Ban on Child Gambling - Draft

[Sollens]

Franklin Steward: "Delegates and ambassadors, I come to you all today presenting my first draft of World Assembly legislation. I have come an awful long way from my homeland to make it to this chamber and during my journey, I had plenty of time to draft potential legislation. I know that merely by entering the premises of the World Assembly Headquarters, I render myself unable to return to the Habitat of Sollens and by actually submitting legislation, I put myself on their list of kill-on-sight, but in my brief experience here I am sure that I am safe from the firm grip of The Commonwealth."

Adjusting before continuing in his preambulatory statements, Steward shifts his foothold and leans more into the audience. "You may be wondering why I chose this topic as my inaugural draft into the World Assembly. There are many reasons, but perhaps the most simple is that I write what I know. Back in the Habitat, capitalism was unfortunately allowed to run rampant to the point that it desolated communities. One community in particular, the community of my former brother-in-law, was brought to its knees upon the establishment of a casino. What was once one of the most prosperous and low-poverty districts in The Commonwealth was now consolidated in the hands of three or four individuals. Upon sucking the teat dry, they left the community and moved onto the next victims."

Franklin Steward, in all his grandeur, takes a moment to sigh. His weakness at this moment is palpable. "Hearing this story from my brother-in-law, my friend was hearkening. He was a kind man, brutally executed by the state following the release of his life's work. He spoke of the humbling sight following the departure of the casino: children filling the streets, wagering beans for card games. The losers went home hungry, and the winners prospered for the night. They were hooked on the idea of winning, and the government would do nothing about it."

"When I began looking into the World Assembly's stance on this, it warmed my heart to find General Assembly Resolution 123, Reducing Problem Gambling, was on the books. It was already a step infinitely further than Sollens could imagine of implementing. It both reminds and assures me that a blanket ban would not work for the world, despite the incompetencies and malevolence of my home government. I still think it would be nice to have hefty restrictions, and yes, even bans, on gambling minors. I welcome the feedback from the more experienced delegations, as well as general critiques as to my appearance and demeanor. I've tried to act appropriately for this council but I fear that I remain at odds with the 'regulars', as I've heard. Without further adieu, though, I present you with the first draft of 'Ban on Child Gambling'."

Hitting a remote control, an old projector which is far out-of-date with general World Assembly technology flickers to life and displays the draft (seen below) on the screen. Steward finishes "In addition to the copy on the screen, there will be copies in the back if you'd like to do personal annotations or bring it back to your chambers or offices to look at overnight. I appreciate all of you for being here, and I'll update the draft accordingly with your feedback."

Ban on Child Gambling
Moral Decency | Significant

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging widespread use and abuse of gambling, lotteries, and other forms of chance-based financial compensation,

Recognizing that it is wholly within the rights of fully-consenting adults to use their money as they see fit, so long as they follow reasonable restrictions, such as those present in the General Assembly Resolution "Reducing Problem Gambling",

Concerned, however, of the potential of gambling and lottery companies taking advantage of children in an attempt for the company's own financial profit or other material benedits, at the expense of the child,

Henceforth enacts the following clauses into World Assembly law:

1. For the purposes and intentions of this resolution, "gambling" or any derivative thereof refers to the act of betting an item of monetary value on an action that is based on the skill of another that an individual has no direct bearing on (for example, a sporting event), or an event of pure chance, even if the player can affect the result through choosing the "winning numbers" (for example, lotteries or roulettes), or a game of mathematical odds in which a player plays against other players. These events are only gambling if they are done with a chance of receiving compensation either through direct finances or through receiving items of monetary or perceived value.
2. All nations must implement an age where an individual is considered legally competent to gamble and understand the financial risks/rewards that come alongside it. This age is encouraged to be the same age of legal competence in nations, but is permitted to be younger or older depending on individual circumstances. This age is not to be younger than an age where the individual who is gambling can be reasonably assumed to be making their own well-informed decisions on the subject, while realizing that the game is largely a game of chance with minimal skill involved.
3. No gambling service shall be permitted to allow children that are not legally competent to gamble to participate in gambling.
4. Gambling using real-world currency or currency that can be exchanged for a real-world equivalent shall not be permitted to be present or otherwise advertised within services or games primarily intended for those under the age of majority within any nation.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: wouldn't the definition of 'gambling' exclude lootboxes, since the items recieved in that case is often of percieved value? If yes, was that intentional? (Yes its 2020 and that first thing that comes to mind when seeing the words 'child' and 'gambling' together is lootboxes)

[Liberimery]

Could we make an exemption for games of chance done for charitable fund raising. For example, a church or school having a raffle for a prize most likely desired by a child such as a bike. I am relieved that this bill does not ban the use of my children as ante in my poker games (kidding of course).

