Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 You favor aggressive war? No, he favours calculated war. The idea behind this doctrine threatens the practice of pre-calculating wars and planning them out before any shots are fired, making the actual fighting just a preordained movement of numbers. Wait, I hate that practice. That's why I love this doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Your readiness to exercise that right makes this announcement seem a little shallow to those of us who agree with it in spirit. I guess I'll believe it when I see it; at the moment it seems like another NSO PR stunt -- the last of which was, ironically, an aggressive perpetration of injustice. Exercising the right of any nation to select its own alliance is an injustice now? You Jedi really are trying to corrupt the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Sovereign rights are fun, despite a one time deal banner, no? So you'd admit that Karma was nothing more then a one time deal banner, and that claims of a "moral foundation" are mere PR tools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Your readiness to exercise that right makes this announcement seem a little shallow to those of us who agree with it in spirit. I guess I'll believe it when I see it; at the moment it seems like another NSO PR stunt -- the last of which was, ironically, an aggressive perpetration of injustice. One can support the doctrine without necessarily agreeing with the ideals of the person who proposed it. In fact, that's one of the lovely things about this document; it's independent of said ideals. It does suppose an alliance has ideals - but certainly all alliances have things they strive for. Even the lowliest snivelers perhaps strive to be better snivelers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So you'd admit that Karma was nothing more then a one time deal banner, and that claims of a "moral foundation" are mere PR tools? Karma was a war coalition. It has since dissolved and holds no legal ties anywhere. What was originally set upon by Archon and I based upon moral foundation was truly based upon that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the course of the next month or so. Why, is Valhalla planning on starting any wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 So you'd admit that Karma was nothing more then a one time deal banner, and that claims of a "moral foundation" are mere PR tools? Karma was a one time deal war banner for a coalition. The people at the time in general agreed to the principles of what they were fighting for, however some were just in for their allies. People were allowed to decide on terms on a front by front basis, and the general principles were held for the whole war as far as I could see. That war is past us now and every alliance is completely sovereign to do whatever they want, they'll most likely be remembering a bit more of the phrase, "what goes around comes around." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. I know that was a threat, so why don't I feel threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. If you think this is a threat to Sparta, then follow the document yourself and declare war on NSO. He created the legal binding document so that E-lawyers won't bother him in the future. If you look at NSO's past, you'll see they've always followed this document, with or with out it on paper. That's the only reason this topic exists today. If you have that much of a problem with it, then declare on NSO. It's just that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. I am sure we will give your advice proper consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I know that was a threat, so why don't I feel threatened? Because you're not a threat to sparta, duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I know that was a threat, so why don't I feel threatened? Because you know Sparta doesn't have a legal document that allows us to attack you for having a different view. Lucky you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. How threatened you are by the fact that NSO posted an ODAP with the world, contradicts such a statement. Edited August 9, 2009 by Mathias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Sounds a bit like sour grapes since we wouldn't consider a tech raid sufficient manifestation to activate the Doctrine. <Schattenmann> A raid is a war. <Schattenmann> :colbert: Sooooooo Criteria met, where do we go from here? Oh Schat. Here we go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I salute you and your balls NSO. I appreciate you not being another infrastructure collection (and completely useless alliance) like Sparta or the MHA. Really, you're the type of alliance that is needed in this world. Something actually worth something. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Because you know Sparta doesn't have a legal document that allows us to attack you for having a different view. Lucky you. What are we being threatened by Sparta for again, exactly? Is this the brave new world Karma has created for us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Because you know Sparta doesn't have a legal document that allows us to attack you for having a different view. Lucky you. I was not aware a legal document was needed for such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 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. And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. Then do something about it, or else everyone will just point and laugh at your blatant posturing. You honestly expect the NSO to back down or something? Who do you think you are, anyway, to tell us were a threat because we reject the notion of pre-calculated wars, and thus threaten us without any grounds? One would think you'd be a little more subtle than this joke of a post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 What are we being threatened by Sparta for again, exactly? Is this the brave new world Karma has created for us? Sparta threatened you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Because you know Sparta doesn't have a legal document that allows us to attack you for having a different view. Lucky you. Let me make this clear for you. If Sparta has a problem with me or the NSO they are welcome to declare upon us at any time they wish. Hell, I will even go on record and state that for such an event I will not hold our allies in Frostbite or Terra Cotta to their agreements with us. If they want to opt out of our defense then I will not !@#$%* about it. I personally don't believe 1. you have the authority to make such a threat individually and 2. that even if you do that you personally have the balls to follow through on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Oh Schat. Here we go. This is my canvas. Corinan knows I'm having a go with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 I salute you and your balls NSO. I appreciate you not being another infrastructure collection (and completely useless alliance) like Sparta or the MHA. Really, you're the type of alliance that is needed in this world. Something actually worth something. Well done. Insulting our two allies is not helping your case for peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 And trust me, you don't want to be a threat to Sparta. The irony is striking. If an enemy isn't evident one must be manufactured. However. Is Sparta really willing to go to war over the idea that people shouldn't fight based on principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Let me make this clear for you. If Sparta has a problem with me or the NSO they are welcome to declare upon us at any time they wish. Hell, I will even go on record and state that for such an event I will not hold our allies in Frostbite or Terra Cotta to their agreements with us. If they want to opt out of our defense then I will not !@#$%* about it.I personally don't believe 1. you have the authority to make such a threat individually and 2. that even if you do that you personally have the balls to follow through on it. I made no threat on behalf of Sparta. I stated my personal opinion that I feel this document is an indirect threat to anyone who wants to declare an offensive war. 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.