[PASSED] Independent investment research protocol

[Simone Republic]

Question, what are "unambiguous factual statements" from 3b?

do we have an existing definition? what is unambiguous? is common law unambiguous?

This part deals more with libel laws than securities laws. I used (what I consider to be) a synonym to define the common law concept of "statement of truth" which is more of an American term and turns up more often in First Amendment cases. "Truth" is an absolute defense to libel claims, because one of the elements that must be proven in a defamation suit is falsity of the statement. I probably could have drafted that line as "a reckless disregard for truth published therein".

I mean, I didn't directly say "truth" to avoid having to explain that this is defined in an US legal context, so I said "unambiguous factual statements" instead.

[TheStonedSurfers]

Noa Ohana looked up from his desk after reading the resolution proposed. He rubbed his eyes and took a drink from the bottle of water on his desk. He signified that this nation was voting in FAVOR of the motion and then put his head down and fell asleep.

[Kenmoria]

Lewitt places his copy of the proposal back on his desk. “This is an excellent proposal. I have no qualm in recommending a vote in favour of it.” The only slight issue that he had was that, because of its excellence, he had very few substantive comments to make.

[Simone Republic]

Lewitt places his copy of the proposal back on his desk. “This is an excellent proposal. I have no qualm in recommending a vote in favour of it.” The only slight issue that he had was that, because of its excellence, he had very few substantive comments to make.

Well, thank you for your kind words.

[The Kosaki City Authority]

i would like to ask, on what standard does these "qualified staff" are upheld on? because i am concerned that if the qualification is on the hands of individual states without oversight of another power, may result in qualification standards being lowered and essentially do what this resolution is supposed to avoid in the first place. i will wait for your answer

[Lakeside Valley]

The Community of Lakeside Valley votes AGAINST

Firstly, we would like to make it clear we totally agree with the resolutions goals. Investors should be able to safely trust that financial experts are not giving fake or misleading information for the sake of profits. HOWEVER, the goal of profits is quite literally the entire point of the investment system! If the profit incentive is causing corruption, which hurts the common person, the solution is not to put a bandage on individual systems. Rather, it is to abolish said profit incentive. If it were not for capitalism, we wouldn't need to address this issue in the first place. Furthermore, corruption and lies for the sake of profits are inherent to the capitalist system. As such, our experts have come to the conclusion it makes no sense to pass this, as the root problem, capitalism, will still exist. However, we fully support anyone who chooses to vote FOR, as surely this will benefit investors and common people. Our only point is that passing this would not be fixing the root problem, which is the fact the profit motive will always hurt the common person. Besides, individual nations which believe people over profits could put similar restrictions in place themselves. Our experts came up with this analysis while on a mushroom trip, reading various socialist literature together, so we fully trust that only the greatest minds influenced these opinions.