And don't call me Shirley.
Sauros wrote: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.
Advertisement
by Quintessence of Dust » Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:50 am
Sauros wrote:What does this "Ideological Ban Rule" even do? Sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm not very indepth when it comes to GP
by Sauros » Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:50 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:33 pm
Sauros wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:51 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:A forum search for the phrase "ideological ban" ought to yield some useful information too, albeit mixed with a lot of argument and commentary.
by Morover » Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:53 pm
by Bears Armed » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:09 pm
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.
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by Bears Armed » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:22 pm
Bears Armed wrote: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.
by Quintessence of Dust » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:34 pm
Bears Armed wrote: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.
Bears Armed wrote: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?
Bears Armed wrote:Abolish every rule that the Mods will let you get away with abolishing
by Makko Oko » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:40 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Bears Armed wrote: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
OBC Current News: First-Ever Anti-Terrorism Act Enacted | Emperor launches plans to expand trade | Danika Hicks Case: NOT GUILTY VERDICT! Court rules 3-2Information:
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:36 pm
by Yeldan UN Mission » Sun Jun 05, 2022 5:17 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jun 05, 2022 5:22 pm
by Unibot III » Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:20 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Unibot III » Mon Jun 06, 2022 7:40 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Tinfect » Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:13 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Free Algerstonia » Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:48 am
Hispida wrote: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.
by Quintessence of Dust » Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:24 am
by Trotterdam » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:15 am
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:54 am
Trotterdam wrote:(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.
by The North Polish Union » Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:22 am
Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:keep your wet opinions to yourself. Byzantium and Ottoman will not come again. Whoever thinks of this wet dream will feel the power of the Republic's secular army.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:06 pm
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Apologies to Separatist Peoples for the dramatics.
by Sanctaria » Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:03 am
by Fachumonn » Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:06 am
Advertisement
Return to Secretariat Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement