GOON spy orders

[magicmountain]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285392139' post='2463994']
You're [i]almost[/i] there. When a member of an alliance goes and attacks someone he shouldn't and his gov says "oh, we're very sorry, his actions aren't sanctioned" then that nation is clearly a rogue. If the gov says "in fact, thanks for bringing this to our attention, we're declaring war, too" then it's an alliance-sanctioned action, and an alliance action. For example, in the war to eradicate Norden Verein, on of NoV's allies had ONE nuclear nation, and he also happened to be that alliance head of state. He started nuking, and everyone on TPF's side started calling him a rogue and getting him sanctioned, but that's just silly, the head of state makes policy--if he's nuking, he's not a rogue. Methrage is in charge of KN, he joined the war, he's nuking, he's not a rogue.
[/quote]
Fair enough. In my mind one plus one still equals two, but it seems you're pretty attached to your position. If I ever get bored and decide to go out in a nuclear blaze of glory I'll make sure to switch to red and bring a friend along for the ride.


[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285392680' post='2464006']
The word "doubled" would be staggering if it didn't mean 2+2. (or 2x2 or 2^2 or etc)
[/quote]
Indeed, one could say Methrage's merry band is growing exponentially!

Edited September 25, 2010 by magicmountain

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285392139' post='2463994']
This is emotional tripe.
[/quote]
Oh, it is? I guess you thought you're the only one who keeps logs.

<Cortath[NPO]> We're disinclined to grant the sanction as long as the Red Raiding Safari continues.
<Cortath[NPO]> It's your assertion that this nation has trades on red?
<Beefspari[GOONS]> He himself is on red and it's one of the only colors he's NOT sanctioned on.
<Cortath[NPO]> Well, [b]while I might normally agree with your opinion on whether or not he is a legitimate alliance[/b], I'm afraid that we are not going to sanction him, as long as GOONS continues is policy of deliberating targeting Red nations in this so-called Red Raiding Safari.

Not only does Cortath here [b]agree[/b] that Methrage is not an alliance and therefore a rogue attacking GOONS, but he goes on to say he's not issuing the sanction [b]because[/b] we are GOONS and raid red. So, very blatant double standard. Every word I said is true. You don't sanction rogues attacking people you don't like, and red tries to bargain with sanctions as they try to control the actions of other alliances. Emotional tripe? More like incredibly clear fact.

<Cortath[NPO]> A number of alliances, including GOONS, chose to discard a policy that had existed for years of respecting that vision of a raid-free Red, in favor of attacking defenseless red nations for the purposes of goading a response from Red Dawn.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> That's fine and all.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> But has nothing to do with supporting nuclear rogues.
* Cortath[NPO] shrugs. If I wished to support a nuclear rogue, I would nuke right with him. I, however, [b]do not support nuclear rogues[/b].
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You're not having a PR battle over the diplomacy between GOONS and raiding.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You're putting yourself in a stance saying "we won't sanction nuclear rogues if we don't like the people they're attacking."

Cortath goes on to say that they won't sanction rogues attacking anyone who doesn't agree with their policies. He says he doesn't support nuclear rogues but will not sanction Methrage [b]only[/b] because he's attacking GOONS. Red sphere is perfectly happy to let rogues exist and thrive on their sphere if they're attacking their enemies. Red sphere is perfectly happy to harbor and assist nuclear rogues for biased reasons, applying a double standard wherever they please.

Cortath is fully aware of the facts, that Methrage needs to be sanctioned because he gets constant secret aid (this thread is an example of that -- the third one in the last couple weeks in fact). He is aware of the fact that Methrage lives on red and has a full set of trades there. And he acknowledges that Methrage is not an alliance. However, red supports nuclear rogues as long as they're attacking people red doesn't like. You can't deny this. The proof is above. Nice agenda red sphere.

<Cortath[NPO]> A pleasure to discuss any matter with you, comrade, although we are not assisting a nuclear rogue.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You are by allowing him aid and trade on your sphere.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> Harboring a nuclear rogue would be assisting in my book.
<Cortath[NPO]> [b]We don't own the sphere anymore[/b], comrade. Nations are free to live as they will. While I don't hold any love for rogues any more than you do, nor do I deeply love those who would prey on defenseless nations who wish only to leave in peace.

