Electron Sponge Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Moldavi Doctrine means freedom and an end to the tyranny of others' arbitrary and capricious expectations of conduct. It's also been a great way to show just how small minded a lot of people are. "Declare war... without a treaty? bawwww YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" Says who? Try and stop them. Make sure you have a treaty though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Sure they have a reason. They deem it necessary to defend and alliance or alliances under attack.So, if you saw someone getting mugged in the street and assisted them in overpowering their attacked, you'd be an aggressor? I mean, you didn't start the conflict and had no obligation to assist the person getting mugged so you must be an aggressor. Right? If they signed a oAoDP with every alliance in the Cyberverse would that be valid? If so, then why is this Doctrine not equally valid seeing as it expresses the same sentiment albeit not one that requires reciprocation from any other party. If they signed an oAoDP pact with every alliance then yes it would be valid as long as those signatures still exist on those treaties. Isn't this the basic idea behind having treaties at all ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 If they signed an oAoDP pact with every alliance then yes it would be valid as long as those signatures still exist on those treaties. Who are you to say what is valid and what isn't? Who is anyone to say that? Isn't this the basic idea behind having treaties at all ? No, actually, it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakos Raanb Dorou Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 But Tygaland, having no treaty ties with either side in a war that is already started, and NSO getting involved means they have no CB aka no reason to go to war(not the reason for the war that started before that, but no reason for NSO to start their war).So, citing this Doctrine as a reason to join the war (not a treaty or another legitimate CB) would be in fact a war of aggression from their part. By what I gleaned from it (and the principal I agreed upon), the CB in question would be, instead of a treaty tie (saying you are plain and simple legally obliged to defend someone, possibly regardless of the initial cause of conflict), a statement of principle. So, if alliance "A" is attacked unjustly in the NSO's eyes, they could come in to defend that alliance stating why they think the alliance was attacked unjustly. And then, if other alliances think the NSO is wrong in their reasoning, they also could in turn attack the NSO for unjustly attacking alliance "A"s attackers. Thus, because NSO is coming in to defend an alliance (though on count of principal, rather than treaty), it is still technically defensive in nature (the same "honor" which demands that a treaty be acted upon can also demand that the unjustly accused be defended). Though, if in reality an alliance were using faulty reasoning to arrive at their decision, or was merely using a "principal" as an excuse to fight, then it would, indeed, be aggressive. But it will be a matter of debate, given each specific case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Who are you to say what is valid and what isn't? Who is anyone to say that? No, actually, it's not. Ok, I'm intrigued then, in your view , what would be the use of treaties if all ,let's say, all alliances would make their own oDoA doctrine with the world ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I don't understand this reasoning either.If you say treaties could prevent alliances from defending their friends, doesn't the same go for friendships themselves ? No, the manner in which treaties are traditionally interpreted in the Cyberverse prevents an alliance from assisting a friend when they are attacked if they do not hold a defensive treaty with that alliance. This is stupid. It is like me signing an agreement with one friend pledging to send him $10 per week to cover fuel costs. A few weeks later, I meet another friend who says he has had his wallet stolen and needs $10 to take a cab to the police station to pick up his wallet which had just been handed in. Currently, in the Cyberverse, I'd be "bandwagonning" by assisting the second friend because I have no agreement to give him money when he needs it. Under the doctrine the NSO has announced I'd be free to assist any of my friends in their time of need whether I had an agreement with them to do so or not. If two of your friends start fighting doesn't one always have the options of getting involved on either side or remaining neutral ? What does this have to do with anything? How does "a friendship" justify starting a war of aggression ? Who said anything about starting a war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) If they signed an oAoDP pact with every alliance then yes it would be valid as long as those signatures still exist on those treaties. So a mutual agreement of oAoD is legitimate but a document where one alliance offers oAoD to everyone is invalid? Why and by whose authority? Isn't this the basic idea behind having treaties at all ? No, treaties are a pledge to assist an alliance not a public announcement of the only alliances your alliance will assist. Edited August 9, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 By what I gleaned from it (and the principal I agreed upon), the CB in question would be, instead of a treaty tie (saying you are plain and simple legally obliged to defend someone, possibly regardless of the initial cause of conflict), a statement of principle. So, if alliance "A" is