GOON spy orders

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285396316' post='2464059']
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?"
[/quote]
Of course not, sending aid to a warring nation is an act of war governed by the rules of polite society. But it has never risen to the level of sanctions.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Choader' timestamp='1285396444' post='2464061']
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.
[/quote]
Oh don't be stupid! If I ask somebody to spy on someone for me, it's the same as doing the spying myself. Or do you honestly think that Vox Populi was not responsible for all the spies that were reporting to it? And if you think you're going to pick Red as a launching point for roguery, you'd better settle on somewhere else whoever the target is.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1285396132' post='2464057']
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.
[/quote]

You misunderstand, when I say apolitical I mean motivations.

Much like the hundred and one other random CN diplomatic incidents that make up the day to day work in whatever an alliance calls their foreign affairs branch there are certain tasks that one is always helpful and forth coming with, for the simple reason that you want to be able to get the same courtesy in return later.

Nuclear rogues, non-nuclear rogues, ghosts, unauthorized wars, tech deals that keep going after a war stats, delinquent tech deals, ect. The countless mundane tasks that make up alliance FA are typically dealt with without regard to AA, even if its your worst enemy/bitter rival.

Its a simple extension of the golden rule, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You treat generously because by doing so you become entitled to expect the same treatment later in return, and of course its only a matter of time until you do require a reciprocal service. You'll have a rogue you want sanctioned, you'll have some idiot member who declared a war he shouldn't have, you'll have some deadbeat member who ditched a tech deal, ect.

By attempting to politicize any of these processes you open the floodgates to people deciding that since you weren't nice about it to them or their friends they don't have to be nice to you about it anymore either. This helps nobody, nuclear rogues come from and target all alliances regardless of position on the web. I'm sure NPO thinks its hilarious now to be able to tweak GOONS over a nuclear rogue, but will it be funny when the next time they have someone nuking them they can't get the support they want?

[Methax]

[quote name='JimKongIl' timestamp='1285383459' post='2463852']
Actually, I am dishing out a lot more damage than I am taking. Nice try though.
[/quote]

Obviously you are able to dish out more as you have more targets D: The best measure is the post-war recovery which won't go as well for you considering that warchest and the path ahead

but yes it has been fun, thank ya very much

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285396798' post='2464064']
And if you think you're going to pick Red as a launching point for roguery, you'd better settle on somewhere else whoever the target is.
[/quote]
Why's that? There's literally nothing he could do that would require you to sanction him. He could go red, declare war on CoJ, and then get all his aid slots filled by GOONS, and if you sanction him you're a hypocrite and a liar since that's exactly all the things that you just declined sanctioning someone over.

[Biazt]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285396428' post='2464060']
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.
[/quote]
Once again, you're equating two things that are not the same. Please stop trying to dodge the question. Once again I ask you, if a lone nation on none attacking an alliance with nukes is not enough for a sanction, then what is?

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1285390167' post='2463949']
What about Mssr JimKongIl? What do you consider his status to be? Any chance of levying a sanction on the red team against him?

(Y'know I'd be very appreciative if you could assist me in this regard, Mssr Schattenmann )

Edit: I'm fairly sure he has admitted to his rogue status in this thread, just to make things clear.
[/quote]


I did not admit being a rogue. I left red voluntarily. You guys have lost it.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285396888' post='2464066']
You misunderstand, when I say apolitical I mean motivations.

Much like the hundred and one other random CN diplomatic incidents that make up the day to day work in whatever an alliance calls their foreign affairs branch there are certain tasks that one is always helpful and forth coming with, for the simple reason that you want to be able to get the same courtesy in return later.

Nuclear rogues, non-nuclear rogues, ghosts, unauthorized wars, tech deals that keep going after a war stats, delinquent tech deals, ect. The countless mundane tasks that make up alliance FA are typically dealt with without regard to AA, even if its your worst enemy/bitter rival.

Its a simple extension of the golden rule, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You treat generously because by doing so you become entitled to expect the same treatment later in return, and of course its only a matter of time until you do require a reciprocal service. You'll have a rogue you want sanctioned, you'll have some idiot member who declared a war he shouldn't have, you'll have some deadbeat member who ditched a tech deal, ect.

