The Moldavi Doctrine

[Voodoo Nova]

So is it correct to assume, that as you will defend whomever you please, that Mutual defense/aggression pacts are no longer to be signed by NSO.

Never assume what we'll do.

[Nick1a]

I'm not happy with this doctrine. Hurr durr.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Never assume what we'll do.

It was an assumption in the shape of a question, I was hoping to be corrected if I was wrong, I shall rephrase it.

Will the NSO no longer consider signing Mutual Aggression/Defense treaties? As this doctrine removes any need for these treaties, except of course should you yourselves need defending.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Torak]

Never assume anything clear your mind must be to discover the reason to this matter

[JamesdaLeo]

o/ NSO

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Never assume anything clear your mind must be to discover the reason to this matter

But surely, if I were to discover the reason to this matter, without any answers from yourselves relating to the questions I have asked, it would be an assumption?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Torak]

But surely, if I were to discover the reason to this matter, without any answers from yourselves relating to the questions I have asked, it would be an assumption?

Logic in CN? GTFO

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Logic in CN? GTFO

Aha! Though our numbers are few, We empiricists are the scourge of this planet.

[Margrave]

It isnt advice. Its what most of us feel, but most are too afraid to voice an honest opinion.

One thing no one should fear in this day and age is to voice their opinions. The Hegemon's are gone friend, you can breathe easy and say what you like.

[lordliam]

EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too.

It's already in our charter. And don't make fun of Ryan, he doesn't fail, he's just different.

[Emperor Brutus]

Heh, this may not be all that pleasant

Edited August 9, 2009 by Emperor Brutus

[Priest Kahn]

It was an assumption in the shape of a question, I was hoping to be corrected if I was wrong, I shall rephrase it.

Will the NSO no longer consider signing Mutual Aggression/Defense treaties? As this doctrine removes any need for these treaties, except of course should you yourselves need defending.

Those treaties are still necessary. Private discussion often doesn't reflect an alliance's actions. Treaties are made public, and they damage an alliance's PR if they are broken.

[Lyria]

The doctrine says that NSO will consult an alliance before taking action. Suppose they do and the alliance rejects NSO's offer for assistance. Does NSO consider themselves bound by that rejection?

[Angrator]

It was an assumption in the shape of a question, I was hoping to be corrected if I was wrong, I shall rephrase it.

Will the NSO no longer consider signing Mutual Aggression/Defense treaties? As this doctrine removes any need for these treaties, except of course should you yourselves need defending.

I don't know why we wouldn't keep signing them. Just because we occassionally stray off the well trodden path doesn't mean we don't still conduct standard diplomacy. MDP and MDoAPs are still a valuable way of strengthening bonds between alliances so to answer your question they will probably still be signed.

[ConeBone69]

The doctrine says that NSO will consult an alliance before taking action. Suppose they do and the alliance rejects NSO's offer for assistance. Does NSO consider themselves bound by that rejection?

I can't answer for Ivan, and the decision would be up to him. However, taking into account that it's worded that way, I would see no reason to forcefully assist anyone who denies our offer.

[Heft]

It was an assumption in the shape of a question, I was hoping to be corrected if I was wrong, I shall rephrase it.

Will the NSO no longer consider signing Mutual Aggression/Defense treaties? As this doctrine removes any need for these treaties, except of course should you yourselves need defending.

We have only signed MDPs, or maybe an MDoAP somewhere, technically speaking, though it's essentially the same thing for our purposes. There are uses for MDPs, but we prefer to keep they're number small, as they start to become much less meaningful when you have many of them. We won't sign ODPs, or generally anything else below an MDP (save for sphere based treaties, like econ pacts and the like). Such has been our policy from the beginning and this doctrine does not change that.

The doctrine says that NSO will consult an alliance before taking action. Suppose they do and the alliance rejects NSO's offer for assistance. Does NSO consider themselves bound by that rejection?

I think we could still "assist" them, but it obviously wouldn't make any real sense to do so, so we'd probably stay out of it, if that was what they wanted.

[Jacapo Saladin]

I for one do not have a problem with it Creates a bit more intrigue on the world stage

[Haflinger]

It's funny seeing people who were so outraged by us declaring war on NEW during the Karma war now hailing the very same thing. And those who supported us now being opposed to it.

For what it's worth, I was opposed to you guys declaring war on NEW, but only because I like NEW, not anything to do with treaties and such. I tried to make that clear, but that thread often got muddy.

[Shimmer]

What a wonderful Idea. The Destiny Pact and The Moldavi Doctrine is the way of the future.

[Tygaland]

In my opinion, it affects the entire world. The meat of this game is political maneuvering, and when NSO issues this document which basically says they can jump in as a wild card in any war they see fit, it affects anyone who plans to go to war. Now, every time somebody gets a CB ready they need to make sure it coincides with NSO's views of justice, lest they risk being attacked.

What aspects of Moldavi Doctrine 2.0 do other alliances in the Cyberverse have to comply with or honour? And, no, no one needs to get the ok from the NSO for their CB, that is just pure stupidity on your behalf.

Also a note to my allies in the NSO, the "zomg Karma is teh hypocrites" is "teh old". As the STA was part of the Karma Coalition and also agrees with and had defended this doctrine you continued desperation to scream about Karma hypocrisy is quite insulting to my alliance and others on the Karma Coalition who have done the right thing before, during and after this war. If you have a particular issue with a particular alliance then perhaps you should address that alliance rather than blowing the dogwhistle in every discussion.

[Tygaland]

Frankly, this is not unprecedented. STA and MK were not 'bandwaggoning' when they helped Opethian in that war. They were helping a friend they thought was being exploited. The actions of STA or MK in that war were not dishonorable.

I am not sure what is wrong with NSO announcing they will exercise the very same sovereign right all alliances possess, and alliances have historically used to declare war. Or I could assume the NSO have the worst possible motivations and belittle them with almost-witty one-liners. That's really all that seems to occur these days when an alliance announces something interesting or unconventional or controversial.

While not disagreeing with your sentiments, the STA had an ODP treaty with PPF via the United White treaty at the time.

[Mason]

Probably been said before, but I'm not reading through 28 pages....

This doctrine does not force any other teams or nations to comply with any terms dictated by the NSO. It's basically saying they'll do what they want, which is what every alliance should do. I've got no problem with it.

[Eamon Valda]

For those who seem to think this doctrine has no purpose or merely composes the essential rights any alliance has on CN, I would like to present the following arguments.

There are no natural rights on Planet Bob. Rights are created, assigned, and defended by elements of the social apparatus in the places they exist. By rights, what most of you mean is natural law. What I am saying is that, in a condition of each alliance for itself in an unorganised world (that is, in 'nature'), alliances will tend to act out certain patterns of actions to maintain their self-interested existence - the principles out-lined, essentially, in the new Moldavi Doctrine. In nature, an alliance would defend it self, attack whom it chooses, and at in principle of what it considers just, not just borrow his MDP partner's brain and thus loan off his responsibility as a sovereign alliance to someone else.

The point of the doctrine, in my mind, is to undermine the current moral standards of cybernations (you may say now, 'no !@#$, Valda'). Many have stated that there are no objective values in this world. This cannot be true: there are certain values which a majority of players hold which form the relationships that exist and have existed before. For example, leaders held that to act in a vice-like nature, exhibiting decadence through lack of courage and honesty (and thus committing immoral acts), was wrong - this was part of the case for destroying the NPO. There are other moral standards of the cyberverse, and I believe they are completely relevant to this doctrine. The standard is to gather-up in groups, pass on sovereignty (and thus responsibility of war and peace) to others, when beneficial, and not war on principles so much as who your latest MDP partner is. I would like to point out, to all the e-lawyers, that laws and treaties are not always morally correct simply because they are contracts between (hypothetically) consenting parties; when groups or persons commit heinous or immoral acts, people in this game have sat back in the past (I.e.) NPO versus GATO) simply because they did not follow their own moral beliefs, sacrificing them to survival. Though not wrong, I would argue, it certainly highlights how principle can be ignored in favour of safety of social norm. What I see in the Moldavi Doctrine is simply everything that NSO has promised and, for that, I salute them in their actions and wish them never to rely on the false advice of others nor their threats in determining what they wish to do. If all alliancess held up this standard, we would see a much more ideologically-driven and freer world.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Eamon Valda

[Mustakrakish II]

So does this make NSO the CN world police now?

[Kzoppistan]

This declaration is a joke. People do what ever they want to either further their power or attempt to block those who wish to limit it, and they call it acting in the name of 'justice'. Every person is the hero of their own play. The only constraints on people's action is the limit of their own power in contrast with another's. So the NSO need an announcement to tell the world that what ever they do, as long as they are acting in the name of 'justice' (ie: what ever furthers their interests), it's ok by right of this flimsy 'doctrine'?

Conclusion: PR fail

Reason: Attention whoring by stating the obvious.

Probable Future Outcome: Hailing sheeple who clap like stupid monkeys now and later find themselves obstructions to NSO's ambition will end up not liking this 'declaration' much.

Cultural Impact: Negligible. Is NSO an up-holder of norms or an over-turning of norms? Neither, they pander to the people by flip-flopping. They've already proven that when faced with losing popular support they'll cave in to pressure to fit in.

Advice: Actually try some thing revolutionary.