by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:01 am
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:55 am
Drusselshof wrote:2) The Regulations outlines these key consumer rights, of which all consumers should be aware. These include the following:
Right to Equality in the Consumer Market and Protection Against Discriminatory Marketing Practices; Right to Privacy; Right to Choose; Right to Disclosure of Information; Right to Fair and Responsible Marketing; Right to Fair and Honest Dealing; Right to Fair, Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions; Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety; and Right to Accountability by Suppliers.
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:46 am
Tinhampton wrote:Drusselshof wrote:2) The Regulations outlines these key consumer rights, of which all consumers should be aware. These include the following:
Right to Equality in the Consumer Market and Protection Against Discriminatory Marketing Practices; Right to Privacy; Right to Choose; Right to Disclosure of Information; Right to Fair and Responsible Marketing; Right to Fair and Honest Dealing; Right to Fair, Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions; Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety; and Right to Accountability by Suppliers.
Yes, but you haven't really outlined them; you've just thrown several zillion buzzwords all over the place and hope we'll have an understanding as to what they mean. Thank you for withdrawing this proposal and drafting it on the forums... especially after sending an unmarked campaign TG pleading for my approval
Also: Please do not submit the proposal immediately after integrating my feedback. Other people can, and will, give their own feedback.
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:57 am
Drusselshof wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Yes, but you haven't really outlined them; you've just thrown several zillion buzzwords all over the place and hope we'll have an understanding as to what they mean. Thank you for withdrawing this proposal and drafting it on the forums... especially after sending an unmarked campaign TG pleading for my approval
Also: Please do not submit the proposal immediately after integrating my feedback. Other people can, and will, give their own feedback.
Thank you for your feedback. Please share your ideas, comments and thoughts about this
by Potted Plants United » Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:00 am
Drusselshof wrote:Topic: Consumer Protection
1) Definition: Consumers are persons to whom goods or services are marketed, who have entered into transactions with suppliers, users of particular goods or recipients/beneficiaries of services.
2) The Regulations outlines these key consumer rights, of which all consumers should be aware. These include the following:
Right to Equality in the Consumer Market
and Protection Against Discriminatory Marketing Practices
Right to Privacy
Right to Choose
Right to Disclosure of Information
Right to Fair and Responsible Marketing
Right to Fair and Honest Dealing
Right to Fair, Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions
Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety
Right to Accountability by Suppliers.
The penalty under this regulations
attracts a possible fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or both a fine and imprisonment. In the case where a person is convicted of a breach of confidence the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or both a fine and imprisonment.
4) gives rise to the establishment of the International Consumer Commission, a body assigned to investigate consumer complaints and is responsible for the adjudication of violations and transgressions of the regulations
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:08 am
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:26 pm
Potted Plants United wrote:OOC post.Drusselshof wrote:Topic: Consumer Protection
This is presumably the draft name? What category and area of effect or strength?1) Definition: Consumers are persons to whom goods or services are marketed, who have entered into transactions with suppliers, users of particular goods or recipients/beneficiaries of services.
This looks like taken from a dictionary. If I searched that online, would I get a hit on an online dictionary? If yes, it's plagiarism, which is illegal. However, since you seem to be using the word in its dictionary definition manner, you don't need to actually define it.
You have no preamble, which is the bit of text that comes before the clauses that actually do something, like your definition there. In this case you should use the preamble to explain why you think this topic needs international legislation to deal with it, given that any sane nation would already have consumer protection laws in place.2) The Regulations outlines these key consumer rights, of which all consumers should be aware. These include the following:
"Should" doesn't actually do anything. If you want people to be aware of something, you need to actually make people aware of it. However, the way WA resolutions work, you could just basically say "declares these key consumer rights to apply to all consumers".Right to Equality in the Consumer Market
...you know that you're not allowed to buy and sell people, right?
