NationStates Jolt Archive

Poker Tournament Creation Act
A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.


Category: Gambling
Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize
Proposed by: Attack Coordination

Description: Recognizing that the games of Texas Hold'em, Seven Card Stud, and other games of poker are not truly "gambling," and
Recognizing that such games increase the ability of players to communicate better in negotiation through the ability to "read" others from their looks, I submit the following:

Section 1: All games classified as "poker" shall be declared legal in all UN member nations.

Section 2: The United Nations shall host at least one international Poker Championship tournament each year, of the game of its choosing.

Section 3: No game may have more than one UN poker championship tournament each year (for example, you may have one Texas Hold'em Championship and one Omaha Hi-Lo tournament in one year, buy not two Texas Hold'em Championships)

Approvals: 1 (WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 148 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Mar 15 2005


This resolution is still in the proposal phase. What do you guys think of it? And if you like it, please support it in the UN proposal section.

Section 2: The United Nations shall host at least one international Poker Championship tournament each year, of the game of its choosing.

Well, for one thing, there is no actual way to implement this into the game. I suppose that part could be roleplayed though.


Section 3: No game may have more than one UN poker championship tournament each year (for example, you may have one Texas Hold'em Championship and one Omaha Hi-Lo tournament in one year, but not two Texas Hold'em Championships)

Too complicated. I doubt most people in the UN would understand the difference between these two anyways.


This resolution is still in the proposal phase. What do you guys think of it? And if you like it, please support it in the UN proposal section.

If anything, I don't think this should be a proposal, but if you liked, you could set up your own UN poker tournament independent from the UN so that you could roleplay it.

Due to a deep-rooted aversion to the loathsome words "Poker" and "Texas Holdem", which have so often graced the more notorious spam I have been plagued with, I cannot with good conscience support any resolution in favour of these. I apologize.

I have yet to see why this should be a resolution. Individual prganizations an have their own tournies if they want, that's not a UN concern.

I should probably explain myself, shouldn't I?

First of all, the annual poker tournament doesn't mean that we will have to roleplay a poker game. It is supposed to be just like the organ donation proposals or things like that. You can't really get my liver, yet your nation is molded based upon that.

Now the reason why this is good is the following:
1) Poker is not gambling.
2) Poker enhances one's effectiveness in the global economy.

I will explain #2, because that hasn't been best explained. Poker gives the players two great skills: the ability to read others, and the ability to protect against people who can do this. Thus, if people were able to have these skills, they would be more effective in negotiation. For example, you could use these abilities when buying a house, negotiating a treaty with France, or anything that requires negotiation.

And the reason why the United Nations should do this is because it is the only international legislative body. I'll propose this to the International Poker Player's league too! Will that affect the policies of your nation in regards to the legalization of poker? No!

Poker isn't gambling?... What? Gambling in this context means playing games for stakes, risking money on an uncertain outcome. Does poker not fit that description? Of course, I know personally that it does take a lot more skill than putting coins into a slot machine, but even so, a huge part of the game is luck. Poker is gambling as long as you can lose money as a direct outcome of playing it and losing, no matter how you want to dice it.

Okay, that done. Why do you need a UN resolution to start international poker competitions? Plenty of international competitions exist without needing a UN resolution. Do a search for the "World Cup", "Rugby World Cup", "Cherry Cup" or the "Nationstates Olympics". This should really be an RP thing. It'd be more interesting too.

You can gain skills from playing poker, alright, I'll accept that. For me it's guesswork trying to read my opponents, but I'm guessing those who do it professionally can at least have some idea. But you can also learn animal-raising skills from cockfighting. You can also build arm strength pulling on the one-armed bandit. And not everyone who plays poker is going to hone these skills.

On a more serious note, many people do lose money, and lots of it, from playing poker, the same as if they poured their entire life savings into a slot machine. This has some serious societal consequences, and this is why some nations still totally outlaw gambling. Some, if not all, religions have objections to it too, so theocracies aren't going to like a resolution which legalises gambling (And that IS the effect it will have, because of "Category: Gambling. Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize").

