Mary the Fantabulous Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Wasn't Mary already the Imperial Regent? Yes. I have been the Regent since the 1st of May, and when Moo stepped down Cortath kept me as Regent. This is just the creation of the Office of the Regent to handle the Order's affairs on Red. Think of it as a new sort of department. Edited January 1, 2010 by Mary the Fantabulous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougZ37 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 It's certainly an interesting new era on red, but its good to see NPO will be doing everything they can for the sphere now that its opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Yes. I have been the Regent since the 1st of May, and when Moo stepped down Cortath kept me as Regent. This is just the creation of the Office of the Regent to handle the Order's affairs on Red. Think of it as a new sort of department. It means that Mary now has a secretary and a water cooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Red Protection court? You have no authority to be protecting red so you might as well kill of that idea. Amazing how the most righteous and just Karma is quick to object to anyone possibly even considering defending tech raid victims. I love it. Don't ever change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 What exactly does the red protection court do these days? The Red Protection Court will contact the raiding nations and ask them politely to cease and desist their raiding of the Red sphere. It utilizes that once-great art known as di-plo-macy...? I think that's the word, I'm actually very rusty on that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Red Protection court? You have no authority to be protecting red so you might as well kill of that idea. I don't remember that in the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Red Protection court? You have no authority to be protecting red so you might as well kill of that idea. I wasn't aware that terms enforced how the NPO could operate. Yes, the Revenge Doctrine was abolished in its then current form, and they are under military terms, but neither should necessarily affect how the NPO operates. If they want to have a court with no teeth, how are you to stop them? Wasn't Mary already the Imperial Regent? Exactly what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Also congrats to the NPO and the Red Team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The Regent has been and remains Mary the Fantabulous. I suppose I was confused because you said 'creation of the office of regent', which implies a new Office and a new Regent. I wasn't really sure what was going on. NPO being devious again... )): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) From the terms: IV. The New Pacific Order hereby commits to never reinstating the Moldavi Doctrine or the original version of the Revenge Doctrine in any form. Henceforth, the Red Sphere is a free Sphere, with no restrictions on the Senate or alliance inhabitance. The Revenge Doctrine mandated this protection, and the Revenge Doctrine is banned under terms. But the protection of red team from tech raiding wasn't the reasoning for this ban I'm sure. Maybe this has already been cleared with the alliances that made up Karma. Edited January 1, 2010 by empirica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The Revenge Doctrine mandated this protection, and the Revenge Doctrine is banned under terms.But the protection of red team from tech raiding wasn't the reasoning for this ban I'm sure. Maybe this has already been cleared with the alliances that made up Karma. If NPO did in fact ask alliances from the Karma coalition, I'd be curious to know if Athens was asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 But the protection of red team from tech raiding wasn't the reasoning for this ban I'm sure. Maybe this has already been cleared with the alliances that made up Karma. The terms do say "in any form", though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 The terms refer to "the original version of the Revenge Doctrine". I believe this is because the Revenge Doctrine, being based on the Moldavi Doctrine, expressed NPO's dominance and sovereignty over Red. That's the part that is banned. As far as I can tell they're allowed to try protecting red from tech raids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Military Affairs: the Red Protection Court maintain the protection of all Red nations from tech-raiding, This looks a lot like the Revenge doctrine, something you weren't allowed to reproduce. Care to explain? Mhh I should've had read this thread before replying. After reading the thread, this still seems like a breach in your surrender terms though. Edited January 1, 2010 by kriekfreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 I wasn't aware that terms enforced how the NPO could operate. Yes, the Revenge Doctrine was abolished in its then current form, and they are under military terms, but neither should necessarily affect how the NPO operates. If they want to have a court with no teeth, how are you to stop them? With a declaration of war six months from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applesauce59 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) During the war the Revenge doctrine was changed to take out the part about just NPO on red. What was left through was the protection of red nations. In terms they banned the original revenge doctrine which prevented red alliances but not the new one which protected red nations. Edited January 1, 2010 by applesauce59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary the Fantabulous Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 IV. The New Pacific Order hereby commits to never reinstating the Moldavi Doctrine or the original version of the Revenge Doctrine in any form. Henceforth, the Red Sphere is a free Sphere, with no restrictions on the Senate or alliance inhabitance. Emphasis mine. Before the conclusion of the Karma War, we "opened" the Revenge Doctrine to include other alliances on the Red team in the defence of the unaligned nations on Red being tech raided. This was deemed appropriate and suitable to the alliances we surrendered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 During the war the Revenge doctrine was changed to take out the part about just NPO on red. What was left through was the protection of red nations. In terms they banned the original revenge doctrine which prevented red alliances but not the new one which protected red nations. Yeah, right. Total BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenDeSolei514 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Red Protection court? You have no authority to be protecting red so you might as well kill of that idea. And you have the authority to tell them they cant? Its a protection agency not a oppression agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckz3 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Very Professional. Nice to see Pacifica happily working with there Red Counterparts. Long live red, Long live red alliances. Josshill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 And you have the authority to tell them they cant? Its a protection agency not a oppression agency. Yes he has. It was part of their surrender terms. Which are now breached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Yes he has. It was part of their surrender terms. Which are now breached. Emphasis mine. Before the conclusion of the Karma War, we "opened" the Revenge Doctrine to include other alliances on the Red team in the defence of the unaligned nations on Red being tech raided. This was deemed appropriate and suitable to the alliances we surrendered to. Try reading the thread before commenting, you prove you're not paying attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Emphasis mine. Before the conclusion of the Karma War, we "opened" the Revenge Doctrine to include other alliances on the Red team in the defence of the unaligned nations on Red being tech raided. This was deemed appropriate and suitable to the alliances we surrendered to.Try reading the thread before commenting, you prove you're not paying attention. Oh I've read it. But it is total BS. I'll wait for some of the Karma alliances to come here to prove me wrong. Edited January 1, 2010 by kriekfreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Oh I've read it. But it is total BS. I'll wait for some of the Karma alliances to come here to prove me wrong. Karma doesn't exist remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenDeSolei514 Posted January 1, 2010 Report Share Posted January 1, 2010 Yes he has. It was part of their surrender terms. Which are now breached. Breached? Because they protect from tech raids? You have a screwy interpretation of treaties and what the surrender terms were trying to accomplish. 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.