[WITHDRAWN] Media Content Rating Act

[Grays Harbor]

We find it amusing that you would, on one hand, object to the "freedom of association" proposal as it interferes with your nation, while at the same time push for this proposal which is just as intrusive on national perogative. How is it you manage to straddle the fence like that without splitting yourself in twain?

[Quadrimmina]

We find it amusing that you would, on one hand, object to the "freedom of association" proposal as it interferes with your nation, while at the same time push for this proposal which is just as intrusive on national perogative. How is it you manage to straddle the fence like that without splitting yourself in twain?

"Just as intrusive on national prerogative"? You've gotta be kidding me. When one resolution says that it wants to make political parties mandatory, and another says that it wants to create an optional ratings system, how does your delegation come to the conclusion that they're equally intrusive? Our delegation requests that yours undergoes some variety of drug test.

[Grays Harbor]

How? Because yours mandates a one-size-fits-all ratings system, something which, as we have mentioned previously, is not a one-size-fits-all solution as each nation has their own customs, traditions and sense of what is or is not proper. Even as an "optional" ratings system, it still intrudes on and attempts to dictate what a nation may or may not find appropriate based on one persons version of what should be.

[Enn]

The Appropriate Punishments Act of 2010 is the bill that allows all provinces in Quadrimmina to use capital punishment. It would have been repealed by the WA Compliance Commission had your resolution passed. And to use the argument that people should abide by nations' laws when they enter the nation when you tried to subvert our nation's laws is a weak argument.

Again, you are putting words into Enn's mouth that have never been uttered by any representative of this nation.

During our time at the international table, Enn has sponsored precisely two proposals, both of which were (eventually) adopted by the organisation of the time. Habeas Corpus was passed by the NSUN, and Drug Trafficking Act was passed by the General Assembly of the WA. Enn has never written, nor would seek to write, a proposal concerning capital punishment.

Methinks you have confused our delegation with that of another nation. Please stop making this mistake; it is worrying me that you pay so little attention to debates.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Quadrimmina]

The Appropriate Punishments Act of 2010 is the bill that allows all provinces in Quadrimmina to use capital punishment. It would have been repealed by the WA Compliance Commission had your resolution passed. And to use the argument that people should abide by nations' laws when they enter the nation when you tried to subvert our nation's laws is a weak argument.

Again, you are putting words into Enn's mouth that have never been uttered by any representative of this nation.

During our time at the international table, Enn has sponsored precisely two proposals, both of which were (eventually) adopted by the organisation of the time. Habeas Corpus was passed by the NSUN, and Drug Trafficking Act was passed by the General Assembly of the WA. Enn has never written, nor would seek to write, a proposal concerning capital punishment.

Methinks you have confused our delegation with that of another nation. Please stop making this mistake; it is worrying me that you pay so little attention to debates.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

Ambassador Lanerik, I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies. This was during the gas leak that caused terrible symptoms of confusion among our delegation, and in their confusion my scribes' notes placed you as the author of one of the resolutions outlawing the death penalty. We deeply apologize and offer you a bottle of rum for your troubles.

How? Because yours mandates a one-size-fits-all ratings system, something which, as we have mentioned previously, is not a one-size-fits-all solution as each nation has their own customs, traditions and sense of what is or is not proper. Even as an "optional" ratings system, it still intrudes on and attempts to dictate what a nation may or may not find appropriate based on one persons version of what should be.

The ratings system simply rates the amount of violent content, sexual content, drug content, etc on a scale of 1->10. How the amount of content is interpreted is based entirely either in national law or in individual consumer choice, depending on a nation's preference. There is no shame in providing information about a product (in this case media), based on its content. It is not rating content based on objectionability, but rather rating the amount of content that many people consider to be objectionable.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Film and other video advertisements tend to adequately describe the amount of gore, violence, foul language, sex, etc. in them, because their target demographic is looking for that stuff. Ratings systems tend to be about subjecting moral views onto a population, rather than about genuinely educating the public about the content of a video. If people can't tell that a movie is violent, the advertisers aren't doing their jobs.

