NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban on Competitive Eating
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that many people around the world do not have enough food to eat,

Ashamed that it has thus far taken no action to address the problem of world hunger, and,

Disgusted by the spectacle of those in wealthier nations wasting food in competitive eating contests, in which large quantities of food are consumed in short periods of time for prizes:

1. Urges all nations to prohibit competitive eating;

2. Further encourages general measures aimed to preventing needless waste of food;

3. Calls upon the nations of the World Assembly to unite in considering more significant legislation on eliminating world hunger.

Approvals: 4 (Quintessence of Dust, Plugster, Jacobish, Ventei)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 49 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Apr 25 2009

This is just bloody stupid. Eating contests are not something that would do more than waste a national government's time to consider at any length, let alone the silliness of bringing it to the World Assembly.

Edit: Bolded text represents a change in what I put, due to the posts that followed this that challenged my reason for putting it up here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: This has been split from the Silly and Illegal Proposals thread to allow players further discussion of a specific proposal's legality. This would be inappropriate in the Silly Proposals thread, because it's not intended to be a discussion thread, but it's VERY, VERY appropriate in the WA forum and I'd like to encourage it all I can.

If players address individual proposals for their legality, as well as for their content, newcomers may learn to deal with problems before they submit proposals. This would avoid both a warning to an eager new player, which must be discouraging, and a queue clogged with doomed proposals.

I appreciate that you guys who know the rules backwards don't want to be seen as moving onto the mods' turf, but "I think it's illegal because ..." or, "I think the mods would delete this because ..." should give everyone enough wriggle room.

BTW, for the newbies -- this particular proposal is not from an eager newcomer. QoD is a long-time player.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a silly proposal. Eating contests are not something that would do more than waste a national government's time to consider at any length, let alone the silliness of bringing it to the World Assembly.That's why I put it at 'Mild' strength. It's not a joke proposal, and it's no less worthy of consideration by the WA than a proposal to ban littering.

That's why I put it at 'Mild' strength. It's not a joke proposal, and it's no less worthy of consideration by the WA than a proposal to ban littering.

Both of which are not worth it's consideration. Want to ban littering or eating contests? Do it on the national level or write a larger proposal that is worthy of consideration and includes it as a small clause.

Both of which are not worth it's consideration. Want to ban littering or eating contests? Do it on the national level or write a larger proposal that is worthy of consideration and includes it as a small clause.
If your argument is simply 'I don't believe this is an appropriate law', then that's not a reason to delete the proposal; it's a reason to vote against it. If the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) actually included something along those lines, no proposal would ever be voted on; the Paulbots would get everything deleted in queue.

If you'd like to debate this at length you can start a thread on the proposal, but I don't believe my proposal is either silly or illegal, and hence don't believe it belongs here.

If your argument is simply 'I don't believe this is an appropriate law', then that's not a reason to delete the proposal; it's a reason to vote against it. If the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) actually included something along those lines, no proposal would ever be voted on; the Paulbots would get everything deleted in queue.

If you'd like to debate this at length you can start a thread on the proposal, but I don't believe my proposal is either silly or illegal, and hence don't believe it belongs here.

Obviously, you need to read the rules again. Here's where it is covered:

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of WA consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables)

I just was being nice with my wording when I listed it.

Max the USoP translator burst into Nigel's office... "Nigel come quick... someone just told QOD their proposal was stupid!" With that the translator left.

Nigel sat a second and then got up, "Ginger" he said to his secretary... "get the popcorn!" and hurried after Max.

Obviously, you need to read the rules again. Here's where it is covered:Your point being? My proposal isn't of the example provided. Furthermore, there is a structural difference between the two:
- competitive eating is an organized activity (it, in general, requires judges, a number of competitors, some form of prize and thereby possibly sponsorship; competitive eating at the highest level is a relatively large scale affair);
- children eating their din-dins is not an organized activity (it occurs in individual households, with no organizational cooperation).

In real, IFOCE is serious business (http://www.ifoce.com): a multinational organziation with many affiliates and thousands of members. Why is any less worthy of being regulated than, say, a transnational corporation, or an international labour union, or a sporting body? IFOCE stages hundreds of events; it would take a particularly fertile parent to stage hundreds of children's dinner times.

Max the USoP translator burst into Nigel's office... "Nigel come quick... someone just told QOD their proposal was stupid!" With that the translator left.

Nigel sat a second and then got up, "Ginger" he said to his secretary... "get the popcorn!" and hurried after Max.
(One of the greatest moments in TV, ever.)

Your point being? My proposal isn't of the example provided. Furthermore, there is a structural difference between the two:
- competitive eating is an organized activity (it, in general, requires judges, a number of competitors, some form of prize and thereby possibly sponsorship; competitive eating at the highest level is a relatively large scale affair);
- children eating their din-dins is not an organized activity (it occurs in individual households, with no organizational cooperation).

In real, IFOCE is serious business (http://www.ifoce.com): a multinational organziation with many affiliates and thousands of members. Why is any less worthy of being regulated than, say, a transnational corporation, or an international labour union, or a sporting body? IFOCE stages hundreds of events; it would take a particularly fertile parent to stage hundreds of children's dinner times.

I think part of the problem here is that you're talking about real life in relation to NS. Admittedly, that works in some scenarios and I do it myself. In others, it doesn't. There is no IFOCE in NS that I have found. And let's not forget the fact that the WA doesn't actually regulate sporting bodies, or the number of times proposals that would be good topics for the real-life UN are shot down here (like the one about orbital weapons) because of the differences. Air marshalls on planes would be a very good idea for a large portion of real-life airlines, but simply doesn't work well on here.

The problem being is that, really, this isn't on par with even the orbital weapons proposal in being something that would be worried about in NS. You would realistically have to prove that it's of enough concern for there to first be a major international RP for it, and it being a topic brought up more than just for the novelty, just to show that there even is an international impact of this subject. And even then, you have to convince delegates that this is of international concern.

No, you were just being wrong with your wording. But it's ok, you're new, and there's plenty of time to learn. :)

No, I just hate the words "bloody stupid" for calling a proposal. It's kinda demeaning.

I think part of the problem here is that you're talking about real life in relation to NS. Admittedly, that works in some scenarios and I do it myself. In others, it doesn't. There is no IFOCE in NS that I have found. And let's not forget the fact that the WA doesn't actually regulate sporting bodies, or the number of times proposals that would be good topics for the real-life UN are shot down here (like the one about orbital weapons) because of the differences. Air marshalls on planes would be a very good idea for a large portion of real-life airlines, but simply doesn't work well on here.

The problem being is that, really, this isn't on par with even the orbital weapons proposal in being something that would be worried about in NS. You would realistically have to prove that it's of enough concern for there to first be a major international RP for it, and it being a topic brought up more than just for the novelty, just to show that there even is an international impact of this subject. And even then, you have to convince delegates that this is of international concern.Firstly, my orbital weapons proposal has been submitted at least three times without being 1) posted to this thread or 2) deleted by the moderators.

Secondly, I plainly don't have to demonstrate its RP relevance: that would be a MetaGaming violation.

Thirdly, convincing delegates of 'international concern' is, once again, not a rules issue. Some people believe euthanasia should be decided by nations, but the mods - at the risk of speaking for them - would be unlikely to delete a proposal on euthanasia (they let two of them pass in the old UN). That you do not consider a topic of international concern is not a reason to delete the proposal, but simply to oppose it.

If the moderators deleted every proposal that someone out there didn't consider of international concern, we'd have no proposals. And the mods would have fatigue from clicking delete on legalise marijunana proposals every 5 minutes.
No, I just hate the words "bloody stupid" for calling a proposal. It's kinda demeaning.You have not demonstrated the stupidity of reducing waste.

Firstly, my orbital weapons proposal has been submitted at least three times without being 1) posted to this thread or 2) deleted by the moderators.

Your's isn't the one I was referencing. Nor did I call them stupid.

Secondly, I plainly don't have to demonstrate its RP relevance: that would be a MetaGaming violation.

Thirdly, convincing delegates of 'international concern' is, once again, not a rules issue. Some people believe euthanasia should be decided by nations, but the mods - at the risk of speaking for them - would be unlikely to delete a proposal on euthanasia (they let two of them pass in the old UN). That you do not consider a topic of international concern is not a reason to delete the proposal, but simply to oppose it.

If the moderators deleted every proposal that someone out there didn't consider of international concern, we'd have no proposals. And the mods would have fatigue from clicking delete on legalise marijunana proposals every 5 minutes.

