The Ideological Ban Rule

[Sciongrad]

Doesn't the rule exist so that nations of all types can choose to join the WA without their systems of government immediately becoming 'illegal' under existing resolutions?

Pretty much. If this rule is removed, one could pass a resolution banning religion forcing Christian Democrats, or Railana into non-compliance. If removed we will see an endless stream of arguments, resolutions, repeals, and eventually blockers that will effectively put he rule back in place through legislation. Seems rather counter-productive to remove the rule only to go through all of that. I say leave it.

That removing this rule would somehow result in an "endless stream of arguments, resolutions, repeals, and [...] blockers" is delusional. You have a tendency of gushing apocalyptic prophecies over really minor rule changes. There aren't enough regulars in the GA that have any interest in passing resolutions which would ban ideologies that there would be any significant legislative paralysis. Furthermore, the masses of players that would supposedly submit an "endless stream" of ideological bans according to you are likely already unfamiliar with the existence of the ideological ban rule anyway.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Furthermore, the masses of players that would supposedly submit an "endless stream" of ideological bans according to you are likely already unfamiliar with the existence of the ideological ban rule anyway.

And if the rule is removed they have full carte blanche to do so now don't they. I really am not sure what your problem is, or what I have done to earn your ire, but I am getting really tired of you smashing everything I say just because you can. It is now becoming very annoying and borderline harassing. If you don't like what I have to say either ignore it, ignore me, or don't respond to it.

I do hope I have clarified my position for you?

[Flibbleites]

Furthermore, the masses of players that would supposedly submit an "endless stream" of ideological bans according to you are likely already unfamiliar with the existence of the ideological ban rule anyway.

And if the rule is removed they have full carte blanche to do so now don't they.

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?

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't see a huge push to ban democracy and ban religion and ban communism either existing or succeeding in the WA. Not only that, but as Christian Democrats pointed out, current GA resolutions can block such ideological bans. They would need to be repealed just to push such bans forward.

It just doesn't seem possible in my opinion.

If it is really that concerning to you that you expect to see five thousand attempts to prohibit Nazism, start by passing a "Freedom of Ideology" resolution as soon as the rule is removed.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

And if the rule is removed they have full carte blanche to do so now don't they.

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?

I am assuming the new rules will be posted for everyone to see will they not? But hey whatever, you guys run the show so do what you think is best. When it happens I will sit back and laugh and redirect you right back to that comment mmkay?

[Frisbeeteria]

I am assuming the new rules will be posted for everyone to see will they not?

Just like the current rules are clearly posted. And linked in several places. And linked in the Voice of Mod telegram sent to authors of rejected proposals.

Not that it matters. People who don't read the rules, don't read the rules.

When it happens I will sit back and laugh

Given that malicious pleasure at the misfortune of others seems to be the only thing that brings you joy, I wish you long and hearty laughter if and when.

[Sciongrad]

Furthermore, the masses of players that would supposedly submit an "endless stream" of ideological bans according to you are likely already unfamiliar with the existence of the ideological ban rule anyway.

And if the rule is removed they have full carte blanche to do so now don't they. I really am not sure what your problem is, or what I have done to earn your ire, but I am getting really tired of you smashing everything I say just because you can. It is now becoming very annoying and borderline harassing. If you don't like what I have to say either ignore it, ignore me, or don't respond to it.

I do hope I have clarified my position for you?

If you feel I'm harassing you, feel free to report me, but that isn't my intention. I just happen to disagree with most of the contributions you've been making to the rules consortium, and I'm obviously not going to ignore them if there's a possibility they'll somehow influence the direction of the conversation. But anyway, regarding this particular discussion: my point was that 99.9% of players don't know the ideological rule exists now, so whether or not its in place will not have any impact on how many ideological bans are submitted. It is unlikely that informing the masses of changes in a rule they didn't know existed in the first place will engender some doomsday scenario. Of course, that's assuming that more than a small fraction of players will become aware of this rule change in the first place.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

When it happens I will sit back and laugh

Given that malicious pleasure at the misfortune of others seems to be the only thing that brings you joy, I wish you long and hearty laughter if and when.