Cortath also claims that they don't own the red sphere anymore, even though he's clearly trying to assert the inability to raid the entire sphere out of the other side of his mouth. Don't own it, but going to act like you do? Yup.

Let's hear your excuse for not sanctioning Jim. I'm sure it's a good one. Alternatively, let's see your standard deflection.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Beefspari

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285392495' post='2464000']
I don't believe you've answered my question, you just went on a general rant about why you don't consider "rogues" to be rogues. You haven't mentioned why this specific case is "muddled".
[/quote]
We have been asked to sanction Jim because ". . . we [PC] are fighting a nuclear rogue and would like him sanctioned. He initially secretly aided a nuclear rogue, was found out and has now decided to attack himself."

Well, as we have determined, Methrage is not a nuclear rogue. So, Jim was not aiding a nuclear rogue.
Jim outlined in very specific and clear terms that he views spying as an aggressive act of war--which is good for him, because it is--and that if GOONS or GOONS's agents continued to spy on him, then he would take action to defend his nation. It is an unfortunate reality of Planet Bob that GOONS had to commit acts of war against a sovereign nation to determine whether or not that nation was aiding Methrage, but in the end, that is what GOONS did.

So, what we have here is an alliance--KN--at war with GOONS, and a nation--Jim--at war with GOONS. One is not a rogue, the other does not seem to be a rogue, just a nation that GOONS decided to attack, and which decided to attack GOONS. Who are we to say who can send aid and who can't?

[Choader]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285392139' post='2463994']
The use of the term "Rogue" has been too political and too slutty for years. You know, I was sanctioned as a "political rogue" when I had less than 9k NS--laughable! Most cases are cut-and-dried, and Biff Webster--the Senator from CoJ--has been sanctioning rogues left and right almost since the day he took office. Some instances are complicated, though,and they bear contemplation. That the old-world, conventional alliances that have been sanctioning "rogues" as an extension of their power for years sanctioned a nation as fast as you asked has no bearing on what the Red Senate does.
[/quote]
As far as I would be concerned Jimkongil is as cut and dry a case of roguery as could possibly exist. If an alliance-less nuclear nation aiding the enemies of an alliance and subsequently attacking them isn't being a nuclear rogue, what [i]does[/i] fit the definition? I recall that the rogue who attacked you under near identical circumstances was sanctioned immediately. It would seem that if Red Dawn with you as the [b]decider[/b] refused a sanction on Jimkongil you would be directly supporting a rogue against GOONS, especially in light of the Senator from CoJ sanctioning all other rogues left and right and your own previous insistence on sanctioning rogues of his type. By all rights you and your alliance should be open to attack for directly aiding their enemy.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Time to roll the red sphere for harbouring nuke rogues, perhaps? Sounds like a bit more fun is on the cards to me

[bzelger]

You're surprised that NPO isn't interested in doing you a favor while you're actively flipping them the bird?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='bzelger' timestamp='1285393810' post='2464029']
You're surprised that NPO isn't interested in doing you a favor while you're actively flipping them the bird?
[/quote]
How are we flipping them the bird? We're raiding red, but by Cortath's admission they don't own red anymore. So do they own it or don't they?

And yes, I'm surprised they're flaunting their biased double-standard. They're aiding and harboring a nuclear rogue by allowing him aid and trade on their color. Personal issues with GOONS aside, they're supporting Methrage and anyone who aids him. I can tell you right now, if a nuke rogue on black hit CoJ we'd sanction them in a heartbeat. We don't like CoJ, but we also don't like nuke rogues, and aren't hypocritical liars.

The lack of sanctions has nothing to do with rogue nature and everything to do with wanting them to keep attacking who they're attacking.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Beefspari

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='bzelger' timestamp='1285393810' post='2464029']
You're surprised that NPO isn't interested in doing you a favor while you're actively flipping them the bird?
[/quote]

NPO should be more worried about the standard, and pray they never need a sanction in the future from GOONS or any of their allies.

There is a reason things like sanctioning nuclear rogues has always been apolitical, its a can of worms no sane person wants to open.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285393020' post='2464014']
Oh, it is? I guess you thought you're the only one who keeps logs.