Okay, let me reword what I was saying in a different way: My statement, at the very beginning, is that this is not even a national concern, let alone an international concern. As yet, I have no reason to see it as either within NationStates. Nor have you really addressed the question on if it is actually an international concern within NationStates. Since I see no reason of this being worthy of being considered an international issue, I see no reason why it is worthy of the World Assembly.

You have not demonstrated the stupidity of reducing waste.

All I have to do is demonstrate that this is unworthy of the WA's attention. That proves the portion of the stupidity rule that this falls under and qualifies it as stupid. (I still hate using that word for this.)

All I have to do is demonstrate that this is unworthy of the WA's attention. That proves the portion of the stupidity rule that this falls under and qualifies it as stupid. (I still hate using that word for this.)

Actually, the proposal wasn't stupid really. I may not support it, but I wouldn't call it stupid. I just don't see it as something that the WA should be bothered with.

Unless you're a moderator, you really shouldn't be making that judgment. Just because you feel that it's not something the WA should deal with doesn't automatically make it a stupid proposal. If that were the only criteria, every single proposal and resolution the WA has would be up here on this thread.

Actually, the proposal wasn't stupid really. I may not support it, but I wouldn't call it stupid. I just don't see it as something that the WA should be bothered with.

Proposals not being worthy of WA consideration is a portion of the Bloody Stupid violation. Given the example, I take it to mean topics that have no realistic international impact.

Unless you're a moderator, you really shouldn't be making that judgment. Just because you feel that it's not something the WA should deal with doesn't automatically make it a stupid proposal. If that were the only criteria, every single proposal and resolution the WA has would be up here on this thread.

Then why does anyone post on this thread at all? Unless I read the first post wrong, this topic is to post proposals you think are violations.

Proposals not being worthy of WA consideration is a portion of the Bloody Stupid violation. Given the example, I take it to mean topics that have no realistic international impact.



Then why does anyone post on this thread at all? Unless I read the first post wrong, this topic is to post proposals you think are violations.

Sorry, my fault. I wasn't clear. I meant that making the determination that you feel that the WA proposal is silly because the WA shouldn't deal with it is something that you shouldn't make judgment on. Silly and joke proposals are easy to determine. They're usually along the lines of 'Ban coca cola and everyone drink dr. pepper' or 'let's all do the hokey pokey on fridays'. Granted, those would be obvious though.

Now, in every proposal thread, there is at least one person who posts a variation of 'the WA shouldn't be dealing with this'. Does that automatically make the proposal a violation of the Bloody Stupid rule? We've passed legislation before that probably shouldn't be passed at an international level. Were those a violation of the Bloody Stupid rule? No. The point to the rule is to weed out those who are doing something that truly is stupid.

Asking for Eating Competitions to be banned isn't Bloody Stupid. I think the proposal could have some merit, but not in it's current form. As is, I really think this should be moved to another thread if we really wish to continue on the merits and flaws of the proposal.

For now, I'm willing to agree that we disagree on the interpretation of the rules and leave it at that.

I think we need a Proposal to Ban Eating Contests now.

Its right up there with a "Let's Have a More Peacefuller World".

Gluttony and the deliberate wasting of food is a shameful act. The People of Aundotutunagir support this proposal.

Gluttony and the deliberate wasting of food is a shameful act. The People of Aundotutunagir support this proposal.

Gluttony is a virtue Noble General, but wasting food is certainly shameful. We would completely oppose this statute.



Yours,

All I have to do is demonstrate that this is unworthy of the WA's attention. That proves the portion of the stupidity rule that this falls under and qualifies it as stupid. (I still hate using that word for this.)

Not quite. "Bloody stupid" is for proposals that leave you gasping in disbelief -- "I can't believe anybody would even be bothered to write this!" proposals, or "what in the name of all that's wonderful does this idiot imagine this incredible mishmash of incoherence actually says?" proposals. It could conveniently be re-labelled "WTF? proposals".

"Beneath/not worthy of the WA's notice" is an argument that belongs in the debate phase of a proposal's life. It's not a reason to list it in the "Silly/Illegal" thread. If it doesn't contain any of the violations listed, it shouldn't be there.

Think of it this way: the violations listed exist to restrain mods as well as to restrain players. We must be able to quote chapter and verse on any proposal we delete. "Not worthy" (or "too minor", or "too local") is too subjective. Imagine what the Uber-Bastard-Evil-Biased-Mod could do with it -- "QoD is unworthy of being in the WA, therefore all proposals from QoD are unworthy of the WA, therefore I now delete his proposal to create a World Assembly International Children's Emergency Fund."

(EDIT: This is particularly relevant every time the WA divides between "internationalists" -- the WA is a federation, making laws for its constituent states -- and "sovereigntists" -- the individual states make all their own laws, the WA is just an administrative, co-ordinating body. Some of the mods are internationalist, some sovereigntist. If "not appropriate" was a violation, a "sovereigntist" mod could quite honestly see legislation on, say, capital punishment, as not something the WA should consider, and delete it./EDIT)

Believe it or not, "bloody silly" is a rare reason for deleting a proposal, since most people who can't write a reasonable line of text also get the category or strength wrong, brand the thing, try to apply it selectively or fail under the "format" violation (asks a question, doesn't state a WA action). A string of them would be a red flag to the Admins to make sure the mod concerned was not off on some personal vendetta.

On reaction:

I, for one, when I read that on the Proposals (where I read it first) it left me gasping in disbelief, and I did think "WTF?"!

On substance:

To end world hunger is a most laudable, noble thing. But a "Ban on Competitive Eating" won't even be a start to end world hunger.

Bluntly, and no condescension here: C'mon QuoD, we all know you can do a fucking lot better than this garbage. So please (please), do it.

That is not the right path to save lives. Because if it is, next thing we know there'll be a Resolution creating a World Assembly Commission on Popcorn Quality, because... well... it's related to food... and... children can choke on popcorn and DIE!!! ONOZ!

Start over and you and we all in the WA will be successful.

Yours truly,

Something tells me that is was meant as a joke, Sionis.

I think I clued in on that when I read the words, "Ban on Competitive Eating" :)

But I'm sure your response gave QoD a really good laugh - and god knows he/she needs one after having to read my pathetic attempts at humour with the Gnome Rights and Freedoms Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14445238&postcount=934) - I'm no George Carlin that's for sure.

Something tells me that is was meant as a joke, Sionis.

I think I clued in on that when I read the words, "Ban on Competitive Eating" :)

But I'm sure your response gave QoD a really good laugh - and god knows he/she needs one after having to read my pathetic attempts at humour with the Gnome Rights and Freedoms Act - I'm no George Carlin that's for sure.

This isn't a joke. I pulled it from the actual proposal queue.

This isn't a joke. I pulled it from the actual proposal queue.

Hmm...Elmo Fudgesucker (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14727697&postcount=3) is back at it again I see. :D

We think Quod has a good idea, while we don't agree to the means by which they achieve the end. Perhaps starting a pool of resources to be divided among the less fortunate nations is in order? All nations may give a percentage of their food stocks towards to collection. With as many nations as there are in the WA, the amount given per nation would be minute to the point that they would barely scratch the surface of reserves, and still maintain enough to feed their citizens.

WYMP

I debated for awhile how to reply to this; after some thought, I believe this to be the best reply to be had.

Not quite. "Bloody stupid" is for proposals that leave you gasping in disbelief -- "I can't believe anybody would even be bothered to write this!" proposals, or "what in the name of all that's wonderful does this idiot imagine this incredible mishmash of incoherence actually says?" proposals. It could conveniently be re-labelled "WTF? proposals".

"Beneath/not worthy of the WA's notice" is an argument that belongs in the debate phase of a proposal's life. It's not a reason to list it in the "Silly/Illegal" thread. If it doesn't contain any of the violations listed, it shouldn't be there.

Think of it this way: the violations listed exist to restrain mods as well as to restrain players. We must be able to quote chapter and verse on any proposal we delete. "Not worthy" (or "too minor", or "too local") is too subjective. Imagine what the Uber-Bastard-Evil-Biased-Mod could do with it -- "QoD is unworthy of being in the WA, therefore all proposals from QoD are unworthy of the WA, therefore I now delete his proposal to create a World Assembly International Children's Emergency Fund."

