Declaration of Wussiness

[Orville Reginbacher]

 

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.

 

The distinction is pretty obvious, really.  Being in a trade circle is hardly an act of war.  You are not making an active decision to aid someone who is bad or at war with someone (unless you actually monitor your trade partners and trade with someone after you see them go to war).

 

Actively sending aid to someone at war is and has been a reason for punishment.  People sending aid make an active decision to send aid every time they send it.  The same is not true for trade partners, which are passive.  

 

If you don't see the difference between trading with someone and actively sending aid to someone, or you don't want to see the different, I question your integrity.

[saxasm]

The distinction is pretty obvious, really.  Being in a trade circle is hardly an act of war.  You are not making an active decision to aid someone who is bad or at war with someone (unless you actually monitor your trade partners and trade with someone after you see them go to war).
 
Actively sending aid to someone at war is and has been a reason for punishment.  People sending aid make an active decision to send aid every time they send it.  The same is not true for trade partners, which are passive.  
 
If you don't see the difference between trading with someone and actively sending aid to someone, or you don't want to see the different, I question your integrity.

You're basically just trying to rationalize a difference that is just an old institution. Having a trade deal with someone helps them significantly, too. If you want to see "aiding an enemy" as an act of war, then a trade circle could certainly be such an act. It being "passive" is really rather secondary -- people could easily check if they wanted to.

The core of the matter is simply that we have institutionalized the idea that foreign aid to nations at war is an "act of war", while we have not done the same for trade circles. It is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less. There is no objective little label called "act of war" that is attached to aid deals, and there is no sticker saying "exempt from rules of what an act of war is" on your trade circle.

This is not to say these traditions, or institutions, are to be broken. As can be seen in this thread, following traditions generally grants some amount of legitimacy to your organization. Your argument, however, is based on the false notion that "act of war" is anything but a social construct made by the nations of our world. There is no objective truth on it that can be discerned, no matter how much you try to reason about it.

[bart416]

This is one of the (rare) occasions I find myself agreeing with saxasm on this one. An act of war really depends on whatever you want it to be. I recall there were alliances in the past that considered joke aid of $0.99 to rogues an act of war as well...

[The Big Bad]

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

 

Um you know you can say the same thing about nukes.  In fact it is even worse because Global Radiation effects every nation not just a few in a trade circle.  Using nukes was once condsidered to bad and cowerdly if you used them even in global war you kicked out of you alliance and declared a rogue. People use nukes like they do ground attacks now. Santions are just another thing that has become normal in wars on planet Bob.  Just like using nukes it has nothing to do with wussiness and everything to do with the evolution of how wars are fought.  

[Sabcat]

You're basically just trying to rationalize a difference that is just an old institution. Having a trade deal with someone helps them significantly, too. If you want to see "aiding an enemy" as an act of war, then a trade circle could certainly be such an act. It being "passive" is really rather secondary -- people could easily check if they wanted to.

The core of the matter is simply that we have institutionalized the idea that foreign aid to nations at war is an "act of war", while we have not done the same for trade circles. It is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less. There is no objective little label called "act of war" that is attached to aid deals, and there is no sticker saying "exempt from rules of what an act of war is" on your trade circle.

This is not to say these traditions, or institutions, are to be broken. As can be seen in this thread, following traditions generally grants some amount of legitimacy to your organization. Your argument, however, is based on the false notion that "act of war" is anything but a social construct made by the nations of our world. There is no objective truth on it that can be discerned, no matter how much you try to reason about it.

 

This is all absolutely true, top post. Although it is true I think, intentionally or not, you're giving less weight to social constructs than they deserve. Without them then all we have is buttons to press and no reason to press them or indeed refrain from pressing them. These constructs and the norms they establish are what make this world. Are they objective truths, no but they're arguably more important than that.

[Anarquista]

Um you know you can say the same thing about nukes.  In fact it is even worse because Global Radiation effects every nation not just a few in a trade circle.  Using nukes was once condsidered to bad and cowerdly if you used them even in global war you kicked out of you alliance and declared a rogue. People use nukes like they do ground attacks now. Santions are just another thing that has become normal in wars on planet Bob.  Just like using nukes it has nothing to do with wussiness and everything to do with the evolution of how wars are fought.

I agree, yes I know about nukes, they are bad but in a utilitarian sense, the good outweighs the bad, and the way these two tactics evolved were different, people have to build up for nukes and naturally over time they are easier to acquire so people adjusted, it doesn't mean it's all good, but every nation has access,
meanwhile sanctions were possible but they are just used now and then by specific people to get an advantage when this was possible from the start, and again in a utilitarian sense, the bad part of sanctions outweighs the good

maybe it will be acceptable some day but there is a clear disagreement that it's accepted today

[Orville Reginbacher]

You're basically just trying to rationalize a difference that is just an old institution. Having a trade deal with someone helps them significantly, too. If you want to see "aiding an enemy" as an act of war, then a trade circle could certainly be such an act. It being "passive" is really rather secondary -- people could easily check if they wanted to.

