An Open Discussion On The Nature Of Trade Sanctions

[JT Jag]

Due to a recent conflict between a certain small AA and a certain well-known alliance which I may possess a certain amount of affiliation with, the nature of wartime sanctions has come under question as various people have begun asking the important question "to what degree are trade sanctions to be used?".

I'm curious as to see everyone's views on this, so here are the questions I want you to answer.

1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?

2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?

3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?

4. In any case, would you support the use of trade sanctions as a tool of war in a conflict between two or more recognized alliances?

BONUS QUESTION: If you answered no to that last question, consider this scenario: a large alliance declares war on an entire color-based trading or defense bloc that collectively possesses majority control of their sphere (NOIR, Blunity, ect), does that bloc have the right to use its influence in their color's senate to sanction the attacking alliance?

If you have the time, please include justification of your stance. I eagerly anticipate all responses.

[ktarthan]

I think this is an interesting question, and one I'd like to hear opinions about.

Personally, I believe that in war an alliance should use every tool at its disposal, including sanctions. Also, if sanctions were more widely used in alliance-alliance conflicts, it could boost the relevance of the senate seats.

One caveat is the sanction limit. In a conflict with thousands of nations, it would be trivial to use every sanction available, which would leave none available to protect the sphere from rogues. It could turn into a balancing act, to say the least.

Edit: Grammar

Edited September 10, 2010 by ktarthan

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284144947' post='2448950']
1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?

2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?

3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?[/quote]
Did you mean they initiated the war or merely brought it to the level of nuclear weapons being used? There's a big difference there and with the latter, no, I don't see it alone being cause for sanctions. Rather it's the reason for war which would be the pressing concern. If they're being tech raided and choose the nuclear option then I'd actually wish to see them protected from sanctions on my sphere, possibly sanctioning the raider. If it's a case where both parties legitimately feel wronged then I would prefer taking no sides with no sanctions being conducted against either party. If they just declared war for kicks or even to test the war options then I would approve of sanctions against them.

[quote]4. In any case, would you support the use of trade sanctions as a tool of war in a conflict between two or more recognized alliances?[/quote]
This depends upon the reason for war and the goals one has.

[wickedj]

First off what do sanctions honestly achieve? we have secret trades for a reason..most if not ALL rogues have taken the time to secure at the very least some uranium. As far as aid goes unless your name is Methrage then you likely went rogue with a very good warchest at worst you have people who send the rogue some tech. But how many rogues really get aid after they go rogue

[quote]1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/quote]
As said above, what will it honestly accomplish..for the occasional terrible rogue you get their uranium but most are pretty well prepared

[quote]2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/quote]
icwutudidthar. It depends, did this alliance declare war? or is this a group of rogues ala THE DARK LORDS

[quote]3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?[/quote]
See previous question

[quote]If you answered no to that last question, consider this scenario: a large alliance declares war on an entire color-based trading or defense bloc that collectively possesses majority control of their sphere (NOIR, Blunity, ect), does that bloc have the right to use its influence in their color's senate to sanction the attacking alliance?[/quote]
Its called war, if you seriously want to avoid the nukes that are coming i strongly suggest peace mode. I, for one, would welcome another sphere to attack aqua. It would relive the boredom of paying bills

Edited September 10, 2010 by wickedj

[ratonbox]

If you can take the e-"lawyering" from after the sanction(or if you don't care that much about what other people think about how you are managing your senate spot, especially if they are from another team), sure, why not?!

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Sanctions always hurt innocents and rarely do much else. No, I dont support their use against anyone except perhaps an alliance that had initiated the use of sanctions as a weapon already (as in the /b/icide.

[Fernando12]

If it is war and you have a Senator that will sanction nations to favor you then use it.

Sanctions should be used in planet bob's world wars as well.

