Dochartaigh Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Maybe if you go back and read what I actually wrote instead of picking up what you wish I had said you'll come across as less of a clown. No guarantees, though. That you responded so quickly and so stupidly is not an encouraging sign. I'm not suggesting that they're 'fun'. Believe me, I understand the headaches they can cause in a way few others can. But if the point of war is to win, and if you can contribute to that effort by disrupting resources, then why not? Think of it as my blowing up your gold mine, or giving your livestock anthrax. There's been this unspoken arrangement that trade partners will overlook alliance politics. But why should that be the case? The thing about sanctions is that they can only be applied in a limited way, so the effects would not be far-reaching except, perhaps, to smaller AAs. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why they're inherently evil while other methods of curtailing exchanges between nations are not. I have no opinion one way or another, but simply saying "They're bad and aggravating" isn't really much of a counter-point. Actually I did read it just fine thank you. You compared them to what Polaris did and asked why one was bad while the other was good. You may not think so, but you are giving your opinion in the way you phrase things. You are implicitly stating that sanctions are not a bad thing. It was not until the paragraph for Azaghul that you actually explained you had no real opinion. But nice ad hominem. Makes you look real classy. I simply asked you if you would be fine with NoR being hit with sanctions. A question you did not answer but instead attacked me with ad hominems. I mean, if you don't think NoR should be hit with sanctions, then you already have answered your own questions and thus, they never really needed to be asked. If you don't care if NoR gets hit with sanctions, then go ahead and ask all you want. I am hedging bets that since you did not answer my question though, I am assuming that you would care. But yes, I am the [i]stupid[/i] one... Just to clarify: "But consider this: Umbrella is merely pinching off resources at the source, as Polar did with DBDC's tech suppliers. How is one acceptable while the other is not? This is a legitimate question, btw. There was a time when using nuclear weapons was taboo. Isn't this just part of the evolution of warfare? What specifically about this makes it unacceptable?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Maybe if you go back and read what I actually wrote instead of picking up what you wish I had said you'll come across as less of a clown. No guarantees, though. That you responded so quickly and so stupidly is not an encouraging sign. I'm not suggesting that they're 'fun'. Believe me, I understand the headaches they can cause in a way few others can. But if the point of war is to win, and if you can contribute to that effort by disrupting resources, then why not? Think of it as my blowing up your gold mine, or giving your livestock anthrax. There's been this unspoken arrangement that trade partners will overlook alliance politics. But why should that be the case? The thing about sanctions is that they can only be applied in a limited way, so the effects would not be far-reaching except, perhaps, to smaller AAs. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why they're inherently evil while other methods of curtailing exchanges between nations are not. I have no opinion one way or another, but simply saying "They're bad and aggravating" isn't really much of a counter-point. To make one more point about Vox: they were somewhat more effective because people couldn't change their resources so trade circles were more diverse and much harder to put together. And even then, NPO was incompetent and didn't take steps that could have mitigated most to all of the damage: having emergency replacement trade circles available on another color. They are not "inherently evil". The difference between sanctions and other methods of warfare is that the effects of sanctions can be almost entirely undone or prevented, it just takes tedious effort to make that happen. OOC: There's a difference between taking actions that may annoy another player, but actually provide an advantage over that player by doing irreversible damage, and taking actions that almost entirely ONLY serve to annoy the other player. Edited November 25, 2014 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 It is probably regarded as poor form to use sanctions during war, but when if you think about it, it should probably be done more often. Sanctions are tactics. If you are at war you better be sure you have some control of the Senate in the color team where you reside. Find a different color sphere like Blue where this would most likely not happen. Or Red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 How could Umbrella do such a thing?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) I think it's pretty widely known that Umbrella has no qualms with starting sanction wars. heh...Pretty effing weak. Sanctions are weak. Guess Umbrella ain't as leet as they claim. You didn't seem to have a problem when Umbrella did it last war too. Edited November 25, 2014 by Steve Buscemi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) The person who sanctioned NoR's nations did it on his own and he was told to remove them. By the time that happened, the NoR nations in question had already switched colors and reorganized their trades. Edited November 25, 2014 by Monster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I'm no fan of sanction wars but surely this is all part of choosing a colour sphere that is stable and run by people who don't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 The person who sanctioned NoR's nations did it on his own and he was told to remove them. By the time that happened, the NoR nations in question had already switched colors and reorganized their trades. And I'm sure this was due to the vocal outrage of Docartaigh protesting the use of sanctions in wartime... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 And I'm sure this was due to the vocal outrage of Docartaigh protesting the use of sanctions in wartime... It wasn't, but I don't recall him praising or defending it either. He hasn't been inconsistent on the subject at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 The more things change the more they stay the same. At this point pretty much every non nuetral alliance has been a part of a coalition that used santions during war time. And everytime it is the same. If it is somebody on your side you do not care and if its somebody on the other side its evil. Now say 5 or 6 years ago when this happened it raised a few eyebrows. Now, it barely warrants a public complaint about it. Like so many other things about war on Planet Bob from using nukes, alliance hopping, the end of CBs, treaties meaning nothing, preemptive strikes etc. things that were once taboo are no longer. Sure some people will complain but, they just end up getting called out for not complaining when the side they were on did it. And so life on Planet Bob goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Actually I did read it just fine thank you. You compared them to what Polaris did and asked why one was bad while the other was good. You may not think so, but you are giving your opinion in the way you phrase things. You are implicitly stating that sanctions are not a bad thing. It was not until the paragraph for Azaghul that you actually explained you had no real opinion. But nice ad hominem. Makes you look real classy. I simply asked you if you would be fine with NoR being hit with sanctions. A question you did not answer but instead attacked me with ad hominems. I mean, if you don't think NoR should be hit with sanctions, then you already have answered your own questions and thus, they never really needed to be asked. If you don't care if NoR gets hit with sanctions, then go ahead and ask all you want. I am hedging bets that since you did not answer my question though, I am assuming that you would care. But yes, I am the stupid one... I am "implicity stating that sanctions are not a bad thing." Wow. Thank you, Kreskin. My original point stands. It's not an ad hominem to call someone idiotic when they make idiotic statements. My caring has nothing to do with anything. I care whether I die from cancer, a stroke, a lightning strike or being murdered in bed by my lover's husband at the age of 100. (The last one implies I'm getting laid at 100, so I'll take that one if asked.) But I am going to die. I've no choice about that. Or the method. Or the timing. Similarly, in war things are destroyed by troops, by planes, by nuclear weapons and so on. I am merely asking why this particular method of destroying things is worse than another, and all I'm seeing is, "It's bad because it's bad." You are the only one who has decided, through your incredible mind-reading abilities, to assume that I think sanctions are wonderful and should be used all the time. The reason you are the only one who believes that is quite simple: I haven't said it. But thank you for telling me about what I was thinking. Your pointless, moronic one-liner surely made you shine like a beacon of brilliance in a universe that flounders in the darkness of ignorance. There. Are your feewings all better now? Now go away. Grown-ups talking. I'm no fan of sanction wars but surely this is all part of choosing a colour sphere that is stable and run by people who don't do it. A realpolitik answer. I can respect that, regardless of what I think about the silly selling-tech-to-DBDC thing. It doesn't answer my question, though, and I suspect it's because there is no answer to it. The more things change the more they stay the same. At this point pretty much every non nuetral alliance has been a part of a coalition that used santions during war time. And everytime it is the same. If it is somebody on your side you do not care and if its somebody on the other side its evil. Now say 5 or 6 years ago when this happened it raised a few eyebrows. Now, it barely warrants a public complaint about it. Like so many other things about war on Planet Bob from using nukes, alliance hopping, the end of CBs, treaties meaning nothing, preemptive strikes etc. things that were once taboo are no longer. Sure some people will complain but, they just end up getting called out for not complaining when the side they were on did it. And so life on Planet Bob goes. Now this guy gets it. TBB, I will add one more thing to your list, and that is war itself. Remember when it was a big deal all on its own? If sanctions are bad because they're annoying, of marginal utility, and cause more trouble than they're worth, then surely war is something that should be forever off-the-table in our relations. Let us all gather in a giant circle and sing 'Kumbaya' while we dream of peace forever and solve our problems through rock-paper-scissors. Hmmm. Perhaps I've become jaded just a little bit faster than others. Oh well, if history is any indicator I suppose everyone else will catch up eventually. Even Kreskin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 The more things change the more they stay the same. At this point pretty much every non nuetral alliance has been a part of a coalition that used santions during war time. And everytime it is the same. If it is somebody on your side you do not care and if its somebody on the other side its evil. Now say 5 or 6 years ago when this happened it raised a few eyebrows. Now, it barely warrants a public complaint about it. Like so many other things about war on Planet Bob from using nukes, alliance hopping, the end of CBs, treaties meaning nothing, preemptive strikes etc. things that were once taboo are no longer. Sure some people will complain but, they just end up getting called out for not complaining when the side they were on did it. And so life on Planet Bob goes. I've always been opposed to the weaponization of sanctions, even in the case of rogues or enemies. To sacrifice the liberty of a color team for the momentary security benefits of some ultimately makes everyone worse off. Even those not effected by this sanction will eventually feel the senate misuse catch up to them if the color continues in this direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister black Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 And they still vote them in. I moed to black becuase of that. Pink sanctions are off the hook. Grey would almost be best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarquista Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 they are bad in war because they negatively effect people not directly involved in war and also because you get called out for wussiness mister black, black wouldn't be any safer in this case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it's pretty widely known that Umbrella has no qualms with starting sanction wars. You didn't seem to have a problem when Umbrella did it last war too. Read my second statement in this thread to figure out if I did or not mate. I would say good try but it ain't even remotely close to one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) I am "implicity stating that sanctions are not a bad thing." Wow. Thank you, Kreskin. My original point stands. It's not an ad hominem to call someone idiotic when they make idiotic statements. My caring has nothing to do with anything. I care whether I die from cancer, a stroke, a lightning strike or being murdered in bed by my lover's husband at the age of 100. (The last one implies I'm getting