Heft Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Which makes the point of this thread either a complete PR move, or an attempt in insight violence.Already need some more war eh? Others have quite clearly stated what the potential reasons for this thread are, aside from simple grandstanding. And what's wrong with a little spectacle, if it helps drive home a point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm afraid in CN the tangles of treaties and standards have made this doctrine indeed quite nessecary. Not a PR stunt or an attempt to instigate violence, a exclamation of our views and stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Others have quite clearly stated what the potential reasons for this thread are, aside from simple grandstanding. And what's wrong with a little spectacle, if it helps drive home a point?It gives people something to discuss, and participate in during this relatively boring interregnum. Obviously that's a bad thing that needs to be condemned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) I'm afraid in CN the tangles of treaties and standards have made this doctrine indeed quite nessecary. Not a PR stunt or an attempt to instigate violence, a exclamation of our views and stance. I think we knew your views and stance before this was posted. You will do what you want, when you want to. And you will dare anyone to try to stop you if they want to, when they want to because it's all of our rights. ^is that about it? Edited August 9, 2009 by Infidel Israeli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesalius Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Others have quite clearly stated what the potential reasons for this thread are, aside from simple grandstanding. And what's wrong with a little spectacle, if it helps drive home a point? Yes, I realize this. Nothing really wrong with the spectacle, other then the fact it's based on a point that has just been driven home by a massive war. I'm not admonishing the spectacle for being a spectacle, simply the necessity of it. Unless an intention is to insight more conflict, in which case it deserves to be admonished. EDIT: It gives people something to discuss, and participate in during this relatively boring interregnum. Obviously that's a bad thing that needs to be condemned! Yes, that's why I am participating in said discussion. Edited August 9, 2009 by Vesalius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I am baffled by the stance of why post alliance stances or opinions because we all already know. I saw the same thing in the NPO and Invicta freindship thread, people saying "why post this we already know". The establishment of a crucial stance relating to our alliance I believe is the perfectly fit to be placed where it was. And for the last time this isnt an instigation of violence but a proclamation of free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesalius Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) I am baffled by the stance of why post alliance stances or opinions because we all already know. I saw the same thing in the NPO and Invicta freindship thread, people saying "why post this we already know". The establishment of a crucial stance relating to our alliance I believe is the perfectly fit to be placed where it was. And for the last time this isnt an instigation of violence but a proclamation of free will. Which implies free will was lacking in the first place, the contrary of which has been very well proven. Edited August 9, 2009 by Vesalius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, I realize this.Nothing really wrong with the spectacle, other then the fact it's based on a point that has just been driven home by a massive war. I'm not admonishing the spectacle for being a spectacle, simply the necessity of it. Unless an intention is to insight more conflict, in which case it deserves to be admonished. I don't really feel that it has been driven home by the last war. In many ways, the last war was an abberation and it remains to be seen what sorts of precedents will be taken and which will be discarded. I don't see how this could incite more conflict, and if we really wished to do so than there are plenty of more effective and direct ways than this. Even if it were, I wouldn't necessarily consider that deserving of admonishment, though. OOC: In any case I'm done for tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 There hasnt been !@#$storms thrown up constantly about bandwagoning or treaty complications in almost every single war since the beginning of time... woops, sorry, guess im on the wrong planet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 There hasnt been !@#$storms thrown up constantly about bandwagoning or treaty complications in almost every single war since the beginning of time... woops, sorry, guess im on the wrong planet.... But it's their right to throw fits isn't it? And it's your right to complain about them throwing fits, ect ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Since the oDoA treaties create the right of the signers to do so, then this doctrine creates the right of you to do so. So it's not guaranteed by nature if you have to give it forth as a doctrine; which means you don't have the right to do this. Coolio. Optional aggression and optional defense treaties are presently written to imply that they grant a new right- that the the signatories have gained the option to do something which they did not have before signing the treaty. Our universal oDoA Doctrine nullifies that implication by leaving nobody out- thus serving less the role of a treaty and more as an affirmation of our rights. Of course, one has rights whether they are written down or not- but sometimes, just sometimes, it helps to have those rights written down in a form that we might throw at those who would deny us them. Which implies free will was lacking in the first place, the contrary of which has been very well proven. You're a member of Kronos. Your alliance has two active optional aggression clauses in your belt of treaties. Evidently, your alliance doesn't believe that the contrary was well proven at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh snap. The NSO just invented bandwagoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Oh snap. The NSO just invented bandwagoning. No. You missed the point. Though it could be an unwanted side effect.If everyone just did what their friendships guided them to do, the whole treaty following/breaking/bandwagoning/e-lawyering thing wouldn't be problem. Honestly though, if you plan to go in for someone, your just going to sign a treaty anyway, but at least it would fix the problem of old treaties going stale yet not bieng dissolved <points a guilty finger at himself> Edited August 9, 2009 by muffasamini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azural Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Exercising the right of any nation to select its own alliance is an injustice now? You Jedi really are trying to corrupt the Senate. I believe what he's getting at is that you will only use this 'document' to give reason to jump into any war that might benefit you, not to use it to help those in need. Sounds about right for the Sith... Take a Jedi principle and twist it so that it's only a shadow of it's former self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) snip So what you're telling me is that the same sword can be used to slay both good and evil? Remarkable! In any case, I'd trust one more in the hands of Moldavi than in so many of the other hands around here. Edited August 9, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Given that Dark Fist attack an alliance during the Karma War through no treaty obligations - mandatory, optional or otherwise, because we believed it to be the right thing to do, I would like to proclaim that Dark Fist in fact pioneered this concept and NSO is just copying us. Thank you. PS. I look forward to NSO attacking itself the next time it does something stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) snip One cannot pioneer a natural right. They merely are. You should thank us for putting the right into words for you. Edit: OOC: Oh heavens is it late! Edited August 9, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 No. You missed the point. Rats. I never get things. Well what have they invented then? Couldn't have been "the pointless announcement". I know Invicta invented that just a few days ago. They can't fool us that easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 One cannot pioneer a natural right. They merely are. You should thank us for putting the right into words for you. One can pioneer the idea that this natural right should be enforced and used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) i am not impressed by this the nation of agnews and the alliance of the foa for the record reserves the right to do whatever the (*$# it wants without wasting 12 pages of peoples lives that is all Edited August 9, 2009 by agnews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Taco Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I like this. I don't like that CN got to a point that posting something like this is considered novel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 i am not impressed by thisthe nation of agnews and the alliance of the foa for the record reserves the right to do whatever the (*$# it wants without wasting 12 pages of peoples lives that is all Bahaha, I do love it when people complain about having read a thread as if it's someone else's fault besides their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Forgive me for not having the time to read all 12 pages of responses, but... what? I mean, the only thing this doctrine seems to be saying is that the NSO wants to claim the ability be able to jump into a fight without being called band wagoners for not having a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Bahaha, I do love it when people complain about having read a thread as if it's someone else's fault besides their own. i dont like to be misinformed when i post, generally their is usually some content to a 12page thread in alliance announcements but all i found was garbage Edited August 9, 2009 by agnews 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.