Anyways, Glen-Rhodes does not have an official ratings system, because labeling content acceptable or unacceptable would go against freedom of expression. (OOC: In the US, the MPAA is not a government agency, either. The entire ratings system is completely voluntary. It's evolved from the Hays Code, which was completely draconian. If ratings agencies didn't exist, people wouldn't be concerned about buying unrated content; so, your argument there is pretty circular.) Unless you are proposing that we break with that tradition and ban certain people from watching certain things, I'm not seeing how a ratings system would be useful.

- Dr. B. Castro

Edit: Mixing up my ratings systems...

[Quadrimmina]

Film and other video advertisements tend to adequately describe the amount of gore, violence, foul language, sex, etc. in them, because their target demographic is looking for that stuff. Ratings systems tend to be about subjecting moral views onto a population, rather than about genuinely educating the public about the content of a video. If people can't tell that a movie is violent, the advertisers aren't doing their jobs.

Anyways, Glen-Rhodes does not have an official ratings system, because labeling content acceptable or unacceptable would go against freedom of expression. (OOC: In the US, the MPAA is not a government agency, either. The entire ratings system is completely voluntary. It's evolved from the Hays Code, which was completely draconian. If ratings agencies didn't exist, people wouldn't be concerned about buying unrated content; so, your argument there is pretty circular.) Unless you are proposing that we break with that tradition and ban certain people from watching certain things, I'm not seeing how a ratings system would be useful.

- Dr. B. Castro

Edit: Mixing up my ratings systems...

Then maybe this isn't a ratings system as much as it is a scoring system, scoring media for its content? It's more to inform people about objectionable content than it is to provide an age restriction or whatever. And it would be useful because of the dual threat of consumer pressure and national legislation. And the free publicity that the ratings board would provide.

[Mousebumples]

We feel no Nation is being forced to do anything with regards showing films but this proposal merely creates a universal guide across all WA Nations as to the content of films.

Exactly, this simply creates a system that a company or a nation can subscribe to if they choose, but don't have to. And if consumers pressure a company into rating their media, then they wanted the ratings anyway, which means that this resolution is meaningful.

And what about individuals who travel to non-WA nations? They would not be able to use these ratings there.

Further, I still fail to see why this is something that the WA should do. Can this be a function of the WA? Certainly, I don't dispute that. I just think that it is a time of resources that could be better spent in other ways.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

We feel no Nation is being forced to do anything with regards showing films but this proposal merely creates a universal guide across all WA Nations as to the content of films.

Exactly, this simply creates a system that a company or a nation can subscribe to if they choose, but don't have to. And if consumers pressure a company into rating their media, then they wanted the ratings anyway, which means that this resolution is meaningful.

And what about individuals who travel to non-WA nations? They would not be able to use these ratings there.

Further, I still fail to see why this is something that the WA should do. Can this be a function of the WA? Certainly, I don't dispute that. I just think that it is a time of resources that could be better spent in other ways.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

This is true, but the WA can't solve most problems in a comprehensive way because of the fact that non-WA nations are not affected. However, this addresses it in the largest possible way.

And that may be true, except gnomes are an unlimited resource.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Then maybe this isn't a ratings system as much as it is a scoring system, scoring media for its content? It's more to inform people about objectionable content than it is to provide an age restriction or whatever. And it would be useful because of the dual threat of consumer pressure and national legislation. And the free publicity that the ratings board would provide.

The content of the video is already known, via advertising. Ratings systems, or whatever you want to call them, are a tool for subjecting everybody to a few peoples' moral standards. There is no need to label things objectionable or not objectionable; people can decide these things for themselves.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Grays Harbor]

We feel no Nation is being forced to do anything with regards showing films but this proposal merely creates a universal guide across all WA Nations as to the content of films.

Exactly, this simply creates a system that a company or a nation can subscribe to if they choose, but don't have to. And if consumers pressure a company into rating their media, then they wanted the ratings anyway, which means that this resolution is meaningful.

And what about individuals who travel to non-WA nations? They would not be able to use these ratings there.

Further, I still fail to see why this is something that the WA should do. Can this be a function of the WA? Certainly, I don't dispute that. I just think that it is a time of resources that could be better spent in other ways.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

This is true, but the WA can't solve most problems in a comprehensive way because of the fact that non-WA nations are not affected. However, this addresses it in the largest possible way.

