Current UED war planned

[Jyrinx]

Haven't we been over this. Yes, I realise that you are not obligated to do anything, but as I and others have said time and time again, you made such a big fuss over it, you are the only alliance to post such a doctrine, and yet you have not used it once. I don't know about you, but to me it seems like the entire thing is just a sham.

They announced it to challenge the notion held by some that people needed treaties to intervene in a conflict. To most people, like myself, this is an obvious right that flows from an alliance simply existing and being free. That that isn't universally recognized was the whole point of the second Moldavi Doctrine.

How is them not using it yet make it a sham at all? If you think that, then I think you should re-read the announcement. Also, since it's supposed to be a statement of the intrinsic nature of alliance rights, why aren't you harping on other alliances to intervene?

[Starcraftmazter]

How is them not using it yet make it a sham at all? If you think that, then I think you should re-read the announcement. Also, since it's supposed to be a statement of the intrinsic nature of alliance rights, why aren't you harping on other alliances to intervene?

Because other alliances are not attention seekers who wrote and announced it? It is a sham if it is never used, because then what's the point? NSO only sought to fool everyone.

[Jyrinx]

Because other alliances are not attention seekers who wrote and announced it? It is a sham if it is never used, because then what's the point? NSO only sought to fool everyone.

The point was to have the old conventions that constrained the natural right to be overthrown. In what war would you like to have seen the doctrine activated and why do you think that would've advanced the goal described in the preceding sentence? And what exactly are you accusing the NSO of fooling the world over? That the right exists? If you're taking issue with that then ok, but I'm not entirely sure you are.

I fail to see how activating it in the current war would've advanced the goal as it was obvious that a resolution would be sought and that the attacker (WF) felt it was in the wrong. Attacking WF wouldn't have advanced the goal at all.

[Starcraftmazter]

The point was to have the old conventions that constrained the natural right to be overthrown. In what war would you like to have seen the doctrine activated and why do you think that would've advanced the goal described in the preceding sentence? And what exactly are you accusing the NSO of fooling the world over? That the right exists? If you're taking issue with that then ok, but I'm not entirely sure you are.

Unfortunately I don't keep lists, but this war is indeed one such example. I'm accusing NSO of being opportunistic attention seekers who are making themselves out to be someone they are not.

I fail to see how activating it in the current war would've advanced the goal as it was obvious that a resolution would be sought and that the attacker (WF) felt it was in the wrong. Attacking WF wouldn't have advanced the goal at all.

Well that's subjective.

[Jyrinx]

Unfortunately I don't keep lists, but this war is indeed one such example. I'm accusing NSO of being opportunistic attention seekers who are making themselves out to be someone they are not.

I think you're missing the point The New Sith Order already accepts this natural right.

I shall break this down even further:

NSO wishes the world conventions to change such that it is deemed acceptable for any and all alliances to intervene in a war that they feel threatens or compromises their values/security if they so desire. The NSO already accepts this, as do a few other alliances mind you. The NSO simply codified the right because there are people out there that feel uncomfortable with stuff not being codified.

The NSO activating their doctrine willynilly does nothing to advance the goal at all. The NSO already accepts the doctrine, so what exactly would them declaring war on other alliances prove other than the fact that they accept the doctrine? The true advancement of the goal would be for us to call other alliances to action, to ask other alliances to intervene when values are being compromised or other just intervention reveals itself.

To state that the NSO are opportunists is to miss the point of the doctrine. You seem to think the doctrine is only valid if NSO launches x number of wars in y amount of time. If you think that, then you're missing the entire point of the doctrine. Heck, the doctrine could never be activated and still achieve its purpose if the community standard evolves as such. The doctrine itself states it will be officially removed when the community evolves, an implicit recognition that the right is not granted by the doctrine so much as by the natural state of alliance affairs.

Rather than prodding the NSO to activate the intrinsic right, which it already accepts, you should be prodding other alliances that don't accept the doctrine to intervene.

Well that's subjective.

Indeed it is, but I'm all ears with respect to your argument; detail the logic of why you think the NSO declaring on World Federation during the recent conflict would have advanced the community standards to more willingly accept the right that is espoused in the Moldavi Doctrine.

[Daikos]

Translation: I have no evidence to prove any of this and I'm just gonna start rambling on about things I made up.

And no, it does not make seance to me... I don't even have an Ouija board

Anyone else enjoy a VE member calling someone out for not having evidence?

