[Draft] Repeal "Against Inflationary Practices"

[New Makasta]

Hello SC, this is my first time trying to write a WA proposal, any feed back would be greatly apricated!

The Security Council,

Remembering the events of November 3rd, 2022, when international markets were thrown into disarray by escalated mass inflation on an unprecedented level of severity,

Shaken by several nations’ actions during that day, chiefly Giovanniland, who amassed approximately 28,000,000 deck value in riches. Despite the efforts of other nations such as Mikeswill to join in exploiting this financial volatility, Giovanniland quickly ascended to the highest known recorded wealth, far exceeding all other nations;

Shocked that during the exponential increase in wealth by several nations, the World Census agencies responsible for tracking said resources found themselves unable to process these abrupt changes for some time, leading to a total market crash soon after,

Impressed by the cosmic powers that staff the Trading Cards Committee taking note of these tremendous changes and making swift and retributive actions against the various offending nations and the international artwork community as a whole, actions that brought forth new changes to the guidelines to prevent such disturbances from ever happening again,

Taking notice of the valuation of international artwork in the aftermath of these reforms, seeing values equalizing at a more fair level which corresponds to the uniqueness of discovered or purchased artworks,

Horrified that in the aftermath of the subsequent market collapse, Koem Kab ([resolution=SC=287]condemned by this esteemed body[/resolution] for nefarious deeds in the artistic collection fields) returned to dominance in international artwork,

Acknowledging that while micro-inflation may still be accomplished by art traders, it is infeasible to conduct inflation on the level criticized by Against Inflationary Practices, certainly not to the lengths described as leading to “turbulent volatility of artwork pricing” and “severe deterioration in reliability” of value determinations,

Asserting that at present, due to the minimal remaining potential for inflation on a much less harmful scale, it is pertinent for the Security Council to adapt its policies and rescind previous stances on this issue,

Hereby repeals Against Inflationary Practices.

Co-author: Quebecshire

[Quebecshire]

Happy to have helped with this Makasta! Nice to see you stepping into SC drafting.

[Apexiala]

Hereby pledge my full support

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

no.

as long as there is potential for inflation this resolution will never be repealed on my watch.

[Tinhampton]

Where is the "potential for inflation?"

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Where is the "potential for inflation?"

deck value can still be manipulated by trading higher volumes of cards with oneself across multiple puppets. it's still possible to gain a lot of DV through inflation; it's how Gio remains rank 3 in the world. however, instead of using a lot of low-owner cards, you hoard lots of copies of a few cards and then trade them across puppets.

if this resolution *is* repealed i'll definitely be prepared to demonstrate how much DV one can gain if one is so inclined. but even now Gio is an excellent example.

[The Orwell Society]

Support. However, in my quick skim through, I saw no mention of the bank tax, which is a vital part of the death of inflation.

[Quebecshire]

no.

as long as there is potential for inflation this resolution will never be repealed on my watch.

This is a bit much, or otherwise a narrow view of the issue as I understand it.

Admittedly I'm only so invested in the existence (or lack thereof) of inflation related legislation, I'm mainly in this to help a region-mate get involved in the Security Council, were that not obvious.

But if we take a look at the target legislation, there's a few relatively non-partisan reasons for a repeal, principled feelings about inflation aside. If you don't want inflation legislation, then you'd want to repeal it. If you want inflation legislation, you'd want it to reasonably cover and react to the state of inflation as it presently exists (which was changed via staff intervention in November). Taking a look at SC#403, there's a few things that undermine that.

It's certainly not the fault of the target author, but repealing legislation which is no longer applicable seems like a reasonable legislative practice.

The turbulent volatility of artwork pricing and the subsequent disastrous effects on national bank reserves orchestrated through a variety of unethical schemes such as malevolent pump and dump fraud where values are artificially inflated to sell at extreme markups on the marketplace,

The implementation of a "luxary tax" (or whatever anyone else wants to call it) has severely disincentivized inflation-related transactions involving more extreme values, fundamentally requiring inflation to be done on a much smaller scale. If there is going to be inflation related legislation, it should probably also mention the luxury tax, given it seems to be an important factor in cards mechanics now.

Such severe deterioration in the reliability of gallery valuations to a point where rankings have reached meaningless levels, with galleries of respected provenance and prestige being relegated beneath those composed entirely out of artwork of lesser esteem collected via a far lower effort of curation

It is my understanding that rankings are not altered this drastically since the November changes. A lesser point, but worth noting.

The egregious monopolisation of scarce artwork by miserly speculators which only increases the damage of market aberrations to the detriment of collectors and collections through selfish practices such as hoarding of otherwise common quality artwork and the expense of such collections soaring from the inflated perceived value held by said speculators, and

This is an impractical strategy in recent months, to my knowledge, again in part because of the luxury tax. To attempt to inflate (notably on a much lower scale than before), one is better off using artwork that is less scarce, or via backing cards at certain prices. This could still be construed as an issue, but again, is not one covered by the target proposal regardless.

if this resolution *is* repealed i'll definitely be prepared to demonstrate how much DV one can gain if one is so inclined. but even now Gio is an excellent example.