(EDIT: This is particularly relevant every time the WA divides between "internationalists" -- the WA is a federation, making laws for its constituent states -- and "sovereigntists" -- the individual states make all their own laws, the WA is just an administrative, co-ordinating body. Some of the mods are internationalist, some sovereigntist. If "not appropriate" was a violation, a "sovereigntist" mod could quite honestly see legislation on, say, capital punishment, as not something the WA should consider, and delete it./EDIT)

Believe it or not, "bloody silly" is a rare reason for deleting a proposal, since most people who can't write a reasonable line of text also get the category or strength wrong, brand the thing, try to apply it selectively or fail under the "format" violation (asks a question, doesn't state a WA action). A string of them would be a red flag to the Admins to make sure the mod concerned was not off on some personal vendetta.

You will have to excuse me on this, but the rules themselves, the ones listed in the very topic at the top of this thread, make the part I bolded self-contradictory. Let me quote you the actual rule itself:

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of WA consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).

The rule I am quoting is from here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1

It is the 5th non-indented bullet point under the heading "Types of Violations" in the thread. In total bullet points, it is the 16th on the page.

For a newcomer player, the simple fact of the matter is that the rule, as worded, is in direct disagreement with what you say. Am I to believe the rule as written, or the mod post that outright states the exact opposite of the rule in question? Going by the actual lists of violations, I am in the right; the rules themselves outright state that "not worthy of WA consideration" is an infraction of the rules under the "bloody stupid" category. So, tell me, which am I to believe? Are you wrong, or are the rules as written wrong?

Secondly, I do not appreciate the implication at the end of your edit on the first page. That QoD is an established player is not in question; the establishment of QoD is unquestionable when one reads the passed proposals. That QoD is quite capable of writing a good proposal is not in question; once again, one can read those proposals and see. That the legality of this proposal based on whether or not it is legal under the rules as written is in question; that was only a discussion started as a protest to my including it within a list of what I figured to be illegal proposals. No concern was given to whether or not QoD was an established player, but whether or not the proposal was illegal. And, at the time, no discussion was needed; if it was legal and I was wrong, it wouldn't be deleted anyway.

As it stands, I do not see the necessity of this thread continuing to remain open; there is no lesson on the legality of this proposal to be gained or lost. What lesson there is to be gained is that you cannot trust the written rules to be accurate in what is and what is not actually illegal.

Please do other newcomers a favor and correct the rules thread so that it actually is truthful. That way, others don't get caught by a lie.

EDIT: Thread temporarily closed, as detailed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14728779#post14728779).

No concern was given to whether or not QoD was an established player, but whether or not the proposal was illegal. And, at the time, no discussion was needed; if it was legal and I was wrong, it wouldn't be deleted anyway.

I most deeply apologise for giving the impression that that was why I mentioned QoD's longevity. In fact, as I wrote in the Moderation forum in reply to OmigodtheykilledKenny before I saw this post, my intention was this:

The intent of my reference to QoD's longevity was, ironically, just the opposite of what you've assumed: I wanted to underline that old players' proposals should be as open to challenge as anyone else's. I think it's great that Eluneyasa's taking issue with QoD's, and I certainly apologise if I've given him, her or (in RP form) them any impression to the contrary.

I split this off from the Silly Proposals thread because I think it will help if players know why some apparently-okay proposals are deleted. There's not time to answer every Why did.didn't this get deleted? query, but when there's the level of interest indicated by the replies to your original post in the Silly thread, I think it's worth making time.

I'll look over your comments on the legality aspect and reply in more detail when I can do the "making time" thing. I've obviously contributed to misunderstandings by not making myself clear, so I'll have another go later.

Before I get into a detailed discussion of proposal illegalities, let me just invoke this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11379492&postcount=6).

Okay. Now, the "Bloody Stupid" violation, as Eluneyasa has pointed out, includes this line -- "This includes things that are unworthy of WA consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables)."

Fair enough. A proposal that said "The WA mandates that children who eat their veges should get an allowance" would be unworthy of the WA's consideration because it provides no explanation, no application, no definitions, no specific WA action to consider; it would be a waste of space to leave it in the proposals list.

But the real-world media have been carrying stories for the past year or so about an "obesity epidemic". Health gurus of various kinds have recommended that children eat more vegetables, for reasons that include reducing fat intake.

Inspired by those circumstances, some enterprising (if nanny-statish) NSer might research the whole question, conclude that a responsible world body such as the WA really should prod its member governments into action on the issue, find a category into which such action would fit, and write a solid proposal that recommends specific action by the WA -- possibly involving grants or allowances under the aegis of Yet Another Damn Committee -- and that violates no existing rule.