Also...

[omfghi2u2]

Honestly who cares. Just let them fight eachother.

I do.

Just kidding I dont even know what is going on ATM.

-omfg

[Starcraftmazter]

NSO wishes the world conventions to change such that it is deemed acceptable for any and all alliances to intervene in a war that they feel threatens or compromises their values/security if they so desire. The NSO already accepts this, as do a few other alliances mind you. The NSO simply codified the right because there are people out there that feel uncomfortable with stuff not being codified.

Are you claiming the Moldavi doctrine is just that - words but no play? If so, why did NSO directly involve their name within the articles instead of say "an alliance" instead? And yes, I know they said the reciprocal holds for others - but it is really not the same thing. If you write a doctrine involving your alliance, then the implication is that you specifically follow it - and NSO has not done this yet.

The NSO activating their doctrine willynilly does nothing to advance the goal at all. The NSO already accepts the doctrine, so what exactly would them declaring war on other alliances prove other than the fact that they accept the doctrine? The true advancement of the goal would be for us to call other alliances to action, to ask other alliances to intervene when values are being compromised or other just intervention reveals itself.

Oh that's rich, write up a doctrine involving your alliance in it and then shift the responsibility for carrying it out onto others.

To state that the NSO are opportunists is to miss the point of the doctrine. You seem to think the doctrine is only valid if NSO launches x number of wars in y amount of time. If you think that, then you're missing the entire point of the doctrine. Heck, the doctrine could never be activated and still achieve its purpose if the community standard evolves as such. The doctrine itself states it will be officially removed when the community evolves, an implicit recognition that the right is not granted by the doctrine so much as by the natural state of alliance affairs.

That is not at all how NSO has portrayed things or how the doctrine portrays things in my opinion.

Rather than prodding the NSO to activate the intrinsic right, which it already accepts, you should be prodding other alliances that don't accept the doctrine to intervene.

I don't care about other alliances, other alliances didn't make a big deal about this and write a doctrine about it like NSO did.

Indeed it is, but I'm all ears with respect to your argument; detail the logic of why you think the NSO declaring on World Federation during the recent conflict would have advanced the community standards to more willingly accept the right that is espoused in the Moldavi Doctrine.

I don't much care about what it would do to community standards, as much as I care about it being the right thing to do from the standpoint of this being an unjustified war, and the Moldavi Doctrine stating that this precise type of war should be met with military action.

Are you going to suggest that NSO will never abide by their own doctrine because they already accept it? This is quite hilarious if I do say so myself.

[Rebel Virginia]

Are you claiming the Moldavi doctrine is just that - words but no play? If so, why did NSO directly involve their name within the articles instead of say "an alliance" instead? And yes, I know they said the reciprocal holds for others - but it is really not the same thing. If you write a doctrine involving your alliance, then the implication is that you specifically follow it - and NSO has not done this yet.

What is there to follow? That we can intervene in a war when we see fit, regardless of treaties. Believe me, when we see it right to get involved, we will. So don't you fret and put your pretty little head to rest. We are not breaking our doctrine. Never once to we say we would get involved in every war Starcraftmazter wants us to. You're not the important kiddo.

Oh that's rich, write up a doctrine involving your alliance in it and then shift the responsibility for carrying it out onto others.

Are you really this thick or are you just acting? We have asked nobody to get involved in any conflict they don't want to. If you want to get involved, go for it, but.....bah, why am I even bothering with you?

Edited December 2, 2009 by Rebel Virginia

[Jyrinx]

Are you claiming the Moldavi doctrine is just that - words but no play?

No

If so, why did NSO directly involve their name within the articles instead of say "an alliance" instead? And yes, I know they said the reciprocal holds for others - but it is really not the same thing.

It does say any alliance can intervene. I think you need to re-read it. They do mention their alliance by name as well yes, but I'm afraid I don't understand the point attempting to be made. If it's that NSO is attention whoring, Ivan Moldavi already freely admits that. If it's not that, then please clarify

If you write a doctrine involving your alliance, then the implication is that you specifically follow it - and NSO has not done this yet.

They do follow it. I don't understand how anything you said logically flows to the conclusion "The NSO does not believe in the natural right that is espoused by the Moldavi Doctrine". You seem to think that they must declare war on others in order to follow it. That is not the case and I am happy to re-hash why if you'd like.

