NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the revised version of the proposal, and my final attempt to promote it.

Incestuous Relationships Ban
-Revised-

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second degree.

Especially familiar to those of noble blood, the practice of incest can lead to the development of malformed or genetically inferior individuals. Although it may not be the case of such genetical malformations, the problem of morality still resides.

Therefore, the following regulations should apply :

1.Any incestuous affair, of any nature, involving noble blood citizens or normal citizens of the UN, is completely forbidden. This also applies to religious and secluded communities.

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should be eligible for a free full medical check, as soon as he reveals his and proves his status. The individual is not obliged to perform the medical check, but should have the possibility of doing so.

3.All sexual education programs in the UN should involve a chapter drawing attention on the moral, psychological and biological dangers of incestuous relationships.

What category are you wanting to do this in?

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed. The medical check will ensure that he does not bare any genetical disorder. If that is the case, he will not be allowed to have biological offsprings, to prevent the parent-offspring genetical disease spread.

So this means the government would first have to know the mother was impregnated by a family member...that should be easy...yeah right. Free Medical check after the baby is born... Checking for Genetic disorders would be extremely expensive, and shouldn't be a major burden to our tax payers just because two related individuals couldn't resist the temptations of adult activities. Plus, if the expensive testing were done, legally saying they are not allowed to have offspring's won't stop them from having offspring's. Obviously the person who was deemed to not be allowed to have offspring's came from parents who shouldn't have been creating offspring.

Oh, section 2 only mentions 'he' so if the baby was female or unisex or bi-gendered, this wouldn't apply? I know we all understand this meant to apply to the individual not to any particular sex, but should have been proofed before submission.

I would not endorse this unless section 2 was completely removed.

Lee of Armless Democrats (AD is INCEST FREE 2006)

P.S. genetical is not a word

Staunchly opposed. This would force the High Caste of Gruenberg to pollute their bloodline; that is entirely unacceptable to us.

Whilst we're supportive of your mission to reinstate some moral decency to the UN, we'd prefer you stuck to legislating on international issues.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Please clarify your terminology: Does "relatives of the second degree" refer to uncles & nieces, and aunts & nephews, with "relatives of the third degree" meaning 'first' cousins?

3rd degree actually points to 3rd cousins ! Close relatives and siblings cover parents, sisters\brothers , uncles\nieces.

3rd degree actually points to 3rd cousins ! Close relatives and siblings cover parents, sisters\brothers , uncles\nieces.

Then that's much too excessive, and we wouldn't vote for it even if the NatSov and financial objections could be answered satisfactorily.

3rd degree actually points to 3rd cousins ! Close relatives and siblings cover parents, sisters\brothers , uncles\nieces.I think that's probably a little excessive. In the state where I live (which is not in the deep south, heh), they allow second cousins to marry without hinderance. The genetic risks are pretty remote at that point.

And, really, the genetic relation between second cousins is pretty thin.

This is actually the Orthodox Church law, with the third degree. That should be considered as the superior limit :)

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second and third degree.

Well, we know it is inclusive of siblings, but does incest include parent/child? Uncle[Aunt]/Nephew[Neice]? Cousins? Second-Cousins? Third Cousins? Second Cousins-Twice Removed? You never defined the extend of these "degrees" to which its definition is expanded.


2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed. The medical check will ensure that he does not bare any genetical disorder.

Sounds fair.... And I would go along with that.


If that is the case, he will not be allowed to have biological offsprings, to prevent the parent-offspring genetical disease spread.

From this one sentence, I would vehemently oppose the entire proposal. Most of us are not of the mindset to dictate who may and may not have children upon our populace.

i'm opposed strictly because what degree of relation should be allowed should be up to the nation specificaly.

for the record though, In the state of texas the law says third degree (third cousins) and further down the biological chain is legal. anything less than three degrees is against the law.

etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second and third degree.
First, etiqutte is not something to base UN laws on. Etiqutte says to eat with a fork and knife. But there should be no laws that say you have to eat with a fork an knife(wow that would kill the hamberger business:) ).

