Revised repoll of Babylonian MSAV Doctrine

[Provolution]

Repolling Reviewed French Defense Doctrine

The Iroquois War is no finished, and I think it is broad agreement to spare what is left of the Iroquois people. Which brings us back to the Southwestern Theatre. Babel republic has turned out to be the peaceful trading partner Southwest, a Japanatican Mexico. However, in preparing for all scenarios, we will poll the following doctrines again, based on a new discussion post the Iroqi Vintage War. I will also post a map showing the various options.

These doctrines are for retaliatory counterattacks only, and is not a result of us initiating the war, but the other side initiating hostilities.

President SD3 Doctrine 1. "East of Eden" (Ur, Uruk, elippi and Samarra)
Classical Heros Doctrine 2 "Southern Lighthouse Strike" (Nineveh, Akkad and Elippi)
Minister Provolutions Doctrine 3. "Grapes of Wrath" (Ur, Uruk and Elippi)
Governor Blackhearts Doctrine 4. "Babylonian Mordor Range Confinement" (Ur, Uruk, Elippi, Samarra, and Akkad)
Governor Ginger Ales Doctrine 5. "Hairando Border Adjustment" (Akkad)
Domestic Donsigs Doctrine 6. "Babel Tower Confusion and Japanatican Hospitality" (Defense only)
Appeasenik Doctrine 7 "Leave the subsidized Highlands" (Surrender Manchai)
Abstain Doctrine 8, Principles are more important than strategy

 

[classical_hero]

I am very suprised that My name appears on this list of options.

 

[Provolution]

Classical Hero, you are the Western Navy Admiral, right ?

 

[classical_hero]

Classical Hero, you are the Western Navy Admiral, right ?

I realised that after I asked the question. I wasn't quite thinking right at the time.

 

[Provolution]

It looks like the Grapes of Wrath doctrine of taking Ur, Elippi and Uruk will make it, which makes sense in linking up with Tonawonda. If this doctrine is put into place, I will come up with a most controversial but effective proposal to the Akkad problem in another thread.

 

[Chieftess]

abstain. By this poll alone, it's not clear what I'm voting on.

 

[Provolution]

We are to conquer these cities if they attack us, that is all. Otherwise, I think the doves has some clout in the nation.

 

[DaveShack]

How about the "Ask the administrators to add 'Doctrine' to the naughty words filter" doctrine?




Just kidding, but all the doctrines are giving me a headache. Why don't you just ask people straight up instead of wrapping everything in a doctrine?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

These doctrines are for retaliatory counterattacks only, and is not a result of us initiating the war, but the other side initiating hostilities.

(...)
Governor Ginger Ales Doctrine 5. "Hairando Border Adjustment" (Akkad)
(...)

Heh. Never knew I made a doctrine. We don't need any more wars for the time being. Keep the borders the way they are.

 

[Provolution]

LOL@ Daveshack

I know you are one of the casual Americans disliking to much officiality Well, the reason for polling a doctrine, and to make people aware of this word and apply it correctly, is that it gives a higher level of officiality without being a law, and making people think they are discussing and polling a new policy area where actions are predefined. If I followed your suggestion Davschack, the game would be as chaotic as we have seen previous terms. Just notice how effective and orderly things are turning out this term. Doctrine is not a magical word that makes all this happens, it is just a mere sympthom that we see an absolute end to Embryonism.

I know very very well what happens when you "ask people straight up" and not "wrapping it in a doctrine". People get confused whatever you do of questions. The only thing that gives results is by making citizens responsible for future instructions. A mere question is not adding that responsibility, but making citizens part of the decision , and part of a pre-established command structure, they know that they cannot filibuster and be casual about things if they want to be taken seriously.
So, with this new way of organizing things, we avoid some of the crap coming from smartasses trying to make you look bad, and them good, as you make them responsible for every conceivable scenario that happens. If they voted, what they voted, what they said, all would be known prior to the action.

So why the word doctrine Daveshack, there are many words that make me feel equally
bored. Like the "Will of the People" is probably the most abused term I ever saw, and is mostly used during character assassinations or just to flatten out an argument, but rarely is used on the basis of a support of a sanctioned poll, but more on the threat of a future outcome as defined by a zealous individual with a lack of valid arguments.
"Will of the people" is for me nothing but a hollow rhetorical run-of-the-mill pop jingoism, and that you have a problem with a "doctrine" is only petty when you do not see the larger picture of what many of us seek to achieve this term.

 

[Chieftess]

How about the "Ask the administrators to add 'Doctrine' to the naughty words filter" doctrine?




Just kidding, but all the doctrines are giving me a headache. Why don't you just ask people straight up instead of wrapping everything in a doctrine?

I agree...

 

[Provolution]

General Civanator

Your mission "Grapes of Wrath" would be to seize U, Uruk and Elippi, and connect our settlement Tonawonda to the main Japanatican Empire. This will be our retaliatory action fo the first turnchat of a war with the Iroquois.

To Chieftess and Daveshack

I see that you do not like the word doctrine, and I understand you. But at the same token, there are things me and others had to accept from the two of you, and so is the game. If I can tolerate some of your stuff, you are free to tolerate this way do legislate and label in-game actions and make everyone absolutely responsible for in game actions. Call it an end to Embryonism if you want