Vote against the SPAM proposal...
Why? I have no idea what "the equivalent of five hundred thousand dollars" is. My nation does not use this currency, nor do the nations in my region. And anyway, why should we be forced to fine an certain amount. We are free nations, we should be able to set the fines.
Withdraw your support for this proposal, save it for a similar one that is better thought out..
Asprianty
22-12-2003, 10:26
I certainly voted against it. I enjoy my spam, sometimes I get really good spam. In fact I got that really famous bit of spam the other month, you know, that one about the time traveller wanting spare parts for his machine.
If spam gets banned in any way, shape or form then I lose my entertainment. Anyhow, my nation enjoys it's "Visit our free porn site" spam on a regular basis. :twisted:
I am certain this proposal will pass, but I have voted against it to better serve my confederacy and I urge others to consider opposing it also.
The fact of the matter is that a complete ban on spam (which, in effect, this proposal is) will have an adverse effect on every economy, particularly that of Southern Comfortation. Our economy thrives and has continued to do so, I believe, in direct response to ever-increasing levels of spam. Recent studies show that Southern Comfortation has one of the highest levels of spam received and authored among all UN member nations, and the strength of our economy can not be denied.
One last thought: Spam exists because it works. If there was not a direct positive correlation between spamming and sales, companies would not bother to waste their resources spamming. In addition, if recipitants did not wish to receive spam (thereby ignoring all spam) there would be no audience and companies would not waste their resources doing so.
Thus, this proposal is much too strong in its current form. An opt-out program of some sort sould be the main focus of any spam limiting proposals.
This issue is outside of the UN's jurisdiction. This proposal shouldn't even be on the table here.
Collaboration
22-12-2003, 18:08
It's going to be expensive to enforce.
Kandarin
22-12-2003, 20:18
On behalf of my constituents (those who responded unanimously opposed it) I have filed a vote against this proposal.
Tuesday Heights
22-12-2003, 20:20
If you want spam, sign up for it, but for the rest of the sane world who doesn't want it, then, we have a right, as the majority, to stand up for that, too.
We feel spam should be something you can request, rather than something you are given.
As much as the people in my nation like to mailbomb spamers, they feel that it can take up too much time and storage space.
Therefore, I have voted for the proposal.
Fuzzbunny
23-12-2003, 05:39
I just got a telegram from the Compliance Ministry:
Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Fuzzbunny into compliance with the United Nations "Freedom From SPAM Act" resolution.
Anyone know what this is about? Who is the Compliance Ministry? This telegram sounds like only Fuzzbunny is targeted by the laws.
Endolantron
23-12-2003, 05:50
It means that the Freedom from Spam Act was voted in. The Compliance Ministry sends telegrams to all UN nations every time a resolution is resolved.
Heroin Addicted Monkey
23-12-2003, 07:10
well this sucks.....the spam act has been voted for and now millions of small buisneses that do rely on spam will vanish.......say good byw to atleast a fifth of your tax incomes...