The Moldavi Doctrine

[Horatio Longworth]

I liked the previous Moldavi Doctrine better. I guess the previous lack of Moldavi Doctrine caused him to miss it. I know I do.

[scotch]

Optional aggression and optional defense treaties are presently written to imply that they grant a new right- that the the signatories have gained the option to do something which they did not have before signing the treaty. Our universal oDoA Doctrine nullifies that implication by leaving nobody out- thus serving less the role of a treaty and more as an affirmation of our rights. Of course, one has rights whether they are written down or not- but sometimes, just sometimes, it helps to have those rights written down in a form that we might throw at those who would deny us them.

so why don't the alliances who don't trust NSO just refuse to sign their end of the treaty. Then if 2 alliances that didn't sign their end of this treaty go to war, they are both void for NSO interference.

[Tygaland]

so why don't the alliances who don't trust NSO just refuse to sign their end of the treaty. Then if 2 alliances that didn't sign their end of this treaty go to war, they are both void for NSO interference.

This isn't a treaty. No other alliance needs to sign it for it to be in effect.

[Sovardie]

But you may sign it for your alliance if you like too... you never know for what it is good in the end. Maybe it benefits you one day...

Edited August 19, 2009 by Sovardie

[Aleksandrov]

History lesson: I believe Karpathos founded NPO in 2006, however Ivan shaped the image of NPO before he resigned if that was what you were refering to.

Ivan was voted *gasp* into Emperor to start with.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Aleksandrov

[Haflinger]

History lesson: I believe Karpathos founded NPO in 2006, however Ivan shaped the image of NPO before he resigned if that was what you were refering to.

According to the NPO's wiki:

Founders of the New Pacific Order

Karpathos · RedCommunist · Ivan Moldavi · Koona · TrotskysRevenge · Vladimir · Iosef · LordValentine

So Ivan was one of the eight founders. Still I don't think any of the other seven have even so much as joined NSO.

But you may sign it for your alliance if you like too... you never know for what it is good in the end. Maybe it benefits you one day...

It's not a treaty, you don't sign it. You can adopt it.

[Griff]

RedCommunist is a member of NSO.

[Sephiroth]

All alliances always have had the sovereignty to go to war for any reason, so this doctrine does nothing.

[Ivan Moldavi]

No you wouldn't come into our threads, you are too busy coming into our forums and sending spam recruitment messages to all the registered members.

Please clarify this. I don't even know the address for your HQ.

If one of my people are doing this please send me a private message with details.

[jerdge]

After having read the doctrine again I came to an interesting conclusion that I didn't develop in my other considerations.

Many claim that this doctrine doesn't constitute a practical change («whatever decisions NSO was going to make in the future they would have made with or without this doctrine, and anybody who would have pouted about it is still going to do so whether or not NSO has a doctrine, and anybody who doesn't give a !@#$ will give even less of a !@#$ when it happens» - link).

However, the NSO apparently just unilaterally recognized to any alliance the right to get involved in any conflict, when they stated that they think that «all alliances possess naturally the right to act justly in the interests of themselves, their friends, and their allies», at the same time implying that «this right is guaranteed by nature» and that optional defense and aggression treaties are "superfluous".

Being this their opinion, they would (arguably) be committing themselves to consider legitimate any so-called "bandwagoning" against the NSO in any future conflict.

This would imply that they wouldn't consider the lack of a pertinent treaty an aggravating circumstance of said hypothetical "bandwagoning". As this would obviously greatly affect any "propaganda war", not to mention any following peace talk, I find it to be of "some" practical importance.

If this interpretation is confirmed by the NSO it would indeed constitute an interesting development (although maybe not a revolutionary one, unless some "major" alliance adopts a similar policy in the future).

[Corinan]

Being this their opinion, they would (arguably) be committing themselves to consider legitimate any so-called "bandwagoning" against the NSO in any future conflict.

This would imply that they wouldn't consider the lack of a pertinent treaty an aggravating circumstance of said hypothetical "bandwagoning"

Per Article V of the Moldavi Doctrine, the alliance that wished to declare offensively in support of a friend or ally against us would have to ensure that their friends or allies had a valid CB in our eyes before we considered their "bandwagoning" to be legitimate. They wouldn't need to ensure this in order to attack us, of course. They'd have to do this in order for us to deem it "legitimate." If they wanted to hit us badly enough I doubt whether or not we considered their attack "just" would factor into their decision making much. Hope that answers your question.

[First Isa]

Wow first time in a while I've actually bothered posting anything. That said I wholeheartedly agree with this doctrine. It was view points and perspectives like this that Originally drew me to NPO back in '06 despite there current issues with the citrus war. I'll also admit that around page 10 of watching some of the more well known historical members of planet bob rephrase and repeat the same- and yes some times moronic- view points they have been for several years I realized that no one here is stating anything I can't really predict. By the way guys- that's sad your becoming intellectually morally and creatively stagnate. I'm not above the same failing but I work to learn and educate myself on almost everything I can to prevent that. I also keep my head from relocating into my posterior it really does help. That said there are some post I would like to address.

