[DRAFT] Repeal The Gem Trading Accord

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal “The Gem Trading Accord”
Category: Repeal

---

Recollecting this Assembly's landmark stance against needless violence, deaths, and or genocide, especially by the non-state actors which the target resolution is terrified of,

Certain that there is no need for overreaching authority to inspect gems, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are financially crippling to the WA as well as unable to prevent the illicit earning of monies by criminal organisations due to the existence of non-member nations,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the clause (h), in that ‘trade in gems not certified by [International Gemological Agency]-accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed’, as:
   
   
   1. this creates large loopholes for corruption, since sellers of legal gemstones would be forced to go through an IGA-accredited laboratory, which may or may not be staffed with uncorrupt staff, and
      
   2. this also places an undue burden on the WA for accrediting these laboratories, overseeing them, funding them, and potentially staffing them with personnel as required in clauses (e), (f), (g), and (i) if the required laboratories under this resolution did not exist before the passage of this resolution or the entry of a nation into the World Assembly;
2. Disputes the need of the clause referenced in above, since gem trading is already adequately self-regulated by experts in gem trading and assessment in non-member nations;
   
3. Disputes the accuracy of the definition of ‘precious stone’ and ‘gem’ as,
   
   
   1. the former does not recognise that the ’intrinsic value’ referenced allows for the interpretation that all value is intrinsic, since things which are intrinsic are naturally part of the whole, and hence, the gem is intrinsically valuable,
      
   2. would also include any things which are solid, naturally occurring, and wanted for appearance, such as: gold, silver, anthracite coal, certain types of sand, souvenir rocks, and or especially rich topsoils, as well as
      
   3. the latter, since there are many forms of processing solid naturally occurring objects, such as melting, burning, glass forging, smashing, and or burying — all of which would reduce the appearance value of the object, but is a process enacted on the 'precious stone', which implies that it is a gem;
4. Objects to the artificial association of synthetic gems as ‘substandard’ in clause (e), especially when many nations can synthesise gemstones of large weight and quality which can replace natural gemstones in nearly all cases;
   
5. Disbelieves the idea that placing ridiculously massive barriers to gemstone trade will in any way reduce the ability for criminal organisations to earn money from illegally sold gemstones, especially when there are many nations which exist outside of the World Assembly; and hence;
   
6. Repeals The Gem Trading Accord.

Repeal “The Gem Trading Accord”
Category: Repeal

---

Recollecting this Assembly's landmark stance against needless violence, deaths, and or genocide, especially by the non-state actors which the target resolution is terrified of,

Certain that there is no need for massive and overreaching authority to inspect gems, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are financially crippling to the WA,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the clause (h), in that ‘trade in gems not certified by [International Gemological Agency]-accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed’, as:
   
   
   1. this is a massive overreach which is also below the international scope of the World Assembly;
      
   2. this creates large loopholes for corruption, since anyone who would want to sell gemstones legally would be forced to go through an IGA-accredited laboratory, which may or may not be staffed with uncorrupt staff;
      
   3. and this also places an undue burden on the WA for accrediting these laboratories, overseeing them, staffing them with personnel as required in clauses (e), (f), (g), and (i);
2. Disputes the enforceability of the clause referenced in (1), since gem trading is already adequately self-regulated by experts in gem trading and assessment;
   
3. Disputes the accuracy of the definition of ‘precious stone’ and ‘gem’,
   
   
   1. as the former does not recognise that the ’intrinsic value’ referenced allows for the interpretation that there are no precious stones whatsoever, since things which are intrinsic are naturally part of the whole, and hence, the gem is intrinsically valuable,
      
   2. would also include any things which are solid, naturally occurring, and wanted for appearance, such as: gold, silver, anthracite coal, certain types of sand, souvenir rocks, and or especially rich topsoils,
      
   3. and also the latter, since there are many forms of processing solid naturally occurring objects, such as melting, burning, glass forging, smashing, and or burying — all of which would reduce the appearance value of the gem;
4. Objects to the artificial association of synthetic gems as ‘substandard’ in clause (e), especially when many nations can synthesise gemstones of large weight and quality;
   
5. Chuckles at the idea that placing ridiculously massive barriers to gemstone trade will in any way reduce the ability for criminal organisations to earn money from illegally sold gemstones;
   
6. Repeals The Gem Trading Accord.

Repeal “The Gem Trading Accord”
Category: Repeal

---

Recollecting this Assembly's landmark stance against needless violence, deaths, and or genocide, especially by the non-state actors which the target resolution is terrified of,

