[PASSED] Condemn Koem Kab

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Did you send a campaign already? Because if not, it should be easy to just remove it from queue.

[Bormiar]

OOC: Did you send a campaign already? Because if not, it should be easy to just remove it from queue.

No I haven't. It's been deleted.

Please tell me when you all have thought it over, Ransium.

[Refuge Isle]

Going through this on my phone's tiny, tiny screen, it seems like the general idea of cards, especially when put into the metaphor of artwork would be just as viable as proposals that talk about a nation that "brings many issues to the world's attention" and then directly cites issue titles.

What I'm less sure about is very technical information like :
"(a value calculated by the average of all sale prices), a tactic used in order to prevent “dropping”"
These explainers might pick up some votes from folks who have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm wondering if they add that much value to the proposal at all when you can simply say market value and leave it at that. I'm equally on the fence about pennybidding as a condemnation supporter. It can be annoying but it's still controversial in terms of a valid strategy or not.

Your "Concluding" clause still mentions cards directly if you were looking to avoid that.

[Bormiar]

Going through this on my phone's tiny, tiny screen, it seems like the general idea of cards, especially when put into the metaphor of artwork would be just as viable as proposals that talk about a nation that "brings many issues to the world's attention" and then directly cites issue titles.

What I'm less sure about is very technical information like :
"(a value calculated by the average of all sale prices), a tactic used in order to prevent “dropping”"
These explainers might pick up some votes from folks who have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm wondering if they add that much value to the proposal at all when you can simply say market value and leave it at that. I'm equally on the fence about pennybidding as a condemnation supporter. It can be annoying but it's still controversial in terms of a valid strategy or not.

Your "Concluding" clause still mentions cards directly if you were looking to avoid that.

OOC: Hey! I’m also on a phone right now. The thing is Refuge, most of my votes are from people who don’t know what they’re talking about. I had a hard time envisioning myself with the eyes of an average player, and that’s the best I can get.

The other think- pennybidding. I didn’t say it warrants a condemnation because it was “annoying”, but rather because it was petty. The controversy is focused on the average card player, not the top 10. When you have 1000s of bank at any time, and transfer in the hundreds, pennybidding is petty. Additionally, I wouldn’t call it a strategy, as there’s no real thought out into it (raising time before the auction ends is a whole different thing).

I like your points here, son i want to talk about it a bit more. Also, thanks for the catch in the “concluding” section.

[Ransium]

So this resolution is tricky in that it's plowing through new grounds. Whereas usually I have oodles of well defined precedent to stand upon here I'm reduced to having to think for myself. The horror! Honestly, I'd like to encourage these sort of proposals as new approaches to the SC keep things fun and vibrant. However, I don't want to give you a free pass either and you are definitely aggressive about towing the R4(c) line. Anyway, let's break it down.

The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the existence of government-owned art collections within nations and the exchange of individual pieces and currency ("bank") that makes up the international art trade,

I'm not a huge fan of directly referring to bank. I think most people halfway familiar with cards are going to get what you're trying to do and those not will not be helped much by on the nose terms. The specific implication that I struggle with with is that there is essentially one perhaps special currency used to buy and sell cards. This doesn't make sense IRL and nobody would call all currencies used to buy and sell cards 'bank'. I haven't decide if directly referring to bank is R4(c) but I think it comes close for little gain. All you need to establish is art is bought and sold.

UNDERSTANDING that art reveals important information on the culture, ideology, and importance of the nation from which it originated,

Fine.

AWARE that art is not bought and sold based on the artist, or the quality of the piece, but rather the culture that it expresses, so as to expand collections centered around specific nations.

What bothers me here is the blanket statement you're making. I don't think it's even true in the card games, I bet some nations with cool looking flags do get favored. I don't think this line is illegal but it is certainly odd and I don't think it advances your proposal anymore than the previous line did.

DISTURBED that Koem Kab’s museums have collections so large and high-valued that masterpieces are not recognized for their beauty, instead glanced at due to the sheer amount of them. This disregard for art has been caused by the following:

I like this

1. Koem Kab’s museums’ abundance of art from the world’s legendary nations, a description determined by a nation’s longevity, census rankings, and contributions to the world, among other factors. Koem Kab’s museums have an obsession with collecting legendary nations, a trait shared by many, but fulfilled by few.

I don't think you can refer to legendary nations in the way that you are here which pretty much makes clear the labeling of a legendary nation is game mechanic. If you just refer to nations that have accomplished great deeds in NS history, etc. etc. While that might not be quite as precise in labeling the exact nature nations become 'legendary' it is more true to real life.

2. Koem Kab’s active attempts at monopolizing art from NERVUN, of which Koem Kab has a staggering 52 pieces in its collection.
3. Koem Kab’s decision to hoard the artificially high-valued art from Queen Yuno, of which Koem Kab has 10.

While not illegal I think labeling the exact number of cards Koem Kab has is a mistake. 1) The number is volatile, and 2) It brings down the 4th rule wall. Is having 10 pieces of art from an entire nation really hoarding? I would be less specific here.

4. Koem Kab’s complete unwillingness to sell art unless the buyer is willing to meet unreasonably high prices,

AWARE of the effects of hoarding, which not only prevents nations from gaining intelligence on many prominent nations, but also, as stated above, devalues the art in the eyes of a tourist,

While I'm not convinced I agree with this, Jakker has expressed some concern to me about the usage of tourist as to nakedly referring to other players. Other than that fine.

NOTING the importance of the distribution of art over a large number of nations, as it means that even if a government ceases to exist and its museums are abandoned, the knowledge and beauty they contained will continue to exist in the world.

DISGUSTED at the methods Koem Kab has used to develop such an abnormally large and high-valued collection, including:

Fine.

1. Intentionally avoiding the maintenance fees required to increase art collection capacity, which, if not paid, bars nations from receiving gifts from its colonies. Koem Kab circumvents these limits by seizing control of another nation, Greatest Chernobyl, and receiving gifts from Koem Kab’s colonies on said nation. Koem Kab often sells the gifts in Greatest Chernobyl, thus fooling the system.

I think refering to limits and gifts in this manner goes into R4c territory. Surely you can hide the exact mechanics you refer to in some manner that makes more sense in terms of real life art collection. Not knowing much about the card game this seems meaningless to me.

2. Blatantly increasing the value of useless art from nations such as International Organization, Ortsync, Griet, Divine Will VII, Vacuole, and many more by selling the art to a nation controlled by Koem Kab for a high price, raising the value and thus the value of the collection. This causes Koem Kab’s art collections to appear to be worth thousands more than than they actually should be, thus deceiving a tourist and increasing Koem Kab’s international ranking.

While the premise is okay here, I don't really like the way your using ranking. It seems to me to be to staightforwardly referring to a game mechanic.

3. Koem Kab’s abuse of its massive amount of bank in order to buy low-selling art by placing two bids for the art at a price slightly above the market value (a value calculated by the average of all sale prices), a tactic used in order to prevent “dropping”, in which another owner of the art sells for the price bid by Koem Kab, then buys for the originally low price, in order to profit. This dropping-prevention tactic is one that few nations can afford, and often ends the bidding war, which prevents the naïve seller from getting a fair amount of bank for the art,

Like 1 I think this makes no sense in terms of real life and is too nakedly describing a game mechanic. Personally, as this proposal is already a bit long I think you'd be better of being less specefic and more hand wavy about this stuff over all.

4. Colonizing thousands of nations for the sole purpose of art production,

This one I like.

AWARE of the methods Koem Kab uses that are widely considered petty for nations with large collections, which includes bank transfer stealing and "pennybidding", which is bidding 0.01 bank above the next highest bid,

I think you can refer to the act of bidding in art auction the minimum amount over the best offer as being in petty manner without referring to the precise act of bidding 0.01 bank - which seems R4(c) breaking to me, (see my earlier discussion of bank). I think you should also be concerned about R4(b) in so much as nations themselves don't bid add an art auction, their represntives do.

FURTHER AWARE that Koem Kab has contributed to the art value inflation. This has been done because the demand for popular art has not been met by the supply, so nations with lots of art from a single nation can demand much higher than its actual worth. This cost increase has made it more difficult for poor nations to own popular art, and ensured that most popular art will go to Koem Kab and other rich collectors.

CONCLUDING that Koem Kab has prevented growth of small museums, inflated art prices, stolen transferred bank, pennybidded, artificially raised card value, nearly monopolized ownership of some art, and hoarded,

Hereby condemns Koem Kab

I like this conclusion mostly, although the reference to card value needs to go as it doesn't make sense in the logic of the rest of the proposal.

