[Temporarily Abandoned] Currency Exchange Transparency Act

[Tinhampton]

The best way to ensure that your submitted proposal gets "full attention" is to run a telegram campaign.

Is there any reason why you can not just delay submission until after the election?

[Terra Animo]

The best way to ensure that your submitted proposal gets "full attention" is to run a telegram campaign.

Is there any reason why you can not just delay submission until after the election?

If need be I most certainly could delay, but it would definitely not be ideal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Most currency transfers are forward contracts. How would you manage that?

Forward contracts and their terms shall remain privatized. The transparency regarding said contracts amongst the participating parties should be furthered by the requirements of clearly posted rates, and forward contract participants shall too be offered a receipt (a clause I will insert.) But yeah, forward contracts shall remain a private contract.

So consumers will be forced to do comparisons against unfavourable spot prices rather than the actual rates at which currency transfers are done on the forward market. This is just great. Now the posted figures are actively misleading.

The best way to ensure that your submitted proposal gets "full attention" is to run a telegram campaign.

Is there any reason why you can not just delay submission until after the election?

If need be I most certainly could delay, but it would definitely not be ideal.

Have to be honest that I dislike the GA being used as a regional elections self-promotions board. There are upsides and downsides as well. Consider the appearance in the election of the proposal getting destroyed at vote beyond the palpable upsides.

[Terra Animo]

So consumers will be forced to do comparisons against unfavourable spot prices rather than the actual rates at which currency transfers are done on the forward market. This is just great. Now the posted figures are actively misleading.

I would like to refute such a claim. According to the verbiage of the proposal, the ISEC will release their approximations based off of their observations of the "market," implying the entire currency exchange market. This means that said approximations will include any knowledge they posses on both the spot exchanges, as well as forward contracts, both active and past, meaning that in no way will the consumer be mislead. And if one wants to argue that I am doing a disservice by not un-privatizing any forward contracts which may be private information, doing such is an issue of far greater magnitude, and arguably one of a different subject, as for if one was to write legislation attempting to un-privatize forward contracts regarding currency, one would almost certainly have to write legislation doing away with all over-the-counter markets, a task far outside the realm of this proposal.

And with regards to your latter remark. I had no ill-intent and thought nothing of it in terms of personal gain. I have however rectified the situation.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This was submitted. I'm unsure if the first two preamble sentences outline enough of an "extreme hazard to national populations" per GAR#68:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Thoughts?

[Terra Animo]

OOC: This was submitted. I'm unsure if the first two preamble sentences outline enough of an "extreme hazard to national populations" per GAR#68:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Thoughts?

I most certainly think it would qualify for such. A lack of transparency regarding what a consumer is purchasing (or in this case exchanging for) can most certainly pose and extreme hazard. Imagine someone travels from one nation with tight wraps on all foreign happenings, to another nation of similar standing. That person has no clue what the real value of each currency is, and could thus be charged ludicrous amounts for a low-worth currency, to the point of possible ruining them financially without them even knowing it.

Imagine again that you have arrived to a nation and are at the airport. A person ask you if you need your currency exchanged, you reply yes and he offers you what sound like a lot of currency for just 10 of your currency, swearing that it is a great deal. You accept, not knowing where else you would have gotten currency, but come to find out, they gave you 1/10th of what you deserve.

This list of examples like these where people could be financially ruined by exchanges, especially in developing nations.

EDIT:In summation, being able to financially ruin an individual by insuring their ignorance on the transactions seems like an extreme hazard to me.

EDIT: One could also argue that this would not restrict commerce in any way, simply alter the way it is done. As the act does not put any limits on the commerce of currency exchange itself, simply forces transparency regarding the commerce.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: This was submitted. I'm unsure if the first two preamble sentences outline enough of an "extreme hazard to national populations" per GAR#68:

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Thoughts?

OOC: I wouldn't call it an extreme hazard, no...

[Insidium]

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Thoughts?

Personally, it's a little bit of a stretch to call the proposed rules "restrictions" — most of what it does is require currency exchanges to display their prices in a prominent location. It certainly doesn't restrict currency exchanges from exchanging currency.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So consumers will be forced to do comparisons against unfavourable spot prices rather than the actual rates at which currency transfers are done on the forward market. This is just great. Now the posted figures are actively misleading.

I would like to refute such a claim ... said approximations will include any knowledge they posses on both the spot exchanges, as well as forward contracts, both active and past, meaning that in no way will the consumer be mislead.

