Sanctioning Standards

[Steelrat]

...Okay? Why can't I state my disagreement with the principle here on the forum?

I'm classier than that, as are my trade partners. We had 4 Hegemony and 2 Karma, I believe. That's what I love about White... We regularly have people on opposite sides of world wars, and some of us don't like each other very much, but we coexist. We don't do trade or sanction wars. Political differences and even outright dislike don't cause us to rip our sphere apart. When I get trades with a White nation whose alliance is on "the other side", I don't fear losing that trade because of that. It doesn't cross my mind, because no one on White operates that way. If the guy with the resources I need is in TGE or WAPA or STA, cool.

My policy in war is to do maximum damage regardless of cost to my nation... Why bother fighting otherwise? But there are lines I won't cross.

-Bama

Sure you can state your disagreement, i was just trying to say that Senators or sanctions even for the worst reasons are no biggie, most times they are an opportunity at least either as bad PR for you or bad PR for the others. Depending on which Senator went nuts

That was my whole point the weird and crazy coexisting on a color with your enemy or unfriendly neighbour or whatever you would call it, with pure logic that does not make sense at all. If it´s war you want to win that war where is the difference in firing a nuke or canceling trades, there is none both damage your enemy and i thought war is all about damage.

That does not mean you can´t stay classy in a war and after the war ends you reoffer the trades. That´s the crazy thing about CN some things even minor ones seem to be more political incorrect/morally wrong than the "real" worse things.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Steelrat

[avernite]

Sanctions are a nuisance, I seriously dislike nuisances, thus I am happy noone on Orange has recently used them as weapons of war. Of course, in the recent past there have been no great masses of fighting on Orange except when the senate itself was also split, which may have helped.

[anenu]

...Okay? Why can't I state my disagreement with the principle here on the forum?

I'm classier than that, as are my trade partners. We had 4 Hegemony and 2 Karma, I believe. That's what I love about White... We regularly have people on opposite sides of world wars, and some of us don't like each other very much, but we coexist. We don't do trade or sanction wars. Political differences and even outright dislike don't cause us to rip our sphere apart. When I get trades with a White nation whose alliance is on "the other side", I don't fear losing that trade because of that. It doesn't cross my mind, because no one on White operates that way. If the guy with the resources I need is in TGE or WAPA or STA, cool.

My policy in war is to do maximum damage regardless of cost to my nation... Why bother fighting otherwise? But there are lines I won't cross.

-Bama

I see absolutely no problem with using sanctions during war time as they are a tool put into the game that should be used and could potentially tip the sides in a conflicts or shorten the length of a war.

As for trading with nations that are on opposite sides of a war i disagree with it unless the alliance on the other side of the war is fighting an alliance that is basically in a separate conflict, for example how i traded with several aqua nations in the noCB war despite them being on the opposite side of the war as me because they were fighting NpO and allies in what was essentially an entirely different conflict. Other than that and possible exceptions i can't think of right now I see trading with someone on the other side of a conflict as basically aiding them in a war against you and your allies. And while you could say that both sides are equally hurt so it doesn't change anything hopefully you are smart enough to have a warchest and don't have to rely on your trade to keep you out of bill lock in war time.

[BamaBuc]

Sure you can state your disagreement, i was just trying to say that Senators or sanctions even for the worst reasons are no biggie, most times they are an opportunity at least either as bad PR for you or bad PR for the others. Depending on which Senator went nuts

That was my whole point the weird and crazy coexisting on a color with your enemy or unfriendly neighbour or whatever you would call it, with pure logic that does not make sense at all. If it´s war you want to win that war where is the difference in firing a nuke or canceling trades, there is none both damage your enemy and i thought war is all about damage.

That does not mean you can´t stay classy in a war and after the war ends you reoffer the trades. That´s the crazy thing about CN some things even minor ones seem to be more political incorrect/morally wrong than the "real" worse things.

The difference is that my trade partners placed their trust in me, and I placed mine in them. That's what's known as honoring your word. It's nothing to do with political correctness.

