[RULE CHANGE] Ideological Ban

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You say that Ban Dictatorships is not "currently illegal." Assuming that GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act" did not exist, why would a proposal that reads

The World Assembly hereby requires all member states to hold elections for public office on the national level.

be legal - even under the current ruleset, which contains Ideological Ban - and why? How about Hannasea's proposed rewrite of Protecting the Right to Vote?

I think a better question is, "What would be the advantage to the game as a whole for such proposals to be illegal?" As things stand, we have a rule that cannot effectively do more than prohibit the most mindless of over-simplified bans, because when someone proposes to skirt the line, it causes a big tizzy. The tizzy ensues because people can make good faith arguments that such and so practice is essential to the ideology of Oligarchical Collectivism as practiced by the Carvourian Imperium of Omicron Convenience V, and banning it is violating the IB rule.

This requires GenSec to make interpretive findings that frankly we think are beyond the proper scope of our duties, analogous to jumping in and asserting real-life expert judgment for proposals dealing with allegations of fact (claims about abortion side effects being the electrified rail that prompted us to decide to steer clear of all such judgments). And all of this makes the game that much harder to learn for new players: "Wait, you have a No Ideological Ban rule, but there are protections for private property including intellectual property, so you've already banned communism, so WTF???"

Abolishing the IB rule means we stick to the limit of our charter, which is to deal with questions about the rules of the game, not make grand philosophical statements about which ideology says what about what.

So I want to ask, with that in mind, what is really the problem with getting rid of this rule whose major discernable effect is to embroil the community in silly fights while elevating GenSec far closer to a cabal of mullahs or cardinals than we are comfortable with (or than the community, I think, wants us to be)?

And to return to my original point, phrased without examples: Will the abolition of Ideological Ban allow for the WA to pass a full ban on any "religious, political or economic ideolog[y]?"

Assuming certain hoops (inter alia targeting governments rather than individuals, non-contradiction of any existing protections of specific practices, etc.) are jumped through, yes. But I have to quote Walter Sobchak: "What exactly is the problem here?" Say someone wants to ban capitalism (ooh ooh me me me!): In order to make it worth trying to pass, the resolution would have to list specific practices that comprise that ideology, which means voters have to actually agree that all of these things are evils that need prohibition. And then there's the matter of making the whole thing stick, in the face of creative compliance. Shit, even the Soviet Union held regular elections - holding elections isn't enough to make a dictatorship non-dictatorial.

One other point I'll make: usually the kind of one-liners you're concerned about have other things wrong with them and don't make it to approval before being ruled illegal anyway.

So TL;dr - the advantages of abolishing the IB rule far outweigh the inconvenience of the community having to grapple with the occasional "Durr theocracy sucks!!!!1!!111!1one" proposal. Hence we believe it ought to go.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

I support the decision of GenSec to remove the Ideological Ban rule because yes.

As for the debate on the definition of ideology and if it is associated with democracy, I’m going to say that democracy is indeed not an ‘ideology’. Now look, I’m more of a science person, not a politics professional, so I’m just pulling the following definitions from Merriam-Webster. An ideology is defined as “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture”, whereas democracy is defined in simple terms as “government by the people”. Drawing from these definitions, I do not think that a government type is technically a ‘manner of thinking’, and is more so a method of ruling a nation by way of using a manner of thinking.

TLDR: Because government type ≠ manner of thinking, democracy ≠ ideology

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I would be very happy to see this change. The ideological ban rule serves no good purpose. It frustrates debate about legitimate things which should be discussed by an international lawmaking body.

I understand the game mechanics argument for the rule's underpinning (e.g. 'How come Nationstates World Census still recognizes my nation to be a psychotic dictatorship after the WA passed the "Antipsychotic Medication for Leadership Act"). We long ago figured out how to deal with that sort of thing in other contexts. The players can and should work those matters out through roleplay, if they wish.

[Makko Oko]

Abolishing the IB rule means we stick to the limit of our charter, which is to deal with questions about the rules of the game, not make grand philosophical statements about which ideology says what about what.