Certain that there is no need for massive and overreaching authority to inspect gems, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are financially crippling to the WA,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the clause (h), in that ‘trade in gems not certified by [International Gemological Agency]-accredited laboratories is hereby outlawed’, as:
   
   
   1. this is a massive overreach which is also below the international scope of the World Assembly;
      
   2. this creates large loopholes for corruption, since anyone who would want to sell gemstones legally would be forced to go through an IGA-accredited laboratory, which may or may not be staffed with uncorrupt staff;
      
   3. and this also places a massive undue burden on the WA for accrediting these laboratories, overseeing them, staffing them with personnel as required in clauses (e), (f), (g), and (i);
2. Disputes the enforceability of the clause referenced in (1), since gem trading is already adequately self-regulated by experts in gem trading and assessment;
   
3. Disputes the accuracy of the definition of ‘precious stone’ and ‘gem’,
   
   
   1. as the former does not recognise that the ’intrinsic value’ referenced allows for the interpretation that there are no precious stones whatsoever, since things which are intrinsic are naturally part of the whole, and hence, the gem is intrinsically valuable,
      
   2. would also include any things which are solid, naturally occurring, and wanted for appearance, such as: gold, silver, anthracite coal, certain types of sand, souvenir rocks, and or especially rich topsoils,
      
   3. and also the latter, since there are many forms of processing solid naturally occurring objects, such as melting, burning, glass forging, smashing, and or burying — all of which would reduce the appearance value of the gem;
4. Objects to the artificial requirement that synthetic gems be banned entirely if marketed as a replacement for natural gems as well as their association as ‘substandard’ in clause (e), especially when many nations can synthesise gemstones of large weight and quality;
   
5. Chuckles at the idea that placing ridiculously massive barriers to gemstone trade will in any way reduce the ability for criminal organisations to earn money from illegally sold gemstones;
   
6. Repeals The Gem Trading Accord.

Came across this resolution when updating my WA database. I read it and well ... the above. Any thoughts?

[Ardchoille]

This is probably one of the most often misunderstood Resolutions in the GA.

I'd suggest you read the posts by the Resolution's author, Urgench/Qumkent, himself a gem-trader, in the original debate thread, this thread and this thread. Frisbeeteria's (non-modly) gem-trader challenge in this thread is also useful.

Several Repeal attempts have shown that on examination its clauses do not do what, at first glance, players think they do.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is probably one of the most often misunderstood Resolutions in the GA.

I'd suggest you read the posts by the Resolution's author, Urgench/Qumkent, himself a gem-trader, in the original debate thread, this thread and this thread. Frisbeeteria's (non-modly) gem-trader challenge in this thread is also useful.

Several Repeal attempts have shown that on examination its clauses do not do what, at first glance, players think they do.

I do not see where the repeal text contradicts/misinterprets the elements which are referenced in the linked threads.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I do not see where the repeal text contradicts/misinterprets the elements which are referenced in the linked threads.

OOC: For example, you assert that synthetic gems are "banned entirely" by the GTA, when no such thing is true: "trade in synthetic or artificial gems shall remain licit so long as they are not fraudulently sold as natural gems".

[Imperium Anglorum]

I do not see where the repeal text contradicts/misinterprets the elements which are referenced in the linked threads.

OOC: For example, you assert that synthetic gems are "banned entirely" by the GTA, when no such thing is true: "trade in synthetic or artificial gems shall remain licit so long as they are not fraudulently sold as natural gems".

Solved that via removal. What else?

[The Dark Star Republic]

and this also places a massive undue burden on the WA for accrediting these laboratories, overseeing them, staffing them with personnel as required in clauses (e), (f), (g), and (i);

Again, not true. Individual member nations can staff the laboratories: the WA is merely accrediting them to ensure they're being run competently.

[Imperium Anglorum]

and this also places a massive undue burden on the WA for accrediting these laboratories, overseeing them, staffing them with personnel as required in clauses (e), (f), (g), and (i);

Again, not true. Individual member nations can staff the laboratories: the WA is merely accrediting them to ensure they're being run competently.

Clause (e) — 'IGA shall assist member states' — which may include WA staff

Clause (f) — 'IGL assistance' — which may include WA staff

Clause (g) — 'IGL shall assist producers' — which may include WA staff

Clause (i) — 'where sufficient expertise in the field of fraudulent gem trading is lacking, the IGA shall assist in providing experts with relevant experience and qualifications'

[The Dark Star Republic]

None of which can possibly add up to a "massive undue burden" if, as you claim, "gem trading is already adequately self-regulated by experts in gem trading and assessment". Your own repeal fails by its internal logic. Either the system for regulating the gem trade is already in place, in which case accreditation and associated assistance should be a breeze, or it's not, in which case the WA getting involved is perfectly justified.

I should emphasise that at this stage I'm trying to concentrate only on the parts of your repeal that are factually wrong, because those can be illegal for Honest Mistake violations, and Ardchoille didn't see fit to relay her concerns. I think almost all of your arguments are seriously awry, too, and the tone is pretty appalling, but that's not in itself grounds for the repeal being illegal, merely ill-conceived.

[Imperium Anglorum]

None of which can possibly add up to a "massive undue burden" if, as you claim, "gem trading is already adequately self-regulated by experts in gem trading and assessment". Your own repeal fails by its internal logic. Either the system for regulating the gem trade is already in which place, in which case accreditation and associated assistance should be a breeze, or it's not, in which case the WA getting involved is perfectly justified.

'If the system is in place in certain countries, then it is not an issue. However, if there is not a system set up, then it would lead to a "undue burden" (I will admit that the "massive" is boilerplate), since the WA would be footing the bill for these experts.

The justification for that burden, in my opinion, is not present — as the regulation of gem trading within member nations (as expressed in one of the threads by the author which Archodille linked) is (1) not an international issue, (2) doing so would lead to large opportunities for corruption, and (3) since testing is not free, barriers to business.

[The Dark Star Republic]

You need to step away from the text for a minute and think about basic market economics.

The IGA's role is to oversee the legal trade in gems. If they make the entry pricing for testing unreasonably high, then the illegal trade will flourish again. They have no interest in seeing that happen. They want people to make use of their services; they want to avoid traders operating outside the bounds of the law.

Furthermore, it's arguable that having universal accreditation actually reduces costs. It creates trust: any buyer knows that their seller's product is of an internationally verified quality. Without that step, they would have little cause to trust the seller, and would in all likelihood insist on testing themselves. Yet in that situation, the tester has substantial interest in increasing prices for their services, because they know the buyer is in a position where they have no other recourse: there is no international agency to turn to.

doing so would lead to large opportunities for corruption

How are you establishing that a laboratory accredited by an international oversight agency is more likely to be corrupt than one not accredited by an international oversight agency? Because that's the only way in which that stacks up as a plausible objection.

However, if there is not a system set up,

Well, your own repeal argues that it by definition is, so you might want to fix that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The IGA's role is to oversee the legal trade in gems. If they make the entry pricing for testing unreasonably high, then the illegal trade will flourish again. They have no interest in seeing that happen. They want people to make use of their services; they want to avoid traders operating outside the bounds of the law.

To allow this to happen, market subsidies would have to be implemented inside the context of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations. This would increase the burden on the WA to pick up the costs for this service whenever the supply does not meet the demand. This is the starting point of (1).c in my repeal text.

Furthermore, it's arguable that having universal accreditation actually reduces costs. It creates trust: any buyer knows that their seller's product is of an internationally verified quality. Without that step, they would have little cause to trust the seller, and would in all likelihood insist on testing themselves. Yet in that situation, the tester has substantial interest in increasing prices for their services, because they know the buyer is in a position where they have no other recourse: there is no international agency to turn to.

Yet, this would increase costs, since it would be a distortion of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations by creating an artificially inflated demand. It is not as if there is only one gem appraiser which would have a monopoly on the price of appraisal and hence, can demand whatever price they want in an unregulated appraisal market. However, due to the regulation, accredited laboratories are of restricted supply and thus, increase costs. Secondarily, there is an incentive for gem producers to test their most expensive gems (since this would increase the trust of the buyer). However, not all gems require appraisal (obvious examples of ones which do are like the Koh-i-noor), which would reduce the cost of gem appraisal by decreasing its demand.

doing so would lead to large opportunities for corruption

How are you establishing that a laboratory accredited by an international oversight agency is more likely to be corrupt than one not accredited by an international oversight agency? Because that's the only way in which that stacks up as a plausible objection.

Yes, since there are no market forces which would incentivise the accurate appraisal of gems. Recall that government regulation is not a market force. Laboratories which are under the purview of market forces will better appraise their gems, since the market's trust in their expert opinion is the source of their business.

[Imperium Anglorum]

However, if there is not a system set up,

Well, your own repeal argues that it by definition is, so you might want to fix that.

Well, the repeal argues that in situations where there is no system before the passage of Resolution 113, there is a system set up which is run by the WA, and hence, an undue burden.

[Blaccakre]

The IGA's role is to oversee the legal trade in gems. If they make the entry pricing for testing unreasonably high, then the illegal trade will flourish again. They have no interest in seeing that happen. They want people to make use of their services; they want to avoid traders operating outside the bounds of the law.