Also, without violating OPSEC, the NSO has indeed seriously considered using the Moldavi Doctrine before. But that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Oh that's rich, write up a doctrine involving your alliance in it and then shift the responsibility for carrying it out onto others.

There is no "carrying out" of the doctrine. It doesn't even make sense for the doctrine to be "carried out". You just fundamentally don't seem to understand what the Moldavi Doctrine is. Even the NSO can't "carry out" the Moldavi Doctrine. It is meaningless to do that.

That is not at all how NSO has portrayed things or how the doctrine portrays things in my opinion.

Ok?

I don't care about other alliances, other alliances didn't make a big deal about this and write a doctrine about it like NSO did.

Ok? I don't understand what that has to do with anything though. The intrinsic right in question is beyond the NSO and the only relation it has to the NSO is that they're trying to change the world conventions. That's all.

I don't much care about what it would do to community standards, as much as I care about it being the right thing to do from the standpoint of this being an unjustified war, and the Moldavi Doctrine stating that this precise type of war should be met with military action.

If this is the right thing to do, then why are you just asking the NSO? It seems selective

Are you going to suggest that NSO will never abide by their own doctrine because they already accept it?

I think you really need to re-read the doctrine, very, very carefully as it isn't something you can "carry out" or "abide by" in the traditional sense of a doctrine. And no, I'm not suggesting that at all, I'm saying that the NSO will intervene when they see fit when they feel that their values or security are being compromised. Just as the doctrine says >.>.

[Ellis]

Ok, Starcraftmazter, despite the fact that better men than I have tried and failed to explain the Moldavi Doctrine to you, I'm going to give it a go.

If, for instance, NSO declared the Chron Doctrine, whereby they would accept players on PZI lists, (I think they do this anyway, but the point still stands) would you say they needed to go out and specifically recruit players on PZI lists?

It's kinda like that.

OOC: The U.S Constitution codifies certain rights, like the right to bear arms. If you don't exercise that right, do you lose it?

[Solaris]

Now I don't have screen shots or I would post, but I would bet anything it was planned, follow my thought does it make seance to you?

It's well known that UED was not well liked. They had no treaties other than the Mafia, and even the Mafia wasn't considered a threat. Had the Mafia joined in it would have given VE a reason to get involved and it would have been a great tech raid for the both of them.

DL was also Rag who was an ex member of government for WF. creates another nation and joins UED sending out attack messages, 4 or 5 nations jump on board with the attacks, which would not be out of the ordinary for any alliance, especially with the size of the nations who attacked, this provided WF the reason they needed for war, but they had to approach this so it didn't come back to bite them or VE. They went to KDII hoping to find a confused leader or find him inactive, neither were the case, he was prompt with offering up the rouges to attack, this didn't sit well with VE, so they fabricated the SS with Raj's rouge account, this was all that they needed to start the war. They jumped into war and loved the praises they were getting so the war continued, when the Mafia dropped all it changed was how/why VE would join. If the tide had not turned, I bet money that you would be seeing VE attack at update tonight

Cool conspiracy theory, bro.

[Starcraftmazter]

So don't you fret and put your pretty little head to rest.

I find this quite humorous, as it was actually you who brought this up right here:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2004160

I believe this debate ends here.

[Zero-One]

I actually counted the dots in your signature to see if there were 28

me too

[Timeline]

Now I don't have screen shots or I would post, but I would bet anything it was planned, follow my thought does it make seance to you?

It's well known that UED was not well liked. They had no treaties other than the Mafia, and even the Mafia wasn't considered a threat. Had the Mafia joined in it would have given VE a reason to get involved and it would have been a great tech raid for the both of them.

DL was also Rag who was an ex member of government for WF. creates another nation and joins UED sending out attack messages, 4 or 5 nations jump on board with the attacks, which would not be out of the ordinary for any alliance, especially with the size of the nations who attacked, this provided WF the reason they needed for war, but they had to approach this so it didn't come back to bite them or VE. They went to KDII hoping to find a confused leader or find him inactive, neither were the case, he was prompt with offering up the rouges to attack, this didn't sit well with VE, so they fabricated the SS with Raj's rouge account, this was all that they needed to start the war. They jumped into war and loved the praises they were getting so the war continued, when the Mafia dropped all it changed was how/why VE would join. If the tide had not turned, I bet money that you would be seeing VE attack at update tonight

I would not be shocked if this was not the case, you will get VE coming in saying ooooo we did not know, how could we blah blah blah, the bottom line is they will lie so will everyone else, the truth seem to be left out of this world.