And that may be true, except gnomes are an unlimited resource.

And here is the crux of our problem with this proposal, we do not see it as a "problem" which requires solving. For us it appears more as intrusive legislation for the sake of intrusive legislation, and as such is not anything we can support.

[Quadrimmina]

We feel no Nation is being forced to do anything with regards showing films but this proposal merely creates a universal guide across all WA Nations as to the content of films.

Exactly, this simply creates a system that a company or a nation can subscribe to if they choose, but don't have to. And if consumers pressure a company into rating their media, then they wanted the ratings anyway, which means that this resolution is meaningful.

And what about individuals who travel to non-WA nations? They would not be able to use these ratings there.

Further, I still fail to see why this is something that the WA should do. Can this be a function of the WA? Certainly, I don't dispute that. I just think that it is a time of resources that could be better spent in other ways.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

This is true, but the WA can't solve most problems in a comprehensive way because of the fact that non-WA nations are not affected. However, this addresses it in the largest possible way.

And that may be true, except gnomes are an unlimited resource.

And here is the crux of our problem with this proposal, we do not see it as a "problem" which requires solving. For us it appears more as intrusive legislation for the sake of intrusive legislation, and as such is not anything we can support.

We ask how it is intrusive. It simply creates a ratings system that can be opted out of. We fail to see the intrusiveness.

[Enn]

I am still yet to see any reason why the WA should be discussing this matter. Why is this of international importance? Just because the WA can pass resolutions on just about anything, doesn't mean it should.

Please justify this.

Angelo Lanerik, of Enn

[Quadrimmina]

I am still yet to see any reason why the WA should be discussing this matter. Why is this of international importance? Just because the WA can pass resolutions on just about anything, doesn't mean it should.

Please justify this.

Angelo Lanerik, of Enn

We have received numerous complaints from foreign embassies and from tourists concerning the liberal way in which our media is rated. Due to this, we felt that a universal system was the best way to address this.

[Mousebumples]

We have received numerous complaints from foreign embassies and from tourists concerning the liberal way in which our media is rated. Due to this, we felt that a universal system was the best way to address this.

So because your nation received numerous complaints, you decide that the best avenue of response was to foist an unnecessary (and admittedly optional) piece of legislation on the entire WA?

I echo the words of many of my esteemed colleagues: please stop wasting this assembly's time.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

We have received numerous complaints from foreign embassies and from tourists concerning the liberal way in which our media is rated. Due to this, we felt that a universal system was the best way to address this.

So because your nation received numerous complaints, you decide that the best avenue of response was to foist an unnecessary (and admittedly optional) piece of legislation on the entire WA?

I echo the words of many of my esteemed colleagues: please stop wasting this assembly's time.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

We are hard-pressed to believe that our nation is the only one that has had problems with this.

[Mousebumples]

We are hard-pressed to believe that our nation is the only one that has had problems with this.

Still, my point remains: Is this not something that you can address on an national level? As stated by previous ambassadors, does Your Excellency truly believe that the WA handholding is needed in this arena?

We have not had issues within the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples with regards to media content ratings. I would recommend focusing on fixing whatever problems your own nation has with its media ratings rather than wasting our time with such a proposal.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

We are hard-pressed to believe that our nation is the only one that has had problems with this.

Still, my point remains: Is this not something that you can address on an national level? As stated by previous ambassadors, does Your Excellency truly believe that the WA handholding is needed in this arena?

We have not had issues within the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples with regards to media content ratings. I would recommend focusing on fixing whatever problems your own nation has with its media ratings rather than wasting our time with such a proposal.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

However, our media ratings system works perfectly for our citizens. The problem occurs when our content is exported or when tourists enter the country. This is why the issue is pertinent on an international scale.

[Mousebumples]

The problem occurs when our content is exported or when tourists enter the country. This is why the issue is pertinent on an international scale.

Why would it be an issue when your content is exported? Any media that is imported into my nation officially, is reviewed and rated according to the national guidelines. Certainly, if an individual were to view media on the internet, ratings do not typically accompany such items, depending on the media site in question.