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those GAMBLING EVIL THINK OF THE CHILDREN people, in fact I do like to play poker with friends once in a while. But a UN resolution for the promotion of poker just seems a tad ridiculous to me.

Yeah, this is problematic for a few reasons. First, it's a gambling resolution that claims to have little to do with gambling. While I understand the arguments put forth as to why poker isn't "really gambling", it really is, by most definitions. Also, the resolution is "Gambling: Legalize", which definitely tips the balance.

Also, there really isn't a huge need to pass a resolution to organize a tournament in the first place. If you want to restrict it to UN members, you could organize some sort of RP here (I think - I'm definitely not a moderator!). If not, NS would probably be a good forum for it.

All in all, this proposal is too flawed to gain sufficient support to reach quorum. I would abandon it or strengthen it to apply to all forms of gambling. Good luck.

The UN can only have one championship?
So what, I can't have my own national championship while I'm a member?

Puhlease say that isn't so!

I think forcing poker to be legal in all nationstates is a good idea.
Sure, a lot of UN members are against legalized gambling, but chances are I don't like those nations anyway. And frankly, those people are probably busy doing gay RP's anyway, and don't vote on proposals very often. *not that there's anything wrong with that*

I'm more concerned about the idea that there be only one championship for each kind. My government televises any number of regional strip poker championships, and I'd hate to lose that.

I'm more concerned about the idea that there be only one championship for each kind. My government televises any number of regional strip poker championships, and I'd hate to lose that.

Just goes to show that a name change doesn't mean a personality change. Good. And do you let other countries purchase said programming?

Just goes to show that a name change doesn't mean a personality change. Good. And do you let other countries purchase said programming?
But of course!

Allies get a discount.

Is that you, (dirty word)helmetta?

NSN Hockey Channel needs your strip poker broadcasts regardless. Please give them a call. Without any hockey, the poor guys are scheduling "Inside The Sound Booths Of The KHL Teams" for next week.

Let me address a few things.
1) To say that poker is gambling is just like saying that Monopoly is gambling. Both have some basis upon luck. However, any good poker player knows that even with the worst hand, you can win. So where is this whole luck thing?
2) That doesn't mean you couldn't host another poker tournament. It simply means that the ORGANIZATION OF THE UN couldn't host more than one of each. You could host a tournament independently easily.

1) To say that poker is gambling is just like saying that Monopoly is gambling. Both have some basis upon luck. However, any good poker player knows that even with the worst hand, you can win. So where is this whole luck thing?

While both games to have an element of luck in them poker is indeed gambling because you're playing with real money trying to finish with more than you started with, whereas with Monopoly when the game is over everything goes back in the box ready to be used again next time.

Poker is a game of skill, not luck. Period.

Most tournaments get around the "gambling" conotation by offering people a place to play for a fee. Everyone pays a fee to get in but certain people happen to get prizes for how they finished in the tournament. So, your not actually awarded what you took from the other players but a certain prize amount based on how you finished.

I'll go as far as to say that individual hands of poker can be lucky, but in the end the most skilled will win. Paying out money at the end of each round of poker you could consider gambling but not tournaments where the payout is in the end.

Yay! A supporter! I am not alone! :p

Poker is a game of skill, not luck. Period.
There is still luck involved.

Most tournaments get around the "gambling" conotation by offering people a place to play for a fee. Everyone pays a fee to get in but certain people happen to get prizes for how they finished in the tournament. So, your not actually awarded what you took from the other players but a certain prize amount based on how you finished.

I'll go as far as to say that individual hands of poker can be lucky, but in the end the most skilled will win. Paying out money at the end of each round of poker you could consider gambling but not tournaments where the payout is in the end.
It's still gambling because you're putting your money on the line in the hopes that you will be able to place high enough to win your money back.

You can lose real money in poker. You can't in Monopoly. You can get addicted to poker and get into crushing debt. If you get addicted to Monopoly the worst that will happen is that your non-Monopoly-liking friends will get very annoyed with you.

