Sanctions as a Weapon

[Dr Beefstupid]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1271962074' post='2270900']
I for one would actively encourage it. Far too few are willing to stand up for what is right these days. Even fewer are willing to make a stand. More people need to be like Methrage and myself. Only then shall the armies of the right be filled and a better world can be made, its fields watered with the blood of the wicked.[/color]
[/quote]

Yes! Exactly! Make a stand for what you believe in. Cyber Nations is an important community and we are the elite few able to do something about it.

Let those who have not the E-strength/resolve resign themselves to non E-issues like starvation, poverty, and disease and whatever it is commoners do.

[Bob Janova]

To Methrage, sorry, had wires crossed in my brain there!

[lightningjim]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1271963068' post='2270917']
[color="#0000FF"]You do not have reasons. I have never acknowledged your having reasons. As such it can only be concluded that you are doing this without reason, and I do not approve. Now, you will either provide an acceptable justification I shall be forced to take further action in regards to your alliance. This will be your last warning.[/color]
[/quote]

Refusal to acknowledge someone's stated reasons to then infer that there is no reason is a fairly illogical, irrational way of coming to a conclusion. Ignoring someone's reasons does not mean they don't exist. Refusal to acknowledge someone's reasons is NOT the same as refusal to acknowledge the validity of the stated reasons. The later conclusion is that the reasons EXIST, albeit that you disagree with them.

I am seriously thinking your bias against GOONS is clouding your logic which then allows you to come to your preconceived conclusion. Your own bias is in your way of coming to an understanding of what occurred. Note: understanding is not the same as agreeing.

And, of course, this probably explains why the discussion with you appears to be pointless. It virtually "goes in one ear and out the other".

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1271963068' post='2270917']
[color="#0000FF"]I do not see a satisfactory explanation anywhere. I am not satisfied. I demand satisfaction. You have failed to satisfy me with provisions of reason. You instead provide drivel and empty rhetoric. That does not satisfy me.[/color][/quote]
And vice versa. Get off of your soapbox and actually listen for a change. Perhaps a satisfying discussion can be held.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Lightning Jim

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1271966123' post='2270982']
You would never have been nuked by him if you didn't declare a war on him, unless he attacked you (at which point he's clearly a rogue against you by any normal definition and a sanction would be uncontroversial).
[/quote]
I don't think we particularly care that it is controversial. It's what we feel is right.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1271966123' post='2270982']
And yes, my value judgement is just a subjective position, but it's one backed up by logical argument from precedent involving the way alliances deal with these issues, including GOONS against CSA in this very issue! Your argument appears to be 'well he's one nation so the rules are completely different', which is, well, not really based on anything.
[/quote]
Dealing with a rogue is not the same as dealing with an alliance - that is why the fact that he is a single nation is is an important distinction. Methrage has made it clear that he will afford every action in order to cause harm to GOONS, and he is a single nation acting independantly, he is a rogue.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1271966123' post='2270982']
Clearly you don't agree that an aid packet immediately means an aggressive war because you haven't sanctioned whoever it was that sent a pack of soldiers to [Methrage].
[/quote]
Since when have we said that an aid packet immediately means aggressive war? You seem to be picking and choosing individual circumstance to argue, when our stance is based on the entire situation. Methrage aided our enemy, flaunted the fact that it was to damage GOONS, refused to negotiate, "recognized a state of war" for ridiculous reasons, invited other parties to aid him/attack GOONS, publicly plotted his attack strategy against GOONS, etc., etc. All of this happened before we attacked and sanctioned him.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[lamuella]

people need to stop pretending that the only thing Methrage did was send an aid package. In every aspect of his behavior relating to this issue, he encouraged and invited war, not just "recognizing" a state of war, but promising to attack the moment he had a free offensive slot, and referring to people as "cowards" for not having attacked him already.

This isn't just someone who sent aid to the wrong person. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Since when have we said that an aid packet immediately means aggressive war?[/quote]
Here's one from the last round of the argument, from Sardonic (who I think is giving the official GOON position?):
[quote]The action of aiding an enemy of another alliance is a rogue action[/quote]

[quote]You seem to be picking and choosing individual circumstance to argue, when our stance is based on the entire situation.[/quote]
That's because the only concrete reason you guys have given for declaring Methrage a rogue (and therefore justifying the sanction request) is that you think providing aid is 'an aggressive action' (or a 'rogue action' in the latest round). The rest of it is just Methrage saying stuff, and the TOP/C&G front of Bipolar proved that people saying hostile things is not the same thing as aggression.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1271969660' post='2271057']
Here's one from the last round of the argument, from Sardonic (who I think is giving the official GOON position?):
[/quote]
I believe he was paraphrasing slightly - "The action of a sole nation aiding an enemy of another alliance with the intent to harm them is a rogue action" would be more correct. There's many situations where the original quote would not be true, but it's specific to the context of the current situation.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1271969660' post='2271057']
That's because the only concrete reason you guys have given for declaring Methrage a rogue (and therefore justifying the sanction request) is that you think providing aid is 'an aggressive action' (or a 'rogue action' in the latest round). The rest of it is just Methrage saying stuff, and the TOP/C&G front of Bipolar proved that people saying hostile things is not the same thing as aggression.
[/quote]
You can't just lump "saying stuff" into one catch-all category. From voicing your dislike of another nation/alliance to a alliance's official DoW - they're all "just saying stuff", but with extremely different consequences.

[b]Methrage's intent is to cause harm as an independant nation to GOONS for no particular reason[/b]. I cannot think of any better standard by which to define a rogue. His actions suggested it. His words confirmed it.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 April 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1271970432' post='2271077']
I believe he was paraphrasing slightly - "The action of a sole nation aiding an enemy of another alliance with the intent to harm them is a rogue action" would be more correct. There's many situations where the original quote would not be true, but it's specific to the context of the current situation.


You can't just lump "saying stuff" into one catch-all category. From voicing your dislike of another nation/alliance to a alliance's official DoW - they're all "just saying stuff", but with extremely different consequences.

[b]Methrage's intent is to cause harm as an independant nation to GOONS for no particular reason[/b]. I cannot think of any better standard by which to define a rogue. His actions suggested it. His words confirmed it.
[/quote]
My words confirmed my actions as much as the words by CnG members talking about taking sides confirmed for TOP, TORN, IRON & DAWN that they were going to be at war anyways. You could of waited and seen if I actually declared like most say TOP & allies should of done in the recent war, you're the aggressors in this situation at least as much as IRON and allies were aggressors in the recent war.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1271967645' post='2271015']
To Methrage, sorry, had wires crossed in my brain there!
[/quote]
He declined my generous offer of 200 soldiers!
I am greatly insulted.

[Bob Janova]

Obviously he was talking about Methrage, but just because you're an independent nation doesn't make actions that would otherwise not be aggressive (in the context of aggressive/defensive wars) become aggressive.

[quote]From voicing your dislike of another nation/alliance to a alliance's official DoW - they're all "just saying stuff", but with extremely different consequences.[/quote]
An alliance DoW is really a very special case; everything else [i]is[/i] just 'saying stuff'. In particular, saying stuff with an intent to harm has explicitly been rejected as being aggressive action (that's why TOP are paying reps and C&G got their MDP partners), and a recognition of hostilities is recognising a [i]defensive[/i] war. So none of Methrage's 'saying stuff' was anything other than him being loud and annoying – not justification for attack, never mind a sanction.

[lamuella]

[quote name='Methrage' date='22 April 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1271971929' post='2271114']
My words confirmed my actions as much as the words by CnG members talking about taking sides confirmed for TOP, TORN, IRON & DAWN that they were going to be at war anyways. You could of waited and seen if I actually declared like most say TOP & allies should of done in the recent war, you're the aggressors in this situation at least as much as IRON and allies were aggressors in the recent war.
[/quote]

you "recognized" a state of war with us long before we took any aggressive action towards you

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='22 April 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1271972091' post='2271118']
He declined my generous offer of 200 soldiers!
I am greatly insulted.
[/quote]
200 soldiers wasn't worth the aid slot, thanks for the 2k soldiers though, maybe this will mean more loot dropped on me by GOONS...

[Pearl]

[quote name='Methrage' date='22 April 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1271972811' post='2271132']
200 soldiers wasn't worth the aid slot, thanks for the 2k soldiers though, maybe this will mean more loot dropped on me by GOONS...
[/quote]

Man you are really dragging this thread out. This wasnt a good thread either.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 April 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1271972114' post='2271120']
An alliance DoW is really a very special case; everything else [i]is[/i] just 'saying stuff'. In particular, saying stuff with an intent to harm has explicitly been rejected as being aggressive action (that's why TOP are paying reps and C&G got their MDP partners), and a recognition of hostilities is recognising a [i]defensive[/i] war. So none of Methrage's 'saying stuff' was anything other than him being loud and annoying – not justification for attack, never mind a sanction.
[/quote]
You keep separating this into two different issues.

1) Methrage threatened us, among other "intangible" acts
2) Methrage aided our enemy

It seems that you are arguing on the basis that because you feel that individually neither of these things warrants a sanction, that it does not matter that they happened together. It is here that I disagree. Circumstance can be very important when it comes to infering the intent of words. If a drunk comes up to you in a bar and rants about how he's going to break in to your house and steal your stuff, you'll probably just ignore the guy. But then when you see him tapping at your window shouting the same thing later that night, you are damn well going to call the cops. (Note for all of you analogy nitpickers, this is not an analogy - this is an example of when circumstance can warrant different responses to 'just saying stuff')

Edit:
[quote name='Methrage' date='22 April 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1271972811' post='2271132']
200 soldiers wasn't worth the aid slot, thanks for the 2k soldiers though, maybe this will mean more loot dropped on me by GOONS...
[/quote]
Nope, just more tech for me.

Edited April 22, 2010 by ktarthan

[Sephiroth]

I received aid labeled "Financial Assistance" from Gremlins, does this put GOONS at war with Gremlins or only those you stand a chance against?

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Methrage' date='22 April 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1271973888' post='2271164']
I received aid labeled "Financial Assistance" from Gremlins, does this put GOONS at war with Gremlins or only those you stand a chance against?
[/quote]
This issue has already been resolved diplomatically over IRC.

[lamuella]

fundamentally, Bob, it comes down to this.

You don't think Methrage warranted being sanctioned because you don't think any one individual action was egregious enough to act upon.

We think Methrage warranted being sanctioned because the sum total of his actions when taken together was egregious enough to act upon.

In other words, we are looking at the situation from different perspectives, and are thus unlikely to reach the same conclusion.

[magicmountain]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='22 April 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1271974044' post='2271168']
This issue has already been resolved diplomatically over IRC.
[/quote]
But that's impossible! Haven't you been paying attention to Methrage? GOONS are absolutely impossible to deal with diplomatically.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='magicmountain' date='22 April 2010 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1271974832' post='2271189']
But that's impossible! Haven't you been paying attention to Methrage? GOONS are absolutely impossible to deal with diplomatically.
[/quote]

I will testify to this.
I went to GOONS IRC channel to resolve the aid issue diplomatically and I was barraged with terrible namecalling and insults like the following:
<Ktar|GOONS> I demand reps for the damage those soldiers do
<Matthew_PK[GRE]> Ktar, plz send the bill to RamirusMaximus
<Matthew_PK[GRE]> tell him I said to put it on his tab
<Ktar|GOONS> I lost some soldiers in a GA but got 10t, so I'll call it even
<Ktar|GOONS> Case closed
<Matthew_PK[GRE]> 50 DKP minus
<Ktar|GOONS> Yes. As punishment you don't get to roll on any boss loot next raid.

I am not certain what boss or raid Ktar is referring to, but I suspect it has something to do with an unconditional surrender.

[magicmountain]

Don't let Ktarthan's mumbo jumbo confuse you, he has a touch of the downs.

Edited April 22, 2010 by magicmountain

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]Let's all be realistic here. GOONS is not upset at Methrage because of the aid. They are against him because he has voiced an opinion. So they went after him. Sort of how they tried to go after me for voicing an opinion against their practices. The sanctioning of Methrage is an attack on free speech, and Umbrella is accomplice to this attack.[/color]

[Stilcho]

sounded so much better in my head

Edited April 22, 2010 by Stilcho

[salithus]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1271978088' post='2271242']
[color="#0000FF"]Let's all be realistic here. GOONS is not upset at Methrage because of the aid. They are against him because he has voiced an opinion. So they went after him. Sort of how they tried to go after me for voicing an opinion against their practices. The sanctioning of Methrage is an attack on free speech, and Umbrella is accomplice to this attack.[/color]
[/quote]

Why are you attacking our freedom to express ourselves?

[lamuella]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='22 April 2010 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1271978088' post='2271242']
[color="#0000FF"]Let's all be realistic here. GOONS is not upset at Methrage because of the aid. They are against him because he has voiced an opinion. So they went after him. Sort of how they tried to go after me for voicing an opinion against their practices. The sanctioning of Methrage is an attack on free speech, and Umbrella is accomplice to this attack.[/color]
[/quote]

[color=#FF9999"]Let's all be realistic here. Rebel Virginia isn't upset at GOONS for attacking Methrage. He's not actually upset at all. It's just that if he goes more than ten minutes without someone paying close attention to him then he has to face up to his own company, which is so utterly unbearable as to drive men to drink. Sort of like how every post he makes on any of these forums is him trying to stir something up so people are paying attention to him. Basically, he's an egotistical limelight-addict, and every time we reply to him, we feed into his own vastly bloated sense of self-importance[/color]

[Bob Janova]

That is really 100% accurate and it makes me feel dirty when he jumps onto an issue on the same side as me.

[quote]In other words, we are looking at the situation from different perspectives, and are thus unlikely to reach the same conclusion. [/quote]
I think at this point it's better to leave it there, indeed.