[Draft] Repeal "Reducing Problem Gambling"

[Araraukar]

Commending GA #123, Reducing Problem Gambling, with its admirable goal of protecting individuals with gambling problems from being taken advantage of by the gambling industry;

However noting that the resolution is vague in many of its mandates, such as the requirements and structure of the "education programme which informs the general populace and other interested parties" that GAR#123 mandates all nations must organize;

Concerned by certain conditions of GAR#123 such as the irresponsible allocation of certain obligations such as imposing deposit limits on individuals solely to gambling operators;
[This is strangely constructed as a sentence, some more clarity, please?]

Further baffled by the resolution's terribly vague and unspecific criteria on what types of advertising and marketing techniques promoting gambling should be prohibited under the resolution's mandates;

Noting that the gambling industry has the potential to have a positive impact on a nation's economy with its employment opportunities, annual revenue and taxes which can contribute to the nations' healthcare, education, business innovations, etc., easily outweighing the negative effects on a few individuals;

Desiring to make way for a replacement bill that more effectively deals with problem gambling in WA nations with a new focus of helping the individuals rather than restricting the whole industry;

Hereby repeals GAR#123, Reducing Problem Gambling

OOC: A slight rewrite to make it flow better, be less micromanagery, and spout more feelgood garbage without appearing to have been written by a Bond villain.

Changes and additions, in places both at once.

I'm only helping because I want a full gambling ban and apparently this resolution needs to go away first.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm only helping because I want a full gambling ban and apparently this resolution needs to go away first.

The full ban is coming! The revolution is coming!

[Rovikstead]

Commending GA #123, Reducing Problem Gambling, with its admirable goal of protecting individuals with gambling problems from being taken advantage of by the gambling industry;

However noting that the resolution is vague in many of its mandates, such as the requirements and structure of the "education programme which informs the general populace and other interested parties" that GAR#123 mandates all nations must organize;

Concerned by certain conditions of GAR#123 such as the irresponsible allocation of certain obligations such as imposing deposit limits on individuals solely to gambling operators;
[This is strangely constructed as a sentence, some more clarity, please?]

Further baffled by the resolution's terribly vague and unspecific criteria on what types of advertising and marketing techniques promoting gambling should be prohibited under the resolution's mandates;

Noting that the gambling industry has the potential to have a positive impact on a nation's economy with its employment opportunities, annual revenue and taxes which can contribute to the nations' healthcare, education, business innovations, etc., easily outweighing the negative effects on a few individuals;

Desiring to make way for a replacement bill that more effectively deals with problem gambling in WA nations with a new focus of helping the individuals rather than restricting the whole industry;

Hereby repeals GAR#123, Reducing Problem Gambling

OOC: A slight rewrite to make it flow better, be less micromanagery, and spout more feelgood garbage without appearing to have been written by a Bond villain.

Changes and additions, in places both at once.

I'm only helping because I want a full gambling ban and apparently this resolution needs to go away first.

OOC: Thank you for the edits. I really appreciate them. I'll add them in when I get a chance to pop onto my computer.
With these edits, would you say this repeal might manage to pass in the GA?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thank you for the edits. I really appreciate them.

OOC: You're welcome. Also, the bits left out/deleted were left out/deleted on purpose, so please don't add them in.

With these edits, would you say this repeal might manage to pass in the GA?

With intense campaigning, maybe. But the words "reducing problem" form such a feelgood wording that it may be difficult to overcome that.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I made a new draft that incorporates a lot of Araraukar's edits and suggestions. I am grateful for everyone who shared their opinions or constructive criticism to further this repeal, especially Araraukar.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: There's a lot here that seems perilously close to the honest mistake rule.

I would probably let the first part of the baffled clause by on the basis that "practical advice about the risks of problem gambling" is wooly but the second part seems to be a misrepresentation of the target. The three parts of clause 3 seem perfectly clear to me.

I'd also mark the nonsense about the vote tallies as an honest mistake. It does not address the content of the target. (My GenSec colleagues might disagree.)

After that you have one more non-fluff clause which effectively states that member states should have no regulation on gambling because profit for the operators.

It's all lightweight and needs far more punch.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd also mark the nonsense about the vote tallies as an honest mistake. It does not address the content of the target. (My GenSec colleagues might disagree.)

OOC: Rovik, there's a very good reason why I posted this:

OOC: Also, the bits left out/deleted were left out/deleted on purpose, so please don't add them in.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I'd also mark the nonsense about the vote tallies as an honest mistake. It does not address the content of the target. (My GenSec colleagues might disagree.)

OOC: Rovik, there's a very good reason why I posted this:

OOC: Also, the bits left out/deleted were left out/deleted on purpose, so please don't add them in.

I just removed the part about the votes and such. I also realized I added two desiring clauses and deleted one.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: I feel confident with the current draft. Unless anyone expresses and concerns or constructive criticism for the current draft, I plan to send it to the GA in four or five days.

Could anyone give their opinion on the current draft and say whether or not they would support it?

[Imperial Polk County]

"Still no support. I like the existing resolution just the way it is."

[Rovikstead]

"Still no support. I like the existing resolution just the way it is."

OOC: Could you suggest any modifications to the proposal? Would adding more reasons or expanding upon my given points as to why "Reducing Problem Gambling" should be repealed make you reconsider your stance?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Still no support. I like the existing resolution just the way it is."