And that still doesn't answer the question, why why WHY is a UN resolution for this necessary? Is poker so discriminated against? Are poker players being rounded up, sent to death camps and gassed? Okay, maybe. I haven't looked in International Incidents lately. Some of those guys are nuts. But still, why the need for this? What's so great about poker, compared to, say, blackjack or bridge?Is the mandatory UN-wide legalization of poker going to improve society as a whole? Will it cure cancer? Will it lead to us driving cars powered by rainbows? Will it heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race? Will it cause pedophiles to see the error of their ways and put them in psychiatrists' couches?

I'm sorry, but the whole idea just seems so ridiculous to me.

Gambling- risking money solely on chance
Poker- a game that combines skill and chance

And regarding this thing about Poker being gambling because you use real money, let's look at it this way:
I am a person going to the Monopoly Championships. I have to fly there, rent a room there (or sleep under a bridge), get bus tickets, etc. All this extra money is being gambled to see if I win at the Monopoly Championships. So if you think poker is gambling, you better hide those Park Place deeds, cause the Anything Fun Police are going to get you!

And regarding why we need this, there is one simple reason that I have emphasized: Poker enhances various skills of psychology that other games, such as Blackjack, just don't enhance. The whole thing about reading people. The reason why it is so oppressed is that poker is considered gambling. But, as I am trying to show with this resolution, poker is unjustly branded with the classification of gambling, and thus is banned.

I'm sorry, but the whole idea just seems so ridiculous to me.
That's precisely why it is protected under the Freedom Of Humor resolution.

That's precisely why it is protected under the Freedom Of Humor resolution.

What Freedom of Humor resolution? I must find a copy of that. :p

What Freedom of Humor resolution? I must find a copy of that. :p
Freedom Of Humor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029717&postcount=37)

In that sticky link at the top of the forum.

Tell me I didn't just see the word "oppressed" used to refer to people playing poker. In a word, NO. And despite all the rationalization I'm seeing, poker is still gambling. Money is placed at the beginning in the hopes of winning more at the end.

Considering how chi-chi Texas hold'em is lately, I'd have to agree with you Krioval.

Definitely the game of the moment. That's what makes this proposal so topical.

Me, I've always preferred 5 card draw, progressive.

I could see a regional and perhaps UN-wide RP Texas Hold 'Em tourney being held. Could be entertaining, but in no way do I see a need for a resolution of this sort. Definitely an interesting idea, but it would probably be better suited as a daily issue.

Tell me I didn't just see the word "oppressed" used to refer to people playing poker. In a word, NO.

Why not? Can't you compose a coherent argument against me?

And despite all the rationalization I'm seeing, poker is still gambling.

Wow! That makes sense! Basically, "I can't come up with a reason why you are wrong, so I'm going to fall back on the "because I said so" argument.

Money is placed at the beginning in the hopes of winning more at the end.

Didn't we already address this?

I could see a regional and perhaps UN-wide RP Texas Hold 'Em tourney being held. Could be entertaining, but in no way do I see a need for a resolution of this sort. Definitely an interesting idea, but it would probably be better suited as a daily issue.

This is not trying to get an RP set up! Jeez! We have a Global Library resolution. Does that mean that we must post a million books on the forum if it is passed? No!

Did I hear a request for additional arguments? Fine. We'll start with the most pressing, if also the most obnoxious from a RP view:

1. Metagame.

The resolution is listed as type "Gambling: Legalize". Whatever is put in the little (or not so little) description box has no gameplay effect; it's all constrained by the type of resolution. So this will legalize gambling as far as the game engine is concerned, and the dissonance between the resolution type and description, as it stands, is sufficient for me to campaign against the proposal. I am remarkably consistent on this, often bypassing otherwise well-written resolutions because their authors insist on abusing the "Strong" characteristic, for example.

