[RULE CHANGE] Ideological Ban

[Quintessence of Dust]

Depends on the proposal text. Could still be a customizable field violation. Don't see how you could ban nations from calling themselves dictatorships but you probably could make them effectively unable to be dictatorships.

And don't call me Shirley.

What does this "Ideological Ban Rule" even do? Sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm not very indepth when it comes to GP

This is the WA, it has nothing to do with gameplay.

[Sauros]

What does this "Ideological Ban Rule" even do? Sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm not very indepth when it comes to GP and just wanted some clarification.
Thanks.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

What does this "Ideological Ban Rule" even do? Sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm not very indepth when it comes to GP and just wanted some clarification.
Thanks.

You can examine the text of the rule in the "Proposal Rules" link in my signature below. A forum search for the phrase "ideological ban" ought to yield some useful information too, albeit mixed with a lot of argument and commentary.

We propose to abolish the rule because it effectively only prevents the most blatant ideological bans, while appearing to do much more (thus confusing new players); and because the bulk of crappy proposals that it would render illegal are often illegal for other reasons anyway, so it's not very active in preventing spam or obviously terrible proposals from reaching the queue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

A forum search for the phrase "ideological ban" ought to yield some useful information too, albeit mixed with a lot of argument and commentary.

Note also that many of the relevant threads are linked at the bottom of the OP.

[Morover]

I agree with this rule change. Thanks, GenSec

[Bears Armed]

Here as promised is the last set of wording that I put together as a re-write to this rule:

Proposals can neither forbid nor require that member nations have systems of government based on any particular fundamental principle (e.g. democracy, hereditary rule, dictatorship, secular government, theocracy, feudalism); nor forbid or require that member nations must run their economies according to any particular basic ideology; nor forbid or require that member nations must have governments that have any specific pattern out of unitary, federal, or confederal; nor forbid or require that member nations must allow any particular number of political parties; nor forbid or require that attaining public office within member nations must be based on election, inheritance, or any other basic means of selection; nor bar people from holding or promoting any ideology; nor bar followers of any ideology from forming governments or otherwise holding public office; nor bar people from public office on the basis of profession or previous occupation.
Within those limits, however, proposals can require member nations' governments to tolerate and legalize things that those governments' members consider contrary to their favoured ideologies.

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.

Oh, is that working again? That wasn't the case on the last occasion that I tried to find something there, at least not through the computer system that I had access to at the time. So, you want me to spend however many hours (or days) that it would take me to wade through all the posts that the keywords I could think of for this would list in order to pin down the rulings you want me to cite, while you and Gruen have all that time to think of other arguments to use against my views on this?
You know what?
To HELL with it!
I've been feeling increasingly burnt-out by doing this job over recent months, to the extent that I haven't even been able to concentrate on drafting proposals for any of the last three resolutions still on my 'Hope To Do' list... I think that it's time to give up not only on GenSec membership but on the G.A. as a whole, before this feeling "poisons" all of NS for me.
So, abolish this rule... Abolish every rule that the Mods will let you get away with abolishing... Let the Assembly's "progressive" members legislate to turn it into some sort of "ideologically pure" circle-jerk.
I. NO. LONGER. CARE.

And now I'm off to post the Bears' IC departure from the WA (for which they have good reason, in my opinion, since -- although official policy for applying the 'Meta-gaming' rule has been that the proposal rules don't exist IC -- my personal canon is that the Bears wouldn't be so foolish as to join an organisation whose rules they can't find out about beforepaw so any rules that can be explained IC do exist IC, and remaining in an organisation that now claims the right to legislate on the basic nature of its member nations' governments is something that they would find unacceptable...), then I'll formally resign in the GenSec forum, and then I'll go and do something that I find more interesting than this.

[Bears Armed]

And now I'm off to post the Bears' IC departure from the WA (for which they have good reason, in my opinion, since -- although official policy for applying the 'Meta-gaming' rule has been that the proposal rules don't exist IC -- my personal canon is that the Bears wouldn't be so foolish as to join an organisation whose rules they can't find out about beforepaw so any rules that can be explained IC do exist IC, and remaining in an organisation that now claims the right to legislate on the basic nature of its member nations' governments is something that they would find unacceptable...), then I'll formally resign in the GenSec forum, and then I'll go and do something that I find more interesting than this.

OOC resignation from GenSec:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=519750

IC resignation from WA:
viewtopic.php?p=39671866#p39671866

[Quintessence of Dust]

Here as promised is the last set of wording that I put together as a re-write to this rule:

Proposals can neither forbid nor require that member nations have systems of government based on any particular fundamental principle (e.g. democracy, hereditary rule, dictatorship, secular government, theocracy, feudalism); nor forbid or require that member nations must run their economies according to any particular basic ideology; nor forbid or require that member nations must have governments that have any specific pattern out of unitary, federal, or confederal; nor forbid or require that member nations must allow any particular number of political parties; nor forbid or require that attaining public office within member nations must be based on election, inheritance, or any other basic means of selection; nor bar people from holding or promoting any ideology; nor bar followers of any ideology from forming governments or otherwise holding public office; nor bar people from public office on the basis of profession or previous occupation.
Within those limits, however, proposals can require member nations' governments to tolerate and legalize things that those governments' members consider contrary to their favoured ideologies.

An interesting attempt, but that wording vastly exceeds any articulation of the rule ever offered in the past.

Oh, is that working again? That wasn't the case on the last occasion that I tried to find something there, at least not through the computer system that I had access to at the time. So, you want me to spend however many hours (or days) that it would take me to wade through all the posts that the keywords I could think of for this would list in order to pin down the rulings you want me to cite, while you and Gruen have all that time to think of other arguments to use against my views on this?

Yes. If you want to argue from the authority of past precedent, you have to demonstrate that past precedent exists.

Abolish every rule that the Mods will let you get away with abolishing

Absolutely. This is what the pink power rangers should be doing on an ongoing basis. Other than core game rules (OSRS, plagiarism) the mods really shouldn't be having any say on what rules this game is played by, and that set of rules should be vastly simplified.

[Makko Oko]

And now I'm off to post the Bears' IC departure from the WA (for which they have good reason, in my opinion, since -- although official policy for applying the 'Meta-gaming' rule has been that the proposal rules don't exist IC -- my personal canon is that the Bears wouldn't be so foolish as to join an organisation whose rules they can't find out about beforepaw so any rules that can be explained IC do exist IC, and remaining in an organisation that now claims the right to legislate on the basic nature of its member nations' governments is something that they would find unacceptable...), then I'll formally resign in the GenSec forum, and then I'll go and do something that I find more interesting than this.

OOC resignation from GenSec:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=519750

IC resignation from WA:
viewtopic.php?p=39671866#p39671866

Wish I could read the first one but it's locked lol. Honestly, not to flare any tensions, but if you needed a break, I don't think you needed any permission to take one. Burn out happens because you work constantly, never taking a break or in some cases, never GETTING a break. But this, this is just a game, you could've taken as long of a break as you wanted. NationStates would not have burned down had you left for a couple of weeks on 'mental health wellness' which is quite important.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

IC resignation from WA:
viewtopic.php?p=39671866#p39671866

This took a turn I did not expect.

Although in hindsight... the heat coming off the debate in this thread was at times quite noticeable and uncomfortable.

The GA will be devastatingly less magical if the Bears are truly gone. Perhaps some developments in time will heal this wound and bring back their goodly presence - which has always been positive - to the otherwise foreboding, dank, and too-oft unwelcoming halls of festering snakepit.

Reasonable minds can differ about the value of certain rules, and what changes may mean for the future of the game. We may find, as the Bears fear I think, that the community soon tries to ban any government other than a defined iteration of democracy. I certainly hope not, given that my own IC form of government is a (hopefully benevolent) form of absolute dictatorship. And it is important to recognize that BA's concerns are not insignificant. We all know already how the community can exclude and marginalize certain disfavored minority viewpoints when it wants to. It is certainly possible that, if this rule change sparks a wave of absolutist legislation telling WA nations that they absolutely cannot have certain governments, people who like to RP those governments will feel unwelcome in the GA and simply drop out. That would be a shame.

It is my hope that, when the antagonism of this experience subsides, the Bears may yet find common course and reinvigoration to join those of us who will continue to resist an absolutist only-my-model-is-best outlook.