By attempting to politicize any of these processes you open the floodgates to people deciding that since you weren't nice about it to them or their friends they don't have to be nice to you about it anymore either. This helps nobody, nuclear rogues come from and target all alliances regardless of position on the web. I'm sure NPO thinks its hilarious now to be able to tweak GOONS over a nuclear rogue, but will it be funny when the next time they have someone nuking them they can't get the support they want?
[/quote]
With that message to your post I would say you're right in that it's not a smart move to make much less to openly state it.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285396888' post='2464066']
You misunderstand, when I say apolitical I mean motivations.

Much like the hundred and one other random CN diplomatic incidents that make up the day to day work in whatever an alliance calls their foreign affairs branch there are certain tasks that one is always helpful and forth coming with, for the simple reason that you want to be able to get the same courtesy in return later.

Nuclear rogues, non-nuclear rogues, ghosts, unauthorized wars, tech deals that keep going after a war stats, delinquent tech deals, ect. The countless mundane tasks that make up alliance FA are typically dealt with without regard to AA, even if its your worst enemy/bitter rival.

Its a simple extension of the golden rule, do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You treat generously because by doing so you become entitled to expect the same treatment later in return, and of course its only a matter of time until you do require a reciprocal service. You'll have a rogue you want sanctioned, you'll have some idiot member who declared a war he shouldn't have, you'll have some deadbeat member who ditched a tech deal, ect.

By attempting to politicize any of these processes you open the floodgates to people deciding that since you weren't nice about it to them or their friends they don't have to be nice to you about it anymore either. This helps nobody, nuclear rogues come from and target all alliances regardless of position on the web. I'm sure NPO thinks its hilarious now to be able to tweak GOONS over a nuclear rogue, but will it be funny when the next time they have someone nuking them they can't get the support they want?
[/quote]
This is all a pile of trash because you argue that NPO should put on its top hat and go play a game of croquet with GOONS followed by a gentile afternoon sanctioning of Methrage to satisfy back-scratching after GOONS spent a month in an affront against NPO. If your argument is that sanctions are robotic because of decorum, then your argument went out the door when GOONS told NPO to sit on a stick and spin, didn't it?

Fortunately, we used a system of reason in coming to this decision before realizing its ironic bonus. We agreed Meth was not a rogue on 9/6 nearly 20 days before the logs that Beefspari posted as I pointed out already.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Choader]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285396798' post='2464064']
Oh don't be stupid! If I ask somebody to spy on someone for me, it's the same as doing the spying myself. Or do you honestly think that Vox Populi was not responsible for all the spies that were reporting to it?
[/quote]
Forgive my stupidity then, but since when has a gather intel mission on an unaligned nation been an [size="4"][color="#FF0000"]Act of War[/color][/size] absolving a nation of any aggression past and present? These are some funny precedents you're trying to set.

[quote]And if you think you're going to pick Red as a launching point for roguery, you'd better settle on somewhere else whoever the target is.[/quote]
I see, the key step is to move to red [i]after[/i] becoming a nuke rogue.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285397679' post='2464076']
This is all a pile of trash because you argue that NPO should put on its top hat and go play a game of croquet with GOONS followed by a gentile afternoon sanctioning of Methrage to satisfy back-scratching after GOONS spent a month in an affront against NPO.[/quote]
So you're okay setting the precedent that sanctions should include bias and you won't deal with nuclear rogues as long as they aren't attacking someone you like?

[the rebel]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285397125' post='2464070']
Why's that? There's literally nothing he could do that would require you to sanction him. He could go red, declare war on CoJ, and then get all his aid slots filled by GOONS, and if you sanction him you're a hypocrite and a liar since that's exactly all the things that you just declined sanctioning someone over.
[/quote]

I dont really get the butt-hurt off GOONS for the Red team senate's refusing to sanction a rogue, when GOONS etc. refuse to stop raiding their trade sphere, so you really cant complain if they do something different to what you want when you refuse to stop doing something that the red sphere wants.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1285393406' post='2464023']
Time to roll the red sphere for harbouring nuke rogues, perhaps? Sounds like a bit more fun is on the cards to me
[/quote]


You guys are cheap bullies plain and simple and the power that you have clearly shows how spineless CN as a whole has become.

