An Announcement

[Ejayrazz]

Merge with fire?

Edited June 10, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Infidel Israeli]

The Epic announcement is less Epic than expected. Yes, you did only do this because NPO is powerless to stop you. No, that's not necessarely wrong, its strategy.

Anyway good luck to ya

[King DrunkWino]

Merge with fire?

Oh that's good. That's post of the month material.

[Nada2486]

NPO's reign in the red sphere is over for sure. If NPO does surrender, Karma might really have them put an end to the Moldavi Doctrine. After that things are going to be happening on the red sphere, lots of things.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Nada2486

[Shimmer]

Good to see more RED alliances.

[Dan123123]

[ooc]For the sake of organization, I will try to address your post without breaking it into 10 quote blocks. I'm not intentionally leaving any points out. If I do miss a point, feel free to remind me. [/ooc]

A large part of this argument is entirely based on definitions that can be construed to mean just about anything.

Liberty, for example:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

It is impossible to protect these freedoms without limiting entities' freedom to carry out these acts. To limit an entity from committing an act is to violate the third point of this definition. It contradicts itself.

This is not international in the sense of inter-alliance. There is no way to enforce an international standard of behavior, nor do I desire to. As has been said before, it is the job of every man to act according to his own conscience. When I see a violation of the rights of another, I will do the best that I can to right whatever wrongs have occured. The Moldavi Doctrine is an example of the consistent arrogance and "might makes right" bravado that is the New Pacific Order. I have had enough of it, and I have declared it to be null and void. This is simple enough.

As to the "power play" comment, I expect to gain nothing from this action. Upholding the dignity and rights of others is nothing to be ashamed of, and it is worthy in and of itself as a reason to act. I have chosen to do so.

The two bolded statements are contradictory. They essentially say that the Moralist Front will not impose an international standard, but will defend its moral standard against others whenever feasible. (ergo, forcing others to accept their moral standard when the MF can enforce it)

First, military and political dominance allow an entity to impose moral restrictions. (i.e. the New Pacific Order for the last 2 years). This OP and this claim that "When I see a violation of the rights of another, I will do the best that I can to right whatever wrongs have occured." prove that to impose a moral standard simply requires the power to enforce it. There is no inherent right or wrong (OOC: save for the game rules), and unless you can find one, universal standard to set up your moral compass, every time Moralist Front seek to "right a wrong" the rights of the party who committed whichever act you deemed unjust will be infringed.

For example, alliance X declares war on alliance Y for a reason the Moralist Front finds unjust. Alliance X feels they are perfectly within their rights. The Moralist Front offers mediation on behalf of alliance Y to right this inherent wrong-- which is perfectly sensible. The issue is that the Front would be superseding the morality of alliance X. What qualifies the Moralist Front's opinion to supersede that of alliance X?

Next, you argue you will do your best to right wrongs-- up to and including unilaterally dissolving alliance doctrines. The very 'might makes right" principle allowed this OP to occur. Returning to my previous war example, alliance X refuses to negotiate a peace, and the moralist front declares war on alliance X. The Moralist Front defeats alliance X, and they right the perceived wrongs. Alliance's X's justification and definition of fair may have been different than yours, but by declaring war, the Moralist front would be infringing their freedom to act and imposing their version of justice or honor on alliance X to defend alliance Y. That is the crux of the issue. Both this OP and the hypothetical

situation illustrate that a politically or militarily stronger entity can impose its version of justice on others.

The Moralist Front may not be imposing a formal standard, but by taking action to right a wrong it is imposing a standard, intentionally or not.

The rest we either agreed on or misunderstood the semantics of our respective arguments. The New Pacific Order was never a moral standard in terms of absolute right or wrong, per se. However, they set a standard of which actions received what consequences. (Nukes are immoral, eternal wars are allowed, spying is okay so long as you don't get caught, vice royalties).

Aside from that, the New Pacific Order argued it was simply trying to maintain stability within the cyberverse, as well.

When I said moralism, I meant the goals and standards of the Moralist Front, not moralism in general.

------

The power play comment was harsh, but there have been some tangible benefits to this Moralist Front. (i.e. you founded an alliance on the red sphere and publicly dissolved the Moldavi Doctrine without repercussions. Two months ago, you would be well on your way to the nearest ZI list.) Further, there is the PR and notoriety gained as the 'guy who dissolved the Moldavi Doctrine.' Aside from these more political gains, there is the dignity you claim to have gained from defending the weak and oppressed.