Secondly, I assume you mean second and third cousins right? Well know few of my 100's of second cousins and none of my third so this is just completly outrageous.


Especially familiar to those of noble blood,
This is kinda a rl refrence but anyway this is not nessasarily true.

the practice of incest can lead to the development of malformed or genetically inferior individuals.

That is very unlikly with 2nd cousins and EXTREMLY unlikly with 3rd

Leaving aside the moral involvement of such a practice, not baning it entirely, may lead to the progressive destruction of a certain species.

there is only one specis of human HUMAN.

1.Any incestuous affair, of any nature, involving noble blood citizens or normal citizens of the UN, is completely forbidden. This also applies to religious and secluded communities.

Affair is used very badly beacause it can be easily mis-inturperted. Noble blood is unnesasary and stupid. All you would really need to say any incest of any nature by citzens of the UN is forbidden.

Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed. The medical check will ensure that he does not bare any genetical disorder. If that is the case, he will not be allowed to have biological offsprings, to prevent the parent-offspring genetical disease spread.

In what case? The case he does not bare any genetical disorder? also is genetical a word?

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second and third degree.

I believe legislation on incest should be left to each member nation, but in any case prohibiting sexual relations between relatives of the third degree is clearly excessive.


not baning it entirely, may lead to the progressive destruction of a certain species.

Highly unlikely. Most sentient species in NS nations contain billions of individuals.


1.Any incestuous affair, of any nature, involving noble blood citizens or normal citizens of the UN, is completely forbidden.

If there's to be no legal difference between "noble blood" or "normal" (sic) citizens, why specify a difference?


This also applies to religious and secluded communities.


Thereby preventing governments from protecting, for example, Indigenous minority customs. No, thank you.


2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed.

With this kind of legislation in place, I fear many parents will simply not reveal it.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This is actually the Orthodox Church law, with the third degree. That should be considered as the superior limit :)

Orthodox Church law is not universal. Only a tiny number of Ariddians belong to the Orthodox Church, and almost all of those would agree that religion should play no part in legislation.


In what case? The case he does not bare any genetical disorder? also is genetical a word?


Also, it's "bear". I'm not sure what "baring" a genetic disorder would actually entail. Still, if the proposal goes through with these two errors, this section would be meaningless, and hence void.

Incestuous Relationships Ban
I don't even have to read the proposal to know what I'm going to think of it.

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second and third degree.
At the third degree, there is (if at all) only the minutest genetic relationship. Excessive.

Especially familiar to those of noble blood, the practice of incest can lead to the development of malformed or genetically inferior individuals. Leaving aside the moral involvement of such a practice, not baning it entirely, may lead to the progressive destruction of a certain species.
No it won't.

And boy am I getting tired of "morals." The word itself makes me shudder now.

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed. The medical check will ensure that he does not bare any genetical disorder. If that is the case, he will not be allowed to have biological offsprings, to prevent the parent-offspring genetical disease spread.
Sound like eugenics to anyone?

No, is the overall result here. This is not a UN concern.

Let me ask you a question on this. If you were to have sex with your second great granddaughter would you consider it incest by this?


Also why should one consider the church linages to be the right ones for figuring this as my aunt by civil is III and canon II.. from what I see just about anyone related to you by canon law would be II as they don't start handing out III until cousins start being removed... Also your neice would be same as aunt civil III and canon II..

Oh, section 2 only mentions 'he' so if the baby was female or unisex or bi-gendered, this wouldn't apply? I know we all understand this meant to apply to the individual not to any particular sex, but should have been proofed before submission.
Anyone with a high school education knows that "he" is a gender inclusive pronoun which refers to a person of any gender.

This proposal would violate resolution #7.

This proposal would violate resolution #7.

Well lets see...

