[Draft] Convention on Gambling

[Erythrina]

ESTABLISHING the right for an individual to gamble or bet on an outcome

Yay! Baybees at slot machines!

[Bears Armed]

"My government does not see any reason why this particular topic should be considered 'international' enough in scope to be a suitable subject of international legislation, rather than one that is left for the separate nations to decide about for themselves."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

PREAMBLE: The World Assembly recognizes the sport or game of gambling, as defined within this resolution, is the choice of the person or persons wagering their possessions or currency, and although holy law of some religions may outlaw it, the right to freedom of religion is long established and thus individuals not of a religion banning gambling, (or perhaps encouraging it) should be allowed by international law to gamble as they please.

DEFINING
- Gambling as wagering currency or items on the outcome of a random or semi-random event,
- Betting as the wagering of currency or items on the outcome of an event that is not random,

RECOGNIZING individuals have the right not to gamble or bet

ESTABLISHING the right for an individual to gamble or bet on an outcome

REQUIRES all sentient parties involved to consent to said gambling or betting

OOC: You actually mean "sapient", right? Otherwise you're effectively saying that (for example) one can't bet on a horserace without the horses' consent...

^_^

[Erythrina]

Yay! Baybees at slot machines!

ALLOWS nations to set a minimum age for gambling and or betting

lrn2read

Yay! I'll set the minimum age at one thousand years! Oh, the joys of enjoying a right!

kthxbai

[ALMF]

OOC: You actually mean "sapient", right? Otherwise you're effectively saying that (for example) one can't bet on a horserace without the horses' consent...

^_^

Fixing.

sentient is wright; "sapient" wold exclude the liserd men species on ns. As to horses the conventional working definition of sentient is 'can learn to understand and respond in the language of others.'

[Erythrina]

Yay! I'll set the minimum age at one thousand years! Oh, the joys of enjoying a right!

kthxbai

Because that loophole doesn't apply to 99% of resolutions. Have a problem with it? Help fix it.

I'd thought you'd appreciate pointing out such an appalling logic fault. If it isn't deemed "help", just let me know; so I'll (from then on) only report errors via GHR when it should reach quorum.

Where's Miss Manners?

Kisses from the witch!

[Grays Harbor]

"My government does not see any reason why this particular topic should be considered 'international' enough in scope to be a suitable subject of international legislation, rather than one that is left for the separate nations to decide about for themselves."

We are in definate agreement with our Ursine colleague. We can see no benefit or need for this at all. None. We would love to hear some arguments as to why this should be an international issue, and not something which can best be legislated at the national or local level, if there is any argument for that. Something besides "because we can", that is.

[Eireann Fae]

"We, too, agree with the delegate from Bears Armed. This issue is not inherently national in scope, and does not pertain to basic sentient rights. Let the nations deal with it individually."

[Mousebumples]

I'd thought you'd appreciate pointing out such an appalling logic fault. If it isn't deemed "help", just let me know; so I'll (from then on) only report errors via GHR when it should reach quorum.

For the record, that sort of "error" is unlikely to get a proposal deleted from the queue. The presence of loopholes (even glaringly obvious ones like that) does not make a proposal illegal.

Kisses for the witch!

[Intellect and the Arts]

Fixing.

sentient is wright; "sapient" wold exclude the liserd men species on ns. As to horses the conventional working definition of sentient is 'can learn to understand and respond in the language of others.'

As someone who has on several occasions argued for the rights of non-human sapients in these realms, I respectfully disagree. Sapient would be the correct wording, as it would include ALL dominant species throughout the multiverse. Your illustrative "liserd men" would be covered.

[Erythrina]

I'd thought you'd appreciate pointing out such an appalling logic fault. If it isn't deemed "help", just let me know; so I'll (from then on) only report errors via GHR when it should reach quorum.

For the record, that sort of "error" is unlikely to get a proposal deleted from the queue. The presence of loopholes (even glaringly obvious ones like that) does not make a proposal illegal.

Kisses for the witch!