As for my own moral standard, I never to impose on others what I would not choose for myself. It avoids the conundrum of defending the liberty of some against the liberty of others. I have a strong suspicion this is exactly the standard this Moralist Front is trying to communicate. However, by actively fighting perceived injustices, the liberties of those perpetrating those alleged injustices is infringed.

I have no problems with there being some type of Moralist Front, but this announcement feels premature. I think a more than a few of those reading this announcement were taken aback by your dissolution of the Moldavi Doctrine (it looks like a grab at attention or a desperate attempt to attain legitimacy as an entity.) The ideals and goals of this organization have not been fully realized (the OP says as much). I would suggest defining some more terms (liberty, honor, oppression, and morality are very subjective), clearing up some of the logical fallacies (freedom to vs. freedom from) in the initial OP, and setting some real, achievable goals. Then, I would hope you announce them to the world so we can debate them.

[Zombie Glaucon]

Good luck with the alliance but personally I despise any organization that attempts to impose their morales upon others. Morality is a mask that is often worn to mask ones true agenda.

I despise that you're trying to impose your own morality on us by telling us what you despise. You sicken me.

[Eskimo]

Good luck. I hope you can bring some peace to the red sphere no matter what the future holds.

[crushtania]

lol arbitrary alliance declares arbitrary doctrine void

Oh so much LOL!

[Chet Ubet]

It will be interesting what this turns out

[HeinousOne]

It is slightly amusing to see the quick defense against those calling this opportunistic. It is extremely opportunistic. That doesn't make it a bad thing. You are taking advantage of the opportunity provided to you by the Karma War. Taking advantage of opportunities is essential in life but to deny such means you think such is a dirty thing and thus you actually deep down think this move of yours is dirty as well.

Try standing up for your opportunistic move as it is indeed such. If you were all about this and not waiting for the right opportunity for such you would have done this much earlier. You would have been attempting to be martyrs to bring about a similiar war as the Karma War but at a much earlier time.

You didn't do it earlier, you waited for the opportunity to do it so that you wouldn't get annihilated. That is Opportunism 101. So stop with the cover up, that is never a good thing.

As far as whether NPO will attack these guys at some point if these guys actually get up past 20 nations, you need that many before the Moldavi Doctrine even takes affect, I still do not think the NPO is going to do anything about it as they will probably become even more isolationist and quiet. They will allow the world to take their eyes off of the NPO. Attacking moralistic yet inconsequential alliances such as this one will not serve NPO in any regards thus they will not do it. A lot of hype we have here.

Edited June 11, 2009 by HeinousOne

[Vilien]

Post.

We agree on a number of points, but I believe your interpretation of my statement is flawed. I suggested that the Moralist Front would act with regard to its own conscience, but this was not intended to mean that it would act solely when it had the power to do so. It is my belief that is our duty to do what is right even if we cannot gain a victory from doing so. Our fundamental disagreement is over the nature of morality; while you believe that morality is entirely subjective, I believe that there are some issues that have a clear right and wrong choice. This does not mean that I will try to intervene against every action of yours that I perceive to be a slight. However, if one acts in a manner that grievously wounds the rights of another, I would act to right the situation. You correctly address that there is a conflict between "freedom to" and "freedom from", and I hope to solve this conflict with my future alliance mates. As you said, once we have developed clear goals, I will be more than happy to debate with you over them.

Post.

Of course this is opportunistic. It would have been suicidal to do such a thing when Pacifica had the power to destroy such a movement instantly. While I admire Vox Populi, I am not them. I had hoped that the irony of my statements would be understood without explanation. However, it appears that I will have to explain them as to avoid confusion. I used the exact same wording that Pacifica used while justifying its colonization of the Blue Sphere after Polar War I. You may not have been there, but I remember that day. I chose my words carefully.

As to your arguments of my irrelevance, yes, you are correct, I doubt Pacifica will waste its time on an alliance of one man with a combined nation strength of six hundred. However, I hope the significance of this is not lost on you. The difference between "hype" and a meaningful statement is your ability to read between the lines.

[valves]

Well spoken as always Vilien. I wish you the best of luck with this alliance, whatever happens. Don't forget us, mk?

[Ivan Moldavi]

Wait, you are declaring a moral victory prior to establishing an actual definition of "moral"?