2. Impact

This proposal, in my opinion, doesn't merit a UN-wide discussion and vote. There is nothing currently on the books that prevents a poker tournament from being played. Just pick a nation that allows gambling and play it there. For the record, I personally enjoy the game, and I see no reasons to oppose measure to allow it to be played, but a UN mandate is unnecessary.

3. Justification

The argument that having a poker tournament is going to somehow improve national governments is specious at best. While I will admit that playing the game may allow people to become more adept at spotting certain forms of artifice, good governance is quite a bit different from a card game. So unless the proposal is meant to somehow include a seminar on deception and compel all national leaders to attend, I don't see that the above justification really applies.

4. Self-contradiction

I have heard over and over that this really isn't about gambling. Yet the tournament would include an "entrance fee" (a.k.a. a wager) and that finalists would be given an award (a.k.a. a payoff). That is the essence of gambling. Money is being risked for a potential payoff later, and luck is the primary deciding factor. And while I will also admit that poker has a certain level of skill attached to it, so do many other forms of gambling - some are more subtle than others, mind you, but it doesn't make them "not gambling".

The proposing nation has yet to rebut any of these points, so I will continue to work against this proposal until they are all addressed to my satisfaction.

Gambling- risking money solely on chance
Poker- a game that combines skill and chance

And regarding this thing about Poker being gambling because you use real money, let's look at it this way:
I am a person going to the Monopoly Championships. I have to fly there, rent a room there (or sleep under a bridge), get bus tickets, etc. All this extra money is being gambled to see if I win at the Monopoly Championships. So if you think poker is gambling, you better hide those Park Place deeds, cause the Anything Fun Police are going to get you!

Did you actually read my post? You know... this part?

You can get addicted to poker and get into crushing debt. If you get addicted to Monopoly the worst that will happen is that your non-Monopoly-liking friends will get very annoyed with you.

Or did you just feel that the point was a bit too unanswerable?

Lots of games, if not all of them, combine skill and luck. How come you aren't proposing something to promote blackjack? Every time you hear a loud PING sound at a hockey game, you know chance denied one team a goal. Pool players get unlucky and miss a pot by millimeters.

Gambling is betting things on games of chance, where the outcome directly affects what you take home or what you lose. That sounds like poker, right? Unless you mean to tell me that with skill you can turn a 2 pair into a royal flush.

And regarding why we need this, there is one simple reason that I have emphasized: Poker enhances various skills of psychology that other games, such as Blackjack, just don't enhance. The whole thing about reading people. The reason why it is so oppressed is that poker is considered gambling. But, as I am trying to show with this resolution, poker is unjustly branded with the classification of gambling, and thus is banned.

Gambling is legal in Kelssek. In fact the economy of one of our provinces is dependent on it. Don't think I'm arguing this because I'm against gambling.

Playing blackjack isn't the same? You have to do the same guessing of what the other players have don't you? Switching tack, why promote poker's "psychological" skills over sports, which have much more benefits? A healthier population putting less strain on the healthcare budget is going to be quite a bit more desireable than people good at guessing if someone's bluffing, no?

You haven't addressed the societal concerns of legalising gambling, for the many nations which will have to do so.
You haven't addressed the religious objections theocracies will have.
You haven't satisfied me of the need for this resolution.
You haven't shown that poker necessarily needs the UN to promote it (isn't it quite popular in the States or something? I remember reading about that somewhere), or that the UN should promote it.
You haven't given a good reason that this should be imposed on the UN world.
You haven't shown that it isn't friviolous and ridiculous.

In short, you haven't convinced me, and logically that means you probably won't convince enough people to get this passed. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but if people want to try to pass something like this, there'd better be a good reason.

Gambling- risking money solely on chance
Poker- a game that combines skill and chance

Poker enhances various skills of psychology that other games, such as Blackjack, just don't enhance.Going by your definition of gambling I could classify blackjack as not being gambling, and all i whould have to do is simply use card counting which is a skill thereby placing it in the same catagory as Poker

The reason why it is so oppressed is that poker is considered gambling.Apparently you don't get it, poker IS gambling even in tournaments because the players are putting their money on the line in the hopes that their poker skills will allow them to walk away with more money then they started with. Not to mention the fact that with tournament poker you also have to deal with the fact that there are usually many tables at the start of the tournament and places are assigned RANDOMLY which means someone who's competing in their first tournament ever could end up at a table with people who've been making a living playing poker for many years.

