[PASSED] Protection of Apostates

[Daarwyrth]

Write that instead.

OOC: A little late for that now besides, I think "reasonable" encapsulates that, as I really copypasted the definitions of "reasonable" there.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Given the title of the proposal would translate to "Luopioiden Suojelu" (back-translation "Protection of Renegades/Turncoats/Traitors" due to not having a word for apostate), I'm just, like, pissing myself with laughter here.

Given I don't believe this proposal to be actually necessary, because of the freedom from religion clauses in previous resolutions, I'll probably be voting against (WA status on PPU currently). Not because I didn't agree with it but because I think it's already been done.

Write that instead.

OOC: A little late for that now

It's not at vote yet so it's not too late to withdraw it.

[Daarwyrth]

Given I don't believe this proposal to be actually necessary, because of the freedom from religion clauses in previous resolutions, I'll probably be voting against (WA status on PPU currently). Not because I didn't agree with it but because I think it's already been done.

OOC: Freedom of Religion protects people from state reprisal. That is something completely else than reprisal from religious communities. Under Freedom of Religion, religious communities would still be able to enact punishment, reprisals, or retribution for someone renouncing their faith officially. This proposal is meant to stop that, as reprisals being inflicted upon apostates by religious communities is a valid concern.

[Trellania]

Given I don't believe this proposal to be actually necessary, because of the freedom from religion clauses in previous resolutions, I'll probably be voting against (WA status on PPU currently). Not because I didn't agree with it but because I think it's already been done.

OOC: Freedom of Religion protects people from state reprisal. That is something completely else than reprisal from religious communities. Under Freedom of Religion, religious communities would still be able to enact punishment, reprisals, or retribution for someone renouncing their faith officially. This proposal is meant to stop that, as reprisals being inflicted upon apostates by religious communities is a valid concern.

OOC: Protecting Free Expression protects people who are making those reprisals from state reprisal as long as their acts don't constitute one of the listed exceptions. It also, in a strange bit of wording, provides an exception for resolutions that preceed it. While my IC argument is the Trellanian delegates arguing in bad faith for their own ends (and succeeding in their goal), it does carry some grains of accuracy.

I'm of the opinion we need to repeal Freedom of Religion and Protecting Free Expression to replace them with clearer resolutions that do the job better, including the provisions from your proposal. And leave out strange choices.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Freedom of Religion protects people from state reprisal. That is something completely else than reprisal from religious communities. Under Freedom of Religion, religious communities would still be able to enact punishment, reprisals, or retribution for someone renouncing their faith officially. This proposal is meant to stop that, as reprisals being inflicted upon apostates by religious communities is a valid concern.

OOC: Protecting Free Expression protects people who are making those reprisals from state reprisal as long as their acts don't constitute one of the listed exceptions. It also, in a strange bit of wording, provides an exception for resolutions that preceed it. While my IC argument is the Trellanian delegates arguing in bad faith for their own ends (and succeeding in their goal), it does carry some grains of accuracy.

I'm of the opinion we need to repeal Freedom of Religion and Protecting Free Expression to replace them with clearer resolutions that do the job better, including the provisions from your proposal. And leave out strange choices.

OOC: From my perspective, and of course I am by no means an authority on these matters, I don't see a repeal of Freedom of Religion passing. Even if it was exceptionally written, the religious nations of the WA would oppose it vehemently. On top of that, the replacement would have to be a masterpiece of a proposal in order to convince those religious nations to pass the repeal. Perhaps I am wrong in this assessment, I absolutely see that as a feasible thing. Yet looking at how things are at the moment, I think having Freedom of Religion and Protection of Apostates working together alongside one another is the more workable approach. Yet of course, I say that as one of the authors of this resolution proposal, even though I honestly think believe that.

[Trellania]

OOC: Protecting Free Expression protects people who are making those reprisals from state reprisal as long as their acts don't constitute one of the listed exceptions. It also, in a strange bit of wording, provides an exception for resolutions that preceed it. While my IC argument is the Trellanian delegates arguing in bad faith for their own ends (and succeeding in their goal), it does carry some grains of accuracy.

I'm of the opinion we need to repeal Freedom of Religion and Protecting Free Expression to replace them with clearer resolutions that do the job better, including the provisions from your proposal. And leave out strange choices.