-Bama

[SiCkO]

No need to apologize, and you can think of it however you like, I don't mind.

I just don't want it to try to rewrite history in the hopes that it will show us in a better light. We are who we are and we're not afraid of honest disclosure of our record.

Forcing you? You can't just watch until he comes out of peace mode?

shh dont spoil the seekrit

[Uhtred]

And while you could say that both sides are equally hurt so it doesn't change anything hopefully you are smart enough to have a warchest and don't have to rely on your trade to keep you out of bill lock in war time.

Trades reduce bills. Without them you'll find relying on your war chest to be like relying on a paper plate to keep you dry in a thunderstorm.

[HeinousOne]

Nah! I was half joking and half referencing the "in general" aspect of RV's statements. It wasn't about you, sorry if you felt offended as it wasn't my intention.

(Edit: I mean; when he said that "The NPO culture remains, and as strong as ever." "The NPO culture" is an inexact definition, by the way, but I didn't feel like being nitpicking...)

No harm no foul then. Its just I personally don't think he was trying to make a wideranging generalized statement. He was trying to take a shot at me because we were going back and forth.

It is nice though to see some folks defending the idea of allowing an aspect of the world to remain as it is. Allowing people to feel positively and negatively about the differing actions of senators. Senators have a responsibility to realize that their actions will have consequences, both good and bad to varying degrees depending upon the reasoning.

[Steelrat]

Trades reduce bills. Without them you'll find relying on your war chest to be like relying on a paper plate to keep you dry in a thunderstorm.

Not really the biggest Infra upkeep reducer are labor camps, add Iron and Lumber and you are fine. Trades are important in tax collections not in reducing upkeep. Exception is only Uran to reload nukes.

So in essence you need only Iron, Lumber and Uran + big WC + MP and have fun

Conventional warfare is different as you need Alu, Pigs maybe add Oil and Coal.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Steelrat

[Uhtred]

So in essence you need only Iron, Lumber and Uran + big WC + MP and have fun

I'll just paraphrase this as 'so in essence you need trades'.

[Steelrat]

Yes but you need only 3 resources at best, at worst you could live with Iron alone and temp trading Uran to reload. So you would need only 1 trade partner and i doubt in wartimes it would be hard to get them as color doens´t matter to pay bills.

A trade embargo would be very effective to nations with a very small warchest as they have to collect taxes and of course don´t trade Uran with your enemy for obvious reasons . Aside from that Iron, Lumber, Alu, pigs denying would hurt too.

[Haflinger]

Yes but you need only 3 resources at best, at worst you could live with Iron alone and temp trading Uran to reload. So you would need only 1 trade partner and i doubt in wartimes it would be hard to get them as color doens´t matter to pay bills.

A trade embargo would be very effective to nations with a very small warchest as they have to collect taxes and of course don´t trade Uran with your enemy for obvious reasons . Aside from that Iron, Lumber, Alu, pigs denying would hurt too.

The topic of the thread is senate sanctions in wartime. It's tough for a nation under senate sanction to get 3 resources, unless of course it planned ahead and got secrets.

[Charles the Great]

its not hard to find trades and a weapon is only a weapon if used .............. I prefer to use all weapons at my disposal during wartime.........no sympathy here..........personally I think all raiders should be sanctioned too, but thats just me.

[Gen Lee]

oh look it's me.

[Penkala]

I can certainly add to this topic. Here's my case, you decide if I should have been sanctioned or not:

About 2 months ago I left RAD, sold my factories and banks and purchased 5 Guerrilla Camps and 5 Barracks. I had $40,000 left after bulking up my military. I was 1750 infra, 50 tech, and my first wars were against RAD's MoW and Jason8. RAD's MoW nuked me, and eventually gave me peace. Now I'm at 1300 infra and was able to pay my bills by raiding from RAD's MoW. Anyways, now I have about 60k and start my roguery against VA.

I was in 6v1s, but they couldn't anarchy me. I was doing a lot of damage, but remember I'm only around 1300 infra, 4k NS, with no nukes and limited cash. Through stealing and people leaving money on the battlefield, 2 weeks later I was at 999 infra, 4k ns.

I logged into my nation to see that IRON had Trade & Aid sanctioned me for going rogue, despite the fact that I was a small, conventional rogue constantly in 6v1s. VA had already called in allies to fill my slots.

Do you think I should be sanctioned fighting 6v1 with no nukes? 5 TORN members lost their trades that day. I felt bad, but I hadn't even considered being sanctioned, afterall I wasn't a nuke rogue, just a conventional rogue.

Thoughts?

Edit: in response I attacked and anarchied a few IRON nations and was able to come to an agreement - I give the IRON nations immediate peace and they remove my sanction ASAP.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Penkala

[HeinousOne]

I can certainly add to this topic. Here's my case, you decide if I should have been sanctioned or not:

About 2 months ago I left RAD, sold my factories and banks and purchased 5 Guerrilla Camps and 5 Barracks. I had $40,000 left after bulking up my military. I was 1750 infra, 50 tech, and my first wars were against RAD's MoW and Jason8. RAD's MoW nuked me, and eventually gave me peace. Now I'm at 1300 infra and was able to pay my bills by raiding from RAD's MoW. Anyways, now I have about 60k and start my roguery against VA.

I was in 6v1s, but they couldn't anarchy me. I was doing a lot of damage, but remember I'm only around 1300 infra, 4k NS, with no nukes and limited cash. Through stealing and people leaving money on the battlefield, 2 weeks later I was at 999 infra, 4k ns.

I logged into my nation to see that IRON had Trade & Aid sanctioned me for going rogue, despite the fact that I was a small, conventional rogue constantly in 6v1s. VA had already called in allies to fill my slots.

Do you think I should be sanctioned fighting 6v1 with no nukes? 5 TORN members lost their trades that day. I felt bad, but I hadn't even considered being sanctioned, afterall I wasn't a nuke rogue, just a conventional rogue.

Thoughts?

Edit: in response I attacked and anarchied a few IRON nations and was able to come to an agreement - I give the IRON nations immediate peace and they remove my sanction ASAP.

I think they had the right to do such as such power is given by having a Senator. Does it make an unfair battlefield even more unfair? Sure does and might have been grounds for embarking upon a propaganda campaign against those that did such to you. Just look at Ender's campaign and how much fanfare that caused.

Senatorial actions have consequences, its up to the Senators and their alliance as to whether any possible negative consequences are worth the action.

[In Spades]

No.

If there's a valid reason to question any of my sanctions outside a third party "wtf is this" setting, send me, or the other parties involved a pm in private. Otherwise; blow me.

The standards of sanctioning should be decided by the alliances that have control of the senate seat. Freedom is a great thing.

[JackSkellington]

Reachwindaria was sanctioned for going nuke rogue, which is one of the things you said you find sanctioning to be reasonable. And honestly, I'd be surprised if you didn't know about Reachwindaria going nuke rogue due to the 3-7 threads made by Leverage and Shayde(Who is the ruler of that particular nation). You're attempt at a different reason to complain about that particular sanction is quite pathetic. Thank you, come again.

Edit: This post was directed at the OP. I honestly haven't taken the time to read through this entire thread. And with that, I'm done with this thread.

Edited August 6, 2009 by JackSkellington

[Sileath]

Reachwindaria was sanctioned for going nuke rogue, which is one of the things you said you find sanctioning to be reasonable. And honestly, I'd be surprised if you didn't know about Reachwindaria going nuke rogue due to the 3-7 threads made by Leverage and Shayde(Who is the ruler of that particular nation). You're attempt at a different reason to complain about that particular sanction is quite pathetic. Thank you, come again.

Edit: This post was directed at the OP. I honestly haven't taken the time to read through this entire thread. And with that, I'm done with this thread.