Now, now that's a bit much don't you think? One could almost interpret that as trying to bait me into making an inflammatory retort against you. Given that you recently overturned a terrible ruling made against me, I will give you that one for free though as I happen to be in a generous mood.

But anyway, regarding this particular discussion: my point was that 99.9% of players don't know the ideological rule exists now, so whether or not its in place will not have any impact on how many ideological bans are submitted. It is unlikely that informing the masses of changes in a rule they didn't know existed in the first place will engender some doomsday scenario. Of course, that's assuming that more than a small fraction of players will become aware of this rule change in the first place.

Fair enough, you have convinced me. I say we remove this rule, so I may introduce sweeping legislation banning religion all together, as well as forcing all nations to adopt a price controlled market system, whilst simultaneously banning Laissez-faire capitalism all together. I am sure the socialist nations around the world will consider me a hero for that. Oh and remember how many times the CWC went to the floor? Expect that same level of commitment to this cause.

[Christian Democrats]

Given that malicious pleasure at the misfortune of others seems to be the only thing that brings you joy, I wish you long and hearty laughter if and when.

Now, now that's a bit much don't you think? One could almost interpret that as trying to bait me into making an inflammatory retort against you. Given that you recently overturned a terrible ruling made against me, I will give you that one for free though as I happen to be in a generous mood.

[Excidium Planetis]

Fair enough, you have convinced me. I say we remove this rule, so I may introduce sweeping legislation banning religion all together, as well as forcing all nations to adopt a price controlled market system, whilst simultaneously banning Laissez-faire capitalism all together. I am sure the socialist nations around the world will consider me a hero for that. Oh and remember how many times the CWC went to the floor? Expect that same level of commitment to this cause.

Good luck on that. You'd have to repeal at least 3 resolutions and then pass your own to get religion banned, so I'm going to wager we'll get GA#2 repealed before you succeed in banning religion.

As for banning capitalism... more likely, but I don't think you will succeed there either. There are too many Americans in the WA. And at any rate, I'd try and get "Right to National Ideology" queue'd and up for vote before your ban on capitalism.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Good luck on that. You'd have to repeal at least 3 resolutions and then pass your own to get religion banned, so I'm going to wager we'll get GA#2 repealed before you succeed in banning religion.

Really? And what three resolutions would those be?

Freedom of Assembly states:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

The first clause can be bypassed by the third by declaring religion to be a violent act. Problem one solved.

Freedom of Expression states:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Once again clause four allows us to bypass these by declaring religion to be a defamatory act. Also religion promotes violence against individuals and we could simply demand the classification of all religious works. Problem two solved.

And once we have done all of that Universal Library Coalition no longer applies. Problem three solved. All of this can be done with one resolution.

Care to try again?

As for banning capitalism... more likely, but I don't think you will succeed there either. There are too many Americans in the WA. And at any rate, I'd try and get "Right to National Ideology" queue'd and up for vote before your ban on capitalism.

A good battle it would be I wager. You are failing to take into account this is a fictional game where people tend to role-play views quite different from their real life views. I see a lot of socialist nations out there, and I am willing to be I could get a ban on Laissez-faire capitalism passed. I never said anything about banning capitalism all together as I would try and mandate nations adopt a price controlled market system which is still semi-capitalist. Perhaps you may want to read the comment next time before trying your very best to shoot it down, thereby looking like an ass.

[Excidium Planetis]

Good luck on that. You'd have to repeal at least 3 resolutions and then pass your own to get religion banned, so I'm going to wager we'll get GA#2 repealed before you succeed in banning religion.

Really? And what three resolutions would those be?

Freedom of Assembly states:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

The first clause can be bypassed by the third by declaring religion to be a violent act. Problem one solved.

Freedom of Expression states:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Once again clause four allows us to bypass these by declaring religion to be a defamatory act. Also religion promotes violence against individuals and we could simply demand the classification of all religious works. Problem two solved.

And once we have done all of that Universal Library Coalition no longer applies. Problem three solved. All of this can be done with one resolution.

Care to try again?

As for banning capitalism... more likely, but I don't think you will succeed there either. There are too many Americans in the WA. And at any rate, I'd try and get "Right to National Ideology" queue'd and up for vote before your ban on capitalism.