[Separatist Peoples]

"I question the need for such legislation. What is the transnational benefit of a limitation on gambling? How are individuals in one jurisdiction harmed by children gambling in another?"

[Sollens]

OOC: wouldn't the definition of 'gambling' exclude lootboxes, since the items recieved in that case is often of percieved value? If yes, was that intentional? (Yes its 2020 and that first thing that comes to mind when seeing the words 'child' and 'gambling' together is lootboxes)

OOC: I'll fix this.

Could we make an exemption for games of chance done for charitable fund raising. For example, a church or school having a raffle for a prize most likely desired by a child such as a bike. I am relieved that this bill does not ban the use of my children as ante in my poker games (kidding of course).

Franklin Steward: "I am unfamiliar with this form of fundraising. In Sollens, most school-tier fundraising is done through the sale of items rather than through a raffle. If this is widespread in other World Assembly nations, and presumably done ethically and practically, I may factor in an exemption into the text of this proposal. Additionally, I have never heard the term 'kidding' used as the gambling away of your children, but that is not the focus of this draft nor do I think it should be. However, there does seem to be a moral or ethical concern with doing that, and it may very well run afoul of other World Assembly legislation, so I personally urge you to stop this practice."

"I question the need for such legislation. What is the transnational benefit of a limitation on gambling? How are individuals in one jurisdiction harmed by children gambling in another?"

Franklin Steward: "I take it that you also questioned the need for Resolution 23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, as well as Resolution 80, A Promotion of Basic Education, and Resolution 430, Freedom of Religion, or any of the numerous resolutions relating to abortion. The natural response to this, of course, is that you of course didn't question the need for any of these, as they uphold basic human rights. The point in this list is that the assertion that transnational benefit is the sole reason for legislation to go on the books is wholly inaccurate, and spits in the face of very apparent needs that this Assembly should cover. Perhaps gambling restrictions are not basic human rights, no, but I do believe that limiting corporate impact on the average citizen is an inherently good thing, especially when those corporations profit primarily off of the exploitation of hopes and dreams of some, and directly off the addiction of others. I think that allowing casinos or other gambling institutions to leave a disproportionate negative wake is indescribably irresponsible, especially when this Assembly may very well have the opportunity to lessen that wake."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I question the need for such legislation. What is the transnational benefit of a limitation on gambling? How are individuals in one jurisdiction harmed by children gambling in another?"

Franklin Steward: "I take it that you also questioned the need for Resolution 23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, as well as Resolution 80, A Promotion of Basic Education, and Resolution 430, Freedom of Religion, or any of the numerous resolutions relating to abortion.

"Nonsense. Those either had sufficient transnational impact or concerned itself with an essential affirmative right that was denied."

T

he natural response to this, of course, is that you of course didn't question the need for any of these, as they uphold basic human rights. The point in this list is that the assertion that transnational benefit is the sole reason for legislation to go on the books is wholly inaccurate, and spits in the face of very apparent needs that this Assembly should cover.

"Not really. You've articulated no essential right that is being denied here."

Perhaps gambling restrictions are not basic human rights, no, but I do believe that limiting corporate impact on the average citizen is an inherently good thing, especially when those corporations profit primarily off of the exploitation of hopes and dreams of some, and directly off the addiction of others.

"If addiction is the concern, why limit it to children? If corporate impact is the concern, why not address advertising and predatory practices? You've chosen a niche issue that has no bearing outside domestic contexts, and is therefore inappropriate for World Assembly legislation."

I think that allowing casinos or other gambling institutions to leave a disproportionate negative wake is indescribably irresponsible, especially when this Assembly may very well have the opportunity to lessen that wake."

"This is a conclusory statement without supporting argumentation or evidence. Your rhetorical basis is moral, which is an inherently subjective concern, leaving only a utilitarian position, which is highly contextual. Ergo the better idea to leave this a national concern."