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that just because your views differ from another alliance, which they often do, does not mean you can insert yourself into a conflict without rhyme or reason. What if you don't know everything about the situation? Would you just jump into it not knowing who actually faulted who?

Should I point out that this issue is present with a mutual defense pact? If I go on the forums and post a declaration of war against someone stating a retaliatory strike for wars against my country then you have to decide where the first strike really cam from- the person declaring a retaliatory war, or there enemy who attacked because of repetitive affronts to there members? each war we start drags more people into a biased opinion if more people in charge of alliances were able to act like reasonable and intelligent beings driven by more then there emotions then Planet Bob would have suffered from significantly less wars. As it stands when someone looses a war most alliances rebuild and then as soon as they are a match or have enough allies higher up they start hunting for a reason to attack. Sometimes that reason is simply one rouge member or even a ghost attacking to stir the pot a little fast and splash some mischief over the sides. Moldavi is the first person to come to mind when I start thinking about skilled politicians- I've seen many of his devout enemies from a war joining the alliances he helped make great.

I understand his right to attack someone. However, I do not agree with him creating a legal binding document which allows his alliance to but in on conflicts that may not have anything to do with NSO simply because they disagree with the CB. Many alliances, including Sparta, have different views on some issues than NSO. If we stuck true to our views and attacked an alliance who wronged us, should we be wary of the possibility of attack by NSO? I don't know about the rest of Sparta, but I personally consider an alliance with differing views as us posting a document such as this as a threat to Sparta.

I'll refer you to the quote in my Sig on this. Everyone will believe he is in the right the person best able to defend his views writes the history. note the spelling of that word hisstory, it's called that for a reason I assure you if you could go back to any great war and talk to the looser they would tell you about their glorious success and the rightness of there goal they lost and the victor declared them unjust. Maybe there cause was maybe it wasn't they lost so they don't get a chance to write the story.

Oh lord. Whats Planet Bob coming to? Ivan, you made NPO what it was and now it has been brought down. Please dont do that to your new alliance. You guys have a good stable future ahead of you and repeating history isnt exactly what we need right now.

To this gentlemen- I suggest you study up on punctuation in words not just sentences, it lends your argument credibility when your writing seems like that of a learned individual, at time it also makes you look like an $@!.

I feel the need to Also point out that the NPO's actual decline didn't begin till after Moldavi had handed the reigns off to another. Not to speak ill of his successors they have done the best they could, but Ivan cast a long shadow and he had a lot of time to arrange matters to suit his needs as Emperor of the New Pacific Order. Yes the NPO has declined from it's once great power and recognition but to pin it on Ivan seems like the act of a scorned child. I recall that in the Thread he said goodbye less then a handful of individuals spoke ill of him and there were a few people that expressed regret about his departure despite having opposed him in many wars.

I have no doubt that like so many of his controversial and so called "grand standing" announcements this Doctrine will take root with many alliances as they see the wisdom and benefit of it.

If you've read this far through what I have to say- thank you you have more patience then many a saint.

[Jipps]

This 'doctrine' seems incredibly redundant. Just about every article of it is already assumed as part of an alliances function.

As a sovereign entity these powers are automatically given to you, the fact that you need a 'doctrine' to recognize that is beyond bizarre.

[First Isa]

Yes it is but considering the number of people that complain about others "bandwagoning" during a war because someone doesn't have a pact of some sort or scream that someone ignored a pact to help another it seems that the Common sense put down in this Doctrine is ignored at will Moldavi has essentially built a shield for his alliance for when another great war occurs

[Jipps]

Yes it is but considering the number of people that complain about others "bandwagoning" during a war because someone doesn't have a pact of some sort or scream that someone ignored a pact to help another it seems that the Common sense put down in this Doctrine is ignored at will Moldavi has essentially built a shield for his alliance for when another great war occurs

Something tells me the morons who complained about the bandwagoning aren't going to be satisified with this doctrine, they can't be.

[jerdge]

Per Article V of the Moldavi Doctrine, the alliance that wished to declare offensively in support of a friend or ally against us would have to ensure that their friends or allies had a valid CB in our eyes before we considered their "bandwagoning" to be legitimate. They wouldn't need to ensure this in order to attack us, of course. They'd have to do this in order for us to deem it "legitimate." If they wanted to hit us badly enough I doubt whether or not we considered their attack "just" would factor into their decision making much. Hope that answers your question.

I'm not sure that I understood you properly. It seems to me that the implications of your statement are that, for instance, the NSO can in some way lose its natural «right to act justly» if that just action isn't considered "valid" by whom are going to suffer its consequences (I'm simplifying a bit for argument's sake). As this doesn't seem quite reasonable to me, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you mean.