A good battle it would be I wager. You are failing to take into account this is a fictional game where people tend to role-play views quite different from their real life views. I see a lot of socialist nations out there, and I am willing to be I could get a ban on Laissez-faire capitalism passed. I never said anything about banning capitalism all together as I would try and mandate nations adopt a price controlled market system which is still semi-capitalist. Perhaps you may want to read the comment next time before trying your very best to shoot it down, thereby looking like an ass.

First of all, Freedom of Expression allows nations to place restrictions on expression, but does not force them to do so. Even if you make religion a defamatory act, Freedom of Expression merely allows me to restrict religious expression because it is defamatory, it does not force me to restrict religious expression. So Freedom of Expression still protects religious expression from outright banning in all nations.

Second:
GA#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, which prevents religious discrimination

GA#141, Permit Male Circumcision, which allows circumcision for religious reasons

GA#132, Military Freedom Act, which allows objection to military service for religious reasons

Possibly GA#234 Freedom to Read and Learn.

Laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism. A ban on Laissez-faire capitalism would still be a ban on capitalism, just only a specific type of capitalism.

[Knootoss]

As far as I'm concerned, JPT can just do his little song and dance. Doesn't affect my view on the unnecessary nature of this rule. If he wants to ruin his reputation, such as it is, by trying to ban religion he is welcome to it. If he gets a majority of the WA to vote for it, more power to him!

Now are there any serious objections to scrapping this rule?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

First of all, Freedom of Expression allows nations to place restrictions on expression, but does not force them to do so. Even if you make religion a defamatory act, Freedom of Expression merely allows me to restrict religious expression because it is defamatory, it does not force me to restrict religious expression. So Freedom of Expression still protects religious expression from outright banning in all nations.

Second:
GA#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, which prevents religious discrimination

GA#141, Permit Male Circumcision, which allows circumcision for religious reasons

GA#132, Military Freedom Act, which allows objection to military service for religious reasons

Possibly GA#234 Freedom to Read and Learn.

Laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism. A ban on Laissez-faire capitalism would still be a ban on capitalism, just only a specific type of capitalism.

Okay I'll bite.

First: You are forgetting Freedom of Assembly and by using such we can define reglion as a violent act thus making it illegal,

Second:
GA#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, which prevents religious discrimination

GA#141, Permit Male Circumcision, which allows circumcision for religious reasons

GA#132, Military Freedom Act, which allows objection to military service for religious reasons

And? If religion is illegal those no longer apply.

Possibly GA#234 Freedom to Read and Learn.

No person shall be punished for reading, nor for enabling oneself and/or another to read, nor for acquiring knowledge and/or cultural enrichment from non-readable media or reading media adapted for individuals with disabilities, provided that the material was legally published with the intention that it be publicly available.

You will note the legally published part there. If religion becomes illegal, they are no longer legally published are they?

As far as I'm concerned, JPT can just do his little song and dance. Doesn't affect my view on the unnecessary nature of this rule. If he wants to ruin his reputation, such as it is, by trying to ban religion he is welcome to it. If he gets a majority of the WA to vote for it, more power to him!

Now are there any serious objections to scrapping this rule?

This is a serious discussion. And how exactly is my reputation being ruined? I have went after far more controversioal issues, and yet I am still here alive and kicking, and still passing resolutions I might add.

[Knootoss]

I believe that the topic is "should we scrap the Ideological Ban Rule?", not "what wacky scheme will JPT cook up next?" If this rule is scrapped (which it should be) then you could indeed attempt to ban religion. Go for it. Should be a fun debate.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I believe that the topic is "should we scrap the Ideological Ban Rule?", not "what wacky scheme will JPT cook up next?" If this rule is scrapped (which it should be) then you could indeed attempt to ban religion. Go for it. Should be a fun debate.

Wacky scheme? I am simply trying to convey the gravity of the situation.

[Phydios]

I believe that the topic is "should we scrap the Ideological Ban Rule?", not "what wacky scheme will JPT cook up next?" If this rule is scrapped (which it should be) then you could indeed attempt to ban religion. Go for it. Should be a fun debate.

