The Moldavi Doctrine

[ChairmanHal]

I only know how to be me, Hal.

And that is a comfort in uncertain times.

The Doctrine is ok, not all that revolutionary and could get you into trouble. But war is a feature of Planet Bob and you've got some good back up.

I guess the only left to say is, "have fun"?

[fupresti]

When everyone's super, no one will be.

I knew there was something about Ivan that seemed weird. I guess you figured out his alter ego...

[Sargun II]

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.

What gives you the right to tell NSO they can't follow their convictions?

[Ivan Moldavi]

But then you can't trumpet yourself all over the OWF.

Mind you, this doctrine should be the default for all alliances, and I'll give the NSO credit for acknowledging this, even if it's being done to grandstand.

If you see me posting, it is only to grandstand. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Ryura]

Ivan, how does this doctrine coexist with any existing MDPs or MDAPs you may have or gain in the future. Does the Moldavi Doctrine supercede those treaties? Or are they held above the doctrine?

[Ivan Moldavi]

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.

The hypocrisy of this statement is almost staggering.

[Hyperion321]

What gives you the right to tell NSO they can't follow their convictions?

I don't. That's the point.

[Ivan Moldavi]

Ivan, how does this doctrine coexist with any existing MDPs or MDAPs you may have or gain in the future. Does the Moldavi Doctrine supercede those treaties? Or are they held above the doctrine?

We uphold our treaties. The Doctrine does not conflict with any other treaty we hold, or may hold in the future.

[Hyperion321]

The hypocrisy of this statement is almost staggering.

please explain.

[Ivan Moldavi]

please explain.

It should be glaringly obvious. You are projecting the idea that your alliance, or some other alliance, can decide to go to war but that we (NSO) can not use our own determination to decide likewise.

[Platinum]

The hypocrisy of this statement is almost staggering.

It is within NSO's rights and sovereignty to compromise themselves (in an optional way) to any other alliance.

[Doitzel]

Okay, so you're a sovereign alliance? Is this in contrast to your status before this announcement or did I miss something?

[Sulmar]

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'm going to have to with their convictions.

[Ivan Moldavi]

It is within NSO's rights and sovereignty to compromise themselves (in an optional way) to any other alliance.

Just as it is within FOK's rights and sovereignty to sit on their hands and let injustice happen, if that is what they choose.

[Francesca]

Because so many others need pieces of paper that say they can not.

Why, touché.

And now I will join the other mindless hailers and submit my congratulations on an awesome Doctrine. I don't particularly like the New Sith Order, but you certainly make things more interesting.

[Sileath]

Just as it is within FOK's rights and sovereignty to sit on their hands and let injustice happen, if that is what they choose.

What does NSO define as an injustice? I could make an argument that your perception concerning injustices is skewered.

[Hyperion321]

It should be glaringly obvious. You are projecting the idea that your alliance, or some other alliance, can decide to go to war but that we (NSO) can not use our own determination to decide likewise.

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?

And here's another question. Would this doctrine exist if you weren't in Frostbite.

[Ivan Moldavi]

What does NSO define as an injustice? I could make an argument that your perception concerning injustices is skewered.

Then I guess it is a good thing no one cares about your arguments.

[Chimaera]

Well...yeah, of course you could do any one of those things. That's your sovereign right as an alliance.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

If you see me posting, it is only to grandstand. Otherwise, what's the point?

Touche monsieur

[Nintenderek]

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.

It's just a Admin given right. You have the same right to do so if you wish, you just choose not to.

[Bird of Passage]

What does NSO define as an injustice? I could make an argument that your perception concerning injustices is skewered.

Such is irrelevent. If they perceive one, they may be knocking, regardless of whether or not you reciprocate their views.

[Ivan Moldavi]

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?

And here's another question. Would this doctrine exist if you weren't in Frostbite.

To your last question, most definitely.

To the rest, refer to Articles V and VI.

[Sileath]

Then I guess it is a good thing no one cares about your arguments.

Fair enough. Good luck with the new doctrine.

[Neo Uruk]

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?

And here's another question. Would this doctrine exist if you weren't in Frostbite.

Uh, you realize it says they have to confirm it's just, right? I mean that can be skewed, but I'm hoping they wouldn't be dumb enough to just jump on someone because they hate them.