NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings.

We of Roathin, intrigued by the category on 'Gambling', have decided to offer the following proposal. Vote as you will. The outcome is... a gamble!

Hence, Roathin wins no matter what.
=====

RIGHT TO RANDOMNESS

Description: Noting that simulations of the world exist and are commonplace;

And that said simulations for purposes of business, war, entertainment, town planning, and other worthwhile human endeavours are of significant use, in one form or another to all human societies;

But also that said simulations involve gain or loss of points, scores, or other proxies for elements in the real world;

And are hence 'gambling' in any sense of the word:

WE HEREBY PROPOSE that gambling in the sense of placing economic, psychological or social weighting upon the random outcomes of simulations (involving stochastic devices such as dice, computers, card decks etc) be made legal in all member states of the NSUN,

Yet, realising that each member state has a right to self-determination within the overall framework of nations, we also propose that each state be free to set constraints and limits upon this activity as long as it remains legal in one form or another within their borders.

I flipped a coin to determine my response. I chose heads as "Aye" and tails as "Nay". It landed on tails. Thus I cannot support the proposal.

I flipped a coin to determine my response. I chose heads as "Aye" and tails as "Nay". It landed on tails. Thus I cannot support the proposal.
Greetings.

We are fine with this. If you could have done that, it means that such is legal in your lands, and hence you have no need of such a resolution.

Greetings.

We are fine with this. If you could have done that, it means that such is legal in your lands, and hence you have no need of such a resolution.

You are indeed correct that the Texan Hotrodders have no need of such a resolution, and I would note that it would not harm our nation directly. Nonetheless, our nation does have a small stake in the matter, and accordingly I am forced to show my hand.

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)http://img75.echo.cx/img75/7615/senioritycard7pd.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)http://img75.echo.cx/img75/1351/stickyauthorcard8is.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)http://img75.echo.cx/img75/4021/resolutionauthorcard6ir.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

You are indeed correct that the Texan Hotrodders have no need of such a resolution, and I would note that it would not harm our nation directly. Nonetheless, our nation does have a small stake in the matter, and accordingly I am forced to show my hand.



I'm afraid my single card trumps your entire hand :D

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5962/racecard7yn.gif

I'm afraid my single card trumps your entire hand :D

<image snipped>

I'm afraid I don't see how the odds are in your favor on this one. The ace of Race only works when combined with a race-related issue. Of course, many issues can be turned into race-related issues, especially given the ambiguity of the concept of "race," so perhaps the ace of race is not quite the gambit one might think.

I'm afraid I don't see how the odds are in your favor on this one. The ace of Race only works when combined with a race-related issue.
Perhaps he was betting, and therefore gambling, on races?

Greetings.

We of Roathin believe that the Ace of Races trumps the Ace of Race. Also, we note that TH's hand only shows two-of-a-kind. Nevertheless, as we have not even a single high card, we must resort to our wild card proposal.

Endorse our proposal, it will be more porpoiseful than a well-delphined repeal of laughter.

It sounds to me like this isn't a right to randomness, but a statement to acknowledge and prohibit a complete ban on random calculations. I suspect this is the same thing, but the title of the proposal is a bit confusing ... I'd suggest calling it "Importance of Random Variables" or "Importance of Random Values" or "Importance of Random Calculations". You might also add that random values are very important in numerical modeling exercises which are used in government policy analyses.

All that said, my government would vote for this proposal (as written or if it underwent the basic changes we've suggested).

Best wishes,
Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Greetings.

We appreciate, as always, the comments of the delegate for Mikitivity. However, we have no wish to run afoul of the Happiness Police for bringing too much serious jargon into what is essentially a test proposal. If Mikitivity should vote in favour nevertheless, we would be gratified. If not, we would be a little less gratified, but still glad that Mikitivity had even taken an interest at all.

We oppose this proposal on grounds of economic self-interest.