[Bormiar]

Thanks, Ransium. I’ve been doing my best to edit it, but my computer just crashed and has a problem in which it’s just restarting over and over. I’ll do my best to fix this, but it’ll be a day or two.

[Refuge Isle]

I'm not a huge fan of directly referring to bank. I think most people halfway familiar with cards are going to get what you're trying to do and those not will not be helped much by on the nose terms. The specific implication that I struggle with with is that there is essentially one perhaps special currency used to buy and sell cards. This doesn't make sense IRL and nobody would call all currencies used to buy and sell cards 'bank'.

IC, it's obviously how many independent banks there are in your nation.

[Bormiar]

Draft 5. The current draft (after Ransium's edit suggestions).

The Security Council,

ACKNOWLEDGING the existence of government-owned art collections within nations and the buying and selling of individual artworks,

DISTURBED that Koem Kab’s museums have collections so large and high-valued that masterpieces are not recognized for their beauty, instead glanced at due to the sheer amount of them. This disregard for art has been caused by the following:
1. Koem Kab’s museums’ abundance of art from the world’s greatest nations, who have contributed internationally and been ranked highest in international censuses for a long time. Koem Kab’s museums have an obsession with collecting art from these nations, a trait shared by many, but fulfilled by few.
2. Koem Kab’s active attempts at monopolizing art from NERVUN, of which Koem Kab has a staggeringly large number of pieces, which easily places Koem Kab with the largest NERVUNian collection, and more than could be adequately displayed.
3. Koem Kab’s decision to hoard the artificially high-valued art from Queen Yuno, of which Koem Kab easily has the most in the world.
4. Koem Kab’s complete unwillingness to sell art unless the buyer is willing to meet unreasonably high prices,

AWARE of the effects of hoarding, which not only prevents widespread learning about many prominent nations, but also, as stated above, discredits the art,

NOTING the importance of the distribution of art over a large number of nations, as it means that even if a government ceases to exist and its museums are abandoned, the knowledge and beauty they contained will continue to exist in the world.

DISGUSTED at the methods Koem Kab has used to develop such an abnormally large and high-valued collection, including:
1. Intentionally avoiding the expenses necessary to expand a nation’s museums, which include construction, security, transportation, and time spent during construction with the museums unable to profit. Instead of renovating museums, Koem Kab usually chooses to disrespectfully keep art in the warehouses of its largest colony, Greatest Chernobyl. These masterpieces sit here until they can be sold to a grateful owner.
2. Blatantly increasing the value of useless art from nations such as International Organization, Ortsync, Griet, Divine Will VII, Vacuole, and many more by selling the art to a nation controlled by Koem Kab for a high price, which raises the value and thus the value of the collection. This causes Koem Kab’s art collections to appear to be worth thousands more than than they actually should be, thus misrepresenting the museum.
3. Koem Kab’s abuse of its fortune in order to buy cheap art. This can most-likely only be achieved if the nation has a large amount of wealth to prevent dropping. Stopping this “dropping” tactic from occurring prevents the naïve seller from getting a fair amount for the art, and discourages competition, as it often ends the bidding war,
4. Colonizing thousands of nations for the sole purpose of art production,

AWARE of the methods Koem Kab uses that are widely considered petty for nations with large collections, which includes transfer stealing and "pennybidding". “Pennybidding” is when a representative of a nation bids a negligibly small amount above the previous bid, intentionally causing frustration and extending bidding wars,

FURTHER AWARE that Koem Kab has contributed to the art value inflation. This has been done because the demand for popular art has not been met by the supply, so nations with lots of art from a single nation can demand much higher than its actual worth. This cost increase has made it more difficult for poor nations to own popular art, and ensured that most popular art will go to Koem Kab and other rich collectors.

CONCLUDING that Koem Kab has prevented growth of small museums, inflated art prices, stolen transferred bank, pennybidded, artificially raised art value, nearly monopolized ownership of some art, and hoarded,

Hereby condemns Koem Kab

[Refuge Isle]

The acrobatics on this rewrite are rather fantastic, and I'm glad to see that you addressed a lot of the original concerns with creative interpretations. Over-inflating transfer cards so that the leaderboard is fundamentally damaged and the IC moral implications of who knows how many farms are two things I'm glad are here.

AWARE of the effects of hoarding, which not only prevents widespread learning about many prominent nations, but also, as stated above, discredits the art,

I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "prevents widespread learning." Is it possible to make that less awkward or contagious sounding?

