[PREFIX] Get rid of the ideological ban rule

[Quintessence of Dust]

is bad

---

To (probably fail to) avoid the pink power rangers weaseling out of a rules discussion in the other thread, a dedicated thread to argue the ideological ban rule should be removed.

A reminder of the rule text:

Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

There are various problems with this wording, particularly the ambiguity of "wholly outlaw", and the distinction of what constitutes an "ideology" and what are merely "practices".

The Game Mechanics argument that dictatorships could be part of the WA fails because of the disconnect between game mechanics and proposal texts. A WA member nation can criminalize abortion and legalize capital punishment, just as they could (after "Ban Dictatorships" passes) ban elections or rename their pre-title to The Dictatorship of Countrystan. Or, if the Game Mechanics argument is considered to hold, then this rule is already covered under the Game Mechanics sections with no need for a separate rule.

The "Ban communism" proposals this rule was originally designed to block have not stood a realistic chance of passing since about 2003.

The rule serves no positive purpose and only introduces ambiguity to legality discussions, which are already the most boring thing on the planet. Sorry, in the multiverse, including the dimensions where gravity being different means we can't pass healthcare laws.

Let's yeet the rule out.

Some previous discussions:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340120

[Utquiagvik]

I think you need to use the format proposal to make this proposal to the General Assembly, and make it "Appeal Ideological Ban Rule". Other than that, its a decent proposal.

[Untecna]

The World Assembly has no authority to dictate governments or how they may work, or what they may pursue and enforce, in terms of political, economic, religious, and cultural ideology. The reason this rule exists is so those "Ban *insert political/economic system here*" can't pass, at all.

The wording may be a bit strange, but there are always edits that can be made for clarification. My belief is that it should stay a rule. Game Mechanics are irrelevant in this argument, since any legislation passed by the WA can be subject to people solving issues and having the opposite effect. They aren't going to link them together, either, so don't ask for that.

I think you need to use the format proposal to make this proposal to the General Assembly, and make it "Appeal Ideological Ban Rule".

Nope. This is the proper way for a thread like this; if it were listed as a proposal, and was tried as a proposal, it would be illegal and likely locked. Why? Because it would be metagaming, and the rules of the WA can't be changed by proposals.

[Tinhampton]

I think you need to use the format proposal to make this proposal to the General Assembly, and make it "Appeal Ideological Ban Rule". Other than that, its a decent proposal.

Quod is not writing a proposal. If he were, it would be illegal for trying to change Game Mechanics.

(Does this mean we can ban any ideology we don't like wholesale now? )

[Quintessence of Dust]

The World Assembly has no authority to dictate governments or how they may work, or what they may pursue and enforce.

It has authority to dictate all of those things. It can dictate anything it likes.

[Untecna]

The World Assembly has no authority to dictate governments or how they may work, or what they may pursue and enforce.

It has authority to dictate all of those things. It can dictate anything it likes.

By that, I was referring to the ideology of the nation, not the healthcare bills we pass here.

Edit: Clarification made in my post.

Edit 2, Electric Boogaloo: It can't dictate anything it likes; that's why we have rules like the Ideological Ban rule, because proposals like that are of no worth and overstretch the WA's limits severely.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The WA has IC plenary authority.

[Quintessence of Dust]

It can't dictate anything it likes; that's why we have rules like the Ideological Ban rule

Do you not see how that's wholly circular reasoning?

[Separatist Peoples]

It can't dictate anything it likes; that's why we have rules like the Ideological Ban rule

Do you not see how that's wholly circular reasoning?

Don't bother. Trust me.

---

The entire IB rule is only good for kicking out spam proposals like Ban Communism. I'd like to keep it for that, at least.

[Tinhampton]

The entire IB rule is only good for kicking out spam proposals like Ban Communism. I'd like to keep it for that, at least.

The proposal rules state that "Proposals must comply with the site's general One Stop Rules Shop" - which includes prohibitions on spamming - already.

[Separatist Peoples]

The entire IB rule is only good for kicking out spam proposals like Ban Communism. I'd like to keep it for that, at least.

The proposal rules state that "Proposals must comply with the site's general One Stop Rules Shop" - which includes prohibitions on spamming - already.

That, isn't inherently spam, for all that, it is spammy. Besides, gensec doesn't enforce the OSRS.

[Hulldom]

Perhaps the compromise then is require explicit language in the proposal for the rule to apply.

To use the current example "Legalizes private markets" would be kosher but "Bans member states from becoming communist" is not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Perhaps the compromise then is require explicit language in the proposal for the rule to apply. To use the current example "Legalizes private markets" would be kosher but "Bans member states from becoming communist" is not.

In my view, this is exactly what the current rule requires.

[Quintessence of Dust]

The entire IB rule is only good for kicking out spam proposals like Ban Communism. I'd like to keep it for that, at least.

Why? There is already a rule against spam proposals.

Perhaps the compromise then is require explicit language in the proposal for the rule to apply. To use the current example "Legalizes private markets" would be kosher but "Bans member states from becoming communist" is not.

In my view, this is exactly what the current rule requires.

That strikes me as a pointless rule, then, if it is so easily circumvented.

