[2 Draft 2 Furious] Convention Against Heisting

[Giovanniland]

While I am not able to give feedback about the proposal at this exact moment, I do think you're again falling to the common error of submitting too soon. After the proposal's defeat, the only comments on this thread were during August 16th-17th and September 1st-10th, for a total of around one week and a half of active discussion. I do understand if those lapses in activity were a result of real life, and there's no problem with that, but especially as you're dealing with a previously-defeated proposal, I'd recommend waiting more so as to have more feedback and better chances of getting it passed.

[Debussy]

While I am not able to give feedback about the proposal at this exact moment, I do think you're again falling to the common error of submitting too soon. After the proposal's defeat, the only comments on this thread were during August 16th-17th and September 1st-10th, for a total of around one week and a half of active discussion. I do understand if those lapses in activity were a result of real life, and there's no problem with that, but especially as you're dealing with a previously-defeated proposal, I'd recommend waiting more so as to have more feedback and better chances of getting it passed.

If you need time, you've got it. I just ask that you give feedback when you have time. You've known this proposal was here, and I've asked you for your feedback before. I've asked others, too. Active discussion is only started by people who give feedback, otherwise, this rots on the 3rd or 4th page.

[Thousand Branches]

Edit: Edits

Believing it necessary to inform the greater public on how nations attempt to collect signature artwork, henceforth referred to as “cards”, of other nations in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes,

Oh boy the grammar of this clause is a mess. Let’s make this a bit more legible, yes?

First of all, it should be “attempt to collect the signature artwork”. Also I would move the “henceforth” bit into parentheses rather than between commas, it is rather cumbersome as a whole separate unrestricted clause there.

Lastly and the big issue with this clause, you change the subject part of the way through, from “inform the greater public” to “attempt to collect signature artwork”, therefore “in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes” refers not to the informing but to the collecting. Obviously this is wrong but if you read it out loud, that is exactly what the clause says. However! There is an easy fix that I think sounds way better anyway!

BAM: “Believing that in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes, it is necessary to inform the greater public… etc etc”

Doesn’t that just sound way cleaner?

Recognizing that the collecting of cards, even with the help of advanced tools, can be extremely time-consuming and arduous,

The clause feels tired and also a couple of grammar errors are present. It would sound less lethargic with a couple of edits.

“collecting” should be “collection” (collecting is not a noun)

“help” would sound better as “aid” or “assistance”

Last bit would also sound better as: “can be an extremely time-consuming and arduous task,”

Card Farming – the process by which nations, through a number of proxies, produce large quantities of international artwork.

Is proxy the right word here? Usually a proxy is the object that is authorized to act on the behalf of another, not the other way around. Considering this is referring to card puppies, I would do something like “satellite states” or “colonies” or “protectorates” or “dominions” or honestly just “puppet nations”. Proxy feels wrong here.

Also “large” is such a boring descriptor. I know it’s a definition and they’re supposed to be boring, so I’ll only say you should change it to something a little more rythmic, such as “considerable”. Just a thought ^-^

Card Organization – an association of nations with a common interest in the field of international artwork.

Might note said nations as “independent” mostly because you just noted that nations often have a lot of smaller nations under their belt for farming. Don’t want it to sound like all the nations are owned by the same dude.

Transfer – the process by which nations collect bank from their proxies.

Yadda yadda same comment on proxies.

Heist – the process by which nations attempt to interfere with a trade between a nation and one of its proxies with the intent of stealing bank.

I’m chill with most of these definitions, a curious style for the SC but it is a declaration so it makes sense, but the whole dang resolution is about heisting! Shouldn’t this be its own clause? I guess it works here but just sticking it with all of the other boring definitions and stuff that nobody reads kind of seems weird to me?

Also, is this not an inaccurate definition of heisting? I could be wrong but I remember the term being used for undercutting someone else and for stealing high value cards in things like pull events. Actually I’m probably totally wrong on this, I haven’t farmed in months haha.

Also you simply list here “a trade”. You should specify that such is “a trade of cards” or something to that idea.

Yadda yadda proxies.

Pull Event – an event in which nations manipulate the artwork market with the intent of duplicating a specific piece of artwork.

Why go back to writing artwork here? I thought it was “henceforth known as cards”?

“Intent” should be “intention” or “of duplicating” should be “to duplicate”. Either way works but I think the first sounds better.

Understanding that the consolidation of bank from proxy nations is often necessary to purchase desirable cards,

Yadda yadda proxies (I’m mostly just leaving these notes here so you know where to look for changing words )

Acknowledging that the process of transferring carries with it a great risk of being heisted by other nations,

Combine this with the last. This is nothing more than an extension of the same thing. Lemme show you what I think would look good:

“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 are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and that the practice of heisting does not align with the mission of this Council,

“are” should be “should be”. Obviously they are not at the moment or this resolution to protect those nations would not be here

Their ideas do not simply “not align” with this Council, they CLASH with it! They are not an idea we do not wish to implement, they are a problem that need be stopped, an evil that must be squashed! Okay yes, I’m being dramatic, but that’s the point! This cannot read as simply a firmly worded clause toward pirates, it should act as a vow to destroy them! The resolution is mostly to help people from getting heisted but there should be something saying that heisting is bad, right? This is all a long winded way to say basically add spice to this clause

It is recommended that collectors avoid transferring concurrently with pull events, which will disrupt the event and increase the odds of a heist occurring.

“Which will disrupt and increase” should be “thereby disrupting the event and increasing”. Which will just sounds bad.

Transfers are best conducted with cards of either high scarcity or with cards in which the collector commands a controlling interest of the total copies.
Delete “cards in” (after “high scarcity or with…”)

“Interest” is definitely wrong, perhaps “percentage”? I suppose if you were talking about some kind of investment in those cards? I guess it works but it sounds a little bit wonky.

The risk of being heisted is directly correlated with the amount of bank being transferred in a given exchange, so lowering the amount of bank per exchange can reduce this risk.

“exchange” should be “transfer” as per the definition.

When possible, members of card organizations should refrain from heisting and advise against the practice.

Why “When possible”? Is there ever a time when it is impossible? I’d argue there isn’t really any reason to heist, yes? This seems like it’s kind of undermining the point, and the sentence works better without.

When a heist originates from a region with a card organization, the card organization should facilitate communication between the parties involved when requested and practical.

First “the” should be “that”

Mkay I’m gonna actually give an opinion on this resolution because I’m genuinely kind of disappointed When I read the title “Convention Against Heisting”, I think I was expecting, ya know, something against heisting. This reads instead like a how-to guide on what heisting is and what to do about it. If I can be so frank, it’s just really really boring (I’m sorry Debussy ;-;) and honestly not all that relevant to a good probably 95% of NationStates. I guess I just came in expecting some kind of symbolic condemnation of the practice or at least something with a little bit of spice and something that belongs in a council all about making opinions on things. This, to me, feels not like an SC resolution and more like something that belongs in a dispatch about heisting. Of course I’d love to see this in a totally different style and a slightly different subject, but I understand if that was not the intention of the proposal. As it is, however, I’m inclined to say that I just really don’t like this idea at all.

I feel perhaps like this may have been one of the few of these messages I sent that was genuinely unhelpful

Either way, have a wonderful day,

-A

[Debussy]

O, boy, lots to unbox.

Thanks for the feedback.

First of all, it should be “attempt to collect the signature artwork”

I changed it to "attempt to collect signature artworks. It was artworks in the original draft.

BAM: “Believing that in order to protect collectors and minimize disputes, it is necessary to inform the greater public… etc etc”

Fixed that.

The clause feels tired and also a couple of grammar errors are present. It would sound less lethargic with a couple of edits.

“collecting” should be “collection” (collecting is not a noun)

“help” would sound better as “aid” or “assistance”

Last bit would also sound better as: “can be an extremely time-consuming and arduous task,”

Changed collecting to collection, changed help to aid, and added task.

Is proxy the right word here? Usually a proxy is the object that is authorized to act on the behalf of another, not the other way around. Considering this is referring to card puppies, I would do something like “satellite states” or “colonies” or “protectorates” or “dominions” or honestly just “puppet nations”. Proxy feels wrong here.

I've changed it back to the original wording I had, which I think it better. - 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.

Might note said nations as “independent” mostly because you just noted that nations often have a lot of smaller nations under their belt for farming. Don’t want it to sound like all the nations are owned by the same dude.

Added.

Yadda yadda same comment on proxies.

I changed this one back to the original draft's, too.

I’m chill with most of these definitions, a curious style for the SC but it is a declaration so it makes sense, but the whole dang resolution is about heisting! Shouldn’t this be its own clause? I guess it works here but just sticking it with all of the other boring definitions and stuff that nobody reads kind of seems weird to me?

I don't believe so. I don't want to have a separate clause that is a definition when there is a subjection for definitions.

Also, is this not an inaccurate definition of heisting? I could be wrong but I remember the term being used for undercutting someone else and for stealing high value cards in things like pull events. Actually I’m probably totally wrong on this, I haven’t farmed in months haha.

Pull events are almost always conducted between a nation and their puppet so that the person hosting isn't moving the bank to someone else. Simply under-asking any old trade, at least in my opinion, isn't heisting, but a common market practice. A good example of this would be someone unloading a legendary for 13, and someone is more willing to unload it for a lower price, 12, 12.99, etc. That isn't heisting. I wouldn't reject a more general definition, but you aren't really stealing bank from someone if they are already sending it to someone else.

Also you simply list here “a trade”. You should specify that such is “a trade of cards” or something to that idea.

I went back to the original definition on this one, too, removing the use of the word proxy.

“Intent” should be “intention” or “of duplicating” should be “to duplicate”. Either way works but I think the first sounds better.

I went with the first one.

“are” should be “should be”. Obviously they are not at the moment or this resolution to protect those nations would not be here

Their ideas do not simply “not align” with this Council, they CLASH with it! They are not an idea we do not wish to implement, they are a problem that need be stopped, an evil that must be squashed! Okay yes, I’m being dramatic, but that’s the point! This cannot read as simply a firmly worded clause toward pirates, it should act as a vow to destroy them! The resolution is mostly to help people from getting heisted but there should be something saying that heisting is bad, right? This is all a long winded way to say basically add spice to this clause

Are has been changed to should be. I was of the opinion that once this resolution passes, the are would make sense in a more active way than should be.

“Which will disrupt and increase” should be “thereby disrupting the event and increasing”. Which will just sounds bad

Changed.

“Interest” is definitely wrong, perhaps “percentage”? I suppose if you were talking about some kind of investment in those cards? I guess it works but it sounds a little bit wonky.

I would say that a lot of people see it as kind of an investment in those cards when you control a majority. Changed, though.

The other changes were made, too.

When I read the title “Convention Against Heisting”, I think I was expecting, ya know, something against heisting. This reads instead like a how-to guide on what heisting is and what to do about it.

The declaration outlines SC's stance on heisting, how to address a heist, and what do to to avoid one. It may not be as dramatic as you like, but it does the job.

Your feedback was great and went a long way. It is probably the best feedback I've received so far.

[Giovanniland]

While I am not able to give feedback about the proposal at this exact moment, I do think you're again falling to the common error of submitting too soon. After the proposal's defeat, the only comments on this thread were during August 16th-17th and September 1st-10th, for a total of around one week and a half of active discussion. I do understand if those lapses in activity were a result of real life, and there's no problem with that, but especially as you're dealing with a previously-defeated proposal, I'd recommend waiting more so as to have more feedback and better chances of getting it passed.

If you need time, you've got it. I just ask that you give feedback when you have time. You've known this proposal was here, and I've asked you for your feedback before. I've asked others, too. Active discussion is only started by people who give feedback, otherwise, this rots on the 3rd or 4th page.

I didn't necessarily say me, rather thought it might be good to wait for more feedback before submitting since you had issues with timing before. As you mentioned I did give feedback on the original - though I'd be happy to comment on this one too.