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7
Sexual freedoms
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

I think it is debatable it says unless it is for medical reasons. This could be said to be medical reasons.

The social ramifications of incest are particularly pertinent too, considering that it breaks down the structure of the family and sexualises close relatives, an unhealthy state of affairs to say the least. The medical factor alone, however, should be enough to make it illegal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well, we feel a bit lazy tonight so were not going to look for sources and quote them, but intra-familial breeding doesn't raise the probabilities of genetic disorders by a whole lot unless both parties are carriers.

It would take at least four generations of inbreeding before a genetic defect manifests itself, and most people don't want to marry even their thrid cousins. Ergo, incest will continue to be a rare ocurrence.

For debate's sake we will assume that there has been no pattern of abuse of any kind going on within the family. This having been established, and as long as all parties are of consenting age, one's choice of partner is nobody's business but their own.

We would personally not indulge in it, but if it makes those two persons happy, who are we to judge? Better to leave the decision to individual states rather than enforce it through the UN.

Anyone with a high school education knows that "he" is a gender inclusive pronoun which refers to a person of any gender.

According to who?

Because I and a great many other people in here have high school educations and know that "he" means "male." Which is why "he or she" is taught in the college english courses.

According to who?

Because I and a great many other people in here have high school educations and know that "he" means "male." Which is why "he or she" is taught in the college english courses.
It's gender inclusive because it needs to be. Using he/she, he or she, (s)he, for every occurence of gender pronoun in a long piece of writing will be very tedious and clumsy-looking. You could just mention he/she once, and the reader will assume that all other 'he' pronouns mean the same, unless stated otherwise. The writer must trust his (<--- see? ;)) readers to not raise sexist issues every time 'he' is used on its own.

Or you could be like White Wolf and use "she" every time you describe a protagonist and "he" every time you describe an antagonist.

Anyone with a high school education knows that "he" is a gender inclusive pronoun which refers to a person of any gender.

OOC: Isn't that French? I mean "lui", which literally means "him/he" can mean "she/her" in some circumstances, particularly in the context of telephone calls.

i.e. (a man calls a woman) "il lui a telephone" (sorry about the lack of accents).

It's gender inclusive because it needs to be. Using he/she, he or she, (s)he, for every occurence of gender pronoun in a long piece of writing will be very tedious and clumsy-looking. You could just mention he/she once, and the reader will assume that all other 'he' pronouns mean the same, unless stated otherwise. The writer must trust his (<--- see? ;)) readers to not raise sexist issues every time 'he' is used on its own.

OOC: Or one could use "they" as the gender-inclusive term, as is sometimes done in the [RL] UK...

By the way, wouldn't there be a potential legal clash with this clause from a recently-passed resolution?

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

I don't even see this as a UN matter.

if it does prove to be a problem for a nation then they can deal with it themselves.

also it has been pointed out already that UNR #7 makes this proposal academic.

Kaigan Miromuta
Kirisuban ambassador to the the NSUN

We in Dancing Bananaland have no personal issue with incest. Although still considered something to be avoided, as long as the relationship is consentual we feel no need to legislate the issue beyond forbidding child bearing (in first cousins or closer) to prevent genetic defect. Even in this extreme case, if a woman becomes pregnant through incest, the child is allowed to live and the family is fined instead. To summarize, we would oppose any legislation on incest, one way or the other, as we beleive it is an issue that is not important enough to legislate in the UN, as incest is generally uncommon.

There has been a little misunderstanding here as I've seen.

The last part of point 2 only applys to individuals which have been tracked as carrying genetical disorders. Not every individual who had the misfortune of being the offspring of two relatives should be banned from having biological offsprings.

There has been a little misunderstanding here as I've seen.

The last part of point 2 only applys to individuals which have been tracked as carrying genetical disorders. Not every individual who had the misfortune of being the offspring of two relatives should be banned from having biological offsprings.

So this IS a eugenics proposal!