The core of the matter is simply that we have institutionalized the idea that foreign aid to nations at war is an "act of war", while we have not done the same for trade circles. It is a tradition, nothing more, nothing less. There is no objective little label called "act of war" that is attached to aid deals, and there is no sticker saying "exempt from rules of what an act of war is" on your trade circle.

This is not to say these traditions, or institutions, are to be broken. As can be seen in this thread, following traditions generally grants some amount of legitimacy to your organization. Your argument, however, is based on the false notion that "act of war" is anything but a social construct made by the nations of our world. There is no objective truth on it that can be discerned, no matter how much you try to reason about it.

Simply because it is a social construct does not mean it (1) isn't true, and (2) is meaningless.  Taking an active step with someone in a way to aid them specifically is different from passively going along with trades you have.  Active vs. passive is a difference.  Social construct or not, these two things are viewed differently.  No one asked for objective differences.  Subjective differences are pretty important, too.

 

Other OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE differences include, but are not limited to:  (1) trade partners are secret except for spy operations used to reveal them whereas foreign aid is not default secret unless you make it so at higher cost; (2) in the specific example cited, DBDC can trade amongst itself and maybe one or two outside nations to make the numbers add up, whereas DBDC would not aid its own tech to itself; (3) tech trading, specifically, directly affects military power, whereas only some trading can have an indirect effect on military power (except for some direct impacts on efficiency of soldiers, which is rather meaningless in a nuclear war); (4) as unrealistic and hard to enforce as some people believe the NpO policy on tech dealers to DBDC will be, a war on all trade partners of them would certainly be more unrealistic and harder to enforce (including the requirement to have a successful spy op to uncover trade partners).

Edited November 25, 2014 by Orville Reginbacher

[kingzog]

 

 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.

 

I think you're absolutely correct, both in terms of the social convention and how it would be viewed if violated. At the same time, I can't help but note that there have been many other things in the past that were considered 'beyond the pale' in wartime. I think everyone can agree that 'the big one' was the use of first-strike nuclear weapons. When MK violated this unwritten rule, the world changed forever. They may have paid for it dearly at the time, but now it's just taken as one of those things that happens during war. Does anybody even give it a second thought?

 

With each dying taboo, we get one step closer to genuine, all-out, massively destructive total war.

 

So, if enough people used sanctions as a weapon, would we reach some kind of critical mass where it became acceptable? I think we would.

 

And while I'm on it, I think this is a much more interesting discussion that simply pointing at Umbrella and saying, "Bad dog!"

 

[OOC]The other thing to consider is simple game mechanics. The game mechanics are there, and you can't really fault someone for using them to their own benefit or someone else's detriment. It's not cheating or dirty pool or anything like that. It's part of the game, and therefore morally neutral. But admittedly it is something few people are willing to use.[/OOC]

 

And Doch....I'm sorry I snapped at you. But geez....address what I'm actually saying. I didn't come here to pick a fight with you or anyone else. I had what I thought was an interesting thought and figured I'd share.

 

 

 

If you don't see the difference between trading with someone and actively sending aid to someone, or you don't want to see the different, I question your integrity.

 

Oh no, not my integrity!

Edited November 26, 2014 by kingzog

[The Big Bad]

I agree, yes I know about nukes, they are bad but in a utilitarian sense, the good outweighs the bad, and the way these two tactics evolved were different, people have to build up for nukes and naturally over time they are easier to acquire so people adjusted, it doesn't mean it's all good, but every nation has access,
meanwhile sanctions were possible but they are just used now and then by specific people to get an advantage when this was possible from the start, and again in a utilitarian sense, the bad part of sanctions outweighs the good

maybe it will be acceptable some day but there is a clear disagreement that it's accepted today

 

I am not a fan of it as I am not a fan of many changes in warfare on Planet Bob.  However I accept that things have changed.  You can tell when somebody pushes something that is not acceptable because you have a reaction like the on Gramlins got when it tried to force IRON into that silly unconditional surrender nonsense.  This however?  Well nobody really cares because it happens every war and never gets more than a few minor complaints.  It is simply the way things are.  And if you do not think santions are a tool that Umbrella and DCDBs enemies see as a part of taking them down at some point, your fooling yourself.  

[kingzog]

 

You can tell when somebody pushes something that is not acceptable because you have a reaction like the on Gramlins got when it tried to force IRON into that silly unconditional surrender nonsense.

 

I had completely forgotten about that. But now I recall that one very long, very annoying thread about it. "Ramlins."

 

The other thing that made just about everyone point their fingers was that group of alliances who tried to bail on the NPO on Day One of the Karma War. (CoCBloc....best name ever.) Even the people doing it quickly admitted that it was a pretty craven thing to do.