[Godular]

The wording seems fine to me. The arguments against it strike me as little more than quibbling over minutiae.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I agree that the Ideological Ban rule should go. It really doesn't serve a legitimate purpose that I can see which isn't better served by democracy in action. It needlessly stifles legitimate debate on a number of contemporary topics, and even ones that have been relatively settled IRL, such as whether political authority can be legitimately wielded by a single person via divine right. There's no reason why WA nations shouldn't be allowed to propose resolutions on such matters and vote on them.

Even when it is interpreted extremely narrowly, the rule is a nuisance that discourages authors from pursuing otherwise meritorious proposals. Interpreted more aggressively, as is threatened in the current Sua Sponte debate over the "Legalize Private Industry Act," the rule would become a hammer with which a biased Gen Sec could squash proposals that infringe on their preferred ideologies.

Not that such a Gen Sec currently exists, of course. The current Gen Sec membership has demonstrated time and again that it strives to pursue only the best interests of the community. But we cannot always control or even know our own inclinations. And we seldom control or know what the future may bring... (cryptically fades back into relative inactivity).

[Morover]

I agree the rule should go.

Maybe it's because I wasn't around for the one from a few years ago, but I'd really like to see the GA rules reworked entirely again - if nothing else, now that GenSec's in charge, it's important to make it theirs. Between the Ideological Ban rule not serving any practical purpose, HM needing a pretty big rework in terms of how it's phrased, and some other rules not really being publicly favorable anymore imo (e.g. NatSov only repeals, etc.), it seems like we may as well revisit it altogether again.

[Pathoal]

Perhaps the compromise then is require explicit language in the proposal for the rule to apply. To use the current example "Legalizes private markets" would be kosher but "Bans member states from becoming communist" is not.

In my view, this is exactly what the current rule requires.

So if some words that do the same thing as other words are legal even if the other words are illegal?

[Yaak]

I believe that the ideological rule should stay, so democracies don't become dictatorships and vice-versa.

[Bears Armed]

I think that the 'ideological ban' rule should stay, either still as a named rule in its own right or as a sub-section within the 'Game Mechanics' rule, for the following reasons:

1/ Obviously the passage of a "banning" resolution couldn't actually change all of the relevant stats & descriptions (including customised elements, such as 'National Religion'...) for the nations affected, so allowing those resolutions would effectively cause instantaneous non-compliance in many nations which would devalue the idea that resolutions IC are generally effective. (Yes, I do realise that nations can answer issues in ways that also show non-compliance, and that the Editors won't go through the eligibility criteria regularly to make sure WA members simply don't receive options that would allow that form of non-compliance, but I suspect that allowing resolutions to have this effect as well would have more obviously visible effects.)

2/ The WA is supposed to be open to nations of all types, not just those of whatever ideologies a majority vote says are acceptable. This was given by a Mod as what they'd been told was Max's opinion on the matter (on the Jolt forum, back in NS-UN days, before the WA as such), in response to a similar question about dropping the rule... and it is called "the World Assembly", rather than [for example] "the Secularist Socialist Assembly", after all...

[Barfleur]

Given there is a proposal category called “Furtherment of Democracy,” what would happen if the GA were to scrap the ideological ban rule and pass a resolution titled “Prohibiting Democracy and Self-Government”? Would all FoD proposals be illegal for contradiction, at least until that resolution is repealed?

[Tinfect]

Given there is a proposal category called “Furtherment of Democracy,” what would happen if the GA were to scrap the ideological ban rule and pass a resolution titled “Prohibiting Democracy and Self-Government”? Would all FoD proposals be illegal for contradiction, at least until that resolution is repealed?

As used, Furtherment of Democracy has very little indeed to do with democracy. If anything, it should be renamed, or, possibly removed, with the handful of proposals in the category being shuffled around to where they actually belong. The latter is, presumably, unfeasible, unfortunately.

[Bears Armed]

Given there is a proposal category called “Furtherment of Democracy,” what would happen if the GA were to scrap the ideological ban rule and pass a resolution titled “Prohibiting Democracy and Self-Government”? Would all FoD proposals be illegal for contradiction, at least until that resolution is repealed?

No. If there's that much contradiction between them then it's the new proposal -- the “Prohibiting Democracy and Self-Government” one -- that would be illegal... but it's impossible to say how much contradiction there would actually be, now, without seeing the full text of that proposal.

[Quintessence of Dust]

1/ Obviously the passage of a "banning" resolution couldn't actually change all of the relevant stats & descriptions (including customised elements, such as 'National Religion'...) for the nations affected, so allowing those resolutions would effectively cause instantaneous non-compliance in many nations which would devalue the idea that resolutions IC are generally effective. (Yes, I do realise that nations can answer issues in ways that also show non-compliance, and that the Editors won't go through the eligibility criteria regularly to make sure WA members simply don't receive options that would allow that form of non-compliance, but I suspect that allowing resolutions to have this effect as well would have more obviously visible effects.)

It's a completely subjective distinction whether issue outcome descriptions or other flavor text clashing with resolution compliance is more "visible" than any other particular elements.

2/ The WA is supposed to be open to nations of all types, not just those of whatever ideologies a majority vote says are acceptable. This was given by a Mod as what they'd been told was Max's opinion on the matter (on the Jolt forum, back in NS-UN days, before the WA as such), in response to a similar question about dropping the rule...

Link please. Or not, because Max's opinion isn't obviously in any way relevant.

[Nepleslia]

Link please. Or not, because Max's opinion isn't obviously in any way relevant.

It’s Max’s site - how would his opinion not be relevant?