But, as I am trying to show with this resolution, poker is unjustly branded with the classification of gambling, and thus is banned.Poker is not "unjustly branded" as gambling, it is considered gambling because it is.

And furthermore, poker is not banned in my nation, in fact our Grand Poobah participated in a tournament just last week.

Time once again for me to address everything you guys said.

Going by your definition of gambling I could classify blackjack as not being gambling, and all i whould have to do is simply use card counting which is a skill thereby placing it in the same catagory as Poker

Okay, now how many times in life can I use the great skill of card-counting. And if you think it is just as unjustly labeled as gambling, write another resolution for it. I would probably support it.

Apparently you don't get it, poker IS gambling even in tournaments because the players are putting their money on the line in the hopes that their poker skills will allow them to walk away with more money then they started with. Not to mention the fact that with tournament poker you also have to deal with the fact that there are usually many tables at the start of the tournament and places are assigned RANDOMLY which means someone who's competing in their first tournament ever could end up at a table with people who've been making a living playing poker for many years.

By your definition, any tournament game is considered gambling. So if a nation has gambling, by your definition, banned, the Monopoly, Paper-rock-scissors, and Pokemon (which I wouldn't really mind :D ) tournaments will be closed by the police, because they require entry fees in many of these.

You can get addicted to poker and get into crushing debt. If you get addicted to Monopoly the worst that will happen is that your non-Monopoly-liking friends will get very annoyed with you.

Thanks for pointing out your previous post. Sorry if I seemed to ignore it.
You can also lose real money at the National Paper-Rock-Scissors tournament.

Gambling is betting things on games of chance, where the outcome directly affects what you take home or what you lose. That sounds like poker, right? Unless you mean to tell me that with skill you can turn a 2 pair into a royal flush.

No, but I can manipulat the fact that I have a pair of deuces to make you think I have a good hand, and thus you throw away your hand. There is the psychology in the debate.

Playing blackjack isn't the same? You have to do the same guessing of what the other players have don't you? Switching tack, why promote poker's "psychological" skills over sports, which have much more benefits? A healthier population putting less strain on the healthcare budget is going to be quite a bit more desireable than people good at guessing if someone's bluffing, no?

Under what category would I put sports? And the ability to guess a bluff actually assists greater in the field of negotiation. That is what I am pushing. I want the UN to promote the Donald Trump personality. Too often, people get messed up on price negotiation because they don't have this skill. And price negotiation is a core aspect of any society.

You haven't addressed the societal concerns of legalising gambling, for the many nations which will have to do so.

Could you specify the concerns. Such an argument is extremely vague.

You haven't addressed the religious objections theocracies will have.

If a theocracy has a religious objection, they can post it here, and I'll address it. Otherwise, I have no idea of what you mean by that.

You haven't satisfied me of the need for this resolution.

The Donald Trump society, stopping abuse against the consumer. What more do you want? Not every resolution is meant to save the earth from complete annihilation.

You haven't shown that poker necessarily needs the UN to promote it.
You haven't given a good reason that this should be imposed on the UN world.

First of all, the US isn't in NationStates. Second, look at the abused consumer. You know how much of this stuff goes on internationally?

You haven't shown that it isn't friviolous and ridiculous

You haven't shown that it is.

Playing blackjack isn't the same? You have to do the same guessing of what the other players have don't you?

And once you leave the table, you can't use that skill anymore, because in blackjack the skill is card-counting. In poker, the skill is psychology. Also, blackjack is bent in favor of the player losing. Poker is balanced and equal for everybody.

1. Metagame.

Yes, the resolution will legalize an aspect of what the game engine considers gambling. We have established that.

