Sanctioning Standards

[Owned-You]

While to some sanctioning may seem hostile, I say so be it. If an alliance has the means to gain a senator and decide to sanction folks for whatever reason then that is there prerogative. I may not like it, but until I'm in a position to do something about it. There isn't a point to complaining about it; if anything in some cases it's more damaging to the alliance doing the sanctioning then the nation being sanctioned in the form of negative PR generated from the backlash of an alliance dishing out the sanctions left and right. In any case, I've never viewed sanctioning as an "evil" or "mean" act but only as an extension of political capital through the in-game engine.

[Bob Janova]

I'm going to ignore some of the bickering in the posts since half way down page one and just talk about my opinion of sanctions, and the conventions that seem to apply.

Sanctions are a really blunt instrument, as they hurt up to five other nations as well as the one with which you have an issue. Thus I believe they should be used with care, and not as a matter of course in warfare – nuclear rogues being the prime example, as a sanction can prevent the rogue's targets from a nuke, and make their warchest deplete faster.

There seem to be two types of colour here: those that think the same way that I do, and avoid Senate wars even when the alliances are in opposition (notably Orange and Aqua, and generally I think Blue play nice too), and those that think sanctions are a valid weapon of war (Green before UJA, and Red). Even on these colours, you can go too far – for example the infamous case of a tech raid target being sanctioned for defending himself.

Most of the sanctions currently placed are on rogues ('request of ally' is usually a rogue). Unaligned nations are treated as fair game for sanctions as they are for other unconventional punishments (PZI, unlimited nukes, etc), but only when they initiate the war and need to be taken down quickly. Sanctioning even unaligned nations for no reason is not done.

[Haflinger]

I'm going to ignore some of the bickering in the posts since half way down page one and just talk about my opinion of sanctions, and the conventions that seem to apply.

Sanctions are a really blunt instrument, as they hurt up to five other nations as well as the one with which you have an issue. Thus I believe they should be used with care, and not as a matter of course in warfare – nuclear rogues being the prime example, as a sanction can prevent the rogue's targets from a nuke, and make their warchest deplete faster.

There seem to be two types of colour here: those that think the same way that I do, and avoid Senate wars even when the alliances are in opposition (notably Orange and Aqua, and generally I think Blue play nice too), and those that think sanctions are a valid weapon of war (Green before UJA, and Red). Even on these colours, you can go too far – for example the infamous case of a tech raid target being sanctioned for defending himself.

Most of the sanctions currently placed are on rogues ('request of ally' is usually a rogue). Unaligned nations are treated as fair game for sanctions as they are for other unconventional punishments (PZI, unlimited nukes, etc), but only when they initiate the war and need to be taken down quickly. Sanctioning even unaligned nations for no reason is not done.

Mostly I agree with this, but I think Janova's being a bit naive here. People have been sanctioned for fighting back against raiders in the past.

People say "yes" to sanction requests far too often, IMO. I'm beginning to lose track of the number of times I've said "no" to sanction requests for what are basically trivial things - and no, just because you have a targetted nation whose NS is too low, and you're having a hard time finding attackers, isn't a reason for me to deny the whole Purple Team access to his nation's resources. Getting tired of that one.

[shilo]

It's really pitiful to sanction someone for anything but nuke roguery. Having been on the OT for 3 years, I really cannot see why "big" wars require sanctions.

In GW3, the biggest war until the Karma war, we all fared just fine without sanctioning each other (with TOP fighting for TI and ODN for Aegis).

I guess it is an advantage for everyone on a team if the Senate is balanced, ie in control of not purely allied factions, to avoid such sad abuses of power as sanctioning a victim of a tech raid for example.

[Lord Brendan]

What if during the Karma War you had NPO sanctioning all Karma people on Red, and the Karma alliances sanctioning all Hegemony people on other colors?

Well then it would really have sucked to be Old Guard or NATO.

[Uralica]

I know one disagreement GK and I have about sanctioning is when it should be used, but it's like someone who is 100% over to one side disagreeing with someone who's 75% over to the same side.

Now GK (top senator on White btw) is of the belief that sanctions should only be used for meta-game espionage or forum-hacking. He's only ever sanctioned one person since I've been in TOOL and that was iCarly2, at the request of our former wartime enemies in Dark Templar, for stealing their guides and posting them in the (then) Open Alliance Forum.

Unlike him, I am all for sanctioning a nuclear rogue. Hell, I'd go out of my way to find the people affected trades if they came to me about it. He got after me for going to Polaris and having Richard B Riddick sanctioned for going nuclear rogue... ON HIM Ah well, even if I respectfully disagree with you, Graham, I still ya.

Aid scamming, I'm iffy about. If it's single-alliance, no way, we just jump the dweeb and claw it back. If it's multi-alliance, on the other hand, then it's justifiable. I remember when TOOL/AO had Zeitgeith sanctioned by Umbrella for scamming a bunch of alliances (which included but was not limited to both TOOL and AO), offering 3M/150 tech deals then using the money to fund his rogue wars against various alliances.