Terms like "consumer market", which are vague and up for interpretation, are the kinds you should define instead of simple terms.and Protection Against Discriminatory Marketing Practices
Is an ad targeting parents with small babies, that advertizes baby diapers, discriminatory? What are discriminatory marketing practices? Another thing that should be defined if you insist using it. However, be aware that some discrimination in general is allowed if there is a good enough reason for it (like, for example, only allowing citizens to vote in parliamentary elections). I would imagine that marketing is such a targeted industry that most "discrimination" (without looking things up I can't even imagine what discriminatory marketing would contain) can be explained as simply being a targeting choice.Right to Privacy
In which sense? If you use a bank card to pay for purchases, you should be prepared to prove your identity, there's also no privacy in a fairly public place like a grocery store. Also, there are some resolutions out there already that talk about privacy protections in very specific areas.Right to Choose
Right to choose what? These things need to be typed out.Right to Disclosure of Information
What information? Whose information? Disclosing it to who? This and the privacy thing look very much out of place in consumer protection resolution. They're more like general rights. And also, even if you know something, there are specific resolutions about cases where you still can't tell that information forwards (like, a doctor can't tell their patient's partner their patient's private medical information, without the explicit permission of their patient).Right to Fair and Responsible Marketing
Without googling I've no idea what this means. And it's your job to explain in the proposal text what it means.Right to Fair and Honest Dealing
Same as above. You need to write in the meaning.Right to Fair, Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions
Do you read the terms and conditions of every app you install on any digital device, before choosing consent? I DO. Most of them are not reasonable by any stretch of meaning, and some are written in such convoluted language that it can be really difficult to understand a 200-word-long sentence. Is that what you mean? Or what? Do groceries come with terms and conditions too? (Hope not.)Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety
Safety is self-explanatory, but what is fair value in this context? A lot of products are priced way too high (see for example medications and how much they cost in USA and how much they cost in EU: clearly if the producer can afford to sell a pill for 0.15 euros in EU, it can't be fair that it costs 15 dollars in the USA) for their production costs, while some others (especially some groceries) are sold at below production values, because they are a way to entice people to come to the store where they'll likely buy other things, too, while there. And good quality is a bit vague. If I buy something cheap, knowing that it's low quality because it's so cheap, but also knowing it's good enough quality for the purpose I need it, then is that somehow not fair?Right to Accountability by Suppliers.
What are suppliers, here? And how is their accountability a right?The penalty under this regulations
The penalty for what? And grammar error, should read "these" instead of "this".attracts a possible fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or both a fine and imprisonment. In the case where a person is convicted of a breach of confidence the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or both a fine and imprisonment.
What's a breach of confidence? There's no right to confidence on your list. And also, what the hell at those numbers? 10 years in prison if you sell bananas that got a little chilled in transport so you know they'll brown faster than they normally would, after people buy them? What happened to your fair, just and reasonable terms?4) gives rise to the establishment of the International Consumer Commission, a body assigned to investigate consumer complaints and is responsible for the adjudication of violations and transgressions of the regulations
What gives rise? And it would be far less time and effort consuming to make consumers complain to sellers and set up mediation in cases where they can't agree. Like it's done in RL in nations that aren't quite as sue-happy as USA.
The vibe I'm getting is that most of this text is swiped off of some marketing text book or RL law, and it'll need a shitton of work to be anywhere near submittable.
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:27 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Also, to confirm PPU's suspicions: It looks like your Articles 1, 2 and 4 were plagiarised in large part, if not entirely, from The Consumer Protection Act: Your Guide to Consumer Rights & How to Protect Them. Article 3 appears to be original, but barely comprehensible (and your resolution doesn't even define what a breach of confidence is!)
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:29 pm
Drusselshof wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Also, to confirm PPU's suspicions: It looks like your Articles 1, 2 and 4 were plagiarised in large part, if not entirely, from The Consumer Protection Act: Your Guide to Consumer Rights & How to Protect Them. Article 3 appears to be original, but barely comprehensible (and your resolution doesn't even define what a breach of confidence is!)
I just thought that something from the real world would help us in the fictional world
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:43 pm
Drusselshof wrote:Potted Plants United wrote:OOC post.
This is presumably the draft name? What category and area of effect or strength?
This looks like taken from a dictionary. If I searched that online, would I get a hit on an online dictionary? If yes, it's plagiarism, which is illegal. However, since you seem to be using the word in its dictionary definition manner, you don't need to actually define it.
You have no preamble, which is the bit of text that comes before the clauses that actually do something, like your definition there. In this case you should use the preamble to explain why you think this topic needs international legislation to deal with it, given that any sane nation would already have consumer protection laws in place.
"Should" doesn't actually do anything. If you want people to be aware of something, you need to actually make people aware of it. However, the way WA resolutions work, you could just basically say "declares these key consumer rights to apply to all consumers".
...you know that you're not allowed to buy and sell people, right?