Or you could be like White Wolf and use "she" every time you describe a protagonist and "he" every time you describe an antagonist.

Oh Hack, you're beautiful! First quoting KoL, now you're down with White Wolf? I was thinkin the exact same thing about White Wolf's pronoun usage.

Now, y'all, the proper way is to say he or she. Using "he" as inclusive is an informal usage. So it is used that way, but it is not formal. In our debates here, it's fine to use "he" as an inclusive pronoun, but in the legislation, formal language should be used.

By the way, wouldn't there be a potential legal clash with this clause from a recently-passed resolution?

Which reminds me... I need to get my Repeal of the PRA out again...

I'm simply trying to protect the human\species genetical code. Eugenics would mean trying to improve the hereditary traits. At this point, my claims would probably nulify each other, since protection in this case means "cleaning". However, I'm trying to emphasise the fact that these errors could have a larger impact on the being's genetical code, thus destroying the initial order.

Think about it as a preservation, not an improvement !

I'm simply trying to protect the human\species genetical code. Eugenics would mean trying to improve the hereditary traits. At this point, my claims would probably nulify each other, since protection in this case means "cleaning". However, I'm trying to emphasise the fact that these errors could have a larger impact on the being's genetical code, thus destroying the initial order.

Think about it as a preservation, not an improvement !

You shame the adjective "Mighty." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11302949&postcount=3907)

Tommo the Stout glares at the representative for the rest of the night.

I'm simply trying to protect the human\species genetical code. Eugenics would mean trying to improve the hereditary traits. At this point, my claims would probably nulify each other, since protection in this case means "cleaning". However, I'm trying to emphasise the fact that these errors could have a larger impact on the being's genetical code, thus destroying the initial order.

Think about it as a preservation, not an improvement !
Do you really think the incest is enough of a problem to nessicate banning it when at the last NS census the total population of the NS world was in the trillions. I think that there's enough genetic diversity there to not have to worry about a little inbreeding. Besides the social stigmas reguarding incest in most nations should be plenty to prevent it from ever becoming a problem anyway.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By the way, wouldn't there be a potential legal clash with this clause from a recently-passed resolution?

Have we been moved?!? ;)

OOC: Isn't that French? I mean "lui", which literally means "him/he" can mean "she/her" in some circumstances, particularly in the context of telephone calls.

i.e. (a man calls a woman) "il lui a telephone" (sorry about the lack of accents).

OOC: It's not specific to telephone calls. "Lui" is used for both genders in the case of an indirect complement, as opposed to a direct one.

Direct: "Je le vois" for a man, "Je la vois" for a woman. ("I see him/her").

Indirect: "Je lui ai parlé" in both cases. ("I talked to him/her" <= indirect.) Same with "Je lui ai téléphoné", "Je lui ai donné un cadeau", and so forth.

OOC: Thanks Ariddia. I was using telephone conversations as an example, but then again personal pronouns are always my biggest weakness when it comes to French.

In reply to the statements made within Section 2 of the Incestous Relationships Ban:

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should receive a free medical check, as soon as his status has been revealed. The medical check will ensure that he does not bare any genetical disorder. IF THIS IS THE CASE, HE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE BIOLOGICAL OFFSPRINGS, TO PREVENT THE PARENT-OFFSPRING GENETICL DISEASE SPREAD.

Zeon Side-3 disagrees with the final sentance of section 2 of the Proposed bill. This is because of scientific understanding that this nation has. Genetic disorders are only passed to childern by BOTH parents. Therefore, of the parentsare related, there is a 25% chance that a genetic disorder would appear in their children if they both were carriers of the disorder. So, stopping a person with a genetic disorder from having children (someone OTHER that a family member) would be pointless becuase any children would be carriers of the disease. We would hope that the children of person born of incest with even the stupidest of doctors wold have been told from birth that they were a carrier of the imaginary disease. Then, when the children get older and decide to have children of their own they should check their imaginary mate for the same disorder.

here's the theory in a simple diagram:

Chromosomes come in sets of 2. One is a backup in case one of the other ones is damaged. N-Normal D-Damaged

/ N N
-----------------
N/ N,N N,N 2 normal
D/ N,D N,D 2 carriers
none diseased


There is one hole in my theiry that I have not described. Sex-linked genetic disorders generally affect men. (Women are affected the same way as described above, they can only be carriers unless given the disease by both parents. However, if the genetic disorder is on the x chromsome of a male he will 50% have the disorder if the mother is a carrier of the disorder.