[Yeldan UN Mission]

I'm just a quiet old man who doesn't play Nationstates anymore, so it's hardly my place to be pointing out bad ideas, but this is a bad idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

There are a lot of arguments, persuasive ones, that suggest the IB Rule is already doing effectively nothing. If the WA is inundated with laws banning communism or capitalism or whatever, again, we can revisit the need for this rule. The goals of GenSec are to make the rules as streamlined as possible while making game play accessible. If removing the rule is a bad idea (and I'm on record as having opposed this up until I could see no possible alternative, so you know I'm skeptical), we can reverse course.

There is absolutely no need for dramatic flair here.

[Unibot III]

Yippie. This should have been done years ago.

Now time for reevaluating the Honest Mistake rule.

[Yelda]

Yippie. This should have been done years ago.

Oh you would say that!

[Unibot III]

Yippie. This should have been done years ago.

Oh you would say that!

Nothing if not predictable

[Tinfect]

Bears Armed's exit from the GA is the death knell for decent RP in the GA. Imperium Anglorum and Gruenburg have driven out one of the most dedicated and creative RPers and resolution authors y'all had here with sheer toxicity and bad-faith. I hope you're happy with what you've turned the GA into with this farce.

[Free Algerstonia]

not in the WA but i have had puppets in the past involved in it and i have to say that this is a very bad idea, at least from an IC perspective. what's stopping the WA from, say, banning communism, or banning capitalism, or banning fascism?

like, i personally have no problem banning the last two, but the WA is a multinational institution with nations subscribing to multiple ideologies. it makes as much sense as the organization-that-shall-not-be-named IRL banning cuba and vietnam for being socialist or the united states and germany for being capitalist.

This sums up my views, minus the pro-banning capitalism part.

[Quintessence of Dust]

This has nothing to do with RP.

BA is upset he can no longer use his mini-mod powers to delete proposals based on an alleged comment, made at least 14 years ago, which he is not willing or able to provide any evidence actually existed. Not accepting this kind of reasoning as a matter of blind faith is not obstinacy, it is just common sense.

[Trotterdam]

(Non-WA player who just randomly saw this thread in the sidebar...)

What is the difference between an ideology and an ideological practice?

There's a difference between saying "you're not allowed to own private property", and saying "you're not allowed to think you should have a right to own private property" (the latter corresponding roughly to what it means to "be a capitalist"). It makes sense to ban legislation on thoughtcrime.

Also, many "ideologies" are vague terms that can mean different things to different people, since they try to encapsulate an entire set of beliefs in a single catchy word. Is "capitalism" solely about the right to own private property, or does it include other tenets? It makes sense to require (under the "operative clause" rule) that resolutions should be precise about which practices they are requiring/banning, which means avoiding language that merely promotes a vaguely-defined ideology without specifying what it means in this context.

Both of these notions would be faithful to the spirit of the current policy (where legislating on ideological practices is permitted but legislating on ideologies is not) without saying anything as ambiguous and confusing as "you're not allowed to legislate on ideologies".

Of course, many nations - like me - don't like having any ideological practices dictated to us at all, but that's why we're not part of the WA. Having your ideology meddled with is an unavoidable consequence of joining the WA.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

(Non-WA player who just randomly saw this thread in the sidebar...)

What is the difference between an ideology and an ideological practice?

There's a difference between saying "you're not allowed to own private property", and saying "you're not allowed to think you should have a right to own private property" (the latter corresponding roughly to what it means to "be a capitalist"). It makes sense to ban legislation on thoughtcrime.

Also, many "ideologies" are vague terms that can mean different things to different people, since they try to encapsulate an entire set of beliefs in a single catchy word. Is "capitalism" solely about the right to own private property, or does it include other tenets? It makes sense to require (under the "operative clause" rule) that resolutions should be precise about which practices they are requiring/banning, which means avoiding language that merely promotes a vaguely-defined ideology without specifying what it means in this context.

Both of these notions would be faithful to the spirit of the current policy (where legislating on ideological practices is permitted but legislating on ideologies is not) without saying anything as ambiguous and confusing as "you're not allowed to legislate on ideologies".

Of course, many nations - like me - don't like having any ideological practices dictated to us at all, but that's why we're not part of the WA. Having your ideology meddled with is an unavoidable consequence of joining the WA.

This is exactly right. The WA really cannot ban my nation, practically or otherwise, from holding the "ideology" that society is best organized by having the will of a master race carried out by a class of entirely subjugated and enslaved minorities. But the WA can pass resolutions restricting my nation's actions, prohibiting forced servitude and demanding certain civil rights for all individuals. And has done so countless times.