Alright now, let's get some context. Why was this ban put forth in the first place? What was the original aim when this ban was considered and put into place. To be frank, if this is something from the era of the first 50 WA resolutions, then I'll tell you right now, from what I've seen, a lot of people don't like to mess with that kind of stuff, even though some of it may be downright stupid lol (or just out of date). People say things such as 'the old way of thinking is not something we can understand unless we were there at the time of its passing', which frankly, is a fair comment to make, but if that is a fair comment, and what I said turns out to be true, then what thinking spurred this on, and what makes us think we can overturn it?

[Quintessence of Dust]

Thank you for taking this up. I was not surprised that BA was the dissenter but I would still be curious to see his dissent as it's only fair there is debate on both sides.

Alright now, let's get some context. Why was this ban put forth in the first place? What was the original aim when this ban was considered and put into place. To be frank, if this is something from the era of the first 50 WA resolutions

The ideological ban rule predates the first 50 WA resolutions by several years.

Here's what we have from when the rule was drafted in 2005; the first half of the quote is Hack quoting Goobergunchia, everything from "Fair enough" on is Hack's response.

So the definition of "ideology" is up to mod interpretation. I don't think Hack ever jotted down what that interpretation was (Kryo did but it was mistaken for a particularly rough draft of one of the Zodiac Killer's more incoherent letters), and if they did, didn't pass it on to the non-mods we have now. The rules being basically, whatever Hack and Fris thought, actually worked pretty well in 2005 but it was a very different game environment. That kind of interpretive vacuum isn't viable now.

a lot of people don't like to mess with that kind of stuff, even though some of it may be downright stupid lol (or just out of date). People say things such as 'the old way of thinking is not something we can understand unless we were there at the time of its passing', which frankly, is a fair comment to make, but if that is a fair comment, and what I said turns out to be true, then what thinking spurred this on, and what makes us think we can overturn it?

Those people are wrong.

Neither of those proposals are currently illegal.

The LPIA controversy is well-known and - perhaps - the forebear of the ongoing efforts to abolish Ideological Ban.

Not on my part, I've never even heard of that proposal. Taking a glance at it now I am 100% certain it would be a game mechanics violation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why was this ban put forth in the first place? What was the original aim when this ban was considered and put into place. To be frank, if this is something from the era of the first 50 WA resolutions, then I'll tell you right now, from what I've seen, a lot of people don't like to mess with that kind of stuff, even though some of it may be downright stupid lol (or just out of date). People say things such as 'the old way of thinking is not something we can understand unless we were there at the time of its passing', which frankly, is a fair comment to make, but if that is a fair comment, and what I said turns out to be true, then what thinking spurred this on, and what makes us think we can overturn it?

The moderators at the time didn't like spammy one-line proposals "The WA bans capitalism" etc and therefore created a rule to prohibit them. That's it. Gruenberg (as Quintessence of Dust) (3 Feb 2022) viewtopic.php?p=39334669#p39334669. The rule is not original to the NS United Nations; it was introduced in a rules reform in March 2005. https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1233/405360 (note that Jolt archive's HTTPS certificate is expired; your browser may block you from visiting it).

[Quintessence of Dust]

Yeah, that's why I took a rather ugly screenshot. Ermarian's archive is useful but not really linkable in its current form.

[Makko Oko]

Why was this ban put forth in the first place? What was the original aim when this ban was considered and put into place. To be frank, if this is something from the era of the first 50 WA resolutions, then I'll tell you right now, from what I've seen, a lot of people don't like to mess with that kind of stuff, even though some of it may be downright stupid lol (or just out of date). People say things such as 'the old way of thinking is not something we can understand unless we were there at the time of its passing', which frankly, is a fair comment to make, but if that is a fair comment, and what I said turns out to be true, then what thinking spurred this on, and what makes us think we can overturn it?

The moderators at the time didn't like spammy one-line proposals "The WA bans capitalism" etc and therefore created a rule to prohibit them. That's it. Gruenberg (as Quintessence of Dust) (3 Feb 2022) viewtopic.php?p=39334669#p39334669. The rule is not original to the NS United Nations; it was introduced in a rules reform in March 2005. https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1233/405360 (note that Jolt archive's HTTPS certificate is expired; your browser may block you from visiting it).