 

It takes something extraordinary to get an overwhelming majority of people (on both sides of a conflict) to say, "Wow, that's really bad." The use of sanctions during war seems to fail that test. Still, I don't think it's an ordinary occurrence, and like just about everyone else I'd be annoyed if it was. But I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually.

[Joe Stupid]

NSO fights prison style.

[Thorgrum]

For years people have been crying about boredom. War comes, alliances and individuals use the tools at their disposal to induce the outcome they desire and what do we get? Crying about how they conduct war.

 

Im astounded year in and year out at the level of stupidity. I guess at this point I shouldn't be but the amazing thing is its often the same dumb ass names in the threads. Crying about boredom, crying about how someone else plays the game, crying about a war in 2008.

 

The parade of idiots marches on. Never change CN.  

[Sephiroth]

For years people have been crying about boredom. War comes, alliances and individuals use the tools at their disposal to induce the outcome they desire and what do we get? Crying about how they conduct war.

 

Im astounded year in and year out at the level of stupidity. I guess at this point I shouldn't be but the amazing thing is its often the same dumb ass names in the threads. Crying about boredom, crying about how someone else plays the game, crying about a war in 2008.

 

The parade of idiots marches on. Never change CN.  

Causing my trade circle to need to move to a different color over SWF backing up their allies was a dick move. I wasn't involved in the war and my trades got screwed until I moved regardless. If several members of your trade circle were getting sanctioned, I think you would have a different attitude regarding their use and you wouldn't feel so good about the sanctions being thrown around. When a senator goes out of control with the sanctions during a war, the only immediate remedy is moving the trade circle to a different color. So having senators sanction people over petty reasons makes those bad teams to be on, since it can be made where you need to move to different color depending on the whims of those sanctioning people.

 

I will continue my senate campaign on Brown and work towards making the brown sphere one where people don't need to worry about sanctions being abused. I encourage those who want to vote for me and be part of a color where Sanctions aren't misused to move to Brown.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Methrage

[CubaQuerida]

Causing my trade circle to need to move to a different color over SWF backing up their allies was a dick move. I wasn't involved in the war and my trades got screwed until I moved regardless. If several members of your trade circle were getting sanctioned, I think you would have a different attitude regarding their use and you wouldn't feel so good about the sanctions being thrown around. When a senator goes out of control with the sanctions during a war, the only immediate remedy is moving the trade circle to a different color. So having senators sanction people over petty reasons makes those bad teams to be on, since it can be made where you need to move to different color depending on the whims of those sanctioning people.
 
I will continue my senate campaign on Brown and work towards making the brown sphere one where people don't need to worry about sanctions being abused. I encourage those who want to vote for me and be part of a color where Sanctions aren't misused to move to Brown.

Having been sanctioned myself, on black, I can attest to the great disruption they cause and heartache. They are not a gamechanger, as they can be easily circumvented within a day or so, but I threatened Alexandros o megas with war the next time he tried to pull that on me.

So if using sanctions is a justifiable war reason to me, I don't see why sanctions wouldn't be used as a tool of war. War is all about protecting the interests you have while killing the enemy's. If sanctioning makes them weaker and doesn't threaten your long term health (e.g. if TOP sanctioned DBDC) then it's viable in my opinion and all this public outcry by its recipients just confirms it's had its intended effect.

You can proclaim yourself a victim and simultaneously a hero, but in the end you're on the opposite side of the sphere in power and you will probably have more than mere sanctions to worry about long term.

[The Zigur]

This man has boundless arrogance to presume himeself long term God King over a "sphere of power."

[Sephiroth]

Having been sanctioned myself, on black, I can attest to the great disruption they cause and heartache. They are not a gamechanger, as they can be easily circumvented within a day or so, but I threatened Alexandros o megas with war the next time he tried to pull that on me.

So if using sanctions is a justifiable war reason to me, I don't see why sanctions wouldn't be used as a tool of war. War is all about protecting the interests you have while killing the enemy's. If sanctioning makes them weaker and doesn't threaten your long term health (e.g. if TOP sanctioned DBDC) then it's viable in my opinion and all this public outcry by its recipients just confirms it's had its intended effect.

You can proclaim yourself a victim and simultaneously a hero, but in the end you're on the opposite side of the sphere in power and you will probably have more than mere sanctions to worry about long term.

A Senator is a leader of the color sphere and should be using it for the benefit of the team. Using it as a weapon is short sighted, as well as hurting the color sphere. Everyone benefits from a Safe Haven color from sanctions, its to bad you lost sight of that. The move to brown isn't to oppose DBDC, but about working towards that ideal color sphere and getting my trades back in order. Senators who want to do whats good for the color sphere resist any temptations to use it as a weapon or hurt their base.