How surprising.

[Vilien]

Wait, you are declaring a moral victory prior to establishing an actual definition of "moral"?

How surprising.

Instructions for understanding: Reread the original post, look for key principles, attempt to reconcile with current conflict.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Instructions for understanding: Reread the original post, look for key principles, attempt to reconcile with current conflict.

Ah, I wasn't aware that I was illiterate, thank you for your assistance.

Moralism has won a major victory.

snip

The purposes of this Congress are the following:

To define the concrete goals of Moralism, and give it a purpose in moving forward

So claiming a victory on behalf of some abstract ideal, which is subject to individual interpretation regardless of who you think you are, and then claiming the need to define the goals of that same ideal don't correlate into you actually claiming to be the "moral right" while not actually establishing what that "moral right" entails insofar as goals and objectives within the Cyberverse isn't putting the cart before the horse at all?

[Vilien]

So claiming a victory on behalf of some abstract ideal, which is subject to individual interpretation regardless of who you think you are, and then claiming the need to define the goals of that same ideal don't correlate into you actually claiming to be the "moral right" while not actually establishing what that "moral right" entails insofar as goals and objectives within the Cyberverse isn't putting the cart before the horse at all?

We have acted in defense of these principles: self-determination, liberty, and honor; and we cannot let them out of our sight now.

Also, I did not accuse you of being illiterate, nor would I. Your posts are almost always insightful and intelligent.

[Ivan Moldavi]

What about the self-determination, liberty and honor of those members of Pacifica that you are so quick to cast out or tread upon?

Just because the current alliance leadership may have made some mistakes in their dealings with other alliances does not mean that you and every other two-bit pony show that appears on the scene can run rampant over the rights of the 700+ nations that still call the NPO home.

The position you put forward isn't a simple declaration of disagreement with the Moldavi Doctrine, which has multitudes of detractors, but one of moral superiority, and I call bullocks on that.

If the nations of the Red trading sphere didn't appreciate the Moldavi Doctrine, and the subsequent protection of the Revenge Doctrine, then they would simply look for greener pastures elsewhere, as many have.

How is it a "moral right" to force those nations that have dwelled under the Moldavi Doctrine for over two years to embrace an open door policy that removes some level of their security?

Note: I am not advocating a continuation of the Moldavi Doctrine. I am simply pointing out what I believe to be inconsistencies in this philosophy. If you want to take advantage of and exploit the NPO because they are not in a position to protect themselves at present then just do it. Don't attempt to cover up the opportunism with some blanket moral arguement.

[willirica]

Note: I am not advocating a continuation of the Moldavi Doctrine. I am simply pointing out what I believe to be inconsistencies in this philosophy. If you want to take advantage of and exploit the NPO because they are not in a position to protect themselves at present then just do it. Don't attempt to cover up the opportunism with some blanket moral arguement.

Pretty much this vilien. I 'bragged' to spite you whiney little !@#$%*es, now youve come around and done a 180, making a thread of your own to brag about how you can void the Moldavi doctrine because the NPO is getting curbstombed.

[Vilien]

What about the self-determination, liberty and honor of those members of Pacifica that you are so quick to cast out or tread upon?

Just because the current alliance leadership may have made some mistakes in their dealings with other alliances does not mean that you and every other two-bit pony show that appears on the scene can run rampant over the rights of the 700+ nations that still call the NPO home.

The position you put forward isn't a simple declaration of disagreement with the Moldavi Doctrine, which has multitudes of detractors, but one of moral superiority, and I call bullocks on that.

If the nations of the Red trading sphere didn't appreciate the Moldavi Doctrine, and the subsequent protection of the Revenge Doctrine, then they would simply look for greener pastures elsewhere, as many have.

How is it a "moral right" to force those nations that have dwelled under the Moldavi Doctrine for over two years to embrace an open door policy that removes some level of their security?

Note: I am not advocating a continuation of the Moldavi Doctrine. I am simply pointing out what I believe to be inconsistencies in this philosophy. If you want to take advantage of and exploit the NPO because they are not in a position to protect themselves at present then just do it. Don't attempt to cover up the opportunism with some blanket moral arguement.

How is it the right of the nations of the NPO to deny the ability of others to create an alliance on a trading sphere? The cancellation of the Moldavi Doctrine has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the New Pacific Order. It has not been driven from its sphere as it has done to others in the past.