OOC: From my perspective, and of course I am by no means an authority on these matters, I don't see a repeal of Freedom of Religion passing. Even if it was exceptionally written, the religious nations of the WA would oppose it vehemently. On top of that, the replacement would have to be a masterpiece of a proposal in order to convince those religious nations to pass the repeal. Perhaps I am wrong in this assessment, I absolutely see that as a feasible thing. Yet looking at how things are at the moment, I think having Freedom of Religion and Protection of Apostates working together alongside one another is the more workable approach. Yet of course, I say that as one of the authors of this resolution proposal, even though I honestly think believe that.

OOC: As-written and with other resolutions in place, Protection of Apostates is unenforcible as far as its actual goal. Protecting Free Expression is always going to be a limiter upon it and standing in the way of it being effective legislation.

That's why I am suggesting a repeal and replace of two resolutions to resolve the issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Write that instead.

OOC: A little late for that now besides, I think "reasonable" encapsulates that, as I really copypasted the definitions of "reasonable" there.

I don't think it does. As any law student can say, reasonable is extraordinary unclear even when someone copy pastes a dictionary (law ones included) definition of reasonable. My comment above is basically saying that anything that is spoken of as reasonable needs a test and that almost anything which is said or explained on it is preferable to the word 'reasonable' unadorned.

[Fransmany]

Fransmany will vote against this infringement of a people's right to form terms and conditions necessary for membership within their society that happens to cover a certain geographic area. Furthermore, the Fransmanian government believes the abolition of the death penalty sufficiently protects people from more radical, theocratic religious movements that demand the death of their apostastic adherents.

[Daarwyrth]

Fransmany will vote against this infringement of a people's right to form terms and conditions necessary for membership within their society that happens to cover a certain geographic area. Furthermore, the Fransmanian government believes the abolition of the death penalty sufficiently protects people from more radical, theocratic religious movements that demand the death of their apostastic adherents.

Vyn Nysen: "And what about apostates who are ridiculed? Threatened with death? Beaten up? Put through horrendous practices to discourage apostasy? Any person renouncing their faith or contemplating such has the right to do so without being subjected to any such reprisals or punishments. Those are an infringement on people's rights, even more so, Ambassador. No one should be forced to suffer because they have renounced their faith."

OOC: As-written and with other resolutions in place, Protection of Apostates is unenforcible as far as its actual goal. Protecting Free Expression is always going to be a limiter upon it and standing in the way of it being effective legislation.

That's why I am suggesting a repeal and replace of two resolutions to resolve the issue.

OOC: Explain how this proposal would be unenforceable?

I don't think it does. As any law student can say, reasonable is extraordinary unclear even when someone copy pastes a dictionary (law ones included) definition of reasonable. My comment above is basically saying that anything that is spoken of as reasonable needs a test and that almost anything which is said or explained on it is preferable to the word 'reasonable' unadorned.

OOC: And yet a majority of the WA rejected the argument that "reasonable is too vague" when it was put forward in the "Protected Working Leave" repeal attempt. Regional recommendations as well as individual WA members said that they preferred the use of the word "reasonable" over WA overregulation. Since then I have adjusted my own perspective on the use of the word "reasonable" when it comes to the WA.

[Trellania]

OOC: As-written and with other resolutions in place, Protection of Apostates is unenforcible as far as its actual goal. Protecting Free Expression is always going to be a limiter upon it and standing in the way of it being effective legislation.

That's why I am suggesting a repeal and replace of two resolutions to resolve the issue.

OOC: Explain how this proposal would be unenforceable?

OOC: Because while WA #436 does make it clear that there can be restrictions on free expression and includes religious expression in the definition, it does not actually allow those restrictions to be enforced on religions; the restriction on "state reprisals" in 430 was never counteracted. Which was probably not a major problem because most nations would probably loophole their way around it. In fact, 436 is very specific that while future restrictions can exist, they must work in tandem with the restrictions of resolutions that predate 436 and are still in place.

Essentially, 436 acts as a bridge between future restrictions on free expression and 430, which safeguards religion.

