[2 Draft 2 Furious] Convention Against Heisting

[Debussy]

The Security Council,

Believing that in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes, it is necessary to inform the greater public on how nations attempt to collect signature artworks, henceforth referred to as "cards,"

Recognizing that the collection of cards, even with the aid of advanced tools, can be an extremely time-consuming and arduous task,

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution,

1. Card Farming – the process in which nations puppet, enslave, or administer other nations in order to collect their artwork, generally with the aim of increasing reserves of bank.
2. Card Organization – an association of independent nations with a common interest in the field of international artwork.
3. Transfer – artwork being bought and sold with the intention of moving bank between nations controlled by the same administration.
4. Heist – when a nation attempts to steal bank from another nation, typically during transfers, by placing a lower ask than the amount being transferred.
5. Pull Event – an event in which nations manipulate the artwork market with the intention of duplicating a specific piece of artwork.

Understanding that while transferring bank is often necessary to purchase expensive or desirable cards, the process is also fraught with the constant danger of being heisted,

Asserting that nations should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that the practice of heisting does not align with the mission of this Council,

Hereby urges collectors not to heist, unless when advised by this resolution, and declares the following guidelines:

Article I. Reducing Risk

1. Transfers are best conducted during times of low market activity.
2. It is recommended that collectors avoid transferring concurrently with pull events, thereby disrupting the event and increasing the odds of a heist occurring.
3. Transfers are best conducted with cards of either high scarcity or with which the collector commands a controlling percentage of the total copies.
4. The risk of being heisted is directly correlated with the amount of bank being transferred in a given transfer, so lowering the amount of bank per exchange can reduce this risk.

Article II. International Cooperation

1. Collectors and card organizations should take a defensive posture when heisting.
2. In an attempt to build a safer market space, collectors and card organizations are encouraged to craft agreements, publish literature, and issue their own guidelines regarding heisting.
3. Collectors and card organizations are encouraged to organize against heisters.

Article III. Communication

1. When subject to a heist, nations should make an effort to end the dispute by communicating with the heister.
2. When a heist originates from a region with a card organization, that card organization should facilitate communication between the parties involved when requested and practical.

Co-authored by The United Peoples of Centrism.

[Sylh Alanor]

This would work better as a dispatch guide than a declaration. Not to mention you've ignored the feedback about showing favouritism toward terms and procedures used by a small minority of card farmers. Most places don't call them guilds, piggybacking isn't the only or even best method of transferring bank, etc. This was all in the previous thread or discussions about this proposal.

Opposed.

[Debussy]

This would work better as a dispatch guide than a declaration. Not to mention you've ignored the feedback about showing favouritism toward terms and procedures used by a small minority of card farmers. Most places don't call them guilds, piggybacking isn't the only or even best method of transferring bank, etc. This was all in the previous thread or discussions about this proposal.

Opposed.

Did you read everything but the first two sentences in the thread? Also, the dispatch argument is nonsense. What do you think declarations are but big, important dispatches. smh.

[Sylh Alanor]

This would work better as a dispatch guide than a declaration. Not to mention you've ignored the feedback about showing favouritism toward terms and procedures used by a small minority of card farmers. Most places don't call them guilds, piggybacking isn't the only or even best method of transferring bank, etc. This was all in the previous thread or discussions about this proposal.

Opposed.

Did you read everything but the first two sentences in the thread? Also, the dispatch argument is nonsense. What do you think declarations are but big, important dispatches. smh.

Ignoring and dismissing feedback without any self-reflection sank your previous attempt at this. Best of luck.

[Debussy]

Did you read everything but the first two sentences in the thread? Also, the dispatch argument is nonsense. What do you think declarations are but big, important dispatches. smh.

Ignoring and dismissing feedback without any self-reflection sank your previous attempt at this. Best of luck.

Thanks.

[The Python]

Good luck! However, here are some feedback notes to incorporate. Some of these notes were taken from HumanSanity's post detaling problems with it, so yeah.