Thanks for the kisses, blessed be! If a GHR should not apply, and my help not be deemed help, I'll save the pies for the at-vote phase. Curses! May that never happen! Oh, where was I...? Oh yes.

Is it my imagination, or this cursed soup of letters unintentionally (intentionally?) LEGALISES WORLDWIDE bloody animal sports, such as cockfighting, dogfighting, toreadas, or even bet on how long a cat, or a whale can last while it is being burned alive?

*Screams for the blood of the slayers of Nature*

[Intellect and the Arts]

Is it my imagination, or this cursed soup of letters unintentionally (intentionally?) LEGALISES WORLDWIDE bloody animal sports, such as cockfighting, dogfighting, toreadas, or even bet on how long a cat, or a whale can last while it is being burned alive?

*Screams for the blood of the slayers of Nature*

The Ambassador's blood chills for a brief moment before she calms herself to verify what she just heard. "I'm sorry... did someone just scream "animal rights"? Are we going there again? Please tell me we aren't going there again. I don't think my liver can withstand the recovery libations from going there again..."

[Erythrina]

Is it my imagination, or this cursed soup of letters unintentionally (intentionally?) LEGALISES WORLDWIDE bloody animal sports, such as cockfighting, dogfighting, toreadas, or even bet on how long a cat, or a whale can last while it is being burned alive?

*Screams for the blood of the slayers of Nature*

The Ambassador's blood chills for a brief moment before she calms herself to verify what she just heard. "I'm sorry... did someone just scream "animal rights"? Are we going there again? Please tell me we aren't going there again. I don't think my liver can withstand the recovery libations from going there again..."

Errrm... we're witches, and we are getting close to that time of the year where we just love dancing naked around bonfires!

Kisses from the witch!

[Intellect and the Arts]

Errrm... we're witches, and we are getting close to that time of the year where we just love dancing naked around bonfires!

Kisses from the witch!

OOC: Lady Ilera is just a tad traumatized from previous discussions along the same vein where she was advising representative Akia (from one of my prior nations speaking on behalf of this one) on methods and survival libations for the enduring of a similar matter. I'd refer you to the logs of the Preventing Animal Cruelty debate, but they've been deleted by Jolt... Just trust me when I say it wasn't pretty. Actually, to my recollection, any time a "fuzzy" argument starts picking up steam, ambassadors come out of the woodwork for customary defenestrations and trout-tossing, then someone says "sapient rights" and the assembly largely implodes. On the other hand, the Bar tends to get a surge in good business, so I guess it's not all bad. O.o

[Mousebumples]

OOCly, I just wanted to try to take a shot at the rarest category.

The reason it's the rarest category is because opinion is probably split into (approximate) 3's -

One-third wants to ban gambling,
One-third wants to legalize gambling,
and One-third wants the WA to stay the heck out of making this kind of a decision on behalf of all WA nations.

(For the record, I'd fall into the third category.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper feels that any decision on legalising or outlawing gambling in member states will not change her mind: Ms. Harper is UNABLE to support any proposal which interfere with member state's right to allow or disallow gambling. The ONLY gambling-themed resolution Ms. Harper will allow is the addressing of gambling addiction and nothing more: however that is best categorised as "Moral Decency", mild.

For the record this means she falls into the subsection of the third category.

[Bears Armed]

Ms. Harper feels that any decision on legalising or outlawing gambling in member states will not change her mind: Ms. Harper is UNABLE to support any proposal which interfere with member state's right to allow or disallow gambling. The ONLY gambling-themed resolution Ms. Harper will allow is the addressing of gambling addiction and nothing more: however that is best categorised as "Moral Decency", mild.

For the record this means she falls into the subsection of the third category.

OOC: How about a proposal that requires those nations in which gambling is legal to forbid their gambling industry seeking customers (postally, by phone, online, etc...) in those nations where it's forbidden? That would be 'international', and in line with the WA's previous resolution on the smuggling of drugs...

[Mousebumples]

OOC: How about a proposal that requires those nations in which gambling is legal to forbid their gambling industry seeking customers (postally, by phone, online, etc...) in those nations where it's forbidden? That would be 'international', and in line with the WA's previous resolution on the smuggling of drugs...