Your proposal gets into the issue of both religious practices and religious expression; in this case, 436 makes it clear religious expression is safeguarded and you can make laws, but doesn't actually allow for those laws to be enforced due to the state reprisal ban in 430.

You might be able to make an argument for the good order exception for enforcement, but that exception is vague enough it could mean anything and then someone can use the 436 good order standard to say good order does not cover the actions of this proposal.

It's unenforcible because despite the making of laws being banned, there's no possible good argument you can make that would allow for a nation to act on those laws that would be sufficient to stand with the extremely sparse sampling of "good order" standards we have. And since state enforcement of those laws would be state reprisal, that state enforcement is banned by existing legislation.

That's why I want to repeal those prior two and replace them. They include a standard that has no reasonable test and is undefined.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Explain how this proposal would be unenforceable?

OOC: Because while WA #436 does make it clear that there can be restrictions on free expression and includes religious expression in the definition, it does not actually allow those restrictions to be enforced on religions; the restriction on "state reprisals" in 430 was never counteracted. Which was probably not a major problem because most nations would probably loophole their way around it. In fact, 436 is very specific that while future restrictions can exist, they must work in tandem with the restrictions of resolutions that predate 436 and are still in place.

Essentially, 436 acts as a bridge between future restrictions on free expression and 430, which safeguards religion.

Your proposal gets into the issue of both religious practices and religious expression; in this case, 436 makes it clear religious expression is safeguarded and you can make laws, but doesn't actually allow for those laws to be enforced due to the state reprisal ban in 430.

You might be able to make an argument for the good order exception for enforcement, but that exception is vague enough it could mean anything and then someone can use the 436 good order standard to say good order does not cover the actions of this proposal.

It's unenforcible because despite the making of laws being banned, there's no possible good argument you can make that would allow for a nation to act on those laws that would be sufficient to stand with the extremely sparse sampling of "good order" standards we have. And since state enforcement of those laws would be state reprisal, that state enforcement is banned by existing legislation.

That's why I want to repeal those prior two and replace them. They include a standard that has no reasonable test and is undefined.

OOC: Protecting Free Expression Clause 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation," (the bolded part is mine).

In other words, freedom of expression can be restricted by WA legislation, as this Clause notes.

Then, Clause 3 of Freedom of Religion: "Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order," (bolded bit again mine).

Stopping religious communities from infringing upon the safety and health of apostates by humiliating them (mental health is health too), or to put them through life-threatening ordeals (safety), are a compelling practical public interest if you ask me. That is exactly what this resolution proposal does.

[Trellania]

OOC: Because while WA #436 does make it clear that there can be restrictions on free expression and includes religious expression in the definition, it does not actually allow those restrictions to be enforced on religions; the restriction on "state reprisals" in 430 was never counteracted. Which was probably not a major problem because most nations would probably loophole their way around it. In fact, 436 is very specific that while future restrictions can exist, they must work in tandem with the restrictions of resolutions that predate 436 and are still in place.

Essentially, 436 acts as a bridge between future restrictions on free expression and 430, which safeguards religion.

Your proposal gets into the issue of both religious practices and religious expression; in this case, 436 makes it clear religious expression is safeguarded and you can make laws, but doesn't actually allow for those laws to be enforced due to the state reprisal ban in 430.

You might be able to make an argument for the good order exception for enforcement, but that exception is vague enough it could mean anything and then someone can use the 436 good order standard to say good order does not cover the actions of this proposal.

It's unenforcible because despite the making of laws being banned, there's no possible good argument you can make that would allow for a nation to act on those laws that would be sufficient to stand with the extremely sparse sampling of "good order" standards we have. And since state enforcement of those laws would be state reprisal, that state enforcement is banned by existing legislation.

That's why I want to repeal those prior two and replace them. They include a standard that has no reasonable test and is undefined.

OOC: Protecting Free Expression Clause 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation," (the bolded part is mine).

In other words, freedom of expression can be restricted by WA legislation, as this Clause notes.

Then, Clause 3 of Freedom of Religion: "Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order," (bolded bit again mine).

Stopping religious communities from infringing upon the safety and health of apostates by humiliating them (mental health is health too), or to put them through life-threatening ordeals (safety), are a compelling practical public interest if you ask me. That is exactly what this resolution proposal does.