OOC: Could you suggest any modifications to the proposal? Would adding more reasons or expanding upon my given points as to why "Reducing Problem Gambling" should be repealed make you reconsider your stance?

OOC: Not for me, no. As I tried to indicate above, the only way to make more effective help for people who have trouble with gambling is either to fully fund rehabilitation programs (which you can do without repealing the target resolution), or to prohibit gambling entirely (which you don't seem to want, but which others are waiting to pounce on this repeal's aftermath to accomplish). This repeal is ill-advised and totally at odds with your stated rationale and intent.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: Could you suggest any modifications to the proposal? Would adding more reasons or expanding upon my given points as to why "Reducing Problem Gambling" should be repealed make you reconsider your stance?

OOC: Not for me, no. As I tried to indicate above, the only way to make more effective help for people who have trouble with gambling is either to fully fund rehabilitation programs (which you can do without repealing the target resolution), or to prohibit gambling entirely (which you don't seem to want, but which others are waiting to pounce on this repeal's aftermath to accomplish). This repeal is ill-advised and totally at odds with your stated rationale and intent.

OOC: Personally, I feel that there should be a greater disenfranchisement of the WA; I feel that World Assembly should have less control on nations and only intervene in special or necessary cases. I do feel that there should be some sort of solution to problem gambling, even through legislation in the WA, but this proposal, Repeal Problem Gambling, failed to do what it strove to do because it was so ambiguous and didn't specify and outline some of the most important components of that bill. This repeal intends to give nations greater freedom in dealing with problem gambling and in managing the gambling sector with what actions they feel best, and makes way for a better bill to address problem gambling without affecting the gambling sector negatively.

[Rovikstead]

OOC: Unless anyone has any constructive criticism or wants to express their opinion on this draft, I will put it on final call.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Unless anyone has any constructive criticism or wants to express their opinion on this draft, I will put it on final call.

OOC: It won't pass, much as I wish it could, not when your main arguments are 1) gambling industry not being allowed to take advantage of the weakest members of the society and 2) the resolution not doing a good enough job, without you having a ready-to-go replacement that does it better.

[Rovikstead]

I made a new draft. Hopefully it better expresses why this resolution should be repealed. I tried to better emphasize on how the bill's ambiguity prevents it from addressing problem gambling in an effective manner, and may instead hamper the growth of the gambling industry as a consequence. I strongly anticipate feedback from other nations.

[Kenmoria]

"The first two dashes in the noting clause would work better as commas."

(OOC: Out of interest, where did draft numbers 3 go?)

[Rovikstead]

"The first two dashes in the noting clause would work better as commas."

(OOC: Out of interest, where did draft numbers 3 go?)

OOC: Thanks for your suggestion.
The reason why there is no third draft is because i accidentally skipped it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Rovikstead]

I'm going to fix some of the grammatical errors in my proposal, and change some of the clauses a bit (specifically word choice)

[Kenmoria]

"I would put a full stop on the "Hereby" line."

[Rovikstead]

"I would put a full stop on the "Hereby" line."

???

[Kenmoria]

"I would put a full stop on the "Hereby" line."

???

The last line of the repeal, beginning with "Hereby".

[Wallenburg]

The World Assembly,

Commending GAR#123, Reducing Problem Gambling, with its admirable goal of protecting individuals with gambling problems from being taken advantage of by the gambling industry;

However recognizing that, of the 6,536 nations who voted on the passage of the proposal, 2,675 nations voted against it, a staggering 40.9% of voters, suggesting that the bill's implications would be either detrimental to the gambling sector, or fail to provide a sufficient solution to problem gambling;

OOC: Demonstrably incorrect. Those numbers are the total vote counts, not the nation counts on either side of the vote. Delegate votes introduce more votes than there are voting nations into each resolution vote. Also, "a lot of, but not most, people disagreed with it" is not a reason to repeal a resolution.

Emphasizing that many of GAR#123's clauses are ambiguous and vague - fatal flaws which prevent the resolution from accomplishing its goals;

That is a very ambiguous and vague statement. If you are going to attack the target like this, tell us what specifically is ambiguous and vague.

Baffled by the resolution's lack of attention to its most important areas such as the requirements and structure of the education program the bill proposed and mandated nations to hold, and its terribly vague and unspecific criteria on what types of advertising and marketing techniques that promote gambling should be prohibited under the resolution's mandates;

The education clause is sparse, yes. The prohibitions on particular marketing techniques, however, are very clear. You aren't allowed to systematically target those who are struggling financially, you aren't allowed to market gambling as an income solution, you aren't allowed to promote irresponsible gambling, and you aren't allowed to lie about how a game works. These are very clear prohibitions.

Noting, while respecting nations that have eliminated their gambling sector, that the gambling industry has the potential to have a positive impact on a nation's economy with its employment opportunities, annual revenue and taxes which can contribute to the nations' healthcare, education, business innovations, etc., - benefits that may be frustrated by GAR#123's equivocal mandates;

IC: "Gambling is a social ill that destroys families and sucks wealth out of productive elements of the economy. Exploiting gamblers as a source of money for the state hardly offsets that, and really only threatens to make problems worse."