[DISCUSSION] Abolishing the ideological ban rule

[Unibot III]

The point is that you wouldn't actually be banning socialism, but rather banning aspects of it based on the resolution's internal definition. Which is exactly what we do in the WA...



That's not at all an easy question to answer.

My whole point is that the rule isn't complicated, and you're trying to make it be. It's been consistently applied for 10 years!

It's not at all consistently applied: you can't get any number of players to agree as to what it is! The rule I've suggested is far simpler in application than the ideological ban rule. My two-step 'impossible ban' rule is far clear and far easier for GenSec to use and apply - and it replicates how we've always done things in the WA.

[Araraukar]

and it replicates how we've always done things in the WA.

...which you just said nobody agrees with?

[Unibot III]

and it replicates how we've always done things in the WA.

...which you just said nobody agrees with?

I've said it's never been consistently applied. I believe the two step procedure retroactively fits to what we've been ruling in the past, but doing so in a more coherent manner.

[Welskerland]

When I just thought about it now for a few minutes, I would figure that a possible dividing line could be between the core of an ideology or whatever.
For example, I assume the core of what makes a dictatorship a dictatorship would be the lack of democracy. So you couldn't ban the banning of democracy, but could ban having the leader's position be hereditary.
For an economic example, assumedly the core of capitalism would be something with free enterprise, so that can't be banned, but banning specific practices of free enterprise would be, like buying votes or selling people.
Religious ideology is a bit weirder, so maybe that part could just be changed to not be allowed to ban religion or specific religions, and let arguments about banning practices be done in the drafting threads.

That's interesting. So would it be legal to RP as a dictatorship as long as the leader was chosen democratically? I think such a system is possible. What about benevolent dictatorships?

[Raoganya]

The WA at this point in time is basically an infinitely more intrusive UN. This rule does not need to be abolished, but improved. It's an empty gesture to nations who have seen their ideologies slowly eroded by legislation that they cannot possibly agree with. The WA has overstepped its power to enforce ideologies on unwilling nations that just want to be able to endorse someone.

I've considered joining for the sake of trying to pass some legislation purely to limit WA power and protect national sovereignty. The WA, after all, isn't a representative government of any specific nation that was democratically elected to serve them, and so it should not be given the same if not more power than a government democratically elected by a nations people. Up to this point I haven't been able to nor do I know if my nations government would be able to morally justify joining the WA because of the practices it tries to enforce, legalization of abortion in any and all cases being one of the most ideologically compromising.

[Separatist Peoples]

The WA at this point in time is basically an infinitely more intrusive UN. This rule does not need to be abolished, but improved. It's an empty gesture to nations who have seen their ideologies slowly eroded by legislation that they cannot possibly agree with. The WA has overstepped its power to enforce ideologies on unwilling nations that just want to be able to endorse someone.

I've considered joining for the sake of trying to pass some legislation purely to limit WA power and protect national sovereignty. The WA, after all, isn't a representative government of any specific nation that was democratically elected to serve them, and so it should not be given the same if not more power than a government democratically elected by a nations people. Up to this point I haven't been able to nor do I know if my nations government would be able to morally justify joining the WA because of the practices it tries to enforce, legalization of abortion in any and all cases being one of the most ideologically compromising.

You choose to join the WA and abide by the rules involved. If you don't like that, you shouldn't join. Simple as that.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's not at all consistently applied: you can't get any number of players to agree as to what it is!

I just showed you like 10 years worth of mod precedent on it, dude.

The rule I've suggested is far simpler in application than the ideological ban rule. My two-step 'impossible ban' rule is far clear and far easier for GenSec to use and apply - and it replicates how we've always done things in the WA.

Maybe you think this. I don't really think your "is it physically possible?" test is all that illuminating. Especially since the examples you've given lead to an outcome -- banning socialism -- that the Ideological Ban Rule specifically wants to prohibit!