OOC: That would be a good argument if that did restriction did not carry the following loophole: "beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones."

No, this proposal doesn't actually protect health or safety. Not with a loophole that massive.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: That would be a good argument if that did restriction did not carry the following loophole: "beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones."

No, this proposal doesn't actually protect health or safety. Not with a loophole that massive.

OOC: So you want people to be punished for stopping to be friends with someone who became an apostate? As ridiculous a reason that is to end a friendship, without that line it would suddenly become punishable. That line was added in with close consultation with other posters who were concerned about that very scenario that I just described. So no, that is not a loophole, but an exaggeration on your part (and I say that in a friendly tone, not a negative one )

[Trellania]

OOC: That would be a good argument if that did restriction did not carry the following loophole: "beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones."

No, this proposal doesn't actually protect health or safety. Not with a loophole that massive.

OOC: So you want people to be punished for stopping to be friends with someone who became an apostate? As ridiculous a reason that is to end a friendship, without that line it would suddenly become punishable. That line was added in with close consultation with other posters who were concerned about that very scenario that I just described. So no, that is not a loophole, but an exaggeration on your part (and I say that in a friendly tone, not a negative one )

OOC: I understand their standing, but it does create a loophole: A nation can simply make massive amounts of humiliation legal. None of the WA resolutions actually require you to make humiliating things like defamation illegal; they simply give you the option to. Nor do they mandate you have to avoid physically-dangerous initiation ceremonies.

So, while that wording was intending to prevent a problem, it likely really only does so in certain nations due to how much the WA doesn't restrict. Any nation that wants to continue to humiliate apostates is free to do so under that wording.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I understand their standing, but it does create a loophole: A nation can simply make massive amounts of humiliation legal. None of the WA resolutions actually require you to make humiliating things like defamation illegal; they simply give you the option to. Nor do they mandate you have to avoid physically-dangerous initiation ceremonies.

So, while that wording was intending to prevent a problem, it likely really only does so in certain nations due to how much the WA doesn't restrict. Any nation that wants to continue to humiliate apostates is free to do so under that wording.

OOC: That's where Reasonable Nation Theory comes in. No reasonable nation would make massive amounts of humiliation legal. Plus, I don't think that would be even legal under all the WA resolutions dealing on that topic.

[Trellania]

OOC: That's where Reasonable Nation Theory comes in. No reasonable nation would make massive amounts of humiliation legal. Plus, I don't think that would be even legal under all the WA resolutions dealing on that topic.

OOC: That actually depends heavily on if you use the "realistic" part of reasonable nation theory. If you do, then... yes, they would. As there are a number of real-life modern nations that have worded their defamantion laws in such a way that defamation is, for the most part, perfectly legal. There's also a number of real-life modern nations where shame is heavily part of their culture and utilized heavily as a punishment to help keep people in line.

So, if we ignore the "realistic" part of reasonable nation theory, you are correct. If we do not, then reasonable nation theory does not apply as a counterargument to what I am saying.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: That's where Reasonable Nation Theory comes in. No reasonable nation would make massive amounts of humiliation legal. Plus, I don't think that would be even legal under all the WA resolutions dealing on that topic.

OOC: That actually depends heavily on if you use the "realistic" part of reasonable nation theory. If you do, then... yes, they would. As there are a number of real-life modern nations that have worded their defamantion laws in such a way that defamation is, for the most part, perfectly legal. There's also a number of real-life modern nations where shame is heavily part of their culture and utilized heavily as a punishment to help keep people in line.

So, if we ignore the "realistic" part of reasonable nation theory, you are correct. If we do not, then reasonable nation theory does not apply as a counterargument to what I am saying.

OOC: Reasonable Nation Theory goes up in NS and ensures that authors don't have to take into account such situations as "but my nation has a culture where severe humiliation is seen as politeness" etc:

This means that authors, when trying to close up loopholes in their proposals, need not account for every ridiculous, unrealistic or unlikely situation or scenario that could occur within an uncooperative member state. Possibly the most oft-cited example of this principle is the necessity of a universal age of majority. Since lowering the national age of majority (for example, to get around laws on child labor) would also mean removing many legal protections afforded to minors under national laws, it is unreasonable to assume that a member state would seriously consider doing so to avoid complying with one resolution. Therefore, an author would generally be excused from trying to craft a complicated, universally applicable definition of age of majority to accommodate such an extreme unlikelihood.

