The Moldavi Doctrine

[Tygaland]

What I am asking is, if said alliances that are willing to enact doctrines like this would do it for their own protection, why don't they just form a bloc of their own thus achieving the same thing?

Where does it say they are doing this for their own protection. From my understanding it is more likely that they will place themselves in peril to assist someone who needs it. There is not demand that any assistance be reciprocated so it is not for their own protection at all.

How does this doctrine even closely resemble a bloc?

[pezstar]

That's exactly the sort of thing that Tyga was talking about earlier: treaties not being seen as promises of help to a particular alliance, but a restriction that prevents you from defending other friends. 'My friend is getting threatened/killed for no good reason' is a valid reason to join a war, whether you have a piece of paper promising to defend them or not – as in fact the Karma War showed (a lot of entries, at least on the Karma side, were motivated by friendship not by treaty ties, although in accordance with the e-lawyer world treaties were found for most or all of them).

Edit: that was @ Wierdgus, the thread is moving fast.

I don't know that it was so much in accordance with the e-lawyer as in accordance with those Karma alliances who vowed to attack those who entered the war without a treaty.

[Tygaland]

Why is this controversial? NSO is just saying "look guys, we have the right to support people we don't have a treaty with". Which, as a sovereign alliance, they do. This doesn't actually change anything. I don't see how it got so many pages.

-Bama

Because the NSO said it.

[Tygaland]

An ODP doesn't neceseraly have a NAP within it. Heck there are even a few examples where oAoDPs don't have peace clauses in their articles.

How can one impose a doctrine on the entire Planet Bob without all of the "other side" agreeing on it?

How does the doctrine request anything from anyone else in the Cyberverse to which they must comply?

[Weirdgus]

How does the doctrine request anything from anyone else in the Cyberverse to which they must comply?

Wouldn't alliances who openly declare to be against "bandwaggoning" in wars ( or at least the part of "getting involved with no treaty ties") have to agree to this doctrine?

[Tygaland]

Neither of those 3 doctrines effected the entire world, but just a fraction of the nations (aka a single color).

As far as the first part goes, I'm on it >.<

The Moldavi Doctrine 2.0 does not affet anyone but the NSO.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Moldavi Doctrine 1.0 and Revenge doctrine affected everyone by banning raiding on red team nations and also preventing others from starting a new alliance based on the red team. Not to mention the right to run for the red team senate.

How exactly does the Moldavi Doctrine 2.0 affect anyone outside the NSO?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Tygaland

[Tygaland]

Wouldn't alliances who openly declare to be against "bandwaggoning" in wars ( or at least the part of "getting involved with no treaty ties") have to agree to this doctrine?

No, I'm pretty sure they are free to whine about bandwagonning just as they were before the doctrine was announced.

[Branimir]

I must say I really don't see why is this controversial in any way. As some others have said, I am interesting to see where this leads the NSO in the future.

Also CN cant really function without a Moldavi Doctrine, just isn't the same

At least this one is so general and common place that it will not be forced to be canceled by "self righteous" foreign forces, I mean, it would be really ridiculous if anybody tried that,....though this is CN,...

Moldavi Doctrine is dead. Long live the Moldavi Doctrine

[Denial]

Why is this controversial? NSO is just saying "look guys, we have the right to support people we don't have a treaty with". Which, as a sovereign alliance, they do. This doesn't actually change anything. I don't see how it got so many pages.

-Bama

For perhaps the first time ever, I find myself agreeing with BamaBuc. Vanguard has operated under basically the same guidelines stipulated in this doctrine since our inception. I would expect any other sovereign alliance has, also.

[Believland]

He's telling you to shut up because you're an idiot.

Funny, someone should say this to you

Sargun is cooler than the other side of the pillow.

If by other side of the pillow you mean, barely cooler than the ugly chick who lives 4 countries down

Sargun is the Fonz of this planet. Recognize.

Hormones is The Fonz on every planet

Just as it is within FOK's rights and sovereignty to sit on their hands and let injustice happen, if that is what they choose.

What's injustice to a Sith?

The Cyberverse is populated by irrelevant e-lawyers, and petty demagogues. As annoying or unnecessary as this may seem, the fact of the matter is that by publishing this doctrine publicly the NSO shores up the foundation of their intervention in any future conflict they feel compelled to participate in and hopefully have a stronger defense against accusations of "bandwagoning" from the peanut gallery.

