An Open Discussion On The Nature Of Trade Sanctions

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1284204709' post='2449729']
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.
[/quote]
You don't need to be on a color to be sanctioned there, all sanctions done to me this war happened without me being on the colors I was sanctioned. I moved to grey in the beginning of the war, but noticed I was getting sanctioned on several colors regardless.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Methrage

[Hiro Nakara]

Hows that possible?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1284207005' post='2449738']
Hows that possible?
[/quote]
Before this war I always thought you needed to be on the color to get sanctioned as well, as I had never been sanctioned on colors I'm not on previously. Although apparently in the past it was mostly coincidence I never got sanctioned on a color I wasn't on at the moment or there was a change in how senate powers work.

[KingEd]

[b]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?[/b]

[font="Georgia"]Yes. However, this "action" is merely a gesture of respect and kindness towards the alliance requesting said sanction because they are a recognized alliance, etc.

I mean, think about it. Why should anyone sanction the alliance GOONS is at war with? They do it because it's the "morally" correct thing to do, and its been a long time precedent on BOB, as well as respect for GOONS and their allies. I remember my time in Government back when I was in MCXA; there would be a few request every week or so requesting sanctions on Nuclear Rogues. I would contact our Senator (Raunchero[Dr. Fresh]) and he would place the Sanction. Why did I agree? Who knows...its just what has been done before and will probably be continued.[/font]

[b]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?[/b]

[font="Georgia"]Yes. However, this "action" is merely a gesture of respect and kindness towards the alliance requesting said sanction because they are a recognized alliance, etc.[/font]

[b]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"?[/b]

[font="Georgia"]Yes. Same answer as above. Whether they are correct in their claim or not doesn't concern me.
[/font]
[b]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?[/b]

[font="Georgia"]No. Not that you can anyways. But even if you could, I would argue against it. Trades are vital to the Economies of a nation and to take them away for either side of a war [b]would render both sides crippled and highly inefficient. [/font]

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?[/b]

[font="Georgia"]They can definitely do that. It's within their power to do so as a complete color entity. The problem is that most wars don't involve Spheres going after Spheres or alliances going after Color United Blocs. I mean if you think about it, if everyone was in ONE sphere, then Senators would actually serve a good purpose. Large alliances would get bigger in order to obtain Senate votes, etc.
[/font]

[Midkn1ght]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284155704' post='2449118']
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.
[/quote]

You mean CSN. We get blamed for enough stuff without being blamed for stuff we didn't have anything to do with =P

[Uralica]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1284202751' post='2449715']
Unprovoked attacks on our members. It's simple really.
[/quote]

Question: does this include non-nuclear newbies who might not know any better? I'm guessing no, but I don't want to make a statement without knowing firsthand.

[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?
[/quote]Indeed.

[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]Not unless they do [OOC]stuff outside the scope of CN, like /b/ did. Hell, Graham sanctioned iCarly2 for dumping DT's guides on the forums.[/OOC]

[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 #2.

[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]See #2.

[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]See #2. Even in those scenarios, they'd want to make sure that no one in their bloc would be affected by the sanctions.

I think sanctions should be used sparingly. Graham's more stringent than I, but only where singular nuclear rogues are concerned. I have no qualms about getting singular nuke rogues sanctioned, he doesn't like it. (He gave me hell for having Richard B Riddick sanctioned on Blue ) But anything beyond three members becomes kind of impractical, and not only that, but you have to keep in mind that up to five other people are affected by a sanction, and any one or number of those could not be involved.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Uralica

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1284234744' post='2450082']
You mean CSN. We get blamed for enough stuff without being blamed for stuff we didn't have anything to do with =P
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it was Big Z, but I'll check to inbox to be sure.

Edit: Its been deleted by now due to battle reports, but I remember it was him because I tried getting him to remove it and recall mentioning I've never had issues or shown aggression towards GOD before so he should remove it.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Methrage

[Midkn1ght]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284234863' post='2450085']
I'm pretty sure it was Big Z, but I'll check to inbox to be sure.

Edit: Its been deleted by now due to battle reports, but I remember it was him because I tried getting him to remove it and recall mentioning I've never had issues or shown aggression towards GOD before so he should remove it.
[/quote]

[quote]
All Sanctions Placed By The Maroon Team
Ibiapina (thedestro) Turkeybowl (Goose) 9/8/2010 Trade & Aid I pity UPN... [/quote]

I can screenshot it if you like.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1284235283' post='2450093']
I can screenshot it if you like.
[/quote]
I am sanctioned on Maroon, if I try offering aid to someone on Maroon I have this instead of submit.