[Trellania]

OOC: Reasonable Nation Theory goes up in NS and ensures that authors don't have to take into account such situations as "but my nation has a culture where severe humiliation is seen as politeness" etc:

This means that authors, when trying to close up loopholes in their proposals, need not account for every ridiculous, unrealistic or unlikely situation or scenario that could occur within an uncooperative member state. Possibly the most oft-cited example of this principle is the necessity of a universal age of majority. Since lowering the national age of majority (for example, to get around laws on child labor) would also mean removing many legal protections afforded to minors under national laws, it is unreasonable to assume that a member state would seriously consider doing so to avoid complying with one resolution. Therefore, an author would generally be excused from trying to craft a complicated, universally applicable definition of age of majority to accommodate such an extreme unlikelihood.

OOC: Note the quote itself brings up the words "unrealistic." As I'm pointing out, a nation allowing extremely high levels of humilation in society is exceedingly realistic because there are real-world nations which do so. Including some that are excessively modern in technology. And given it actually exists in reality, I doubt it qualifies as ridiculous or unlikely either.

Also, shifting the topic away from "nations allowing high levels of humiliation" to "nations seeing humiliation as polite" is verging heavily on goalpost moving or strawman arguments.

And I did concede that if we ignore the "realistic" qualifier for reasonable nation theory, you are right.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Note the quote itself brings up the words "unrealistic." As I'm pointing out, a nation allowing extremely high levels of humilation in society is exceedingly realistic because there are real-world nations which do so. Including some that are excessively modern in technology. And given it actually exists in reality, I doubt it qualifies as ridiculous or unlikely either.

Also, shifting the topic away from "nations allowing high levels of humiliation" to "nations seeing humiliation as polite" is verging heavily on goalpost moving or strawman arguments.

And I did concede that if we ignore the "realistic" qualifier for reasonable nation theory, you are right.

OOC: Don't be so quick to shout "strawman" when something was clearly used as an example, an example of when Reasonable Nation Theory comes into play, to give authors the ability to ignore comments such as that, which have been uttered with different examples in the past. Think tech-wanks such as "my nation is so advanced it doesn't have X" etc etc.

If a nation allows excessive levels of humiliation, that means the same applies to government officials, schools, workplaces, all levels of society. It would create an unlikely and toxic environment that would breed anarchy even, and a ridiculous situation, I believe. Because the excessive levels of humiliation wouldn't apply only to religious communities, but every single aspect of society. I can't imagine such would be considered as reasonable for a nation to function as. It's the same as with the age of majority example from the quote.

The NS universe is not the real world. Yes, some things may be based upon the real world, but they can't be applied one on one, there's even a rule for GA proposals that they can't reference real world things. It's why I believe Reasonable Nation Theory allows authors to not concern themselves with things like you described, and thus, in fact, the "realistic" qualifier doesn't go up in this event. Especially since WA resolutions put rules in place against humiliation.

(EDIT: Please don't read whatever I write with an angry tone. I know it can be a little difficult sometimes to discern tone in written text, but I simply treat this as amicable disagreement )

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think it does. As any law student can say, reasonable is extraordinary unclear even when someone copy pastes a dictionary (law ones included) definition of reasonable. My comment above is basically saying that anything that is spoken of as reasonable needs a test and that almost anything which is said or explained on it is preferable to the word 'reasonable' unadorned.

OOC: And yet a majority of the WA rejected the argument that "reasonable is too vague" when it was put forward in the "Protected Working Leave" repeal attempt. Regional recommendations as well as individual WA members said that they preferred the use of the word "reasonable" over WA overregulation. Since then I have adjusted my own perspective on the use of the word "reasonable" when it comes to the WA.

Lol then I'll ought just to direct you to what I tell Tinhampton when she throws a pile of irrelevant 'but in the past the WA did X' bin room arguments. This is especially not an argument that would convince me, given that I'm a (decently large) voter, when I voted in favour of the repeal you are now disavowing on the exact basis you are now disavowing.