Honestly who cares. Just let them fight eachother.

Thats the problem no one does care, why should they its no there alliance been rolled, but like everything one day it will be your turn and wont you wish someone would have the balls to stand up and say no more ?

As to VE I do not care if they want war or not, i dont even care if UBD lose and have to pay huge reps (more then likly with VE in wF conner), this sort of thing have been going on for years.

I am sure you all remeber Shark week, also the random lotto that saw so many nations attacked for no reason, when \M/ and GONNs had the backing of everyone you all saw it as fun and enjoyed the cries of those been attacked, I my self was picked out of the many people in CN why becuase at the time I was in alliance that had no real backing and i had more tech then infra, so \M/ Tech raided me, what happened GOONs, NPO, Sparta, Iron, even VE would all laugh and have fun at the poor noobie alliance been rolled, wait what was it NPO said, join an alliance that can protect you.

you are all as bad as each other. how ever like NPO fund out you play this game too long one day it will be your turn, I am sure i will be there and will laugh to my self at the fact you once treated an alliance the same way you are been treated.

[Rebel Virginia]

I find this quite humorous, as it was actually you who brought this up right here:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=2004160

I believe this debate ends here.

No, you started your complaining several days ago. I was just curious to see if you'd finally follow through.

[Schattenmann]

It was definitely planned--Rajistani planned it. Whether or not WF was aware it was planned, who knows. But if anyone thinks that WF declared war without VE telling them gogogogo!, you're hopeless.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Bilrow]

It was definitely planned--Rajistani planned it. Whether or not WF was aware it was planned, who knows. But if anyone thinks that WF declared war without VE telling them gogogogo!, you're hopeless.

You can tell by the fervor at which VE members and government were bashing people that VE endorsed and encouraged the attack on UED.

That makes me sick to say because I am 1) agreeing with Schatternmann ;p and 2) defending UED.

[Cobalt]

Anyone else enjoy a VE member calling someone out for not having evidence?

Explain your reasoning as my mind is coming up blank trying to think of an instance where VE took action without evidence. In all honesty, if you can find an example, enlighten me.

[Farnsworth]

You can tell by the fervor at which VE members and government were bashing people that VE endorsed and encouraged the attack on UED.

That makes me sick to say because I am 1) agreeing with Schatternmann ;p and 2) defending UED.

With the great moral compass that is Bilrow on their side, how could UED ever go wrong?

[Ellis]

With the great moral compass that is Bilrow on their side, how could UED ever go wrong?

You realise what he said has nothing to do with what you just said?

[Goldie]

It was definitely planned--Rajistani planned it. Whether or not WF was aware it was planned, who knows. But if anyone thinks that WF declared war without VE telling them gogogogo!, you're hopeless.

We were definitely excited for the prospect of an ex-protectorate removing the training wheels, but we weren't whispering in their ear encouraging it. Once the decision was made, we took a stronger advisory role, in that we helped them prepare to fight, but this was an alliance looking to defend itself from an attack with their first blitz. They did not need our encouragement.

[Farnsworth]

You realise what he said has nothing to do with what you just said?

Whoa there, you're not entirely correct (which is like saying you're wrong).

While the "moral compass" bit may have no direct connection with his overall statement and is more so commentary on his past, I mention that he is on their "side" (which I use loosely). In the second portion of this post he proclaims his defense of UED with by saying, "...I am...defending UED." He defends them and I simply observe that with the support of Bilrow they should prosper...or something like that.

There's a definite correlation.

In essence, you need to see who is on the who's who list of most trollable. Or else defend someone worth defending. And perhaps defend them adequately.

[Reptyler]

I'm sure that the world is all very excited to have some drama in this dry spell, but I can assure you that VE had nothing to do with making any attacks. WF was very enthusiastic in that regard, surely you can believe that a young alliance doesn't need a push to move towards aggression? Most of us join this game thinking that wars will be more exciting and frequent than they actually are.

For those thinking that this was all planned out by VE, you really need to take off those tinfoil hats; idiocy of that nature makes baby Jesus weep bitterly. Pardon my french, but I haven't seen horseschatt like that since I mucked out a stable with a friend.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Reptyler