SpoiL Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 He's no Thomas Hobbs either.Oh please. "Retaining the option..." means that they can and will interfere anytime they feel like it. Thank you captain obvious. It's an openly phrased paragraph that can be construed to say that they'll leak often or rarely. It's an openly phrased paragraph that clearly says we'll leak as often or rarely as we choose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh please. "Retaining the option..." means that they can and will interfere anytime they feel like it. Don't be stupid. Retaining the options does not mean that they will in your words "bandwagon on every conflict that exists" And of course they will interfere whenever they feel like it. We all do that. What do you expect? For them to interfere accidently when they didn't mean to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh please. "Retaining the option..." means that they can and will interfere anytime they feel like it. Yes, we can, if the situation is unjust. We'll step in to do what's right when many other alliances may not. It's an openly phrased paragraph that can be construed to say that they'll leak often or rarely. Wow, is that how you interpret that? Sharing information that could threaten our friends is now considered evil? It's a wonder you have any allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) And that reason is inertia. The Karma War has freed you all but the slaves are so timid that they pretend the master's whip is still at their backs. That we realize that we are free is no fault. And who will free us from NSO's insistence on being arrogant and condescending towards those it claims to be "freeing"? Insulting people (calling them "slaves") at the same time you're trying to get them to do something is counterproductive. Thank you captain obvious. You should be thanking Ragashingo, he requested the clarification. I myself found it fairly obvious. Edit: Spelled Ragashingo's name wrong. And alas, I must leave this conversation now. A crisis in Organized Chaosia beckons. Edited August 9, 2009 by Duncan King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Congrats on this, NSO. I love it when an alliance actually sticks up for their own sovereign rights to make decisions about their policies. Tis a shame so much of world seems too spineless, too lazy, or too afraid to actually have such a will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Tis a shame so much of world seems too spineless, too lazy, or too afraid to actually have such a will. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) And who will free us from NSO's insistence on being arrogant and condescending towards those it claims to be "freeing"? Insulting people (calling them "slaves") at the same time you're trying to get them to do something is counterproductive. Haha, what's up with you? We didn't start or lead the Karma War. We just recognize its impact a tad bit better than others. In any case, we're not trying to get anyone to do anything. This is our doctrine. I guess you can issue a similar one if you want, but it is like I said: if you wish to arbitrarily limit yourself, if you wish to pretend the chains of the old era are still upon you, then do so. It's comforting to sit in the cave and look at the shadows on the wall, no? Edited August 9, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 And who will free us from NSO's insistence on being arrogant and condescending towards those it claims to be "freeing"? Insulting people (calling them "slaves") at the same time you're trying to get them to do something is counterproductive. Jesus Christ, where are you pulling this stuff out of? It must be pretty deep because you keep digging and finding new and completely ridiculous 'what if!!!11!' accusations. And even so, if you feel like we are doing something evil, you can do what you are doing here. !@#$%* and moan about it. Or you can approach the people we are mistreating and come to their aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Congrats on this, NSO. I love it when an alliance actually sticks up for their own sovereign rights to make decisions about their policies.Tis a shame so much of world seems too spineless, too lazy, or too afraid to actually have such a will. So the fact that people have been doing that sort of thing, sticking up for their own sovereign rights to make decisions about their policies, and that they have been doing since there have been alliances on Planet Bob means what then? This doctrine is not about freedom, defense of liberty, or helping the downtrodden. It is not innovative, bold, or visionary. It is about NSO getting lots of attention and I would say it is "mission accomplished" in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Heggo, you don't need a doctrine like this to retain your sovereignty. I've been arguing this for a long time, and in fact a possible driver for making this statement is the realisation that some alliances might have come to the aid of the neutrals that they recruited from in a similar manner. However, from the responses in this thread, at least some people don't realise that they have the option to do anything that isn't explicitly banned, and for that reason it is probably a good thing to have posted this thread and opened the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Heggo, you don't need a doctrine like this to retain your sovereignty. I've been arguing this for a long time, and in fact a possible driver for making this statement is the realisation that some alliances might have come to the aid of the neutrals that they recruited from in a similar manner. However, from the responses in this thread, at least some people don't realise that they have the option to do anything that isn't explicitly banned, and for that reason it is probably a good thing to have posted this thread and opened the debate. Of course we don't need the doctrine, I fully agree. Rather my point was that a doctrine can help with precisely those folks you reference. Edited August 9, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Interesting, this is like the exact opposite of a Declaration of Neutrality. Would that make it a Declaration of UnNeutrality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Interesting, this is like the exact opposite of a Declaration of Neutrality. Would that make it a Declaration of UnNeutrality? Speaking of Declarations of Neutrality, I'd like to point out that this means all neutrals are in on an ODP now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wellington Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I think alot of people realize that it isnt needed, but is rather interesting. I dont think this was a ploy for attention as much as they were trying to make an analysis of political culture on planet bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) So the fact that people have been doing that sort of thing, sticking up for their own sovereign rights to make decisions about their policies, and that they have been doing since there have been alliances on Planet Bob means what then?This doctrine is not about freedom, defense of liberty, or helping the downtrodden. It is not innovative, bold, or visionary. It is about NSO getting lots of attention and I would say it is "mission accomplished" in that respect. They could just post ultimatums whenever one of their members gets tech raided. But that's too cliche for the NSO. They even innovate attention whoring. Edited August 9, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) I think alot of people realize that it isnt needed, but is rather interesting. I dont think this was a ploy for attention as much as they were trying to make an analysis of political culture on planet bob. Well theres typically been a negative stigma associated with 'bandwagoning' so how it works out remains to be seen, we will of course not know till the next war but the way I see it, either outside pressures result in the status quo being maintained, or this precedent stands, in which case public opinion will be a far more potent force. Edited August 9, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I think alot of people realize that it isnt needed, but is rather interesting. I dont think this was a ploy for attention as much as they were trying to make an analysis of political culture on planet bob. Actually it is just the opposite. I've seen screams for attention from a toddler that were less vocal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Actually it is just the opposite. I've seen screams for attention from a toddler that were less vocal. We wouldn't be screaming if people weren't listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Cone I didn't say it was a bad thing, and what you said was the funny part. People are flocking to this like cattle or sheep. You can't tell me you don't see the irony in it now do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 If it that obvious... why state it? Forgive me for seeing more to this by a politico. I must be losing my mind. Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, that's all that it is. Just someone quietly stating the really obvious. What more could a master politician be playing at? Yes, I do have a tin foil hat.I agree with the man who said optional clauses in treaties are essentially useless. Even if the "Master Politician" has a plan for this doctrine it is nothing he couldn't do WITHOUT the doctrine. Everything stated in this doctrine can be done regardless of having it on paper or not. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordliam Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Therefore, I, as Dark Lord of the Sith, Sovereign of the New Sith Order, present the Moldavi Doctrine: You scared me. Curse you and your Doctrine name choices. It's bad enough we have two GOONS alliances in CN, but 2 Moldavi Doctrines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 11/10 expected ...and the Sith deceive even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Even if the "Master Politician" has a plan for this doctrine it is nothing he couldn't do WITHOUT the doctrine. Everything stated in this doctrine can be done regardless of having it on paper or not. Get over it. Thank you. We could have done it before. We're giving you all the heads up so you won't be surprised when we follow through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 You scared me. Curse you and your Doctrine name choices. It's bad enough we have two GOONS alliances in CN, but 2 Moldavi Doctrines? Ehh its his name :-p 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.