[Trellania]

OOC: Don't be so quick to shout "strawman" when something was clearly used as an example, an example of when Reasonable Nation Theory comes into play, to give authors the ability to ignore comments such as that, which have been uttered with different examples in the past. Think tech-wanks such as "my nation is so advanced it doesn't have X" etc etc.

If a nation allows excessive levels of humiliation, that means the same applies to government officials, schools, workplaces, all levels of society. It would create an unrealistic toxic environment that would breed anarchy even, I believe. Because the excessive levels of humiliation wouldn't apply only to religious communities, but every single aspect of society. I can't imagine such could be considered as reasonable for a nation to function as. It's the same as with the age of majority example from the quote.

The NS universe is not the real world. Yes, some things may be based upon the real world, but they can't be applied one on one, there's even a rule for GA proposals that they can't reference real world things. It's why I believe Reasonable Nation Theory allows authors to not concern themselves with things like you described, and thus, in fact, the "realistic" qualifier doesn't go up in this event. Especially since WA resolutions put rules in place against humiliation.

(EDIT: Please don't read whatever I write with an angry tone. I know it can be a little difficult sometimes to discern tone in written text, but I simply treat this as amicable disagreement )

OOC: I'll admit I don't consider techwank nations in my logic. The general issues of the game and such got me thinking modern tech.

My first thoughts about societies which allow such levels of public humiliation were the same as the ones you expressed. The reality seems to be the opposite; that rather than work to enforce increasingly societal chaos, they instead work to create societies that trend towards being more stable and less prone to change than others. Because the humiliation serves to enforce a high degree of public social conformity. As such these nations tend to be collectivist cultures.

And, no, the WA does not have very much in the way of rules against humiliation. I checked; the only WA resolution that bans humiliation is #18, and even then it only applies to prisoners of war. It can be argued as banned by #9, but that ban is limited only to state-approved acts. #109 can be argued such, but it only regulates what the state may do; the guardian is still free to humiliate an orphan if the orphan is not in the state's care. I was surprised to see it absent from #222; I honestly expected it there. #436 only allows nations to make laws against certain acts of humiliation; it doesn't mandate them. There are no other resolutions that address the topic.

Three resolutions that can be seen as addressing the topic, and only one of them does so inarguably. The WA simply doesn't address the topic. As long as it's not humiliation to the point it crosses the line into torture or it's not done to prisoners of war, it's legal under WA legislation.

Ultimately, that's why I see Reasonable Nation Theory as not applying in this case as a counter; the WA hasn't banned humiliation. The WA has mostly not touched the topic. And while we're not supposed to reference realistic things, need I list how many resolutions are based on real-world problems? Such as the microplastics ban? I don't think that particular rule applies as a justification for Reasonable Nation Theory to counter the issue of nations that allow high levels of humiliation. As such, I don't see Reasonable Nation Theory as a valid counter in this case; the type of society in question is realistic (due to actually existing), common enough to be a noted trait of an entire real-world region and thus not unlikely, has some particularly non-ridiculous results that are well documented, and is not in violation of WA resolutions.

(I'm not reading this as angry, and I apologize if I come across as such.)

[Daarwyrth]

Lol then I'll ought just to direct you to what I tell Tinhampton when she throws a pile of irrelevant 'but in the past the WA did X' bin room arguments. This is especially not an argument that would convince me, given that I'm a (decently large) voter, when I voted in favour of the repeal you are now disavowing on the exact basis you are now disavowing.

OOC: I am just putting forward the reasoning why my own perspectives changed. If it apparently is an acceptable approach in the WA, then who am I to argue with that? I am not saying that you are wrong either however, I see the point you are making and the perspective you are advocating. For the future I will keep in mind to try to expand a term like "reasonable" or simply use different wording. But for a case like "reasonable conversation", personally, I believe the definition of that is not that ambiguous or unclear.

OOC: I'll admit I don't consider techwank nations in my logic. The general issues of the game and such got me thinking modern tech.

My first thoughts about societies which allow such levels of public humiliation were the same as the ones you expressed. The reality seems to be the opposite; that rather than work to enforce increasingly societal chaos, they instead work to create societies that trend towards being more stable and less prone to change than others. Because the humiliation serves to enforce a high degree of public social conformity. As such these nations tend to be collectivist cultures.

