by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics



Region: The South Pacific WA Voting Center

Convention Against Heisting


I think this proposal is well intentioned -- and I would like to see Declarations address Cards -- but I have a couple of issues with it based on my experience with trading cards.

1) I am adamantly opposed to Article II's codification of the term "Guild" into official WA parlance. "Guild" is very much a term in reference to TNP's Cards Guild -- an undoubtedly wonderful program -- but making it the standard go-to umbrella term for all regional/organizational cards programs is, in my opinion, a textual signal of TNP's soft power over the cards game, which I'm not okay with. No region except TNP (and to some extent Lazarus' "cards guild" channel) has adopted such terminology - see the NPO's program "Card Captor Pacifica", TEP's program "TEAPOT", or XKI's "Cards Co-operative", or the non-regional Card Gardens program, not to mention our "South Pacific Association for Cards Exchange (SPACE)" program. While TNP's program is the first major cards program, and is one with exceptional power and infrastructure, we should not instate its terminology semi-permanently in the World Assembly. I would have strongly preferred a more geopolitically neutral term like "organization". I also don't necessarily like the idea that "Guilds" should always mobilize against heisting -- Cards Organizations should determine their own purposes, and one could even create a guild premised on friendly and intense competition that includes heisting.

2) I don't think the resolution is adaptable to potential mechanics changes. I expressed a similar concern with On Interregional Recruitment, I think it's slightly less relevant here but still important. For example, the definitions section clearly defines a pull event as "an event in which nations attempt to duplicate artwork by matching an ask above market value and placing repeated, rapid, and increasing bids while card farming". I see two issues with this definition: a) duplicating artwork doesn't necessarily require a bid above Market Value (at least it didn't last time I hosted one several months ago) - it usually requires a bid above Deck Value - so I think the definition is inaccurate, b) the mechanic of "repeated, rapid, and increasing bids" is a somewhat recent evolution of the pull event mechanic, and one that could very plausibly be changed in the future by admin - it's not really a "core" mechanic of the cards game so much as a highly technical one. By going into specifics about how a "pull event" works, we're creating an inevitable scenario where needs for repeals-and-replaces occurs.

3) I think the "Reducing Risk" section has a major omission - which is the use of mass copy transfers. It asserts that you should only transfer on low copy cards - which I don't think is accurate - lots of farmers use mass copy transfers with great success (here are examples of mass copy transfer cards used by South Pacificans: my S2 Dustwind2, Lucabaduka's S2 Sylh Alanor, or Witchcraft and Sorcery's S2 Southern Defender 26). If we want to codify advice on transfers, it should likely not discourage one of the most reliable forms of bank transfer available.

These issues are largely emblematic of the broader "rushed drafting" issue with this proposal, which leads me to vote against.

Active-duty SPSF