laid at 100, so I'll take that one if asked.) But I am going to die. I've no choice about that. Or the method. Or the timing. Similarly, in war things are destroyed by troops, by planes, by nuclear weapons and so on. I am merely asking why this particular method of destroying things is worse than another, and all I'm seeing is, "It's bad because it's bad." You are the only one who has decided, through your incredible mind-reading abilities, to assume that I think sanctions are wonderful and should be used all the time. The reason you are the only one who believes that is quite simple: I haven't said it. But thank you for telling me about what I was thinking. Your pointless, moronic one-liner surely made you shine like a beacon of brilliance in a universe that flounders in the darkness of ignorance. There. Are your feewings all better now? Now go away. Grown-ups talking. So all I am seeing is insults. And you stated grown-ups are talking. How cute of you. Perhaps instead of deflection, you could actually answer the question. As for implicitly, I still stand by my assessment. Considering how you are describing sanctions and what you compare them to then yes, it is quite easy to make a logical jump that you don't find them bad. It does not take Kreskin to read into that. Now, you are right grown-ups are talking. You should take the time and try and include yourself in that category all the time. Edited November 25, 2014 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Wasn't a fan of a sanction war in Eq, not a fan of it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart416 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 NPO NPO he's our man, if he can't do it, Umbrella can! I love it when you guys forgot to include images like this: Anyway, its not that impressive: Its easy to do more damage than you take in a 5 vs. 1 situation, you can only take one nuke a day while you can fire at five people. And the sanctions, meh... people whined so much about nukes in the past while now they're considered pretty much the only worthwhile weapon. Also consider yourself on my target list for the next round of festivities, if you're still in range that is. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I love it when you guys forgot to include images like this: Anyway, its not that impressive: Its easy to do more damage than you take in a 5 vs. 1 situation, you can only take one nuke a day while you can fire at five people. And the sanctions, meh... people whined so much about nukes in the past while now they're considered pretty much the only worthwhile weapon. Also consider yourself on my target list for the next round of festivities, if you're still in range that is. :P He's been missing all his trades for a full day now, so its not surprising the NPO guy would pull ahead with that advantage. That he is fighting so many guys with SDI actually puts him at a disadvantage, since he doesn't have enough nukes to hit them all daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 He's been missing all his trades for a full day now, so its not surprising the NPO guy would pull ahead with that advantage. That he is fighting so many guys with SDI actually puts him at a disadvantage, since he doesn't have enough nukes to hit them all daily. Yeah, because none of that damage was done in the 2 days before he was sanctioned. Totally. It would have made sense to at least try to fix the trades along with the public call out thread with cherrypicked wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart416 Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 He's been missing all his trades for a full day now, so its not surprising the NPO guy would pull ahead with that advantage. That he is fighting so many guys with SDI actually puts him at a disadvantage, since he doesn't have enough nukes to hit them all daily. Missing a few trades won't do that much damage. And its his own fault for declaring on two extra targets himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Another reason why not to be on pink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Not totally surprising since they did something similar last war, "although" that was down to one individual. Edited November 25, 2014 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 I am "implicity stating that sanctions are not a bad thing." Wow. Thank you, Kreskin. My original point stands. It's not an ad hominem to call someone idiotic when they make idiotic statements. My caring has nothing to do with anything. I care whether I die from cancer, a stroke, a lightning strike or being murdered in bed by my lover's husband at the age of 100. (The last one implies I'm getting laid at 100, so I'll take that one if asked.) But I am going to die. I've no choice about that. Or the method. Or the timing. Similarly, in war things are destroyed by troops, by planes, by nuclear weapons and so on. I am merely asking why this particular method of destroying things is worse than another, and all I'm seeing is, "It's bad because it's bad." You are the only one who has decided, through your incredible mind-reading abilities, to assume that I think sanctions are wonderful and should be used all the time. The reason you are the only one who believes that is quite simple: I haven't said it. But thank you for telling me about what I was thinking. Your pointless, moronic one-liner surely made you shine like a beacon of brilliance in a universe that flounders in the darkness of ignorance. There. Are your feewings all better now? Now go away. Grown-ups talking. What happened to you, man? To address the other question: I don't think sanctions are actually worse than what we already do to each other in the name of war - more of a social convention to not "go there" that people have mostly managed to adhere to despite otherwise blowing each other up. So when someone does use sanctions, it is crossing a line in a sense, since people have managed to have very damaging wars, filled with mutual animosity, and not gotten into a full-blown sanction war. [OOC: it reminds me of chemical weapons and the arguments you could make for/against banning them] I guess some people think Senators are supposed to be above the fray of politics, and act equally to protect the team at large without abusing their power. From what I understand, sanction requests on rogues are typically granted despite political rivalries, as a mutual courtesy. I sort of like the idea of Senators getting more involved in war though. Along with the ability to vote on team proposals, it would greatly enhance the element of competition and strategy involved in color politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 Irritating to fix, but fixable. I don't think it's inherently evil or anything, just a bit of a douchey thing to do :/ 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.