Even if they call it the "Eat Your Veg or No Allowance Act", that would be worthy of the WA's attention. It would give the WA an opportunity to decide whether this was something in which it should intervene. It might get voted down, but it's not "bloody stupid" to think that the health of the multiverse's citizens is potentially a field for international legislation. (I could do a hypothetical for the pink car one, too, but I'm trying to illustrate a point, not bore you silly.)

So it's not necessarily the subject, the content, or the format that allows a mod to delete a proposal as Bloody Stupid. If it breaches no other rule, if it's at least reasonably possible that it may affect nations across the NS multiverse, in general I favour leaving the possibility of discussion open to the WA rather than nuking it and closing off debate. (Other mods may favour a less broad approach; we try for consistency, but we're people, not programs.)

The WA will have two chances to turn a proposal down, once with in-queue approvals and again with at-vote votes. It's at the latter stage that "it's not something we should be doing" comes up. At that stage, it's not a technical decision, it's a (WA) policy decision.

So, I'm not willing to make a policy decision for the WA on the "eating contests" proposal. On the technical side, I don't find it satisfies the extreme requirement of the actual Bloody Stupid violation.

Note, I'm not saying it won't eventually be considered either bloody, or stupid, or both. But deciding that is up to the WA. My task is to clear the clutter. I can't justify clearing that proposal under that rule.

On the other point raised, that it's a joke proposal, I don't think it's evident enough to delete on that ground, either. With joke proposals it's the object to be achieved, or the wording, that's funny (or meant to be funny).

It proposes the textbook dilemma for its category: shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? The only thing wrong with its strength is that "mild" is scarcely mild enough for clauses 2 and 3. It's not metagaming, it isn't branded. A possible game mechanics challenge on the grounds of attempting to limit future WA action seems to me likely to fail on the grounds that it doesn't try to stop a WA action, it tries to encourage it -- plus the WA has already accepted repeals urging vaguely beneficent legislation at an indeterminate future date.

Eluneyasa, I'm sorry I said you shouldn't have put it in the silly/illegal thread. You're quite right that that's exactly where something you think may be either should go. I was so pleased to see a newcomer offering a genuine rule-based challenge to a proposal that, in my eagerness to get it into a separate thread and let the discussion run, I didn't consider my words carefully.

OOC:

First, this proposal was never intended as a joke proposal. I'll admit I did submit one, about three years ago, called "Protection of Goats Act", which included two uses of the word "fondle"; that one was a joke proposal. This was not intended to amuse.

Second, the amount of filth flung at this proposal, and at me for writing it, is rather disheartening. People have said it's a 'municipal' concern. Yet:Each year Major League Eating's live and televised events are watched by millions of fans and generate more than 800 million media impressions for sponsors. Major League Eating coordinates events in the United States, Japan, England, Germany, Canada, Ireland, Thailand and the Ukraine, helping to promote the sport in local, national and international media.Take a browse of their website (http://www.majorleagueeating.com/). The amounts of food in these competitions - over 60 hot dogs, over 100 burgers, per contestant - are staggering. Nintendo Wii is even going to release a game in association with them!

You're all complaining it's too mild. Firstly, it's less mild than the collective legislative contribution of everyone who's complained about the proposal, insofar as it exists at all. Secondly, if it were made stronger, why do I get the feeling suddenly everyone would turn around and start complaining about national sovereignty? Thirdly, the proposal itself acknowledges that further efforts would obviously be needed. Everyone complained that my last resolution in the UN, the Access to Literacy Project, was too mild; yet no one could demonstrate that distributing books to needy countries could do any harm (except The Narnian Council, who for some reason decided the whole thing was a conspiracy to give kids porn).

Would a ban on competitive eating end world hunger? No.
Does this proposal claim a ban on competitive eating would end world hunger? No.