Okay...and you want to lift said ban...why exactly? If it made proposals like that 'illegal' in a sense, then why would you want to make them legal again? Plus, frankly, I don't see what spam and badly made proposals have to do with ideology.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Okay...and you want to lift said ban...why exactly? If it made proposals like that 'illegal' in a sense, then why would you want to make them legal again? Plus, frankly, I don't see what spam and badly made proposals have to do with ideology.

I mean, we've given a couple of explanations by this point...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yeah, that's why I took a rather ugly screenshot. Ermarian's archive is useful but not really linkable in its current form.

I have a PDF archive copy that I search though (for a period I think the Jolt archive went down; when it went back up again I saved a few threads). As an aside, Goob's remark in that thread is also seemingly the only public feedback given at the inception of the rule.

Plus, frankly, I don't see what spam and badly made proposals have to do with ideology.

I was to say something like SL above as a response to the whole thing, but seeing that post, I'll instead just comment on this point: Yea, I don't see the connection either. That's why the justification at the rule's inception was inchoate. This goes against your appeal to "ancestral wisdom". We know what the "ancestral wisdom" was; it is not convincing.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

The moderators at the time didn't like spammy one-line proposals "The WA bans capitalism" etc and therefore created a rule to prohibit them. That's it. Gruenberg (as Quintessence of Dust) (3 Feb 2022) viewtopic.php?p=39334669#p39334669. The rule is not original to the NS United Nations; it was introduced in a rules reform in March 2005. https://nationstates.ermarian.net/jolt/1233/405360 (note that Jolt archive's HTTPS certificate is expired; your browser may block you from visiting it).

Okay...and you want to lift said ban...why exactly? If it made proposals like that 'illegal' in a sense, then why would you want to make them legal again? Plus, frankly, I don't see what spam and badly made proposals have to do with ideology.

I hypothesize that it is an indirect relationship. The performance of a resolution can impact how an ideology is presented to member nations, so if the proposal is poorly-written or spam, then member nations may think the the ideology is not good. Not sure if that is correct, but that is just a hypothesis.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

People say things such as 'the old way of thinking is not something we can understand unless we were there at the time of its passing', which frankly, is a fair comment to make, but if that is a fair comment, and what I said turns out to be true, then what thinking spurred this on, and what makes us think we can overturn it?

you want to lift said ban...why exactly? If it made proposals like that 'illegal' in a sense, then why would you want to make them legal again? Plus, frankly, I don't see what spam and badly made proposals have to do with ideology.

It's not enough that the rules might have made sense to someone at some point. The rules need to make sense to the players now. The game has changed and evolved with new features and new players. The rules tend to be slower to catch up.

What benefit do we get from the ideological ban rule? We get a filibuster that prevents further debate on certain topics. Which topics? No one really knows; it depends on the success of the people debating at the time the question arises.

So can anyone think of something good we are getting now out of the rule? Because if you really want to save it, you must know what the good reason for it is.

If one-line "BAN Capitolizm" proposals start getting real bad, we can always revisit the rule.

[Comfed]

If one-line "BAN Capitolizm" proposals start getting real bad, we can always revisit the rule.

Although I am not sure that the rules ever stopped people from submitting one-liners like that.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

If one-line "BAN Capitolizm" proposals start getting real bad, we can always revisit the rule.

Although I am not sure that the rules ever stopped people from submitting one-liners like that.

Yes. You are right.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If one-line "BAN Capitolizm" proposals start getting real bad, we can always revisit the rule.

I'll note also that the contents of the rules are not correlated to the number of "Ban Capitolizm" proposals. To quote an oldie, Bob Flibble, (and I can say this is consistent with my experience):

If these hypothetical players who want to pass ideology bans are unaware of the rule prohibiting them, then tell me why isn't the queue being flooded with them now?

(Edit. Flib post param edited; selected wrong post originally by accident.)