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285397679' post='2464076']
Fortunately, we used GONS in coming to this decision before realizing its ironic bonus.
[/quote]

I fixed that for you Schattenmann. I hope you didn't mind.

Also, could you please stop dodging? I feel that you have been drinking Bonk! Atomic Punch far too much (my nation's major export, although I'm not saying I dislike the money from it but have you [b]actually read[/b] the warning labels?).

[quote name='JimKongIl' timestamp='1285397907' post='2464082']
You guys are cheap bullies plain and simple and the power that you have clearly shows how spineless CN as a whole has become.
[/quote]

And you aided a nuclear rogue.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Haquertal

[Beefspari]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285397901' post='2464081']
I dont really get the butt-hurt off GOONS for the Red team senate's refusing to sanction a rogue, when GOONS etc. refuse to stop raiding their trade sphere, so you really cant complain if they do something different to what you want when you refuse to stop doing something that the red sphere wants.
[/quote]
There's a big difference here.

Red Raiding Safari is about NPO vs the world. Other alliances who want to raid on red and don't believe that NPO should get to tell the rest of the world they can't raid on a whole sphere of unaligned nations.

Sanction is about GOONS vs Methrage (or GOONS vs Jim), but red is trying to make it about GOONS vs NPO. They're inserting bias into their decision-making, inventing a new precedent and distracting from the actual issue at hand. NPO is not part of the equation other than having a senator, but they're inserting themselves into the situation and making their decision on whether or not to deal with a nuclear rogue based on that.

And by doing nothing they've decided not to deal with a nuclear rogue. Because of something that has nothing to do with either Methrage or Jim.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285397679' post='2464076']
This is all a pile of trash because you argue that NPO should put on its top hat and go play a game of croquet with GOONS followed by a gentile afternoon sanctioning of Methrage to satisfy back-scratching after GOONS spent a month in an affront against NPO. If your argument is that sanctions are robotic because of decorum, then your argument went out the door when GOONS told NPO to sit on a stick and spin, didn't it?

Fortunately, we used a system of reason in coming to this decision before realizing its ironic bonus. We agreed Meth was not a rogue on 9/6 nearly 20 days before the logs that Beefspari posted as I pointed out already.
[/quote]

Not so, Cortath declined to sanction for GOONS because he wanted to use it as political leverage to try and get them to stop raiding the red team, I'm asserting that politicizing sanctions like that can only be bad long term. NPO has a historical agenda it wants to continue pushing. It no longer has the military might to enforce its policy by fiat and so is struggling to find political leverage. I think this decision will backfire, for reasons I've already detailed in a previous post.

You on the other hand as near as I can tell are making the assertion that they are not in fact rogues, which I'd like to say is baffling but is really just par for the course for you.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285397862' post='2464080']
So you're okay setting the precedent that sanctions should include bias and you won't deal with nuclear rogues as long as they aren't attacking someone you like?
[/quote]
Beef, I'll say it a tenth time, on September 6th NPO and CoJ came to the conclusion that Meth is not a rogue and shouldn't be sanctioned. I gave you the logs which are very explicit. When we started talking about it, we also realized the irony of the situation. It had to be pretty clear to you that if you asked CoJ and NPO for a sanction and it didn't happen in the next two weeks that it wasn't going to happen. You asked again, anyway, and Cortath voiced NPO's opinion which was in excess of the reason that the sanction was not going to happen. Now here you come playing victim of the ebil NPO that ole boogeyman. Here's a protip: The war will end a lot faster if you drop the $90m figure than by sanctions, anyway.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1285398357' post='2464087']
Not so, Cortath declined to sanction for GOONS because he wanted to use it as political leverage to try and get them to stop raiding the red team, I'm asserting that politicizing sanctions like that can only be bad long term. NPO has a historical agenda it wants to continue pushing. It no longer has the military might to enforce its policy by fiat and so is struggling to find political leverage. I think this decision will backfire, for reasons I've already detailed in a previous post.

You on the other hand as near as I can tell are making the assertion that they are not in fact rogues, which I'd like to say is baffling but is really just par for the course for you.
[/quote]

Beefspari's log is from 9/23, so I'm going to quote Cortath from 9/6 for you one more time before I go to sleep:

[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, [b]no. Usually it's people who are not part of an alliance who are just nuking someone for !@#$% and giggles.[/b]
[18:29] <Schattenmann> So you would not call Methrage a rogue in terms of sanctioning
[18:29] <Cortath> What's the situation with him precisely?
[18:30] <Schattenmann> His member attacked 3 GOONS, then--seeing the hopelessness of it--instead of trying to be diplomatic, Methrage also declared on GOONS, then GOONS published a DoW on them on the AP board
[18:31] <Cortath> You mean on his little two man alliance?
[18:33] <Schattenmann> Yes

Our decision to not sanction was based on Meth's status as not-a-rogue.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285398220' post='2464084']
There's a big difference here.

Red Raiding Safari is about NPO vs the world.
[/quote]

The whole world wants to tech-raid red? I'm intrigued by this. Verrrrry intrigued.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285398386' post='2464088']
Beef, I'll say it a tenth time, on September 6th NPO and CoJ came to the conclusion that Meth is not a rogue and shouldn't be sanctioned. I gave you the logs which are very explicit. When we started talking about it, we also realized the irony of the situation. It had to be pretty clear to you that if you asked CoJ and NPO for a sanction and it didn't happen in the next two weeks that it wasn't going to happen. You asked again, anyway, and Cortath voiced NPO's opinion which was in excess of the reason that the sanction was not going to happen. Now here you come playing victim of the ebil NPO that ole boogeyman. Here's a protip: The war will end a lot faster if you drop the $90m figure than by sanctions, anyway.
[/quote]


Ill say it and save a GOON from repeating himself. What about Jim?

Edit to catch schatts reply:

Ohh logs! I've got some too!
[quote]
<Cortath[NPO]> We're disinclined to grant the sanction as long as the Red Raiding Safari continues.[/quote]

Edited September 25, 2010 by TypoNinja

[the rebel]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285398220' post='2464084']
Red Raiding Safari is about NPO vs the world. Other alliances who want to raid on red and don't believe that NPO should get to tell the rest of the world they can't raid on a whole sphere of unaligned nations.

And by doing nothing they've decided not to deal with a nuclear rogue. Because of something that has nothing to do with either Methrage or Jim.
[/quote]

You still arent getting the point of why do you expect them to do you favours, when your alliance wasnt doing their trade partners any favours by raiding them...

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1285398386' post='2464088']
Beef, I'll say it a tenth time, on September 6th NPO and CoJ came to the conclusion that Meth is not a rogue and shouldn't be sanctioned. I gave you the logs which are very explicit. When we started talking about it, we also realized the irony of the situation. It had to be pretty clear to you that if you asked CoJ and NPO for a sanction and it didn't happen in the next two weeks that it wasn't going to happen. You asked again, anyway, and Cortath voiced NPO's opinion which was in excess of the reason that the sanction was not going to happen. Now here you come playing victim of the ebil NPO that ole boogeyman. Here's a protip: The war will end a lot faster if you drop the $90m figure than by sanctions, anyway.
[/quote]
That doesn't explain why you deflected Jim as being a rogue, especially since you still haven't answered Biazt's question.

And for the record, Cortath contacted ME.

And no, reducing the money for aiding Methrage would only make people more inclined to aid him since there would be less punishment.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1285398629' post='2464091']
The whole world wants to tech-raid red? I'm intrigued by this. Verrrrry intrigued.
[/quote]
Yeah! Didn't you hear? The [i]whole world[/i] was so enticed to raid Red that no one even noticed that the Revenge Doctrine was in place for the entirety of NPO's peace terms, and post-peace terms for a year. Then when GOONS got a standard cease-and-desist PM, the whole world (GOONS and a few allies constituting "the world") got their pitchforks out. And now, according to Beefspari, the whole world can expect the ebil NPO to refuse to sanction "rogues" for them.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285398822' post='2464099']
And no, reducing the money for aiding Methrage would only make people more inclined to aid him since there would be less punishment.
[/quote]
The fastest way to destroy an enemy is to create a friend

[Choader]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1285398629' post='2464091']
The whole world wants to tech-raid red? I'm intrigued by this. Verrrrry intrigued.
[/quote]
I think it safe to say a majority of the world rejects the notion of an alliance claiming sphere ownership.