support it isn't the issue, but rather is it a "violation of rights"? If there was a demand that NPO was to disband or else all the nations would be attacked unto eternity, it would be a strategically unsound demand but not a violation of any rights that exist. It would be eventually impossible to enforce should NPO continue to hold as a cohesive unit.