The sanctioning of the nation of Terrorists is something I agree with on a single-case basis, because that nation goes around randomly attacking small allied nations, and sits in the range of people who have no way of fighting back with the resources they have at hand (or at least he did when he jumped TOOL's Coleman Empire). Not even the majority of rogues are anywhere near THAT cowardly. I mean, most non-nuke rogues would be good just having themselves pounded a new one.

Now as much as I hate ghosts, because they usually tend to do stupid stuff, ghosting alone is absolutely NOT grounds for sanctioning. Heh, had one of my friends complaining that they lost a trade to someone sanctioning for ghosting. Not cool.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Uralica

[Uralica]

Well then it would really have sucked to be Old Guard or NATO.

Or TOOL.

[Owned-You]

Mostly I agree with this, but I think Janova's being a bit naive here. People have been sanctioned for fighting back against raiders in the past.

People say "yes" to sanction requests far too often, IMO. I'm beginning to lose track of the number of times I've said "no" to sanction requests for what are basically trivial things - and no, just because you have a targetted nation whose NS is too low, and you're having a hard time finding attackers, isn't a reason for me to deny the whole Purple Team access to his nation's resources. Getting tired of that one.

I agree with you in the sense that most people are willing to accept any sanction request. I think many alliances are afraid of building up sour relations with other alliances by refusing requests. And if that would be the case, I'd say some alliances simply need to develop more of a backbone in said instances. Although, my comments are based mostly on speculation as I've only had an active participation in the Blue team senate...and too a much lesser extent Brown team; neither of which fit the description which I use.

[Haflinger]

Well then it would really have sucked to be Old Guard or NATO.

It would have sucked a lot worse to be M*A*S*H.

[Sylar]

What stealing from Legion? Aid scamming? I can see an aid scam sanction to protect other nations on your color, but a multi-color sanctioning makes me think that if it was just startup aid, Legion should do a clawback like STA does.

he was in 5 1x1s and went to PM and never paid the people and i recall him telling us to F Off when requested to do his part he deserves more then a sanction

we usually only sanction Rogues and aid thief's.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Sylar

[Delta1212]

Or TOOL.

Didn't the Hegemony have a pretty dominant share of White or am I blanking on a bunch of major alliances?

[Uralica]

Didn't the Hegemony have a pretty dominant share of White or am I blanking on a bunch of major alliances?

True. Then again, if TGE got a seat in White Senate it may have been requested of them.

You are right in the sense that, in the Hegemony vs. Karma way, Karma only really had two major white alliances, those being TGE and WAPA.

[bzelger]

You are right in the sense that, in the Hegemony vs. Karma way, Karma only really had two major white alliances, those being TGE and WAPA.

What are we?

I support sanctions for rogues. If we had a rational political system they would be applied to tech raiders, in my mind. I also support them for aid scammers. Beyond that, they're generally used as a bully-pulpit and I don't care for their application.

[BamaBuc]

I know one disagreement GK and I have about sanctioning is when it should be used, but it's like someone who is 100% over to one side disagreeing with someone who's 75% over to the same side.

Now GK (top senator on White btw) is of the belief that sanctions should only be used for meta-game espionage or forum-hacking. He's only ever sanctioned one person since I've been in TOOL and that was iCarly2, at the request of our former wartime enemies in Dark Templar, for stealing their guides and posting them in the (then) Open Alliance Forum.

Unlike him, I am all for sanctioning a nuclear rogue. Hell, I'd go out of my way to find the people affected trades if they came to me about it. He got after me for going to Polaris and having Richard B Riddick sanctioned for going nuclear rogue... ON HIM Ah well, even if I respectfully disagree with you, Graham, I still ya.

Aid scamming, I'm iffy about. If it's single-alliance, no way, we just jump the dweeb and claw it back. If it's multi-alliance, on the other hand, then it's justifiable. I remember when TOOL/AO had Zeitgeith sanctioned by Umbrella for scamming a bunch of alliances (which included but was not limited to both TOOL and AO), offering 3M/150 tech deals then using the money to fund his rogue wars against various alliances.

The sanctioning of the nation of Terrorists is something I agree with on a single-case basis, because that nation goes around randomly attacking small allied nations, and sits in the range of people who have no way of fighting back with the resources they have at hand (or at least he did when he jumped TOOL's Coleman Empire). Not even the majority of rogues are anywhere near THAT cowardly. I mean, most non-nuke rogues would be good just having themselves pounded a new one.

Now as much as I hate ghosts, because they usually tend to do stupid stuff, ghosting alone is absolutely NOT grounds for sanctioning. Heh, had one of my friends complaining that they lost a trade to someone sanctioning for ghosting. Not cool.