1. Mention pull event blocking, it's cringe.
2. Crashing people's DV is also cringe? You might want to mention that as well.
3. In the "Reducing Risk" section, make sure you have mass transfers mentioned. Mass transfer is one of the best transfer practises and used by the top card traders (for example, HumanSanity's transfer card, Witchcraft and Sorcery's transfer card and mine even though I'm not exactly a top card trader xD

4. henceforth referred to as “guilds,”

   Probably not a good idea to codify the naming that is only used often because it's what TNP calls it into an SC declaration (for example, XKI calls it "Cards Co-Op", TEP and TSP "Association" I suppose (full name for TEP's is "The Eastern Association of Pacifican Ornamentation Traders" and TSP's "South Pacific Association for Cards Exchange"), as far as I know TWP's is just "Cards Club" etc ... I'd recommend something along the lines of "cards programmes" or "cards organisation" or smth similar

5. Believing it necessary to inform the greater public on how nations attempt to collect signature artworks of other nations in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes,

   
   Change it to this more sus version:
   

   Believing it necessary to inform the greater public on how nations attempt to collect signature artworks of other nations in order to protect collectors among us and minimize disputes,

   
   (/joke)

[Great Algerstonia]

I have yet to be convinced that heisting is bad.

[Debussy]

I have yet to be convinced that heisting is bad.

Well, aren't you the problem then? Starts corralling the threat of Algerstonia
lmao.

[Great Algerstonia]

I have yet to be convinced that heisting is bad.

Well, aren't you the problem then? lmao.

Yes

[The Python]

I have yet to be convinced that heisting is bad.

I'll crash your DV >:(

*realises that you don't have a big deck*

[Tinhampton]

This is exactly the same draft as the Real OG Muthafucka Convention Against Heisting. Typical etiquette is not to post (re)drafts on the forums until you've finalised the actual text of your draft and are willing to put it on the forums... until then, I have no further comments to make

[Debussy]

This is exactly the same draft as the Real OG Muthafucka Convention Against Heisting. Typical etiquette is not to post (re)drafts on the forums until you've finalised the actual text of your draft and are willing to put it on the forums... until then, I have no further comments to make

"Real OG Muthafucka Convention Against Heisting" is probably my favorite quote of all time. I know, and I understand. Several people have had the same idea in the works, so we wanted to jump on this quickly, displaying our intentions of continuing the project.

[Refuge Isle]

What do you think declarations are but big, important dispatches. smh.

They are a new category, so any kind of definitive statement of what they are is premature at best. For my political position on the subject, declarations ought to make declarations instead of functioning as informational brochures. I don't believe there is a point of revision that you can reach while keeping your same structure and premise where I would support this. Your draft is based around providing tool tips and guidance rather than establishing what the collective body of the Security Council stands for.

Regardless of time spent in redrafting, many voters and regions themselves will feel as though the question you're proposing has already had a verdict.

[Tinhampton]

UPC is not not Fast.

Contrary to what I thought earlier, I have no comments about this

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Against.

[Hulldom]

What do you think declarations are but big, important dispatches. smh.

They are a new category, so any kind of definitive statement of what they are is premature at best. For my political position on the subject, declarations ought to make declarations instead of functioning as informational brochures. I don't believe there is a point of revision that you can reach while keeping your same structure and premise where I would support this. Your draft is based around providing tool tips and guidance rather than establishing what the collective body of the Security Council stands for.

Regardless of time spent in redrafting, many voters and regions themselves will feel as though the question you're proposing has already had a verdict.

Along these lines, I think this is not something I'd be opposed to. Something like more definitive categories in Declarations.

Back on topic though, I think card etiquette is something that the voters you're (OP) playing to know already and those that don't are not ones this will affect or will even care much about. Opposed as a result.

[Debussy]

They are a new category, so any kind of definitive statement of what they are is premature at best. For my political position on the subject, declarations ought to make declarations instead of functioning as informational brochures. I don't believe there is a point of revision that you can reach while keeping your same structure and premise where I would support this. Your draft is based around providing tool tips and guidance rather than establishing what the collective body of the Security Council stands for.

Regardless of time spent in redrafting, many voters and regions themselves will feel as though the question you're proposing has already had a verdict.

Along these lines, I think this is not something I'd be opposed to. Something like more definitive categories in Declarations.

Back on topic though, I think card etiquette is something that the voters you're (OP) playing to know already and those that don't are not ones this will affect or will even care much about. Opposed as a result.

This proposal is not targeting those who already know card etiquette but those who don't. The idea is to have those who already know that etiquette provide it to others. The WA is a perfect platform for that, and, if passed, can provide an easily given link to those who aren't in the "know." You'd be surprised how often those who don't know any better disrupt pull events or transfers.

