GOON spy orders

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285569864' post='2465885']
I remember just a week or so ago pointing out that you never paid tech to someone, and you didn't send it until after I "reminded" you. That doesn't mean you didn't forget about that person before I brought it up and had stolen their money without compensation up until I pointed it out. As I mentioned, during my talks for sanctions I managed to run into two people you never paid tech to. You only paid one of them back. And you were sanctioned on green for being a scammer, don't you read the world sanctions messages?

But the guy ghosting your AA is pretty funny, we were laughing about it earlier. I think someone invited him to GOONS because he has good resources. And if his bio is to be believed, you did him some wrong too. In fact, it reminds me of Tran Hung Dao, who you were in an alliance with but he joined GOONS instead because you left him to smolder in ruins. Seems you've wronged a lot of people.
[/quote]
Tran Hung Dao actually scammed me of 100 tech and joined GOONS. I paid him $3m for tech before I got attacked by you guys and he was unaligned at the time of me sending the money, then joined CTC, then GOONS. I took a screenshot because it was an issue of dispute I brought up at the time, but you guys refused to pay and kept him as a member. I never attacked him as he was never in range, although he deleted from inactivity eventually. That was an example of GOONS accepting and protecting a known tech scammer though, so interesting you would bring it up and lie about it, only proving GOONS to be liars and scammers.

[IMG]http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd80/Methrage/430-1.png[/IMG]

Edited September 27, 2010 by Methrage

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='MikeCrotch' timestamp='1285536778' post='2465495']
Read the GOONS charter.

Alliances with less that 15 members are not an alliance.

You are not in an alliance.

QED
[/quote]

Your postulate is self-contradictory.

ergo !QED

Edited September 27, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1285428501' post='2464302']
A nation goes rogue on my alliance, our alliance deals with this nuclear rogue for a week or two. After the second round of nuclear war, he switches his AA to FAN, and continues his attacks on [i]my alliance[/i]. All slots are covered by us, and we ZI him. He sends many PMS of complaint to us, and eventually one of our members sends him a joke $1 aid offer. A few hours later an official from NPO comes over to our IRC and demands we pay a NPO nation the same amount of money or we retract the aid offer, otherwise we'll face war over it. And yeah, we had a significant treaty with GOD at the time, so we weren't some alliance like Jarheads et al. (It was Umbrae Nocterm or whoever, this time). So NPO considered what we did worthy of war, so imagine if we'd sent $4.5million secretly!
[/quote]
The problem with your example is that nowhere did NPO threaten to sanction the guy who sent the aid offer.

That would be like this case. Nobody's complaining about GOONS being at war with Jim, the only argument is over the sanction.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285439592' post='2464409']
Unfortunately, red sphere knows that there's little if any precedent for considering refusing sanctions "assistance," and are quite happy to "assist" rogues in any way that they can't [b]quite[/b] be held accountable for.
[/quote]
You guys are aware that your allies over in Maroon refused to sanction SWAT128 when he rogued against people they didn't like, right?

[quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1285449960' post='2464569']
So why, when he attacked GOONS was he not flying your AA? Because he wasn't a member. He was a rogue.
[/quote]
Most alliances accept nations who are already at war with alliances that the alliance is at war with. It is possible for an unaligned nation to be at war with an alliance without being a rogue, you know.

[quote name='Dr Beefstupid' timestamp='1285454782' post='2464623']
Trade resources is somewhat of a grey area and there's no universal answer about whether trading with a rogue is an act of war.
[/quote]
lolwut

"You didn't cancel your trade when your trading partner went rogue! WARRRRRR"

Better get on making that universal answer "no" or that's what you're going to be looking at very soon.