<Cortath[NPO]> We're disinclined to grant the sanction as long as the Red Raiding Safari continues.
<Cortath[NPO]> It's your assertion that this nation has trades on red?
<Beefspari[GOONS]> He himself is on red and it's one of the only colors he's NOT sanctioned on.
<Cortath[NPO]> Well, [b]while I might normally agree with your opinion on whether or not he is a legitimate alliance[/b], I'm afraid that we are not going to sanction him, as long as GOONS continues is policy of deliberating targeting Red nations in this so-called Red Raiding Safari.

Not only does Cortath here [b]agree[/b] that Methrage is not an alliance and therefore a rogue attacking GOONS, but he goes on to say he's not issuing the sanction [b]because[/b] we are GOONS and raid red. So, very blatant double standard. Every word I said is true. You don't sanction rogues attacking people you don't like, and red tries to bargain with sanctions as they try to control the actions of other alliances. Emotional tripe? More like incredibly clear fact.

<Cortath[NPO]> A number of alliances, including GOONS, chose to discard a policy that had existed for years of respecting that vision of a raid-free Red, in favor of attacking defenseless red nations for the purposes of goading a response from Red Dawn.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> That's fine and all.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> But has nothing to do with supporting nuclear rogues.
* Cortath[NPO] shrugs. If I wished to support a nuclear rogue, I would nuke right with him. I, however, [b]do not support nuclear rogues[/b].
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You're not having a PR battle over the diplomacy between GOONS and raiding.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You're putting yourself in a stance saying "we won't sanction nuclear rogues if we don't like the people they're attacking."

Cortath goes on to say that they won't sanction rogues attacking anyone who doesn't agree with their policies. He says he doesn't support nuclear rogues but will not sanction Methrage [b]only[/b] because he's attacking GOONS. Red sphere is perfectly happy to let rogues exist and thrive on their sphere if they're attacking their enemies. Red sphere is perfectly happy to harbor and assist nuclear rogues for biased reasons, applying a double standard wherever they please.

Cortath is fully aware of the facts, that Methrage needs to be sanctioned because he gets constant secret aid (this thread is an example of that -- the third one in the last couple weeks in fact). He is aware of the fact that Methrage lives on red and has a full set of trades there. And he acknowledges that Methrage is not an alliance. However, red supports nuclear rogues as long as they're attacking people red doesn't like. You can't deny this. The proof is above. Nice agenda red sphere.

<Cortath[NPO]> A pleasure to discuss any matter with you, comrade, although we are not assisting a nuclear rogue.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> You are by allowing him aid and trade on your sphere.
<Beefspari[GOONS]> Harboring a nuclear rogue would be assisting in my book.
<Cortath[NPO]> [b]We don't own the sphere anymore[/b], comrade. Nations are free to live as they will. While I don't hold any love for rogues any more than you do, nor do I deeply love those who would prey on defenseless nations who wish only to leave in peace.

Cortath also claims that they don't own the red sphere anymore, even though he's clearly trying to assert the inability to raid the entire sphere out of the other side of his mouth. Don't own it, but going to act like you do? Yup.

Let's hear your excuse for not sanctioning Jim. I'm sure it's a good one. Alternatively, let's see your standard deflection.
[/quote]
In GOONS conversation with CoJ member Sargun on September 5, GOONS (I guess it was you, but I don't have logs) asked if we would sanction Methrage.

On September 6, I spoke to Cortath about the matter, because it was a very rare instance of a questionable situation. In part, we said:
--I asked Cortath what he thought about sanctioning Methrage and what their policy on rogues is--
[18:26] <Cortath> Our general policy was to sanction any and all nuke rogues.
[18:26] <Schattenmann> Alright then the more precise question is does NPO use the BS definition of "rogue" that most AAs use?
[18:27] <Cortath> What's the BS definition?
[18:27] <Schattenmann> Anyone using nukes that happens to be small and isolated
[18:28] <Schattenmann> For example, Methrage has been sanctioned everywhere as a rogue but his alliance is at war
[18:28] <Cortath> Well, no. Usually it's people who are not part of an alliance who are just nuking someone for !@#$% and giggles.
[18:29] <Schattenmann> So you would not call Methrage a rogue in terms of sanctioning

We both agreed that Meth was not a rogue in the true sense of it before GOONS ever asked NPO to sanction Methrage. GOONS went on to ask NPO after CoJ did not respond to your request.