The injustices of "peace," "love" and "happiness" are too numerous to list in a platform for discussion such as this.

ah so they'll be bandwagoning but, they have a doctrine saying they can bandwagon so they won't be getting bad PR? ah ok, gotcha

[BamaBuc]

That's simply not true. Treaties have been e-lawyered to the point where some alliances view an alliance's treaty partners as a list of alliances they are allowed to defend. That is not at all the point of a treaty. The point of a treaty is to say "Hey, we like each other enough that we're willing to guarantee that we will fight to defend them. Treaties are not and never have been a list meant to limit an alliance's sovereign right to declare in defense of anyone they so choose. Treaties are, in fact, quite the opposite. They're a statement of "I can declare war on anyone in the game I wish to, EXCEPT these alliance's."

Absolutely nothing has changed here. I can tell you with 100% certainty that STA has never viewed our treaties as a list of the only alliances we are able to defend... merely as a list of alliances we have a healthy enough mutual respect for to guarantee our defense per the treaty.

Oh hey I agree with Pezstar. This treaty is NOT saying "yo, we're NSO, we'll do as we damn well please and to hell with anyone who disagrees". It even says they'll only use it if they find the CB to be legit. It's just a way of saying that they have a right to defend friends they don't have treaties with.

-Bama

[King Srqt]

Exercising the right of any nation to select its own alliance is an injustice now? You Jedi really are trying to corrupt the Senate.

You apologized for it so I assume you would agree, though following it up by sending people to spam recruitment messages on the private forums of other alliances showed that, as usual, the words of the Sith are empty and meaningless.

[SleepiB]

I understand the idea of leaving your options open, but only people without any other treaties would go to them and ask them for help. I don't think this changes anything significant. At best it cuts down on extorting micro alliances for tech, and it's still outclassed by any treaty.

Perhaps they want to protect CG or someone, but don't want the PR or obligations that come with signing an actual treaty.

[Weirdgus]

I believe I explained how Moldavi 2.0 effects parties outside of NSO.

You can't both argue that going to war out of pure opportunism is wrong, but it's ok if you do it to "defend" your "friends".

And no, I don't have anything against any alliance nor am I trying to promote the point of view of my AA, I just speak out of principle that disregarding treaties in favor of "friendships" is a bad idea. Your argument about different levels of friendships can be countered with the idea of different levels of treaties.

You can call my out views my views for being "brainwashed, innocent, retarded etc " , but I really wish to understand how in the world having treaties is a bad thing and acting on "friendships" is the better way.

Edit:I was obviously directing this @Tygaland.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Weirdgus

[Tygaland]

I believe I explained how Moldavi 2.0 effects parties outside of NSO.

No, you haven't.

You can't both argue that going to war out of pure opportunism is wrong, but it's ok if you do it to "defend" your "friends".

Defending your friends from unwarranted attacks is always ok.

And no, I don't have anything against any alliance nor am I trying to promote the point of view of my AA, I just speak out of principle that disregarding treaties in favor of "friendships" is a bad idea. Your argument about different levels of friendships can be countered with the idea of different levels of treaties.

What treaties will they be disregarding by assisting a friend?

You can call my out views my views for being "brainwashed, innocent, retarded etc " , but I really wish to understand how in the world having treaties is a bad thing and acting on "friendships" is the better way.

I never mentioned any of those words. I also never said treaties were a bad thing. Why the need to make things up?

[Tygaland]

I understand the idea of leaving your options open, but only people without any other treaties would go to them and ask them for help. I don't think this changes anything significant. At best it cuts down on extorting micro alliances for tech, and it's still outclassed by any treaty.

Perhaps they want to protect CG or someone, but don't want the PR or obligations that come with signing an actual treaty.

I'm pretty sure that if the NSO wanted to protect CG they would do so regardless of the PR hit.

[Weirdgus]

What treaties will they be disregarding by assisting a friend?

Wouldn't they be disregarding the "friendship" of the other party by not assisting them ? Isn't this what it's all about, how friends or words in the wind , matter more then signed pieces of e-paper do ?

Anyhow, I really feel that his is getting pointless and unproductive, let's agree to disagree please ?

[Kyriakos Raanb Dorou]

As you pointed out, in reality , it's far more likely of "the principal" to be used as an excuse for aggressive warfare. Also it could theoretically be cited in any war that involves 2 sides despite the fact that said war could start out as fairly equal as far as the balance of strength goes and then get unbalanced after the citations of doctrines like this.