And, no, the WA does not have very much in the way of rules against humiliation. I checked; the only WA resolution that bans humiliation is #18, and even then it only applies to prisoners of war. It can be argued as banned by #9, but that ban is limited only to state-approved acts. #109 can be argued such, but it only regulates what the state may do; the guardian is still free to humiliate an orphan if the orphan is not in the state's care. I was surprised to see it absent from #222; I honestly expected it there. #436 only allows nations to make laws against certain acts of humiliation; it doesn't mandate them. There are no other resolutions that address the topic.

Three resolutions that can be seen as addressing the topic, and only one of them does so inarguably. The WA simply doesn't address the topic. As long as it's not humiliation to the point it crosses the line into torture or it's not done to prisoners of war, it's legal under WA legislation.

Ultimately, that's why I see Reasonable Nation Theory as not applying in this case as a counter; the WA hasn't banned humiliation. The WA has mostly not touched the topic. And while we're not supposed to reference realistic things, need I list how many resolutions are based on real-world problems? Such as the microplastics ban? I don't think that particular rule applies as a justification for Reasonable Nation Theory to counter the issue of nations that allow high levels of humiliation. As such, I don't see Reasonable Nation Theory as a valid counter in this case; the type of society in question is realistic (due to actually existing), common enough to be a noted trait of an entire real-world region and thus not unlikely, has some particularly non-ridiculous results that are well documented, and is not in violation of WA resolutions.

(I'm not reading this as angry, and I apologize if I come across as such.)

OOC: But the tech-wank element has been used by other posters to try to avoid compliance in a similar manner. The argument you're trying to make here appears very similar to those situations where a poster tried to tech-wank their way out of compliance.

I can't change your perspective on Reasonable Nation Theory not being valid, yet in objective terms it remains valid, as it is an unwritten rule applied when it comes to proposal drafting. In this case, Reasonable Nation Theory says that it would be unlikely that a nation would introduce extensive humiliation laws in their nation just to avoid one resolution, namely this one, as it would create a ridiculous situation where those humiliation laws would have to be applied across all layers of society. Therefore, that becomes an unlikely situation since it creates a very explosive, aggressive and dangerous situation for a society, and thus an author can dismiss the notion under Reasonable Nation Theory. From my perspective you are arguing for those very niche and one-of-a-kind RP situations where a nation would try to avoid compliance. That is exactly what the Reasonable Nation Theory guards against, as it would be impossible to draft legislation otherwise.

Seeing as how we both remain steadfast in our viewpoint, perhaps it would be smart to agree to disagree? I don't mean to cut you off, of course, yet I don't believe either of us will be convinced by the other's arguments

[Araraukar]

OOC: As a pointer from the sidelines; many RL nations fail, on various counts (depending on nation) to actually be Reasonable Nations as far as the theory goes. It's therefore reasonable to expect many NS nations to do the same. Fairly sure there's actually a GenSec decision saying nations don't always do what's best for them or their people.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: As a pointer from the sidelines; many RL nations fail, on various counts (depending on nation) to actually be Reasonable Nations as far as the theory goes. It's therefore reasonable to expect many NS nations to do the same. Fairly sure there's actually a GenSec decision saying nations don't always do what's best for them or their people.

OOC: Do you have a link to that ruling? Because the "Protected Working Leave" repeal failed and Reasonable Nation Theory was drilled into me that day as being a valid and applicable rule/argument. Since then I have seen RNT be used time and time again as an overriding argument against one or the other, either here or on the Discord. So, it's difficult not to follow suit and believe in its validity seeing as how much support it has in the WA

[Bears Armed]

My first thoughts about societies which allow such levels of public humiliation were the same as the ones you expressed. The reality seems to be the opposite; that rather than work to enforce increasingly societal chaos, they instead work to create societies that trend towards being more stable and less prone to change than others. Because the humiliation serves to enforce a high degree of public social conformity. As such these nations tend to be collectivist cultures.

OOC: In which case people in those cultures would presumably be a lot less likely to consider apostacy in the first place, making those nations less relevant to this proposal & discussion, no?