"Civil rights" should be a consistently defined concept

[Eris I Dysnomia]

One of NS's biggest problems is that "Civil rights" doesn't mean anything consistent from one issue to another. It's basically just whatever a particular issue's author wants it to mean. To some editors, it means an employer's right to fire any employee at any time for any reason; to others, it means government stepping in and deciding what is or isn't a valid reason to fire someone. To some editors, it means the right of the people to keep their own property and decide how it is used; at other times, it means the government forcing people to house Gypsies.

According to enlightenment literature, "civil rights" are the rights that you have as a result of the existence of government, as opposed to natural rights, which exist with or without government. So, for example, free speech and the right to bear arms are natural rights, whereas the rights to a trial by jury and to vote are civil rights.

I'm not necessarily recommending that NS adopt that particular definition of civil rights. I'm just putting it on the table. But NS should definitely have some consistent definition of civil rights if this stat is to mean anything at all.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I want to agree. But I think it would be pretty complicated trying to change the coding for that.

[Valgora]

I'm pretty sure that an employer's right to fire any employee at any time for any reason falls under economic freedom.

[Galway-Dublin]

NS utilizes a very literal definition of civil rights in its calculation of the stat's change after issue options are selected.

NS likes to define civil rights as the measure of the lack of government intervention in the personal lives of its populace. This is why legalizing abortion and gay marriage increases civil rights while banning public nudity or enforcing mandatory vaccination leads to a decrease in the stat. In the former options, you're providing a liberty to the populace by reducing government restriction on the public's ability to live the way they want to, without forcing another group of the population to give up rights. The latter examples (mandatory vaccines and the banning of public nudity) see the restriction of something, even if it's for the Greater-Good.avi, thus decreasing the stat as it's the government enforcing policy on the public, thus reducing average Joe's ability to be freely nude in public, or die of Measles on their own watch.

Free speech, meanwhile, falls under Political Freedoms.

[Luna Amore]

Moved to Got Issues.

We don't just pick things Willy-nilly. Stats are discussed among the editors on every draft. Past decisions are considered to keep consistency. The issue base is under constant review and tweaking. CWA is particularly thorough about this and has taken on major projects to polish the rough edges so to speak of the issue code and policies.

The only way we can properly address your claim is with specific issue number and choices.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

But NS should definitely have some consistent definition of civil rights if this stat is to mean anything at all.

As one appears to acknowledge, there is no "consistant" definition to choose. Attempting to pretend otherwise will have two main effects: 1) incessant moaning and griping about how stupid and biased we all are because we chose the "wrong" one; and 2) elimination of the natural debate/dilemma built into the conflicting concepts found among the issues.

Number two is, in my opinion, the most damning reason against "consistancy." Even if it means one gets choice outcomes one wasn't expecting. If only real life always turned out precisely as my preferences too.

Don't get me wrong, one "consistant" definition of any arbitrary sociopolitical concept does have its advantages. I'd probably need about nine fewer bookshelves. Way less dusting.

[USS Monitor]

And locked based on who posted this. Due to a long history of wasting editors' time and posting excessive amounts of complaints, they're banned from posting anything that pokes at issues looking for problems.

4stan/Eris I Dysnomia: *** Warned for spam *** If you use the Technical forum to post anything else that should be in Got Issues, you'll be deleted for circumventing the aforementioned ban on cluttering the issues forum with complaints. The only reason you're not being puppetswept right now is because it's not the most completely useless post you've ever made, and it may have been unclear that posting in Technical would be treated the same way as posting in Issues.