NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently drafted a proposal that got deleted for being improperly categorized. It was entitled "Outlaw Gambling" and a copy follows:

OUTLAW GAMBLING
It has come to the attention of The Republic of Democratic Donkeys that Outlaw gambling is a hot topic in the UN. Our Government would like to address this pressing issue as well.

Article I
In order to regulate Outlaw gambling our nation proposes the formation of the Outlaw Gambling Regulation Committee.
This Committee will establish the basic rules and regulations for Outlaw Gambling.

ArticleII
Immediately after this is passed all Outlaws will be rounded up and sent to the facility outlined in ArticleIII

ArticleIII
This proposal calls for the immediate construction of an Outlaw Gambling facility in a Pro-gambling region. This state of the art facility will provide the finest equipment for Outlaw gambling. The facility will have the cutting edge in metal card tables and metal folding chairs. There will be extensive holding pens for the Outlaws waiting for their chance at freedom.

ArticleIV
Procedure for outlaw gambling is as follows:
Standard Tournament play with 1(one) winner advancing. All losers will be liquidated in a vat of acid after their beheading.
All gambling will be of the card variety. More specifically every game will be high stakes Go-fish. Standard rules will be used as outlined by Hoyle Card Company.

ArticleV
The winner of this tournament will be given their chance at freedom as promised. They will be released into a habitat full of starved, rabid, baboons. There will be one exit and if they reach it then they will be free. If a baboon gets them then this pen will be full of just plain rabid baboons. This may make it easier for the next 'winner' to escape.

ArticleVI
All nations will be able to place wagers on their favorite outlaws. Half of all proceeds will be donated to various charity organizations. This Outlaw Gambling program will have many benefits. It will ease overcrowding of prisons, provide for charity, and keeps our streets safe for our children. It also provides entertainment to the masses. Allowing us to bet on a glamorous tournament where the stakes are high and so are half the contestants.***

How is this in the wrong category? It has to do with gambling does it not? When I highlight Gambling when drafting a proposal it says "A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling." What is included in that sentence? The two words "Outlaw Gambling"! Then underneath the text box is a place where you decide to legalize or "outlaw"!

I pride myself on drafting proposal that fit within the confines of the Categories. Sometimes the fit may be tight but it still fits! Will I be allowed to post it again so it can got through the complete process?

Thank you!

The issue I think, is that this proposal might have been submitted before. Check in the past resolutions section.

The issue I think, is that this proposal might have been submitted before. Check in the past resolutions section.



It is an issue

In actual fact, the issue is that the proposal doesn't exactly do what it says it will. "Outlaw Gambling" in the category section means "This proposal will make gambling illegal", not "this proposal will allow people to bet on outlaws", which is what you're talking about here. It's a clever little bit of semantics, but it's either in the wrong category (since the strongest you ever seem to get is "we need to regulate gambling", rather than "we need to outlaw it") or in the silly jokes category along with the right to arm bears and the right to walk around with bare arms.

In actual fact, the issue is that the proposal doesn't exactly do what it says it will. "Outlaw Gambling" in the category section means "This proposal will make gambling illegal", not "this proposal will allow people to bet on outlaws", which is what you're talking about here. It's a clever little bit of semantics, but it's either in the wrong category (since the strongest you ever seem to get is "we need to regulate gambling", rather than "we need to outlaw it") or in the silly jokes category along with the right to arm bears and the right to walk around with bare arms.


So it is legal to make a resolution that is a issue already?

In actual fact, the issue is that the proposal doesn't exactly do what it says it will. "Outlaw Gambling" in the category section means "This proposal will make gambling illegal", not "this proposal will allow people to bet on outlaws", which is what you're talking about here. It's a clever little bit of semantics, but it's either in the wrong category (since the strongest you ever seem to get is "we need to regulate gambling", rather than "we need to outlaw it") or in the silly jokes category along with the right to arm bears and the right to walk around with bare arms.


So it is legal to make a resolution that is a issue already?

I believe it is, based on the adoption of the Legalise Euthanasia resolution (16 Jan 2004).

It was a funny proposal though....ah well....

Enodia thank you for a fast answer. I have realized my error. I'm thinking of still entitling it "Outlaw Gambling" but to put it under legalize gambling. This is because Gambling will need to be legal in order to host Outlaw Gambling. I will also edit it with an extra passage saying gambling needs to be legalized for the above stated reason. Would that be acceptable?

Enodia thank you for a fast answer. I have realized my error. I'm thinking of still entitling it "Outlaw Gambling" but to put it under legalize gambling. This is because Gambling will need to be legal in order to host Outlaw Gambling. I will also edit it with an extra passage saying gambling needs to be legalized for the above stated reason. Would that be acceptable?
That should be clear. You might want to telegram it to me first just to make certain. I'll try to get back to you in 24-48hrs after you send it, but no guarantees.

Regarding the "proposals which mirror issues" business, proposals shouldn't be deleted because issues already exist covering them. Just try to make the proposal slightly different to the issue.
Of course, it's a valid reason to campaign against a proposal - especially if you're big on the idea of "this is an issue which can be left to the nations".

For those curious as to why this rule exists this way, the short answer is that a strict application of "thou shalt not make a proposal mirroring an issue" could well result in the UN becoming irrelevant. That and the fact that it gives the mods yet more work to do in checking proposals out.