[Quintessence of Dust]

I think what's overlooked is one subtler way that a very recent (and hopefully just temporary) change to the game, the creation of the Security Council, impacted the WA. The splitting of the WA page put the link to submit a proposal one link deeper; when you go to the main WA page there is no direct link to submit a proposal there. You have to go a bit deeper to find it, clicking through to the next level before you get the "Submit a proposal" link that used to be on the main page.

Because of that simple change, the number of proposals submitted is now vastly lower than it used to be. We used to have 30+ pages of proposals. Not proposals -- pages of proposals. Now the current "6 proposals" seems about par for the course. And the "missing" proposals were of the quality that would be expected from people who just saw a link, clicked it, and submitted something on impulse: they were almost all very poor quality.

Some of the proposal rules back in the day were designed with that in mind: giving mods any excuse, really, to clear the queue of clutter. (There was also not direct linking to individual proposals, meaning TG campaigning had an added layer of difficulty and a clean queue was greatly appreciated.) That's no longer the pressing case. Any crap that makes it through can be "held", and if it's that missed "discarded", and in worst case "repealed", also three functions not available in the early days.

So, no, appeals to the ancient wisdom fall very flat.

[Bears Armed]

Thank you for taking this up. I was not surprised that BA was the dissenter but I would still be curious to see his dissent as it's only fair there is debate on both sides.

It was basically a combination of _
1.

*<snip>*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.

(and in fact I seem to recall one of the Mods -- probably either Hack or Fris -- saying, years ago, that another reason for the rule was that Max had told them he wanted the UN -- as it then was -- open to nations of all ideologies...);
and
2. The fact that some such bans would throw many member nations into immediate non-compliance, in ways that their players couldn't fix easily & quickly even if they wanted to (e.g. a ban on Socialism, or a requirement that all industries be privately-owned, coming up against nations with the 'Socialism' policy in-game &/or tax rates of 100%), which would probably discredit the the G.A. to many people IC & possibly some players OOC as well.

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.

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

If you believe that they are truly severe, go write some blockers.

[The Human Confederation]

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.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Thank you for taking this up. I was not surprised that BA was the dissenter but I would still be curious to see his dissent as it's only fair there is debate on both sides.

It was basically a combination of _
1.

*<snip>*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.

The WA's powers vastly exceed that of the RL UN. Many RL international organizations, such as the EU, with actual decision making power, do have political requirements of their members.

(and in fact I seem to recall one of the Mods -- probably either Hack or Fris -- saying, years ago, that another reason for the rule was that Max had told them he wanted the UN -- as it then was -- open to nations of all ideologies...);

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.

2. The fact that some such bans would throw many member nations into immediate non-compliance, in ways that their players couldn't fix easily & quickly even if they wanted to (e.g. a ban on Socialism, or a requirement that all industries be privately-owned, coming up against nations with the 'Socialism' policy in-game &/or tax rates of 100%), which would probably discredit the the G.A. to many people IC & possibly some players OOC as well.

I just dipped in and out of the WA with QoD. My nation description states that we have "public floggings" and "frequent executions", both of which clearly contradict WA law. (I'm not sure why the description says this, IC we very much don't, but I guess I chose some wacky issue options.) Regardless, mechanical conflicts between WA resolution and issue effects are nothing new and not unique to democratic freedoms.

[Bears Armed]

Addendum: There's also the question of whether a resolution to ban a major ideology or a major form of government would, when compared to existing resolutions in the same categories, be too powerful for even designation as 'Strong' to be enough... so GenSec would still have to make value judgements in that respect.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices]

Addendum: There's also the question of whether a resolution to ban a major ideology or a major form of government would, when compared to existing resolutions in the same categories, be too powerful for even designation as 'Strong' to be enough... so GenSec would still have to make value judgements in that respect.

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

Addendum: There's also the question of whether a resolution to ban a major ideology or a major form of government would, when compared to existing resolutions in the same categories, be too powerful for even designation as 'Strong' to be enough... so GenSec would still have to make value judgements in that respect.

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".