Future of the Red Team

[Lord of Destruction]

But that won't have anything to do with Red Dawn...

Besides, unless I missed something NPO aren't even signatories.

They're currently an honorary signatory, and will be a full signatory once they're out of terms. The terms are the only things keeping them from being an official part of it. And yes, it will have to do with Red Dawn, because they'll be an alliance in it.

[loannes]

NPO, CoJ, whoever NPO doesn't roll.

>_>

[Schattenmann]

Yeah, so I guess the burden is on everyone else on Red to prove that NPO is a threat. It's not like NPO would have been attacking them a few months ago just for being on Red, and only are not now because they were held at gunpoint. Oh wait...

Also, thanks for totally getting our name right, OP!

A few months ago I was laying the groundwork to do whatever I wanted to do now. More to the point, those same few months ago it wouldn't be an issue because no one would have been founding alliances on Red. Now that NPO's reality has changed, NPO's actions have changed--I have made my decisions as CoJ's Presbyter based on what NPO is doing, not what they would have done. We must take our own destinies into our own hands.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure I see the point in this topic. Actually, come to think of it, I can't say that I agree fully with forcing Pacifica to open the red sphere up to other alliances. They kept control of the red sphere in the best way possible. It was a place for nations, not seeking alliances, to go and not worry about tech raiding. Having 30 other alliances on the red team and trying to keep this from happening would have caused countless wars. I Have been out of the game for a couple of months, so if they haven't already, I would be pleased to see Red Dawn put in place a "no tech raids" doctrine.

On a side note, I voted for Pacifica. They will obviously be the largest red team alliance, if not the #1 alliance in the game once their terms come up. They are just a superior alliance in too many ways to keep them from being at the top. I don't know much about the other alliances.

[Valerius]

I'm not sure I see the point in this topic. Actually, come to think of it, I can't say that I agree fully with forcing Pacifica to open the red sphere up to other alliances. They kept control of the red sphere in the best way possible. It was a place for nations, not seeking alliances, to go and not worry about tech raiding. Having 30 other alliances on the red team and trying to keep this from happening would have caused countless wars. I Have been out of the game for a couple of months, so if they haven't already, I would be pleased to see Red Dawn put in place a "no tech raids" doctrine.

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI, which they used to give themselves power above which no normal alliance should have, power more akin to that of Admin. The idea that one alliance can assert authority over an entire sphere is just not fair, especially when alliances were attacked for founding themselves on Red. The existence of new alliances on the new, free Red sphere does not nullify the principles of the Revenge Doctrine or the purpose of the Red Protection Court. They can and do still exist. And I too would love to see a more unified approach to protecting the Red unaligned, and yes, perhaps through Red Dawn. Unfortunately, Red is not that unified .. yet.

[Prime minister Johns]

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI, which they used to give themselves power above which no normal alliance should have, power more akin to that of Admin. The idea that one alliance can assert authority over an entire sphere is just not fair, especially when alliances were attacked for founding themselves on Red. The existence of new alliances on the new, free Red sphere does not nullify the principles of the Revenge Doctrine or the purpose of the Red Protection Court. They can and do still exist. And I too would love to see a more unified approach to protecting the Red unaligned, and yes, perhaps through Red Dawn. Unfortunately, Red is not that unified .. yet.

Well red is definitely not the place to be if you are unaligned, I got a little curious and did a quick search of wars involving red and none as the alliance I stopped counting when I got to 20 nations being raided.

The days of red being a haven for the unaligned appear to be over from what I am seeing. perhaps it is time for another alliance to have a policy that is similar to the revenge doctrine, it was a great success for the NPO and there is no reason why it can not be replicated.

[Achilles]

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI, which they used to give themselves power above which no normal alliance should have, power more akin to that of Admin. The idea that one alliance can assert authority over an entire sphere is just not fair, especially when alliances were attacked for founding themselves on Red. The existence of new alliances on the new, free Red sphere does not nullify the principles of the Revenge Doctrine or the purpose of the Red Protection Court. They can and do still exist. And I too would love to see a more unified approach to protecting the Red unaligned, and yes, perhaps through Red Dawn. Unfortunately, Red is not that unified .. yet.

I agree with this. I think that EZI is an unfair "strategy" used to gain power. However, I think Pacifica has taken a policy used by many other alliances and used it on a larger scale. There are many alliances that use an EZI policy with nations who have wronged them or done something that they don't agree with. I think it's wrong on any scale.

Back to the topic above, unity on the red sphere will effect each alliance differently. I see the alliances who refuse to work with Pacifica dying off quite rapidly, or jumping to a new sphere. I mean, Pacifica IS the red sphere. The alliances who decide to work with Pacifica will more than likely prosper.