Terms like "consumer market", which are vague and up for interpretation, are the kinds you should define instead of simple terms.
Is an ad targeting parents with small babies, that advertizes baby diapers, discriminatory? What are discriminatory marketing practices? Another thing that should be defined if you insist using it. However, be aware that some discrimination in general is allowed if there is a good enough reason for it (like, for example, only allowing citizens to vote in parliamentary elections). I would imagine that marketing is such a targeted industry that most "discrimination" (without looking things up I can't even imagine what discriminatory marketing would contain) can be explained as simply being a targeting choice.
In which sense? If you use a bank card to pay for purchases, you should be prepared to prove your identity, there's also no privacy in a fairly public place like a grocery store. Also, there are some resolutions out there already that talk about privacy protections in very specific areas.
Right to choose what? These things need to be typed out.
What information? Whose information? Disclosing it to who? This and the privacy thing look very much out of place in consumer protection resolution. They're more like general rights. And also, even if you know something, there are specific resolutions about cases where you still can't tell that information forwards (like, a doctor can't tell their patient's partner their patient's private medical information, without the explicit permission of their patient).
Without googling I've no idea what this means. And it's your job to explain in the proposal text what it means.
Same as above. You need to write in the meaning.
Do you read the terms and conditions of every app you install on any digital device, before choosing consent? I DO. Most of them are not reasonable by any stretch of meaning, and some are written in such convoluted language that it can be really difficult to understand a 200-word-long sentence. Is that what you mean? Or what? Do groceries come with terms and conditions too? (Hope not.)
Safety is self-explanatory, but what is fair value in this context? A lot of products are priced way too high (see for example medications and how much they cost in USA and how much they cost in EU: clearly if the producer can afford to sell a pill for 0.15 euros in EU, it can't be fair that it costs 15 dollars in the USA) for their production costs, while some others (especially some groceries) are sold at below production values, because they are a way to entice people to come to the store where they'll likely buy other things, too, while there. And good quality is a bit vague. If I buy something cheap, knowing that it's low quality because it's so cheap, but also knowing it's good enough quality for the purpose I need it, then is that somehow not fair?
What are suppliers, here? And how is their accountability a right?
The penalty for what? And grammar error, should read "these" instead of "this".
What's a breach of confidence? There's no right to confidence on your list. And also, what the hell at those numbers? 10 years in prison if you sell bananas that got a little chilled in transport so you know they'll brown faster than they normally would, after people buy them? What happened to your fair, just and reasonable terms?
What gives rise? And it would be far less time and effort consuming to make consumers complain to sellers and set up mediation in cases where they can't agree. Like it's done in RL in nations that aren't quite as sue-happy as USA.
The vibe I'm getting is that most of this text is swiped off of some marketing text book or RL law, and it'll need a shitton of work to be anywhere near submittable.
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:52 pm
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:30 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Why do you feel the need to place your responses in "a document?" It is not against the rules to directly respond to criticism on the GA forum. Nor is it physically possible to attach files such as .docx and .pdf onto NS directly.
by Drusselshof » Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:33 pm
Potted Plants United wrote:OOC post.Drusselshof wrote:Topic: Consumer Protection
This is presumably the draft name? What category and area of effect or strength?1) Definition: Consumers are persons to whom goods or services are marketed, who have entered into transactions with suppliers, users of particular goods or recipients/beneficiaries of services.
This looks like taken from a dictionary. If I searched that online, would I get a hit on an online dictionary? If yes, it's plagiarism, which is illegal. However, since you seem to be using the word in its dictionary definition manner, you don't need to actually define it.
L
You have no preamble, which is the bit of text that comes before the clauses that actually do something, like your definition there. In this case you should use the preamble to explain why you think this topic needs international legislation to deal with it, given that any sane nation would already have consumer protection laws in place.2) The Regulations outlines these key consumer rights, of which all consumers should be aware. These include the following:
"Should" doesn't actually do anything. If you want people to be aware of something, you need to actually make people aware of it. However, the way WA resolutions work, you could just basically say "declares these key consumer rights to apply to all consumers".Right to Equality in the Consumer Market
...you know that you're not allowed to buy and sell people, right?
