[PASSED] Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[Slaughter None]

Can someone please explain to me how animals can give their consent?

[Kenmoria]

Can someone please explain to me how animals can give their consent?

(OOC: The relevant clause says “Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;” because animals are not sapients, they do not fall under this mandate.)

[Slaughter None]

Can someone please explain to me how animals can give their consent?

(OOC: The relevant clause says “Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;” because animals are not sapients, they do not fall under this mandate.)

Thanks for clarifying

[Zaberaz Hapang]

Not a huge fan. My people need bear fighting

Similar, we have many bloodsports as tradition

[Zaberaz Hapang]

Opposed.

Seriously? What possible reason is there to ban blood sports from an international perspective? It doesn’t hurt anyone outside of my nation, we don’t import slaves (usually) for it, we don’t export the dead bodies (except as refreshing Soylent Blue-Green, now with a hint of paprika!).

If you’re so worried about it, ban it in your own nation. Leave my country’s aphrodisiacs alone! We don’t tell you how to keep your gay love alive...

Now get off my damn lawn...

I agree, we have to convince more people that if they think this is so bad ban it on their own nation but leave us to it

[Bigoted Libertarians]

Not a huge fan. My people need bear fighting

"I am curious now, in what way do your people need bear fighting?"

Countries that DON’T have struggling economies? Y’all need more bear fighting. Or Jesus. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

"I am curious now, in what way do your people need bear fighting?"

Countries that DON’T have struggling economies? Y’all need more bear fighting. Or Jesus. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe

Ambassador, I have never heard someone say "poe-tah-toe" in my life.

[Heavens Reach]

""animal" as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain

We understand that the point was probably to pare down some encumbering language by defining "animal" in a simplistic way, but it still does not sit well that the definition is expressly ascientific. Sapient beings with nervous systems are also animals. This also brings up an important gap in the protection afforded by this proposal: why should AI with an equivalent system of pain recognition and expression not qualify for protection under a resolution banning blood sports? Something somewhere here is getting lost in a lot of overly casual lingo. One could be forgiven, for example, of not immediately thinking of AI when the phrase "blood sport" is used instead of more conversant, global, terms, like the "maim" or "kill" in its definition. It flourishes better, but covers less.

2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent

This clause is extremely puzzling to us. Why would it ever be deemed sufficient for only one of multiple sapient participants to provide consent to involvement in a "blood sport"? It is not sufficient to say that such rules are adequately covered elsewhere because "blood sport" is a very specific context in which laws against murder, or, at the very least, battery are generally understood to be suspended. This gives tacit approval to contexts in which only one sapient being, say a champion of the state, is permitted to force the participation of one, if not several, other sapient beings in a one-sided match for the entertainment of other sapient beings. It's gladiatorial matches near-explicitly enshrined in law.


Revised: we have revisited this clause, realized our error in its interpretation, and are rescinding our criticism of it.

3. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death

What provides a litmus of significance in this clause? Scientific significance, for example, is quite demanding, requiring a 95% or greater statistical probability to achieve significance. Surely we don't mean, for the purposes of this resolution, that significance is something so stringent; but what do we mean? If this is a case of "we'll know it when we see it," why even include this clause? Was this not adequately covered by the definition of blood sports in subclause a of clause 1? Why is it not simply sufficient to say that all blood sports involving "animals" are banned? The definition of blood sport provided already encapsulated situations in which serious injury or death are significantly possible.

4. Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:

We find calling the rules hereafter described a "fair manner" of treatment a stretch. The word "fair" here seems more like a subjective moral evaluation than a mandate. And given that there is no subclause in the rules that follow which require an attempt to shelter former blood sport participants at lawfully maintained sanctuaries, should natural habitat not be an option, before giving them a fatal disposition, it really does beg the question of whether the proposal is trying to convince us or itself that these rules are "fair."

all non-animal blood sport participants must be given their freedom, excepting lawful incarceration as a penalty for criminal conduct.

Because "animal" is defined ascienfically, and "non-animal" is not defined at all, there is great ambiguity in the subject of this clause. What defines a being as opposite to the defined "animal"? Is it lacking non-sapience? Is it lacking a nervous system? Both are qualifications for "animal" in the definition provided in the proposal. Perhaps we're meant to take "non-animal" literally and this is the only part of the proposal that does protect AI. This is why we believe there are some more-than-stylistic concerns with the language used in the crafting of this proposal. It is also concerning that there is explicitly a clause provided for the deprivation of "non-animal" blood sport participants of their freedom. It smacks of other legislation that ostensibly end a shameful institution only to legally enshrine it in law vis a vis crime and punishment. It also harbors a little bit more of that suspiciously near-pro-gladiatorial language in a way that gives this whole proposal, for us, an uncomfortable undertone.

Revised: given our reconsideration of the aforementioned clause, we are also striking this point from our official position.