Gambling is the cornerstone of the Kawaiian economy. Our citizen's economic well-being depends greatly upon the cash foreign tourists bring to Our nation and leave behind on the gaming tables of Our nation's casinos. A UN-wide legalization of gambling might encourage would-be tourists to seek their entertainment elsewhere, to Our nation's detriment.

The Confused Vortex of Pojonia feels that randomness should be illegal every 12th day of September unless it's a friday in which case all of October and also on every 3.5th Christmas. Otherwise, how could we possibly achieve such high crime rates?

Fun fact: Pojonias total spending on Law and Order is 0.00 dollars.

Also, my hand beats both of yours. It's a natural twenty and two misshapen rabbits. I have no idea how to upload pictures, though.

We support. Probably.

Mathieu Vergniaud / Varia Yefremova [delete as appropriate]
[Deputy] Speaker to the UN

We oppose this proposal on grounds of economic self-interest.

Gambling is the cornerstone of the Kawaiian economy. Our citizen's economic well-being depends greatly upon the cash foreign tourists bring to Our nation and leave behind on the gaming tables of Our nation's casinos. A UN-wide legalization of gambling might encourage would-be tourists to seek their entertainment elsewhere, to Our nation's detriment.

While this will increase gambling in UN members, the real impact will be to promote the idea in all UN members and raise our industries above that of non-UN members. Typically some nations will argue that the UN should never pass an environmental standard as it would give an advantage to non-UN members. If that argument has merit (and my government does not believe so), then the reverse logic should apply ... namely that some UN resolution categories would give unfair "boosts" to UN members.

I could see an international statement in favor of gambling helping Mikitivity's casinos.

Greetings.

We appreciate, as always, the comments of the delegate for Mikitivity. However, we have no wish to run afoul of the Happiness Police for bringing too much serious jargon into what is essentially a test proposal. If Mikitivity should vote in favour nevertheless, we would be gratified. If not, we would be a little less gratified, but still glad that Mikitivity had even taken an interest at all.

The last time my government ran into a squad of Happiness Police (aka the UN Goon Squad) they were in fact wearing horrid spandex uniforms and dancing to the music of an 80s band called "Simple Minds" who happened to be performing a cover of the band "Tears for Fears" titled Break It Down Again now titled Keep It Simple. It was extremely distracting, as 80s pop music is not appreciated in my home country. Enough so that we were considering enacting a law creating safe "mopey" zones, in which citizens could always be free of the UN Good Squad.

I think the lyrics went something like this:


Dumb it down again
No long resolutions
No words we don't know
It is time to resolve
Dumb it down it again
No long resolutions

There is a time and place for serious jargon and time and place for it to be avoided. Not including language about the importance of random variables in numerical modeling, will certainly not hurt this proposal, so you'll still have our support.

Randomness eh? The Empire of Tajiri_san shall vote boobies on this matter :)

Greetings.

We thank you for your support, confirmed, mobile, random or otherwise. We believe that if anything is serious about this post, it is this: people are prepared to fight serious wars over the annual dolphin catch or lack thereof - but are they willing to vote in favour of the processes that help us predict the size and value of that catch or the economic returns should we choose NOT to catch dolphins?

We believe firmly that randomness-based simulations are of great benefit to all, whether authoritarian, liberal, corrupt, honourable, economically-motivated or rights-motivated, slave or freeman, alien or alien.

Take a gamble, vote for the random.

Time to play my hand
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpghttp://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/senioritycard.jpghttp://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/resolutionauthorcard.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=108)http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/theapathycard.jpghttp://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/Just_not_arsed.bmp.JPG

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Greetings.

We of Roathin are impressed. Is that a skip straight?

In a random universe, all things are possible.

THEREFORE it is possible that Ardchoille will vote No.

BUT it is also possible that Ardchoille will vote Yes.

CONSEQUENTLY Ardchoille abstains,

THEREBY saving the Universe -- again.

*retires to drop a tonne of feathers on Shroedinger's cat*

Greetings.

We of Roathin are impressed. Is that a skip straight?
I'm not sure what it ranks as, but I think that it's the first five card hand ever.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative