Sanctions as a Weapon

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1271401974' post='2262544']
No one has lost confidence in the black sphere's capacity to trade. No one but rogues are afraid of sanction.
[/quote]
Keep telling yourself that, rogue can mean anything. Your own charter could place any numbered alliance under the definition of rogue with your closet clause.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Methrage

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='nippy' date='16 April 2010 - 02:11 AM' timestamp='1271401853' post='2262543']
By that rationale, you also consider use of spies unjust, because they too can be used without meeting a person on the battlefield.
[/quote]

No, If someone spies on me I have the opportunity to spies them right back or declare on them if they are caught. You can only spy a nation that is within range to attack you back and I have the opportunity to prepare my nation against spy attacks. Sanctions can be executed without any recourse for retaliation and there is no defense to them.

[magicninja]

Brown eh?

Kevlar will sanction in exchange for Nagu.

[nippy]

[quote name='magicninja' date='16 April 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1271402076' post='2262547']
Brown eh?

Kevlar will sanction in exchange for Nagu.
[/quote]

Nagu's been MIA lately...we're just hoping she doesn't pull a Clayster and go inactive on us.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1271402000' post='2262545']
Keep telling yourself that, rogue can mean anything. Your own charter could place any numbered alliance under the definition of rogue with your closet clause.
[/quote]

The limited implementation of sanctions by the black sphere to overly aggressive non-allied nations whom are incapable of respecting alliance sovereignty implies that no, rogue can not "mean anything". It is not a nebulous term.

Also, our clause is not used to define rogues but used to define what is and isn't a legitimate war and what is and isn't a legitimate alliance in our eyes.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Alonois

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:16 AM' timestamp='1271402189' post='2262549']
The limited implementation of sanctions by the black sphere to overly aggressive non-allied nations whom are incapable of respecting Alliance sovereignty implies that no, rogue can not "mean anything". It is not a nebulous term.
[/quote]
Allied to who? I'm pretty sure I was sanctioned while I had two members, so that wasn't unaligned. Your charter says under 15 isn't an alliance, unless you change your mind, then you can consider anything you want either an alliance or rogue entity.

[Alonois]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1271402334' post='2262551']
Allied to who? I'm pretty sure I was sanctioned while I had two members, so that wasn't unaligned. Your charter says under 15 isn't an alliance, unless you change your mind, then you can consider anything you want either an alliance or rogue entity.
[/quote]

Our charter is our charter, it is not the charter of all of the black sphere. And our clause is used to provide a yardstick to members to measure to what extent their actions will have consequences for the rest of the alliance. The fifteen alliance is, again, as was earlier described, a yardstick for power. An alliance is not just a collection of friends but an entity which can defend itself. Which has the capacity if not the ability to create equivalent or greater problems for any nation attacking them.

When alliance is being used, it is a term denoting a degree of power. Not just connections.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Alonois

[Biazt]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1271401617' post='2262539']
Let's break this down.

Does a sanction affect more than one person? Yes. To some extent, yes. Thus, the sanctioned nation should negatively affect more than five nations. Does a rogue do that? Yes. A rogue threatens anyone within his range. This is easily more than five nations (Unless, I don't know, you're pink). It's a basic cost/reward thing. What is the cost of a sanction? Potentially five troubled nations. What is the reward? Weakening, perhaps crippling a nation that negatively affects many nations.

Does the use of sanctions make a color sphere unreliable? No. That would require an excess number of sanctions, upwards of close to 25% of the members of that sphere. That is not the case. That is a doomsday scenario present in no sphere. Since that situation does not exist, it is not a viable point of contention.

And to further sum this up for you, because it's aware you care for you, you directly involved yourself in a war by trying to defend members of an alliance. Your disregard for legitimate warfare, and far more importantly your inflated sense of self worth that left you convinced you could handle an alliance of the size and nature of GOONS (GOONS #1, baby), means you aren't just a bothersome gnat for GOONS, you're a nuisance for anyone else. This further proves you have no respect for Black sphere alliances. Your arrogance, disregard for the generally accepted rules of engagement, and insulting demeanor indicates some one who will go to war with anyone to satisfy himself. If you will not respect the sovereignty of the black sphere alliances, then these alliances are well within their right to levy all the power at their disposal to force you to either respect that sovereignty or break.

Afterall, this is what you yourself tried to do not long ago. Use your power, or rather perceived power, to force GOONS to back down from a war with CSA.
[/quote]

Maybe you should have thought of all this before you went rogue.

[NickCooley]

This discussion hurts my thinking parts. Why in fact yes, that IS brain matter leaking from my ears. What fun!

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1271401974' post='2262544']
Three people declaring war on one person cannot be reciprocated by that person. Does that make this unjust? No. This is the nature of war. War is not a game of honor, war is a game of power. Whoever has the capacity to wield their power properly wins.

Honor is the refuge of the losing side. It has no actual bearing on the engaging of war. If you wish to impose your sense of honor, then levy power to do so. Have the courage of your convictions.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. If 3 people declare on me I certainly have the opportunity to retaliate with GA, CM, Air, Nukes, Spies and Navy.

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1271401974' post='2262544']
Honor is the refuge of the losing side.
[/quote]

No, honor is a self imposed code of ethical conduct and if you don't get it, it can't really be explained to you.

[Biazt]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1271402067' post='2262546']
Sanctions can be executed without any recourse for retaliation and there is no defense to them.
[/quote]

There's a very easy defense to sanctions: don't be a rogue.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1271402474' post='2262553']
Our charter is our charter, it is not the charter of all of the black sphere. And our clause is used to provide a yardstick to members to measure to what extent their actions will have consequences for the rest of the alliance. The fifteen alliance is, again, as was earlier described, a yardstick for power. An alliance is not just a collection of friends but an entity which can defend itself. Which has the capacity if not the ability to create equivalent or greater problems for any nation attacking them.

When alliance is being used, it is a term denoting a degree of power. Not just connections.
[/quote]
My point was though that rogue can mean anything for you, thus you might request Umbrella to sanction anyone and they'll do it without question. Does rogue mean 1 person not allied to anyone who is declared upon or maybe if I have 2 members when declared on its not rogue?

How about 3 members, is that rogue? Is there a set criteria for rogue or do you make it up as you go along?

[Alonois]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 02:22 AM' timestamp='1271402510' post='2262556']
That is incorrect. If 3 people declare on me I certainly have the opportunity to retaliate with GA, CM, Air, Nukes, Spies and Navy.

No, honor is a self imposed code of ethical conduct and if you don't get it, it can't really be explained to you.
[/quote]

But you cannot create three members and attack with equivalent force or with equal resources. Would you say it is honorable for three men to kick one man? Is this your honor?

Honorable action, in war, is the cry of those who have been outmaneuvered and have lost. Honor's only viable place is in personal interaction. In war, the goal is victory. Honor is only a comfort.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1271402626' post='2262558']
My point was though that rogue can mean anything for you, thus you might request Umbrella to sanction anyone and they'll do it without question. Does rogue mean 1 person not allied to anyone who is declared upon or maybe if I have 2 members when declared on its not rogue?

How about 3 members, is that rogue? Is there a set criteria for rogue or do you make it up as you go along?
[/quote]

We do not define rogue. Our charter defines what we perceive as legitimate sovereign entities that, to mess with, would create greater problems for all members.

Umbrellas sanctioning of you is not simply "because we asked". Your lack of capacity to recognize the strength of alliances, as well as your self absorbed nature makes you a public nuisance if not a legitimate threat (And judging by the charts, I'm guessing you're not). A sanction is a corrective measure, both against you and future rogues who would think themselves so high and mighty as to interfere with alliances.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Alonois

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:24 AM' timestamp='1271402646' post='2262559']
But you cannot create three members and attack with equivalent force or with equal resources. Would you say it is honorable for three men to kick one man? Is this your honor?

Honorable action, in war, is the cry of those who have been outmaneuvered and have lost. Honor's only viable place is in personal interaction. In war, the goal is victory. Honor is only a comfort.
[/quote]
You might not care about honor and respect, but you cost Umbrella a lot with this. You guys never had any to begin with.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Biazt' date='16 April 2010 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1271402595' post='2262557']
There's a very easy defense to sanctions: don't be a rogue.
[/quote]

From Merriam Webster

Main Entry: rogue
Pronunciation: \ˈrōg\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1561

1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation


Ok, I think I am safe.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']
Not only did Xavii screw my trades, but members of OG and LoSS[/quote]
Xavii's made a public offer to these nations to assist in locating new trading partners

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']
although if your going to use your sanction as a weapon in war people won't feel secure with you holding it except your allies.[/quote]
Except where sanctions are used against rogues, of course. I would argue that it achieves quite the opposite e.g. if alliances see that they can rely on their team senators to assist them by sanctioning rogues, it builds confidence in the trading sphere.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']I think its cheap shot more than anything and it affects more than just the one person, so it tends to be unpopular to do.[/quote]
As above, it's a tool that is quite clearly available to use by senators as they see fit. If such popular support for rogue nations was really evident on Planet Bob, I doubt you'd ever see a team senator exercise their power to sanction nations.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']Anyways mainly I considered both Xavii and Umbrella friends in the past, so I'm mostly surprised he would blindly do as GOONS ask of him with it and am more disturbed he would do that than the actual losing my trades part.[/quote]
You forget that Umbrella are our friends too. Perhaps their actions would indicate which friendship they value more, due to your behaviour in the past week or more?

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']The use of sanctions does make a color sphere unreliable as trades randomly get destroyed[/quote]
It's hardly random, unless you're discussing your acts of war against my alliance. There are consequences for such actions - this is one of them.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271401333' post='2262535']seeing how these senators are on black use sanctions without question, maybe its for the best I move onto a different color anyways even if I had planned to keep that team color forever.
[/quote]
As above, the use of the sanction can be solely attributed to the aggressive actions and behavior you've chosen to pursue against my alliance. In simple terms, ye reap wot ye sow, my friend.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1271402646' post='2262559']
But you cannot create three members and attack with equivalent force or with equal resources.
[/quote]

I beg to differ.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='16 April 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1271402757' post='2262562']
As above, it's a tool that is quite clearly available to use by senators as they see fit. If such popular support for rogue nations was really evident on Planet Bob, I doubt you'd ever see a team senator exercise their power to sanction nations.
[/quote]
I don't consider myself rogue, but I do have a lot of people who support me here. I guess we'll see if his misuse of the senate seat has an effect on him keeping it. I remember I had a stickied topic in FCC advising everyone to vote Xavii, hopefully thats not there anymore.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Methrage

[Alonois]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1271402819' post='2262565']
I beg to differ.
[/quote]

Then conjure up two nations of equivalent strength.

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 02:29 AM' timestamp='1271402979' post='2262570']
I don't consider myself rogue, but I do have a lot of people who support me here. I guess we'll see if his misuse of the senate seat has an effect on him keeping it.
[/quote]

Who are your supporters? I count two, one of which only supports you out of a disdain for sanctions as a whole it seems.

Far more importantly, the duty of black sphere senators is first to the members of the black sphere.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Alonois

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 03:30 AM' timestamp='1271403008' post='2262571']
Then conjure up two nations of equivalent strength.



Who are your supporters? I count two, one of which only supports you out of a disdain for sanctions as a whole it seems.

Far more importantly, the duty of black sphere senators is first to the members of the black sphere.
[/quote]
I was a member of the black team until Xavii caused me to leave by sanctioning me, making clear as long as he is senator I'm unwelcome there and trading with black nations.

Edit: I've been a member of the black team since 9/6/2007 when I created my nation, never considered switching until Xavii sanctioned me. Although I changed it last night when I saw I was sanctioned and lost all my trades.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Methrage

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Alonois' date='16 April 2010 - 02:30 AM' timestamp='1271403008' post='2262571']
Then conjure up two nations of equivalent strength.
[/quote]

No need when I can return the attacks of all nations I am fighting whether they are 1 or 6.

[Biazt]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1271402743' post='2262561']
From Merriam Webster

Main Entry: rogue
Pronunciation: \ˈrōg\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1561

1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation


Ok, I think I am safe.
[/quote]

Did you honestly just look up a term that means something completely different in CN's context in webster? Please tell me you did not do this.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Biazt

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Methrage' date='15 April 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1271399702' post='2262492']
I remember, but you guys said you wouldn't recognize that as war so it was resolved already. A week later suddenly I start getting surrender terms sent to me as I hear conflicting things on whether we are at war. Then you guys say again that doesn't mean we are at war, then I get declared on and you say I'm nuclear rogue.

If you weren't able to convince Umbrella to sanction me, you guys wouldn't of had the balls to attack at all.
[/quote]

Quit lying, please. It is unbecoming.

Point out where we said that you were absolved of your wrongdoings, please. I would [b]love[/b] to see the mental backflips you have taken to convince yourself that we have said this.

Also, Nippy attacked you before we even talked with Umbrella, so what are you even trying to argue this for?

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 12:13 AM' timestamp='1271402000' post='2262545']
Keep telling yourself that, rogue can mean anything. Your own charter could place any numbered alliance under the definition of rogue with your closet clause.
[/quote]
Again, [b]false[/b].

The GOONS closet has the right to define what it considers an alliance, beyond the definition provided by our charter, in atypical circumstances. However "rogue" is not a word spoken in our charter, therefore it is something held up to community standards. We consider you a rogue, and Umbrella (as well as many others) agree. Therefore, sanction.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1271402510' post='2262556']
No, honor is a self imposed code of ethical conduct and if you don't get it, it can't really be explained to you.
[/quote]
What I really don't understand is why you didn't kick up such a fuss when TOP exercised its senatorial powers to sanction rogues when you were a member of that Order, but you're quite impassioned enough now about the issue to come into a public forum and impugn the reputation of my alliance for making use of exactly the same powers?

[Alonois]

[quote name='Methrage' date='16 April 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1271403219' post='2262573']
I was a member of the black team until Xavii caused me to leave by sanctioning me, making clear as long as he is senator I'm unwelcome there and trading with black nations.
[/quote]

But you were a nuisance to the rest of the black sphere, and demonstrably so to at least two alliances (GOONS and Umbrella). Their duty is to the black sphere members as a whole. If a sacrifice is to be made, then it is the sacrifice of the one over the sacrifice of the many.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='16 April 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1271403235' post='2262574']
No need when I can return the attacks of all nations I am fighting whether they are 1 or 6.
[/quote]

Irrelevant. I asked you if this basic tactic was honorable. Have you rallied against teaming up against some one? Do you decry the dishonor of the most basic of tactics, the use of superior force?