[Sollens]

Franklin Steward: "I appreciate your concerns, but thoroughly find them an unconvincing argument against the fact that this is an international issue. Perhaps a better example for you would be Resolution 300, Child Pornography Ban. I think that we will agree that child pornography is a criminal sin of the utmost extent, despite the fact that it does not inherently uphold a right. You may very well argue that the importation and exportation clauses of the mentioned Resolution would demonstrate what you deem as 'transnational impact', but I'd argue that it instead is there to close possible loopholes with the meat of the resolution. Perhaps you argue that it indirectly upholds the right of a child's privacy - I'd argue that this proposal of mine indirectly upholds the right for a child to not be exploited into addiction."

Steward takes a moment to breathe and takes off his bowler hat, placing it on the pedestal beside him. "Another example that may be more cut-and-dry for you is Resolution 235, Child Firearm Safety Act. There is clearly no transnational benefit, and there is no right guaranteed. The sole purpose of the resolution is to ensure moral decency - of course uneducated children should not have access to firearms, even if it serves no inherent right. The law is in place to protect them. This is the same goal of my proposal."

OOC note: I was doing some research on this but then got caught playing some Tetris with some friends so I didn't have time to compile it and am too tired at this point, so I'll do an IC analysis as to the specific reasons for limiting it at childhood. A primary one is that Resolution 123 covers a lot of it, and an outright ban would be impossible to pass, and children are generally more susceptible to it than adults.

[Separatist Peoples]

Franklin Steward: "I appreciate your concerns, but thoroughly find them an unconvincing argument against the fact that this is an international issue. Perhaps a better example for you would be Resolution 300, Child Pornography Ban. I think that we will agree that child pornography is a criminal sin of the utmost extent, despite the fact that it does not inherently uphold a right. You may very well argue that the importation and exportation clauses of the mentioned Resolution would demonstrate what you deem as 'transnational impact', but I'd argue that it instead is there to close possible loopholes with the meat of the resolution. Perhaps you argue that it indirectly upholds the right of a child's privacy - I'd argue that this proposal of mine indirectly upholds the right for a child to not be exploited into addiction."

Steward takes a moment to breathe and takes off his bowler hat, placing it on the pedestal beside him. "Another example that may be more cut-and-dry for you is Resolution 235, Child Firearm Safety Act. There is clearly no transnational benefit, and there is no right guaranteed. The sole purpose of the resolution is to ensure moral decency - of course uneducated children should not have access to firearms, even if it serves no inherent right. The law is in place to protect them. This is the same goal of my proposal."

OOC note: I was doing some research on this but then got caught playing some Tetris with some friends so I didn't have time to compile it and am too tired at this point, so I'll do an IC analysis as to the specific reasons for limiting it at childhood. A primary one is that Resolution 123 covers a lot of it, and an outright ban would be impossible to pass, and children are generally more susceptible to it than adults.

"GAR#300 does provide direct transnational benefit by preventing distribution of illicit property, not unlike drugs. I would repeal GAR#235 without hesitation. Child safety absent transnational consideration or positive civil right is a domestic concern best regulated and enforced by domestic governments and not international governments. This articulates no underlying international issue. It constitutes mere moral objection to an activity that, frankly, is rooted in very subjective views on right and wrong. To the extent normative moral concerns are at issue, we have moved from an unequivocal one regarding child sexual exploitation to a trivial one of unproved claims of undetermined developmental harm and moral degradation. This is, frankly, not convincing, and I think you will be surprised by the resistance to this policy based on those grounds alone, ambassador."

[Retired WerePenguins]

I am shocked at the necessity of such universal legislation.

Back when I was young we all used to collect these cards with sports players. There were several games, all based solely on chance where one could lose or win cards in the process. Clearly these cards have a "value" (of course that value did increase significantly many years later but still there was a value) and such games, among children, would be illegal under this resolution.

You can't be allowed to lose your cards but you can lose all your marbles? (Because that is based on your own skill, although the opponent is another that the individual has no direct bearing on.)

[Sollens]

Franklin Steward: "To the WerePenguinian delegation, this was more directed at institutional gambling organizations or systems explicitly designed to exploit children, such as lootboxes in otherwise recreational games. I see now that I failed to cover this up, but I will do so momentarily. Will you support this draft, in that case?"

