NationStates

Fachumonn wrote:

Quintessence of Dust wrote: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...

You don't want to get QoD started on the chamber-that-shall-not-be-named (well, can't be named)

Honeydewistania wrote:

Fachumonn wrote: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...

You don't want to get QoD started on the chamber-that-shall-not-be-named (well, can't be named)

Duly noted.

While I am not thrilled, I cannot come up with any sound reason to keep a rule that (1)GenSec flatly admits they have less than zero interest in enforcing, (2) cannot possibly be enforced in an objective and even manner, and (3) would essentially prohibit the GA from passing any resolution at all if any real attempt was made at enforcement in an objective and even manner.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:While I am not thrilled, I cannot come up with any sound reason to keep a rule that (1)GenSec flatly admits they have less than zero interest in enforcing, (2) cannot possibly be enforced in an objective and even manner, and (3) would essentially prohibit the GA from passing any resolution at all if any real attempt was made at enforcement in an objective and even manner.

Afraid I'll have to ditto this. Not that my opinion matters, as I'm a wholly irrelevant and frankly expendable side character at the best of times, but if this assembly can already prohibit practices like abortion and ritual sacrifice then I see no reason it couldn't outright ban communism or statism or liberalism or whatever darned well ism the majority doesn't like at the time. Heck, it could ban anti-GA-ism ... or even GA-ism if it so wished. Might be a worthwhile idea for someone to work on drafting for next april fools day

In my view this would present a whole host of issues best neatly avoided by leaving the rule in place. I vote for what we have now, rule in the books with little to no enforcement

So, what would this proposal entail (i.e.) ramifications of this proposal leading to a watershed/domino effect?

Am against the Rule Change

main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process

OOC: Removing this will likely lead to domination of the World Assembly by communist proposals from the over-WA populated bloc known as "NSLeft". Literally the only counterweight would be WALL, because of the North Pacific. I don't see them going against the NSLeft bloc soon.

The last two posters here clearly have no idea how impossible ideological proposals passing would be.

So.. fascism will be allowed?

Hegvanigson wrote:So.. fascism will be allowed?

It's not outlawed by the WA as of current, but ideological proposals have never actually passed, so... I doubt there would be any ban at all in the WA.

Untecna wrote:

Hegvanigson wrote:So.. fascism will be allowed?

It's not outlawed by the WA as of current, but ideological proposals have never actually passed, so... I doubt there would be any ban at all in the WA.

This is a very bad argument. "Ideological proposals", whatever the hell that means, have never passed because they are illegal, not because they are unpopular. To cite the history of the WA, throughout which they have been illegal, as evidence for their lack of viability in a future legal setting is to speculate based on nothing but your own personal feelings about them.

Wallenburg wrote:

Untecna wrote:It's not outlawed by the WA as of current, but ideological proposals have never actually passed, so... I doubt there would be any ban at all in the WA.

This is a very bad argument. "Ideological proposals", whatever the hell that means, have never passed because they are illegal, not because they are unpopular. To cite the history of the WA, throughout which they have been illegal, as evidence for their lack of viability in a future legal setting is to speculate based on nothing but your own personal feelings about them.

"Ideological proposal" refers here to any proposal that involves banning ideologies or enforcing ideologies. Pretty simple meaning.

I never explicitly stated that they were not unpopular, and wherever you're getting that from, I'd like to know. Anyway, the fact that they are illegal now and often poorly made, as well as being first attempts by newbies, is a combination of why they have not been passed now and likely will not pass in the future.

If you look at the proposals that were stopped at this rule, loads were terribly written and by general newbies in the WA, who didn't know any better.

I'm speculating based on what actually pops out of this tiny area of the WA, not my "feelings" about said proposals.

Untecna wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:This is a very bad argument. "Ideological proposals", whatever the hell that means, have never passed because they are illegal, not because they are unpopular. To cite the history of the WA, throughout which they have been illegal, as evidence for their lack of viability in a future legal setting is to speculate based on nothing but your own personal feelings about them.

I never explicitly stated that they were not unpopular, and wherever you're getting that from, I'd like to know.

From the plain fact that unpopularity is the only possible argument for the future unviability of an entire category of legal proposals.

Anyway, the fact that they are illegal now and often poorly made, as well as being first attempts by newbies, is a combination of why they have not been passed now and likely will not pass in the future.

If you look at the proposals that were stopped at this rule, loads were terribly written and by general newbies in the WA, who didn't know any better.

This is the very bad argument that I am criticizing. That they are illegal now does not mean they will fail when they are legal. That's just an absurd argument. Furthermore, that they are often poorly made by inexperienced authors is a product of their current categorical illegality; experienced authors will not put great effort into something that is obviously illegal. Once the illegality vanishes, the behaviors that result from it will as well.

I'm speculating based on what actually pops out of this tiny area of the WA, not my "feelings" about said proposals.

I was wrong that your claims were drawn solely from your feelings. They are, as it turns out, also drawn from a failure to recognize that the conditions that exist under one ruleset are not the same that will exist under a different ruleset.

Untecna wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:This is a very bad argument. "Ideological proposals", whatever the hell that means, have never passed because they are illegal, not because they are unpopular. To cite the history of the WA, throughout which they have been illegal, as evidence for their lack of viability in a future legal setting is to speculate based on nothing but your own personal feelings about them.

"Ideological proposal" refers here to any proposal that involves banning ideologies or enforcing ideologies. Pretty simple meaning.

What's an ideology?

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote: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:

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote: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

Such as? IC’ly we left because of that conversion therapy proposal banning it outright because of said therapy being “ineffective” and “clearly anti-scientific” which is intrusive because there is plenty of FT or PMT nations where this is technologically feasible.

And yes, people are not less likely to violate international law.