[CubaQuerida]

A Senator is a leader of the color sphere and should be using it for the benefit of the team. Using it as a weapon is short sighted, as well as hurting the color sphere. Everyone benefits from a Safe Haven color from sanctions, its to bad you lost sight of that. The move to brown isn't to oppose DBDC, but about working towards that ideal color sphere and getting my trades back in order. Senators who want to do whats good for the color sphere resist any temptations to use it as a weapon or hurt their base.

their base is who votes for them, not who opposes them. Sanctions are most certainly a tool in any senators toolbox, just because it isn't widely used doesn't make it any less effective.

[Ogaden]

This seems like an opportune time to point out that Maroon is a sexy sphere that has 7 aid slots at the moment

[Anarquista]

This seems like an opportune time to point out that Maroon is a sexy sphere that has 7 aid slots at the moment

so the rumors are true

[saxasm]

This is all absolutely true, top post. Although it is true I think, intentionally or not, you're giving less weight to social constructs than they deserve. Without them then all we have is buttons to press and no reason to press them or indeed refrain from pressing them. These constructs and the norms they establish are what make this world. Are they objective truths, no but they're arguably more important than that.

Absolutely. As I said in passing, following the institutions gets you some measure of legitimacy, and that is vitally important for an alliance. Other obvious examples of institutions are that we stay on an Alliance Affiliation that truthfully reflects our affiliation, that we don't spy on other alliances, that inter-alliance war is declared here and not just through inter-nation wars, that treaties are announced, that treaties are followed, that inter-alliance wars are started for some reason, [OOC: the IC/OOC divide is at least to a degree respected], and so on.

An entity that followed none of these conventions, and broke with all these institutions, would not be called an alliance at all, by most people. It would be considered a rogue entity, and quite rightfully so. The only difference between an alliance and a group of rogues is their legitimacy. An interesting example here is DBDC, who are breaking with some institutions, such as not raiding AA-affiliated nations, but are also maintaining other traditions, such as having a name, an AA, an IRC channel, at least somewhat delimited membership, treaties, wars on specific groupings, and so on. As can be seen, some people have argued that they are just a group of rogues -- that is, some people have seen them as not having the legitimacy to qualify as an alliance -- but that argument has largely failed. Apparently they are, in today's climate, legitimate enough to be seen as an alliance. Had they broken the rest of the traditions that exist, I doubt they'd be seen as anything but rogues.

However, since many alliances find themselves benefiting from the breaking of some of these traditions and institutions, such as, in this case, sanctioning nations in groupings with legitimacy, traditions do get broken. It is a tradeoff between legitimacy and some more tangible good, such as disrupting your enemy's trade connections. No alliance can get away with breaking too many traditions, or they would swiftly find themselves seen as a bunch of rogues, but they can get away with breaking some lesser traditions. Thus, we see alliances breaking some traditions, and pushing the boundaries of our traditions. It's the rational thing to do.
 

Simply because it is a social construct does not mean it (1) isn't true, and (2) is meaningless.  Taking an active step with someone in a way to aid them specifically is different from passively going along with trades you have.  Active vs. passive is a difference.  Social construct or not, these two things are viewed differently.  No one asked for objective differences.  Subjective differences are pretty important, too.
 
Other OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE differences include, but are not limited to:  (1) trade partners are secret except for spy operations used to reveal them whereas foreign aid is not default secret unless you make it so at higher cost; (2) in the specific example cited, DBDC can trade amongst itself and maybe one or two outside nations to make the numbers add up, whereas DBDC would not aid its own tech to itself; (3) tech trading, specifically, directly affects military power, whereas only some trading can have an indirect effect on military power (except for some direct impacts on efficiency of soldiers, which is rather meaningless in a nuclear war); (4) as unrealistic and hard to enforce as some people believe the NpO policy on tech dealers to DBDC will be, a war on all trade partners of them would certainly be more unrealistic and harder to enforce (including the requirement to have a successful spy op to uncover trade partners).

Yes, they are viewed differently, and that is an important difference.

I'd also like to point out that policing a no-trade-with-DBDC policy would be much easier than you think -- just toss a bunch of sanctions at DBDC nations and start to see their trades hampered. It certainly seems to me that sanctions in war would be the logical step if one were to start considering trade deals with someone an act of war.

[kingzog]

This seems like an opportune time to point out that Maroon is a sexy sphere that has 7 aid slots at the moment

 

You forgot the 'after months of garbage proposals' part.

 

Anyway, enjoying the discussion.... I find I'm still something of an agnostic on the subject.

Edited November 26, 2014 by kingzog

[Ch33kY]

NSO fights prison style.

Shank knives or dropped soap in the showers?

[Wobblies]

Weak

[Lusitan]

Aren't we exhagerating with all this circus over this idiot?

[Tehmina]

oh, maroon seems nice for now!