[Bob Janova]

Now there isn't a hegemony which threatens or attacks other alliances which try to implement a no-raiding policy (YN5, Church of Maroon), there's no reason why such enclaves shouldn't be maintained on Red and also elsewhere. You don't need to militarily occupy a colour to make that work.

[WorldConqueror]

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI, which they used to give themselves power above which no normal alliance should have, power more akin to that of Admin. The idea that one alliance can assert authority over an entire sphere is just not fair, especially when alliances were attacked for founding themselves on Red. The existence of new alliances on the new, free Red sphere does not nullify the principles of the Revenge Doctrine or the purpose of the Red Protection Court. They can and do still exist. And I too would love to see a more unified approach to protecting the Red unaligned, and yes, perhaps through Red Dawn. Unfortunately, Red is not that unified .. yet.

Not fair? That's your complaint against the original Moldavi Doctrine? Nothing in this world is fair, nor should it be. Mediocrity is rewarded enough elsewhere without it happening here too. It was not 'a power akin to Admins', because, along with all the other reasons, it could be taken away by other players. And the principles and purpose of the Revenge Doctrine and the Red Protection Court still exist, yes, but they alone will do little to protect the Red unaligned. Every policy, every doctrine, requires the means of enforcement, or else they become yet more useless words.

Well red is definitely not the place to be if you are unaligned, I got a little curious and did a quick search of wars involving red and none as the alliance I stopped counting when I got to 20 nations being raided.

The days of red being a haven for the unaligned appear to be over from what I am seeing. perhaps it is time for another alliance to have a policy that is similar to the revenge doctrine, it was a great success for the NPO and there is no reason why it can not be replicated.

The raiding started practically as soon as Armageddon did. Which quite neatly illustrates my 'means of enforcement' point.

Now there isn't a hegemony which threatens or attacks other alliances which try to implement a no-raiding policy (YN5, Church of Maroon), there's no reason why such enclaves shouldn't be maintained on Red and also elsewhere. You don't need to militarily occupy a colour to make that work.

Considering the NPO was administrating the Red Protection Court, I don't see how you can say the Hegemony destroyed 'no-raiding' policies. You don't need to occupy a colour to make these policies work, but you do need political and military clout behind you, and be willing to use them. YN5 failed because FAN and GOLD relied exclusively on military means and disregarded political. I don't know much about CoM, but from what I remember, it lacked both political and military clout.

[Vilien]

Not fair? That's your complaint against the original Moldavi Doctrine? Nothing in this world is fair, nor should it be. Mediocrity is rewarded enough elsewhere without it happening here too. It was not 'a power akin to Admins', because, along with all the other reasons, it could be taken away by other players. And the principles and purpose of the Revenge Doctrine and the Red Protection Court still exist, yes, but they alone will do little to protect the Red unaligned. Every policy, every doctrine, requires the means of enforcement, or else they become yet more useless words.

What exactly did the Moldavi Doctrine do to prevent "mediocrity"?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Vilien

[WorldConqueror]

What exactly did the Moldavi Doctrine do to prevent "mediocrity"?

One day you'll get what I'm trying to say, Vilien. I was commenting on the fact that President Kent says Pacifica should not have had the Moldavi Doctrine because it 'wasn't fair'. This implies that it was bad because we had it, and no one else did. This implies that everyone should be reduced to the average, the mediocre, that no one should have something if everybody doesn't have it. If advancing one's self, and own position, through one's own actions is 'unfair', and therefore worthy of penalty, it would seem that mediocrity is rewarded. Now, I can see why this is so, if the whole herd moves at the speed of the slowest member, nobody gets left behind, right?

[Vilien]

One day you'll get what I'm trying to say, Vilien. I was commenting on the fact that President Kent says Pacifica should not have had the Moldavi Doctrine because it 'wasn't fair'. This implies that it was bad because we had it, and no one else did. This implies that everyone should be reduced to the average, the mediocre, that no one should have something if everybody doesn't have it. If advancing one's self, and own position, through one's own actions is 'unfair', and therefore worthy of penalty, it would seem that mediocrity is rewarded. Now, I can see why this is so, if the whole herd moves at the speed of the slowest member, nobody gets left behind, right?

President Kent was right. The Moldavi Doctrine was clearly unfair, and it was solely an attempt at flexing Pacifica's political muscles in a symbolic and entirely pointless manner. Whatever you're saying about "being a renegade" or "not going along with the crowd" is not the point. The Moldavi Doctrine was, quite simply, your alliance showing the world that it could do whatever it wanted without consequence, and it was wrong.