2. Impact

There isn't anything on the international books that legalizes it, either. However, there are still plenty of nations that ban this, and thus are abusing their citizens rights to have a fairly played economy.

3. Justification

I didn't say it would help national governments. It helps the common person. Think of the poker-playing children.

4. Self-contradiction

I don't believe gambling is defined best by the whole "risk money" thing. Otherwise, the stock market is gambling.

Okay, now how many times in life can I use the great skill of card-counting. And if you think it is just as unjustly labeled as gambling, write another resolution for it. I would probably support it.

Playing blackjack isn't the same? You have to do the same guessing of what the other players have don't you?

Additionally, since you bring up card-counting... why wouldn't the practice of doing quick mental arithmetic have similar value as what mental skills you develop through poker?

By your definition, any tournament game is considered gambling.

This was answering someone else, but perhaps the Oxford dictionary could shed some light. It means "play games of chance, etc. for money". You can stretch the definition anyhow you like, but this is why poker is considered gambling to the great majority of people.

1. A very large element of the game is luck. Maybe at higher levels, less so, but to the average person it is.
2. You can lose money as a direct result of playing it. This does not include incidental costs. Put it this way, people don't come back home after playing some hockey and say, "Agh, I lost $5 because of the petrol I used to get the the game." Even using the Monopoly example, the money spent travelling isn't really "gambled", for the same reason.
3. Quite a few people play it for money, rather than just for the fun of it.

I want the UN to promote the Donald Trump personality. Too often, people get messed up on price negotiation because they don't have this skill. And price negotiation is a core aspect of any society.

How is the personality of an egomaniac who was born into wealth and whose business ventures bleed red ink desirable in any way? Surely developing negoiating skills can be achieved through other means? I will agree negoiating skills are good to have, but to say they are the core of a society is a bit scary. The core of society should be compassion, love, peace and all that gooey sugary niceness. Not predatory negioation.

I also suggest you don't draw me into a rant on capitalism.

Could you specify the concerns. Such an argument is extremely vague.

I would think they were obvious enough, but anyway, I mean societal problems from gambling addiction. By legalising poker you open the door for people to get addicted to gambling. Surely you've had bad nights where you lose big. And surely you know about the problems? Domestic violence, debt, broken families, and lives wrecked by them? Rises in crime as people turn to it for income? If you are proposing to legalise gambling surely you should read up on the consequences of it.

If a theocracy has a religious objection, they can post it here, and I'll address it. Otherwise, I have no idea of what you mean by that.

Some religions forbid gambling. Theocracies run on religious law. Thus they would not be able to accept a change in their laws making any form of gambling legal.

The Donald Trump society, stopping abuse against the consumer. What more do you want? Not every resolution is meant to save the earth from complete annihilation.

As I said before, a "Donald Trump" society sounds like a very nasty place to live in.

Second, look at the abused consumer. You know how much of this stuff goes on internationally?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. How is a consumer abused by not being allowed to gamble?

You haven't shown that it is.

Perhaps it's a matter of opinion, but if a UN resolution for the promotion of poker isn't frivolous, I don't know what is.

There isn't anything on the international books that legalizes it, either. However, there are still plenty of nations that ban this, and thus are abusing their citizens rights to have a fairly played economy.

You know, I actually laughed at how far you're reaching just to justify your proposal.

This is about free trade all of a sudden, eh? Okay, so in order to have a fairly played economy, we should legalise gambling, so people can lose vast sums of money to the profit of rich casino owners! We should also legalize everything! Not letting people buy guns is such an infringment of their economic rights! Never mind that it'll lead to some fatal crimes, shootings and accidents, let's legalise guns! And don't forget heroin! Too long have the people been oppressed because they can't purchase heroin!

I don't believe gambling is defined best by the whole "risk money" thing. Otherwise, the stock market is gambling.

Acutally, "playing the stock market" is considered gambling to most people. In its original intent, the stock market is a means for people to trade shares, and nothing more.