[HumanSanity]

I'm not as categorically opposed to this Declaration concept as others are. From my perspective, Declarations (generally) are intended to promulgate international law for various game mechanics/concepts and heisting is something that could very be seen as a common enemy/opponent within the cards/international artwork trade and which the SC should pass international norms regulating/discouraging it. From this perspective, the SC could decide that heisting is a way to cheat international norms that serve the common good and to establish international law against the practice of heisting.

Some of the execution of this resolution doesn't reflect that. I don't think Declarations are a strategy to publicize an issue, I think they're a strategy to (in character) set the international law around how the game works. In this place, I agree with Luca's most recent comment but think that the resolution should simply be drastically reframed rather than tossed out entirely. While "heisting bad" is a fairly generalized norm, that doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be set in international law.

As a result, I would get rid of Section I altogether. In the original submission, I objected more to specific components of Section I rather than Section I itself but upon further thought, that section is entirely superfluous.

Instead, we need a more definitive section that says "don't heist". Right now, we don't actually have a 1 sentence "heisting bad, do not heist" sentence, which imo is the most/only important part of the declaration. Sections II and III are...fine but don't accomplish this most central purpose.

[Comfed]

There was criticism surrounding the encouragement in this declaration to communicate with heisters. Will this be addressed?

[Gonswanza]

So in essence this is a call to force a change of the rules and mechanics of the game from within the game... Which makes zero sense, even if there is a base problem that is being addressed, just in the wrong way given it would be through WA rather than say, the actual staff who run the site.

I do not approve of this.

[Debussy]

There was criticism surrounding the encouragement in this declaration to communicate with heisters. Will this be addressed?

I will address you and anyone that shares that concern about the criticism. More often than not, a majority of "heisters" are people who don't know any better. It is worth reaching out to those people, talking to them about what is going on, and those people often withdraw or find a solution to resolve the problem. This doesn't apply to all heisters, namely the more famous ones, but most of the time, you'll find it is just some random someone who thought they got lucky but doesn't understand what is going on. We shouldn't punish those who don't know what is going on or discourage those who do from talking to them. This is about giving the benefit of the doubt to people who don't know any better.

[Debussy]

So in essence this is a call to force a change of the rules and mechanics of the game from within the game... Which makes zero sense, even if there is a base problem that is being addressed, just in the wrong way given it would be through WA rather than say, the actual staff who run the site.

I do not approve of this.

It is absolutely nothing you described here. There are no rule changes, and nothing in this demands anything that isn't already a normal practice in the community.

[Seanat]

Not sure what the guidelines for defining things as I am not a WA writer, but a cards trader, but things like "Heisting" define the present verb, but then later "heist" is used as a noun. "Card Organizations" defined as plural, but the definition is singular.
"The risk of being heisted is directly correlated with the amount of bank being transferred in a given exchange" is just completely untrue.
Article II seems kinda pointless as it advises card organizations to do things which is their purpose of existing.
Article III Section II seems like it is requesting extra responsibility from a card organization than necessary.

Strong against.

[Debussy]

Not sure what the guidelines for defining things as I am not a WA writer, but a cards trader, but things like "Heisting" define the present verb, but then later "heist" is used as a noun. "Card Organizations" defined as plural, but the definition is singular.
"The risk of being heisted is directly correlated with the amount of bank being transferred in a given exchange" is just completely untrue.
Article II seems kinda pointless as it advises card organizations to do things which is their purpose of existing.
Article III Section II seems like it is requesting extra responsibility from a card organization than necessary.

Strong against.

A singular construction for defining allows for the use of plurals down the line. I agree it should be singular. It was like that in the original draft. The only one I won't and didn't change is Card Farming, as Card Farm is something entirely different. Those edits have been made.

It isn't completely untrue. If I transferred .55 over epic cards, on several copies, you have a lower risk of being heisted than if you did something that triggered TCAL. Then, if someone pulled your card, every bid you placed after that to fight the heist could also trigger TCAL. Large bank on a card that is easily pulled can also incentives farmers to target the card.

You assume that in Article II all those responsibilities are something card organizations already carry out, and then say that Article III is requesting extra responsibility? Pick one or the other. You can't both make an assumption about an organization's responsibilities and then say the other goes to far. In practice, I've seen what is asked in Article III carried out way more than anything in Article II, anyway.

[Debussy]

I am thinking about submitting this soon. I figured I would give it a bump.