Sanctions as a Weapon

[nippy]

[quote name='Daikos' date='16 April 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1271449329' post='2263144']
But if he reads the thread he might have a harder time jumping to conclusions.

[/quote]

this is close to sig-worthy.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Aiding someone in a war is de facto an act of aggression against the other side just as much as declaring war would be[/quote]
This is really the crux of the disagreement. I don't agree, and I believe that inter-alliance rules of engagement are on my side there: if VE aid-bombs CSA, you could use that as a reason to attack us, but we wouldn't expect to get hit by your MDP partners 'in defence' too, and I would expect ours to defend us from your attack. (And before someone gets over-excited about that hypothetical situation, no I'm not planning to suggest it!)

The fact that Methrage is effectively a 1 man AA (I don't think any of the short term members of Citadel really knew what the 'alliance' was about) doesn't suddenly change the usual rules of aggression and defence, so while he gave you a good CB, he didn't actually start an aggressive war – he has not hit any Black nations and therefore can't reasonably be considered a danger to Black and thus a sanction target.

Of course if you believe that 'sanctions as a weapon' should be used in standard alliance wars then that is simply a disagreement, but I get the impression that GOONS in general are arguing that Methrage is a rogue, not that sanctions should always be used in war.

[lamuella]

I absolutely disagree. Aiding a nation for the express purpose of that aid being used to attack a nation on Black is as much a danger to Black as attacking the nation yourself would be. Methrage admits that this is the reason he aided that nation. We interpret this as an aggressive act. He has initiated hostilities against us through his actions.

You may disagree with this, but I am explaining our interpretation of events. I do not think a reasonable onlooker could interpret Methrage's posture and actions as non-hostile.

[nippy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 April 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1271450619' post='2263167']
This is really the crux of the disagreement. I don't agree, and I believe that inter-alliance rules of engagement are on my side there: if VE aid-bombs CSA, you could use that as a reason to attack us, but we wouldn't expect to get hit by your MDP partners 'in defence' too, and I would expect ours to defend us from your attack. (And before someone gets over-excited about that hypothetical situation, no I'm not planning to suggest it!)

The fact that Methrage is effectively a 1 man AA (I don't think any of the short term members of Citadel really knew what the 'alliance' was about) doesn't suddenly change the usual rules of aggression and defence, so while he gave you a good CB, he didn't actually start an aggressive war – he has not hit any Black nations and therefore can't reasonably be considered a danger to Black and thus a sanction target.

Of course if you believe that 'sanctions as a weapon' should be used in standard alliance wars then that is simply a disagreement, but I get the impression that GOONS in general are arguing that Methrage is a rogue, not that sanctions should always be used in war.
[/quote]

You make some decent arguments. The fact is, however, that Methrage knew fully well what he was getting himself into when he did what he did. Beyond the few aid packages that he has received (and the hilarious 50 tech to Smacky), there's no helping him beyond the multitudes of people willing to come into this thread without a clue in the world what's going on....only willing to argue for the sake of Methrage and his plight against GOONS. At least you're able to process information and come up with reasonable arguments, as opposed to the usual step into thread, repeat what someone else said 15 pages ago, argue for a couple pages until they get bored or realize they don't know what they're talking about, and then depart only to be replaced by another idiot without a clue. What's done is done, and it affected him for less than ten minutes. RV was kind enough to provide his uranium so the little rogue could buy nukes. RIA is being spoken to about it, with mixed results...but no matter. Methrage has one more nuke, no more aid slots, and no money on hand. He's done.

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='nippy' date='16 April 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1271450236' post='2263160']
this is close to sig-worthy.
[/quote]
Not close at all.

[nippy]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='16 April 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1271451421' post='2263183']
Not close at all.
[/quote]


Haha, fair play.

[Oppressed]

This is a pretty nice thread thanks for making it brosef!

[wickedj]

[quote name='Alterego' date='16 April 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1271397461' post='2262428']
Another crime off the list of the new Hegemony. The last two of eternal war and sanctions as weapons are big ones.
[/quote]
When i began reading this i was all but then i saw your post and could read no further. Thank you for being a beacon of reasoning

Also sanctions are so meh

[Furril]

[size="4"]ATTN: Methrage and assorted folks not invited to the trade party.[/size]

We GOONS enjoy a good laugh at someones expense, but this has goon on long enough.

You see, we haven't maintained our tear harvesting equipment and I'm afraid that we are in danger of losing our primary tear collector.

[img]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/5403/gague.jpg[/img]


I'm asking as nicely as possible will you guys please stop talking and/or shut up until our equipment can cool down?

Perhaps keep it to 20 posts a day, that should do it.

Thanks in advance,

Furril

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Lamuella' date='16 April 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1271449262' post='2263138']
not speaking for Umbrella, but I can detail for you some of the things that make Methrage a rogue.

1) he's a one man alliance that aided members of an alliance that was at war with GOONS. Aiding someone in a war is de facto an act of aggression against the other side just as much as declaring war would be. Upon doing so, he announced that he was doing so and accepted the consequences of his actions.
2) He then encouraged members of the alliance that was at war with GOONS to join his one man alliance, and when one of them did, he claimed this constituted a state of war between himself and GOONS.

In other words, he is a one man alliance that has committed aggressive acts against members of another alliance. This gives justification both for him to be attacked and for him to be treated as a rogue.
[/quote]
Thank you.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 April 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1271450619' post='2263167']
This is really the crux of the disagreement. I don't agree, and I believe that inter-alliance rules of engagement are on my side there: if VE aid-bombs CSA, you could use that as a reason to attack us, but we wouldn't expect to get hit by your MDP partners 'in defence' too, and I would expect ours to defend us from your attack. (And before someone gets over-excited about that hypothetical situation, no I'm not planning to suggest it!)

The fact that Methrage is effectively a 1 man AA (I don't think any of the short term members of Citadel really knew what the 'alliance' was about) doesn't suddenly change the usual rules of aggression and defence, so while he gave you a good CB, he didn't actually start an aggressive war – he has not hit any Black nations and therefore can't reasonably be considered a danger to Black and thus a sanction target.

Of course if you believe that 'sanctions as a weapon' should be used in standard alliance wars then that is simply a disagreement, but I get the impression that GOONS in general are arguing that Methrage is a rogue, not that sanctions should always be used in war.
[/quote]

Your arguing that sanctions in this circumstance need the same criteria as a treaty activation, Mr. Senator, and that's where your opening yourself up to logical ownage:

1. Sanctions are commonly given as a courtesy against "rogues" of all types, between friends and acquaintances alike. This tells us two things: First, that the rationale behind enacting a sanction on someones behalf must by definition be different than a treaty enactment; and therefore the traditional notions of "aggression and defense" which would apply to 3rd parties in such treaty bound situations do not apply. Second, clearly some other rational must come into play. Rarely is the type of rogue and the exact specifics of the situation even necessary knowledge, and the dominant process is that the sanction just need pass a simple rational basis test with a "furtherance of justice" criteria as well. If you ask yourself plainly "is there a rational basis behind this alliance wanting a sanction against this nation?" and the answer is yes, then the sanctioning is warranted. If there is a rational basis for them requesting the sanction, i.e. "the nation is a rogue" would suffice, then you consider "would imposing this sanction be in the furtherance of justice?", and the answer to that question is usual readily apparent by the circumstance. If they are a rogue because their nation is flying the alliances personal flag and therefore the alliance thinks the nation should die, then its not. If its because the nation is being classified as a rogue due to the fact that he is aiding nations the alliance is at war with, such as here, then sanctioning him certainly is in the furtherance of justice, and the request has a rational basis.

In light of that, consider also that Umbrella is an ally of GOONS, so there is obviously a presumption in favor of their treaty partner when a request is made; and the above questions are presumed to be answered in the affirmative unless there are obvious circumstances to rebut them. Here, there are clearly no circumstances presented that would suffice. Note however that if there was, when faced with such a presumption, the burden of presentation of such circumstances would emphatically not be on Umbrella, and not even on GOONS once they have made a prima facie showing that there is a rational basis behind their request and granting it would be in the furtherance of justice, but on the nation in question himself. If the nation can present facts that would lead the objective reasonable person to believe that either of the above requirements have not been satisfied, then the sanction should be lifted. If he cannot, then it should remain.

2. Your best and obvious contention will be based around the fact that he was on an AA, even though it was a one man AA, and therefore this must follow the rules of sanctioning during wartime which are markedly different from that which I recited above. However, that assertion falls short of reason when viewed in light of common practice and circumstantial realism. Nearly every nation who commits a rogue action has some sort of AA, whether he be wearing a larger alliance affiliation which he has been disavowed from, or wearing some silly one of his own creation. When a nation falls into the latter category, there is never deference given to his affiliation. If such considerations were given to one man AA's, all the traditional elements of due process given to an alliance before a declaration of war was made would have to take place before the sanction could be enacted; and the floodgates of pre-sanction litigation would be opened wide. There would have to be a fact finding process, attempts to contact the nation and negotiate (we all just cant go around declaring war without diplomacy), etc. The hindrance that would be placed upon alliances simply trying to deal with a run of the mill rogue would be astronomical, unnecessary, and completely disproportionate to what is needed to satisfy a sense of justice in the situation. Furthermore, it would dilute the effectivness of a sanction itself in regards to rogue fighting, while simultaneously causing the alliance rouged upon more damage.

Here, it is undeniable that the affiliation in question was announced as a one man crusade, there is no question that he never intended it to be a legitimate alliance, and you cannot dispute that his actions thereafter point to the definition of the term "one man rogue". As such, he falls squarely into the category discussed in (2) and should be treated accordingly as laid out in (1). Giving the deference that you suggest, when both the above discussions are considered, would be detrimental to the senatorial process of the entirety of this planet.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[ktarthan]

Oh boy, that sure is a lot of words, mister. But, I like them and what they say.