Isn't there already a huge "illegal" (under WA law) trade in gems within tens of thousands of non-member nations. How is the IGA keeping us you competitive with those markets?

Furthermore, it's arguable that having universal accreditation actually reduces costs. It creates trust: any buyer knows that their seller's product is of an internationally verified quality. Without that step, they would have little cause to trust the seller, and would in all likelihood insist on testing themselves. Yet in that situation, the tester has substantial interest in increasing prices for their services, because they know the buyer is in a position where they have no other recourse: there is no international agency to turn to.

I dunno, couldn't member nations regulate that on their own at a lower expense than having an international agency oversee it? Blaccakre has a lively trade in gems and we don't pay for any damn WA accreditation. Our own internal regulation exists, and seeing as how the penalty for fraudulent sale of any goods is seven days in the stocks and a public flogging, we have very great trust amongst buyers and sellers.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The IGA's role is to oversee the legal trade in gems. If they make the entry pricing for testing unreasonably high, then the illegal trade will flourish again. They have no interest in seeing that happen. They want people to make use of their services; they want to avoid traders operating outside the bounds of the law.

Isn't there already a huge "illegal" (under WA law) trade in gems within tens of thousands of non-member nations. How is the IGA keeping us competitive with those markets?

The author made clear that all gems which entered WA countries would be inspected and certified before sale. Who would pay for it? I have no idea. He said the producer, but in the end, someone has to pay for it.

Since WA law is not applicable in non-member nations, it is not illegal. It would be illegal if it those nations would be part of the WA. Now, the IGA affects change by placing an undue economic burden on someone in the gem market. As mentioned before, the author said the producer. I would say the consumer, since costs always just flow down the line.

The IGA gives your gem market a distinct advantage, since it would be able to sell small gems without ridiculous bureaucratic intervention and lowers consumer prices due to not needing accreditation. There is no need for some system for the imputation of gem quality when people's honour and businesses depend on the quality of gems due to market forces.

Furthermore, it's arguable that having universal accreditation actually reduces costs. It creates trust: any buyer knows that their seller's product is of an internationally verified quality. Without that step, they would have little cause to trust the seller, and would in all likelihood insist on testing themselves. Yet in that situation, the tester has substantial interest in increasing prices for their services, because they know the buyer is in a position where they have no other recourse: there is no international agency to turn to.

I dunno, couldn't member nations regulate that on their own at a lower expense than having an international agency oversee it? Blaccakre has a lively trade in gems and we don't pay for any damn WA accreditation. Our own internal regulation exists, and seeing as how the penalty for fraudulent sale of any goods is seven days in the stocks and a public flogging, we have very great trust amongst buyers and sellers.

Note to my compatriot WA nations — Blaccakre is not a WA nation.

[Ardchoille]

... and Ardchoille didn't see fit to relay her concerns.

My concern, at this stage, is simply the background one of mods and regulars alike: informed debate. This is a Resolution written by a gem-trader and, in at least one case, argued against by another gem-trader. It's complex, and assertions about what it does or doesn't do will probably need considerable text-based fleshing-out. You'll note that I have linked threads, rather than individual posts, so that participants may get some background.

As the author appears willing to accommodate informed objections, I expect the text will be fluid for some time. I don't see a need for modly involvement yet.

[The Dark Star Republic]

As the author appears willing to accommodate informed objections, I expect the text will be fluid for some time. I don't see a need for modly involvement yet.

This is exactly what we're talking about in the thread on GA moderation: the fact that moderators are only willing to enter a thread to give some sort of final ruling, instead of simply mixing in with the discussion like everyone else. What's the point of us spending however long arguing this back and forth only for you to then eventually weigh in with some impenetrable and unappealable judgement, when you could simply now share your opinion informally and help all of us engage in informed debate?

The IGA's role is to oversee the legal trade in gems. If they make the entry pricing for testing unreasonably high, then the illegal trade will flourish again. They have no interest in seeing that happen. They want people to make use of their services; they want to avoid traders operating outside the bounds of the law.

To allow this to happen, market subsidies would have to be implemented inside the context of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations. This would increase the burden on the WA to pick up the costs for this service whenever the supply does not meet the demand. This is the starting point of (1).c in my repeal text.

No, your 1c states entirely incorrectly that the WA will have to staff the laboratories. Not only can you not read the original resolution, but you also don't appear to be able to read your own proposal.