Another diagram

Mother as a carrier. X-X chromosome XD - Diseased X chromosome Y- Y chromosome


/ X XD
------------------
X/ X,X X,D 1 healthy and 1 carrier female
Y/ X,Y X,XD 1 healthy and 1 diseased male.

Preventing people born of insectal relationships with genetic disorders would only prevent the spread of genetic disease carriers unless it is a sex-linked disorder. However, sex-linked disorders are easy to spot by any highschooler that has taken biology. As they would tell you, a person born not because of incest is just as likely to be a carrier or recipient of said disease. If you were going to make incest-born people not have children because of a genetic disorder, then you better just write a proposal like this:

In order to prevent and eradicate genetic disorders and diseases, all people of UN nations will be screened for genetic diseases and those who have or are carries of genetic diseases will be give surgery to steralize them.



This legislation is in need for ammendment. If the UN wants to pass a eugenics proposal, then it should apply to all in the UN not specifically to children born from incest, and also a eugenics proposal should not be a small piece of pork added onto a much larger and (somewhat) reasonable bill.


-Sarah Zabi, Duchess of the Grand Duchy of Zeon Side-3

Zeon Side-3']This legislation is in need for ammendment. If the UN wants to pass a eugenics proposal, then it should apply to all in the UN not specifically to children born from incest, and also a eugenics proposal should not be a small piece of pork added onto a much larger and (somewhat) reasonable bill.

Uh, eugenics shouldn't be in ANY proposal.

Uh, eugenics shouldn't be in ANY proposal.
:rolleyes:

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador
Convenor, "Global Summit on Racial Theory"

:rolleyes:

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador
Convenor, "Global Summit on Racial Theory"

:rolleyes:

Uh, eugenics shouldn't be in ANY proposal.

I agree, and that's why I detest this proposal because it effectively endorses eugenics.

Alright, I've revised the proposal and I'm ready to give it a final try. This is the revised version, and it has not been added to the proposal list yet. Any constructive criticism is welcome. The eugenics part is out.

Incestuous Relationships Ban
-Revised-

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second degree.

Especially familiar to those of noble blood, the practice of incest can lead to the development of malformed or genetically inferior individuals. Although it may not be the case of such genetical malformations, the problem of morality still resides.

Therefore, the following regulations should apply :

1.Any incestuous affair, of any nature, involving noble blood citizens or normal citizens of the UN, is completely forbidden. This also applies to religious and secluded communities.

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should be eligible for a free full medical check, as soon as he reveals his and proves his status. The individual is not obliged to perform the medical check, but should have the possibility of doing so.

3.All sexual education programs in the UN should involve a chapter drawing attention on the moral, psychological and biological dangers of incestuous relationships.

thanks vlad, tis new proposal is MUCH better.

Finally decided to read my own proposal :)

Finally decided to read my own proposal :)

Um...well done?

Finally decided to read my own proposal :)

One would think that you would read it at some point. Perhaps before it has been submitted?

One would think that you would read it at some point. Perhaps before it has been submitted?

Nah, that would've made sense...

Nah, that would've made sense...


Ah. Right. It seems to be a standing thing that most do not work with logic. It's really a shame.

I think I'm going to start opposing any proposal that talks about morals.




Man... I really hate that word! And its meaning!