So, as I understand it:
This proposal seeks to allow media companies to opt into a ratings system, if they choose to, primarily to assist tourists in selecting appropriate content for viewing?

Again, since this proposal is unable to affect non-WA nations, this is a very limited international effect. My citizens travel more frequently to non-WA nations than to WA nations. Again, I believe that this proposal is not worth the paper it's printed on and is a waste of time.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

The problem occurs when our content is exported or when tourists enter the country. This is why the issue is pertinent on an international scale.

Why would it be an issue when your content is exported? Any media that is imported into my nation officially, is reviewed and rated according to the national guidelines. Certainly, if an individual were to view media on the internet, ratings do not typically accompany such items, depending on the media site in question.

So, as I understand it:
This proposal seeks to allow media companies to opt into a ratings system, if they choose to, primarily to assist tourists in selecting appropriate content for viewing?

Again, since this proposal is unable to affect non-WA nations, this is a very limited international effect. My citizens travel more frequently to non-WA nations than to WA nations. Again, I believe that this proposal is not worth the paper it's printed on and is a waste of time.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

Our noble Republic understands your objections and respectfully agrees. We will send this to the floor for a test vote, but if that is to fail we will not pursue it any further. We thank all the noble delegations for their time.

[Mousebumples]

Our noble Republic understands your objections and respectfully agrees. We will send this to the floor for a test vote, but if that is to fail we will not pursue it any further. We thank all the noble delegations for their time.

Thank you for your consideration of my objections - and, of course, I will vociferously oppose this proposal should it achieve quorum.

Regardless, best wishes on your future proposal authoring attempts. I feel like I've always been in opposition to your ideas in the recent past, so I hope that the next one is one I'd be able to support.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quadrimmina]

Our noble Republic understands your objections and respectfully agrees. We will send this to the floor for a test vote, but if that is to fail we will not pursue it any further. We thank all the noble delegations for their time.

Thank you for your consideration of my objections - and, of course, I will vociferously oppose this proposal should it achieve quorum.

Regardless, best wishes on your future proposal authoring attempts. I feel like I've always been in opposition to your ideas in the recent past, so I hope that the next one is one I'd be able to support.

Yours,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

Ambassador Hall,

We respect your decisions and your esteemed delegation. We honor your opinion and consider it very strongly when I meet with Chancellor Forge for our daily video conference. Thank you for all that you do, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Warmest Wishes,
Dr. Arlo Lewis, Ph.D.
Ambassador to the World Assembly from Quadrimmina

[Levadonia]

The Federation of Levadonia agrees with the need for an arbitrary ratings system, but recommendes an addendum to define what media will be rated. The Federation of Levadonia also would like to state that if there will be any restrictions on filmmakers, writers, or content providers, this act will be voted against.

[Quadrimmina]

The Federation of Levadonia agrees with the need for an arbitrary ratings system, but recommendes an addendum to define what media will be rated. The Federation of Levadonia also would like to state that if there will be any restrictions on filmmakers, writers, or content providers, this act will be voted against.

There are no restrictions on any of those parties, it actually gives them the ability to tailor their work to the rating involved.

Also, we feel the definition of "media" offers sufficient insight:

DEFINES media for the purpose of this resolution as all audiovisual programs that are created with the intent to be distributed for mass viewership, including but not limited to motion pictures, television shows, music, and video games.

[Levadonia]

The Federation of Levadonia agrees with the need for an arbitrary ratings system, but recommendes an addendum to define what media will be rated. The Federation of Levadonia also would like to state that if there will be any restrictions on filmmakers, writers, or content providers, this act will be voted against.

There are no restrictions on any of those parties, it actually gives them the ability to tailor their work to the rating involved.

Also, we feel the definition of "media" offers sufficient insight:

DEFINES media for the purpose of this resolution as all audiovisual programs that are created with the intent to be distributed for mass viewership, including but not limited to motion pictures, television shows, music, and video games.

The Federation of Levadonia feels that modern communications create a difficulty with this definition, as the youth typically post media in publicly accessible locations.The federation request that it be limited to individuals seeking commercial gain, and not to individual citizens.