Would a ban on competitive eating demonstrate that plentiful nations are serious about eliminating waste and are not blithely ignorant of global disparities inequality? Would it be a symbolic gesture, however small, that our priorities should be rethought? I believe so. That's why I submitted it (that and I was a bit bored); and I don't appreciate for being mocked for what is, I believe, a perfectly defensible sentiment.Come on QuoD, we all know you can do a fucking lot better than this garbage. So please (please), do it.
Why would I want to? Every time I post a serious proposal, it gets ignored. "Increased Provision of Housing" got 8 responses in 5 days; the first draft of "Environmental Science" got 10; "International Arms Trade Act" got 12, of which about 15 consisted of lectures on the scope of the USA Constitution's Second Amendment. My proposal on nuclear weapons produced fewer responses in 7 days than did this proposal in 7 hours. About half of the proposals I've actually had passed as resolutions have been subjective to fewer drafting comments. It's perfectly clear I've jumped the shark and no one has any interest in responding to my serious efforts anymore, so your suggestion that I can 'do better' is disingenuous (as well as puzzling: I can't think of many worthier causes than global hunger).That is not the right path to save lives.I will not be lectured on the 'right path to save lives' by someone who authored legislation to make medicine more expensive.

Why would I want to? Every time I post a serious proposal, it gets ignored. "Increased Provision of Housing" got 8 responses in 5 days; the first draft of "Environmental Science" got 10; "International Arms Trade Act" got 12, of which about 15 consisted of lectures on the scope of the USA Constitution's Second Amendment. My proposal on nuclear weapons produced fewer responses in 7 days than did this proposal in 7 hours. About half of the proposals I've actually had passed as resolutions have been subjective to fewer drafting comments. It's perfectly clear I've jumped the shark and no one has any interest in responding to my serious efforts anymore, so your suggestion that I can 'do better' is disingenuous (as well as puzzling: I can't think of many worthier causes than global hunger).

I think their intention of the post was not to say that ending global hunger isn't a worthy cause, but that banning competetive eating just isn't a direct attack on global hunger, more of an attack on a side effect of ignorance if anything.

But then again, global hunger is a side effect of ignorance as well.

So overall the suggestion was to focus on something that might really attack the problem, and not just the inklings of one.

But I'm not Sionis, so I can't speak for him/her.


PS. Don't take my "I'm sure it was joke" post to offence please, It just seemed like one compared to your usual work, and considering you hadn't posted it first on the WA forum for review, I was just assuming.

OOC:

I will admit that I took the initial post as a joke. I think though it was due to the title vs the other issues you've brought forward.

I don't know that I would support it on the floor but I dont' think it deserved to be placed in the zOMG list either. The lack of substantive debate on the actual topic also IMHO goes to show that point as well.

*Blah blah blah boo hoo* *Meh.*
I will not be lectured on the 'right path to save lives' by someone who authored legislation to make medicine more expensive.

Delude yourself as you wish.

As for your comments regarding my person, I got so depressed I got on a binge eating so decadent that destroyed entire continents by famine.

Also do have the last word if you wish, all this made me tired (but not sour). Keep your toys.

Best wishes,

This isn't a joke proposal. "omg ferrets are fuzzy and we should pet themz" is a joke proposal.

And regardless of your stance on competitive eating and food waste, a decent argument can be made for those being issues of international concern, so it's not illegal or "bloody stupid" either.

I'll leave the actual merits of the proposal for others to debate; suffice it to say that it's something we'd support if it came to vote.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Are there any countries (I'm thinking specifically those who generally support economic freedom/fair trade and who don't have a significant amount of their population experiencing hunger, but there might be more) in the Assembly that:

a) Would tend to oppose substantive, large-scale action against world hunger because it would restrict economic freedoms?
b) Would be less inclined to oppose such action if a resolution such as this had already been passed? (I. E. "Oh, well, we've got a history of standing against world hunger...so, might as well go along with it.")

It doesn't appear obvious that there are many such countries. If there are, and I'm wrong, then just ignore this post. If there aren't, perhaps there is consensus for a more direct attack on world hunger/

OOC: I took it as a joke. I mean, no offense, but the topic is a bit out of the Quodite legislative pattern. Although, I have taken its last clause to heart (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=591236). Am I the only one... ?

I most deeply apologise for giving the impression that that was why I mentioned QoD's longevity. In fact, as I wrote in the Moderation forum in reply to OmigodtheykilledKenny before I saw this post, my intention was this:

I shouldn't have been so quick to take offense.

Snip

And I was not thinking correctly on the issue when I did take offense.

I can see the reasoning for it, and I understand a bit more by what is meant by not worthy of consideration.