--

Given these concerns, we are unable to support this proposal in its current form. We realize that this is the second iteration of this proposal, and note that it is not a lack of effort that has led to what we believe are significant flaws in the selectivity and sensitivity of the proposal, but unfortunately, we find these concerns too great to set aside. Additionally, it does not bode well for this proposal that both ambassadors from Bran Astor and Kuriko have made the decision to vote against, but who knows: the current vote is extremely close, just as it was for the first iteration of this proposal. In summary, Heaven's Reach is obliged to lodge a vote of against in the matter of the proposal entitled Ban on Forced Blood Sports. Good luck, ambassador.

[Bisim]

3. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death

What provides a litmus of significance in this clause? Scientific significance, for example, is quite demanding, requiring a 95% or greater statistical probability to achieve significance. Surely we don't mean, for the purposes of this resolution, that significance is something so stringent; but what do we mean? If this is a case of "we'll know it when we see it," why even include this clause? Was this not adequately covered by the definition of blood sports in subclause a of clause 1? Why is it not simply sufficient to say that all blood sports involving "animals" are banned? The definition of blood sport provided already encapsulated situations in which serious injury or death are significantly possible.

Unclear language like this is why I vote no on the majority of WA proposals.

[Bounapartia]

While the citizens of Bounapartia do not participate in blood sports for the most part, the delegation of Bounapartia does not believe banning blood sports should be international law and instead believes it should be decided by individual nations. For that reason, Bounapartia is voting against this resolution.

[Araraukar]

"I am curious now, in what way do your people need bear fighting?"

Countries that DON’T have struggling economies? Y’all need more bear fighting. Or Jesus. Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe

OOC: You realize that gameside stats have nothing to do with RP realities, right? I certainly don't have over 25 billion people in the IC nation. I could make a comment about your crime rates, lack of culture and economic output, or primitiveness, but I won't, because gameside stats are basically meaningless, given how much a single issue answer can change them.

[Island Girl Herby]

Ehhhhhh no sorry. According to some hotshit ehhh I mean hotshot lawyer back home this could conceivably force us to outlaw or at least severely restrict demolition derbies.

[Araraukar]

Ehhhhhh no sorry. According to some hotshit ehhh I mean hotshot lawyer back home this could conceivably force us to outlaw or at least severely restrict demolition derbies.

"If all participants consent to them, then you're good even in the event of this passing."

[Grishahakkaverchynot]

hi

[Keswickholt]

At this stage, if this was on a Election Night News Show it would be considered "too close to call".

It appears that this maybe one that cannot be predicted.

Currently if the current pattern continues, I believe that this will be defeated narrowly.


EDIT (as of 20:20 GMT):
Vote has swung towards for, if this was in the real world it would have political pundits on the edge of their seats.

[Island Girl Herby]

Ehhhhhh no sorry. According to some hotshit ehhh I mean hotshot lawyer back home this could conceivably force us to outlaw or at least severely restrict demolition derbies.

"If all participants consent to them, then you're good even in the event of this passing."

Ehhhhhhh you’re goin’ on the assumption that they’re all sapient. I mean have you ever met a K70? Or a first gen Scirocco?

[Tinhampton]

if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom

Harming itself of others?

[Kenmoria]

if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom

Harming itself of others?

(OOC: That’s a known typo, which was sadly reported after campaign telegrams had been released. Hopefully, a good faith compliance interpretation will ignore it.)

[The Angry Peasant Crusader Mob]

Darn youngsters trying to stop my gladiatorial fights! Get off my lawn! #GladiatorsGetPaid

[Ardiveds]

Harming itself of others?

(OOC: That’s a known typo, which was sadly reported after campaign telegrams had been released. Hopefully, a good faith compliance interpretation will ignore it.)

OOC: Isn't that stretching a bit what is and isn't good faith?

[Outer Sparta]

(OOC: That’s a known typo, which was sadly reported after campaign telegrams had been released. Hopefully, a good faith compliance interpretation will ignore it.)

OOC: Isn't that stretching a bit what is and isn't good faith?

OOC: If a typo like that is too much of a problem, they could repeal the resolution and the author could also make a case for other reasons why it should be repealed, but of course the original author can still make a new and improved draft to address the concerns of the repeal in that scenario.

[Baddlands]

Darn youngsters trying to stop my gladiatorial fights! Get off my lawn! #GladiatorsGetPaid

Yeah blood sports forever #GladiatorsGetPaid

[RIHAAM]

I see nothing objectionable save the treatment of animals as "non-sapient."
Homocebntrism, eh?

[Atheris]

Darn youngsters trying to stop my gladiatorial fights! Get off my lawn! #GladiatorsGetPaid

Yeah blood sports forever #GladiatorsGetPaid

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!

[Baddlands]

I see nothing objectionable save the treatment of animals as "non-sapient."
Homocebntrism, eh?

Animals are not sapient go back to school. #BLOODSPORTSFOREVER #GladiatorsGetPaid