pezstar Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. What? This doctrine has been in existence in every alliance of all time, regardless of whether they chose to use it or not. It's called sovereignty. NSO simply pointed it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyewunga Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Alliances that get involved in wars and do not have treaties to either side are branded by these forums as bandwagoners. Edited August 9, 2009 by fluffy ewunga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I think this is more commonly known as "common sense". Unfortunately, its not commonplace in CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Alliances that get involved in wars and do not have treaties to either side are branded by these forums as bandwagoners. Yes, and they shouldn't be. At least not for that sole reason. Bandwagoning should be based on the intent of the alliance joining the war, not on whether it has treaties. Alliances that join a war in order to reap the benefits of being on the winning side should be called bandwagoners, regardless of whether they have a treatied excuse to join. This doctrine states that NSO exercises the right to declare war when its principles are at stake. That ought to be universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox 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. No, go read the doctrine again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 This wasn't entirely unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 This doctrine states that NSO exercises the right to declare war when its principles are at stake. That ought to be universal. I'm not sure why everyone's in a fuss about that part. NSO has shown its principles thus far to extend only to the limits of self-interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm not sure why everyone's in a fuss about that part. NSO has shown its principles thus far to extend only to the limits of self-interest. Then complain about it when they put their principles into action. The doctrine itself is independent of their principles. Probably one reason why I like it; other alliances can adopt it without agreeing with NSO's principles in general, unlike the original Moldavi Doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 NSO, what gives you the right to mettle into conflicts that have nothing to do with you. If somebody has a different perspective on something than you (Which many people do have different opinions than you, as demonstrated by your forays into recruiting), what gives you the right to roll them for following their convictions. I believe you are missing the point of this document. It gives us the right to "mettle into conflicts" that do concern us, our allies or friends, but most importantly our principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. That's funny you don't agree with this document. Your alliances past sure seems to agree with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Then complain about it when they put their principles into action.The doctrine itself is independent of their principles. Probably one reason why I like it; other alliances can adopt it without agreeing with NSO's principles in general, unlike the original Moldavi Doctrine. It's not a doctrine at all, it's just an affirmation of a right natural to every alliance. They make no statements that they are even going to exercise that right, or how they intend to, or anything -- merely that they reserve it. I mean, yeah, that's great, I agree everyone can stand up against injustice. Given that the Sith have not said they are going to, have made no indication at all that they intend to, and never have, however, I'm just baffled that this creates such a furor. Apparently meaningless statements crafted to give false impressions are all the rage these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 this points out what most of educated CN already knows, you dont need a CB all you need is a set of cajones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 That is an infridgement of an alliances sovereign rights. I'm about to make a Sponge Doctrine where anyone who says stupid stuff like this, something bad happens to them. Infridgement? Seriously? What is that, when an alliance's sovereign rights are put into the refrigerator next to last night's meatloaf? I'm not sure why everyone's in a fuss about that part. NSO has shown its principles thus far to extend only to the limits of self-interest. So? I fail to see a problem with that. In fact I thought alliances were generally supposed to act in their own self-interest, especially Sith ones. I'm really not seeing anything worth arguing about - are we really that bored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland 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? Right and wrong in relation to Moldavi Doctrine 2.0 is entirely up to the interpretation of the leader of the NSO as only their opinion on an issue will determine if they decide to get involved in a conflict. As such it cannot be defined because every situation is different. It is not "weak", it is a statement of the bleeding obvious that has become less obvious because of e-lawyers and people labelling alliances "bandwagonners" if they assist a friend, ally or someone being given the rough end of the stick without a treaty expressly stating they can. The Cyberverse has things arse-about. Treaties are pledges to defend or coordinate militarily with an alliance you consider an ally. They are not a list of alliances you are permitted to defend or coordinate with to the exclusion of all other alliances. When you sign a treaty with an alliance you make a promise to defend them and assist them in their time of need. That does not preclude you from assisting other, non-treatied alliances if you deem them worthy of assistance. Instead of being expressions of greater commitment to an ally, treaties have become a restrictive document that are now used to manipulate alliances with restrictions on sovereignty that, in reality, do not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 BTW, I called this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So? I fail to see a problem with that. In fact I thought alliances were generally supposed to act in their own self-interest, especially Sith ones. I'm really not seeing anything worth arguing about - are we really that bored? It's exasperation. I'm fairly sure that Moldavi intended to be misconstrued, but the international community seems so good at having the wool pulled over their eyes that it's hard to believe that's not intentional, too. As someone who stood up for something once upon a time it's frustrating to see the Coward Cabal™ painting themselves as crusaders for the weak and everyone just lapping it up. The thing worth arguing about, I think, is the intent behind this spectacle which seems pretty blood obvious. Like most obvious things it seems to be fluttering right over countless heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 BTW, I called this. What did you call it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 What did you call it? The Moldavi Doctrine: This Time It's Personal. It didn't work though, so I just settled on saying somewhere that I was pretty sure this was coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm really not seeing anything worth arguing about - are we really that bored? When an alliance, and thus a Bloc like frostbite, says it sees legitmacy in attacking whomever it feels like, which i suspect will always be on the winning side, and dogpiling, people are going to take notice. NSO aren't going to come to the aid of some alliance getting stomped, unless they think they (and Frostbite) can turn the war and gain PR/thanks/benefits from the alliance they save. In essense, this makes NSO into Mercenaries, and an unknown variable to add into any military actions within Bob. With a value system of strength, it could be just for NSO and co to intervene for the pursuit of reps or payment from either side of the war. Not worth arguing about? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 What? This doctrine has been in existence in every alliance of all time, regardless of whether they chose to use it or not. It's called sovereignty. NSO simply pointed it out. It is asking the world to step back from principles of agreement and law and saying that anyone should be able to do as they like when they like. If we really agreed with that and Ivan's law of the Jungle philosophy, the world would very quickly merge into two or three very large single alliances because what this says, in effect, is that everyone and anyone is fair game. A cult of personality is no basis for international relations. And if anyone thinks Mr Moldavi is in the habit of putting out statements like this for general information purposes only.. well, that would be disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 God help CN if this becomes a valid CB in any future war on Planet Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) When an alliance, and thus a Bloc like frostbite, says it sees legitmacy in attacking whomever it feels like, which i suspect will always be on the winning side, and dogpiling, people are going to take notice. NSO aren't going to come to the aid of some alliance getting stomped, unless they think they (and Frostbite) can turn the war and gain PR/thanks/benefits from the alliance they save.In essense, this makes NSO into Mercenaries, and an unknown variable to add into any military actions within Bob. With a value system of strength, it could be just for NSO and co to intervene for the pursuit of reps or payment from either side of the war. Not worth arguing about? I think not. So, you took some words, invented a horror story and then moaned about it? How, pray tell, does this doctrine bring in Frostbite? Where does it say the NSO will jump in on the winning side and then use Frostbite to dogpile alliances? I think you are projecting a little. I really love how people use Frostbite as their new boogeyman. Edited August 9, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 God help CN if this becomes a valid CB in any future war on Planet Bob. I think "because we can" has been a fairly common CB in CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakos Raanb Dorou Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 You have my support in principal, NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 You have my support in principal, NSO. And my axe 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.