[quote]
Either your nation or your potential foreign aid partner has foreign aid sanctions placed against it by one of your teams. You may not offer foreign aid at this time.
[/quote]

[LeonidasRexII]

* sorry double post

Edited September 11, 2010 by LeonidasRexII

[LeonidasRexII]

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?

Yes. I think that the main purpose of sanctions is to act as a check against those that are attempting act outside of the laws of Planet Bob. Namely rouges who are leaving anyways and want to go out with a bang. If not for sanctions those that want to remain here and abide by Admins laws. Sanctions at least shorten the time that law-abiding alliances have to put up with these pests.

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?

Yes, because there's always copycats who get inspired by the head rouge.

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"?

Yes especially if the sanction is defensive in nature. One of the main "rules" of war is to cut off or at least limit your enemies supplies. No one should be surprised by receiving both barrels if their starting a war.

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?

Yes as they say all's fair in love and war.

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?

I didn't answer no, but still wanted to comment. As I said in #4 all's fair, but I don't think that sanctions would be that effective against a large organized attack. If war is being considered readiness is maximized in anticipation of the huge economic cost of war. Collections are done just prior so most nations can give themselves the maximum time before the next collection is required. In order for a sanction to be effective it would have to remain in effect for longer than the current 20 day limit (before penalties start occurring) ostensibly forcing the sanction recipient to collect without a maximum trade benefit. If the war ends before that I assume that part of the peace agreement would be to end all war-triggered sanctions. And that's also not taking into consideration the sanction limits mentioned by another poster.

[JackSkellington]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1284235283' post='2450093']
I can screenshot it if you like.
[/quote]

[quote]Libertarian Empire (Methrage) Republic of Z (Big Z)

[Team: Maroon]
9/3/2010 Trade & Aid GOONS request[/quote]

Goose sanctioned thedestro, not Methrage. Big Z took care of Methrage for GOONS.

Edited September 11, 2010 by JackSkellington

[EgoFreaky]

Sanctions are not really usefull in my eyes usually. They should have an extra kick to them. As for using them in a war. If both alliances are on the same sphere that would be a big mess but if you are fighting someone on another sphere sure i could live with sanctioning their nations that are on your sphere.

[Midkn1ght]

[quote name='JackSkellington' timestamp='1284238152' post='2450133']
Goose sanctioned thedestro, not Methrage. Big Z took care of Methrage for GOONS.
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm sorry, learned not to drunk post. Don't quite understand how the .... I misread that.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284144947' post='2448950']
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?".
[/quote]

My personal position on sanctions is a little different and it makes my answer to the specific questions essentially "it depends." So I'm just going to state my opinion.

Sanctions should be used or not used in the same fashion across the board REGARDLESS of the number of nations there are in a particular AA. What individual alliances want to recognize as an "alliance" or not in terms of number of nations is up to them. However, that's an internal alliance policy and not something that should be imposed on the rest of us.

In other words, if sanctions are usable against a two nation AA that attacks a 100 nation AA for whatever reason, then as far as I'm concerned they are usable against a 100 nation AA which attacks another AA of similar size. On the other hand, if they are not to be used by a 100 nation AA in a war against another 100 nation AA, then they should also not be used against an AA just because it doesn't happen to have X number of nations as part of the AA.

Do whatever - just don't use sanctions to impose an arbitrary definition of what is or is not an "alliance" on everyone else.
----------------
Answer to bonus question: I think that would be a good use of a sanction. Since senators are tied to team colors, it makes sense that their they be used to benefit the team as a whole.

Edited September 12, 2010 by White Chocolate

[JackSkellington]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1284254030' post='2450379']
Yeah, I'm sorry, learned not to drunk post. Don't quite understand how the .... I misread that.
[/quote]

Simple mistake, not a big deal.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Midkn1ght' timestamp='1284254030' post='2450379']
Yeah, I'm sorry, learned not to drunk post. Don't quite understand how the .... I misread that.
[/quote]
You could easily fix it if you convince Big Z to remove the sanction, then you guys won't be blamed for sanctioning on GOONS behalf in an alliance war.

[Midkn1ght]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1284263001' post='2450572']
You could easily fix it if you convince Big Z to remove the sanction, then you guys won't be blamed for sanctioning on GOONS behalf in an alliance war.
[/quote]

I tried. He told me to shut up and get back to worshipping our gerbil masters.

