[RULE CHANGE] Ideological Ban

[Bears Armed]

I tried to come up with revised wording for the rule that would clarify its limits, but other GenSec members dismissed these attempts as too complicated.

I think it would be acceptable to release proposed revisions, if you feel doing so would clarify or otherwise help in discussion of alternatives to the majority's proposed recision.

Okay, 'll go through the versions that I suggested before at some point in the next 2-3 days and put together as coherent a "final" one as I can to post here.

I'm not sure how that figures, there's no basis in the rules for "too strong for Strong".

Concurred. Similarly, there does not exist a "too mild for Mild".

There's the general rule that proposals' designated strengths must be appropriate to their actual contents; there's precedent of Mods telling wannabee authors in the past that even 'Mild' has a lower threshold (in one case giving the rather memorable example that "a proposal only affecting left-handed redheads named Colin" would be ruled aa illegal on that basis); and there's the 'Operative Clause' rule that effectively weeds out some of the "too mild" efforts.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I thought the whole point of having the pink power rangers was that "mod precedent" no longer applied?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Concurred. Similarly, there does not exist a "too mild for Mild".

There's the general rule that proposals' designated strengths must be appropriate to their actual contents; there's precedent of Mods telling wannabee authors in the past that even 'Mild' has a lower threshold (in one case giving the rather memorable example that "a proposal only affecting left-handed redheads named Colin" would be ruled aa illegal on that basis); and there's the 'Operative Clause' rule that effectively weeds out some of the "too mild" efforts.

As always, appeals to authorities require citation of those authorities. Also importantly, I agree with Gruen above: moderator precedent can and must be relied upon only to the extent that it can self-justify; it receives no deference beyond that given to any other normal stakeholder. Moreover, the jurisprudence on Category and Strength are necessarily interrelated. The more recent precedent on how categories are now to be chosen on a deferential basis applying a plausibility standard takes priority.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

There's the general rule that proposals' designated strengths must be appropriate to their actual contents; there's precedent of Mods telling wannabee authors in the past that even 'Mild' has a lower threshold (in one case giving the rather memorable example that "a proposal only affecting left-handed redheads named Colin" would be ruled aa illegal on that basis); and there's the 'Operative Clause' rule that effectively weeds out some of the "too mild" efforts.

As always, appeals to authorities require citation of those authorities. Also importantly, I agree with Gruen above: moderator precedent can and must be relied upon only to the extent that it can self-justify; it receives no deference beyond that given to any other normal stakeholder. Moreover, the jurisprudence on Category and Strength are necessarily interrelated. The more recent precedent on how categories are now to be chosen on a deferential basis applying a plausibility standard takes priority.

Assuming there are unresolved questions about the scope of the “Category/Strength” rule you can reach those questions in due course. Without the Ideological Ban rule.

[Bears Armed]

As always, appeals to authorities require citation of those authorities.

Are you saying that precedents set on the Jolt forum should just be forgotten, now that that site is no longer available? Because their continued relevance definitely was the policy back when GenSec was created, and demonstrated knowledge of the existing precedents was one of the factors listed as desirable when nominations for the initial members were being sought... and I don't recall any vote by GenSec as a whole to change that policy.

I thought the whole point of having the pink power rangers was that "mod precedent" no longer applied?

No, it was so that the mods didn't have to use their time checking the submitted proposals. The stated policy when GenSec was established was that we would still consider Modly precedents, but would decide on whether or not to continue applying those as & when the question arose for them.
In fact, I've found an old post to cite that discusses this:

That process looks reasonably straightforward.

If I can make two suggestions:
1. Once you start making rulings, make an archive of them. Like the mods' "rulings repository", except, actually up to date and used. The rulings repository also suffered because there were so many rulings not in it, whereas if you guys start from day 1, it'll be much easier to keep it up to date.
2. Ignore the moderator ruling banning precedents from the Jolt era. Given you're considering all previous precedents to be less-than-binding ("persuasive" was the phrase previously used), it doesn't matter if they're mixed in, and given you're putting responsibility on players to find evidence of previous precedents, those able to link to the Jolt archives can do so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As always, appeals to authorities require citation of those authorities.