This is necessarily incompatible with your previous statement that "Forward contracts and their terms shall remain privatized".

---

Re NEF, prior precedent would lean legal: "[The proposal] does not restrict commerce at the general level; the restrictions are specific ones targeted at an aspect of an industry". Against Suicide Seeds, (2016) 1 IAM 46; Choice in Education, (2016) 1 IAM 47 (finding legal a proposal that 'does not attempt to impose "general restrictions" on commerce [but rather] specific ones targeted at an aspect of an industry').

[Terra Animo]

I would like to refute such a claim ... said approximations will include any knowledge they posses on both the spot exchanges, as well as forward contracts, both active and past, meaning that in no way will the consumer be mislead.

This is necessarily incompatible with your previous statement that "Forward contracts and their terms shall remain privatized".

What is meant by the prior quoted statement (although I wholly recognize it is not explicitly stated in the original post) is that forward contracts shall retain the right to be privatized, a statement I stand behind and address in my earlier response. However, it is plausible to think that some of the contracts would be viewable by the public after their terms are finished, or possibly even while active. It is even more plausible to think that the ISEC would have an “inside scoop,” if you will, on any information pertaining to current or past contracts due to their nature of being a governing body of sorts, thus allowing them to create their approximations with said contracts in mind.

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: This was submitted. I'm unsure if the first two preamble sentences outline enough of an "extreme hazard to national populations" per GAR#68:



Thoughts?

I most certainly think it would qualify for such. A lack of transparency regarding what a consumer is purchasing (or in this case exchanging for) can most certainly pose and extreme hazard. Imagine someone travels from one nation with tight wraps on all foreign happenings, to another nation of similar standing. That person has no clue what the real value of each currency is, and could thus be charged ludicrous amounts for a low-worth currency, to the point of possible ruining them financially without them even knowing it.

Imagine again that you have arrived to a nation and are at the airport. A person ask you if you need your currency exchanged, you reply yes and he offers you what sound like a lot of currency for just 10 of your currency, swearing that it is a great deal. You accept, not knowing where else you would have gotten currency, but come to find out, they gave you 1/10th of what you deserve.

This list of examples like these where people could be financially ruined by exchanges, especially in developing nations.

EDIT:In summation, being able to financially ruin an individual by insuring their ignorance on the transactions seems like an extreme hazard to me.

EDIT: One could also argue that this would not restrict commerce in any way, simply alter the way it is done. As the act does not put any limits on the commerce of currency exchange itself, simply forces transparency regarding the commerce.

I would like to know why you submitted it this early. As things stand, definitely opposed.

[Bears Armed]

Thoughts?

Personally, it's a little bit of a stretch to call the proposed rules "restrictions" — most of what it does is require currency exchanges to display their prices in a prominent location. It certainly doesn't restrict currency exchanges from exchanging currency.

OOC: Agreed... and in the past, as I recall, we've interpreted the "generally" part of "generally restrict" as indicating a more-or-less total restriction.
I'll mark this as legal.

[Terra Animo]

I would like to know why you submitted it this early. As things stand, definitely opposed.

I just generally felt that the proposal was finished and that no further changes needed to be made. Especially since it is a rather short proposal, there is only some much to tweak.

I firmly respect your disposition to oppose the proposal and appreciate the message.

[Apatosaurus]

Why is the list item on 1. smaller text than the others?

[Terra Animo]

Why is the list item on 1. smaller text than the others?

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure. When I copy and a pasted it into the proposal box it just naturally did that. Rather peculiar for sure.

[Abacathea]

Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick

This is either some of the best in-character work I’ve seen in a long time. Or absolute spam. I can’t decide which. Having looked at your other posts on other threads, I still can’t decide if it is or isn’t.

[Terra Animo]

Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
Pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick
pick.....pick.....pick......pick....pick....pick

This is either some of the best in-character work I’ve seen in a long time. Or absolute spam. I can’t decide which. Having looked at your other posts on other threads, I still can’t decide if it is or isn’t.

I believe you have found the wrong forum my friend.

[Insidium]

Personally, it's a little bit of a stretch to call the proposed rules "restrictions" — most of what it does is require currency exchanges to display their prices in a prominent location. It certainly doesn't restrict currency exchanges from exchanging currency.

OOC: Agreed... and in the past, as I recall, we've interpreted the "generally" part of "generally restrict" as indicating a more-or-less total restriction. I'll mark this as legal.

This raises another point, though. GenSec marked one recent proposal as illegal partly because proposals with an Area of Effect instead of a Strength were to be treated as if they had a Strength of "Significant," and it didn't do enough to qualify for that. Does this apply to this proposal, given the few (if any) real restrictions brought by the proposed rules?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Agreed... and in the past, as I recall, we've interpreted the "generally" part of "generally restrict" as indicating a more-or-less total restriction. I'll mark this as legal.

This raises another point, though. GenSec marked one recent proposal as illegal partly because proposals with an Area of Effect instead of a Strength were to be treated as if they had a Strength of "Significant," and it didn't do enough to qualify for that. Does this apply to this proposal, given the few (if any) real restrictions brought by the proposed rules?

OOC: Ummm... Thinking about this.
('Regulation' being one of the newest categories means that there isn't much precedent specifically for this category, and I don't know what the relevant Stat effects are, so it's hard to tell...)

[Terra Animo]

This raises another point, though. GenSec marked one recent proposal as illegal partly because proposals with an Area of Effect instead of a Strength were to be treated as if they had a Strength of "Significant," and it didn't do enough to qualify for that. Does this apply to this proposal, given the few (if any) real restrictions brought by the proposed rules?

This seems like such a strange requirement to me. What this indicates is that any legislation written that happens to fall under a category which provides an area of effect instead of “strength” must be very binding. Such a thought seems so peculiar! Why not just allow proposals of said categories have both and area of effect and strength level?

Shutting down more mild proposals simply because they fall under category which does not allow the author to indicate a strength seems unthinkable.

[Terra Animo]

Ummm... Thinking about this.
('Regulation' being one of the newest categories means that there isn't much precedent specifically for this category, and I don't know what the relevant Stat effects are, so it's hard to tell...)

Please see post above.

[Greater Cesnica]

This draft is two-and-a-half days old. Why do you want to submit this so early?

A mix of moderate impatience, and a mild desire to submit while there are no legal proposals so it will have full attention.

It's refreshing to see honesty like this. I hope you realize that submitting this at this stage yields absolutely no benefits for you, and just screws you over. Not only is there insufficient drafting here, there's insufficient basic quality control judging by the numerous grammatical errors that are plainly visible within the text. Furthermore, your blatant willingness to ignore convention to rush your proposal will result in people being less willing to support your proposals in the future.

I would pull the proposal before it hits vote if I were you. If you do take my advice, you need to be drafting for at least weeks to improve this.

[Terra Animo]

It's refreshing to see honesty like this. I hope you realize that submitting this at this stage yields absolutely no benefits for you, and just screws you over. Not only is there insufficient drafting here, there's insufficient basic quality control judging by the numerous grammatical errors that are plainly visible within the text. Furthermore, your blatant willingness to ignore convention to rush your proposal will result in people being less willing to support your proposals in the future.

I would pull the proposal before it hits vote if I were you. If you do take my advice, you need to be drafting for at least weeks to improve this.

I genuinely appreciate the comments. With regards to the overall proposal, this whole ordeal has been quite enlightening. In the future my process shall most certainly look differently than it has this time. In truth this has been quite a draining and absorbing endeavor, and I plan on taking a lengthy hiatus before even drafting a future proposal I have in mind. Lastly, with regards to pulling the proposal, my bed has already been made, if confirmed to be legal I have no objections to it reaching the voting floor.

[Greater Cesnica]

It's refreshing to see honesty like this. I hope you realize that submitting this at this stage yields absolutely no benefits for you, and just screws you over. Not only is there insufficient drafting here, there's insufficient basic quality control judging by the numerous grammatical errors that are plainly visible within the text. Furthermore, your blatant willingness to ignore convention to rush your proposal will result in people being less willing to support your proposals in the future.

I would pull the proposal before it hits vote if I were you. If you do take my advice, you need to be drafting for at least weeks to improve this.

I genuinely appreciate the comments. With regards to the overall proposal, this whole ordeal has been quite enlightening. In the future my process shall most certainly look differently than it has this time. In truth this has been quite a draining and absorbing endeavor, and I plan on taking a lengthy hiatus before even drafting a future proposal I have in mind. Lastly, with regards to pulling the proposal, my bed has already been made, if confirmed to be legal I have no objections to it reaching the voting floor.

And so before you take this lengthy hiatus you intend to foist an objectively poorly-written proposal on us, wasting time on the voting floor and preventing proposals of better quality from reaching the floor in a timely fashion? How kind of you.

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, "Currency Exchange Transparency Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---