heggo Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 npo is bound by their surrender terms to never recognize this announcement Don't forget all the Declarations of Neutrality we ruined with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Vengeance Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Yes. Sheriff Moldavi has nice sound to it, doesn't it? The NSO, they are the LAW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) So what you're saying is, we are planning on entering into a conflict someone else starts (presumably on the opposing side) in the near future? We're good, but we're not clairvoyant (yet). That was not an implication but a question. Since NSO felt the need to post this stance now, is that indicative of a planned conflict that this declaration will assist with? "By jove, I will not rest until I can paint this simple announcement of common sense policy on alliance sovereignty as something sinister!" No, I'm simply asking a question. Edited August 10, 2009 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 I like it, I like it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 npo is bound by their surrender terms to never recognize this announcement Not really. Their terms just say they can't reinstate the doctrine themselves. Don't forget all the Declarations of Neutrality we ruined with this. Explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 The purpose of the Doctrine is to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. Nice quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Nice quote. [ooc] I figured that since his attack is just as valid against Mr. Jefferson's fine document, Jefferson's words would be a valid response. [/ooc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 No, I'm simply asking a question. No, you are fishing for an angle that isn't there as you have been doing in all your contributions to this discussion and just as a myriad of others have tried before you. This announcement is not sinister, it is not evil and it is not an announcement that the NSO is going to go marauding across the Cyberverse. It is an announcement that they will defend and assist anyone they deem necessary to defend or assist, treaty or not. It isn't complex, it isn't even anything outrageous. It is a simple re-assertion of alliance sovereignty that has long been repressed by a rather silly interpretation of what a treaty means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivellios Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Tygaland, ummm, your post = win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Thanks for playing, Kzoppistan. Seriously though, it's always nice to have detractors like yourself. Makes us look that much better in comparison. Not that we need any help with looking good, but every little bit helps, you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Enough minor problems here to warrant a lock, I'd say. Additionally, Judge Dredd kicked arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Thread re-opened. Thank Conebone for being nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Aw, man, what a way to break my flow. I was totally ready to go some more and was organizing my response. Now I'm not in the mood. Well then I'll just say that it will be interesting to see how the doctrine will impact the future discussions on the nature of sovereign rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Looks like sense to me. Just wish the political climate didn't make it necessary to announce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) You should probably finish ruining your own alliance before you try and take on the big dogs. And when you finish with the big dogs, you can then ruin the NSO. I saw a door, I went through it. Edited August 10, 2009 by Hymenbreach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 I like it, You managed to absolutely define the sovereign rights of an alliance in a 6 article doctrine. This man has the heart and soul of a true bureaucrat. It is a masterpiece of the treaty writers art. If it were not for the current unstable political climate it would not be needed, but someone needs to remind us of what sovereignty really is. (and this doctrine defines it wonderfully) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 One thing no one should fear in this day and age is to voice their opinions. The Hegemon's are gone friend, you can breathe easy and say what you like. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wargarden Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 So what do we have to do to opt out of this generous bandwagoning treaty you've signed with the entire world without consulting it? I kid. I C wat U did thar. I'll just assume Conebone is the one to talk to. I miss talking to him so its a good excuse contact him and make a penis joke of some sort. I've got some good ones saved up for him. ;P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrei Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 This is just a little bit silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think this is more commonly known as "common sense". This second post really said it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 This second post really said it all. And if you read past the second post you would have seen why common sense needs to be broken down so thoroughly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRa Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 "Here comes the new boss same as the old boss." I really hope such mimicry of the NPO's actions doesn't continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 "Here comes the new boss same as the old boss."I really hope such mimicry of the NPO's actions doesn't continue. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! But seriously, how is this mimicking NPO? The name? Anything besides that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 If you believe that, you'll believe anything. I say what I like, when I like. Who has the stones to gainsay me the right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRa Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!But seriously, how is this mimicking NPO? The name? Anything besides that? “The New Sith Order shall retain the option, though not the obligation, to declare war in the defense of any alliance that finds itself the victim of foreign aggression.” “The New Sith Order shall retain the option, though not the obligation, to share intelligence critical to the security of another alliance with it.” All I’m saying is that while this is very different from the version used by the NPO, these first two articles can easily be abused to gain by NSO even if they are based upon apparently chivalrous values, the fact that this can be used in defence of any alliance means they may also focus almost entirely upon defending alliances within one trade sphere or specific group. I’m not saying for one second that the NSO will abuse this act but… all I’m saying is that people should watch exactly how this new Moldavi Doctrine is used in the future. 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.