Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't know where to start in this mess. Willirica, just stop. You're reflecting poorly upon yourself and your alliance. You're bragging about attacking nations used to being left alone, nations who haven't gotten used to not living under protection, thus possibly ruining their game experience. I'm baffled. To those claiming that raiding is so god damn righteous that you wish a peace with NPO will include ending their protection of unaligned Red nations, you're goddamn greedy. What's the matter, doesn't the other spheres have enough helpless nations? And don't counter with any of that "NPO only instated the Revenge doctrine because they wanted trade partners!!1!" either. There's quite a big difference between profiteering from keeping unaligned nations safe, and profiteering from curbstomping alliances. NPO is getting their just retribution from the latter, the former should rather be praised than punished. And lastly, to those who say that the Revenge doctrine is only possible because of the Moldavi doctrine, stop saying it. Since when is there no legal grounds for protecting unaligned on your sphere unless you claim sole "ownership" to said sphere? In fact, since when did we have any international laws put in place to warrant the use of such a phrase at all? Whether or not the NPO will choose to uphold the Revenge doctrine without the Moldavi doctrine is a different question. If they choose not to because of that, well, just goes to show how committed they truly are to the Red sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Since you asked so nicely I obliged:To: Porky Pig From: schaenemanw Date: 5/10/2009 4:54:35 PM Subject: RE: Like raiding red? Message: your in range, please feel free to declare, because i cant imagine ill be sticking with you for long You should check your war screen now. PS, might as well lube those other slots I hear there going to get some use soon. thank you good sir for putting your money wher your mouth is, i respect you for fighting in something you believe in o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 thank you good sir for putting your money wher your mouth is, i respect you for fighting in something you believe ino/ Oh this isn't a fight, it's a holy war, for the rest of your nations existence I will be attacking it with any and all available methods. Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 And lastly, to those who say that the Revenge doctrine is only possible because of the Moldavi doctrine, stop saying it. Since when is there no legal grounds for protecting unaligned on your sphere unless you claim sole "ownership" to said sphere? In fact, since when did we have any international laws put in place to warrant the use of such a phrase at all? Whether or not the NPO will choose to uphold the Revenge doctrine without the Moldavi doctrine is a different question. If they choose not to because of that, well, just goes to show how committed they truly are to the Red sphere. Considering I was the one that made that statement, I can safely state that I am correct. It was the codified statement of ownership that gives any sort of "legal justification" to claiming that an entire color is under the defensive umbrella of an alliance. FAN did it too, after GOLD was reduced to cinders after GWIII, specifically because they were the undisputed masters of yellow. And to piss off Walford. Both of which are awesome reasons. Insofar as International Laws and "Ownership"? They were whatever Pacifica said they were, we enforced them, and no one disagreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I think NPO will be overlooking all their foreign policies after this war, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Considering I was the one that made that statement, I can safely state that I am correct. It was the codified statement of ownership that gives any sort of "legal justification" to claiming that an entire color is under the defensive umbrella of an alliance.FAN did it too, after GOLD was reduced to cinders after GWIII, specifically because they were the undisputed masters of yellow. And to piss off Walford. Both of which are awesome reasons. Insofar as International Laws and "Ownership"? They were whatever Pacifica said they were, we enforced them, and no one disagreed. What? As far as I know, FAN and GOLD made that decleration together: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=71137 That's right, together. It wasn't coupled with a yellow equivalent of the Moldavi doctrine either. Your citing of a precedent thus goes in the disfavor of your own argument. I'm not saying that the "ownership" of the Red sphere wasn't one of your motivations, but surely that does not mean that the Revenge doctrine is impossible without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 What? As far as I know, FAN and GOLD made that decleration together: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=71137That's right, together. It wasn't coupled with a yellow equivalent of the Moldavi doctrine either. Your citing of a precedent thus goes in the disfavor of your own argument. I'm not saying that the "ownership" of the Red sphere wasn't one of your motivations, but surely that does not mean that the Revenge doctrine is impossible without it. The precedent of holding "dominion" over a colored Sphere and thus being able to enforce policies was established by the Moldavi Doctrine. All other claims of soveriegnty based on color afterwards were continuations of the principles behind it. If the Moldavi Doctrine had not existed, then no one would have accepted folks claiming a color-based declaration of soveriegnty without seriously !@#$%*ing about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I speak for myself on this issue, and it has been shown that quite a large amount of trouble can be caused by a nation with zero infra. Face it DT has MyWorld in government, their a easy target to begin with. Since you want to take on yourself to come and attack our members, then I will return such kindness with a few to join them on you since this seems to be the way you want to handle situations that don't concern you. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Oh this isn't a fight, it's a holy war, for the rest of your nations existence I will be attacking it with any and all available methods. Enjoy! You won't be able to continue hitting him for long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Since you want to take on yourself to come and attack our members, then I will return such kindness with a few to join them on you since this seems to be the way you want to handle situations that don't concern you. Enjoy. I'm sure he sent peace after he made his ground attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Since you want to take on yourself to come and attack our members, then I will return such kindness with a few to join them on you since this seems to be the way you want to handle situations that don't concern you. Enjoy. So you support your member acting like a complete idiot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 So you support your member acting like a complete idiot? I suppose we should probably just ZI for him for his actions, shouldn't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Revenge Doctrine is about the only positive thing the NPO has ever done, and even then they did it with ulterior motives. Still, it's completely despicable to flaunt NPO's weakness by attacking the weak and defenseless. They are uninvolved and should be left that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 So you support your member acting like a complete idiot? No I don't support them acting like an idiot, but to declare on our members is not a way to solve the problem at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) The precedent of holding "dominion" over a colored Sphere and thus being able to enforce policies was established by the Moldavi Doctrine. All other claims of soveriegnty based on color afterwards were continuations of the principles behind it. If the Moldavi Doctrine had not existed, then no one would have accepted folks claiming a color-based declaration of soveriegnty without seriously !@#$%*ing about it. You claimed the Y#5 doctrine to be an example of how sole ownership of a sphere was necessary to protect said sphere. FAN and GOLD declared it together, and never claimed ownership, so that sets a precedent that it is not necessary to own a sphere to protect it. Your argument is that the Moldavi doctrine established the precedence of sphere ownership. That disputes my point how? Edit: Spelling. Edited May 11, 2009 by Sebastian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) You claimed the Y#5 doctrine to be an example of how sole ownership of a sphere was necessary to protect said sphere. FAN and GOLD declared it together, and never claimed ownership, so that sets a precedent that it is not necessary to own a sphere to protect it. You're argument is that the Moldavi doctrine established the precedence of sphere ownership. That disputes my point how? You were the one who disputed my claim to begin with. And I never said "sole ownership" I said that it occurred only after GOLD was relegated to the sidelines politically, and was thus incapable of doing anything more than support it. Why they signed on was irrelevant, ultimately. The Y#5 doctrine was a claim of ownership of Yellow, and based on that claim, Tech Raiders had no business being there lest they incur the wrath of the controlling parties. That's what matters. And lastly, to those who say that the Revenge doctrine is only possible because of the Moldavi doctrine, stop saying it. Since when is there no legal grounds for protecting unaligned on your sphere unless you claim sole "ownership" to said sphere? In fact, since when did we have any international laws put in place to warrant the use of such a phrase at all? Whether or not the NPO will choose to uphold the Revenge doctrine without the Moldavi doctrine is a different question. If they choose not to because of that, well, just goes to show how committed they truly are to the Red sphere. If we both agree, then what ARE we arguing about? Edited May 11, 2009 by ReturnOfChron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 No I don't support them acting like an idiot, but to declare on our members is not a way to solve the problem at hand. I would politely ask that you solve the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 No I don't support them acting like an idiot, but to declare on our members is not a way to solve the problem at hand. No offence but you've got some nerve to condescend to others about how to solve diplomatic problems. Perhaps being proactive is worth a try? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I would politely ask that you solve the problem. Right now the problem is that Merrie decided to attack one of our members. Unless she is willing to pay reps, the problem will be solved with her being attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I would politely ask that you solve the problem. And I've taken steps internally with him on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Right now the problem is that Merrie decided to attack one of our members. Unless she he is willing to pay reps, the problem will be solved with her being attacked. The root cause of this is Willirica's decision to start raiding unaligned red team nations, and go around bragging about it on the OWF. I suggest, again, that you fix this problem. EDIT: Did not see Myworld's response. Edited May 11, 2009 by Vilien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodivine Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 No offence but you've got some nerve to condescend to others about how to solve diplomatic problems. Perhaps being proactive is worth a try? Doitzel I just got on today and just now found out about this. So this is being proactive with getting involved and addressing the issue. But thanks old friend to pointing me to being proactive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Glaucon Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The Moldavi Doctrine was a codification of what the NPO's policy was anyway. They didn't need to announce it for everyone to see, but by and large, I really don't see why everyone is acting like the Moldavi Doctrine was some kind of yardstick to measure how ebil the NPO was at the time.The NPO would have done the same thing whether or not it was publicly announced. It's kind of funny seeing you folks trying to say the Moldavi Doctrine was some kind of policy shift, heh. Whether or not it was a policy shift has nothing to do with its practical results with respect to the Red Sphere. You're conflating two different arguments, and I suspect you know better. (I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Doitzel I just got on today and just now found out about this. So this is being proactive with getting involved and addressing the issue. But thanks old friend to pointing me to being proactive. Another way would be to not allow tech raiding, y'know. Or maybe pass a law against being a spiteful git that attacks innocent people for the crimes of others. I'm always at your service if you need tips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterof9puppets Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 The root cause of this is Willirica's decision to start raiding unaligned red team nations, and go around bragging about it on the OWF. I suggest, again, that you fix this problem.EDIT: Did not see Myworld's response. Well, right now I believe we have another problem to solve. Going rogue generally isn't the best way to solve a problem, aye? 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.