Terms like "consumer market", which are vague and up for interpretation, are the kinds you should define instead of simple terms.and Protection Against Discriminatory Marketing Practices
Is an ad targeting parents with small babies, that advertizes baby diapers, discriminatory? What are discriminatory marketing practices? Another thing that should be defined if you insist using it. However, be aware that some discrimination in general is allowed if there is a good enough reason for it (like, for example, only allowing citizens to vote in parliamentary elections). I would imagine that marketing is such a targeted industry that most "discrimination" (without looking things up I can't even imagine what discriminatory marketing would contain) can be explained as simply being a targeting choice.Right to Privacy
In which sense? If you use a bank card to pay for purchases, you should be prepared to prove your identity, there's also no privacy in a fairly public place like a grocery store. Also, there are some resolutions out there already that talk about privacy protections in very specific areas.Right to Choose
Right to choose what? These things need to be typed out.Right to Disclosure of Information
What information? Whose information? Disclosing it to who? This and the privacy thing look very much out of place in consumer protection resolution. They're more like general rights. And also, even if you know something, there are specific resolutions about cases where you still can't tell that information forwards (like, a doctor can't tell their patient's partner their patient's private medical information, without the explicit permission of their patient).Right to Fair and Responsible Marketing
Without googling I've no idea what this means. And it's your job to explain in the proposal text what it means.Right to Fair and Honest Dealing
Same as above. You need to write in the meaning.Right to Fair, Just and Reasonable Terms and Conditions
Do you read the terms and conditions of every app you install on any digital device, before choosing consent? I DO. Most of them are not reasonable by any stretch of meaning, and some are written in such convoluted language that it can be really difficult to understand a 200-word-long sentence. Is that what you mean? Or what? Do groceries come with terms and conditions too? (Hope not.)Right to Fair Value, Good Quality and Safety
Safety is self-explanatory, but what is fair value in this context? A lot of products are priced way too high (see for example medications and how much they cost in USA and how much they cost in EU: clearly if the producer can afford to sell a pill for 0.15 euros in EU, it can't be fair that it costs 15 dollars in the USA) for their production costs, while some others (especially some groceries) are sold at below production values, because they are a way to entice people to come to the store where they'll likely buy other things, too, while there. And good quality is a bit vague. If I buy something cheap, knowing that it's low quality because it's so cheap, but also knowing it's good enough quality for the purpose I need it, then is that somehow not fair?Right to Accountability by Suppliers.
What are suppliers, here? And how is their accountability a right?The penalty under this regulations
The penalty for what? And grammar error, should read "these" instead of "this".attracts a possible fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or both a fine and imprisonment. In the case where a person is convicted of a breach of confidence the penalty is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years or both a fine and imprisonment.
What's a breach of confidence? There's no right to confidence on your list. And also, what the hell at those numbers? 10 years in prison if you sell bananas that got a little chilled in transport so you know they'll brown faster than they normally would, after people buy them? What happened to your fair, just and reasonable terms?4) gives rise to the establishment of the International Consumer Commission, a body assigned to investigate consumer complaints and is responsible for the adjudication of violations and transgressions of the regulations
What gives rise? And it would be far less time and effort consuming to make consumers complain to sellers and set up mediation in cases where they can't agree. Like it's done in RL in nations that aren't quite as sue-happy as USA.
The vibe I'm getting is that most of this text is swiped off of some marketing text book or RL law, and it'll need a shitton of work to be anywhere near submittable.
by Tinhampton » Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:18 pm
Drusselshof wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Why do you feel the need to place your responses in "a document?" It is not against the rules to directly respond to criticism on the GA forum. Nor is it physically possible to attach files such as .docx and .pdf onto NS directly.
I just update the post with the explanation to the proposal. Feel free to comment
by Juansonia » Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:21 pm
Space Squid wrote:Each sin should get it's own month.
Right now, Pride gets June, and Greed, Envy, and Gluttony have to share Thanksgiving/Black Friday through Christmas, Sloth gets one day in September, and Lust gets one day in February.
It's not equitable at all
Gandoor wrote:Cliché: A mod making a reply that's full of swearing after someone asks if you're allowed to swear on this site.
It makes me chuckle every time it happens.
by Potted Plants United » Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:08 pm
Juansonia wrote:OOC: I may be dumb in this case, but would it be a good idea to prepare several proposals on a topic, submit them all within one hour, and have the campaign telegrams mention each proposal? That way you could campaign for delegate endorsements without wasting as many stamps.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by WayNeacTia » Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:55 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Vadenia
Advertisement