attacked unjustly in the NSO's eyes, they could come in to defend that alliance stating why they think the alliance was attacked unjustly. And then, if other alliances think the NSO is wrong in their reasoning, they also could in turn attack the NSO for unjustly attacking alliance "A"s attackers. Thus, because NSO is coming in to defend an alliance (though on count of principal, rather than treaty), it is still technically defensive in nature (the same "honor" which demands that a treaty be acted upon can also demand that the unjustly accused be defended). Though, if in reality an alliance were using faulty reasoning to arrive at their decision, or was merely using a "principal" as an excuse to fight, then it would, indeed, be aggressive. But it will be a matter of debate, given each specific case. As you pointed out, in reality , it's far more likely of "the principal" to be used as an excuse for aggressive warfare. Also it could theoretically be cited in any war that involves 2 sides despite the fact that said war could start out as fairly equal as far as the balance of strength goes and then get unbalanced after the citations of doctrines like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 NSO: World Police But I like the idea as long as you don't go down the world police route Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 As you pointed out, in reality , it's far more likely of "the principal" to be used as an excuse for aggressive warfare. Where did he say it was far more likely and on what basis do you make such a claim? Also it could theoretically be cited in any war that involves 2 sides despite the fact that said war could start out as fairly equal as far as the balance of strength goes and then get unbalanced after the citations of doctrines like this. So what? Wouldn't you think that if more alliances subscribed to doctrines like this that aggressive blocs and alliances would be more wary of declaring wars than they would under the current structure which is far more easily manipulated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) No, the manner in which treaties are traditionally interpreted in the Cyberverse prevents an alliance from assisting a friend when they are attacked if they do not hold a defensive treaty with that alliance. This is stupid. Wouldn't the logical course of action be to sign a treaty with a defense clause if you really want to prevent your friend from getting attacked ? What happens if the friend that needs help is attacked by another friend which you equally respect or even trust more ? That was my question: how are friendship different from treaties in this regard and why can't all friendships be put into words via treaties with defensive clauses in them. Edited August 9, 2009 by Weirdgus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkAK47_002 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I think this is more commonly known as "common sense". Which 80% percent of the players in cybernations don't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Where did he say it was far more likely and on what basis do you make such a claim?So what? Wouldn't you think that if more alliances subscribed to doctrines like this that aggressive blocs and alliances would be more wary of declaring wars than they would under the current structure which is far more easily manipulated? What I am asking is, if said alliances that are willing to enact doctrines like this would do it for their own protection, why don't they just form a bloc of their own thus achieving the same thing? Edited August 9, 2009 by Weirdgus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) So what you're saying is that because NSO has announced its intent to exercise its sovereign rights instead of suborning them to some nebulous set of arbitrary rules decided upon by a bunch of people who have nothing to do with their alliance, the world's coming to an end? That's stupid. Human existence can either be consentual and we can all grow or it can be survival of the fittest and damn the weak. I prefer one way, most of the lexico-warriors here prefer another. The system that has grown up over four years is not perfect, but it should be improved through dialogue rather than smashed to pieces on someone's altar. I know this sounds a bit cold salad, compared to the sturm and drang of all out war, but it really is the best way to go about things. /oldfart. Edit: I hate partial homophones. Edited August 9, 2009 by Hymenbreach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 It's also been a great way to show just how small minded a lot of people are. "Declare war... without a treaty? bawwww YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" Says who? Try and stop them. Make sure you have a treaty though. I never knew wits could be paired with good looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Ok, I'm intrigued then, in your view , what would be the use of treaties if all ,let's say, all alliances would make their own oDoA doctrine with the world ? Treaties set up binding responsibilities between alliances. Yes, even ODPs. This document does not do that. Nearly every treaty on Bob has at its core a NAP: a pledge by the signatories to not fight each other. This document doesn't. It contains no promises by the NSO to not attack anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 NSO: World Police But I like the idea as long as you don't go down the world police route Hey, that's sorta contradictory! I guess you cant please everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Why is this controversial? NSO is just saying "look guys, we have the right to support people we don't have a treaty with". Which, as a sovereign alliance, they do. This doesn't actually change anything. I don't see how it got so many pages. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Treaties set up binding responsibilities between alliances. Yes, even ODPs.This document does not do that. Nearly every treaty on Bob has at its core a NAP: a pledge by the signatories to not fight each other. This document doesn't. It contains no promises by the NSO to not attack anyone. An ODP doesn't neceseraly have a NAP within it. Heck there are even a few examples where oAoDPs don't have peace clauses in their articles. How can one impose a doctrine on the entire Planet Bob without all of the "other side" agreeing on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer 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. 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? hahahahahaha, just delicious, Sponge, it appears The Dark Lord has ruffled the feathers of Nancy Wake for the purple team, please by all mean institute The Sponge Doctrine, theres a few of us that would love nothing more to see that through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 An ODP doesn't neceseraly have a NAP within it. Heck there are even a few examples where oAoDPs don't have peace clauses in their articles. Go find me one. I've never seen it, and oh boy have I seen a lot of treaties. A treaty with no binding terms in it should not be considered a treaty. How can one impose a doctrine on the entire Planet Bob without all of the "other side" agreeing on it? The first Moldavi Doctrine, the Revenge Doctrine, and the Dilrow Doctrine were all imposed without the other side agreeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. That's simply not true. Treaties have been e-lawyered to the point where some alliances view an alliance's treaty partners as a list of alliances they are allowed to defend. That is not at all the point of a treaty. The point of a treaty is to say "Hey, we like each other enough that we're willing to guarantee that we will fight to defend them. Treaties are not and never have been a list meant to limit an alliance's sovereign right to declare in defense of anyone they so choose. Treaties are, in fact, quite the opposite. They're a statement of "I can declare war on anyone in the game I wish to, EXCEPT these alliance's." Absolutely nothing has changed here. I can tell you with 100% certainty that STA has never viewed our treaties as a list of the only alliances we are able to defend... merely as a list of alliances we have a healthy enough mutual respect for to guarantee our defense per the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Wouldn't the logical course of action be to sign a treaty with a defense clause if you really want to prevent your friend from getting attacked ? I'm not sure how your alliance handles treaties, but the STA does not sign many treaties and we do not sign them with every alliance we consider friends. There are varying levels of friendship between alliances as there are between people. There are some friends I'd trust to look after my house if I was on holiday and then there are friends I'd go out for a beer with but not know well enough to let look after my house. If either of them got mugged and I was there to lend a hand, I would. What happens if the friend that needs help is attacked by another friend which you equally respect or even trust more ? Then that is where the alliances decision when and how to enact the doctrine comes into it. The doctrine clearly states any action and the level of action is at the discretion of the alliance leadership. It is basic alliance sovereignty. How would such a situation be handles if your MDP partner who you went in to defend was then attacked by one of your MADP partners? The situation you describe is not one that can be avoided whether you have a treaty or not. That was my question how are friendship different from treaties in this regard and why can't all friendships be put into words via treaties with defensive clauses in them. Because treaties are not restrictive documents that limit who you can defend or assist, they are promises to assist the other signatory alliance(s). They are only treated that way because the Cyberverse has been conditioned to see them that way. Friendship should be one of the reasons for a treaty, not the only reason. You can be friends with an alliance but not have a treaty with them for any number of reasons. They may have allies that conflict with your other treaties, you may like them but not implicitly trust them as treatied allies or they may be too small to offer anything by way of mutual defence and already have a protectorate agreement with another alliance. Your view of what a treaty is and means is myopic and your view of inter-alliance relationships is rather simplistic. Edited August 9, 2009 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I'm about to make a Sponge Doctrine where anyone who says stupid stuff like this, something bad happens to them. We already had this, but then you hit GOONS and put an end to Shark Week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Go find me one. I've never seen it, and oh boy have I seen a lot of treaties. A treaty with no binding terms in it should not be considered a treaty. The first Moldavi Doctrine, the Revenge Doctrine, and the Dilrow Doctrine were all imposed without the other side agreeing. Neither of those 3 doctrines effected the entire world, but just a fraction of the nations (aka a single color). As far as the first part goes, I'm on it >.< 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.