As I said in the OP, I do not consider Reachwind to be a rogue, as he has an alliance (Leverage) and posted a DoW. The alliance home of the one being attacked (Ronin) has allies (like MK) so why must they resort to sanctioning members of this alliance on different colors? Military action outside of sanctioning should have been more than sufficient.

[Sileath]

No.

If there's a valid reason to question any of my sanctions outside a third party "wtf is this" setting, send me, or the other parties involved a pm in private. Otherwise; blow me.

The standards of sanctioning should be decided by the alliances that have control of the senate seat. Freedom is a great thing.

I see you (as Drunken Hobos) sanctioned Terror Storm for stealing from The Legion. A couple members from The Legion have stopped by in this thread and clarified the reason for sanctioning, which I said was understandable. I fail to see how the OP or my response to The Legion's posts have warranted this hostile of a response.

[Haflinger]

Do you think I should be sanctioned fighting 6v1 with no nukes? 5 TORN members lost their trades that day. I felt bad, but I hadn't even considered being sanctioned, afterall I wasn't a nuke rogue, just a conventional rogue.

This is exactly what I've been complaining about. You're not the only person to be sanctioned for this reason. Basically the reason given normally is "We can't find anyone who's good enough at fighting who has such a small nation."

To which my reply normally is, "Even if they suck at fighting, giving 3 attackers 15M each means they don't have to be good. The rogue's not getting aid."

[Terry Howard]

Sad thing is is that he was just tossing such out there. The person whom he was claiming to be doing such was doing no such thing. I think you need to recheck your !@#$%^&* meter as you are failing to pick it up before you step in it.

That may be the case but its all to common these days

[Uncle Stalin]

This is exactly what I've been complaining about. You're not the only person to be sanctioned for this reason. Basically the reason given normally is "We can't find anyone who's good enough at fighting who has such a small nation."

To which my reply normally is, "Even if they suck at fighting, giving 3 attackers 15M each means they don't have to be good. The rogue's not getting aid."

Sanctioning doesn't cost 45M.

[Rampage3]

With all due respect to the opinions expressed here, I fail to see the big deal.

Senate elections are an expression of the power and success of the alliance(s) on a sphere that votes the Senator in. This senator should reflect the philosophy and in some part the wishes of the alliances who essentially "sponsored" him or her. This means differing philosophies, differing views on how to utilize that power.

Just as people can come here and complain about what sanctions have been levied and why, these Senators are elected and have the power to levy such sanctions; their actions are neither right or wrong necessarily, simply politically motivated and viewpoint-driven. If a Senator is "unfairly" using his/her power, then remove him/her in 30 days by elections. Really simple. An alliance that uses sanctioning overmuch in the majority's estimation will lose prestige over time.

As for lost trades for "innocent" nations, people lose trades all the time. If you work hard, think creatively and are flexible at all, you can get a good trade within a week or less no problem. As a former Lord of Trades I know of what I speak.

[Taget]

My view is Senators should be used to help police the sphere against abuses that hurt game play rather than a tool of war. IE habitual aid scammers, rogues, persistant aggressive ghosts, etc. As an alliance we explicitly placed in our charter that we wouldn't sanction as a tool of war. ( http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...=52817&st=0 ). We also have faith that the other alliances in white would not abuse their power.

And what would be the point in them doing so? If we felt threatened in our color we wouldn't hesitate to leave which would only weaken our former color. And anyone we would dream of threatenting would respond likewise. It doesn't do anyone an ounce of good.

[JackSkellington]

As I said in the OP, I do not consider Reachwind to be a rogue, as he has an alliance (Leverage) and posted a DoW. The alliance home of the one being attacked (Ronin) has allies (like MK) so why must they resort to sanctioning members of this alliance on different colors? Military action outside of sanctioning should have been more than sufficient.

Reachwind did not have an alliance at the time of the initial attack. He simply went to the AA 'Leverage'. Whether being on that AA makes it an alliance is up for debate. He also posted a DoW on a specific member of Ronin, not Ronin itself. The other people on the AA Leverage joined after the initial attack.