Wacky scheme? I am simply trying to convey the gravity of the situation.

This seems familiar...weren't we just here on the thread for the NatSov Repeal rule? Once again, you're threatening extreme action if a WA rule is scrapped, because you find that to be easier than just making your case for keeping the rule. Look, if you want to try to pass a resolution to ban religion, go right ahead. But stop looking for attention with your threats. Your point has been made and understood.

[Christian Democrats]

declaring religion to be a defamatory act. Also religion promotes violence against individuals

You sound like Lenin or Stalin.

thereby looking like an ass

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Wacky scheme? I am simply trying to convey the gravity of the situation.

This seems familiar...weren't we just here on the thread for the NatSov Repeal rule? Once again, you're threatening extreme action if a WA rule is scrapped, because you find that to be easier than just making your case for keeping the rule. Look, if you want to try to pass a resolution to ban religion, go right ahead. But stop looking for attention with your threats. Your point has been made and understood.

I am not making threats. I am floating an idea that I may choose to pursue if this rule was removed. Please learn the difference.

declaring religion to be a defamatory act. Also religion promotes violence against individuals

You sound like Lenin or Stalin.

If I remember correctly that was G.W.B.'s excuse for declaring the war on terrorism. Radical Islamist's are practicing a recognized religion, yet that didn't stop U.S. forces from detaining them by the thousands, or the TSA from subjecting them to harsher scrutiny at airports now did it? It works both ways.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

This seems familiar...weren't we just here on the thread for the NatSov Repeal rule? Once again, you're threatening extreme action if a WA rule is scrapped, because you find that to be easier than just making your case for keeping the rule. Look, if you want to try to pass a resolution to ban religion, go right ahead. But stop looking for attention with your threats. Your point has been made and understood.

I am not making threats. I am floating an idea that I may choose to pursue if this rule was removed. Please learn the difference.

Yeah... I was getting a certain sense of déjà vu myself. And on the religion thing, I'd have to point out that lots of people who subscribe to Jainism go so far in their pacifist stance they even sweep ants out of their path with a broom wherever they go. Such a resolution would make you a massive hypocrite anyway- that would be a huge violation of national sovereignty. Dude in the post above you is an obvious theocracy, and he's only one of hundreds or even thousands on this site. I don't think this would go over very well with them.

[Excidium Planetis]

Making Religion "violent" doesn't mean Freedom of Assembly makes religion illegal. Freedom of Assembly merely states that it cannot be applied to violent assemblies. A nation can still support violent assemblies, just those assemblies aren't protected by Freedom of Assembly.

So therefore, A nation could still, under its own laws, sanction assemblies and expression of a "violent" religion, and would be required by WA law to not discriminate against those religions and allow members of those religions to circumcise or object to military service.

Even by declaring religion violent, you still are far from banning religion, and still need to repeal at the very least CoCR.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I know Fris said not to start new threads yet, but maybe we could have one extra one, into which CP can pile all of his ugly threats, so that the rest of us are able to actually discuss the rules in the other threads as originally intended?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I know Fris said not to start new threads yet, but maybe we could have one extra one, into which CP can pile all of his ugly threats, so that the rest of us are able to actually discuss the rules in the other threads as originally intended?

What threat? I was merely discussing possible ramifications should this rule happen to be revised is all. People really need to learn to relax and take things with a grain of salt.

[Sovreignry]

I know Fris said not to start new threads yet, but maybe we could have one extra one, into which CP can pile all of his ugly threats, so that the rest of us are able to actually discuss the rules in the other threads as originally intended?

What threat? I was merely discussing possible ramifications should this rule happen to be revised is all. People really need to learn to relax and take things with a grain of salt.

You've repeatedly stated what temper tantrums you're going to throw if you don't get your way. That's not just making threats, it's making threats a two year old makes.

[Krioval]

I think that "ban religion" proposals should be discouraged, though I'm ambivalent whether a hard-and-fast rule is the best way to do it. I definitely think that one can write a proposal to allow religious freedom while also maintaining a nation's right to have a theocratic government. But I also agree with the posters who feel that bad resolutions, if passed, can be readily repealed. So ultimately, it depends on how messy one feels the queue could become.