It will create more drama and add to the strategic importance of being in your alliance's team color.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Fernando12

[Sephiroth]

So far I've been on sanctioned on GOONS request on White (STA), Black (Umbrella), Purple (Legion), Maroon (GOD), Yellow (FAN), Aqua (MK), Brown (Carp Diem) and Blue (MCXA). Pink, Green and Red are the only ones who don't have senators who have used trade sanctions in an alliance war at GOONS request so far.

Edit: Almost forgot about the sanction from Legion on Purple.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Methrage

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284155704' post='2449118']
So far I've been on sanctioned on GOONS request on White (STA), Black (Umbrella), Maroon (GOD), Yellow (FAN), Aqua (MK), Brown (Carp Diem) and Blue (MCXA). Pink, Green and Red are the only ones who don't have senators who have used trade sanctions in an alliance war at GOONS request so far.
[/quote]Good to know, but not on topic.

[lonewolfe2015]

Sanctioning nations while in large scale war is foolish and will only cause you to get hurt back and eventually color wars to break out destabilizing spheres.

As for the questions at hand -

1. Yes
2. Yes - if they are the rogues/aggressors
3. No - we view an alliance as more than 5 members
4. No

Detailed enough?

[Schattenmann]

[color="#000080"]1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/color]
Yes. If nothing precipitated the attack and he attacked first, then he should probably be sanctioned.
[color="#000080"]
2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/color]
No. An alliance is an alliance and an alliance war is an alliance war.
[color="#000080"]
3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?[/color]
No, see above.
[color="#000080"]
4. In any case, would you support the use of trade sanctions as a tool of war in a conflict between two or more recognized alliances?[/color]
If two alliances that are at war have Senators, RAW is WAR. Uninvolved alliances (allies or no) should mind their own damned business.
[color="#000080"]
BONUS QUESTION: If you answered no to that last question, consider this scenario: a large alliance declares war on an entire color-based trading or defense bloc that collectively possesses majority control of their sphere (NOIR, Blunity, ect), does that bloc have the right to use its influence in their color's senate to sanction the attacking alliance?[/color]
Yes. If the constituents on the sphere disapprove, then the Senator will be removed democratically.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Banksy]

It's a valid tactic for a war imo. I don't see why it hasn't been used en-mass yet, it's like the archaic nuclear first strike policies.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1284176286' post='2449459']
It's a valid tactic for a war imo. I don't see why it hasn't been used en-mass yet, it's like the archaic nuclear first strike policies.
[/quote]


The limits on the amount of sanctions a senator can perform make it tough for it to be used en masse.

[Hereno]

I agree with sanctions in any/all ways. I don't see any reason not to use every tool at one's disposal to increase the odds of doing as much damage and taking as little damage as possible. Team Colors could be a very interesting component of war if we'd stop trying to be so uptight about every little thing people do to us.

[Ashoka the Great]

As one of the more (in)famous users of the sanction feature, no doubt some will take me to task for these answers....regardless of what I say.

[quote]1. Do you support the use of trade sanctions on an unaligned or one-man AA nuclear nation that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/quote]

Yes.

Whew, that one was easy.

[quote]2. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a fairly unorganized nuclear-equipped micro-AA (below 5 members) that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance?[/quote]

I'm leaning toward 'yes' but I'm not entirely certain. Therefore, put me down as a firm 'it depends'.

[quote]3. If so, do you support the use of trade sanctions on a reasonably organized nuclear-equipped AA that has initiated a nuclear conflict against a recognized alliance, but still has less members than what your alliance's charter defines as an "alliance"?[/quote]

No. All wars are nuclear now. I'm not entirely happy with that, but that's irrelevant.

[quote]4. In any case, would you support the use of trade sanctions as a tool of war in a conflict between two or more recognized alliances?[/quote]

No.

[quote]BONUS QUESTION: If you answered no to that last question, consider this scenario: a large alliance declares war on an entire color-based trading or defense bloc that collectively possesses majority control of their sphere (NOIR, Blunity, ect), does that bloc have the right to use its influence in their color's senate to sanction the attacking alliance?[/quote]

No.






"But wait a second," someone will say. "Weren't you the guy who went around sanctioning NPO nations during the noCB War?"

Why yes I was, and thank you for remembering! Please also remember that I was sanctioned [i]first[/i] and that I offered to work with the NPO with regard to Red Sphere stability. Only after I was placed on EZI and told that I would "never play Cyber Nations again" that I began sanctioning NPO members. Until then my sole sanction-related action on Red was to remove my own sanction.

The point of my taking the Red Senate seat was not to serve as a prelude to sanctions, but rather to assert that no single alliance ought to control [i]any[/i] color sphere.

Sorry for the de-rail, but given the tendencies of some....I thought it was to nip that in the bud right now.

Please continue.




EDIT: Missed the Bonus question. Also, don't really feel like giving a long, drawn-out justification.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Ashoka the Great

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1284186397' post='2449609']
I'm leaning toward 'yes' but I'm not entirely certain. Therefore, put me down as a firm 'it depends'.
[/quote]
If it depends on the situation, what do you think of the use of sanctions by GOONS & allies in my current war with them? What about the first one I had with them? Also what do you think of alliances not even allied with GOONS carrying out their sanctions for them?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Methrage

[Jgoods45]

If we deem you to be a rogue we will use every tool at our disposal to deal with you and that includes the use of sanctions.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1284202420' post='2449713']
If we deem you to be a rogue we will use every tool at our disposal to deal with you and that includes the use of sanctions.
[/quote]
What does it take to deem someone a rogue? I see a lot of alliances who don't take time or care to figure out if someone is a rogue and just sanction whoever someone else deems a rogue upon request, despite having no connection to the incident or being aware of the circumstances.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284202602' post='2449714']
What does it take to deem someone a rogue? I see a lot of alliances who don't take time or care to figure out if someone is a rogue and just sanction whoever someone else deems a rogue upon request, despite having no connection to the incident or being aware of the circumstances.
[/quote]

Unprovoked attacks on our members. It's simple really.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1284202751' post='2449715']
Unprovoked attacks on our members. It's simple really.
[/quote]
So you would only support using them on those who attack your alliance's members unprovoked or those who attack alliances you have treaties with as well? Also how do you know if an attack is unprovoked? Unless its a tech raid an attack is usually provoked in some manner, even if you don't agree with their reasoning.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284202945' post='2449716']
So you would only support using them on those who attack your alliance's members unprovoked or those who attack alliances you have treaties with as well? Also how do you know if an attack is unprovoked? Unless its a tech raid an attack is usually provoked in some manner, even if you don't agree with their reasoning.
[/quote]

We support the use of sanctions on any nation deemed to be a rogue. As for the unprovoked part, I treat all attacks on our AA while we are in a state of peace to be unprovoked and those nations responsible will be treated as rogues and will be sanctioned if necessary.

[Hiro Nakara]

Any decent rogue would change to grey or have secret trades. They are a valid tool in my eyes.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1284179281' post='2449513']
The limits on the amount of sanctions a senator can perform make it tough for it to be used en masse.
[/quote]
True, but it would be useful in getting nations with low warchests in bill lock or simply temporarily disrupting trade circles amongst large, inactive nations during war. If it was thought out properly, I imagine it could be very effective. It would make the races for peace time senate seats more interesting too, and might breath some life into colour politics.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1284204159' post='2449723']
Any decent rogue would change to grey or have secret trades. They are a valid tool in my eyes.
[/quote]
Being on Grey doesn't prevent you from getting sanctioned on colors, so that's pretty pointless I realized this war. The only time its beneficial to be on Grey is if you're already sanctioned on every color, as then you would need to be on grey when you send/receive any aid or initiate trades with anyone. Secret trades are useful though.

[Hiro Nakara]

Being on grey stops any colour sanctioning you, as grey has no senator and as for loosing +5 happiness I was okay with that, it didn't even dent my money. And allowed me to fight 6 people without any troubles of having to find uranium or drop in soldier efficiency.

To clarify, I also agree with using them in alliance wars. They are a tool and should be used like any other weapon.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Hiro Nakara