Yes, there is of course a risk that any particular system will be abused by powers with less than admirable intentions. But, the same is very true of the current treaty system.

Say alliance "A" wants to destroy alliance "B" completely, just for kicks. But this alliance "B" has no, very few, or perhaps just not enough treaties to defend itself effectively against the aggressor alliances. Is it inherently wrong that another alliance, "C", would come to their assistance, even without a treaty (given that the CB is perhaps less than a just cause)?

On the other hand, suppose that when alliance "C" came to alliance "B"s defense, an MDP may have been activated calling alliance "D" to attack "C". Considering that the CB for war in this case was perhaps less than admirable, alliance "D" may not want to get involved (or perhaps just *shouldn't* get involved); but, for fear of being labeled traitors, cowards, or dishonorable - or perhaps just because they are an alliance that believe treaties have to be upheld to the letter no matter the circumstance (or perhaps because they themselves are opportunists - they are now obliged to help alliance "A" in what appears to be an unwarranted war of extermination.

By injecting the idea of "principal" directly into the way CN war is waged, I believe, it is hoped that a situation will be created where no one will be ridiculed for standing up for what is right, and no one will be expected to stand up for what is wrong (and in fact will be ridiculed if they do, since "treaty obligation" would no longer be such an important factor). Or at least that is my own hope.

And I do not seek to play down the role of treaties - they are still a wonderful means of expressing an alliances greater friendships. I am only advocating that treaties (or a lack thereof) should neither be a hindrance to do good, nor a supplement to do... worse.

The idea here is: perhaps there is some greater good than treaties themselves.

[SleepiB]

I'm pretty sure that if the NSO wanted to protect CG they would do so regardless of the PR hit.

That may be true, I just don't see this doctrine being significant to people that have other treaties. There are risks and obligations that come with a protectorate other than just PR. If they want to protect people from tech raiders, but not from people with a "valid" CB this is a workable option.

[Kyriakos Raanb Dorou]

Also, keep in mind: I am talking beyond "friendships." Perhaps there is an alliance one has never had any relations at all with. Can this alliance not be wronged, just as a friend would be wronged?

Can most of us here not think of some instance in our CN lives where there has been someone we didn't have a treaty with that we wanted to help?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Richard VII

[fant0m]

Basically: "If there's a war we can enter to try and look cool but while knowing there is absolutely no chance we'll lose, we'll DoW".

[Electron Sponge]

Wouldn't they be disregarding the "friendship" of the other party by not assisting them ? Isn't this what it's all about, how friends or words in the wind , matter more then signed pieces of e-paper do ?

Anyhow, I really feel that his is getting pointless and unproductive, let's agree to disagree please ?

Who says the other party are friends at all?

[Weirdgus]

Who says the other party are friends at all?

Erm, I was giving an hypothetical situation earlier and trying to learn how choosing between 2 friends works in this case, so in fact my hypothesis "says" the other party are friends

I sincerely believe that treaties should be hold to the letter with all the obligations/preventions that may come from that. If a treaty doesn't reflect a friendship anymore, why not drop it?

Also if an alliance breaks a treaty with obligations/preventions (even a "lowly" NAP as proven by recent events) in it they should suffer consequences from that action and at the very least the alliances with signed treaties to them should dissolve all the other treaties.

[Penkala]

I think maybe he just read the title of the doctrine and went straight to post.

You knew you'd catch one or two by naming it this . By the way, all NSO members should keep the link to this handy so that when someone bawwwws that you don't have a treaty you can point to this. This is one of the first moves in a long time by NSO that I've supported.

[SleepiB]

How can one impose a doctrine on the entire Planet Bob without all of the "other side" agreeing on it?

By acting on the doctrine, if you have the power to, and if nobody has the power and will to stop you. This doctrine doesn't affect anyone till NSO uses it, at which point the "other side" as you put it, is free to lodge their complaint with force. This can certainly happen, as acting on this doctrine might activate MDPs that would otherwise lie dormant because of chaining.

That is the underlying principle, any MDP between two parties imposes clear and significant restrictions on the rest of planet bob(namely that the rest of planet bob isn't allowed to attack X). It's up to the signatories to impose each other's protected status on the rest of planet bob.