Also, yes, all of this probably presents to us a dilemma that can't be solved unless we postulate that all the parties involved in a given case more or less share the same beliefs about what is right and wrong. In fact, now that I think of it, the impossibility to postulate this can be a sort of "demonstration" that this doctrine is inherently flawed - or maybe better: really "useless" - but I'll wait for your answer before I go thorough in my reasoning, to not unnecessarily sway the discussion towards a dead end.

[Edit:punctuation]

Edited August 19, 2009 by jerdge

[KahlanRahl]

Leaves too many holes for betrayal, I fear this does.

Basically, you are allied to everyone and no one? Brilliant. This leaves you the option to receive/give information to/from any alliance you deem worthy of your help, but also gives you the ability to take any information you gain and give it to any alliance as you see fit. Same goes with wars... you can fight for one alliance one month, then fight against them the next? Then if they get angry about it, all you have to do is point to your silly doctrine and say "It says I can right here!" Sounds like a mercenary doctrine to me....haha...

Trust you Moldavi, I would not.

[Locke]

Leaves too many holes for betrayal, I fear this does.

Basically, you are allied to everyone and no one? Brilliant. This leaves you the option to receive/give information to/from any alliance you deem worthy of your help, but also gives you the ability to take any information you gain and give it to any alliance as you see fit. Same goes with wars... you can fight for one alliance one month, then fight against them the next? Then if they get angry about it, all you have to do is point to your silly doctrine and say "It says I can right here!" Sounds like a mercenary doctrine to me....haha...

Trust you Moldavi, I would not.

It was already an option. Any alliance has that option.

[Gondor]

It was already an option. Any alliance has that option.

Couldn't agree more. Any alliance can do this, their CB could be "You attacked an alliance we like." The Siths are just bold enough to say it.

[KahlanRahl]

Yes they have that option but how many people would actually use it? No one would blatantly say "You Attacked An Alliance We Liked" and not be treatied to them. That's terrible for their reputation. Everyone looks for a valid CB. Or at least a somewhat plausible one. With evidence. How many DoW's have been baawwwed at when there's no plausible CB with evidence? You're right, this gives them the option, but legalizes it. It's ridiculous.

[Locke]

Yes they have that option but how many people would actually use it? No one would blatantly say "You Attacked An Alliance We Liked" and not be treatied to them. That's terrible for their reputation. Everyone looks for a valid CB. Or at least a somewhat plausible one. With evidence. How many DoW's have been baawwwed at when there's no plausible CB with evidence? You're right, this gives them the option, but legalizes it. It's ridiculous.

It's already legal. The only thing stopping people from going in to war just because they like one part or the other is because of this culture of an overdependence on treaties. NSO is just showing us, in treaty form which should be easier for treaty-bound people to understand, that there's no reason that we should need a treaty to carry out the rights of a sovereign alliance in the first place. This doctrine basically is deisgned to scoff at the baaawwwwers you bring up.

[Tygaland]

It's already legal. The only thing stopping people from going in to war just because they like one part or the other is because of this culture of an overdependence on treaties. NSO is just showing us, in treaty form which should be easier for treaty-bound people to understand, that there's no reason that we should need a treaty to carry out the rights of a sovereign alliance in the first place. This doctrine basically is deisgned to scoff at the baaawwwwers you bring up.

Exactly. As I mentioned earlier, an alliance's treaties are not a list of those they will exclusively defend, it is a list of those they have sworn to defend. Treaties are not designed to exclude all other actions not covered by a treaty.

[Bleda]

Yes they have that option but how many people would actually use it? No one would blatantly say "You Attacked An Alliance We Liked" and not be treatied to them. That's terrible for their reputation. Everyone looks for a valid CB. Or at least a somewhat plausible one. With evidence. How many DoW's have been baawwwed at when there's no plausible CB with evidence? You're right, this gives them the option, but legalizes it. It's ridiculous.

I beg to differ on that point . After you've been double crossed and/or dogpiled once or twice you quickly learn that treaties mean exactly nothing. You learn who your friends are . I dare say that should certain "friends" of FAN get attacked , you will see exactly how quickly and ruthlessly a fight can be brought to the enemies front door..... treaty or not.

[Haflinger]

Exactly. As I mentioned earlier, an alliance's treaties are not a list of those they will exclusively defend, it is a list of those they have sworn to defend. Treaties are not designed to exclude all other actions not covered by a treaty.

Indeed.

Treaties reduce freedom, they do not increase it. Anyone who thinks an alliance needs to have signed a treaty before it is allowed to take an action is not operating with the idea of alliances being sovereign.

[Angrator]

This reached 40 pages? Wow. Maybe it's time for people to look for more exciting events.