Angrator Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 It is about NSO getting lots of attention and I would say it is "mission accomplished" in that respect. Then stop feeding the beast. Stop posting in this thread if you think we are just looking for attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 After reading your first post Duncan I must say I was kinda offended, you were kinda taking the joke too far.. but then I realized you were serious in your subsequent posts and just laughed my $@! off. Just leave mate, go post on some other thread and leave this one to actual intelligable discourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krunk the Great Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 After reading your first post Duncan I must say I was kinda offended, you were kinda taking the joke too far.. but then I realized you were serious in your subsequent posts and just laughed my $@! off. Just leave mate, go post on some other thread and leave this one to actual intelligable discourse. Well said mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 NSO's PR department are to be commended. As for this highly pragmatic "doctrine" - I can't tell if its useless or ineffective. I guess the old standard "don't meddle with things you don't understand" comes to mind, but Ivan and co. are seasoned players - they surely know what's right for their alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 You know what I don't get? Why is everyone so riled up over stating the obvious? Sometimes the obvious needs to be brought up, even if everyone indeed knows it already. Sometimes people just need a refresher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh god. Ivan... I'm not worried about NSO abusing this to bandwagon. I'm really not. But... I'm worried that the idea is going to catch on, with less trustworthy alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh god.Ivan... I'm not worried about NSO abusing this to bandwagon. I'm really not. But... I'm worried that the idea is going to catch on, with less trustworthy alliances. Name some names. I dare you. Besides I don't think this treaty expunges the idea of bandwagoning, it simply makes it clear that supporting someone you have an interest in is a normal part of being an alliance. I'm sure we can all recognize an alliance who truly jumps on a bandwagon, one that declares war for the hell of it or just to get paid some reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Name some names. I dare you. Poison Clan, ODN, Sparta. Could probably think of more. EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too. Edited August 9, 2009 by Geoffron X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Poison Clan, ODN, Sparta. Could probably think of more.EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too. RyanGDI's alliance is named GDI. Not too hard to remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Poison Clan, ODN, Sparta. Could probably think of more.EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too. The possibility for abuse is just as much there for NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Poison Clan, ODN, Sparta. Could probably think of more.EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too. ODN? Really? They never struck me as the horribly dishonest types. Also remember that this doctrine applies to alliances acting justly. If someone cites this for an unjust action you can be sure they'll be called on it. Probably by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Poison Clan, ODN, Sparta. Could probably think of more.EDIT: Oooh, ooh, ooh, RyanGDI's fail alliance! That one too. You wound me good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Of course it is, but the Sith have shown there weakness by trying to e-lawyering around a stupid concept instead of just ignoring it. If you need to write a legal document stating that you have sovereign rights then you are doing something wrong. Fact is every other alliance on planet Bob holds the same sovereign to declare war. But for some reason NSO had to write a document stating that, and fill it up with legalese. That's not just weak, it is plain pathetic. I agree with nc here. It again looks like a desperate cry for attention, and well here it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 ODN? Really? They never struck me as the horribly dishonest types. Also remember that this doctrine applies to alliances acting justly. If someone cites this for an unjust action you can be sure they'll be called on it. Probably by me. Because Sith, naturally know all about being "just" amirite? Y'know, being Sith and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Because Sith, naturally know all about being "just" amirite?Y'know, being Sith and everything. These seem to be. Their policies haven't always been in line with typical CN expectations but they've always been just in what they were doing. Yes, even in the recruitment scandal. I doubt there are many as wary of the Sith as I am, but I'm not going to be so petty as to use their alliance's theme as a indication of what they stand for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) These seem to be. Their policies haven't always been in line with typical CN expectations but they've always been just in what they were doing. Yes, even in the recruitment scandal. I doubt there are many as wary of the Sith as I am, but I'm not going to be so petty as to use their alliance's theme as a indication of what they stand for. I'm not being petty, I'm just questioning what their definition of a 'just' action is, as I am sure it would be different as they are Sith lords, judging by past actions it'd make sense for their theme to be reflected by these actions. It's pretty daft how this doctrine is required anyway, I mean take a look at Dark Fist. They entered the Karma war twice, once via treaty, another because it is what they believed to be just, and they got slated for it. Does this document mean that because NSO think it's just, it certainly without a question is just and we cannot question this? Edited August 9, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorost Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Invicta officially supports and applauds this announcement. For a bunch of evil Sith you guys are all right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentofChaos Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So...NSO made a treaty saying that they can do what we all can do. Sweet jesus mary !@#$@#$ christ! This is madness! We can all do this. Of course people are so obsessed with treaties these days any action not involving a treaty is an abomination so I guess this reaction is not surprise even if it's rather idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Does this document mean that because NSO think it's just, it certainly without a question is just and we cannot question this? You can question their justness all you want. I'd even join you if they ever do something unjust, but not until then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Does this document mean that because NSO think it's just, it certainly without a question is just and we cannot question this? No, it means that because they think a cause is just, they will take action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. Also, original name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Does this document mean that because NSO think it's just, it certainly without a question is just and we cannot question this? No, it means we do what we believe is just. If you disagree with our actions and our conclusions you are more than welcome to do whatever you guys feel is necessary to stop us. Whether that be whining on the forums or taking physical action against us, it is your sovereign right to do so. Just like it's ours to defend and help alliances when we deem it necessary as outlined in the Doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 No, it means we do what we believe is just. If you disagree with our actions and our conclusions you are more than welcome to do whatever you guys feel is necessary to stop us. Whether that be whining on the forums or taking physical action against us, it is your sovereign right to do so. Just like it's ours to defend and help alliances when we deem it necessary as outlined in the Doctrine. But the difference is, I don't need a doctrine to tell everyone I can do as I please as it is my sovereign right, why does NSO feel it necessary to make this simple idea of "exercising ones sovereign right" into a doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConeBone69 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 As I said earlier, it's to establish that we plan on acting on our rights and do what most alliances have never done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) As I said earlier, it's to establish that we plan on acting on our rights and do what most alliances have never done. 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. As this doctrine somewhat removes the need for a treaty when you can simply tell them in private if you'll defend them. Edited August 9, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse 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.