Hell Scream 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. I repeat my question, why does one need a reason to attack someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. Any announcement that doesn't include a DoW is pointless. Unless Rebel Virginia is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I repeat my question, why does one need a reason to attack someone? You don't. But launching an attack because of some double secret defense pact with the world sounds kinda flimsy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I repeat my question, why does one need a reason to attack someone? you dont just be prepared to face the effects of your actions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) 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. This is why I think they've invented bandwagoning. Because from now on, anytime someone bandwagons they can see "nuh uh, that's the Moldavi doctrine in action" Any announcement that doesn't include a DoW is pointless. Unless Rebel Virginia is involved. Yeah, are you being sarcastic, irreverent or serious? Edited August 9, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I don't get it? Seems to me this was posted so you can bandwagon without being called band wagoners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) This entire article could be summed up in one sentence: "Shut up about bandwagoning." Oh, that's already been pointed out. ._. Edited August 9, 2009 by Great Lord Moth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 this will never work, Planet Bob dosent tolerate common sense in any form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randleman Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Really no need for this, but alright, I'll bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb the Wise Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 this will never work, Planet Bob dosent tolerate common sense in any form I guess article 4 is out of the question In all seriousness, those that have played this game long enough and lurked like I have know that Ivan couldn't have something with his name on it die without trying to breathing new life into it. I applaud the idea. I'm sure Ivan hopes this becomes popular. CN w/o treaties? Alliances defend and fight when and what they want to fight for. Might have saved many alliances from the Hegemony, if not for the bandwagon effect of the CN forums. But what about when truth and justice isn't so clear? OWF has never helped, with or without treaties. This doctrine is only as powerful as the nations of CN (outside of the NSO) allow it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The treaty is weak unless you define what is right and what is wrong, If I was a betting man and I am I would say that right will always be the stronger side. Might makes right, isn't that the mantra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So common sense... but you state it so idiots can't try to e-lawyer you. Well, saves the hassle of e-lawyers being idiots I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I have to laugh at all the people that consider this a "valid treaty" etc... NSO states they're going to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whoever they want. Wait... that sounds familiar. And this piece of paper isn't "legally" binding like I've seen spewed all over this thread. How in the world can he have a legally binding treaty with the entire world without their agreement on it. This is a doctrine, as he stated. This is his established course of actions, whether you like it or not. If NSO enacted this, there would be thread upon threads full of moaning and groaning. I have to say, I'm amused that it's quite a bit shorter of a time than I expected for the world to fall back to the "norm"... but then again.. maybe I'm not that shocked at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff 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. You wish you were that important. Still, I'm a little surprised you turned up to a NSO thread this late... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Drama queens certainly have come out of the woodwork since the war ended, eh? Let's see if you have the teeth to pull this off, chances are you're still as irrelevant as you have been for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh snap. The NSO just invented bandwagoning. You're late to the party. Where's Sal Paradise when you need him? Now I have to do his job for him.."Not only did NSO invent white peace, but they now invented no-CB wars." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Revised Opinion of OP: Greasing the political wheels of legitimacy with self-created publicized "permission slip" pre hoc whatever war furthers their power. Also, PR move. Edited August 10, 2009 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm glad someone came out and officially said this. It's been a bone of contention over optional treaties with me for a long time – you have the option to attack anyone you like unless you have a treaty which prevents it. This is really just a sensible announcement and does not have anywhere near the hubris of claiming a whole colour I don't expect your blanket ODP to prevent you from being rolled over through non-chaining MDPs should you choose to involve yourself in something, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorponok Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Good to see, at least you're seeing the light....erm dark... Sith side of things . Grats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Article IV: I admit, I lol'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) I don't like this for philosophical reasons, which is understandably as I oppose the Sith Way on a personal (not alliance) level every step of the way. I prefer my political thought to not be cooked up in a teenage boy's bedroom, if no one minds my mixed metaphor. It is intended, it seems, to be the first push on the first domino to bring chaos to the planet. It may not seem much of an action, but it will destroy us all in the end. The will be no law, no reason, no joy. This will go unstopped (probably) and those of us who stood and shouted will be prophets of an unkind future. May Admin have mercy on our souls for not stopping this now, when we could. Edited August 9, 2009 by Hymenbreach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) I don't like this for philosophical reasons, which is understandably as I oppose the Sith Way on a personal (not alliance) level every step of the way. I prefer my political thought to not be cooked up in a teenage boy's bedroom, if no one minds my mixed metaphor.It is intended, it seems, to be the first push on the first domino to bring chaos to the planet. It may not seem much of an action, but it will destroy us all in the end. The will be no law, no reason, no joy. This will go unstopped (probably) and those of us who stood and shouted will be prophets of an unkind future. May Admin have mercy on our souls for not stopping this now, when we could. How do you reach this conclusion? Edited August 9, 2009 by Arthur Blair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The treaty is weak unless you define what is right and what is wrong, If I was a betting man and I am I would say that right will always be the stronger side. Might makes right, isn't that the mantra? Oh yes, because right and wrong are objective qualities that can be clearly and concisely defined. NSO isn't the kind of alliance to go and bandwagon every war, and honestly I don't think you really believe that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Please point out where I said that. I'm fine with people having different views. Anyone who knows me can testify that. What I don't like is people reserving the right to declare war on me for acting on our views. ALL alliances reserve that right by simply being sovereign. The entire purpose of this doctrine is to point out that by the principles of sovereignty, any alliance can declare war at any time, for any reason. It's saying that you don't need a treaty to go to war. It's a reminded that MDPs and whatnot are merely assurances of protection whereas in any other situation all alliances have the right to go to war to defend someone... it's just not required. So what you don't like is sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyewunga Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So i take it that every CB needs NSO approval now. That is an infridgement of an alliances sovereign rights. I thought u would have learned from your mistakes Ivan. 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.