Alternatively, you could propose a replacement. If this resolution is repealed it would have no impact beyond nullfying an outdated SC stance (at least in terms of details, or content beyond concept), so carrying out the act you're opposing here to send a message seems a little silly.

Support. However, in my quick skim through, I saw no mention of the bank tax, which is a vital part of the death of inflation.

Considering how a lot of the arguments (modern applicability based ones, anyway) for the proposal's repeal include this at least in-part, this is probably something we should add. I'll speak to Makasta about it and see how he wants to go about it. Thanks!

[Minskiev]

Fully against. Shift this to "Triumph of the Anti-Inflationaries" or something like that and I'd support it. Or, this is just an ex-inflator trying to idk cope or something?

[The United Peoples of Centrism]

No thank you.

[Pineappleistania]

Against. As long as there is no TCALS-like mechanism, inflation will always be the most viable way to move up the leaderboards. It may cost a bit more, but it's certainly an option, and thus, a problem.

[Quebecshire]

Fully against. Shift this to "Triumph of the Anti-Inflationaries" or something like that and I'd support it. Or, this is just an ex-inflator trying to idk cope or something?

It's a repeal, so the title is mechanically unable to be changed/customized. Do you have any specific suggestions for making the content more palatable?

Against. As long as there is no TCALS-like mechanism, inflation will always be the most viable way to move up the leaderboards. It may cost a bit more, but it's certainly an option, and thus, a problem.

An understandable position, but this brings us back to a point I made to W&S:

But if we take a look at the target legislation, there's a few relatively non-partisan reasons for a repeal, principled feelings about inflation aside. If you don't want inflation legislation, then you'd want to repeal it. If you want inflation legislation, you'd want it to reasonably cover and react to the state of inflation as it presently exists (which was changed via staff intervention in November). Taking a look at SC#403, there's a few things that undermine that.

It's certainly not the fault of the target author, but repealing legislation which is no longer applicable seems like a reasonable legislative practice.

Even from a continued anti-inflation perspective, wouldn't replacing it with a more applicable version make the most sense?

[Varanius]

Full support.

[Minskiev]

Fully against. Shift this to "Triumph of the Anti-Inflationaries" or something like that and I'd support it. Or, this is just an ex-inflator trying to idk cope or something?

It's a repeal, so the title is mechanically unable to be changed/customized. Do you have any specific suggestions for making the content more palatable?

As in make it a declaration ya himbo

[Quebecshire]

It's a repeal, so the title is mechanically unable to be changed/customized. Do you have any specific suggestions for making the content more palatable?

As in make it a declaration ya himbo

So, like... a replacement?

[InSiDeR TrAdInG]

Full support.

[Warzone Codger]

As in make it a declaration ya himbo

So, like... a replacement?

That should be interesting. Declarations aren't resolutions; there's no need to repeal and instead we could just make a new declaration...declaring we won.

[Sedgistan]

That is correct. There is deliberately no longer a rule against "Contradiction" in the SC.

[New Makasta]

That should be interesting. Declarations aren't resolutions; there's no need to repeal and instead we could just make a new declaration...declaring we won.

Hello Codger, when I originally floated the idea of something like this in the cards server there was some support for a "we won over inflation lol" kind of declaration, however we didn't win. No one did, what happened was inflators inflated so high that action was taken against them. And as Noah and WS have ever so diligently pointed out inflation is still possible (just on a much smaller scale).

As in make it a declaration ya himbo

As in terms of a replacement, I would happily support one that is much more modern and up to date with the current state of the market, but as it stands the way in which the market currently is, is not what the declaration original intended to operate under meaning the SC current "stance" is out of date and as such useless.

Against. As long as there is no TCALS-like mechanism, inflation will always be the most viable way to move up the leaderboards. It may cost a bit more, but it's certainly an option, and thus, a problem.

Let's take a look at the current leaderboard shall we? Out of the top 20, the "big farma", I only see 2 people who hold there spot because of inflation (Gio and 9003). Before the change, I can only think of 3 who held the top 20 without the active usage of it (though this may be just bad memory of me and its even less (Koem Kab, Seanat, UPC). So, it doesn't seem to be "Such severe deterioration in the reliability of gallery valuations".

Now, Noah as the original proposal points out "a distressing level of antagonism in market exchange" have seemingly occurred with the return of players like yourself and WS onto the market stage.

[Honeydewistania]

Even though they are a conglomeration of fraudsters and grifters, Pineappleistania is right. Even if inflation is much harder to accomplish there is no reason to rescind previous stances on it. The only issue you cite about the target is it's exaggerations of the problem (which is a bit unfair as they seem to be an accurate portrayal of inflation's problems at the time), which is not enough to convince me to throw away the entire resolution.

[Tinhampton]

Even though they are a conglomeration of fraudsters and grifters, Pineappleistania is right. Even if inflation is much harder to accomplish there is no reason to rescind previous stances on it...

Should we not repeal any resolution under any circumstances simply because they explain "previous stances on" the subject or issue at question?