Now, then, that won't stop me from putting a proposal for arming undead hordes in the thread; Whether or not I have undead in my nation doesn't change the silliness of it :D

OOC:

First, this proposal was never intended as a joke proposal. I'll admit I did submit one, about three years ago, called "Protection of Goats Act", which included two uses of the word "fondle"; that one was a joke proposal. This was not intended to amuse.

The reason why it struck me as a joke proposal is the topic covered. Honestly, this is partly cultural; eating contests are, with my area, nothing to really take seriously to begin with. If you're really good at one, all you end up doing is getting a right to brag to a bartender about it and get a couple of free beers. That there's an international form of it just takes the rediculousness of it to another level. Most people I know would file any regulations on it in the same slot as regulations on clown outfits: not worthy to even talk about. And I doubt I'm alone in that viewpoint or the reasoning behind it.

Second, the amount of filth flung at this proposal, and at me for writing it, is rather disheartening. People have said it's a 'municipal' concern. Yet:Take a browse of their website (http://www.majorleagueeating.com/). The amounts of food in these competitions - over 60 hot dogs, over 100 burgers, per contestant - are staggering. Nintendo Wii is even going to release a game in association with them!

Nintendo releases games where you have pet dogs. Honestly, that a video game is being released about it is as much a sign of it being of importance as it having a word in English. It's more an acknowledgement of its existance and that Nintendo might get a bit more towards their bottom line by marketting to some minor niche most people don't even care to bother asking about the existence of. Should we regulate mermaids because Nintendo has released a game about them?

And, honestly, the amount of waste from that international competition is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the average food waste of the United States for regular people. It probably doesn't even come close to the average food waste of an average American household. I don't think it even matches the average yearly food waste of Afghanistan. In terms of actual international contribution to food waste, it's not even large enough to count as a joke.

And that's the issue. It's not that you don't have a point about it wasting food; it's that I can see no point of bothering with this piece of legislation when we have so many other important ones on the same topic we could address.

You're all complaining it's too mild. Firstly, it's less mild than the collective legislative contribution of everyone who's complained about the proposal, insofar as it exists at all. Secondly, if it were made stronger, why do I get the feeling suddenly everyone would turn around and start complaining about national sovereignty? Thirdly, the proposal itself acknowledges that further efforts would obviously be needed. Everyone complained that my last resolution in the UN, the Access to Literacy Project, was too mild; yet no one could demonstrate that distributing books to needy countries could do any harm (except The Narnian Council, who for some reason decided the whole thing was a conspiracy to give kids porn).

Oh, don't you know? Giving kids access to any book is an excuse to give them porn. They shouldn't even learn to read until they're in their 20s. [/sarcasm]

Honestly, I had no problem with the mildness.

Are there any countries (I'm thinking specifically those who generally support economic freedom/fair trade and who don't have a significant amount of their population experiencing hunger, but there might be more) in the Assembly that:

a) Would tend to oppose substantive, large-scale action against world hunger because it would restrict economic freedoms?
b) Would be less inclined to oppose such action if a resolution such as this had already been passed? (I. E. "Oh, well, we've got a history of standing against world hunger...so, might as well go along with it.")

It doesn't appear obvious that there are many such countries. If there are, and I'm wrong, then just ignore this post. If there aren't, perhaps there is consensus for a more direct attack on world hunger/

Honestly, I would support a direct attack on world hunger. Been trying to write one myself that does it. Though, given a certain thread about dead rights, I'm considering writing one to limit certain paths of medical research...

Now, then, that won't stop me from putting a proposal for arming undead hordes in the thread; Whether or not I have undead in my nation doesn't change the silliness of it :D
Indeed. How you write it changes the silliness of it, that's the point. Besides, some of us whose original home region involved the doings of a certain Vampire Slayer might be very angry IC at such a proposal, which makes for a much more fun time.

"But... but... we like eating contests!"


Urra o HighPeaks,
Trainee 'Voice',
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Several years ago, there was a wave of "salt-eating contests" taking place among Balawaristani children at our salt quarries, and some dozen children did die nationwide. We enthusiastically support this proposal. Never should another nation have to undergo the shame and humiliation Balawaristan endured.

Several years ago, there was a wave of "salt-eating contests" taking place among Balawaristani children at our salt quarries, and some dozen children did die nationwide. We enthusiastically support this proposal. Never should another nation have to undergo the shame and humiliation Balawaristan endured.

Dear Dr. al-Ghazal, I hope this most unfortunate situation occured before the revolution!