Okay, now how many times in life can I use the great skill of card-counting. And if you think it is just as unjustly labeled as gambling, write another resolution for it. I would probably support it.
Card-counting (if done mentally) improves both your memory and math skills. I'd say that compared with the psychology benefit of poker (which, in my opinion is more of a "how to best lie and manipulate people" strategy ... but that's a whole 'nother argument), card-counting is much more valuable in terms of your ability to do your job well (rather than manipulate people and things to have to do as little as possible) and succeeding in life.

By your definition, any tournament game is considered gambling. So if a nation has gambling, by your definition, banned, the Monopoly, Paper-rock-scissors, and Pokemon (which I wouldn't really mind :D ) tournaments will be closed by the police, because they require entry fees in many of these.
Entry fees are not the sole designation of gambling. When you go to a casino, you don't always need to pay a fee upon entry - however, much of the stuff that happens inside said casino is still gambling. The idea of risking money to win more money is more of what gambling is - which is certainly the case with some tournaments, such as the one that you're proposing. I see no point for why there should be Monopoly, P-R-S, Pokemon, etc. tournaments that are supported by the UN - although they would certainly be legal within my own nation, should someone want to coordinate one.

Other tournaments (such as sporting tourneys) often require an entry fee, but I don't consider them to be gambling. Often, such tournaments are held as a part of a fundraiser, with the bulk of contributed money going to charity and some going to the winning team(s). Even if *no* money goes to charity, there is plenty of benefit to society as a whole to justify said tourney - exercise is good for decreasing public healths pending.

No, but I can manipulat the fact that I have a pair of deuces to make you think I have a good hand, and thus you throw away your hand. There is the psychology in the debate.
I don't see how the manipulation/lying technique is helpful to society as a whole. Sure, if you want to skim through life, doing as little as possible, such talents would be helpful. But I see no public benefit for such talents. Of course, if you have an example that I'm simply not considering, I'd like to hear it.

The ability to guess a bluff actually assists greater in the field of negotiation. That is what I am pushing. I want the UN to promote the Donald Trump personality. Too often, people get messed up on price negotiation because they don't have this skill. And price negotiation is a core aspect of any society.
First off, I don't want to promote a Donald Trump-like society. Such a sentiment would probably be welcomed in a consumerism society, but not in my more public aid-oriented nation. Since my nation has 100% income tax, good, quality public housing is provided for everyone at no cost. People barter for various goods and services, using their skills to gain the items they need. Perhaps bluffing could be useful there, but I'd rather have honest traders within my borders.

The Donald Trump society, stopping abuse against the consumer. What more do you want? Not every resolution is meant to save the earth from complete annihilation.
No, but does that mean that every other resolution should impose consumeristic ideals on all UN nations?

First of all, the US isn't in NationStates. Second, look at the abused consumer. You know how much of this stuff goes on internationally?
OOC reference, in terms of the question about "internationally." If the US isn't in NS, any other RL examples that you can think of around the world are also irrelevant and therefore not worth considering.

There isn't anything on the international books that legalizes it, either. However, there are still plenty of nations that ban this, and thus are abusing their citizens rights to have a fairly played economy.
"Fair" economy is a relative term. My people are very happy with the state of our economy. It's likely not the economy you have in your nation, but does that make it wrong? Of course not. The point of NS is that each of us should be able to create whatever sort of nation we'd like, within reason.

I didn't say it would help national governments. It helps the common person. Think of the poker-playing children.
Emphasis mine. Even if the rest of your arguments had swayed me (which they didn't), that bit would lose my vote. I don't want my children playing in poker tourneys and losing money. Poker for fun, amongst friends - fine. 10 year olds losing their weekly allowance at poker games? Not so much.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but I really think that this is something best left up to individual nations. Like I said before, I'd suggest submitting something of this nature as a daily issue, if you'd like to see it addressed within game play.

Thanks for the input. I will consider this next time I think of making a stupid resolution.

if it's any help, you have my support

Thanks for the input. I will consider this next time I think of making a stupid resolution.
At least it was a legal stupid resolution.