Are you saying that precedents set on the Jolt forum should just be forgotten, now that that site is no longer available? Because their continued relevance definitely was the policy back when GenSec was created, and demonstrated knowledge of the existing precedents was one of the factors listed as desirable when nominations for the initial members were being sought... and I don't recall any vote by GenSec as a whole to change that policy.

No, I'm saying that if you are going to say "this is what the moderators said", you should provide evidence that moderators said it. Otherwise, it falls into the lurid problem that Gruen described:

I heard Max had changed his mind about that and had got "I want to abolish the ideological ban rule" tattooed on a sensitive part of his anatomy.

I can't provide any proof for this, of course, or rather, I can provide exactly the same amount of my evidence for my claim as you can for yours.

Of course, that also ignores the fact that we do have the Jolt forum archives, a page of which I already cited in this very thread when making a claim about a lack of discussion at the rule's inception.

I thought the whole point of having the pink power rangers was that "mod precedent" no longer applied?

No, it was so that the mods didn't have to use their time checking the submitted proposals. The stated policy when GenSec was established was that we would still consider Modly precedents, but would decide on whether or not to continue applying those as & when the question arose for them.
In fact, I've found an old post to cite that discusses this:

That process looks reasonably straightforward.

If I can make two suggestions:
1. Once you start making rulings, make an archive of them. Like the mods' "rulings repository", except, actually up to date and used. The rulings repository also suffered because there were so many rulings not in it, whereas if you guys start from day 1, it'll be much easier to keep it up to date.
2. Ignore the moderator ruling banning precedents from the Jolt era. Given you're considering all previous precedents to be less-than-binding ("persuasive" was the phrase previously used), it doesn't matter if they're mixed in, and given you're putting responsibility on players to find evidence of previous precedents, those able to link to the Jolt archives can do so.

"Persuasive" means a position in between "binding" (but not actually) GA Secretariat opinions and everything else. This is what Gruen alluded to in "less-than-binding". What that means is that there is some deference. Inasmuch as Secretariat operates in basically a whole step below that of some kind of intermediate appellate "court", precedents we call "binding" are in fact nothing of the sort and are themselves defeasible after applying a balancing test between inaction and upsetting existing expectations. The limits of "binding" deference must imply that "persuasive" deference is easily defeasible.

Regardless, my own position is that a moderator decision must be read not for its result, but on the basis of how persuasive it actually is. In the case of Kryo's GA 2-related ideological ban ruling and bare conclusory assertions, that means "not persuasive at all". Unsupported assertions that moderators ruled one way or the other are not sufficient to establish "persuasive" deference, the existence of the decision, or even the existence of the circumstances surrounding the matter. For a precedent to be applied, we must have three elements: the decision, the reasoning, and the facts. A precedent without any one is a nonsense.

[Chicoutimi and Montreal]

IMO the biggest problem with this entire topic is how we define ideology.

How I view it, an ideology is an idea (duh), the belief in a way of life that should be enforced, by violence or peace, to a political entity via political means to the common folk. It impacts directly the life of the citizens, directly or indirectly, albeit by economic beliefs (like seizing the means of production to give them back to the workers, which theoretically (and I say theoretically) means that the workers are the owners, and thuss that there being no one gaining moneys on their back and the classes being kinda annihilated to one, that the workers have the power, while capitalism is the exact opposite economic belief.

In another way, ecology is also an ideology, which unlike communism or capitalism, is more of a cultural and societal belief (ecology being kinda the same to capitalism or neutral on an economic spectrum).

Well, all this nonsense to say that as the name involves, an ideology could be defined as a belief in a way of life for the betterment of mankind, as I doubt any political party (example a Conservative vs a social-democrat one) would say their idea is bat for the common folks as for the future of mankind, so it relies to a certain degree on religion and the form of government.

(Imagine a triangle. A recent dictator that took power install a totalitarian dictatorship and is now free to follow its political agenda (for this example will be communism) which lead to atheism for the religion, as it is denied by the ideology.

Now take a fascist uprising which overthrow the democratic government to put a provisionally government which may or may not become a dictatorship. Following their agenda, secularism will be impacted, directly or indirectly, which impact the religion. It could be the same from a religious group but 2 examples are enough I think.