"To the Separatist delegation, I'd first like to commend you for remaining consistent in your arguments, especially in regards to Resolution 235. I cannot puncture your unyielding reasoning on that particular Resolution, but I think we can agree, then, that a Resolution such as this is not entirely unprecedented, even if you personally would oppose it. In refutation of your other points, however, I'd argue that any transnational benefit as created by Resolution 300 in regards to the dispersal of illicit property is only illicit due to the resolution itself. Now, I'd tend to agree with you that the distribution of child pornography is despicable in every sense of the word, more so than the intentional exploitation of children for profits, but that doesn't mean that the latter is any less deserving of a topic for legislation. I can certainly understand your hesitation, but I think that this legislation may be more popular than you expect. You claim that the effect that gambling has on children, one of increased risk of addiction, is trivial, but I think you'll find that there have been numerous studies done on the topic that have proven the fact that children are more susceptible to addiction at the hands of gambling - in fact, while I haven't explicitly researched it yet, I suspect that the same is true for all sources of addiction."

"One such study (OOC note: I'm using this paper for the bulk of my arguments/facts here) claims that addiction rates of gambling are more than two times as prominent in children as they are in adults (Page 3). For specific numbers, approximately 4-8 percent of all adolescents demonstrate some form of addictive trait in regards to gambling, and 10-15 percent of all adolescents are at risk of developing these traits. This is in sharp contrast with adults, who demonstrate 2.6-4 percent (on high estimates) and 1.4-12 percent for the same respective statistics. Additionally, most matured gambling addicts confirm that they began their unhealthy habit after becoming addicted at a young age: ten to nineteen years old, for you Sol3-dwellers. The prominent issue here is that gambling addiction is often far more subtle than the addiction of substances, and thus can go under the radar. This does not mean that it is any less problematic."

"Of course there are many possible sources for the cause of addiction, but one of the more accepted pieces of this puzzle is the social acceptance aspect of it. So long as it is seen morally reasonable for children to gamble, the problem remains. If gambling in general remains acceptable, then some fragment of the issue may remain. As I've mentioned previously, I would very much prefer a blanket-ban on gambling, but I am not so naive as to think such a ban will pass, especially when excellent pieces of legislation such as Resolution 123 prevent the issue from infesting adult-gamblers. However, such legislation is not enough to address the concerns towards children, who often look towards parents and other adults to see what is socially acceptable. Resolution 123 does not prevent adults from gambling responsibly around children, who generally lack the same responsibility without being taught it. Resolution 123, while not explicitly directed towards adult gamblers, fails to address many practical concerns that may lead to the development of problems within children. In order to prevent this addiction in children, there are several avenues one can take: the first of which, one that I think is ideal but practically impossible to implement with simple legislation, and especially not blanket legislation for nations across the Assembly, is to eliminate the social acceptance of gambling in both adults and children alike. The second of which, which is actually possible to do in a legal sense, is to prevent the access towards primary avenues of gambling towards children. This proposal does this, and I think it is the most sensible and realistic way to go about this."

"I certainly understand if you hold firm in your position here; my little interaction with you in this small, dingy room has shown me that you are solid in your position. I hope that this can help you better understand why I wrote this, and perhaps allow us to begin a more conducive relationship in the future. Another draft I have in planning is one to reduce the broad issue of addiction, more heavily focused on substance abuse. Does that general premise sound acceptable to you? I do ask you, as well as other experienced delegations, for advice on the formatting and general stylistic choices of this proposal, as this is my first time and I would like to ensure that this draft and others of mine uphold the level of quality that is necessary to succeed in this fine chamber."

Steward, realizing that he had gone on a long tangent with little pause, takes a deep breath, and cedes the stage to the next critic.

[Sollens]

OOC: Bump?

[Kenmoria]

“I feel as though ideological criticisms have been rather prevalent in this chamber, judging by the transcript, so I will be focusing on the execution rather than my personal opinions about the topic. Using the word ‘you’ in clause I doesn’t sit well with me, given that it hasn’t appeared in a piece of GA legislation previously, I suggest ‘a person plays’ rather than ‘you play’, in that clause, therefore.”

“Additionally, clause II seems a little self-contradictory. The first sentence states ‘All nations must implement an age’, but then the last sentence starts with ‘In the case that no age is put in place’. This creates a lack of consistency. Clause III is perhaps a little broad, ‘any activities relating to gambling’ could include, for example, taking children on a workshop about the dangers of gambling.”

[Sollens]

Franklin Steward: "I have addressed the Kenmorian concern in the updated version of the draft. Further feedback is smiled upon." Steward coughs and sits down while grabbing his back, having pulled it while doing yoga several weeks prior, which explains his absence over the past several weeks.

OOC: I've thought a bit about this, and I'm still planning on pursuing it, but I'm interested in frank OOC thoughts here - is this worth pursuing? I feel I've done a reasonably competent job at arguing my case, but I also don't have a very large frame of reference. Am I wasting my time here, or should the IC concerns presented only be taken as character-driven feedback?

[Kenmoria]

Franklin Steward: "I have addressed the Kenmorian concern in the updated version of the draft. Further feedback is smiled upon." Steward coughs and sits down while grabbing his back, having pulled it while doing yoga several weeks prior, which explains his absence over the past several weeks.

OOC: I've thought a bit about this, and I'm still planning on pursuing it, but I'm interested in frank OOC thoughts here - is this worth pursuing? I feel I've done a reasonably competent job at arguing my case, but I also don't have a very large frame of reference. Am I wasting my time here, or should the IC concerns presented only be taken as character-driven feedback?

(OOC: Restricting child gambling could certainly work as legislation, but a prohibition might be more challenging. Lots of RL countries have no such bans, and given that players will often use their own nation as a term of reference, this could be viewed as too far. Assuming the draft was polished to, for example, not prohibit charity raffles, I don’t think it’s a lost cause, but it could be difficult.)

[Barfleur]

OOC: In my view, when deciding whether a problem is of sufficient international concern as to merit a GA resolution, it is important to weigh the benefits of solving that problem by international law against the harms of contributing to the ever-expanding power of the WA over national governments. I take the approach that GA resolutions should either be on a subject that inherently crosses borders or affects multiple nations (such as piracy, nuclear weapons, or air pollution) or involves a fundamental right (such as abolishing slavery and protecting free speech). While I am sympathetic to the detrimental effects of problem gambling, especially on children, I doubt this is a matter of international concern. Also, for what it's worth, I don't understand what you mean by "an age where the individual who is gambling can be reasonably assumed to be making their own well-informed decisions on the subject, while realizing that the game is largely a game of chance with minimal skill involved." A 10-year-old could probably tell you "you do realize you're betting money on pure chance, right?" yet there are adults who drop inordinate amounts of money on the pull of a lever or the spin of a wheel in which they have no control over the outcome. Perhaps there is a right age, but I think individual nations--should they choose to do so, as many have--can do a better job regulating this issue than the GA.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Considering multinational gambling and online computer gaming companies, this is absolutely an international issue. The day of gambling just being a high street or on course bookie is long gone. Expecting individual states in a world of tens of thousands of nations to be able to take on and effectively regulate huge multinationals is naive.

IC: "Full support."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Fuck no.

And I say that as someone who has played for over 15 years a game (SP, IA, Tinfect and Essu Beti know which one...) that was at one point in serious trouble over people using certain random generated funnies in the game (meant for cosmetic fun) to bet RL money on and caused the game company a lot of issues and led to the deletion/removal of the randomness of said game features. Which were NOT gambling-related.

Still, this would prevent any game where any kind of compensation happens (most games have microtransactions that enable one way or another one to purchase ingame currency for RL money - either directly or by buying items which are then sold ingame or by buying membership that enables one to access the feature) from having any kind of "wheel of fortune" gimmick, which are VERY common and usually give access to buffs or cosmetics or consumables not otherwise available. And truth be told I'd rather have that randomizer as a kind of equalizer to prevent rich kids from "pwning" everyone else in those games, simply because they can splurge RL money on them. Hence my opposition.

[Scalizagasti]

"Would promotional raffles be considered gambling? For example, let's say every time I purchase a coffee from a chain I have a chance to win a prize. Winning this promotional giveaway is ultimately a game of pure chance, and I must exchange money every time I enter it. Ultimately, compensation can be received, usually in the form of some item/service of value but occasionally a cash payment as well."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"wheel of fortune" gimmick

Fuck that gimmick.