So, while it looks like Cortath shares our views of the sanction request in light of GOONS attempts to either goad Red into war or deliberately make us look impotent on the world stage, we agreed on the basic intellectual points from day 1 (9/6). I assume that the logs above are from the second conversation you had with Cortath sometime around 9/23, which he informed me had occurred:
[18:14] <Cortath> As an FYI, Goons came to us requesting a sanction on Methrage.
[18:14] <Schattenmann> Again?
[18:15] <Cortath> I know you and I had talked about the matter, and knowing the feelings of Red Dawn, we refused.

So, there ya go. CoJ refused the sanction request based on its merits, the irony of your situation was just icing on the cake.

[quote name='Choader' timestamp='1285393348' post='2464020']
As far as I would be concerned Jimkongil is as cut and dry a case of roguery as could possibly exist. If an alliance-less nuclear nation aiding the enemies of an alliance and subsequently attacking them isn't being a nuclear rogue, what [i]does[/i] fit the definition? I recall that the rogue who attacked you under near identical circumstances was sanctioned immediately. It would seem that if Red Dawn with you as the [b]decider[/b] refused a sanction on Jimkongil you would be directly supporting a rogue against GOONS, especially in light of the Senator from CoJ sanctioning all other rogues left and right and your own previous insistence on sanctioning rogues of his type. By all rights you and your alliance should be open to attack for directly aiding their enemy.
[/quote]
That would be a great comparison if it weren't totally incongruous. CoJ asked for sanctions against Smacky, an established rogue who ghosted a joke alliance, THE DARK LORDS (which were not rogues by my definition), solely for the purpose of nuking people on his way to deletion. We did not request sanctions on the GOONS who were aiding him the way PC/GOONS are requesting sanctions on the nation aiding Methrage.

Smacky: Rogue
Methrage: Not a rogue

Two GOONS aiders: Aiding a rogue (tech deals)
Jim: Sending money to an alliance at war

CoJ: Please raid Smacky, the primary actor
GOONS/PC: Please aid Jim, a secondary nation

And while we issue most sanctions when requested, we don't just do it willy-nilly, we consider each one's merit. For example, we refused to sanction a former Grämlins who we were told was a deserter.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Schattenmann

[bzelger]

The Red Raiding Safari was not intended to snub the NPO?

Regardless, it's their senator, not yours. There's no obligation to sanction for another alliance; it's done either for friendship or in an expectation of reciprocity. GOONS has done us the courtesy of sanctioning our rogues on occasion and we've returned the favor in spite of our alliances not getting along. If the NPO doesn't opt into a informal reciprocal sanction arrangement with you that's certainly their perogative.

Edit: removed inaccurate information.

Edited September 25, 2010 by bzelger

[Goldie]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285394328' post='2464036']
NPO should be more worried about the standard, and pray they never need a sanction in the future from GOONS or any of their allies.

There is a reason things like sanctioning nuclear rogues has always been apolitical, its a can of worms no sane person wants to open.
[/quote]

I have to completely agree with Typo. If people on the red team want to politicize sanctions, then they will have a hard time securing them themselves in the future should they be raided.

[Biazt]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285394413' post='2464038']
That would be a great comparison if it weren't totally incongruous. CoJ asked for sanctions against Smacky, an established rogue who ghosted a joke alliance, THE DARK LORDS (which were not rogues by my definition), solely for the purpose of nuking people on his way to deletion. We did not request sanctions on the GOONS who were aiding him the way PC/GOONS are requesting sanctions on the nation aiding Methrage.
[/quote]
Yes because deliberately sending secret aid to a nuclear rogue is exactly the same as mistakenly completed tech deals

We've already gone over this ridiculous argument in the NSO thread where Corinan aided Methrage and you tried to equate the two.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Biazt

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285394328' post='2464036']
NPO should be more worried about the standard, and pray they never need a sanction in the future from GOONS or any of their allies.

There is a reason things like sanctioning nuclear rogues has always been apolitical, its a can of worms no sane person wants to open.
[/quote]


[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1285394620' post='2464040']
I have to completely agree with Typo. If people on the red team want to politicize sanctions, then they will have a hard time securing them themselves in the future should they be raided.
[/quote]

That's some comedy gold coming from cornerstones of the United Jungle Accords which politicized the Senate more than any agreement in history.

