A doctrine rationalizes or advocates position, policy, detailed role and configuration choices as a unified whole with a single rationale. Doctrines exist to reframe goals before some large investment of effort occurs, e.g. align wiki to goal, after which inertia applies. When users disagree strongly and factions are having trouble coming to any consensus, they may benefit by at least reducing what they agree on to one doctrine and separately defining what they do not agree on as two or more different doctrines so their rivals at least know where a conflict is likely. The word is used in exactly this sense in military doctrines, each of which attempts to encapsulate and relate a very limited number of training and performance goals. Doctrines are among the most overt forms of instructional capital.
Some doctrines can help avoid conflict by advertising an undesirable response so opponents may be assured it will occur, and that there will be no exceptions for their benefit. A doctrine is however not quite like a law insofar as the judgement of when to apply it is not up to a neutral due process that may yield a result favouring the rival. The judge and prosecutor is the same, as in Chinese law. Doctrines are also a form of byplay: advertising a doctrine prepares third parties for a given response, and may cause them to intervene to de-escalate, e.g. as doctrine:MAD apparently did.
A doctrine always helps users socialize taxonomy by enforcing certain lingo, e.g. trollish in doctrine:troll, related social controls and limits, usually involving detailed staging and sequencing of events. Doctrines influence organization protocols, which will usually have to be at least revisited and changed when new doctrine is adopted.
Since it must be taught, a doctrine always clearly identifies any policy and position prerequisites and postrequisites, for instance, doctrine:reflexive can't be implemented before doctrine:reflective, and doctrine:troll can't be implemented before doctrine:domain. A post-requisite doctrine will usually not be entirely backwards compatible and will often require revisiting and relearning some basic principles. In this sense it is different from a technique or technology though a doctrine always assumes mastery of some such, e.g. the infra trades are required to implement ultra methods, so doctrine:infra precedes doctrine:ultra. When better developed, this may be a technique/technology/doctrine tensegrity.
- unlike the other normative namespaces, it explain heuristic, tactical, strategic and diplomatic ontological distinctions that cannot be reduced to strictly operational distinctions nor immediate needs of this project
- it allows factions to come together to agree on goals limited in time and space even if they don't share a dogma
- because of this, incompatible organization protocols need not prevent cooperation, e.g. ECG dogma doesn't match GNU dogma or CC dogma or Wikipedia dogma but they can all agree to a limited subset of their beliefs, the doctrine:share-alike, and while they won't all agree doctrine:troll is equally desirable, they can all understand what it is, and what the consequences might be of wiki witchhunts and outing and so on as troll-friendly factions and troll organizations react to "oppression".
- it's often or usually part of a shared web like Living Ontology Web so that followers of doctrines can exchange notes - updates to pages in doctrine namespace are often shared globally
- it directly addresses mindsets, can deliberately reframe mindsets or teach users to apply different ontological metaphors, and tries to transform users to followers
- most strategy games employ tech trees in which doctrines are treated similarly to technologies; this suggests that this terminology will be familiar to the most strategy-minded new users
To organize names into a namespace implies "carving up the world at its joints". To own them requires a notion of rent-seeking and how to get paid to improve namespaces.