AWARE of the methods Koem Kab uses that are widely considered petty for nations with large collections, which includes transfer stealing and "pennybidding". “Pennybidding” is when a representative of a nation bids a negligibly small amount above the previous bid, intentionally causing frustration and extending bidding wars,

I'm still unsure about this clause, and I think partially because I don't believe pennybidding being "petty" is a condemnable action or that this resolution should imply that someone who does it is going down the road to their own condemnation. But moreso, it's hard to translate the idea of pennybidding into the interpretation of "bank" and transfers that you've provided in this draft.

[Bormiar]

The acrobatics on this rewrite are rather fantastic, and I'm glad to see that you addressed a lot of the original concerns with creative interpretations. Over-inflating transfer cards so that the leaderboard is fundamentally damaged and the IC moral implications of who knows how many farms are two things I'm glad are here.

Thanks!

AWARE of the effects of hoarding, which not only prevents widespread learning about many prominent nations, but also, as stated above, discredits the art,

I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "prevents widespread learning." Is it possible to make that less awkward or contagious sounding?

I don't think that it's severe enough to pull the draft. I hardly noticed that it sounds weird, but I see your point.

AWARE of the methods Koem Kab uses that are widely considered petty for nations with large collections, which includes transfer stealing and "pennybidding". “Pennybidding” is when a representative of a nation bids a negligibly small amount above the previous bid, intentionally causing frustration and extending bidding wars,

I'm still unsure about this clause, and I think partially because I don't believe pennybidding being "petty" is a condemnable action or that this resolution should imply that someone who does it is going down the road to their own condemnation. But moreso, it's hard to translate the idea of pennybidding into the interpretation of "bank" and transfers that you've provided in this draft.

The key thing is mentioned, that Koem Kab has thousands of bank, and this is petty, which is why I believe this is fitting in the draft. If the majority decide that that is not fitting for a condemnation, so be it, but I believe it adds to it. I think the translation issues would be addressed when the mods decide its legality.

[Aclion]

The key thing is mentioned, that Koem Kab has thousands of bank, and this is petty, which is why I believe this is fitting in the draft. If the majority decide that that is not fitting for a condemnation, so be it, but I believe it adds to it. I think the translation issues would be addressed when the mods decide its legality.

I think it would work better if you sold it as an and unfair trading practice that impedes legitimate trade in art.

[Bormiar]

The key thing is mentioned, that Koem Kab has thousands of bank, and this is petty, which is why I believe this is fitting in the draft. If the majority decide that that is not fitting for a condemnation, so be it, but I believe it adds to it. I think the translation issues would be addressed when the mods decide its legality.

I think it would work better if you sold it as an and unfair trading practice that impedes legitimate trade in art.

I talked to some other card players and they said for a variety of reasons that it’s best to remove it (e.g. the SC’s stance on pennybidding should be impartial as it’s one of the only good methods poor nations can use), so eventually I decided to just remove it.

Anyways it’s submitted right now.

[Refuge Isle]

I think it would work better if you sold it as an and unfair trading practice that impedes legitimate trade in art.

I talked to some other card players and they said for a variety of reasons that it’s best to remove it (e.g. the SC’s stance on pennybidding should be impartial as it’s one of the only good methods poor nations can use), so eventually I decided to just remove it.

Anyways it’s submitted right now.

Technically, it's still in the conclusion clause, but I've approved it anyway.

[Bormiar]

I talked to some other card players and they said for a variety of reasons that it’s best to remove it (e.g. the SC’s stance on pennybidding should be impartial as it’s one of the only good methods poor nations can use), so eventually I decided to just remove it.

Anyways it’s submitted right now.

Technically, it's still in the conclusion clause, but I've approved it anyway.

Yes I thought it was fine there.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The submitted version looks good, best of luck with getting it to vote. Full support from me.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Good luck!

[Eumaeus]

Good luck, Bormiar, you're breaking new ground.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Man, this draft looks awesome.

It's the first of its kind, and I'm betting absolutely nobody will be happier to see this pass than us in the Card server

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Good luck and support!

[Bormiar]

The submitted version looks good, best of luck with getting it to vote. Full support from me.

OOC:Good luck!

Good luck, Bormiar, you're breaking new ground.

Man, this draft looks awesome.

It's the first of its kind, and I'm betting absolutely nobody will be happier to see this pass than us in the Card server

OOC:Good luck and support!

Wow those comments are really nice of you guys. Thank you .