Red Dawn is in agreement that Methrage is not a rogue. I'm sorry that we're not as sanction slap-happy as everyone else. I think it's a virtue.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285394413' post='2464038']
In GOONS conversation with CoJ member Sargun on September 5, GOONS (I guess it was you, but I don't have logs) asked if we would sanction Methrage.

On September 6, I spoke to Cortath about the matter, because it was a very rare instance of a questionable situation. In part, we said:
--I asked Cortath what he thought about sanctioning Methrage and what their policy on rogues is--
[18:26] <Cortath> Our general policy was to sanction any and all nuke rogues.
[18:26] <Schattenmann> Alright then the more precise question is does NPO use the BS definition of "rogue" that most AAs use?
[18:27] <Cortath> What's the BS definition?
[18:27] <Schattenmann> Anyone using nukes that happens to be small and isolated
[18:28] <Schattenmann> For example, Methrage has been sanctioned everywhere as a rogue but his alliance is at war
[18:28] <Cortath> Well, no. Usually it's people who are not part of an alliance who are just nuking someone for !@#$% and giggles.
[18:29] <Schattenmann> So you would not call Methrage a rogue in terms of sanctioning

We both agreed that Meth was not a rogue in the true sense of it before GOONS ever asked NPO to sanction Methrage. GOONS went on to ask NPO after CoJ did not respond to your request.[/quote]
That's cute, though. You said right there in the log that the widely-accepted definition of rogue by most alliances is not one you feel like going by, meaning you can just refuse to sanction anyone you want based on personal bias or apply double standards wherever you feel like.

[18:26] <Schattenmann> Alright then the more precise question is does NPO use [b]the BS definition of "rogue" that most AAs use[/b]?

And even if you don't consider Methrage a rogue, Jim aided someone that GOONS is fighting, after we posted a thread saying that doing so would be an act of war on our alliance. Jim may not have aided what you consider to be "a rogue" but he certainly is a single person declaring war on an entire alliance, isn't he?

It sure seems like red sphere is happy to assist nuclear rogues fighting people they don't like in any way that they think won't get them into any trouble.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285395228' post='2464047']
That's cute, though. You said right there in the log that the widely-accepted definition of rogue by most alliances is not one you feel like going by, meaning you can just refuse to sanction anyone you want based on personal bias or apply double standards wherever you feel like.
[18:26] <Schattenmann> Alright then the more precise question is does NPO use [b]the BS definition of "rogue" that most AAs use[/b]? [/quote]
Precisely the [b][i]opposite[/i][/b]. We use a very conservative definition of rogue, which constrains who we sanction and assures that the mistakes of the past do not occur again.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285395228' post='2464047']
And even if you don't consider Methrage a rogue, Jim aided someone that GOONS is fighting, after we posted a thread saying that doing so would be an act of war on our alliance. Jim may not have aided what you consider to be "a rogue" but he certainly is a single person declaring war on an entire alliance, isn't he?

It sure seems like red sphere is happy to assist nuclear rogues fighting people they don't like in any way that they think won't get them into any trouble.
[/quote]
Aiding people at war is not something that merits a sanction. "Acts of war" are not a big friggin' team-level issue, and they never have been. Grow up--you're both (Jim and GOONS) being stupid. Or do you want us to start sanctioning every GOONS newb that accidentally attacks a top-25 alliance to make sure that [color="#FF0000"][size="3"][font="Palatino Linotype"][b]Acts of War![/b][/font][/size][/color] don't go unpunished?

Edited September 25, 2010 by Schattenmann

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285395216' post='2464046']
That's some comedy gold coming from cornerstones of the United Jungle Accords which politicized the Senate more than any agreement in history.

Red Dawn is in agreement that Methrage is not a rogue. I'm sorry that we're not as sanction slap-happy as everyone else. I think it's a virtue.
[/quote]

Fortunately the GGA is gone, so those days are behind us.