[Raoganya]

The WA at this point in time is basically an infinitely more intrusive UN. This rule does not need to be abolished, but improved. It's an empty gesture to nations who have seen their ideologies slowly eroded by legislation that they cannot possibly agree with. The WA has overstepped its power to enforce ideologies on unwilling nations that just want to be able to endorse someone.

I've considered joining for the sake of trying to pass some legislation purely to limit WA power and protect national sovereignty. The WA, after all, isn't a representative government of any specific nation that was democratically elected to serve them, and so it should not be given the same if not more power than a government democratically elected by a nations people. Up to this point I haven't been able to nor do I know if my nations government would be able to morally justify joining the WA because of the practices it tries to enforce, legalization of abortion in any and all cases being one of the most ideologically compromising.

You choose to join the WA and abide by the rules involved. If you don't like that, you shouldn't join. Simple as that.

No, it's not. The ability to endorse a nation is integral to the in game capacity for a regions self defense system and interregional play. Regions who want to protect themselves have no choice but to join, so what is effectively happening is non compliant regions are weakened by their "choice" not to enforce the WAs power over them, and are then unable to protect themselves. Then the WA washes their hands of the matter when they get invaded by blithely stating that they should have joined. Meanwhile it ignores the entire problem as something it created because of its bias towards certain political causes. For an organization made to represent the entire world, many of its members sure seem keen on stamping out the opinions of a good portion of it, either directly or indirectly.

Responding to persecution of ideological bases and the alienation of entire swaths of the site through abuse of game mechanic granted power with "deal with it, lol" is the mentality that brought us here.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, it's not. The ability to endorse a nation is integral to the in game capacity for a regions self defense system and interregional play. Regions who want to protect themselves have no choice but to join, so what is effectively happening is non compliant regions are weakened by their "choice" not to enforce the WAs power over them, and are then unable to protect themselves. Then the WA washes their hands of the matter when they get invaded by blithely stating that they should have joined. Meanwhile it ignores the entire problem as something it created because of its bias towards certain political causes. For an organization made to represent the entire world, many of its members sure seem keen on stamping out the opinions of a good portion of it, either directly or indirectly.

Responding to persecution of ideological bases and the alienation of entire swaths of the site through abuse of game mechanic granted power with "deal with it, lol" is the mentality that brought us here.

Sure it is. Stay in a region with a founder. Ignore the GA. Compliance only matters if you're on this forum. Literally nobody cares if you flout every single WA law with your Issues choices or RP in II. Its only in this forum where compliance is mandatory. It truly is that simple, and the GA regulars have no sympathy for this "THE WA IS TOO INVASIVE, MAKE IT STAHP" mentality.

[Excidium Planetis]

You choose to join the WA and abide by the rules involved. If you don't like that, you shouldn't join. Simple as that.

No, it's not. The ability to endorse a nation is integral to the in game capacity for a regions self defense system and interregional play. Regions who want to protect themselves have no choice but to join, so what is effectively happening is non compliant regions are weakened by their "choice" not to enforce the WAs power over them, and are then unable to protect themselves.

Dude, just join the WA with a puppet and use the puppet to endorse the WA Delegate. Joining the WA with your Socialist/Dictatorship/Threatened Ideology Here nation is completely optional and not necessary for regional defense.

[Tzorsland]

You choose to join the WA and abide by the rules involved. If you don't like that, you shouldn't join. Simple as that.

Shades of Left Twix / Right Twix thinking. You know the enforcers of the SC think the same way but with opposite effect.

Sure it is. Stay in a region with a founder. Ignore the GA. Compliance only matters if you're on this forum.

Gameplay (the raider / defender) game doesn't work on regions with active founders. Yes nations could isolate themselves with active founders and locked passwords but then they would more likely be Roleplayers and ignore EVERY STAT IN THE GAME INCLUDING DAILY ISSUES!

Trying to avoid the GA/SC stovepipe divide isn't helping any. Some people have been objecting to this problem since the days the SC was created in the first place. It's not that the SC created the problem, since the raider / defender game was in place before that, but the event at least brought it out to the public discussion for the first time.