[Wallenburg]

Referencing "bank" as a currency can't be legal, can it?

[Eumaeus]

Referencing "bank" as a currency can't be legal, can it?

As of the previous draft Ransium said they had not made up their mind regarding whether referencing bank is an R4c violation, and has marked the current proposal as legal despite the single reference to bank. I don't think that is meant to be taken as a ruling, but given how vague the reference is in the submitted draft I don't think it should be a problem.

[Ransium]

A direct reference to bank being currency I would rule illegal. This is just vague enough and open to weird IRL interpretation that I was willing to let it slide.

[Llwn Bud]

I see nothing wrong with this, a country should be free to buy and sell anything at the prices they please. It's the people that buy the high priced art that are the root of the problem. If they would be smarter with their money and not buy the overpriced art they wouldn't be adding fuel to the fire. Condemnation of a nation over how they choose to make money over art is ridiculous. I'm an art patron and love art, but a seller has the right to sell at whatever figure they seem fit.

[VW53Aland]

As it stands, VW53ALand has voted against. The resolution makes claims and accusations that are not proven or that are even verifiable false.
The nominee is said to be unwilling "to sell art unless the buyer is willing to meet unreasonably high prices". How frustrating this may be, the art market is an open market and everyone is free to ask and bid to their liking. This is a treat of capitalism that is embraced by nations as the nominee's (along with many, many others). One of the negative effects of capitalism though, is that the one with the most assets has a higher chance and more freedom to play, pay and ask as he likes. If one wants to prevent this from happening, one would have to ban capitalism or prohibit the hoarding of art.
Even though we are not a fan of capitalism, we also don't want to ban it. Voting for this resolution would in effect be a vote to prohibit capitalism.

Further, the resolution states that the nominated nation is "intentionally avoiding the expenses necessary to expand a nation’s museums". This is verifiable false, as a quick look shows that the nominee's museums hold currently 5,227 pieces of art. This would not have been possible without expanding the museum's capacity, since an original museum would have room for only 25 or 50 pieces of art. How the nominee achieved the copious amounts of bank to do all these expansions has not been made known. As art collectors ourselves, we are curious how this was made possible and to what expense. However, the given accusation that the nominated nation did not expand it's museum's capacity is verifiable false.
As a nation that values integrity more than almost anything else, we cannot vote in favour of a resolution based on false accusations.

Furthermore, it is stated that those allegedly 'avoided expansions' were made by storing artwork in the museums (or "warehouses", as they're now suddenly called) of Greatest Chernobyl, allegedly a colony of the nominee. However, the museums or "warehouses" of Greatest Chernobyl currently only hold 122 pieces of artwork. The actual capacity of their museums is unknown to us, but estimated at 100. In each case, if the capacity of the museums is lower than the amount of art pieces in stock, by the way the art market works, it will be impossible for the nominated nation to store its artwork in Greatest Chernobyl. Returning to the accusation made; In comparison to the pieces held by the nominated nation's museums (and warehouses), the amount of art in Greatest Chernobyl is only very small. The ratio is low enough to make this accusation false.

Koem Kab’s abuse of its fortune in order to buy cheap art. This can most-likely only be achieved if the nation has a large amount of wealth to prevent dropping. Stopping this “dropping” tactic from occurring prevents the naïve seller from getting a fair amount for the art, and discourages competition, as it often ends the bidding war

This also goes back to my first point against this resolution. What you see here happening is, however unfortunate, normal capitalism at work. From a capitalistic point of view, the nominee is not abusing its fortune, but merely using it. Again, we are not a fan of capitalism, but we don't believe in its prohibition.
We would like to see some more regulation of the market, but that has to be made by the creators of the market, and certainly we cannot condemn one nation for working within the current regulations.

Lastly, the resolution states that the nominee has "stolen transferred bank". Set aside whether the mentioning of "bank" is illegal or not, by the way the market works, it would technically be impossible to 'steal transferred bank'. Even without mentioning specifically transferred bank, an amount in bank would generally be impossible to steal.

Also, we are shocked to find that the authoring nation (up to a certain degree) uses the same methods as used by the nominee. The authoring nation seems to hold hundreds of colonies himself, holding and trading art. The authoring nation could just as well as the nominee be accused of selling art for "unreasonably high prices".

Based on the fact that false accusations are being made, we would like to request everyone to vote against this resolution, in order to maintain integrity and let capitalism (within boundaries) exist.