[JT Jag]

So, Schattenmann, riddle me this. What if, in theory, myself and a couple friends of mine left GOONS tomorrow, formed our own AA with a charter but did not form any meaningful diplomatic relations, built up a nuclear stockpile and declared on Cult of Justitia for whatever reason a few months later? Are you telling me that I would not be sanctioned by Red within the day? Or is there some arcane difference in the two situations and a sanction would be justified?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285394049' post='2464034']
They're aiding and harboring a nuclear rogue by allowing him aid and trade on their color. Personal issues with GOONS aside, they're supporting Methrage and anyone who aids him. [/quote]

So will NPO be next on the list to be spied upon, or will they be paying the 90 mil?

[Biazt]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285395643' post='2464051']
"Acts of war" are not a big friggin' team-level issue, and they never have been.
[/quote]
If an "act of war" does not merit a sanction, then what does?

[quote name='Schattenmann']Grow up--you're both (Jim and GOONS) being stupid. Or do you want us to start sanctioning every GOONS newb that accidentally attacks a top-25 alliance to make sure that [color="#FF0000"][size="3"][font="Palatino Linotype"][b]Acts of War![/b][/font][/size][/color] don't go unpunished?
[/quote]
Oh dear, back with the crazy red text are we? Once again you're equating two things that are not the same. A new GOONS nation mistakenly attacking an alliance is not a "rogue" and is not the same as a top 25 nation sending secret aid to Methrage (and then declaring war on us).

Edited September 25, 2010 by Biazt

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Choader' timestamp='1285393348' post='2464020']
As far as I would be concerned Jimkongil is as cut and dry a case of roguery as could possibly exist. If an alliance-less nuclear nation aiding the enemies of an alliance and subsequently attacking them isn't being a nuclear rogue, what [i]does[/i] fit the definition?[/quote]
This depends what definition you choose to use. These circumstances are similar to the $6 million war in that both parties feel slighted by what they term as an act of war and both made their feelings known, but one saw fit to act first. The reason Jim cited also isn't all that uncommon for alliances either to hold a very similar perspective. Granted they might not be quite so quick to the red button but there is merit behind his position. That is what removes him, in my opinion, from the definition of a rogue.


[quote]It would seem that if Red Dawn with you as the [b]decider[/b] refused a sanction on Jimkongil you would be directly supporting a rogue against GOONS, especially in light of the Senator from CoJ sanctioning all other rogues left and right and your own previous insistence on sanctioning rogues of his type. By all rights you and your alliance should be open to attack for directly aiding their enemy.
[/quote]
[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285394049' post='2464034']
They're aiding and harboring a nuclear rogue by allowing him aid and trade on their color. Personal issues with GOONS aside, they're supporting Methrage and anyone who aids him.[/quote]
Sitting idly by and not assisting either party by use of sanction is a position of neutrality. Aiding and supporting takes a degree of action or inaction in one's favor above another. In this case inaction is of benefit to both parties thus impartial. Supporting them would either be filling their coffers or imposing sanctions on GOONS and their allies.


[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285394328' post='2464036']
NPO should be more worried about the standard, and pray they never need a sanction in the future from GOONS or any of their allies.

There is a reason things like sanctioning nuclear rogues has always been apolitical, its a can of worms no sane person wants to open.
[/quote]
I would have to challenge that notion. Sanctioning rogues has always been very political and to the lowest common denominator of what one is exactly because of what you allude to; everyone fears the fall-out. I don't really see standards being challenged as such a terrible thing provided there is sound reasoning behind it. I'm not even sure so much that's what's happening here as rogues have been and are sanctioned from time to time. What's at heart of the issue is if the standards of a concerned party is enough and the one with the seat should disregard their own. I wouldn't even say it's a first come first serve situation as I don't think anyone would ever really sanction a member of an alliance at the request of a micro-alliance or individual nation for fear of the fall out. Really I'd say sanctions are tossed out in order to ensure political capital with those significant alliances out there. Presently what we have is an assumed guilt system where innocence must be proven and even then it's typically too late with those who did it unwilling to do anything to remedy the situation for fear of how it would look and impact them. Seldom ever is the question asked of whether what has been asked is a responsible use of the senate's power in an honest manner.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285395971' post='2464053']
So, Schattenmann, riddle me this. What if, in theory, myself and a couple friends of mine left GOONS tomorrow, formed our own AA with a charter but did not form any meaningful diplomatic relations, built up a nuclear stockpile and declared on Cult of Justitia for whatever reason a few months later? Are you telling me that I would not be sanctioned by Red within the day? Or is there some arcane difference in the two situations and a sanction would be justified?
[/quote]
Speaking to hypotheticals is not a thing I am in the practice of doing.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285395643' post='2464051']
Precisely the [b][i]opposite[/i][/b]. We use a very conservative definition of rogue, which constrains who we sanction and assures that the mistakes of the past do not occur again.
[/quote]
That's not the opposite of what I said, that's exactly what I said. You use a conservative definition that apparently means nobody is a rogue unless you happen to like the alliance they're attacking. That means you can conveniently decide that people attacking GOONS are not rogues no matter how obvious and blatant their actions are, because you're "conservative." Case in point,