Both the Parliament and ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo (Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, in case you have forgotten) have expressed their disapproval over this resolution, due largely in part to the fact that it holds no practical or intrinsic value, nor does it belong, in a supranational organization such as the UN. While the underlying principle of this resolution is regarded by the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo's government as worthwhile, the implementation of such laws should be maintained at the national, not the supranational, level.

Alright, I've revised the proposal and I'm ready to give it a final try. This is the revised version, and it has not been added to the proposal list yet. Any constructive criticism is welcome. The eugenics part is out.

Incestuous Relationships Ban
-Revised-

We define incest as a consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between close family members. The "close family members" etiquette does not refer strictly to parents or siblings but also relatives of the second degree.

Especially familiar to those of noble blood, the practice of incest can lead to the development of malformed or genetically inferior individuals. Although it may not be the case of such genetical malformations, the problem of morality still resides.

Therefore, the following regulations should apply :

1.Any incestuous affair, of any nature, involving noble blood citizens or normal citizens of the UN, is completely forbidden. This also applies to religious and secluded communities.

Why make the distinction between nobility. Simply say "all citizens". Also, your incest definition is regrettably short and unspecific.

2.Any individual resulted from an incestuous relationship should be eligible for a free full medical check, as soon as he reveals his and proves his status. The individual is not obliged to perform the medical check, but should have the possibility of doing so.

Fair enough.

3.All sexual education programs in the UN should involve a chapter drawing attention on the moral, psychological and biological dangers of incestuous relationships.

Might I ask one question: Is this it? 3 clauses? What about the financial affairs of incestuous couples, inheritance, the status of the marriage? I feel this is far too brief to count as legislation worthy of submission to this august body.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Both the Parliament and ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo (Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, in case you have forgotten) have expressed their disapproval over this resolution, due largely in part to the fact that it holds no practical or intrinsic value, nor does it belong, in a supranational organization such as the UN. While the underlying principle of this resolution is regarded by the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo's government as worthwhile, the implementation of such laws should be maintained at the national, not the supranational, level.

Once again, I agree wholeheartedly with the ever-sovereign Regent Rudabaugh. This is most definitely not something that needs to be legislated by the UN; if a country cannot deal with its own problems with incest (if any are present), then what likelihood is there of a UN resolution successfully resolving them?

Especially one which does as little as this proposal does.

I have to say that if this made it to quorum in its current state, I would have to throw my vote against it. I would most likely do so anyways because I do not believe this sort of legislation is necessary in any case.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The part about reading my own proposals was supposed to be some sort of humorous insertion, although not too bright, I admit.

I've claimed at some point that I was involved to some ldegree in real politics. Weirdly enough, laws which establish far less than this one, have been accepted.

A UN resolution can't touch the herritage or any of the personal belongings, since the proper managing of private property is the responsibility of each country's government.

I'll try to add 1-2 more articles, but I honestly don't know what else to cover in this proposal.

Besides , it has been proposed already !

I just reread the Sexual Freedom Resolution, and this resolution clearly violates that one...

Sexual Freedom allows for exemptions due to "medical reasons". As long as this continues to focus on medical problems with incest (ie: birth defects and insanity), it's perfectly legal.

Sexual Freedom allows for exemptions due to "medical reasons". As long as this continues to focus on medical problems with incest (ie: birth defects and insanity), it's perfectly legal.Then could it not be considered an ammendment to SF resolution in that it gives one reason for those "medical reasons" noted in that one.. since that one didn't go into detail on what was a medical reason and this one does set one.. "Medical reason" could be anything from testing for clap to HIV any number of things. Yet under SF they didn't define in any detail testing one for genetic defects let alone clap or anything else specific...

Hrm. It's close, but it doesn't quite feel like an amendment.

Wuf... not my best reasoning there...

Hrm. It's close, but it doesn't quite feel like an amendment.

Wuf... not my best reasoning there...

OOC: I'm getting that same feeling. "Close but no cigar" on the admendment thing. Not my best reasoning either, I'm afraid. :(