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1285471426' post='2464852']
A rogue is already outnumbered 3v1 at least, usually 4v1 if he's smart, 6v1 if he's crazy.
[/quote]
6v1 isn't as crazy as you think, done it a couple times myself.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1285518926' post='2465213']
If a big rogue with over 160k NS and 16k tech hits your alliance almost every alliances in CN would be in trouble. There aren't many alliances who can handle such a rogue themselves and won't call in allies.
[/quote]
iFOK would be fine

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285530436' post='2465370']
But it wasn't an alliance war in the first place. What you're saying is, if 15 rogues were to band together, all sanctions would need to be lifted (or [b]could[/b] be lifted by the senators, if you want to say I'm twisting your words), which is completely ludicrous.
[/quote]
This is exactly the problem with your argument that someone is a rogue because they're not in an alliance, and then defining an alliance as an AA having 15 members or more. It leads to this conclusion.

[quote name='Haquertal' timestamp='1285532701' post='2465425']
They're on red team? I thought even Jim had switched to gray?

E: Actually, 5 are still on red. I guess you could call them rouge, since majority are on red.
[/quote]
Kerberos Nexus is a Red alliance, officially.

Anyway.

There's a simple way to tell the difference between a rogue war and an alliance war. In an alliance war, when new nations join the alliance that you are at war with, you declare war on them.

In rogue wars, you're only fighting the individual nations that declared war on you.

So...

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=390063&Extended=1
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=390071&Extended=1
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=302967&Extended=1
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=383589&Extended=1

You guys are hitting those nations for no other reason than that they are flying the AA of an allance you are at war with. That's an alliance war.

This all kinda reminds me of the war in which we wiped out the Rat Pack. Rat Pack were a 4-man AA that separated from Illuminati when the Superfriends and CDT attacked them. Rat Pack launched some individual wars, mostly against us and ASC, and in particular hit our Minister of War. They then escaped to peace mode (their nations were small) and proceeded to start doing donation deals with large nations in order to get the funds needed to come out of dove and hit our lowbies again. They posted this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17046

This went on for quite some time. It got annoying. We posted this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17277

TPF helped some of our lowbies with war aid, as they hated Heil Frech's guts. Browncoats also offered to help, I forget if they actually did anything though.

Eventually, Rat Pack ran out of people to convince to send them funds. They gave it up, and aren't here anymore. We attacked one nation for aiding them, who hilariously enough joined us. Unfortunately, Jesusaurus abandoned his nation a few months ago.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1285585937' post='2465942']


lolwut

"You didn't cancel your trade when your trading partner went rogue! WARRRRRR"


[/quote]

Just as a note, I've considered this before. I'd never in a million years force someone to cancel a pre-existing trade with someone, but if a rogue is sanctioned and his trades are all canceled, if he goes out and seeks a new uranium trade, the person supplying the uranium is essentially providing nuclear weapons for a known rogue. I asked around a bit last time STA was on the receiving end of this in order to see how our allies felt about it. (I quite frequently have harebrained ideas, and want to bounce them off someone.) If was pretty much universally agreed upon by our allies that enforcing this was not a precedent they'd want to set. NpO was pretty "meh" about it, but MK was definitely not in favor. In principle, it was agreed upon that it was a valid point, but in practice, no one, including STA, really wanted to enforce it.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285589189' post='2465959']
Just as a note, I've considered this before. I'd never in a million years force someone to cancel a pre-existing trade with someone, but if a rogue is sanctioned and his trades are all canceled, if he goes out and seeks a new uranium trade, the person supplying the uranium is essentially providing nuclear weapons for a known rogue. I asked around a bit last time STA was on the receiving end of this in order to see how our allies felt about it. (I quite frequently have harebrained ideas, and want to bounce them off someone.) If was pretty much universally agreed upon by our allies that enforcing this was not a precedent they'd want to set. NpO was pretty "meh" about it, but MK was definitely not in favor. In principle, it was agreed upon that it was a valid point, but in practice, no one, including STA, really wanted to enforce it.
[/quote]

Speaking as an individual on this one, it's not a valid CB if for no other reason but for the massive can of worms it opens up (e.g. "Was the Uranium holding nation even aware they were trading with a rogue?" No, not everyone checks/is aware...). Still I see nothing wrong with a Uranium holding nation being asked to cancel the trade and being offered economic incentives to do so.