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285395643' post='2464051']
Aiding people at war is not something that merits a sanction. "Acts of war" are not a big friggin' team-level issue, and they never have been. Grow up--you're both (Jim and GOONS) being stupid. Or do you want us to start sanctioning every GOONS newb that accidentally attacks a top-25 alliance to make sure that [color="#FF0000"][size="3"][font="Palatino Linotype"][b]Acts of War![/b][/font][/size][/color] don't go unpunished?
[/quote]
Aiding a nuclear-fueled person attacking an alliance, after they said not to, and then declaring war on that alliance is not a rogue action and not worth sanctioning?

Intentionally aiding someone you're fighting is not a rogue action?

Declaring war on your alliance and throwing nukes is not a rogue action?

By your own words, nobody is a rogue. If aiding your enemies and then attacking you is not a rogue action... well there's really nothing higher than that on the scale of things a single person can do to an alliance.

Also by your own words, people can aid your enemies all they want? Since you said "Who are we to say who can send aid and who can't?"

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Biazt' timestamp='1285396056' post='2464056']
If an "act of war" does not merit a sanction, then what does?
Oh dear, back with the crazy red text are we? Once again you're equating two things that are not the same. A new GOONS nation mistakenly attacking an alliance is not a "rogue" and is not the same as a top 25 nation sending secret aid to Methrage (and then declaring war on us).
[/quote]
Listen, Biazt, I know you're excited and you want to talk, too, but if you're going to insist on doing it, then talk on the same plane that the rest of us are talking on. Beefspari says that even if we don't consider Methrage a rogue, we should sanction Jim because he is committing acts of war against GOONS. Accident or not, attacking alliances is an act of war, but it doesn't merit a sanction simply because it's an act of war. One nation involving himself in the war between GOONS and KN doesn't rise to the level of a team-wide action.

[Choader]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285394413' post='2464038']
That would be a great comparison if it weren't totally incongruous. CoJ asked for sanctions against Smacky, an established rogue who ghosted a joke alliance, THE DARK LORDS (which were not rogues by my definition), solely for the purpose of nuking people on his way to deletion. We did not request sanctions on the GOONS who were aiding him the way PC/GOONS are requesting sanctions on the nation aiding Methrage.

Smacky: Rogue
Methrage: Not a rogue

Two GOONS aiders: Aiding a rogue (tech deals)
Jim: Sending money to an alliance at war

CoJ: Please raid Smacky, the primary actor
GOONS/PC: Please aid Jim, a secondary nation

And while we issue most sanctions when requested, we don't just do it willy-nilly, we consider each one's merit. For example, we refused to sanction a former Grämlins who we were told was a deserter.
[/quote]
Whether or not you'll admit to Methrage being a rogue is totally unrelated to the point. Jimkongil is not a rogue for aiding Methrage, he is obviously a rogue for attacking the GOONS as an unaligned nation who had never been attacked or even spied on directly by GOONS before kicking off his war.

I'll have to keep in mind that if I ever want to nuke someone you're not chums with I should get my trades on red.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285396219' post='2464058']
Speaking to hypotheticals is not a thing I am in the practice of doing.
[/quote]It really is a very simple hypothetical, friend. It's the same sort of deal that is happening here, except with members going rogue from GOONS instead of from ToP as the case is with Methrage and Jim. I humbly request you offer an affirmite or a negative.

Note that if you claim that a different action would taken than the one you are taking now, you are undefensibly a hypocrite, which is a word you're so fond of using to describe the other side.

If still you refuse to comment, I suppose that says something of its own.