So to conclude this probably vague and confused 1:30 am text, an ideology could be fldefined as a belief (societal belief) in a way society should be ran to ensure prosperity and continuity of said society (which according to said belief is better than any other belief for the future and the current situation of the random citizen) for, I repeat myself, the betterment of mankind, and as a result, is closely connected to religion/religious beliefs and the form of government/political beliefs so yes, I think the Ideological Ban rule should be changed in a way as WA legislations enforcing free elections may directly or indirectly forbid some ideologies, which sucks from an IC POV, as playing as a totalitarian dictatorship and being enforced free elections may ruin said played nation's rp and scrap its ideology.

I ain't no politician nor sociologist so I might be saying a lot of dumb things, my apologies.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

The WA is invasive enough. There's been a worrying trend towards everything in the world being used as a political tool recently, & I want to fight that even in small examples like this.

I disagree, since the WA has to intervene ICly to establish important international laws and opinions on nations/regions that are crucial to keeping the multiverse sane or crucial for recognizing nations/regions with good or bad reputations. For example, if the GA did not intervene in the civil rights category, who will? If national law is made on civil rights, people will still violate that law regardless, yet are less likely to violate international law on civil rights (maybe). And OOCly, the WA staff has to maintain the OOC laws for proposals, otherwise there would be thousands of low-quality and possibly offensive resolutions and the WA would be an anarchic mess.

TLDR: The WA can be considered invasive, but if so, it’s for good reasons ICly and OOCly

[Separatist Peoples]

I think the WA has outlawed many forms of oppression, there's a whole category for it

And there are little to no truly fascist WA nations because of it. I see no purpose for the lifting of this ban when unwanted ideologies are already being indirectly phased out by passed resolutions.

The rules do not serve political goals. The rules serve to facilitate playing the game. Whether fascism is or is not good is absolutely irrelevant to the rules.

[BEEstreetz]

Conditional support.
Just use an ''Annex I'' for Nazism and allow any other.

[Quintessence of Dust]

As always, appeals to authorities require citation of those authorities.

Are you saying that precedents set on the Jolt forum should just be forgotten, now that that site is no longer available? Because their continued relevance definitely was the policy back when GenSec was created, and demonstrated knowledge of the existing precedents was one of the factors listed as desirable when nominations for the initial members were being sought... and I don't recall any vote by GenSec as a whole to change that policy.

I thought the whole point of having the pink power rangers was that "mod precedent" no longer applied?

No, it was so that the mods didn't have to use their time checking the submitted proposals. The stated policy when GenSec was established was that we would still consider Modly precedents, but would decide on whether or not to continue applying those as & when the question arose for them.
In fact, I've found an old post to cite that discusses this:

That process looks reasonably straightforward.

If I can make two suggestions:
1. Once you start making rulings, make an archive of them. Like the mods' "rulings repository", except, actually up to date and used. The rulings repository also suffered because there were so many rulings not in it, whereas if you guys start from day 1, it'll be much easier to keep it up to date.
2. Ignore the moderator ruling banning precedents from the Jolt era. Given you're considering all previous precedents to be less-than-binding ("persuasive" was the phrase previously used), it doesn't matter if they're mixed in, and given you're putting responsibility on players to find evidence of previous precedents, those able to link to the Jolt archives can do so.

But you haven't done that. You haven't supplied links/screenshots to old rulings/discussions. You've just mentioned the idea that you heard the mods discussing something once with zero proof or demonstration of why that precedent should continue.

I was once standing next to Fris at the urinals and I heard him mention he didn't find that a very persuasive way of arguing.

[Separatist Peoples]

I honestly don't know whether I'd support this or not. The rule is a massive fucking pain in the ass and in that sense I'd be glad to be rid of it. Even so, I'm not sure whether it's actually a lesser evil compared to the massive potential pains in the ass that a lack of the rule allows for.

We can always bring it back as needed.

[Wallenburg]

I honestly don't know whether I'd support this or not. The rule is a massive fucking pain in the ass and in that sense I'd be glad to be rid of it. Even so, I'm not sure whether it's actually a lesser evil compared to the massive potential pains in the ass that a lack of the rule allows for.

We can always bring it back as needed.

I think we'd be better off planning for a long-term decision rather than vacillating on the existence of the rule on an "as needed" basis.

[Separatist Peoples]

We can always bring it back as needed.

I think we'd be better off planning for a long-term decision rather than vacillating on the existence of the rule on an "as needed" basis.