[NoFish]

Why are half of the posts in this thread Methrage !@#$%*ing about being sanctioned? While I agree that sanctions are often irrelevant, I don't really see the problem with using sanctions on a run of the mill rogue.

[Emphix]

Sanctioning special cases like nuclear rogues is acceptable for me. However, I do not support the use of sanctions as a generic tool of war, due to the high chances of it affecting others uninvolved in the conflict, while of course people can argue that by trading they are aiding, thus involved, etc etc, I believe the current situation of Bob itself is fragile enough (population decline) without the need to exacerbate the situation by wild sanctions.

If, however, one has gather information and can show that all the trade partners are indeed within the same alliance or the same "side", however lax or strict its interpretation may be, I can accept the sanction.

It will make things more interesting though, if such are allowed, it will make color unity and senate control ever much more important.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1284270158' post='2450694']
Why are half of the posts in this thread Methrage !@#$%*ing about being sanctioned? While I agree that sanctions are often irrelevant, I don't really see the problem with using sanctions on a run of the mill rogue.
[/quote]Methrage has a rare unparalleled talent for making absolutely any topic about him. You get used to it after a while.

[eejack]

[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?
[/quote]

No, as idea that a lone wolf ( or as some folks put it rogue ) nation might be unduly punished for facing a larger opponent solo is petty. Any alliance that is worth being recognized should be able to deal with a single nation. Seriously, it is sad how much some folks flip out when some single nation 'dares' to confront them.

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1284144947' post='2448950']
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]

The point of all this politicing is to have weapons available to you in times of real war. A nation alone does not make a real war. Alliance v alliance is another story and sanctions, like nukes, should be an option.

edit: a caveat ... in reality sanctions should be removed from gameplay altogether due to the detrimental effect of broken trades that occur. Having lost several trade circles due to sanctions I can attest to how infuriating it is to lose one's trades because someone [s]petty little scared kid[/s] freaks out over a 'rogue' and gets a sanction put down. If it is in the game it should be used for war ... but it really should be removed

Edited September 13, 2010 by EEjack

[Haflinger]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1284150218' post='2449021']
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.
[/quote]
No, this is not the case. I've actually only ever dealt with one rogue (Enderland) who had a secret uranium trade.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1284150218' post='2449021']
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]
Nope. Most rogues are planning on abandoning their nations. So far the only nation to rogue me had a 200M warchest at 10K infra and was bill-locked after two nukes.

[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]
Difficult, but not impossible. You can cancel and switch a sanction after 3 days, it would certainly be possible to sanction out a medium-size alliance in a month, particularly if you controlled more than one senate seat. The ideal situation is where you have six senate candidates all very close together in the standings, that way you can keep 30 active sanctions going all the time, and can then sanction 10 nations each day (on average).

As a former senator, my policy was pretty simple. I imposed trade and aid sanctions in cases of genuine nuke rogues, where the attacker was nuclear-capable and launched a war completely unprovoked. I did not consider retaliating for tech raids etc. to be completely unprovoked. As it turned out, I believe the only nuke rogue sanction I ever granted was on a STA request; most sanction requests were made by alliances looking for help dealing with rogues in the lower-NS ranges where they had a hard time finding attackers, which I considered to be a pretty lame reason for a sanction.

I also approved of aid-only sanctions as a means of dealing with tech deal scammers.

The thing you have to remember about sanctions is that they cut both ways. When you impose trade sanctions, you are cutting off your entire sphere from access to the sanctioned nation's resources. Trades are enough of a pain as it is, you shouldn't impose that extra hassle without a very good reason.

[Bob Janova]

Sanctions should be used for nuclear rogues only, although the 'bonus question' does raise an interesting point, and I think I'd say that sanctioning an alliance which is clearly working against the best interest of the colour in such a way would probably be justified. Considering all wars are nuclear these days, there's no justification for sanctioning an alliance that declares war on you just because they're small and can't sanction back (unless you believe in the use of sanctions during normal alliance wars, but that isn't a good thing).

[eejack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1284377738' post='2452186']
Considering all wars are nuclear these days, there's no justification for sanctioning...<snipped>
[/quote]

Nuke rogues.

I understand, back in the day when nukes were kept to the top 5% it may have made some sense, but times have changed
and the use of sanctions should change as well. Use them as strategic weapons of mass distruption, like nukes used to
be used and not a tactical knee-jerk for every 'omg rogue' situation.

I only picked on Bob Janova's quote since it is conveniently well written - Thanks Bob.