[Araraukar]

Bumping this since it looks like no consensus was attained on the first round.

[Calladan]

I think my main concern would be that - given how flimsy a term "ideological" can be - the moment you remove the potential for banning it, not only would you get people trying to ban communism, capitalism, socialism and liberalism, but you might also run the risk of people trying to ban Islamic, Jewish, Christian and other nations based on various religions.

And while I understand that there is a certain degree of freedom of speech on this site, I also like the idea that (this forum at least) is free from all the insane bollocks that goes on else where about various religions begin evil and other religions being the spawn of Satan and so forth.

With the ban in place, no one can demand that all Zorpists be kicked out of The WA and all nations that are governed by The Followers of Zorp find a more humane and civilised religion to practice and have that demand backed up by the full force of the law.

Because (and this is where it becomes obvious this is entirely OOC) this is just a game, where I come to have fun and debate a few things. Yes - I sometimes get overly passionate and indulge in a lot of rhetoric, but it's still just a game. And I don't want to see this forum degenerating into NSG if it can be avoided

(Also - on a related note - asking for all socialist governments to be kicked out of The WA would be kind of problematic too, but probably far less inflammatory overall).

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm still not entirely sure what problem this rule change would be in response to. Is it that you want to be able to legislate on more stuff? That at the cost of forcing out entire categories of players doesn't seem great. Is it because you think the rule is tough to enforce? I really don't think there has been a significant problem with enforcement since the rule was created. Sure you can go up in your ivory tower and come up with interesting problems, but actual issues? Maybe a contentious ruling here or there over the years on this rule, but it seems like this is a solution in search of a problem.

My apologies if this is more clearly laid out somewhere or piecemeal throughout the thread, I must have missed it if it is.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

I'm against changing it at all, but someone in some other thread thought that it had been changed/removed.

[Wallenburg]

I'm still not entirely sure what problem this rule change would be in response to. Is it that you want to be able to legislate on more stuff? That at the cost of forcing out entire categories of players doesn't seem great. Is it because you think the rule is tough to enforce? I really don't think there has been a significant problem with enforcement since the rule was created. Sure you can go up in your ivory tower and come up with interesting problems, but actual issues? Maybe a contentious ruling here or there over the years on this rule, but it seems like this is a solution in search of a problem.

My apologies if this is more clearly laid out somewhere or piecemeal throughout the thread, I must have missed it if it is.

Look, if the World Assembly is perfectly free to ban entire ideologies by chipping away at crucial aspects of them until there is nothing left, we may as well stop pretending the ideological ban rule means anything. I'd rather see it removed than to see GenSec/site staff only pretend to enforce it. It may be rather blunt of me to say so, but that's the truth. Rules that do not get enforced hardly are worth keeping.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm still not entirely sure what problem this rule change would be in response to. Is it that you want to be able to legislate on more stuff? That at the cost of forcing out entire categories of players doesn't seem great. Is it because you think the rule is tough to enforce? I really don't think there has been a significant problem with enforcement since the rule was created. Sure you can go up in your ivory tower and come up with interesting problems, but actual issues? Maybe a contentious ruling here or there over the years on this rule, but it seems like this is a solution in search of a problem.

My apologies if this is more clearly laid out somewhere or piecemeal throughout the thread, I must have missed it if it is.

Look, if the World Assembly is perfectly free to ban entire ideologies by chipping away at crucial aspects of them until there is nothing left, we may as well stop pretending the ideological ban rule means anything. I'd rather see it removed than to see GenSec/site staff only pretend to enforce it. It may be rather blunt of me to say so, but that's the truth. Rules that do not get enforced hardly are worth keeping.

Ignoring the fact that forcing resolutions to chip away rather than blanket ban encourages both more resolutions written and more specific, higher quality resolutions, there is also the matter that the mods didn't "pretend" to enforce that rule. Why would we pretend to enforce a rule? If we didn't think it should be enforced then we would have just removed the rule. I won't speak for the GenSec but I imagine that they aren't "pretending" anything either.