[Azaghul]

The Moldavi Doctrine was just one of the many Pacifican policies, along with EZI, which they used to give themselves power above which no normal alliance should have, power more akin to that of Admin. The idea that one alliance can assert authority over an entire sphere is just not fair, especially when alliances were attacked for founding themselves on Red. The existence of new alliances on the new, free Red sphere does not nullify the principles of the Revenge Doctrine or the purpose of the Red Protection Court. They can and do still exist. And I too would love to see a more unified approach to protecting the Red unaligned, and yes, perhaps through Red Dawn. Unfortunately, Red is not that unified .. yet.

I sorta agree, but a big distinction needs to be made. EZI was bad not just IC but OOC, as it was an attempt to prevent players from playing, even if they tried to create a completely new character.

Moldavi wasn't really a terrible wrong, even if I didn't agree with it. It hurt NPO more than anyone by denying them possible trading partners and leaving them weak in terms of senate votes giving Vox an opening to exploit. And even if it was wrong, it was entirely IC.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Azaghul

[WorldConqueror]

President Kent was right. The Moldavi Doctrine was clearly unfair, and it was solely an attempt at flexing Pacifica's political muscles in a symbolic and entirely pointless manner. Whatever you're saying about "being a renegade" or "not going along with the crowd" is not the point. The Moldavi Doctrine was, quite simply, your alliance showing the world that it could do whatever it wanted without consequence, and it was wrong.

And unfair is inherently bad, why? Oh em gee, some nations have more infra than me. RABBLERABBLERABBLE UNFAIR! To arms, the redistribution of infra must begin! The 'because it's unfair' line is ridiculous. And no, it wasn't pointless, or we wouldn't have done it. The Moldavi Doctrine was put in place to protect Pacifica through control of the senate. This was its clear and stated purpose, not 'showing we could do what we want'. And you missed my point about the herd, I was't saying we are renegades, I was saying that we got out in front on our own merits, and the Moldavi Doctrine was enabled by virtue of that position. To say that we should not use our position in order to protect and further our interests disregards the fundamental reason that alliances exist.

[Vilien]

And unfair is inherently bad, why? Oh em gee, some nations have more infra than me. RABBLERABBLERABBLE UNFAIR! To arms, the redistribution of infra must begin! The 'because it's unfair' line is ridiculous. And no, it wasn't pointless, or we wouldn't have done it. The Moldavi Doctrine was put in place to protect Pacifica through control of the senate. This was its clear and stated purpose, not 'showing we could do what we want'. And you missed my point about the herd, I was't saying we are renegades, I was saying that we got out in front on our own merits, and the Moldavi Doctrine was enabled by virtue of that position. To say that we should not use our position in order to protect and further our interests disregards the fundamental reason that alliances exist.

The Moldavi Doctrine protected you no more than any of your other actions taken for your "security", it was just one of a large number of things that helped make you despised by a great number of people. Exactly what's your argument here? That allowing other alliances onto the sphere might result in, what, you having some of your nations sanctioned? Hardly. It was an exercise in power for its own sake, and had little practical use other than continuing to show everyone that you were somehow special enough to warrant having your own sphere all to yourselves. How admirable.

[Lord of Destruction]

I seem to remember at one point Apple suggesting to the BR that the Moldavi Doctrine be done away with. I don't, however, remember any reasonable response to his request other than "No, and we're not doing it because it'd make us look weak." I also don't remember reading the Moldavi Doctrine and seeing the Senate as part of why it was put into place. The Moldavi Doctrine was put into place simply to exert the NPO's dominance over Red, and reduce the level of possible intra-color politics they'd have to deal with. It allowed for a greater amount of unaligned pool on Red that the Order could draw from. It was a practice in realpolitik, and really didn't have much to do with security.

[Valerius]

WorldConqueror, if you don't see something that is unfair as wrong, then there is little point continuing an argument with you. Just don't belittle the argument by comparing the forceful seizure of one-twelth of this game to a difference in infrastructure levels ...

I sorta agree, but a big distinction needs to be made. EZI was bad not just IC but OOC, as it was an attempt to prevent players from playing, even if they tried to create a completely new character.

Moldavi wasn't really a terrible wrong, even if I didn't agree with it. It hurt NPO more than anyone by denying them possible trading partners and leaving them weak in terms of senate votes giving Vox an opening to exploit. And even if it was wrong, it was entirely IC.

True. The Moldavi Doctrine didn't cross that IC/OCC line, but I still liken it to an Admin-ish power, simply because no player-created alliance should have the right to own a sphere.

[WorldConqueror]

The Moldavi Doctrine protected you no more than any of your other actions taken for your "security", it was just one of a large number of things that helped make you despised by a great number of people. Exactly what's your argument here? That allowing other alliances onto the sphere might result in, what, you having some of your nations sanctioned? Hardly. It was an exercise in power for its own sake, and had little practical use other than continuing to show everyone that you were somehow special enough to warrant having your own sphere all to yourselves. How admirable.

You seem to forget the atmosphere of the time when the Moldavi Doctrine was proclaimed. You also seem to disregard the fact that being on top comes with a nice big target on your back. Are you trying to say that security should be sacrificed for goodwill? Basically, my argument is 'find a better argument against the Moldavi Doctrine than "it was unfair"'. As much as you want to see the Moldavi Doctrine as a sign of 'power for power's sake', it was done to secure our senate from both rogue senators, and those backed by enemy alliances. It also prevented the Balkans-like conditions that developed in Green and Maroon from developing on Red, prevented the flare ups that happen when the power distribution within a sphere shifts, prevented other alliances creating colonies in our sphere. Far from being a tool to stroke our egos, it was a productive and pragmatic policy.

[Vilien]

You seem to forget the atmosphere of the time when the Moldavi Doctrine was proclaimed. You also seem to disregard the fact that being on top comes with a nice big target on your back. Are you trying to say that security should be sacrificed for goodwill? Basically, my argument is 'find a better argument against the Moldavi Doctrine than "it was unfair"'. As much as you want to see the Moldavi Doctrine as a sign of 'power for power's sake', it was done to secure our senate from both rogue senators, and those backed by enemy alliances. It also prevented the Balkans-like conditions that developed in Green and Maroon from developing on Red, prevented the flare ups that happen when the power distribution within a sphere shifts, prevented other alliances creating colonies in our sphere. Far from being a tool to stroke our egos, it was a productive and pragmatic policy.

The atmosphere of sphere conflict ended after 2007. And how long did the Moldavi Doctrine last, again? The argument of keeping senators for your security on a sphere became entirely invalid by 2008, if not earlier. My argument against the Moldavi Doctrine is simple: no alliance has the right to decide what sphere another alliance can or cannot reside on. It's a clear violation of self-determination. I'm not saying it was an ego tool. It was your special way of saying "we're better than you, we have our own sphere, don't mess".

Now, I'll appeal for the foremost expert on the Moldavi Doctrine, one Ivan Moldavi, to clear up exactly what the Moldavi Doctrine was intended to do.

[x8BitL0gic]

I'm pretty sure the only people voting for LBA are the members of LBA.

[WorldConqueror]

WorldConqueror, if you don't see something that is unfair as wrong, then there is little point continuing an argument with you. Just don't belittle the argument by comparing the forceful seizure of one-twelth of this game to a difference in infrastructure levels ...

I am arguing the point that just because something is unfair doesn't inherently make it wrong. Some people have better resources than me, some people have more tech or infra or casualties or happiness points, some people are in more powerful blocs. All of these things are unfair. Are they monstrously wrong? No. Why? I would say it's because of the effect these things have on other people. They have very little effect on me, so I don't care. So, I am asking you, why was the Moldavi Doctrine so heinous? What was it's tragic effects on the average CN player? I would see your point if all nations or something were split equally between the spheres, and nations were not allowed to change spheres. But they aren't. And as you pointed out, there are eleven other teams. Why does it matter so much if one is off limits?

[Valerius]

I am arguing the point that just because something is unfair doesn't inherently make it wrong. Some people have better resources than me, some people have more tech or infra or casualties or happiness points, some people are in more powerful blocs. All of these things are unfair. Are they monstrously wrong? No. Why? I would say it's because of the effect these things have on other people. They have very little effect on me, so I don't care. So, I am asking you, why was the Moldavi Doctrine so heinous? What was it's tragic effects on the average CN player? I would see your point if all nations or something were split equally between the spheres, and nations were not allowed to change spheres. But they aren't. And as you pointed out, there are eleven other teams. Why does it matter so much if one is off limits?

It all boils down to the one question; what right did the NPO have to enforce such a policy? What right does any alliance have to enforce such a policy on any sphere?

It is not fair because it involves claiming something that was not yours, then using military and diplomatic muscle to keep it. That infrastructure analogy is silly, there are numerous reasons why infrastructure levels may be different. Your opponent may have made donations, he may have joined earlier, he may have participated in tech deals earlier. That doesn't make the difference unfair.

[Locke]

I'm pretty sure the only people voting for LBA are the members of LBA.

They don't have that many members.

[Lord of Destruction]

It all boils down to the one question; what right did the NPO have to enforce such a policy? What right does any alliance have to enforce such a policy on any sphere?

The only rights one has, whether it be here or IRL, are those they can protect by themselves.

[Valerius]

The only rights one has, whether it be here or IRL, are those they can protect by themselves.

So the NPO's occupation of the red team was morally acceptable right up until Karma removed it's ability to keep it up? I'm sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Morality is not subject to circumstances.