The nations of the red team benefit from not being tech raided. This, again, has nothing to do with the Moldavi Doctrine. They can just as easily be protected from raiders even if red contains more than one alliance. The unaligned do not dwell under the Moldavi Doctrine. They are protected by a specific section of the Revenge Doctrine.

As I have stated before, the security of red nations is not threatened by new alliances emerging on that sphere. If anything, the red sphere needs more anti-raiding alliances on its side due to Pacifica's weakened state, where it may not be able to enforce its anti-raiding doctrine due to peace terms.

I have acknowledged that this is opportunistic in a way. But I also believe it to be within anyone's rights to establish an alliance on any sphere and choose under which banner they will reside. There are both practical and moral aspects of this argument.

Pretty much this vilien. I 'bragged' to spite you whiney little !@#$%*es, now youve come around and done a 180, making a thread of your own to brag about how you can void the Moldavi doctrine because the NPO is getting curbstombed.

Who is it that's upset that I got him reprimanded for acting like an !@#$%^&? I'd also be much obliged if you could point me to the bragging that you're referring to.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Vilien

[Ivan Moldavi]

It is the right of any nation to declare war upon another as well, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of that action if it is an aligned nation they choose to declare upon.

Likewise, it is the right of any alliance to protect their membership as best as they can under the given circumstances. In fact, it is the obligation of an alliance to do so, otherwise what is the point of membership? Therefore, it can be reasonably argued that the Moldavi Doctrine is the moral right of the NPO in performance of its obligation to its member nations to provide them with adequate security and protection.

The only reason you and others are pursuing alliances on the Red sphere is to rub it in the noses of the NPO. Otherwise why do it? Why not start your alliance on Brown? We are always looking for new nations and we even offer established or establishing alliances protection.

[Geiseric]

This is all good and all, ... even the NPO would profit from the trades, probably. The only thing I fail to see is,... why the bombast and provocation? You could always deny the Moldavi Doctrine due to the NPO's inability to hold them lately, but surely, this won't end well.

T

Even if the NPO were all ZI-ed after this war, they'd still be a 500-700+ (rough estimate) nation strong alliance,... which is still something not to be taken lightly.

[Vilien]

It is the right of any nation to declare war upon another as well, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of that action if it is an aligned nation they choose to declare upon.

Likewise, it is the right of any alliance to protect their membership as best as they can under the given circumstances. In fact, it is the obligation of an alliance to do so, otherwise what is the point of membership? Therefore, it can be reasonably argued that the Moldavi Doctrine is the moral right of the NPO in performance of its obligation to its member nations to provide them with adequate security and protection.

The only reason you and others are pursuing alliances on the Red sphere is to rub it in the noses of the NPO. Otherwise why do it? Why not start your alliance on Brown? We are always looking for new nations and we even offer established or establishing alliances protection.

You are correct that it is the obligation of alliances to protect their membership. However, it does not necessarily give your members any more security to declare a sphere to be your own. The sanction wars of the past are over. Indeed, GOONS showed us how declaring ownership of a sphere can have detrimental effects to your membership.

And yes, this is partially about rubbing it in Pacifica's nose. But it is much more about the symbolic importance of removing that which has been a symbol of the NPO's game dominating power for the past three years. As to receiving protectorate status, I'd be more than happy to talk about it with your alliance.

[Haflinger]

If the nations of the Red trading sphere didn't appreciate the Moldavi Doctrine, and the subsequent protection of the Revenge Doctrine, then they would simply look for greener pastures elsewhere, as many have.

Indeed.

Also, a number have left during this conflict, perhaps due to the NPO being rendered incapable of enforcing the Revenge Doctrine. In fact, there are now 304 fewer non-NPO nations on Red Team than there were on April 18th, when I last got the numbers. (There were 1592 then, 1288 now.) That's a reduction of 19.1%.

I question the real motivation for these announcements of new alliances on red team; could it be somebody wants to have a Red colony with the intent of giving the NPO a permanent CB so the war never ends?

Nah, that couldn't be it. It must be that they're going to bring the three hundred nations they've driven off the team back. Yeah, that sounds likely.

[Ivan Moldavi]

At least you have admitted that your entire "moral right" arguement comes down to your desire to make a statement and rub the NPO's nose in their defeat.

I would hardly call that a moral victory.

As for protectorate status, we only consider Brown alliances because we are ethnocentric.