The ideological ban rule really did not serve a practical purpose. Experienced players freely skirted it (mostly). New or intermediate players were often discouraged by it. It ended up killing many discussions prematurely when a minority (whether Mods or GenSec) determined, by appeal to the almighty gut, that a particular matter struck too close to the heart of an ideology. It's an unworkable standard. And as BA's attempt to rework it unfortunately illustrates, efforts to tighten grip on the reigns just leads to thrashing against the bridle (sorry for the pony idiom, I couldn't resist).

With all that said, BA's legitimate fear is that getting rid of the rule will encourage some players to more freely target disfavored minority ideologies (quickly glances at the increasingly aggressive abortion resolutions and then at the catholic nations), making the GA a less welcoming place and in turn causing existing people to drop out and new people to be disinterested in this aspect of the game. No one should pretend that couldn't happen, and it's something that must be guarded against.

But it's equally possible that freeing the GA from this highly subjective standard will cause members to rally around aspects of free national choice, as they have done many times (see the myriad resolutions protecting and promoting free expression or the one insisting that it is every member nation's right to decide for itself whether people may freely murder eachother with firearms). We must not maintain a rule that preemptively obstructs the forward progress of debate simply because we don't know where the debate may roam once the door is opened.

Trotterdam's last point is particularly salient. People who play in the WA generally and the GA in particular do so because they are at least willing to accept the idea of being bound to the collective will of the majority. Lets move toward embracing what that really means, and see what will follow.

Apologies to Separatist Peoples for the dramatics.

[The North Polish Union]

A deeply regrettable decision, and one that I expresssed disapproval for earlier in the year when it came up.

If the ideological ban rule was a toothless as the majority suggests, there is little reason to take the ban off the books. If, as is suggested, the ideological ban rule doesn't apply to practices associated with ideologies, there is little reason to overturn the rule because nearly every conceivable resolution is going to deal with practice, rather than "ideology" in the abstract, in order to have an operative clause.

Under such a reading, the hypothetical "Ban Communism" resolution would've been legal itself as long as it didn't ban the existence of the concept of communism. This cannot be a reasonable reading of the rule, as resolutions such as "Ban Communism" were the reason for the ideological ban rule in the first place, and I cannot be led to believe that all of these would've eliminated the existence of communism as a concept wholesale and made any communists in WA member states guilty of thought-crime against the WA.

Clearly some other reading is required, and this would mean that the ideological ban rule actually has teeth, and as BA notes these teeth may possibly be quite unpleasant for those who may wish to create a wholly homogeneous Assembly consisting of whatever the WA's dominant ideology happens to be right now. And yet the majority is content to dismiss all such proposed alternative readings as being too complicated, and then using that perceived excess of complexity as ground for eliminating the rule.

In short, the majority cannot decide on what the ideological ban rule is. It is both too weak and too restrictive, too simplistic and too complicated, it is simultaneously easy to bypass and yet gives rise to unpredictable tests. Rather than attempt to reconcile these contradictions in their own viewpoint, the majority has simply preferred to eliminate the contradiction by abolishing the rule. As straightforward as this may seem at first glance, it must be noted that Alexander's solution to the Gordian Knot is not especially useful if one wishes to tie something down again.

Rather than maintain clear and long-established standards, the majority turns over a question that could potentially become whether in the future nations will be allowed to have their own ideology at all to the WA voters at large. One wonders why they do not do the same for the remaining rules as well. To do so would certainly avoid the evil of "unduly burdening new players".

[Yelda]

The new Imperium Anglorum/Gruenburg/Unibot axis is going to be amazing!

I might have to bring back 0rville!

[Separatist Peoples]

Apologies to Separatist Peoples for the dramatics.

Shame on you. This kind of sensible analysis, which I've come to expect from you, was not nearly reasoned and measured in tone. Keep it down over there.

[Sanctaria]

This is a sensible move. I think the rule was fairly unevenly applied - the WA passed various flavours of resolutions granting fundamental rights over the years that, by virtue of their application, would have violated a nation's freedom to run a particular ideological bent free from WA interference.

[Fachumonn]

What does this "Ideological Ban Rule" even do? Sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm not very indepth when it comes to GP

This is the WA, it has nothing to do with gameplay.

Not entirely true, I'd like to point out. It seems many mainstay GA members neglect the fact that there is in fact another chamber...