Sure, but if the doomsayers are right and this rule opens a pandora's box of terrible proposals that hurt the game play experience, it's not like we can't reverse course. It's unlikely to happen, but given the concerns raised, a worthwhile reminder.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Good thing I left a year ago lol WA majors enforcing their values on everyone instance #53537483

[Separatist Peoples]

Good thing I left a year ago lol WA majors enforcing their values on everyone instance #53537483

This is an apolitical rule change requested by the community. With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Yusufzai Swat]

Could this mean it could be illegal for a state to have an official religion even if they allow and promote freedom for other religions?

[Quintessence of Dust]

Could this mean it could be illegal for a state to have an official religion even if they allow and promote freedom for other religions?

If a resolution passed saying so, yes.

And before anyone starts bringing up Rights and Duties, a reminder that the provisions of that resolution give national rights free from the interference of any other NationState. The WA isn't a NationState.

[The Civitas Islands]

My only concern is the power this gives the General Assembly over ideologies which are favored by many players, but which are not popular by the WA majority.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Good thing I left a year ago lol WA majors enforcing their values on everyone instance #53537483

I’ll just quote my response to someone who made a similar remark:

The WA is invasive enough. There's been a worrying trend towards everything in the world being used as a political tool recently, & I want to fight that even in small examples like this.

I disagree, since the WA has to intervene ICly to establish important international laws and opinions on nations/regions that are crucial to keeping the multiverse sane or crucial for recognizing nations/regions with good or bad reputations. For example, if the GA did not intervene in the civil rights category, who will? If national law is made on civil rights, people will still violate that law regardless, yet are less likely to violate international law on civil rights (maybe). And OOCly, the WA staff has to maintain the OOC laws for proposals, otherwise there would be thousands of low-quality and possibly offensive resolutions and the WA would be an anarchic mess.

TLDR: The WA can be considered invasive, but if so, it’s for good reasons ICly and OOCly

[Quintessence of Dust]

My only concern is the power this gives the General Assembly over ideologies which are favored by many players, but which are not popular by the WA majority.

The WA has always had that power, though. And it's not a particularly strong power given nations can leave the WA at their will with zero consequences.

[The Civitas Islands]

My only concern is the power this gives the General Assembly over ideologies which are favored by many players, but which are not popular by the WA majority.

The WA has always had that power, though. And it's not a particularly strong power given nations can leave the WA at their will with zero consequences.

I would not say zero consequences. Membership in the World Assembly is a huge part of nationstates. If used wrongly, this power could alienate many players roleplaying as unpopular ideologies.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Let's say you're roleplaying as a fascist. You already have to grant freedom of speech and assembly, have to refrain from torture and arbitrary arrest, can't abuse psychiatric laws to jail dissidents or restrict the flow of information, have to allow public protest and permit emigration... how does this rule change really make any substantive change?

Besides, the WA has already passed laws that have alienated those holding unpopular or minority opinions, many times (no more obviously than in the interminable debates over abortion).

This rule change merely formalizes what is already basically the case anyway and removes a useless distinction between what the WA's powers are on paper and in reality.

[Attempted Socialism]

Currently the ideological ban-rule is so watered down, it can basically only protect against resolutions outlawing an ideology by name, I don't agree with the watering-down, but I acknowledge that it is current application of the rule. Given the choice between a rule that, effectively, does nothing except lead to confusion, and simply removing the rule, I know which is better. At the same time I am not exactly thrilled that GenSec rulings have watered down the rule to the point where it already does nothing -- though I grant the argument that it's hard for GenSec to fairly rule which parts of an ideology are protected, and which ideologies are real compared to joke ideologies. The process with gradual watering down has not been pretty, though. I don't mean to imply that any GenSec member has laid it out as a plan, but it does look like some members have been against the rule for a long time, and has continuously argued for a more and more selective reading of "ideology", "outlaw", etc., which has slowly won, to the point where they can now legitimately claim that the rule cannot be applied to any resolution except one that bans specific ideologies by name, See, e.g., the legality challenge over PRT, as linked in the OP. Since at least 2017 the rulings have come back that the ideology ban only protects the name of an ideology, and this has been the status quo for so long that proponents of this reading can now argue (With some right, even!) that they're simply updating the language to fit long-term jurisprudence.

[Cappedore]

Surely this makes proposals such as 'Ban Dictatorships' legal?