Furthermore, it's arguable that having universal accreditation actually reduces costs. It creates trust: any buyer knows that their seller's product is of an internationally verified quality. Without that step, they would have little cause to trust the seller, and would in all likelihood insist on testing themselves. Yet in that situation, the tester has substantial interest in increasing prices for their services, because they know the buyer is in a position where they have no other recourse: there is no international agency to turn to.

Yet, this would increase costs, since it would be a distortion of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations by creating an artificially inflated demand. It is not as if there is only one gem appraiser which would have a monopoly on the price of appraisal and hence, can demand whatever price they want in an unregulated appraisal market. However, due to the regulation, accredited laboratories are of restricted supply and thus, increase costs. Secondarily, there is an incentive for gem producers to test their most expensive gems (since this would increase the trust of the buyer). However, not all gems require appraisal (obvious examples of ones which do are like the Koh-i-noor), which would reduce the cost of gem appraisal by decreasing its demand.

This is just based on a misunderstanding of how the gem market works. Any gem being sold as such i.e. naturally occurring, not artificially engineered, derives its value from being appraised as such. In cases where there is no such value, then there's no reason to go to the expense of using appraised gems rather than synthetic substitutes or unappraised stones.

How are you establishing that a laboratory accredited by an international oversight agency is more likely to be corrupt than one not accredited by an international oversight agency? Because that's the only way in which that stacks up as a plausible objection.

Yes, since there are no market forces which would incentivise the accurate appraisal of gems. Recall that government regulation is not a market force. Laboratories which are under the purview of market forces will better appraise their gems, since the market's trust in their expert opinion is the source of their business.

Well, that's just wrong. Any laboratory not performing accurately will have their IGA accreditation revoked: that is a substantial incentive, given the IGA system creates a network of other, competing laboratories that can offer accredited services.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To allow this to happen, market subsidies would have to be implemented inside the context of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations. This would increase the burden on the WA to pick up the costs for this service whenever the supply does not meet the demand. This is the starting point of (1).c in my repeal text.

No, your 1c states entirely incorrectly that the WA will have to staff the laboratories. Not only can you not read the original resolution, but you also don't appear to be able to read your own proposal.

Thank you. Corrected.

Yet, this would increase costs, since it would be a distortion of the market for gem appraisals and accreditations by creating an artificially inflated demand. It is not as if there is only one gem appraiser which would have a monopoly on the price of appraisal and hence, can demand whatever price they want in an unregulated appraisal market. However, due to the regulation, accredited laboratories are of restricted supply and thus, increase costs. Secondarily, there is an incentive for gem producers to test their most expensive gems (since this would increase the trust of the buyer). However, not all gems require appraisal (obvious examples of ones which do are like the Koh-i-noor), which would reduce the cost of gem appraisal by decreasing its demand.

This is just based on a misunderstanding of how the gem market works. Any gem being sold as such i.e. naturally occurring, not artificially engineered, derives its value from being appraised as such. In cases where there is no such value, then there's no reason to go to the expense of using appraised gems rather than synthetic substitutes or unappraised stones.

I don't believe that I understand what you said there. Going off of: 'In cases where there is no such value' (where value is derived from appraisal), 'there is no reason to go to the expense of using appraised gems rather than synthetic substitutes or unappraised stones'.

Would that not imply that the expenditures for testing the small stones is unreasonable, and hence, grounds for technical repeal, since not all gems are appraised when there is no regulation of this sort? (LOGIC PATTERN PRO: Not all gems are appraised in regulation-free environments. Thus, since there is a large expense in the use of appraised gems, and most people will not need appraised gems, this creates a market imbalance which increases consumer costs).

Or, if the value arises from appraisal, then would your statements imply that there could not be gem markets in societies which have not yet institutionalised this appraisal system? We know this to be false, since there existed gem markets before the creation of intsitutionalised appraisal systems. Hence, the appraisal system does not add anything but bureaucratic oversight on a preexisting market.

Yes, since there are no market forces which would incentivise the accurate appraisal of gems. Recall that government regulation is not a market force. Laboratories which are under the purview of market forces will better appraise their gems, since the market's trust in their expert opinion is the source of their business.

Well, that's just wrong. Any laboratory not performing accurately will have their IGA accreditation revoked: that is a substantial incentive, given the IGA system creates a network of other, competing laboratories that can offer accredited services.

Is accreditation free? If it isn't, then it is a cost which is borne by the consumer and hence, increases costs. If it is free, then it is a cost which is borne by the World Assembly, and hence, is a burden on the World Assembly's finances. Can bureaucrats be bribed? Yes. Can absolutely massive markets be bribed? No (unless we move into the realm of conspiracy theories about finance, but that is irrelevant to the point).