How common is that? While I am sure there are some "gambling capitals of the world," I would expect that they mostly recruit new customers via word of mouth versus any other sort of advertising. Also, would this ban contact with previous customers of said gambling industry who are from a different nation?

To me, it seems like it would be a useless piece of legislation.

[Embolalia]

Category & Strength? (I know, I know. Just being a pain.)

Also, does this actually do anything? I mean, it establishes the right to gamble, but makes no restrictions on what kinds of gambling establishments a nation can outlaw. Which basically means, every kind could still be outlawed. As long as there is at least one way in which it is legal to make a wager (let's say, betting with a friend for a sum no greater than that required to purchase an alcoholic beverage), a nation could say it's not violating this resolution.

Oh, and one last thing: Why is this a WA issue?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: How about a proposal that requires those nations in which gambling is legal to forbid their gambling industry seeking customers (postally, by phone, online, etc...) in those nations where it's forbidden? That would be 'international', and in line with the WA's previous resolution on the smuggling of drugs...

How common is that? While I am sure there are some "gambling capitals of the world," I would expect that they mostly recruit new customers via word of mouth versus any other sort of advertising. Also, would this ban contact with previous customers of said gambling industry who are from a different nation?

To me, it seems like it would be a useless piece of legislation.

I wasn't thinking about advertising to get those customers to visit the gambling sites physically, I was thinking more about online gambling sites (with people betting from home, using their credit cards) and the like...

[Flibbleites]

OOCly, I just wanted to try to take a shot at the rarest category.

The reason it's the rarest category is because opinion is probably split into (approximate) 3's -

One-third wants to ban gambling,
One-third wants to legalize gambling,
and One-third wants the WA to stay the heck out of making this kind of a decision on behalf of all WA nations.

(For the record, I'd fall into the third category.)

Not to mention that should a Gambling proposal come up for vote, one of the first two categories will end up voting along with the last one.

[Glen-Rhodes]

DEFINING
- Gambling as wagering currency or items on the outcome of a random or semi-random event,
- Betting as the wagering of currency or items on the outcome of an event that is not random,

Please refine your definition so that it doesn't cover the entirety of the financial market...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

How common is that? While I am sure there are some "gambling capitals of the world," I would expect that they mostly recruit new customers via word of mouth versus any other sort of advertising. Also, would this ban contact with previous customers of said gambling industry who are from a different nation?

To me, it seems like it would be a useless piece of legislation.

I wasn't thinking about advertising to get those customers to visit the gambling sites physically, I was thinking more about online gambling sites (with people betting from home, using their credit cards) and the like...

It would in our opinion to still consider gambling addiction as an international issue because maybe member states have banned gambling due to excessive addiction?

[Mousebumples]

The reason it's the rarest category is because opinion is probably split into (approximate) 3's -

One-third wants to ban gambling,
One-third wants to legalize gambling,
and One-third wants the WA to stay the heck out of making this kind of a decision on behalf of all WA nations.

(For the record, I'd fall into the third category.)

Not to mention that should a Gambling proposal come up for vote, one of the first two categories will end up voting along with the last one.

I thought that was implied, but - yes - that is why these proposals never seem to pass. And why, if I have anything to say about it, they will continue to fail.

It would in our opinion to still consider gambling addiction as an international issue because maybe member states have banned gambling due to excessive addiction?

What about a Social Justice type proposal that deals with addiction in general? (Drug addiction, alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, etc.) Obviously, you'd have to set some limits ("I'm addicted to wearing the color pink!) since some are not worthy of our attention. Thoughts?

[Darenjo]

While Darenjo applauds the proposal and its content, we question as to whether it's really needed. Gambling's something the WA tends to stay away from, and most nations probably have similar laws already.

Darenjon GA Ambassador Dr. Park Si-Jung

[Ethel mermania]

Greetings from the Peoples republic of Ethel Mermania, a small country with a love of broadway musicals

We are giving 8 to 5 odds that this resolution fails.