[BlkAK47_002]

Awww GOONS went crying to Umbrella, I thought you guys we're tough, surely you can handle a one man alliance, who didn't even act aggresively towards you I might add.

I get the strangest feeling that you're only doing this because of your petty arguement in the Citadel DoW thread.

[Stilcho]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='16 April 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1271468369' post='2263492']
Awww GOONS went crying to Umbrella, I thought you guys we're tough, surely you can handle a one man alliance, who didn't even act aggresively towards you I might add.

I get the strangest feeling that you're only doing this because of your petty arguement in the Citadel DoW thread.
[/quote]

Let me guess. You read the first and last post then went hog wild.

heh. This game is everything I was promised it would be.

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Stilcho' date='16 April 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1271470000' post='2263527']
Let me guess. You read the first and last post then went hog wild.

heh. This game is everything I was promised it would be.
[/quote]
lol you call this hog wild?

Don't get me started

[ChairmanHal]

Cool box you opened, Pandora.

Actually it's probably not all that bad, but I find the fact that GOONS would use the sanctions system through Umbrella to try to hinder someone they don't like ironic on multiple levels.

[Noob Cake]

Methrage is a drama llama

[eyriq]

Green sphere, where Bob Janova and two politically neutral Senators happens.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='17 April 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1271461992' post='2263372']
Oh boy, that sure is a lot of words, mister. But, I like them and what they say.
[/quote]

It was a slow afternoon :x

[quote name='eyriq' date='17 April 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1271485239' post='2263698']
Green sphere, where Bob Janova and two politically neutral Senators happens.
[/quote]

Yes, if there is one thing that this all goes to show, its that [i]everyone [/i]should join green.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[nippy]

Damn, Impero...I find it atrocious that people would nonchalantly bypass your thread-ending masterpiece and continue to make assumptions based upon their hatred for GOONS. Respectable post, man.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='16 April 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1271446950' post='2263064']
*sigh* I truly wish people would grow as tired of making this argument as I am of refuting it.

[b]Why in the world would we put ourselves in the way of more harm than necessary?[/b]

[b]If we can prevent damage, we will![/b] This does not mean that we are scared of it by any stretch. The leap of logic needed to make this assertion astounds me.

Edit: clarity
[/quote]
You should totally put Methrage on an eternal ZI target list. You'll barely take any damage at all when you attack his next nation after he rerolls.

Honestly, I can't believe people still don't see the problem with that statement.

[shilo]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='17 April 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1271500613' post='2263762']
You should totally put Methrage on an eternal ZI target list. You'll barely take any damage at all when you attack his next nation after he rerolls.

Honestly, I can't believe people still don't see the problem with that statement.
[/quote]
Because it's a sinister logic that most of us thought disappeared for good, obviously, that isn't the case. Which is quite saddening, I have to say.

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='shilo' date='17 April 2010 - 05:53 AM' timestamp='1271501581' post='2263765']
Because it's a sinister logic that most of us thought disappeared for good, obviously, that isn't the case. Which is quite saddening, I have to say.
[/quote]

I wish you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

I'm glad to know both you and haflinger's alliances would willingly bite the bullet when their is a rogue supporting wars against your alliances rather than destroying a precious trade circle on your sphere. You both clearly have your alliances' best interests at heart there. Sanctions are literally the worst weapon ever known and more damaging than any number of nukes.

edit: lol he actually compared it to eZI. Seriously, I hope you guys send free money and tech to rogues attacking your alliance or anyone aiding rogues attacking your alliance. It's about time some people put their money where their mouth is!, etc.

Edited April 17, 2010 by mrcalkin

[shilo]

[quote name='mrcalkin' date='17 April 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1271502210' post='2263767']
I wish you had the slightest clue what you were talking about.

I'm glad to know both you and haflinger's alliances would willingly bite the bullet when their is a rogue supporting wars against your alliances rather than destroying a precious trade circle on your sphere. You both clearly have your alliances' best interests at heart there. Sanctions are literally the worst weapon ever known and more damaging than any number of nukes.

edit: lol he actually compared it to eZI. Seriously, I hope you guys send free money and tech to rogues or anyone aiding rogues attacking your alliance. It's about time some people put their money where their mouth is!, etc.
[/quote]
Check his aid slots, then go back talking big again.


And since I don't consider him a rogue against Goons at all, obviously I don't support sanctions against him. I have no problem with sanctions in general, against real rogues they are a valid tool to contain the damage they can do, I just have a problem if an alliances declares someone they just don't like a rogue and then sanction him.

[nippy]

[quote name='shilo' date='17 April 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1271503473' post='2263770']
Check his aid slots, then go back talking big again.


And since I don't consider him a rogue against Goons at all, obviously I don't support sanctions against him. I have no problem with sanctions in general, against real rogues they are a valid tool to contain the damage they can do, I just have a problem if an alliances declares someone they just don't like a rogue and then sanction him.
[/quote]

You should go rogue like Methrage did, then. Do it. Interfere with another alliance's affairs, aid nations at war with them, and beg for cash like your little friend here. You'll meet the same fate he is.