Reading and reflecting upon other card traders' comments, I tend to partly agree with HS. I disagree with them in the point that Section I should be removed, because in my opinion the guidelines are useful for nations looking to enter the market - and declarations don't necessarily need to be exactly non-binding laws, I think we should also explore more unconventional approaches to them like this one. However, I do agree on a part making a conclusion on the topic and saying "heisting bad, don't heist" as they said.

Also, on communication, I get that some nations may heist out of inexperience with the market but I feel like you didn't fully address concerns here. The SC's goal is "Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary", perhaps it could also encourage a more belligerent option against heisters who keep heisting and never listen to others? (It's what I personally do anyways.) I think that'd be interesting for other experienced card traders to discuss.

[Debussy]

Reading and reflecting upon other card traders' comments, I tend to partly agree with HS. I disagree with them in the point that Section I should be removed, because in my opinion the guidelines are useful for nations looking to enter the market - and declarations don't necessarily need to be exactly non-binding laws, I think we should also explore more unconventional approaches to them like this one. However, I do agree on a part making a conclusion on the topic and saying "heisting bad, don't heist" as they said.

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,

Also, on communication, I get that some nations may heist out of inexperience with the market but I feel like you didn't fully address concerns here. The SC's goal is "Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary", perhaps it could also encourage a more belligerent option against heisters who keep heisting and never listen to others? (It's what I personally do anyways.) I think that'd be interesting for other experienced card traders to discuss.

Card organizations are encouraged to organize against heisters.

[Giovanniland]

Reading and reflecting upon other card traders' comments, I tend to partly agree with HS. I disagree with them in the point that Section I should be removed, because in my opinion the guidelines are useful for nations looking to enter the market - and declarations don't necessarily need to be exactly non-binding laws, I think we should also explore more unconventional approaches to them like this one. However, I do agree on a part making a conclusion on the topic and saying "heisting bad, don't heist" as they said.

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,

That is the closest you have, but it's still not a clause telling people not to heist. You'd think this is obvious in a resolution against heisting but all guidelines you post are how to protect heists; I think perhaps a clause like "Hereby urges collectors not to heist, unless when advised by this proposal, and declares the following guidelines on how to protect against heists:" could work.

Also, on communication, I get that some nations may heist out of inexperience with the market but I feel like you didn't fully address concerns here. The SC's goal is "Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary", perhaps it could also encourage a more belligerent option against heisters who keep heisting and never listen to others? (It's what I personally do anyways.) I think that'd be interesting for other experienced card traders to discuss.

Card organizations are encouraged to organize against heisters.

Why card organizations only? Sure, new traders may not have the strength to fight off heisters and might need help, but many others may already have the resources to do that and retaliate if needed, if talking doesn't work. Also, come to think about it, the retaliation is often heisting back, so if the "organize" you wrote there means this, you probably need to edit item I of article II (organization members need to refrain from heisting) so it doesn't contradict item III.

[Debussy]

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,

That is the closest you have, but it's still not a clause telling people not to heist. You'd think this is obvious in a resolution against heisting but all guidelines you post are how to protect heists; I think perhaps a clause like "Hereby urges collectors not to heist, unless when advised by this proposal, and declares the following guidelines on how to protect against heists:" could work.

Card organizations are encouraged to organize against heisters.

Why card organizations only? Sure, new traders may not have the strength to fight off heisters and might need help, but many others may already have the resources to do that and retaliate if needed, if talking doesn't work. Also, come to think about it, the retaliation is often heisting back, so if the "organize" you wrote there means this, you probably need to edit item I of article II (organization members need to refrain from heisting) so it doesn't contradict item III.

O, good points. I made the edits with some changes. Take a look.

[Debussy]

Bump.

[Team Lennox]

Nope not hapening son.

[Tinhampton]

It is recommended that collectors avoid transferring concurrently with pull events

This should be easy for most card collectors now that the abolition of TCALS has also led to the end of pull events

[Debussy]

It is recommended that collectors avoid transferring concurrently with pull events

This should be easy for most card collectors now that the abolition of TCALS has also led to the end of pull events

O, yes. I need to change some things because of that.