[jer]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285591716' post='2465969']
(e.g. "Was the Uranium holding nation even aware they were trading with a rogue?" No, not everyone checks/is aware...)
[/quote]
Discussions of what is right and wrong in the cold light of day are misleading here, because what's really important in a situation like that is how opportunistic an aggressive alliance is going to be in pursuing perceived wrongs. If they are in a strong position and are happy to go to war over the issue (for example, if the trading nation is in an alliance they'd like to hit) then the position will be that it's the trading nations responsibility to check whether they're aiding a rogue or not, and that they should accept the consequences for their error. On the other hand if the alliance fighting the rogue doesn't want to make a big deal out of it (for example, if the trading nation is in an allied or strong alliance) then they may well give the benefit of the doubt and pass it off as a mistake or ignorance.

Issues like these are much easier to analyse for individuals if you can get past the falsity of 'right and wrong' on Bob and instead accept the realities of opportunism and political expediency.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Aimee Mann

[pezstar]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285591716' post='2465969']
Speaking as an individual on this one, it's not a valid CB if for no other reason but for the massive can of worms it opens up (e.g. "Was the Uranium holding nation even aware they were trading with a rogue?" No, not everyone checks/is aware...). Still I see nothing wrong with a Uranium holding nation being asked to cancel the trade and being offered economic incentives to do so.
[/quote]

You are exactly on the money as to why, when this was discussed amongst STA's little web of friends, it was rejected. Asking people and offering to pay them to do is more than fair. Trying to force them to is no good.

[Biazt]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1285591716' post='2465969']
Speaking as an individual on this one, it's not a valid CB if for no other reason but for the massive can of worms it opens up (e.g. "Was the Uranium holding nation even aware they were trading with a rogue?" No, not everyone checks/is aware...). Still I see nothing wrong with a Uranium holding nation being asked to cancel the trade and being offered economic incentives to do so.
[/quote]
The only time I can remember this actually being an issue for us is when Methrage posted asking for a uranium trade to buy more nukes (to nuke us with) and Rebel Virginia traded with him. In this case the intent was obvious but even so we didn't push the issue very hard.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Biazt

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285439592' post='2464409']
Unfortunately, red sphere knows that there's little if any precedent for considering refusing sanctions "assistance," and are quite happy to "assist" rogues in any way that they can't [b]quite[/b] be held accountable for.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well, maybe it's time for you to try setting a new precedent then. You people have been clambering for a CB on the NPO for months now. Sure, this may need a little reaching, but what's stopping you?[/color]

[JT Jag]

All good things come in time.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1285608295' post='2466074']
[color="#0000FF"]Well, maybe it's time for you to try setting a new precedent then. You people have been clambering for a CB on the NPO for months now. Sure, this may need a little reaching, but what's stopping you?[/color][/quote]
[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285608777' post='2466078']
All good things come in time.[/quote]

You know when the treaty web has made everybody into loving hippy's when all you can think of is the ebil NPO for war...

[JT Jag]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285609586' post='2466085']
You know when the treaty web has made everybody into loving hippy's when all you can think of is the ebil NPO for war...
[/quote]The Superfriends vs. CnG Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny should come shortly after.

[the rebel]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285609725' post='2466087']
The Superfriends vs. CnG Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny should come shortly after.
[/quote]

They like it in bed with each other too much

GOONS

[Beefspari]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285589189' post='2465959']
Just as a note, I've considered this before. I'd never in a million years force someone to cancel a pre-existing trade with someone, but if a rogue is sanctioned and his trades are all canceled, if he goes out and seeks a new uranium trade, the person supplying the uranium is essentially providing nuclear weapons for a known rogue. I asked around a bit last time STA was on the receiving end of this in order to see how our allies felt about it. (I quite frequently have harebrained ideas, and want to bounce them off someone.) If was pretty much universally agreed upon by our allies that enforcing this was not a precedent they'd want to set. NpO was pretty "meh" about it, but MK was definitely not in favor. In principle, it was agreed upon that it was a valid point, but in practice, no one, including STA, really wanted to enforce it.
[/quote]
pez covered this pretty well. It's a gray area (as DrBeefstupid said) that not a lot of people want to touch. At best we could argue that if, for example, we just got done having someone pay reps for aiding a nuke rogue, and then right after we find out that they just initiated a uranium trade with that same nuke rogue, their intentions and knowledge of the situation are completely clear.

Here's what I find interesting, is that aid is considered wrong no matter what by some people. In fact, even sending 50t to someone in what was obviously a tech deal is something some people want to push. But blatantly and intentionally providing uranium to a nuke rogue would be something people don't want to touch?

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1285608295' post='2466074']
[color="#0000FF"]Well, maybe it's time for you to try setting a new precedent then. You people have been clambering for a CB on the NPO for months now. Sure, this may need a little reaching, but what's stopping you?[/color]
[/quote]
Only if we have the blessings of Reverend Rebel Virginia.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285610277' post='2466096']
Here's what I find interesting, is that aid is considered wrong no matter what by some people. In fact, even sending 50t to someone in what was obviously a tech deal is something some people want to push. But blatantly and intentionally providing uranium to a nuke rogue would be something people don't want to touch?[/quote]

Finding trades is going to get harder and harder as the months go on, so people with uranium shouldnt have to ruin their trades just because one of their partners have gone rogue, because finding certain replacements is becoming a hard task to complete...
Even if you try forcing it and branding them a rogue for trading with a rogue and get them sanctioned, you are ruining 4 innocent nations which could be you/me or anyone else who needs uranium...

Edited September 27, 2010 by the rebel

[Beefspari]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1285610981' post='2466102']
Finding trades is going to get harder and harder as the months go on, so people with uranium shouldnt have to ruin their trades just because one of their partners have gone rogue, because finding certain replacements is becoming a hard task to complete...
Even if you try forcing it and branding them a rogue for trading with a rogue and get them sanctioned, you are ruining 4 innocent nations which could be you/me or anyone else who needs uranium...
[/quote]
That's not what I said. You ignored the specifics and the preceding paragraph. I'm not talking about someone going rogue and suddenly whoever was in their circle is in the wrong. I specifically said someone intentionally providing them with uranium after the fact, in a position where you can show that they know what they did was give uranium to a rogue who was going to use it to nuke people.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1285611278' post='2466105']
That's not what I said. You ignored the specifics and the preceding paragraph. I'm not talking about someone going rogue and suddenly whoever was in their circle is in the wrong. I specifically said someone intentionally providing them with uranium after the fact, in a position where you can show that they know what they did was give uranium to a rogue who was going to use it to nuke people.
[/quote]

How do you know that the guy who offered the trade doesn't just need the resources?

[JT Jag]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1285619630' post='2466203']
How do you know that the guy who offered the trade doesn't just need the resources?
[/quote]If it's some dumb, 30-day old nation who is giving Methrage uranium, we'd politely ask them to cease the trade because they're just another nation Methrage has scammed into helping him.

If, however, it is a three-year-old nation and a member of high standing in an alliance with notable diplomatic presence, then that's a different story entirely. At that point, you have to know better, and ignorance ceases to be an excuse.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285619849' post='2466206']
If it's some dumb, 30-day old nation who is giving Methrage uranium, we'd politely ask them to cease the trade because they're just another nation Methrage has scammed into helping him.

If, however, it is a three-year-old nation and a member of high standing in an alliance with notable diplomatic presence, then that's a different story entirely. At that point, you have to know better, and ignorance ceases to be an excuse.
[/quote]

I understand that. My question was what if the nation in question doesn't really care about the political/diplomatic aspects of the trade and just wanted a rogue's resources. It doesn't matter whether it is a 30 day old nation or a 3 year old nation. I'm speaking about this in a broader sense. The rogue can be anyone, not just Methrage.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1285620045' post='2466209']
I understand that. My question was what if the nation in question doesn't really care about the political/diplomatic aspects of the trade and just wanted a rogue's resources. It doesn't matter whether it is a 30 day old nation or a 3 year old nation. I'm speaking about this in a broader sense. The rogue can be anyone, not just Methrage.
[/quote]Right, it's definately a gray area. However, the idea of trades being a possible CB is not something that I'd totally discard out of hand. It'd have to be a fairly unique instance for it to be valid, in my opinion.

If, for instance (and this is entirely a theoretical) we found out that someone like Rebel Virginia were trading with one of our rogues, it would certainly be something worth intense scrutiny.

[pezstar]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285620733' post='2466226']
Right, it's definately a gray area. However, the idea of trades being a possible CB is not something that I'd totally discard out of hand. It'd have to be a fairly unique instance for it to be valid, in my opinion.

If, for instance (and this is entirely a theoretical) we found out that someone like Rebel Virginia were trading with one of our rogues, it would certainly be something worth intense scrutiny.
[/quote]

I don't think that ALL trades should be open to scrutiny. I think that in very specific circumstances, a uranium trade only could be questioned.

[Andre27]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285620733' post='2466226']
Right, it's definately a gray area. However, the idea of trades being a possible CB is not something that I'd totally discard out of hand. It'd have to be a fairly unique instance for it to be valid, in my opinion.

If, for instance (and this is entirely a theoretical) we found out that someone like Rebel Virginia were trading with one of our rogues, it would certainly be something worth intense scrutiny.
[/quote]

Gray area? I'd say it's a complete no-go zone. Forcing people to drop trades because their trading partner is at war? To my knowledge it's unprecedented in the history of planet bob. It directly violates a nations sovereignty to choose their trades. Sanctions are as far as the denial of trades should go. If a person has secured trades untouched my sanctions (secret trades and no team) then that should be the end of things. Using a willing trade as a CB against a person or even worse against an alliance, is distasteful.

What's next on the list, forcing people to change their government because some types of government provide increased espionage odds?
Perhaps the religion of a nation offends you, worthy CB against the alliance that nation is a member of. wouldn't you say?
Let's face it, it's a slippery slope when you try to deny nations their basic freedom of choice.

Off course you as an alliance can opt to engage said nation, but it will be a war of aggression and not a defensive war . Don't go there.

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285623552' post='2466273']
I don't think that ALL trades should be open to scrutiny. I think that in very specific circumstances, a uranium trade only could be questioned.
[/quote]

Why stop with Uranium, Lead provides a discount on nukes and CM, Aluminium provides extra soldier efficiency, wheat provides extra population and so on.

No exceptions. Freedom of choice for trades should be guaranteed no matter the circumstances.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Andre27

[JT Jag]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1285623631' post='2466275']
Gray area? I'd say it's a complete no-go zone. Forcing people to drop trades because their trading partner is at war? To my knowledge it's unprecedented in the history of planet bob. It directly violates a nations sovereignty to choose their trades. Sanctions are as far as the denial of trades should go. If a person has secured trades untouched my sanctions (secret trades and no team) then that should be the end of things. Using a willing trade as a CB against a person or even worse against an alliance, is distasteful.

What's next on the list, forcing people to change their government because some types of government provide increased espionage odds?
Perhaps the religion of a nation offends you, worthy CB against the alliance that nation is a member of. wouldn't you say?
Let's face it, it's a slippery slope when you try to deny nations their basic freedom of choice.

Off course you as an alliance can opt to engage said nation, but it will be a war of aggression and not a defensive war . Don't go there.
[/quote]Personal freedom extends to arm's length, and an argument could be made that by supplying uranium to a rogue that nation is repressing our freedom to develop as we see fit.

[JT Jag]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285623552' post='2466273']
I don't think that ALL trades should be open to scrutiny. I think that in very specific circumstances, a uranium trade only could be questioned.
[/quote]I agree.

[Andre27]

[quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1285623872' post='2466283']
Personal freedom extends to arm's length, and an argument could be made that by supplying uranium to a rogue that nation is repressing our freedom to develop as we see fit.
[/quote]

So another nations freedom should be taken away because it hinders your progress?

As i said earlier, no exceptions. Freedom of choice for trades should be guaranteed at all times.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Andre27