Pretty much this. Nuke roguing, repeat aid scamming, donation scamming, hacking, etc is fine. But stuff like ghosting? Screwing up to 5 people over because of ghosting is stupid. It seems many senators accept sanction requests almost without question. Which is a terrible disservice to your team, not to mention a jerk move to the person's trade partners.

-Bama

Edited August 5, 2009 by BamaBuc

[Owned-You]

What are we?

I support sanctions for rogues. If we had a rational political system they would be applied to tech raiders, in my mind. I also support them for aid scammers. Beyond that, they're generally used as a bully-pulpit and I don't care for their application.

Nobody lol

I think what he meant was during the war, STA never directly associated themselves with Karma; as did NSO & NpO for example.

[anenu]

I see nothing wrong with sanctioning rogue or during wartime as for ghost i don't think they need a sanction but its not something horrifically bad or anything.

All in all sanctioning is tool in game and if you have numbers or allies to have a senator then why wouldn't you use it in situations that it would help if fact i strongly support its use during wartime as it could very well change how the political face of bob looks with team color becoming more important militarily and politically rather than were it is now.

[kevin32891]

Sanctioning people for ghosting is just lol.

[Uralica]

What are we?

Didn't you guys say somewhere you weren't really part of Karma? If you didn't I apologise.

EDIT: Missed Owned-You's post. He pretty much summed it up.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Uralica

[bzelger]

I have seen a few people try to make that assertion on our behalf, but as far as I'm aware we've never done so. As far as I know (and I was MoD for our part of it) we flew the Karma banner as high as any. Our real involvement ended when our wars did, and we haven't liked everything that has occurred in the name of Karma - opinions on any specific matter vary widely among our membership - (or had any hand in any of it) but for us to backpedal now that the name of Karma is less pristine in the eyes of some would be unbecoming.

We had a vision of what Karma meant, and we fought for it in word and deed. Not everybody's ideas of it were congruent, and I'm disappointed in some of the things that have happened in the name of a coalition that we supported, but I don't think that retroactively "de-Karmafies" us.

[Uralica]

Then like I said, I apologise for that.

[Owned-You]

I have seen a few people try to make that assertion on our behalf, but as far as I'm aware we've never done so. As far as I know (and I was MoD for our part of it) we flew the Karma banner as high as any. Our real involvement ended when our wars did, and we haven't liked everything that has occurred in the name of Karma - opinions on any specific matter vary widely among our membership - (or had any hand in any of it) but for us to backpedal now that the name of Karma is less pristine in the eyes of some would be unbecoming.

We had a vision of what Karma meant, and we fought for it in word and deed. Not everybody's ideas of it were congruent, and I'm disappointed in some of the things that have happened in the name of a coalition that we supported, but I don't think that retroactively "de-Karmafies" us.

I suppose I'm mistaken then, although I would say that the vision of Karma Tyga and other like-minded folk such as myself and the Karma that is present aren't exactly alike in vary many ways. Thus, I personally won't associate you all with Karma; albeit due to personal preferences. Not to mention I was NSO government during the wars with TPF, so I ignore the fact that NV and STA are technically associated with Karma...I'm stubborn when it comes to that I guess.

[SiCkO]

What stealing from Legion? Aid scamming? I can see an aid scam sanction to protect other nations on your color, but a multi-color sanctioning makes me think that if it was just startup aid, Legion should do a clawback like STA does.

The Guy went into peace mode soon after, forcing us to place sanctions

[BamaBuc]

I see nothing wrong with sanctioning rogue or during wartime as for ghost i don't think they need a sanction but its not something horrifically bad or anything.

All in all sanctioning is tool in game and if you have numbers or allies to have a senator then why wouldn't you use it in situations that it would help if fact i strongly support its use during wartime as it could very well change how the political face of bob looks with team color becoming more important militarily and politically rather than were it is now.

The fact that up to 5 uninvolved nations get screwed over is of no consequence to you?

-Bama

[bzelger]

Then like I said, I apologise for that.

I suppose I'm mistaken then, although I would say that the vision of Karma Tyga and other like-minded folk such as myself and the Karma that is present aren't exactly alike in vary many ways. Thus, I personally won't associate you all with Karma; albeit due to personal preferences. Not to mention I was NSO government during the wars with TPF, so I ignore the fact that NV and STA are technically associated with Karma...I'm stubborn when it comes to that I guess.

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.

The Guy went into peace mode soon after, forcing us to place sanctions

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

Edited August 5, 2009 by bzelger

[Uhtred]

Didn't the Hegemony have a pretty dominant share of White or am I blanking on a bunch of major alliances?

It was 2/3 Hegemony at the beginning of the war but when TPF lost its seat it became split almost exactly down the middle (TOOL and STA on each side of the war with the third seat being contested and held at various points by TGE, NEW and FEAR).